My recording compendium of Verdi paraphrases

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Whilst most of these performances have been posted previously over the years, I thought it would be nice to have them all in one place.

Martucci paraphrase on La forza del destino (studio, world premiere commercial recording):

Thalberg on La traviata (studio)
https://soundcloud.com/andrew-wright-35/verdi-thalberg-concert-fantasy-on-la-traviata

Cziffra on Il trovatore (live video)

Liszt on Ernani (live video)

A. Jaell on La traviata (live audio)
https://soundcloud.com/andrew-wright-35/alfred-jaell-rapsody-sur-la-traviata

My own fantasy on the Miserere from Il trovatore (live video)

[michael_sayers]

Whilst most of these performances have been posted previously over the years, I thought it would be nice to have them all in one place.

Hi ronde_des_sylphes,

I am sorry that I didn't respond sooner.  Thanks for putting all of these in one place!


Mvh,
Michael

[michael_sayers]

Hi ronde_des_sylphes,

It says that the video of Martucci's Fantasia sull'opera La forza del destino is not available.


Mvh,
Michael

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Hi ronde_des_sylphes,

It says that the video of Martucci's Fantasia sull'opera La forza del destino is not available.

Hi Michael. That video is autogenerated by YT, I presume from the recording on Google Play. Curious - I assume it must be a rights issue connected to specific geographical areas, as I can access it ok. (Though it would be mildly amusing if copyright meant I couldn't access one of my own recordings  )

[michael_sayers]

Hi Michael. That video is autogenerated by YT, I presume from the recording on Google Play. Curious - I assume it must be a rights issue connected to specific geographical areas, as I can access it ok. (Though it would be mildly amusing if copyright meant I couldn't access one of my own recordings  )

Hi ronde_des_sylphes,

I wish YouTube would autogenerate my videos for me, too!

Why does someone in your country have more rights in regard to watching this video than someone in Sweden?  As you might be breaking the law in watching the video, and could be sued by YouTube for unlicensed "performance" of the content, maybe you shouldn't look at it?  Maybe if you keep your eyes closed, and only listen, this is okay since the video is "autogenerated" by YouTube in this instance and is unique to YouTube, whereas the audio was generated by you and is within your copyright?  Or maybe because YouTube is broadcasting a different audio format than the .wav original they have the rights to the derivative audio file?  But YouTube has "attached" the derivative audio to the autogenerated video, so either way way it is a mute point, right?  And they are broadcasting a copy of your audio, which is to say, it is their copy, and they probably have copied it many times in the cloud and without your explicit permission in each instance, yes?  And they give a copy of it away for free every time they send it to someone's computer for listening.  And where is the "cloud" located anyhow, in what jurisdiction, and what are its verifiable attributes?  This is so very complicated and confusing!


Mvh,
Michael

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I wish YouTube would autogenerate my videos for me, too!

Why does someone in your country have more rights in regard to watching this video than someone in Sweden?  As you might be breaking the law in watching the video, and could be sued by YouTube for unlicensed "performance" of the content, maybe you shouldn't look at it?  Maybe if you keep your eyes closed, and only listen, this is okay since the video is "autogenerated" by YouTube in this instance and is unique to YouTube, whereas the audio was generated by you and is within your copyright?  Or maybe because YouTube is broadcasting a different audio format than the .wav original they have the rights to the derivative audio file?  But YouTube has "attached" the derivative audio to the autogenerated video, so either way way it is a mute point, right?  And they are broadcasting a copy of your audio, which is to say, it is their copy, and they probably have copied it many times in the cloud and without your explicit permission in each instance, yes?  And they give a copy of it away for free every time they send it to someone's computer for listening.  And where is the "cloud" located anyhow, in what jurisdiction, and what are its verifiable attributes?  This is so very complicated and confusing!

The video has been autogenerated, imo, purely as a consequence of the record company who issued the audio using Google Play as an outlet - YouTube and Google Play sharing the same owner. The audio [as in the audio available on CD, Google Play and iTunes etc (whether in downloaded or streamed form)]  is issued under licence from me, which means I retain copyright and thus am surely within my rights to view it (and share the link). I assume the video is monetised in some way, likewise all the other videos in the "Various Artists - Topics" - I notice they all have the same format, i.e. audio with still frame video comprising album cover left and credits right - hence my surmise they have been autogenerated. I have found other videos in Various Artists to be inconsistent as to whether I'm allowed to view them, so I assume they must have varying geographical permissions. If anything, I would wonder whether YT have the right to broadcast audio I have the copyright to without my explicit permission, but I suspect there is something in the contract I signed granting the issuing record company the right to sublicence it to partners. It's quite a lengthy contract, so I'm not going to go digging around in it to check!

[michael_sayers]

Hi ronde_des_sylphes,

Well, you know how the saying goes . . .


Mvh,
Michael

[ahinton]

No one's even mentioned Michael Finnissy's Verdi Transcriptions yet (see https://www.brandon-music.net/DA/CD/92027info.htm)...

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

No one's even mentioned Michael Finnissy's Verdi Transcriptions yet (see https://www.brandon-music.net/DA/CD/92027info.htm)...

Possibly, Alistair, because this thread pertains to MY recordings of Verdi transcriptions.  

However, thank you for posting the above link, interesting as it undoubtedly is, because it gives me the opportunity to post, from the same website, this:

https://www.brandon-music.net/DA/CD/25113info.htm

It's only fair that I declare some personal interest in the CD mentioned here..

*grin*

[michael_sayers]

Possibly, Alistair, because this thread pertains to MY recordings of Verdi transcriptions.  

Hi ronde_des_sylphes,

There aren't any Verdi transcriptions for piano - the recording that won't play in Sweden is of a Martucci transcription, for instance, and it really is a Fantasie, and perhaps not properly a transcription.

But maybe I am wrong about this?

I don't recall much by Verdi for the piano, transcriptions or otherwise . . . then again, I haven't really looked.


Mvh,
Michael

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Oops, I did take my cue from "Michael Finnissy's Verdi transcriptions", and usually I make a point of being careful to make the distinction between transcriptions and paraphrases - see thread title but mea culpa nonetheless. The Martucci is definitely a paraphrase/fantasy! Perhaps I should change the thread title - assuming I still can - to "Compendium of my recordings of paraphrases on Verdi" to avoid ambiguity.

[michael_sayers]

Oops, I did take my cue from "Michael Finnissy's Verdi transcriptions" . . .

Hi ronde_des_sylphes,

Someone needs to alert Alistair to the fact that there are no Verdi transcriptions for piano, and that, as such, there are no Michael Finnissy's [sic] Verdi transcriptions [an obviously erroneous usage - ed.].  Michael Finnissy did not record any Verdi transcriptions for piano solo, and this is because none ever existed.  Furthermore, and to accommodate alternate readings of Alistair's inchoate English usage, the only Verdi I've ever heard of was Giuseppe Fortunino Francesco Verdi.  I haven't a clue who this Michael Finnissy Verdi was and what music he may have composed.  Assuming that the "'s" was not one mistake too many, perhaps Alistair is making reference to transcriptions composed both by Verdi and by Finissy?  Were they collaborators?

Maybe Alistair knows of two composers whose last names are Verdi.

And maybe the less familiar of the two was a twentieth century composer and arranger whose name can be added to the list Alistair and I are working on in one of the other threads.


Mvh,
Michael

[michael_sayers]

No one's even mentioned Michael Finnissy's Verdi Transcriptions yet . . .

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

Maybe this is because there are no such things?  Please see my post immediately above for more information.


Mvh,
Michael

[ahinton]

Possibly, Alistair, because this thread pertains to MY recordings of Verdi transcriptions.  

That's not discouraged references to a collection of other pianists' recordings of various composers' Verdi transcriptions!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Someone needs to alert Alistair to the fact that there are no Verdi transcriptions for piano, and that, as such, there are no Michael Finnissy's [sic] Verdi transcriptions [an obviously erroneous usage - ed.].  Michael Finnissy did not record any Verdi transcriptions for piano solo, and this is because none ever existed.  Furthermore, and to accommodate alternate readings of Alistair's inchoate English usage, the only Verdi I've ever heard of was Giuseppe Fortunino Francesco Verdi.  I haven't a clue who this Michael Finnissy Verdi was and what music he may have composed.

Does anyone here have the faintest idea either of the intended meaning here or of the motivation, if any, behind the sheer abstruseness of the above, not to mention the inchoateness of its expression?

 Assuming that the "'s" was not one mistake too many, perhaps Alistair is making reference to transcriptions composed both by Verdi and by Finissy?

One 'n' too few, as in. Once again, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Were they collaborators?

You're on dangerous territory there; Dutilleux was recently accused - even if only by the unwitting implication of the ill-informed - of having at one time been a "collaborator" (although, that said, Verdi died before and Finnissy was born after WWII).

Maybe Alistair knows of two composers whose last names are Verdi.

How can a singular surname be at the same time a plural one?

And maybe the less familiar of the two was a twentieth century composer and arranger whose name can be added to the list Alistair and I are working on in one of the other threads.

Although I have refrained from saying so in the thread concerned, I feel that it is now timely to confirm that I am working on no such list, despite your claim that I am doing as in "collaboration" with you; the list concerned is yours alone, as well you know and as the lack of evidence of my input into it will demonstrate to anyone who can be bothered to check the said thread.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

so either way way it is a mute point, right?

If only! - indeed, the more "mute", the better, one might argue! I think "moot" is what you have in mind, though on the (dubious) strength of the remainder of your input to the thread, it's hard to tell quite what's on your mind, frankly...

This is so very complicated and confusing!

If so, you of all people should therefore find yourself on familiar territory, given that spreading at least confusion (if not actual complexity) seems to be second nature to you!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Maybe this is because there are no such things?  Please see my post immediately above for more information.

Less information rather than more, having read it (and, for the avoidance of doubt, I do not mean "less is more")...

I have responded to what you have written as best I believe that I am able, given that I haven't the slightest idea what you're on - or on about...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

No one's even mentioned Michael Finnissy's Verdi Transcriptions yet (see https://www.brandon-music.net/DA/CD/92027info.htm)...

Best,

Alistair

Please, lets keep this thread plink free.

Thal

[michael_sayers]

Please, lets keep this thread plink free.

Thal

Hi Thal,

Maybe that was supposed to be "plonk"?


Mvh,
Michael

[michael_sayers]

Hi Alistair,

Thanks for your observations upon my posts.  The conclusions in my posts were accomplished by dint of ratiocination, and here are addressed.

1) There are no Verdi transcriptions for piano solo.  Maybe all of us agree on this?  This is similar to the fact that there are no Bach transcriptions for piano solo.  There are however, and for example, Busoni transcriptions of Bach, and for piano solo.  And please note that throughout the thread on a particular arrangement of Bach's Prelude BWV 852, I only referred to it as an "arrangement of" and never as a "Bach arrangement" - such is my consistency.

2) Many of the purported "Verdi transcriptions" - which are arrangements of Verdi's music and with the arrangement accomplished by composers other than Verdi - are not even properly to be considered as transcriptions.  The Martucci "transcription" that was discussed here is, in fact, a Fantasie upon the music of Verdi.  It is not a transcription.

3) In regard to the "dangerous territory", and in regard to "Michael Finnisy's Verdi transcriptions" I am unconvinced of the existence of either a person whose full legal name is "Michael Finnisy's [sic] Verdi", or that this person had Verdi transcriptions for piano solo in his possession, as there are no Verdi transcriptions for piano solo.  I went on to speculate that Michael Finnisy Verdi - a composer who I know not of - maybe collaborated with Giuseppe Fortunino Francesco Verdi to produce transcriptions, in which instance they would have been contemporaneous and not with one of them born after the death of the other.  Or maybe there are such items as can be properly described as "Michael Finnisy Verdi transcriptions"?

4) Thanks for catching my usage error in regard to "mute" vs. "moot" - nonetheless, perhaps the two words are interchangeable and a usage revision is in order as it can be observed that the item referred to as being "mute" does not, in and of its own energy, produce any audible sound in one's mind or elsewhere.  All moot points are mute points, and all mute points are moot points - this seems to be a true observation.

5) In regard to our list of composers, it was rightly observed by you, and also antecedent to our list, that I had painted with too broad a brush - the composer names then mentioned by you as exceptions were, as such, a list of composer names, and this was the start of our list and to which both of us have contributed.

Maybe I have now explained all issues raised, and also perhaps I have done so to your satisfaction?


Mvh,
Michael

[ahinton]

Thanks for your observations upon my posts.  The conclusions in my posts were accomplished by dint of ratiocination

Well, thanks fopr clearing that up! (?)

1) There are no Verdi transcriptions for piano solo.  Maybe all of us agree on this?  This is similar to the fact that there are no Bach transcriptions for piano solo.  There are however, and for example, Busoni transcriptions of Bach, and for piano solo.  And please note that throughout the thread on a particular arrangement of Bach's Prelude BWV 852, I only referred to it as an "arrangement of" and never as a "Bach arrangement" - such is my consistency.

As an example of semantics wrapped up in prevarication sorrunounded by pedantry, the above may well be successful but as a piece of sense it barely begins.

2) Many of the purported "Verdi transcriptions" - which are arrangements of Verdi's music and with the arrangement accomplished by composers other than Verdi - are not even properly to be considered as transcriptions.  The Martucci "transcription" that was discussed here is, in fact, a Fantasie upon the music of Verdi.  It is not a transcription.

Your incessant quibbling over terminology (for it can be no more than that) should be addressed to the composers is tp anyone at all (and though many of those are dead, you of all people should not find that an obstruction to doing so).

3) In regard to the "dangerous territory", and in regard to "Michael Finnisy's Verdi transcriptions"

Finnissy.

I am unconvinced of the existence of either a person whose full legal name is "Michael Finnisy's [sic] Verdi", or that this person had Verdi transcriptions for piano solo in his possession, as there are no Verdi transcriptions for piano solo.  I went on to speculate that Michael Finnisy Verdi - a composer who I know not of - maybe collaborated with Giuseppe Fortunino Francesco Verdi to produce transcriptions, in which instance they would have been contemporaneous and not with one of them born after the death of the other.  Or maybe there are such items as can be properly described as "Michael Finnisy Verdi transcriptions"?

Again, Finnissy. For the rest, see above.

4) Thanks for catching my usage error in regard to "mute" vs. "moot" - nonetheless, perhaps the two words are interchangeable and a usage revision is in order as it can be observed that the item referred to as being "mute" does not, in and of its own energy, produce any audible sound in one's mind or elsewhere.  All moot points are mute points, and all mute points are moot points - this seems to be a true observation.

Your view of truths seems to be a very individualised one. Furthermore, not content merely with challenging who did what and what does and does not constitute a transcription, you now appear to be recommending linguists and dictionary compilers to change the usage of an English word. Is there any end to your demands? What fuels them?

5) In regard to our list of composers, it was rightly observed by you, and also antecedent to our list, that I had painted with too broad a brush - the composer names then mentioned by you as exceptions were, as such, a list of composer names, and this was the start of our list and to which both of us have contributed.

Regardless of how many composers it might take to change a light bulb or comprise a list, there is - as I have already pointed out - no "our list" thereof, since we have not collaborated on compiling one and you've been doing this alone.

Maybe I have now explained all issues raised, and also perhaps I have done so to your satisfaction?

Read the above and form your own conclusions, if any, on that.

Best,

Alistair

[j_menz]

1) There are no Verdi transcriptions for piano solo.  Maybe all of us agree on this?  This is similar to the fact that there are no Bach transcriptions for piano solo.  

No, we don't all agree. As resident pedant, I approve the use of "Bach transcriptions" to refer to a category of works by a composer or group of composers which are transcriptions of Bach's works. That is, to my understanding, perfectly normal English usage.

There are a number of transcriptions by Bach for keyboard (including some rather nice ones of Vivaldi concerti) and, last time I looked, a piano was a keyboard instrument. Perhaps you are unaware of them?

[ronde_des_sylphes]

It is obvious there is little interest in actual commentary on the performances - that's ok, I primarily posted them for people to hear. I merely note, in passing, that the posts have been, at best, of highly tangential relevance. All of the pieces I have posted are paraphrases (as implied by the thread title) - I hope that can be agreed upon.

[michael_sayers]

It is obvious there is little interest in actual commentary on the performances - that's ok, I primarily posted them for people to hear. I merely note, in passing, that the posts have been, at best, of highly tangential relevance. All of the pieces I have posted are paraphrases (as implied by the thread title) - I hope that can be agreed upon.

Hi ronde_des_syplhes,

I think very highly of your performances and please, as such, consider me to be an admirer.

It is not without cause, or with mislaid intent, that this thread of yours - which had lain in repose and absent response which it deserves - has been made to emerge triumphantly from its descent into the depths of Piano Street and back thusly to the top of the forum list where, hopefully, it shall remain well buoyed for a while longer.


Mvh,
Michael

[ahinton]

It is not without cause, or with mislaid intent, that this thread of yours - which had lain in repose and absent the response it deserves - has been made to emerge triumphantly from its descent into the depths of Piano Street

One might - if one could be bothered to - wonder how and by whose hand it got there; however, those who apparently need to might more profitably take note of j_menz's post above.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Hi ronde_des_syplhes,

I think very highly of your performances and please, as such, consider me to be an admirer.

It is not without cause, or with mislaid intent, that this thread of yours - which had lain in repose and absent response which it deserves - has been made to emerge triumphantly from its descent into the depths of Piano Street and back thusly to the top of the forum list where, hopefully, it shall remain well buoyed for a while longer.


Mvh,
Michael

Thanks for these kind words - however there are many fine recordings which have, over time, fallen into the depths of Audition Room oblivion. It's the natural order of things, perhaps regrettably.

[michael_sayers]

One might - if one could be bothered to - wonder how and by whose hand it got there; however, those who apparently need to might more profitably take note of j_menz's post above.

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

If you review the posts in this thread, you will discover that I am the person who double-handedly did the good deed of posting the very first, and also appreciative, statement to this thread.

The supporting evidence for this contention - and as such which is likely to satiate your keen scholarly eyes - is contained with Reply #1.


Mvh,
Michael

[michael_sayers]

Hi Alistair,

Well, thanks for clearing that up! (?)

I am always happy to oblige!

Your view of truths seems to be a very individualised one. Furthermore, not content merely with challenging who did what and what does and does not constitute a transcription, you now appear to be recommending linguists and dictionary compilers to change the usage of an English word. Is there any end to your demands? What fuels them?

I challenged nothing.  I merely rendered observations upon words you had posted, albeit words as such observed to possibly present a reader with failures of grammar and usage, if not also failures of ratiocination.

Regardless of how many composers it might take to change a light bulb or comprise a list, there is - as I have already pointed out - no "our list" thereof, since we have not collaborated on compiling one and you've been doing this alone.

The thread is there for all to read, Alistair.  And we both have posted to it - and the posts are of, in my opinion, a significant plurality in quantity.  The posts include a list of the names of composers, and with regard to which you are a participant in insisting that I use a more narrow brush stroke - this insistence included with it a list of composer names and this is your contribution to our list.  You gave your approval to my addition of Ronald Stevenson to our list - an approval which, as this is a list being created by two persons, perhaps was necessary to enable the addition of Ronald Stevenson's name.


Mvh,
Michael

[michael_sayers]

No, we don't all agree. As resident pedant, I approve the use of "Bach transcriptions" to refer to a category of works by a composer or group of composers which are transcriptions of Bach's works. That is, to my understanding, perfectly normal English usage.

There are a number of transcriptions by Bach for keyboard (including some rather nice ones of Vivaldi concerti) and, last time I looked, a piano was a keyboard instrument. Perhaps you are unaware of them?

Hi j_menz,

The question though is why are you being pedantic?

You can approve of there being "Bach transcriptions" - and indeed, there are Bach transcriptions.  There are not, however and to my knowledge, any Bach transcriptions which were composed later than July 28, 1750.

Maybe you know of some such items?


Mvh,
Michael

[8_octaves]

Hi Michael_sayers,

I think the word-games should be treated carefully.

Look:

Bach transcriptions
Verdi transcriptions
dog food
Goldberg Variations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldberg_Variations
... .

And not everything which is "mute", isn't audible.  Take, for example, the "muta cum liquida", which appears, e.g., in Latin poetry ( it appears sometimes, e.g. in the Metamorphoses of Ovid, but also in many other works, and then, it gives hints / determines whether certain syllables may be long or short. )

If a word contains a short vowel, and in the next syllable muta  cum liquida follows the vowel, ( meaning "mute" consonants, like:  p / f / g / t / c / b / d + liquida , meaning "voicy" consonants: l / m / n / r ), then the syllable which directly is before the "muta cum liquida", is (mostly) short.

However: the "mute" consonants are clearly audible, and that's good! Say "p, t, f, c, d" etc. 

If a "p" wasn't audible, it would be terrific! Imagine, that we only would have a " iano", then, and if a "b" wasn't audible, we would never have a break! 

Cordially, 8_octaves!! 

[ahinton]

I am always happy to oblige!

Whilst pleased to hear that you are always happy, it would seem that our ideas of obliging differ materially.

I challenged nothing.  I merely rendered observations upon words you had posted, albeit words as such observed to possibly present a reader with failures of grammar and usage, if not also failures of ratiocination.

You argued extensively about who transcribed whose work in several instances and in any case it was not I who had raised this issue in the first place.

The thread is there for all to read, Alistair.  And we both have posted to it - and the posts are of, in my opinion, a significant plurality in quantity.  The posts include a list of the names of composers, and with regard to which you are a participant in insisting that I use a more narrow brush stroke - this insistence included with it a list of composer names and this is your contribution to our list.  You gave your approval to my addition of Ronald Stevenson to our list - an approval which, as this is a list being created by two persons, perhaps was necessary to enable the addition of Ronald Stevenson's name.

Fingers are better on piano keyboards then in ears but that's something which you seem unable or unwilling to appreciate. For the last time, the list on the other thread is yours alone and the specious and pedantic arguments about how to credit one composer's transcription of the work of another are likewise, as I am clearly not the only one here to appreciate.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I think the word-games should be treated carefully.

Personally, I'd be quite happy if they were played somewhere else by whoever wants to play them.

Look:

Bach transcriptions
Verdi transcriptions
dog food
Goldberg Variations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldberg_Variations
... .

If I may say so without causing Thal offence, you left out Schumann transcriptions, a matter close to my experience having made a piano transcription of a movement from one of that composer's piano sonatas which was itself a transcription on one of his early songs...

And not everything which is "mute", isn't audible.

I can call to mind at least one example where one might wish that it were so...

Take, for example, the "muta cum liquida", which appears, e.g., in Latin poetry ( it appears sometimes, e.g. in the Metamorphoses of Ovid, but also in many other works, and then, it gives hints / determines whether certain syllables may be long or short. )

If a word contains a short vowel, and in the next syllable muta  cum liquida follows the vowel, ( meaning "mute" consonants, like:  p / f / g / t / c / b / d + liquida , meaning "voicy" consonants: l / m / n / r ), then the syllable which directly is before the "muta cum liquida", is (mostly) short.

However: the "mute" consonants are clearly audible, and that's good! Say "p, t, f, c, d" etc.  

If a "p" wasn't audible, it would be terrific! Imagine, that we only would have a " iano", then, and if a "b" wasn't audible, we would never have a break!  

And that would be beyond unbearable! We don't seem to be having much of one anyway, though, do we?!...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

The question though is why are you being pedantic?

Only if you're asking it of yourself, methinks.

You can approve of there being "Bach transcriptions" - and indeed, there are Bach transcriptions.  There are not, however and to my knowledge, any Bach transcriptions which were composed later than July 28, 1750.

There's plenty of semantic pedantry that's been let out since that tragic date in Western musical history, however; some of it has even found its way onto internet fora, so I'm told...

Maybe you know of some such items?

Maybe Liszt does.

Beszt,

Alisztair

[orangesodaking]

Goodness gracious, people... 

Great playing, OP. Nice collection you have, here. I enjoy your playing.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

That's not discouraged references to a collection of other pianists' recordings of various composers' Verdi transcriptions!

At the risk of (re-)opening a can of worms, I'd just like to make clear, in case there is any ambiguity, that all the performances in the initial post were by me, so it is a collection of my recordings of various composers' paraphrases on Verdi, not a collection of "other pianists' recordings".

Anyway..

Great playing, OP. Nice collection you have, here. I enjoy your playing.

Thanks - I appreciate the response. I hope your Alkan projects are progressing apace!

[michael_sayers]

Only if you're asking it of yourself, methinks.

Hi Alistair,

I am not being pedantic.  It is just a fact that Verdi composed no transcriptions, fantasies, et c., for piano solo.  The particular item that was discussed earlier, and which will not play in Sweden, is not a Verdi Fantasie, it is a Martucci Fantasie.  You won't find it listed at I.M.S.L.P. as one of Verdi's compositions.  It is as simple as that, really.


Mvh,
Michael

[ahinton]

I am not being pedantic.  It is just a fact that Verdi composed no transcriptions, fantasies, et c., for piano solo.  The particular item that was discussed earlier, and which will not play in Sweden, is not a Verdi Fantasie, it is a Martucci Fantasie.  You won't find it listed at I.M.S.L.P. as one of Verdi's compositions.  It is as simple as that, really.

Exactly. Simple pedantry. No one ever suggested, for example, that Michael Finnissy's Verdi Transcriptions were composed by Verdi or indeed by anyone other than Michael Finnissy. And so on and so on; if you have a problem with that title, however, the person to whom to address it is Michael Finnissy, not members here.

How would you describe the example of my own that I provided, which is a transcription by me of a transcription of his own work by Schumann?

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

Exactly. Simple pedantry. No one ever suggested, for example, that Michael Finnissy's Verdi Transcriptions were composed by Verdi or indeed by anyone other than Michael Finnissy. And so on and so on; if you have a problem with that title, however, the person to whom to address it is Michael Finnissy, not members here.

How would you describe the example of my own that I provided, which is a transcription by me of a transcription of his own work by Schumann?

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

You did not have "Verdi Transcriptions" italicized earlier as is necessary for a title.  How was I or anyone else to know that this is the title of a work of the performing arts?  Do you just assume that everyone is familiar with Michael Finnissy's work as a composer of music?

To observe properly in regard to the work by you which is mentioned here I first would need access to the score, and also to the possibly Schumann related work by Michael Finnissy's to which reference is made.

As with the Martucci Fantasie here in this thread, it was referred to as a transcription, which it is not [and it would not be a transcription even if "transcription" were part of the title - it is not a transcription in terms of its relationship to Verdi's music - a title can be anything].


Mvh,
Michael

[michael_sayers]

Hi Michael_sayers,

I think the word-games should be treated carefully.

Look:

Bach transcriptions
Verdi transcriptions
dog food
Goldberg Variations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldberg_Variations . . .

Hi 8_octaves,

Goldberg Variations is a title.  "Bach transcriptions" are transcriptions of which the composer is Bach.  "Verdi transcriptions" are transcriptions of which the composer is Verdi [except that one might think to ask, how many of these items are there?].  Dog Food is the title of a film, and as well this film potentially also constitutes "dog food" which can happen in such a circumstance that a copy of the movie is accessed by a peculiarly hungry canine.

https://dogfoodfilm.com/


Mvh,
Michael

[michael_sayers]

Exactly. Simple pedantry. No one ever suggested, for example, that Michael Finnissy's Verdi Transcriptions were composed by Verdi or indeed by anyone other than Michael Finnissy. And so on and so on; if you have a problem with that title, however, the person to whom to address it is Michael Finnissy, not members here.

How would you describe the example of my own that I provided, which is a transcription by me of a transcription of his own work by Schumann?

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

Why are you going on and on about this?  This thread isn't even about your compositions, and now you want to make it about something of yours instead of about ronde_des_sylphes' wonderful playing and recordings?

I won't allow this to happen.

Sorry.

And as for the "Verdi transcription" nomenclature issue, and as with in regard to the Martucci Fantasie, ronde_des_sylphes and I settled all of that long ago.

Please do not continue to try to take this thread off topic, and do not make it about one of your works.

Your compositions are superb, Alistair - and no doubt the one which you mention, too, is superb.  I would be greatly surprised if I were to discover otherwise.

Maybe, though, it would be better for you to start a thread about it in the Repertoire forum and we can discuss it there?  Just wondering . . .


Mvh,
Michael

[ahinton]

You did not have "Verdi Transcriptions" italicized earlier as is necessary for a title.  How was I or anyone else to know that this is the title of a work of the performing arts?  Do you just assume that everyone is familiar with Michael Finnissy's work as a composer of music?

No, I didn't and you are correct to mention that titles should be italicised, although one would not customarily do this if the title were something basic such as Sympyony No. 3 or Piano Sonata No. 4. But would it have made any difference to your view of who is supposed, or presumed as having been credited - with doing what?

To observe properly in regard to the work by you which is mentioned here I first would need access to the score, and also to the possibly Schumann related work by Michael Finnissy's to which reference is made.

I made no reference to a Schumann related work by Michael Finnissy; as to access to the score of the work of mine that you mention, please send an email to me at sorabji-archive@lineone.net and I will respond to it, attaching the score with my compliments; I'll even send you an audio file of it if you want one but I'd have to do that via WeTransfer as it's too large to attach to an email.

As with the Martucci Fantasie here in this thread, it was referred to as a transcription, which it is not [and it would not be a transcription even if "transcription" were part of the title - it is not a transcription in terms of its relationship to Verdi's music - a title can be anything].

As you persist in saying...

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

No, I didn't and you are correct to mention that titles should be italicised, although one would not customarily do this if the title were something basic such as Sympyony No. 3 or Piano Sonata No. 4. But would it have made any difference to your view of who is supposed, or presumed as having been credited - with doing what?
I made no reference to a Schumann related work by Michael Finnissy; as to access to the score of the work of mine that you mention, please send an email to me at sorabji-archive@lineone.net and I will respond to it, attaching the score with my compliments; I'll even send you an audio file of it if you want one but I'd have to do that via WeTransfer as it's too large to attach to an email.
As you persist in saying...

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

To be honest, I am quite intrigued by this work of yours . . . of course, it will be Hintonesque . . . and yet maybe also it is in some way a bit Sorabjian, Godowskian or Busonian?

I would want to pay the same price for a copy as anyone else might pay.

I don't know what the compliments would be for, unless you are complimenting me on my superb ratiocination skills, or else and possibly in addition you are genuinely of a kind heart and also of a forgiving disposition as I always have presumed you to be .  We don't seem to see eye to eye on the "rules" of music interpretation, which is to say, I know of no such rules, and while one could write down "rule no. 1, rule no. 2, et c.", it would not to me be convincing and would fall far short of a verification of the claimed rules - so the compliments can not be about me having a particularly appreciated view of that subject.

But maybe "my compliments" is a piece title, e.g. you meant to express my compliments, and you may be sending a composition which bears that title and in addition to the one which is not derived from the music of a composer named Schumann?


Mvh,
Michael

[michael_sayers]

p.s. - In which instance, if I pay for the score and you wish nonetheless to dispatch a free copy, then maybe a free copy maybe can go to ronde_des_sylphes and you can attach my compliments to it . . . oops, that was supposed to be "my compliments" . . . ?  You can also include your compliments with it . . . that was supposed to be "your compliments" . . . and do we need to draft and discuss our compliments in advance, or is our compliments not something different than your compliments and my compliments, and we will get ronde_des_sylphes' compliments in return?  And will his compliments then become part of our compliments?  It is all so very confusing!

[j_menz]

p.s. - In which instance, if I pay for the score and you wish nonetheless to dispatch a free copy, then maybe a free copy maybe can go to ronde_des_sylphes and you can attach my compliments to it . . . oops, that was supposed to be "my compliments" . . . ?  You can also include your compliments with it . . . that was supposed to be "your compliments" . . . and do we need to draft and discuss our compliments in advance, or is our compliments not something different than your compliments and my compliments, and we will get ronde_des_sylphes' compliments in return?  And will his compliments then become part of our compliments?  It is all so very confusing!

You really need to stop drinking. 

[michael_sayers]

You really need to stop drinking. 

I am looking for the Lyapunov thread.  Maybe you know where it is?

[michael_sayers]

Does anyone here know where the Lyapunov thread is?

[ronde_des_sylphes]

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=58132

[michael_sayers]

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=58132

Thanks! . . . LOL . . . I was looking at it the time and did not realize it.

[ahinton]

To be honest, I am quite intrigued by this work of yours . . . of course, it will be Hintonesque . . . and yet maybe also it is in some way a bit Sorabjian, Godowskian or Busonian?

Thank you. Not for me to say, though!

I would want to pay the same price for a copy as anyone else might pay.

That's kind of you, but...

I don't know what the compliments would be for, unless you are complimenting me on my superb ratiocination skills, or else and possibly in addition you are genuinely of a kind heart and also of a forgiving disposition as I always have presumed you to be .  We don't seem to see eye to eye on the "rules" of music interpretation, which is to say, I know of no such rules, and while one could write down "rule no. 1, rule no. 2, et c.", it would not to me be convincing and would fall far short of a verification of the claimed rules - so the compliments can not be about me having a particularly appreciated view of that subject.

But maybe "my compliments" is a piece title, e.g. you meant to express my compliments, and you may be sending a composition which bears that title and in addition to the one which is not derived from the music of a composer named Schumann?

Oh my! "With my compliments" in the context in which I used that phrase means "free of charge"; surely that should have been obvious? Perhaps not, though...

I'll write to you privately later today.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

p.s. - In which instance, if I pay for the score and you wish nonetheless to dispatch a free copy, then maybe a free copy maybe can go to ronde_des_sylphes and you can attach my compliments to it . . . oops, that was supposed to be "my compliments" . . . ?  You can also include your compliments with it . . . that was supposed to be "your compliments" . . . and do we need to draft and discuss our compliments in advance, or is our compliments not something different than your compliments and my compliments, and we will get ronde_des_sylphes' compliments in return?  And will his compliments then become part of our compliments?  It is all so very confusing!

It is indeed - and it's pretty clear who's doing the confusing and who'd being confused by it!

Shouldn't you have italicised Rondes des Sylphes? It's a title of a piece of music, after all...

Best,

Alistair