VIDEO: Prelude in E-flat Major BWV 852 by J.S. Bach

[michael_sayers]

I generally am opposed to going out of my way to make negative remarks, but i've been watching the circus pass for too long:

There's no progression to this and the only reason it got this far is because everyone keeps coming back and fanning the flame. I'd be interested to see people realize how ridiculous this scenario is and how much time people waste on it.

I'm sorry but to the OP, for the sake of tradition and the composers works that collective culture and artists respect, if you insist on producing as you are, be so decent as to indicate that you are altering their material: Bach-Sayers Prelude in E flat, Chopin-Sayers Prelude in c etc.

I'm rather disappointed in myself for being drawn into such a conversation.

A designation such as "Bach-Sayers" is something a publisher would have to decide on.  The title of a work isn't something that is even copyrightable as part of a work of the performing arts.  This though is about the authorship, not the the piece title, and of course this is deposited as a musical arrangement with one author as claimant for the arrangement.

If it were ever published, the publisher would decide such things as if it is to be presented as "Bach-Sayers".

This hasn't, however, been published, at least not according the copyright office's definition of "publish".  One can listen to the recording on YouTube of a live 1939 performance by Paderewski.  Paderewski does not play the first movement of Beethoven's Moonlight sonata as notated, and yet the announcer does not refer to it as "Beethoven-Paderewski".  If there had been a publication of it as "Beethoven-Paderewski", then the announcer probably would have given it such a description, but that wasn't the situation.

Every time I play this it open to being different in some details, and not matching a specific and hypothetical "Bach-Sayers" publication.  I don't feel bound by my own scores any more than I do the scores of other composers.

None of this is part of the recorded audio, which is what is submitted for discussion and not so much these externalities to it which, though relevant, for some reason have taken center stage.

[michael_sayers]

Thank you, but I still feel that there is such reason because, as I wrote, i do not at all like writing in the vein which I nevertheless felt impelled to do on this occasion.
I've not quibbled with the title or the origin (if by the latter you mean solely that it was you that played what you've uploaded).
My issue here is your allegation that aspects of this were a "gift" from Liszt. The quality of what you have presented is one matter; your assertion that Liszt had some utterly improbable input into it is quite another.
I don;t know what you're talking about here but, if you're still on the subject of what you assert that Liszt gave to you, then I rest my case.
Indeed so, but I have not sought to separate the messenger from the message here, other than to question what you allege to be the source of the latter.
This isn't about the instruments upon which any composer's music ought best to be played according to this person or that, as I had hoped to have made clear.
Again, none of these considerations are ones with which I have taken issue.
Yet again, I am not taking issue with any such things in principle; it is your assertion that you have taken from Liszt (in some improbable way) things that have given rise to the performances that you have uploaded.
It's little more than a random bunch of scales and arpeggios - no structure, no substance, no perceptible attempt at harmonic, melodic, contrapuntal, rhythmic or pianistic ingenuity; it is no concern of mine as to whether of not you should be embarrassed by it per se - just that you ought, in my humble opinion. to be embarrassed about having uploaded it here.

Who IS Sarah? and why is she commemorated in the title of this piece of what I have - again, with regret and due apologies - to describe as musical emptiness?

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

Liszt is, in fact, active in 2015, and he even can influence others without their knowledge of what is happening.  How this is possible is not for me to say.  It would be better for a theologian to speculate on it, and having read up some on process theology doesn't make me into a theologian.

What I am well read on is philosophy, and I do know that if one takes any school of philosophy, or the writings of any one philosopher, and boils it down to a minimum set of premises, these premises can be shown to not be 100% consistent with one another or verifiable.  Even when there is one ultimate premise, as with logical positivism and its relevantly named "principle of verification" - no one can verify the principle of verification, it is just something that a logical positivist believes in the truth of as a leap of faith.

My time with Liszt, of course, does present issues for persons of some particular beliefs.  For instance, to an atheist it may be an issue - and this is so whether the atheist is of logical positivist belief, Sartrean belief [Sartre provided the existentialist argument against the existence of God], a Humesean belief with its reliance on the limitations and technical fallacy of an appeal to nature and to natural experience, and so on.

My position is that these are things every individual has to work out for him or herself, and that it is wrong to bully someone on account of differences of such belief.  I have friends who are Christian, atheist, Islamic, Mormon, Buddhist, et c., and we get along fine without any issues.  Everyone needs to work together to make the world a better place and stop fighting over their differences - religious, national, racial, et c. - the relentless blood shed right now over such things is something everyone involved with should be ashamed of.

Getting back to Liszt, though it has happened on only the one occasion, he can play the piano through me unimpeded, which is how this interpretation of Bach's Prelude in E-flat Major, BWV 852, was given to me and in the days prior to the recording.

Liszt's presence is like that of a great religious figure, both majestic and commanding, and also very fatherly and comforting.  And everything with him is so intense . . . every note of Gnomenreigen is felt by him with such intensity . . . with as much feeling and reason for a note as one might normally get out of an entire composition.

People can think what they want about all of this, the thoughts of others aren't for me to decide.

About For Sarah, I am not going to reveal in a highly negative environment who "Sarah" is - as with many other things, I omit much information and detail to shield others from possible negativity and harassment - as for the composition, there are the harmonic progressions, the part writing, et c., as one of many musical diary type compositions.

This year's music is, in my opinion, much better than the music from 2008, and also is much better than all the music in the 2014 edition which is online.  I am quite focused on this year's music now, and on the next and quite long/massive composition at hand.

Liszt gave me the harmonic and melodic content, along with a simplified piano arrangement for me to improve upon, for the first 23 measures of this year's mighty Love, Rebirth and Cosmic Acceptance work for piano solo, and once the copyright registration is complete and the score is publicly available, any musician who takes the time to investigate it will be able to detect the precise and firm imprint of Liszt in those measures.

[ahinton]

Hi Alistair,

Liszt is, in fact, active in 2015, and he can influence others without their knowledge of what is happening.  How this is possible is not for me to say.  It would be better for a theologian to speculate on it, and having read up some on process theology doesn't make me into a theologian.

Then please go find one rather than ply your assertions as you do here. Liszt's influence can still be felt, of course - I would not deam of suggesting otherwise - but what you're writing about is something quite different and of which there can be no scientific proof and which simply isn't happening as you claim.

What I am well read on is philosophy, and I do know that if one takes any school of philosophy, or the writings of any one philosopher, and boils it down to a minimum set of premises, these premises can be shown to not be 100% consistent with one another or verifiable.  Even when there is one ultimate premiss, as with logical positivism and its relevantly named "principle of verification" - no one can verify the principle of verification, it is just something that a logical positivist believes in the truth of as a leap of faith.

Where Liszt is concerned, the Rosemary Brown business is a classic earlier example, although Brown was at least relatively reticent about her fantasies and loath to make a big noise in trying to publicise them, compared to the almost vociferous manner in which you parade yours here. If what Brown did under the name of Liszt (as well as other composers, all conveniently from no later than the 19th century!) was genuinely from Liszt, the afterlife would be a terrible place to have to be, representative of deterioration into a dementia like state; so it is with what you're doing under his name...

My time with Liszt, of course, does present issues for persons of some particular beliefs.  For instance, to an atheist it may be an issue - and this is so whether the atheist is of logical positivist belief, Sartrean belief [Sartre provided the existentialist argument against the existence of God], a Humesean belief with its reliance on philosophical naturalism [despite the naturalistic fallacy], and so on.

My position is that these are things every individual has to work out for him or herself, and that it is wrong to bully someone on account of differences of such belief.

I cannot speak for anone else, but I am not bullying you; I merely seek to pont out to you that what you're presenting here is fantasy, pure and simple and, sadly, of such little musical value that you appear to be trying to hang it on somone else in order to bolster your ego, draw attention to yourself or some other like motive.

I have friends who are Christian, atheist, Islamic, Mormon, Buddhist, et c., and we get along fine without any issues.  Everyone needs to work together to make the world a better place and stop fighting over their differences - religious, national, racial, et c. - the relentless blood shed right now over such things is something everyone involved with should be ashamed of.

I too have such friends (except Mormons, who are rarer on this side of the pond than on yours). I could not agree more with your last sentence, but it has nothing to do with the subject under discussion here.

Getting back to Liszt, though it has happened on only the one occasion, he can play the piano through me unimpeded, which is how this interpretation of Bach's Prelude in E-flat Major, BWV 852, was obtained.  I think that all of this is by design.  I don't know the purpose of the design, but long ago he set me on the path into being a 19th century type pianist even before I knew that the 19th century pianists played differently than 20th century pianists.  I already played differently and thought for myself, and then Liszt opened the door the rest of the way.

Then later he, with the Holy Spirit, worked upon me to make me into a new person, and the scales truly did fall away from my eyes.  When Emerson talks of a 6th sense, of a "spiritual sense", this is not intended as a figure of speech.  When the mind is ready for it, one can see things that other persons can not see - other persons do "see" them, it is the same data which enters through the eyes to the mind, but not all the patterns in the data are observed.  And now, and incipient with the later experience, I have this nonstop electrical ringing in my ears, for almost three years, and an associated vibratory sensation especially in the harms and hands, which can itch and almost burn when intense.

I do not propose to pick this apart in any detail so I'll confine myself to pointing out the sheer inappropriatenesss of our use of the term "sense" when what you seek to persuade us here contains so little of it.

And I have learned to compose in a new way, with at least one composition [Guds Sinne Reser med Månljus Genom Eter created in an instant directly out of the forces of inspiration though it needed ages to notate.  For most composing now I just practice listening for what is there, and the inspiration level involved is multitudes less.

Liszt's presence is like that of a great religious figure, both majestic and commanding, and also very fatherly and comforting.  And everything with him is so intense . . . every note of Gnomenreigen is felt by him with such intensity . . . with as much feeling and reason for a note as one might normally get out of an entire composition.

The all-Liszt recitals in Stockholm for charitable causes, including the programme which was provided by him, are an assignment from him for me to carry out.  And he says that eventually I am supposed to compose a new type of music that no one has heard before, though I haven't a clue yet as to the specifics which are entailed.

People can think what they want about all of this, the thoughts of others aren't for me to decide.

No, indeed - but they are for those others to decide and, if the majority of them are such as to recommend that you might be wise to seek help, then so be it.

About For Sarah, I am not going to reveal in a highly negative environment who "Sarah" is - as with many other things, I omit much information and detail to shield others from possible negativity and harassment - as for the composition, there are the harmonic progressions, the part writing, et c., as one of many musical diary type compositions.

I did not put my question in a negative environment in terms of who she might be; my only negativity was reserved for the piece itself. If you believe (and you seem to be quite good at believing!) that this piece contains what could be called harmonic progressions, part writing and the like, then please go ahead but at the same time do bear in mind that, as with your Lisztian fantasies, that doesn't make your assertions true.

This year's music is much better than the music from 2008, and also is much better than the music in the 2014 edition which covered 2013 and earlier.  I am quite focused on this year's music now, and on the next and quite long/massive composition at hand.

Good. I wish you luck.

Liszt gave me the harmonic and melodic content, along with a simplified piano arrangement for me to improve upon, for the first 23 measures of this year's mighty Love, Rebirth and Cosmic Acceptance work for piano solo, and once the copyright registration is complete and the score is publicly available, any musician who takes the time to investigate it will be able to detect the precise and firm imprint of Liszt in those measures.

Really. Well, well...

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

Then please go find one rather than ply your assertions as you do here. Liszt's influence can still be felt, of course - I would not deam of suggesting otherwise - but what you're writing about is something quite different and of which there can be no scientific proof and which simply isn't happening as you claim.
Where Liszt is concerned, the Rosemary Brown business is a classic earlier example, although Brown was at least relatively reticent about her fantasies and loath to make a big noise in trying to publicise them, compared to the almost vociferous manner in which you parade yours here. If what Brown did under the name of Liszt (as well as other composers, all conveniently from no later than the 19th century!) was genuinely from Liszt, the afterlife would be a terrible place to have to be, representative of deterioration into a dementia like state; so it is with what you're doing under his name...
I cannot speak for anone else, but I am not bullying you; I merely seek to pont out to you that what you're presenting here is fantasy, pure and simple and, sadly, of such little musical value that you appear to be trying to hang it on somone else in order to bolster your ego, draw attention to yourself or some other like motive.
I too have such friends (except Mormons, who are rarer on this side of the pond than on yours). I could not agree more with your last sentence, but it has nothing to do with the subject under discussion here.
I do not propose to pick this apart in any detail so I'll confine myself to pointing out the sheer inappropriatenesss of our use of the term "sense" when what you seek to persuade us here contains so little of it.
No, indeed - but they are for those others to decide and, if the majority of them are such as to recommend that you might be wise to seek help, then so be it.
I did not put my question in a negative environment in terms of who she might be; my only negativity was reserved for the piece itself. If you believe (and you seem to be quite good at believing!) that this piece contains what could be called harmonic progressions, part writing and the like, then please go ahead but at the same time do bear in mind that, as with your Lisztian fantasies, that doesn't make your assertions true.
Good. I wish you luck.
Really. Well, well...

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

Eventually the question becomes relevant: where did the great composers get their music from, and what was its process of composition?  Though the compositions can be musicologically described, there isn't any intellectual formula one can follow to become a great composer, that isn't how it works.  Some of the best information on this is in music journalist Arthur Abell's Talks With Great Composers which is comprised of the contents of his interviews with several of them.

I am aware of the Rosemary Brown compositions.  Some are "interesting", some are evocative of the claimed composers yet perhaps in a very sketch-like fashion.  I don't have any definite views of the claims of Rosemary Brown, I wasn't there and I have not the inclination to read her books or to research her, though I do think some of the musical material could be improved upon and added to as the basis for some very nice compositions.  This seems to me a fair assessment.

I didn't make a big deal about Liszt.  What I did was what I always do, which is to introduce a composition or arrangement with some information on its origination.  It is other persons here, including you, who have made a big deal about it, including with one member being abusive.  

Similarly, as with Södermalm Fantasy Ballade, I provided background information.  It is a fact that composers and performers do collaborate, and yet for some reason this background information about the composition and the recording, and that some things were done not as notated in the copyrighted score, was a reason for a member of this forum to discount the entire endeavor - and mind you, the endeavor involved a very accomplished pianist, and not a pianist who deserves in any way to be dismissed or belittled for his efforts at recording the music of living composers and in collaborating with them.  It would be great if more pianists were to do this for living composers, rather than for them to play (mostly) the same 100+ year old compositions over and over again.

I don't think a composer or an arranger does well to just post something without any information about it.  That would be very noncommunicative.

Either way, I think that perhaps you are upset with me or are being contrary for its own sake when you say that there are no harmonic progressions in For Sarah.  The musical content is not "random" as you stated in a post, and it is not aleatory music.  It is harmonically very old fashioned and unambiguous to analyze, and all such music can be viewed in part writing terms - one doesn't just flip a coin to decide on a chord inversion.

The core issue seems to be my experiences of Liszt, which for some reason (having to do with your beliefs) deeply chagrins you.

And I am sorry about this, because I do hold you in the highest possible esteem and respect, and there was no wish to offend and neither did I consider my first post in this thread - which mentioned the connection to Liszt - to be one of an offensive or of an attacking nature.

One thing I have learned in life is the importance of sincerity, and here, as elsewhere, and though imperfectly and with inconsistencies, I strive to live up to my ideals.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Two points. Whilst I don't approve of much of what the OP does with his performances, there is surely some merit in regarding them as a piece of philosophical provocation regarding fidelity to the score. I don't actually find them any more absurd than extreme fidelity to the score, which is a uniquely 20th century phenomenon - indeed, as I have elsewhere quoted, there is documentary evidence that Liszt did not expect total adherence to his score. Are we to regard a performance as an execratory defamation of the composer, simply because the performer changed one note or one dynamic marking? For that is the logical conclusion of extreme textual fidelity. Of course these performances represent a very high level of textual infidelity, but nonetheless..

Secondly, I'm quite disappointed in much of the discussion here. I'm not prepared to mock someone's spiritual beliefs, however peculiar they might appear. It's not especially germane to the discussion and, frankly, I presume most of us experience some sort of afflatus on occasion - how the individual chooses to attribute or explain it is up to them.

Not especially relevant either, but I am genuinely interested in the following matter. I'll ask it rhetorically, but the OP is free to answer if he wishes. I've looked through half a dozen or so of the scores on the OP's website, and it seems they are quite punctiliously notated, with specific numbers of alternations in trills, and specific numbers likewise assigned to tremolandi. How does he explain the contrast between this and the extreme freedom with which he interprets the music of others?

[ahinton]

Eventually the question becomes relevant: where did the great composers get their music from, and what was its process of composition?  Though the compositions can be musicologically described, there isn't any intellectual formula one can follow to become a great composer, that isn't how it works.

It is in important question, but I'll tell you one source for it - a great deal of hard work developing techniques to suit their ideas, wherever they come from!

Some of the best information on this is in music journalist Arthur Abell's Talks With Great Composers which is comprised of the contents of his interviews with several of them.

I read it years ago; I was less than impressed.

I am aware of the Rosemary Brown compositions.  Some are "interesting", some are evocative of the claimed composers yet perhaps in a very sketch-like fashion.  I don't have any definite views of the claims of Rosemary Brown, I wasn't there and I have not the inclination to read her books or to research her, though I do think some of the musical material could be improved upon and added to as the basis for some very nice compositions.  This seems to me a fair assessment.

But either they didn't come from the sources that she claimed or, if indeed they did, the results give a very depressing impression of the state into which "her" composers deteriorated after their deaths.

I didn't make a big deal about Liszt.  What I did was what I always do, which is to introduce a composition or arrangement with some information on its origination.  It is other persons here, including you, who have made a big deal about it, including with one member being abusive.

Please re-read your own posts; you have made a big deal of Liszt and of your alleged communications with him!

I think that perhaps you are upset with me or are being contrary for its own sake when you say that there are no harmonic progressions in For Sarah.  The musical content is not "random" as you stated in a post, and it is not aleatory music.  It is harmonically very old fashioned and unambiguous to analyze, and all such music can be viewed in part writing terms - one doesn't just flip a coin to decide on a chord inversion.

The core issue seems to be my experiences of Liszt, which for some reason (having to do with your beliefs) deeply chagrins you.

I'm not "upset" nor moved to "chagrin" at all; it's not my problem, after all. What I would counsel you to do, however, is seek help, including some good tuition.

And I am sorry about this, because I do hold you in the highest possible esteem and respect, and there was no wish to offend and neither did I consider my first post in this thread - which mentioned the connection to Liszt - to be one of an offensive or of an attacking nature.

Whilst that's kind of you, please understand that I am not in any sense offended; why and how would I be when I'm not even the subject or object of what you've written?

One thing I have learned in life is the importance of sincerity, and here, as elsewhere, and though imperfectly and with inconsistencies, I strive to live up to my ideals.

That's fine, of couse, but such striving shouldn't blind you to realities; sincerity alone isn't enough.

I wish you well.

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

Not especially relevant either, but I am genuinely interested in the following matter. I'll ask it rhetorically, but the OP is free to answer if he wishes. I've looked through half a dozen or so of the scores on the OP's website, and it seems they are quite punctiliously notated, with specific numbers of alternations in trills, and specific numbers likewise assigned to tremolandi. How does he explain the contrast between this and the extreme freedom with which he interprets the music of others?

Hi ronde_des_syphes,

It isn't possible for me to notate the music without also simultaneously notating a particular arrangement and also a particular interpretation.  It is a necessary evil of music notation.  At the time, I thought that "more" was "more" in this regard, but now I think that less really is more.

In all compositions from 2015 forward - and these are much higher quality works than the ones from 2013 and before   - I am leaving off all indications of tempo, dynamics, pedaling, phrasing, et c.  There still is the particular arrangement, though, with some interpretive aspects of necessity and also unfortunately included.

I might be up to sharing these with you while the copyright registration completes, and you can see for yourself that the melodic and harmonic content of the first 23 bars of Love, Rebirth and Cosmic Acceptance was contributed by Liszt.

This would need to be with trust that the scores are kept 100% between us until the registration completes, just in case there is an issue with the registration.  In my experience, the time duration for this process varies from two weeks to eight months.

[michael_sayers]

I'm not "upset" nor moved to "chagrin" at all; it's not my problem, after all. What I would counsel you to do, however, is seek help, including some good tuition.

Hi Alistair,

Liszt and the Holy Spirit are great teachers of composition.  Please keep in mind that For Sarah was composed nine years ago when Liszt was not a particularly active presence in my life, and in addition that the score has been revised in recent years to be different than what is heard on the recording.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Hi ronde_des_syphes,

It isn't possible for me to notate the music without also simultaneously notating a particular arrangement and also a particular interpretation.  It is a necessary evil of music notation.  At the time, I thought that "more" was "more" in this regard, but now I think that less really is more.

..
I might be up to sharing these with you while the copyright registration completes, and you can see for yourself that the melodic and harmonic content of the first 23 bars of Love, Rebirth and Cosmic Acceptance was contributed by Liszt.

This would need to be with trust that the scores are kept 100% between us until the registration completes, just in case there is an issue with the registration.  In my experience, the time duration for this process varies from two weeks to eight months.

I did wonder if it was a facet of music notation software, though in Sibelius you can opt to hide the numbers, which is what I do when writing things out, as I do not wish to be proscriptive in this aspect of notation.

I'll leave it up to you - I would have no problem keeping the scores to myself; in fact I have some private scans from the 19th century with which I have made similar promises.

[michael_sayers]

I did wonder if it was a facet of music notation software, though in Sibelius you can opt to hide the numbers, which is what I do when writing things out, as I do not wish to be proscriptive in this aspect of notation.

I'll leave it up to you - I would have no problem keeping the scores to myself; in fact I have some private scans from the 19th century with which I have made similar promises.

Hi ronde_des_syplhes,

I'll be in touch about the scores.

I almost have one such 19th century item that is unpublished and has to be photocopied from the manuscript.  Hard as it is to believe, it has a music content rights owner in 2015 and needs permission for the copying.

I was alerted to its existence by Liszt, and an expert finally was able to verify both the composition and also to tell me the library archive which possesses the manuscript.

Liszt has told me that there is a "Handel-Liszt Queen of Sheba March", but not Solomon (or not Samson, it was hard to hear what Liszt was saying).  Maybe you know of some historical reference to this?  I came up with nothing, though I do think I know (from Liszt) the physical location of the manuscript and that I have understood things correctly.

Following the trail, I eventually learned of a Queen of Sheba tempo di marcia transcription (from Gounod's La Reine de Saba, not Handel) which Liszt let a struggling composer publish and not under Liszt's name as the transcriber.  I don't think this is what Liszt was referring to.

The communication with Liszt is not always clearly audible.

[michael_sayers]

p.s. for ronde_des_syplhes - The expert was very curious how I had learned of the manuscript, since the source he used to identify and locate it is in French, and of course, I told him the truth 

[ahinton]

Liszt and the Holy Spirit are great teachers of composition.

I studied with one of the world's leading authorities on Liszt - the English composer Humphrey Searle, whose centenary falls this year. I never had any lessons from the other one.

Please keep in mind that For Sarah was composed nine years ago when Liszt was not a particularly active presence in my life, and in addition that the score has been revised in recent years to be different than what is heard on the recording.

Here you go yet again, harping on about Liszt and his presence in your life! That said, if the piece concerned was written so long ago and you've revised it more recently, why did you post the original, especially if you believe that its revision represents some kind of improvement on that?

[perfect_pitch]

I'm just going to leave that there again... I felt it was relevant.    

[ahinton]

I almost have one such 19th century item that is unpublished and has to be photocopied from the manuscript.  Hard as it is to believe, it has a music content rights owner in 2015 and needs permission for the copying.

I was alerted to its existence by Liszt, and an expert finally was able to verify both the composition and also to tell me the library archive which possesses the manuscript.

Liszt has told me that there is a "Handel-Liszt Queen of Sheba March", but not Solomon (or not Samson, it was hard to hear what Liszt was saying).  Maybe you know of some historical reference to this?  I came up with nothing, though I do think I know (from Liszt) the physical location of the manuscript and that I have understood things correctly.

Following the trail, I eventually learned of a Queen of Sheba tempo di marcia transcription (from Gounod's La Reine de Saba, not Handel) which Liszt let a struggling composer publish and not under Liszt's name as the transcriber.  I don't think this is what Liszt was referring to.

The communication with Liszt is not always clearly audible.

And again! Far from not making a big issue of Liszt and your alleged mutual communitions , you seem to raise it at almos every turn!

[michael_sayers]

And again! Far from not making a big issue of Liszt and your alleged mutual communitions , you seem to raise it at almos every turn!

Hi Alistair,

Actually you and others are making a big deal out of my time with Liszt.

You said you take no offence to it, as it isn't about you.

When I read something in this forum I don't agree with, if it isn't about me, usually I leave it alone.

One must pick and choose one's battles, there isn't time for all in a day.

And yet, you have chosen this one and do indeed seem possessed of an axe to grind.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I almost have one such 19th century item that is unpublished and has to be photocopied from the manuscript.  Hard as it is to believe, it has a music content rights owner in 2015 and needs permission for the copying.
..
a "Handel-Liszt Queen of Sheba March".. Maybe you know of some historical reference to this?  I came up with nothing, though I do think I know (from Liszt) the physical location of the manuscript and that I have understood things correctly.

Following the trail, I eventually learned of a Queen of Sheba tempo di marcia transcription (from Gounod's La Reine de Saba, not Handel) which Liszt let a struggling composer publish and not under Liszt's name as the transcriber.  I don't think this is what Liszt was referring to.

I'm not sure I can help here. On a practical basis, if an unknown manuscript is being held in a library, it's quite possible you'll be able to get a photocopy if you pay the relevant fee. Despite being familiar with a three-figure number of 19th century paraphrases, all it makes me aware of is that I've merely scratched the surface. The only documented Liszt Handel transcription is from Almira; referencing the Opus Transcribisticum database lists a few more composers who have transcribed Handel (oddly he's listed as 'H'). Talking of Gounod, I must admit that if someone told me the A. Jaell Faust paraphrase was actually written by Liszt, I'd believe them. Sections of it are practically plagiaristic.

[perfect_pitch]

And yet, you have chosen this one and do indeed seem possessed of an axe to grind.

Well, sometimes the tree of insanity must be chopped down.   

[j_menz]

I am leaving off all indications of tempo, dynamics, pedaling, phrasing, et c.  

Why stop there? Abandon all notes (and preferably all keystrokes). Fulfil you destiny! Be as empty a vessel as your head models.

[ahinton]

I'm just going to leave that there again... I felt it was relevant.    

Fair enough - although not everyone here is engaging in a fight! I'm not, for starters. I merely wish to try to persuade the OP that his so-called communications with Liszt are a self-made fantasy and that he would be wise to seek some professional help, not least in the guise of a good composition teacher.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Actually you and others are making a big deal out of my time with Liszt.

We are responding in our various different ways and with different emphases on your allaged and now much-vaunted "time with Liszt", which none of us would of course do had you not made such a deal out of it yourself; surely you can appreciate the logic of that?

You said you take no offence to it, as it isn't about you.

When I read something in this forum I don't agree with, if it isn't about me, usually I leave it alone.

One must pick and choose one's battles, there isn't time for all in a day.

And yet, you have chosen this one and do indeed seem possessed of an axe to grind.

You continue to misunderstand, so let me try to clarify. I did indeed say - and I maintain - that I take no offence per se as it's not about me. This is not, however, a matter of picking and choosing battles because, as I wrote upthread, I am not seeking to fight but to point out certain illogicalities and instances where fantasy is being paraded as fact - no more, no less and it is not necessary to take up arms in order to do that.

I hope that you can see now where I'm coming from on this.

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

We are responding in our various different ways and with different emphases on your allaged and now much-vaunted "time with Liszt", which none of us would of course do had you not made such a deal out of it yourself; surely you can appreciate the logic of that?
You continue to misunderstand, so let me try to clarify. I did indeed say - and I maintain - that I take no offence per se as it's not about me. This is not, however, a matter of picking and choosing battles because, as I wrote upthread, I am not seeking to fight but to point out certain illogicalities and instances where fantasy is being paraded as fact - no more, no less and it is not necessary to take up arms in order to do that.

I hope that you can see now where I'm coming from on this.

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

Fact is that your statements that this is fantasy - which are not identical to a statement such as "this may be fantasy" - require that you know it is fantasy for them to be true.  And the only way you can "know" this so remotely is based on the facts of the situation here with Liszt not being possible to harmonize with your beliefs and world view, and as such you are here pitting your world view against that of another member.  So while you may not take offence - and I believe that you do not - your actions are those of someone who does take offence and who has an axe to grind.

This is part of a larger issue with this forum.

As with the Södermalm Fantasy Ballade, I provided background on the recording and that there was collaboration (as one would expect) between the composer and the pianist.  This involved that the recording was not entirely the music as copyrighted.  There is nothing unusual about this.  Composers and performers, screen writers and actors, photographers and models - they all collaborate in the quest for an optimal result.  Yet here it seems to have gone against the belief of a member that all music must be performed as notated, and since I am not going to pay a $55 fee every time a performer wants to make a change, ergo the recording and the efforts of the performer are outside of the boundaries of what can be discussed.  And as I already indicated, this is a very accomplished pianist who has a specialty of collaborating with living composers, yet here the fact that the outcome in sound of the collaboration was unforeseen in all details and aspects, the outcome in recorded sound seems to be viewed as having been catastrophic.

And, as with my time with Liszt, if someone had wanted to make a big deal against performers and composers being allowed to collaborate, I would have gladly defended such collaborations and the right of such collaborations and at length.

I don't expect anyone to like any of the recordings I post here, and I don't expect anyone to listen to them.

A reasonable standard of civility in a discussion, however, is not in my view something that can be observed to be a burdensome or flawed request.

So - about Liszt - you can have your logical positivist world view, or whichever world view it is - this is your right and I support it 100%.  Furthermore, you would have to look very hard to find anyone who believes as strongly in the separation of church and state as I do.

Please don't use philosophy or your beliefs to bash members over the head as needing to seek professional help due to their philosophy and beliefs.  This is more something that one would expect with the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, and it is rather inappropriate during a discussion about a piano recording to take one's own world view and suddenly begin pitting it up against the world view of the pianist and also in a manner which some might view as other than merely being philosophical about it.

[j_menz]

not least in the guise of a good composition teacher.

Indeed. And preferably one who is unequivocally still alive.

[ahinton]

Fact is that your statements that this is fantasy - which are not identical to a statement such as "this may be fantasy" - require that you know it is fantasy for them to be true.  And the only way you can "know" this so remotely is based on the facts of the situation here with Liszt not being possible to harmonize with your beliefs and world view, and as such you are here pitting your world view against that of another member.  So while you may not take offence - and I believe that you do not - your actions are those of someone who does take offence and who has an axe to grind.

I'm doing my level best here but this is beginning to become as tiresome as it appears to be largely fruitless.

For your assertions to be true, someone who has been dead for almost 130 years would have in some form still to be alive, otherwise he would be unable to communicate; that communication presumes that the communicators be alive is without doubt a fact, not merely a premise that happens to accord to anyone's "world view" and, for the record and for the avoidance of doubt, my "world view", whatever it may be, is not up for discussion here as it has no impact on the conclusions that I have drawn from your assertions about Liszt directly communicating with you and "telling" you things. To point this out does not require the taking of offence or the grinding of an axe and, once agaion, let me assure you that I am doing neither.

This is part of a larger issue with this forum.

Is it? Well, it presumably is for you otherwise you would not have said so but, as this appears to be the case, does that not prompt you to question the value, appropriateness and purpose of your membership?

As with the Södermalm Fantasy Ballade, I provided background on the recording and that there was collaboration (as one would expect) between the composer and the pianist.  This involved that the recording was not entirely the music as copyrighted.  There is nothing unusual about this.  Composers and performers, screen writers and actors, photographers and models - they all collaborate in the quest for an optimal result.  Yet here it seems to have gone against the belief of a member that all music must be performed as notated, and since I am not going to pay a $55 fee every time a performer wants to make a change, ergo the recording and the efforts of the performer are outside of the boundaries of what can be discussed.  And as I already indicated, this is a very accomplished pianist who has a specialty of collaborating with living composers, yet here the fact that the outcome in sound of the collaboration was unforeseen in all details and aspects, the outcome in recorded sound seems to be viewed as having been catastrophic.

The fact that, unlike certain other members here, I did not comment on any of this is largely predicated upon the fact that I don't understand what you're talking about here. I won't bore everyone with detail; suffice it to say that I have never suggested that music must - or even can (given the limitations of conventioanl music notation) - be performed precisely as notated, but where this $55 fee for changes comes about I have less than no idea.

And, as with my time with Liszt, if someone had wanted to make a big deal against performers and composers being allowed to collaborate, I would have gladly defended such collaborations and the right of such collaborations and at length.

Composers sometimes collaborate with performers on the creation of a piece although more often than not such collaboration begins only when a completed work is put into rehearsal with performers; I have never inveighed against such collaborative practice as you suggest, but you can't "collaborate" with Liszt - nor could Rosemary Brown!

I don't expect anyone to like any of the recordings I post here, and I don't expect anyone to listen to them.

Then what was your motive in posting them?

A reasonable standard of civility in a discussion, however, is not in my view something that can be observed to be a burdensome or flawed request.

Fine - but then in order to challenge, as I have, assertions that you have made but cannot prove, I have not abandoned civility, nor need I do so.

So - about Liszt - you can have your logical positivist world view, or whichever world view it is - this is your right and I support it 100%.  Furthermore, you would have to look very hard to find anyone who believes as strongly in the separation of church and state as I do.

As I sid, my "world view", whatever it may be, has no impact or place in these discussions. I haven't the faintest idea what the separation or otherwise of church and state (which you have just introduced) has to do with the subject under discussion; as it happens, in the country where I live, I would advocate such separation in principle but, since I am not a member of the established (or indeed any other) church in Britain and have little identity with the state, it is a mere opinion and one which some might argue I have no business to have.

Please don't use philosophy or your beliefs to bash members over the head as needing to seek professional help due to their philosophy and beliefs.

I have not had, or needed to have, recourse to any particular branch of philosophy in offering you the advice to seek professional help; likewise, I have not bashed you over the head, nor have I needed to do so, in offering that advice.

This is more something that one would expect with the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, and it is rather inappropriate during a discussion about a piano recording to take one's own world view and suddenly begin pitting it up against the world view of the pianist and also in a manner which some might view as other than merely being philosophical about it.

Sorry; once again, I'm struggling to understand what you're talking about here or why your references to anyone's world views is becoming something of a recurring decimal here, so I cannot offer useful comment.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Indeed. And preferably one who is unequivocally still alive.

Yes, having studied composition myself I can confirm that live teachers are usually more effective - not least because being alive actually enables them to teach.

Since Liszt keeps being raised here, though, it's perhaps interesting that the phrase "a pupil of Liszt" has never quite lost its currency, even though today it's spoken of only in historical contexts, of course. Hundreds - perhaps thousands - of people claimed to be pupils of Liszt because they'd attended at least on of his master classes. As I mentioned previously, Liszt's influence (which is a very different phenomenon to what's being paraded here) is undeniable, powerful and long-lasting, which considering his unassailable position as one of the 19th century's most remarkable Western musicians is hardly surprising.

Best,

Alistair

[j_menz]

Hundreds - perhaps thousands - of people claimed to be pupils of Liszt because they'd attended at least on of his master classes.

I'm reminded of an anecdote (possibly apocryphal). Liszt and a friend were walking to the pub (or local equivalent) and passed a house where a woman ( a piano teacher, from the sign outside) was butchering one of his compositions. Liszt knocked and offered to give a few pointers, which offer was accepted and the woman was pleased with the result.

On the way back, they again passed the house only to find the sign amended - Mme X - Pupil of Franz Liszt.

[stoat_king]

Why stop there? Abandon all notes (and preferably all keystrokes). Fulfil you destiny! Be as empty a vessel as your head models.

Your comment has reminded me of something my grandfather was fond of saying:

"You'll know when you've gone far enough, cos your hat will float off".

I didnt understand it at the time

[perfect_pitch]

The communication with Liszt is not always clearly audible.

Actually, I know that Liszt is truly disgusted at the performances you uploaded here, as your recordings violate the respect, maturity and dignity that each one of the pieces represent... he also said he was pissed off at you yakking off, saying that he said all this rubbish when in fact, he wouldn't honestly give you the time of day.

How do I know this??? He spoke to me in a dream last night... No, seriously - NO JOKE!!!



I mean, I can't prove it - but he did... he really, really did.   

[j_menz]

Oh please. I have drinkies with Frank once a month. He's never mentioned either of you.

[8_octaves]

If I had met my friend from the USA in person, and not only via the WWW, and if he had given me actual lessons, in a room, e.g., then I would be Gottschalk's great-great-great-grandchild.

Thus, Moreau seems to have said the following, some minutes ago:

"Mon Dieu! What a discussion! It's like the following: Whe we hear pieces, which are played by others, then some of us won't like it, and some will like it. When we ourselves are playing, then we are to accept plein de applaudissements   (not sure whether I understood him correctly) - and sometimes we have to face negative answers. So is life. I'll follow with interest the discussion, as far it concerns interesting information about the recorded works, pianists, and related stuff. Personal things, related to belief or sth. like that, I will omit to read. Au revoir, mes amis! And God bless you!"

 

And I liked the words!

Cordially, 8_octaves!  

[ahinton]

Oh please. I have drinkies with Frank once a month. He's never mentioned either of you.

You mean he's gone to Australia? Wow! Did he fly first class? And, perhaps more the point, did the airline concerned carry his piano on the plane by removing several rows of seats rather than shoving it into the hold? I also wonder whether he ever met Percy Grainger there; next time you meet for a bevvy or four (your round this time!), maybe you'd ask him.

By the way, did you see the ad in which he was paid a king's ransom to participate? - you know, the one for a well known oil distributor in which he extols the virtues of its products in terms of the speed of travel that their use enables? Surely you've seen it - or at least heard about it?! Indeed, as a consequence, the phrase "Liszt Esso tempo" has more or less entered common parlance (among musicians, at least)...

I still maintain that I feel sorry for Sarah, whoever she may be - and that, like everything else that I've written on this now wearisome topic, involves (as I daresay you already realise) neither "chagrin" nor the taking of "offence" nor the "grinding of axes" erroneously and repeatedly attributed to my apparently perceived motives in all of this.

Best,

Alisztair (who, whilst unable to claim to be a pupil or grand-pupil of Liszt, was a pupil of one of the world's greatest Liszt scholars and also a pupil of a pianist who studied with Cyril Smith who had been a student of Busoni pupil Herbert Fryer - pity he can't play the piano, though, n'est-ce pas?!)...

[ahinton]

Actually, I know that Liszt is truly disgusted at the performances you uploaded here, as your recordings violate the respect, maturity and dignity that each one of the pieces represent... he also said he was pissed off at you yakking off, saying that he said all this rubbish when in fact, he wouldn't honestly give you the time of day.

How do I know this??? He spoke to me in a dream last night... No, seriously - NO JOKE!!!



I mean, I can't prove it - but he did... he really, really did.   

Just out of passing interest, in what language did he convey his thoughts to you?

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

I'm doing my level best here but this is beginning to become as tiresome as it appears to be largely fruitless.

For your assertions to be true, someone who has been dead for almost 130 years would have in some form still to be alive, otherwise he would be unable to communicate; that communication presumes that the communicators be alive is without doubt a fact, not merely a premise that happens to accord to anyone's "world view" and, for the record and for the avoidance of doubt, my "world view", whatever it may be, is not up for discussion here as it has no impact on the conclusions that I have drawn from your assertions about Liszt directly communicating with you and "telling" you things. To point this out does not require the taking of offence or the grinding of an axe and, once agaion, let me assure you that I am doing neither.
Is it? Well, it presumably is for you otherwise you would not have said so but, as this appears to be the case, does that not prompt you to question the value, appropriateness and purpose of your membership?
The fact that, unlike certain other members here, I did not comment on any of this is largely predicated upon the fact that I don't understand what you're talking about here. I won't bore everyone with detail; suffice it to say that I have never suggested that music must - or even can (given the limitations of conventioanl music notation) - be performed precisely as notated, but where this $55 fee for changes comes about I have less than no idea.
Composers sometimes collaborate with performers on the creation of a piece although more often than not such collaboration begins only when a completed work is put into rehearsal with performers; I have never inveighed against such collaborative practice as you suggest, but you can't "collaborate" with Liszt - nor could Rosemary Brown!
Then what was your motive in posting them?
Fine - but then in order to challenge, as I have, assertions that you have made but cannot prove, I have not abandoned civility, nor need I do so.
As I sid, my "world view", whatever it may be, has no impact or place in these discussions. I haven't the faintest idea what the separation or otherwise of church and state (which you have just introduced) has to do with the subject under discussion; as it happens, in the country where I live, I would advocate such separation in principle but, since I am not a member of the established (or indeed any other) church in Britain and have little identity with the state, it is a mere opinion and one which some might argue I have no business to have.
I have not had, or needed to have, recourse to any particular branch of philosophy in offering you the advice to seek professional help; likewise, I have not bashed you over the head, nor have I needed to do so, in offering that advice.
Sorry; once again, I'm struggling to understand what you're talking about here or why your references to anyone's world views is becoming something of a recurring decimal here, so I cannot offer useful comment.

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

The fact is that you are not a trained psychologist, and neither are you a theologian, and it is inappropriate for you to tell another member - and publicly, too - that he needs to seek "professional help" in a context where it may be construed as appertaining to medical or clinical psychological help.  Of course there can be exceptions to this.  For instance, if a person is thought to be suicidal then, sure, by all means make such a recommendation, but do it with enough awareness to issue it privately.  Don't post on the internet a statement such as, "Hi Everybody, I think so-and-so is suicidal and needs to seek help".  To do such a thing would be in the worst possible imaginable taste, and might not even be legally protected speech.

I'm not a moderator, so I can't ban members for this type of behaviour, but if a were a moderator, and a composer had posted a piano composition or arrangement and had said it was about "anything" - it could be a bigfoot sighting - and a member posted publicly that the arranger needs "professional help" in a way that might be construed as of clinical or medical implications, that member would be out of here, at least for a while.

What it boils down to is this: I can't reconcile your claims of benignness with your posts in this forum.  Maybe you can do this, yet, and depending on the context, this is not necessarily the normal perception of going up to someone in a public gathering and saying, "Hello, you need professional help".

There is nothing wrong with this arrangement for grand piano - instead of harpsichord or clavichord - of Bach's Prelude in E-flat Major, BWV 852, and not in terms of tempos, dynamics, phrasing or anything else.  There is fault with the sonic qualities of the recording, and also my playing of it on that date, and nothing more.

If there are specific faults with the arrangement which you as a professional composer can identify, it would be a learning experience not only for myself, but also for any potential arrangers of Bach for grand piano who are reading this thread, to have a chance to read and discuss your musicological insights.

If you aren't here to discuss music, and in a constructive way, then maybe you should address your personal concerns about me to others privately and henceforth leave this thread alone.

[ahinton]

The fact is that you are not a trained psychologist, and neither are you a theologian

Yes, these are indeed facts!

it is inappropriate for you to tell another member - and publicly, too - that he needs to seek "professional help" in a context where it may be construed as appertaining to medical or clinical psychological help.

Firstly, I did not order you to do this but recommended that you consider doing so; secondly, I did not specify the nature of professional help that you might seek, beyond mentioning a good composition teacher, who would not - nor would he/she be expected to - provide medical or clinical services to you. In any case, even if I had mentioned medical or clinical help, I would have done so with a view to helping you and in your best interests rather than for any other motive or purpose and I would not in any case have needed to be a trained psychologist or a theologian in order to be able to do so!

Of course there can be exceptions to this.  For instance, if a person is thought to be suicidal then, sure, by all means make such a recommendation, but do it with enough awareness to issue it privately.  Don't post on the internet a statement such as, "Hi Everybody, I think so-and-so is suicidal and needs to seek help".  To do such a thing would be in the worst possible imaginable taste, and might not even be legally protected speech.

Again, as I stated, I did not specify the kind of professional help that I recommended that you consider seeking. I agree, of course, with your last two sentences here, but they are not pertinent to the discussion since neither I nor any other member here has done such a thing.

I'm not a moderator, so I can't ban members for this type of behaviour, but if a were a moderator, and a composer had posted a piano composition or arrangement and had said it was about "anything" - it could be a bigfoot sighting - and a member posted publicly that the arranger needs "professional help" in a way that might be construed as of clinical or medical implications, that member would be out of here, at least for a while.

But, as you rightly note, you are not a moderator and, in any case, the hypothetical example that you cite above has (a) not actually manifested itself here and (b) is quite different to the Liszt communication issue to your repeated references to which I have responded.

What it boils down to is this: I can't reconcile your claims of benignness with your posts in this forum.  Maybe you can do this, yet, and depending on the context, this is not necessarily the normal perception of going up to someone in a public gathering and saying, "Hello, you need professional help".

Again, I suggested that you consider seeking it, not that you must do so and, if I have made that insufficiently clear previously I offer you and everyone else here all due apologies in the hope that I have succeeded in doing so now.

There is nothing wrong with this arrangement for grand piano - instead of harpsichord or clavichord - of Bach's Prelude in E-flat Major, BWV 852, and not in terms of tempos, dynamics, phrasing or anything else.  There is fault with the sonic qualities of the recording, and also my playing of it on that date, and nothing more.

I did not criticise the arrangement itself and, as a composer familiar with many of the legion of arrangements / transcriptions / paraphrases of the keyboard music of Bach for other keyboard instruments, I would not do this in principle in any case; there is an incredibly rich seam of such material to explore here, some of it not so very good and the best of it outstanding beyond belief.

If you aren't here to discuss music, and in a constructive way, then maybe you should address your personal concerns about me to others privately and henceforth leave this thread alone.

I have neither wish nor need to address any concerns that I might have about you to others privately; I believe that I have said all that I have to say on that subject and have likely run the risk of boring some members by repeating some of it only because it didn't seem to have registered with you as I had intended and hoped that it would. As you will note, most of what I have written concerns the Liszt communication issues rather than music itself and my views appear to be shared by almost all here except that I have, I hope, tried my best to express them with rather more politeness than some.

Once again, I wish you well.

Best,

Alistair

[themeandvariation]

It seems to me, to whole 'spirit' question falls under the category of 'god. not god' question…and is completely irrelevant  (to me)  as to the worth of a particular composition/arrangement and/or performance…  it doesn't change the outcome whether it was Liszt's spirit that  found a willing secretary to modify this 'piece' in question, or if it was Bach whispering into Liszt's ear in the ethereal realm, to pass it on to Michael, or whether it was Phillip Glass's astral body disguised as Liszt, to legitimate  the continued use of repeat marks  (in the new piece that Michael had mentioned he was co-writting with Liszt).
 The piece is an object, in and of itself…. and the meaning of it's meaning is utterly subjective… So, subjectively, this piece/performance  in question does not work for me…
Cheers!

[ahinton]

Philip Glass's astral body disguised as Liszt

Mon Dieu, WHAT an appalling piece of imagery that suggests (and, for that matter, I am not alone in my view, since Liszt has just told me not only that he agrees but that he's also thinking of suing for copyright breach!)...

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

It seems to me, to whole 'spirit' question falls under the category of 'god. not god' question…and is completely irrelevant  (to me)  as to the worth of a particular composition/arrangement and/or performance…  it doesn't change the outcome whether it was Liszt (who still advises to use repeat marks, evidently…)  found a willing secretary to modify this 'piece' in question, or if it was Bach whispering into Liszt's ear in the ethereal realm, to pass it on to Michael, or whether it was Phillip Glass's astral body disguised as Liszt, to legitimate  the continued use of repeat marks  (in the new piece that Michael had mentioned he was co-writting with Liszt).
 The piece is an object, in and of itself…. and the meaning of it's meaning is utterly subjective… So, subjectively, this piece/performance  in question does not work for me…
Cheers!

Cheers to you also, and with Mvh  

[ahinton]

Mvh

Quoi?...

Best,

Alistair

[8_octaves]

Mon Dieu,

Cheers to you also, and with Mvh 

Quoi?...

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/med_v%C3%A4nliga_h%C3%A4lsningar#Swedish 

[michael_sayers]

Quoi?...

Best,

Alistair

Hej Alistair,

Jag är i Sverige


Mvh,
Michael

[michael_sayers]

Hi Alistair,

Maybe we can make a deal: if I successfully locate the manuscript of the "Handel-Liszt Queen of Sheba March" [either not Samson, or not Solomon] - the existence of which Liszt has revealed to me - then maybe we can agree that I don't need "professional help", or perhaps not to the extent some persons may suppose.

It is possible that this work will be discovered by someone other than me in the not too distant future.

And in the near future I may go an an excursion myself to bring the work into availability and access out of what I have understood to be its exact location.

The odds are minimal that I have misunderstood this communication from Liszt, though hearing in that way is not the easiest thing in the world to do.

[ahinton]

Hej Alistair,

Jag är i Sverige


Mvh,

I understand Mvh now, thanks to our resident Bösendorfer 290 member 8_octaves; forgive my lack of Swedish.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Hi Alistair,

Maybe we can make a deal: if I successfully locate the manuscript of the "Handel-Liszt Queen of Sheba March" [either not Samson, or not Solomon] - the existence of which Liszt has revealed to me - then maybe we can agree that I don't need "professional help", or perhaps not to the extent some persons may suppose.

It is possible that this work will be discovered by someone other than me in the not too distant future.

And in the near future I may go an an excursion myself to bring the work into availability and access out of what I have understood to be its exact location.

The odds are minimal that I have misunderstood this communication from Liszt, though hearing in that way is not the easiest thing in the world to do.

I'm sorry, Michael; I really cannot comment on this, fr reasons that I have already hopefully made clear - and I'm not in the market for making deals, however well meaning they might be.

Best,

Alistair

[perfect_pitch]

Just out of passing interest, in what language did he convey his thoughts to you?

It was in English... and funnily enough he had a big thick New York accent, which I thought was odd...



...but it was REALLY HIM, I SWEAR, NO JOKE!!!   

[j_menz]

You mean he's gone to Australia? Wow! Did he fly first class? And, perhaps more the point, did the airline concerned carry his piano on the plane by removing several rows of seats rather than shoving it into the hold?

If the airport you fly out of is named after you, you get special treatment.

the phrase "Liszt Esso tempo"

 

[8_octaves]

I understand Mvh now, thanks to our resident Bösendorfer 290 member 8_octaves; forgive my lack of Swedish.

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

thank you! (But my username isn't meant to be related to the "Bösendorfer with the additional keys", but it's slightly connected to one of my favourite composer's pseudonymes.)

"Mvh" is, as I could see, an abbreviation for slightly differingly written, but the same meanings in at least 3 languages:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mvh.

So I could have easily made a mistake. But I chose the Swedish version, because my brain works with forms, shapes and pictures, so, after a long time reading texts or threads, I'll be able to, without a search engine, remember huge amounts of such content by associating, and correctly assign them.

Michael had mentioned somewhen, that he had "wandered through the streets of a Swedish city". So I chose the Swedish variant, and not the 2 others given.

_________

@Michael :

Hi Michael!

I didn't find a Händel-Liszt-march of the "Queen of Saba / Sheba" from either Samson or Salomon.

But there's an opera of Gounod, I think, of which many versions or pieces have been arranged for piano.

And referring to the Händel: The "arrival" of the Queen has been arranged by many other men for piano, too, as have been other pieces from the Händel you mentioned.

Meanwhile, Liszt seems to have been active in the Gounod-Queen:

Liszt, F., Berceuse de l’Opéra La Reine de Saba, de Gounod. Mainz, Schott 45 Xr.

_________

And now an astonishing experience I made some time ago.

From the sound / melody / probability of the song "Auld Lang Syne" I had, many years ago already, BEFORE I had known the Offergeld-Catalog's exact entries in the www, (which I got to know much later), I had ESTIMATED, that Gottschalk had worked on this song.

And he REALLY had done that. (Which we can see in Nr. W236 of the Catalog's page in the Web ( W = Works not originally listed in the Catalog, but added.)

Unfortunately, it seems to be lost, but I had been right. That was a very very nice experience for me. I wish to you, Michael, that the work you estimate to exist, really exists, too!

Cordially, 8_octaves!

[michael_sayers]

Hi 8_octaves,

The Handel-Liszt Queen of Sheba March is extant and when I, or someone else, obtains a copy of the manuscript and this becomes available, we will see who here then is laughing.

I don't think it is the same as the music of the well known Queen of Sheba March.  Liszt did say that he wants it played with "maximum power" and, of course, I couldn't quite hear if about the music he was saying either "not Samson" or "not Solomon".

I might retrieve it this year - or, at least a copy of it, as the manuscript wouldn't be my property - once I've achieved clarity on exactly how to do this and the plan which would be involved.

That the music has been notated, I do not doubt.  Liszt doesn't communicate in riddles, though he is of few words (and not zero as some here suppose   ).

[ahinton]

The Handel-Liszt Queen of Sheba March is extant and when I, or someone else, obtains a copy of the manuscript and this becomes available, we will see who here then is laughing.

When that happens, I doubt that anyone will laugh; in the meantime, I'm not laughing.

Has it occurred to you that you reckon to be aware of something that is apparently unknown to internationally respected Liszt scholars such as Dr Alan Walker and Dr Leslie Howard? When this autograph ms. turns up, I daresay they'd each be more than interested to have the opportunity to authenticate it.

I don't think it is the same as the music of the well known Queen of Sheba March.

Then what do you suppose it might instead be, given that your description of it identifies it as a Liszt piano transcription of something by Handel with a Queen of Sheba connection?

Liszt did say that he wants it played with "maximum power" and, of course, I couldn't quite hear if about the music he was saying either "not Samson" or "not Solomon".

It seems that Liszt, who in his lifetime did so much to help so many in a variety of capacities, has more recently turned quite unhelpful; for one thing, he could surely have had the decency to confirm the full details of what this music is and, for another, assuming your hearing not to be impaired, he seems to have developed a most unfortunate and inconsiderate habit of uttering words indistinctly...

That the music has been notated, I do not doubt.

Then you should continue to make all due efforts to locate and borrow it and then have it professionally authenticated.

Liszt doesn't communicate in riddles

... an example from which some might profitably learn, methinks...

though he is of few words

...and at least some of those quite indistinct, apparently...

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

When that happens, I doubt that anyone will laugh; in the meantime, I'm not laughing.

Has it occurred to you that you reckon to be aware of something that is apparently unknown to internationally respected Liszt scholars such as Dr Alan Walker and Dr Leslie Howard? When this autograph ms. turns up, I daresay they'd each be more than interested to have the opportunity to authenticate it.
Then what do you suppose it might instead be, given that your description of it identifies it as a Liszt piano transcription of something by Handel with a Queen of Sheba connection?
It seems that Liszt, who in his lifetime did so much to help so many in a variety of capacities, has more recently turned quite unhelpful; for one thing, he could surely have had the decency to confirm the full details of what this music is and, for another, assuming your hearing not to be impaired, he seems to have developed a most unfortunate and inconsiderate habit of uttering words indistinctly...
Then you should continue to make all due efforts to locate and borrow it and then have it professionally authenticated.
... an example from which some might profitably learn, methinks...
...and at least some of those quite indistinct, apparently...

Best,

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

This isn't necessarily something that is unknown to Dr. Alan Walker and Dr. Leslie Howard, and even if this is unknown to them, this type of implied argument "I do not know of it, therefore it does not exist" is fallacious.  The quantity of material written about and by Liszt is vast - and this includes unpublished letters by and about him, and which continue to surface even in the 21st century - and this piano arrangement very well may be mentioned somewhere.  The quantity of material is overwhelming, with much left in 2015 that a devoted Liszt scholar could research, I am sure.

One hypothesis is that, if Liszt would transcribe the tempo di marcia music from Gounod's Faust and have it published under another transcriber's name, then maybe the Handel-Liszt Queen of Sheba March was similarly published in the 19th century but not under Liszt's name.

In my contact with Liszt he is very efficient and pragmatic; either there is enough information or there isn't, and if enough is provided to get what he wants done accomplished, then it is enough.  As for the hearing, I do concentrate very hard, pen in hand, and yet when Liszt uses words I am not familiar with then, of course, there can be an issue with hearing properly and with knowing what was said.  Before this I was neither familiar with either Handel's Solomon or Samson, or with the well known Queen of Sheba March though when I did later hear it, the music was found to be familiar.  There also is a Handel keyboard suite based on the (now lost) music to a work with a Queen of Sheba character, or maybe this is so . . . I'm not totally clear on it . . . a Handel expert would know of it and also as to if the Queen of Sheba relevance is solid or merely speculative.


Mvh,
Michael

[michael_sayers]

p.s. - Liszt wants the Liszt Museum in Budapest to collect this item.

[ahinton]

This isn't necessarily something that is unknown to Dr. Alan Walker and Dr. Leslie Howard, and even if this is unknown to them, this type of implied argument "I do not know of it, therefore it does not exist" is fallacious.

I didn't present such an argument; I simly put the question. Is either of them aware at least of the possibility of the work that you mention, even if they've yet to see a copy of the ms.?

The quantity of material written about and by Liszt is vast - and this includes unpublished letters by and about him, and which continue to surface even in the 21st century

That, of course, is very true.

and this piano arrangement very well may be mentioned somewhere.

"May". Yes - and I'm not arguing that it may not be so - but you seem to know more than most about this, so I must ask whether you have shared your speculations, beliefs or whatever else about this with Drs. Walker and Howerd or any other distinguished Liszt scholar at this stage. I would not seek to cricitse you if you had not, for it is common knowledge and experience that researchers usually like to keep their discoveries to themselves until they can be shared, but I ask anyway.

The quantity of material is overwhelming, with much left in 2015 that a devoted Liszt scholar could research, I am sure.

Again, of that I have no doubt; Humphrey Searle, no less, said as much to me years ago when I was his student.

One hypothesis is that, if Liszt would transcribe the tempo di marcia music from Gounod's Faust and have it published under another transcriber's name, then maybe the Handel-Liszt Queen of Sheba March was similarly published in the 19th century but not under Liszt's name.

Well, whilst that might not be impossible, we'd all have to await whatever evidence might emerge about this before pronouncing about it.

In my contact with Liszt he is very efficient and pragmatic; either there is enough information or there isn't, and if enough is provided to get what he wants done accomplished, then it is enough.  As for the hearing, I do concentrate very hard, pen in hand, and yet when Liszt uses words I am not familiar with then, of course, there can be an issue with hearing properly and with knowing what was said.  Before this I was neither familiar with either Handel's Solomon or Samson, or with the well known Queen of Sheba March though when I did later hear it, the music was found to be familiar.  There also is a Handel keyboard suite based on the (now lost) music to a work with a Queen of Sheba character, or maybe this is so . . . I'm not totally clear on it . . . a Handel expert would know of it and also as to if the Queen of Sheba relevance is solid or merely speculative.

Sdly, once again, it is this persistent reiteration of your "contact with Liszt" that lets the whole thing down here. You mention the words that you say Liszt uses; in what language do you believe he does so and are you familiar with that language? Could Liszt speak 21st century American English, for example - even if without sufficiently clear diction to enable anyone lis(z)tening to understand?

I don't think that you or anyone else need concern ourselves at this point with what a Handel scholar might make of something that, by your own admission, has yet to emerge but, in the meantime, can you please elaborate on the "Handel keyboard suite based on the (now lost) music to a work with a Queen of Sheba character" that you mention (albeit adding the caveat "or maybe this is so . . . I'm not totally clear on it")?

Best,

Alistair
Mvh,
Michael
[/quote]