Piano Forum



International Piano Day 2024
Piano Day is an annual worldwide event that takes place on the 88th day of the year, which in 2024 is March 28. Established in 2015, it is now well known across the globe. Every year it provokes special concerts, onstage and online, as well as radio shows, podcasts, and playlists. Read more >>

Topic: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty  (Read 7655 times)

Offline georgey

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 936
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #50 on: June 27, 2019, 03:57:07 PM
That's because I mistyped it; sorry! It should be www.recordsinternational.com .

Best,

Alistair

Too late.  I just got email from Amazon that my used Madge copy just shipped.  I also ordered Ogdon new copy that was Temporarily out of stock.  I did not get email from them yet, but I noticed the sellers message now says for Ogdon: Get it as soon as July 30 - Sept. 9 when you choose Priority Global Shipping at checkout.  Maybe it's back in stock.

So which is better?  Ogdon or Madge CD of OC?

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #51 on: June 27, 2019, 04:34:57 PM
Too late.  I just got email from Amazon that my used Madge copy just shipped.  I also ordered Ogdon new copy that was Temporarily out of stock.  I did not get email from them yet, but I noticed the sellers message now says for Ogdon: Get it as soon as July 30 - Sept. 9 when you choose Priority Global Shipping at checkout.  Maybe it's back in stock.

So which is better?  Ogdon or Madge CD of OC?
I'd go for the Ogdon, not least because you get a massive booklet (well, book, really) with it that is a mine of information.

Enjoy!

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline lostinidlewonder

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7498
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #52 on: June 28, 2019, 01:41:42 AM
...it is hard to imagine that reversing a MIDI would have such a purpose and be recognised universally as such if it is capable of contributing nothing meaningful to the appreciation of the music itself, but if it pleases those who indulge in such a pointless exercise, so be it.
But now you are trying to define what should be universally useful and appreciated by all, even listen to the OC forwards may not even fall in to this category as there is something called musical taste and everyone applies this differently. So reversing the music has indeed sincere interest for some and whether you can or cannot understand the point of it that doesn't really matter just as much as someone who cannot understand the point of listening to Sorabji's music in the first place forwards or backwards isn't making a constructive observation by pointing out anything that they might seem a pointless activity.

One might also question, for that matter, the intrinsic value of an unreversed MIDI in cases wher the intended live performance is readily available.
You might realize that midi allows people to listen to parts of a piece at any desired tempo without loss of quality, it may also allow them to see the actual notes being played on a piano as well for those using hybrids, there are many uses for MIDI that you might be interested to educate yourself in rather than spreading unconstructive critique.

It is unclear how it contributes anything enlightening - or indeed anything at all - to the subject of this thread, especially given that the "difficulty" in its title is clearly intended to represent the difficulty for the pianist in preparing a performance of the work as distinct from what you have yourself admitted is the very easy process of reversing a MIDI.
Threads often can tangent into other areas of interest related to the topic, that is a common with internet discussions, it is unusual that you find it difficult to demonstrate your appreciation of that. Contribution to threads should be encouraged rather than called a waste of time or having no use at all, no contribution at all, or do you feel like your contribution to this very thread as to what you personally find useful or not is essential and of more valuable use and time and more practical every day use application than my reversing midi contribution? ^___^
"The biggest risk in life is to take no risk at all."
www.pianovision.com

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #53 on: June 28, 2019, 05:48:27 AM
But now you are trying to define what should be universally useful and appreciated by all, even listen to the OC forwards may not even fall in to this category as there is something called musical taste and everyone applies this differently. So reversing the music has indeed sincere interest for some and whether you can or cannot understand the point of it that doesn't really matter just as much as someone who cannot understand the point of listening to Sorabji's music in the first place forwards or backwards isn't making a constructive observation by pointing out anything that they might seem a pointless activity.
I merely compared that exercise to the copyright one and even then only because you raised the latter.

You might realize that midi allows people to listen to parts of a piece at any desired tempo without loss of quality, it may also allow them to see the actual notes being played on a piano as well for those using hybrids, there are many uses for MIDI that you might be interested to educate yourself in rather than spreading unconstructive critique.
Whilst I am of course aware of what a MIDI can enable, it is as likely - even when well made (and they do vary considerably in quality) - to distract its listener from the content of the music itself, not least by reason of its removal of the element of live human performance from it.

Threads often can tangent into other areas of interest related to the topic, that is a common with internet discussions, it is unusual that you find it difficult to demonstrate your appreciation of that. Contribution to threads should be encouraged rather than called a waste of time or having no use at all, no contribution at all, or do you feel like your contribution to this very thread as to what you personally find useful or not is essential and of more valuable use and time and more practical every day use application than my reversing midi contribution? ^___^
It is not for me to compare the value of thread contributions but, in this instance, there has been rather more than a mere "tangent" into other areas of discussion, to the extent that the very subject of "difficulty" of preparing and presenting a particular work has been morphed into discussion of a method of treatment of its content that dispenses altogether with any sense of such "difficulty" and at the same time divorces it from the human performance by a pianist for which it was intended; as such, the reversal element merely constitutes a kind of addendum thereto.

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline lostinidlewonder

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7498
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #54 on: June 28, 2019, 06:01:42 AM
I merely compared that exercise to the copyright one and even then only because you raised the latter.
And the discussion continued since you think that it is a waste of time to do such things where it doesn't take much time at all and there was interest in the thread so your opinions of whether it is a waste of time or serves no point only applies to your own perspectives and is not a useful contribution to this thread.

Whilst I am of course aware of what a MIDI can enable, it is as likely - even when well made (and they do vary considerably in quality) - to distract its listener from the content of the music itself, not least by reason of its removal of the element of live human performance from it.
You still persist in talking past all the uses that midi can actually be helpful for and continue to suggest that it merely has a tendency to more negative contribution, the tone of your replies seems rather negative overall which doesn't help the content of this thread unless you simply want to nag and complain with no constructive reason, I guess that tendency does comes with age.

It is not for me to compare the value of thread contributions but...
But you do it anyway yep I see lol.

...in this instance, there has been rather more than a mere "tangent" into other areas of discussion
Not really, people wondered what it would sound like backwards, I posted it, you cried and complained about how its a waste of time and pointless all which are negative contributions to the thread which offers no discussion at all except for your complaining.

... the very subject of "difficulty" of preparing and presenting a particular work has been morphed into discussion of a method of treatment of its content that dispenses altogether with any sense of such "difficulty" and at the same time divorces it from the human performance by a pianist for which it was intended; as such, the reversal element merely constitutes a kind of addendum thereto.
But again you seem suprised that discussions can tangent away from the opening post, please go read multiple threads that are on here and you will see that some of them do indeed go off onto other discussions that are related to the topic in some form.
"The biggest risk in life is to take no risk at all."
www.pianovision.com

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #55 on: June 28, 2019, 11:33:14 AM
And the discussion continued since you think that it is a waste of time to do such things where it doesn't take much time at all and there was interest in the thread so your opinions of whether it is a waste of time or serves no point only applies to your own perspectives and is not a useful contribution to this thread.
Not so, at least to the extent that consideration of MIDIs, reversed or otherwise, contributes nothing to a discussion of the subject of "difficulty" in preparing and performing OC, as your observation as to how little time it takes to reverse such a MIDI and how easy it is to do bears out.

You still persist in talking past all the uses that midi can actually be helpful for and continue to suggest that it merely has a tendency to more negative contribution, the tone of your replies seems rather negative overall which doesn't help the content of this thread
In my experience a number of people have initially been put off certain music by having heard it for the first time in MIDI format and whilst, as mentioned previously, some MIDI files are far better made than others (particularly when they involve attempts to simulate what a real performance might sound like rather than merely presenting the pitches in accordance to the notated score), that is by definition the nature of the beast.

For the record, a pianist some time ago sent me a file of his "performance" of a moto perpetuo style movement from another large-scale Sorabji piano work that was so obviously a lifeless, expressionless MIDI with no intelligent phrasing, a textural clarity that belied its physical impossibility and the dullest sound imaginable that I was astonished that anyone would think to persuade anyone else that it was a genuine live performance; the pianist was deeply offended by this and undertook to make a video of his performance with no possibility of "cheating" but, as that was more than a year and a half ago and I have seen and heard nothing since, that tale has clearly run its unfortunate course. I cite this merely as an example of how the value of a MIDI can be misperceived.

unless you simply want to nag and complain with no constructive reason, I guess that tendency does comes with age
I will treat that remark with the contempt that is sadly all that it deserves and move on.

Not really, people wondered what it would sound like backwards, I posted it, you cried and complained about how its a waste of time and pointless all which are negative contributions to the thread which offers no discussion at all except for your complaining.
Pointing out the value of such an exercise is not in and of itself synonyous with complaining that it has been carried out.

But again you seem suprised that discussions can tangent away from the opening post, please go read multiple threads that are on here and you will see that some of them do indeed go off onto other discussions that are related to the topic in some form.
Not surprise as such, no - merely noting that a thread about the physical and mental challenges involved in the preparation and performance of a particular keyboard work has witnessed the wholesale abandonment of that topic in favour of some discussion of a MIDI realisation of a short excerpt from it that can have no conceivable connection with that subject, the only commonality being references to the musical work concerned.

Perhaps at this point it might be a good idea to get back to that topic because, for all that no two pianists would be expected to encounter identical difficulties in the preparation and performance of any work, the object of the OP was clearly to invite discussion of such difficulties in OC and it might therefore be interesting to read the responses of those who might have tried to prepare at least parts of the work in question.

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline lostinidlewonder

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7498
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #56 on: June 28, 2019, 01:43:34 PM
Not so, at least to the extent that consideration of MIDIs, reversed or otherwise, contributes nothing to a discussion of the subject of "difficulty" in preparing and performing OC, as your observation as to how little time it takes to reverse such a MIDI and how easy it is to do bears out.
Though providing a reverse of the midi satisfies the curiosity of people posting in this thread so it becomes relevant however your commentary that it is a waste of time and pointless requires rebuttal as I have provided as it does not contribute to the flow of discussion and much would prefer silence which I think is not a constructive contribution to this thread.

In my experience a number of people have initially been put off certain music by having heard it for the first time in MIDI format and whilst, as mentioned previously, some MIDI files are far better made than others (particularly when they involve attempts to simulate what a real performance might sound like rather than merely presenting the pitches in accordance to the notated score), that is by definition the nature of the beast.
However do you expect that someone learn excepts of the Sorabji OC and record it backwards? Your fear mongering here seems irrational and a little illogical given the circumstance of this particular thread. You still are ignoring much of the educational uses of MIDI of which I have suggested that hybrid pianos would be able to show the exact notes being depressed, this is not something you could simulate with other recording formats.

For the record, a pianist some time ago sent me a file of his "performance" of a moto perpetuo style movement from another large-scale Sorabji piano work that was so obviously a lifeless, expressionless MIDI with no intelligent phrasing, a textural clarity that belied its physical impossibility and the dullest sound imaginable that I was astonished that anyone would think to persuade anyone else that it was a genuine live performance; the pianist was deeply offended by this and undertook to make a video of his performance with no possibility of "cheating" but, as that was more than a year and a half ago and I have seen and heard nothing since, that tale has clearly run its unfortunate course. I cite this merely as an example of how the value of a MIDI can be misperceived.
No one is saying MIDI will replace other recordings but it certainly has uses that those other recordings cannot satisfy. I cannot understand why you are considering that any of this has relevance to posting a midi on this thread which merely was done to satisfy the curiosity of those wondering what the OC would sound like backwards. It was not of a quality level which hindered their appreciation of what it would sound like backwards.

I will treat that remark with the contempt that is sadly all that it deserves and move on.
Or is there another reason to argue about something which has no relevance to sharing of knowledge? You rather say something is pointless and a waste of time instead? What is the contempt level of you saying things like that?

Pointing out the value of such an exercise is not in and of itself synonyous with complaining that it has been carried out.
Oh but indeed it is very important to have pointed such a thing out because you said it was "pointless" and perhaps this comment only relates to your very own world in your own head though for others in this thread it has had a use totally opposing your ideology that it was useless. So pointing out what others thought is important and perhaps makes you question your own stance on such an issue and whether any one else shares your belief that it was pointless and a waste of time even though the point of it all was highlighted and the fact that it took mere seconds to create makes the idea that it is a waste of time quite a melodramatic exercise. 

Not surprise as such, no - merely noting that a thread about the physical and mental challenges involved in the preparation and performance of a particular keyboard work has witnessed the wholesale abandonment of that topic in favour of some discussion of a MIDI realisation of a short excerpt from it that can have no conceivable connection with that subject, the only commonality being references to the musical work concerned.
Someone asked what it would sound like backwards, this curiosity was satisfied, you wanted to argue it all and now we have this discussion, so perhaps you think that this discussion is important to the thread? Surely it is rambling on far too long for what it is worth but if you want to continue I am happy to oblige. I just wanted to post a reverse midi to satisfy what others wanted to know, if you don't like it far enough but your opinion that it is a waste of time and pointless is unconstructive critique which should be viewed with contempt by others who would like to discuss ideas on forums. Your negative contribution to the thread is not necessary nor is your attempt to make it sound like a ubiquitous truth where in reality it is simply your own opinion.

Perhaps at this point it might be a good idea to get back to that topic ..... the object of the OP was clearly to invite discussion of such difficulties in OC and it might therefore be interesting to read the responses of those who might have tried to prepare at least parts of the work in question.
Sure let the discussion continue, you are just not going to get away with kibitizing that my activity here is a waste of time and pointless without rebuttal from me, if you enjoy such activity then far enough I will oblige but then you are simply tangenting this thread off into oblivion.
"The biggest risk in life is to take no risk at all."
www.pianovision.com

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #57 on: June 28, 2019, 02:24:02 PM
do you expect that someone learn exce[r]pts of the Sorabji OC and record it backwards?
Heaven forfend! - and, of course, I have suggested no such thing.

Your fear mongering here
What fearmongering?

No one is saying MIDI will replace other recordings but it certainly has uses that those other recordings cannot satisfy. I cannot understand why you are considering that any of this has relevance to posting a midi on this thread which merely was done to satisfy the curiosity of those wondering what the OC would sound like backwards. It was not of a quality level which hindered their appreciation of what it would sound like backwards.
Of course no one is suggesting this or, more importantly, that it could replace live performance. I am also not suggesting that the reverse MIDI did not satisfy the particular curiosity that you mention; however, I do question the extent to which the mere indiscriminate satisfaction of any such curiosity in and of itself contributes something of value to a discussion about the difficulty of preparing and performing any or all of OC.

Or is there another reason to argue about something which has no relevance to sharing of knowledge?
I have already given my reason, more than once.

Oh but indeed it is very important to have pointed such a thing out because you said it was "pointless" and perhaps this comment only relates to your very own world in your own head though for others in this thread it has had a use totally opposing your ideology that it was useless.
I take leave to doubt that; do you suppose that the desire to listen to a portion of OC in a reversed MIDI format is widespread? and might you have reasons for it and evidence to support such a view?

what others thought is important
How many "others" here or elsewhere have expressed the view that it is "important"?

Someone asked what it would sound like backwards, this curiosity was satisfied, you wanted to argue it all and now we have this discussion, so perhaps you think that this discussion is important to the thread?
I think that it is a pity that any such discussion even became necessary; my contribution to it, however, is not so much an "argument" as the expression of a viewpoint (and hardly one that few would share), a fact that should be clear to anyone who has read it.

Surely it is rambling on far too long for what it is worth
I do agree with you there, although the solution to that is in your own hands, methinks, especially as no one else seems to have had much to say about it one way or the other.

I just wanted to post a reverse midi to satisfy what others wanted to know, if you don't like it far enough but your opinion that it is a waste of time and pointless is unconstructive critique which should be viewed with contempt by others who would like to discuss ideas on forums.
Instead of commenting on what others might think of my observations (especially in the absence of much evidence of it), why not put forward good reasons for this exercise that inform people as to its value in terms of an appreciation of OC per se with especial reference to the difficulties that it presents to pianists who might consider playing all or part of it? In so doing, it might also be helpful if you place this in the more general context of the notion of creating and reversing MIDIs of other musical excerpts (and not necessarily of the music of Sorabji, of course).

ou are just not going to get away with kibitizing that my activity here is a waste of time and pointless without rebuttal from me
I have referred only to this particular exercise, not to any of your other activities on this form of which I have scant knowledge and on which I have therefore appropriately refrained from comment as I am in no position to do so.

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline outin

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8211
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #58 on: June 28, 2019, 02:27:39 PM
Here is something from the OC reversed :P Still sounds interesting lo0ol.

Thanks! Jazzy and very entertaining :)

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #59 on: June 28, 2019, 03:16:52 PM
And the discussion continued since you think that it is a waste of time to do such things where it doesn't take much time at all
I omitted to mention that, whilst I agree that reversing an existing MIDI is not a time-consuming activity, creating one in the first place does take time when there is no score in typeset format using one of the available pieces of music-setting software.

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline georgey

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 936
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #60 on: June 28, 2019, 05:07:07 PM
Interesting discussion! 

As noted earlier - Berg's Lulu opera: central interlude in the second act is a palindrome in every detail - after a midpoint peak, the music runs backwards, note for note. 

I just listened to this 3-minute 15 seconds interlude on my Bruno Maderna live Rome performance on 12/13/1959.  It’s hard for me to imagine that Berg knew exactly what the 2nd half of this interlude sounded like (the backwards part) when he wrote it forward to the mid-point.  Was a bit of a crapshoot I imagine.

Would MIDI have helped Berg with his writing of this interlude?  Certainly, in creating the score for the work.  Press a button and out pops the 2nd half (= first half backwards).  As far as the sound of the interlude– not sure. He may have thought to himself:  It all sounds the same anyway – forwards or backwards.   ;)  Just kiddiing. 

Berg's Lulu a great work to my ears, but I can understand some hating this.

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #61 on: June 28, 2019, 05:20:14 PM
Interesting discussion! 

As noted earlier - Berg's Lulu opera: central interlude in the second act is a palindrome in every detail - after a midpoint peak, the music runs backwards, note for note.
The difference here, of course, is that it reflects its composer's intention as distinct from being something done artificially by someone else almost 90 years after the work's completion!

I just listened to this 3-minute 15 seconds interlude on my Bruno Maderna live Rome performance on 12/13/1959.  It’s hard for me to imagine that Berg knew exactly what the 2nd half of this interlude sounded like (the backwards part) when he wrote it forward to the mid-point.  Was a bit of a crapshoot I imagine.
With an ear such as Berg had, I very much doubt that!

Berg's Lulu a great work to my ears, but I can understand some hating this.
It is to mine as well.

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline lostinidlewonder

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7498
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #62 on: June 29, 2019, 12:37:52 AM
Heaven forfend! - and, of course, I have suggested no such thing.
Then when you started to compare the quality of MIDI to normal recordings, this all was quite irrelevant.

What fearmongering?
That people are put off by MIDI recordings, why bother mentioning this if it didn't have any relevence to the MIDI that I produced here in this thread? I already asked if you prefer someone play it actually backwards on a real piano and send a recording of that which of course is a silly suggestion since the MIDI I uploaded is sufficient.

..I do question the extent to which the mere indiscriminate satisfaction of any such curiosity in and of itself contributes something of value to a discussion about the difficulty of preparing and performing any or all of OC.
Again, threads can tangent into different dsicussions so this concern is irrelevent.

I have already given my reason, more than once.
You have not given any reason why you want to share responses that my posts were pointless and a waste of time or that any unconstructive critique is beneficial to any thread at all.

I take leave to doubt that; do you suppose that the desire to listen to a portion of OC in a reversed MIDI format is widespread?
It is irrelevant if it is widespread the fact was that it was mentioned here in this thread.

and might you have reasons for it and evidence to support such a view?
People discussed it in this thread, thats enough evidence.

How many "others" here or elsewhere have expressed the view that it is "important"?
More than one.

I think that it is a pity that any such discussion even became necessary; my contribution to it, however, is not so much an "argument" as the expression of a viewpoint (and hardly one that few would share), a fact that should be clear to anyone who has read it.
Your viewpoint that it is a waste of time and pointless was well noted as being irrelevant to contribute to the flow of discussion.

I do agree with you there, although the solution to that is in your own hands, methinks, especially as no one else seems to have had much to say about it one way or the other.
And in your hands if you want to continue the discussion  you do realize 2 people need to respond.

Instead of commenting on what others might think of my observations (especially in the absence of much evidence of it), why not put forward good reasons for this exercise that inform people as to its value in terms of an appreciation of OC per se with especial reference to the difficulties that it presents to pianists who might consider playing all or part of it?
You began commenting that my contribution was a waste of time and pointless so that will be the main theme of our interaction in this thread. I will also contribute to threads in any way that I see fit especially if it addresses the concerns of people in the thread such as what a reverse of the OC might sound like. Again threads can tangent into different discussions so your continual requirement to go back to the OP exact question is irelevant, I am responding to comments from other users about reversing the midi.
 
In so doing, it might also be helpful if you place this in the more general context of the notion of creating and reversing MIDIs of other musical excerpts (and not necessarily of the music of Sorabji, of course).
Helpful maybe for you, my contribution has been helpful to other people even though you might consider it a waste of time or pointless.

I have referred only to this particular exercise, not to any of your other activities on this form of which I have scant knowledge and on which I have therefore appropriately refrained from comment as I am in no position to do so.
Well you are also in no position to call other members contributions to threads as a waste of time or pointless unless you simply like to complain without any constructive reasons which is a tendency I have already adressed which you thought was contemptible but funnily enough thought that your own negative contribution lacks any sense of contempt in itself.
"The biggest risk in life is to take no risk at all."
www.pianovision.com

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #63 on: June 29, 2019, 05:10:00 AM
Then when you started to compare the quality of MIDI to normal recordings, this all was quite irrelevant.
That people are put off by MIDI recordings, why bother mentioning this if it didn't have any relevence to the MIDI that I produced here in this thread? I already asked if you prefer someone play it actually backwards on a real piano and send a recording of that which of course is a silly suggestion since the MIDI I uploaded is sufficient.
Again, threads can tangent into different dsicussions so this concern is irrelevent.
You have not given any reason why you want to share responses that my posts were pointless and a waste of time or that any unconstructive critique is beneficial to any thread at all.
It is irrelevant if it is widespread the fact was that it was mentioned here in this thread.
People discussed it in this thread, thats enough evidence.
More than one.
Your viewpoint that it is a waste of time and pointless was well noted as being irrelevant to contribute to the flow of discussion.
And in your hands if you want to continue the discussion  you do realize 2 people need to respond.
You began commenting that my contribution was a waste of time and pointless so that will be the main theme of our interaction in this thread. I will also contribute to threads in any way that I see fit especially if it addresses the concerns of people in the thread such as what a reverse of the OC might sound like. Again threads can tangent into different discussions so your continual requirement to go back to the OP exact question is irelevant, I am responding to comments from other users about reversing the midi.
 Helpful maybe for you, my contribution has been helpful to other people even though you might consider it a waste of time or pointless.
Well you are also in no position to call other members contributions to threads as a waste of time or pointless unless you simply like to complain without any constructive reasons which is a tendency I have already adressed which you thought was contemptible but funnily enough thought that your own negative contribution lacks any sense of contempt in itself.
Y  A   W    N    .   .  ..
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline lostinidlewonder

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7498
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #64 on: June 29, 2019, 05:23:51 AM
Y  A   W    N    .   .  ..
Indeed. You forgot “ Best, Alistair” your account has now been hacked?! :)
"The biggest risk in life is to take no risk at all."
www.pianovision.com

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #65 on: June 29, 2019, 07:24:28 AM
Indeed. You forgot “ Best, Alistair” your account has now been hacked?! :)
I forgot nothing. My account is fine.

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline lostinidlewonder

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7498
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #66 on: June 29, 2019, 09:40:55 AM
I forgot nothing. My account is fine.

Best,

Alistair
My concern wasn't really very serious with the smiley face and all added to it. It's a strange change in pattern to your postings since pretty much all of your posts sign off with that rather superflous final touch. I am happy to have encouraging the ommision of it.
"The biggest risk in life is to take no risk at all."
www.pianovision.com

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #67 on: June 29, 2019, 10:07:30 AM
I am happy to have encouraging the ommision of it.
..by which I take you to mean "I am happy to have encouraged the omission of it" - but you didn't!

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline lostinidlewonder

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7498
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #68 on: June 29, 2019, 01:02:17 PM
..by which I take you to mean "I am happy to have encouraged the omission of it" - but you didn't!

Best,

Alistair
Yes auto corrector is not always a friend yet people still seem to understand as you have. What do you mean by "you didn't"? It seems that I did indeed encourage you to neglect using "Best, Alistair" after you responded to one of my responses to you in a somewhat contemptible manner with some strange acronym "Y A W N" which possilby could mean you are bored or irritated in some manner, or more interestingly has an actual definition you are yet to share with us.
"The biggest risk in life is to take no risk at all."
www.pianovision.com

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #69 on: June 29, 2019, 03:14:00 PM
What do you mean by "you didn't"? It seems that I did indeed encourage you to neglect using "Best, Alistair" after you responded to one of my responses to you in a somewhat contemptible manner with some strange acronym "Y A W N" which possilby could mean you are bored or irritated in some manner, or more interestingly has an actual definition you are yet to share with us.
I reiterate that you didn't encourage me to do anything of the kind and should add that what you claim to perceive to be a "strange acronym" is nothing of the kind, a fact of which you appear to imply understanding by writing that it "possilby[sic] could mean you are bored or irritated in some manner".

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline lostinidlewonder

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7498
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #70 on: June 30, 2019, 02:33:18 AM
I reiterate that you didn't encourage me to do anything of the kind
Then how come you neglected to sign your name at the end of that post like you do with every single other one, something that might highlight some kind of emotional response since you always remember to sign your name I fail to find any post in your entire history that neglects it?

and should add that what you claim to perceive to be a "strange acronym" is nothing of the kind
So it does mean "yawn" as in the action of yawning which traditionally is understood to represent boredom.

.. a fact of which you appear to imply understanding by writing that it "possilby[sic] could mean you are bored or irritated in some manner".
So if "YAWN" doesn't imply irritation or boredom what does it imply? It is quite amusing that you can't even agree on simple issues like this one. You will just have to admit that my response to you left you unable to respond thus "YAWN" was all you could come up with.

"The biggest risk in life is to take no risk at all."
www.pianovision.com

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #71 on: June 30, 2019, 07:44:50 AM
Then how come you neglected to sign your name at the end of that post like you do with every single other one, something that might highlight some kind of emotional response since you always remember to sign your name I fail to find any post in your entire history that neglects it?
You will have to decide for yourself, for what that might or not be worth (to you).

So it does mean "yawn" as in the action of yawning which traditionally is understood to represent boredom.
Correct.

So if "YAWN" doesn't imply irritation or boredom what does it imply? It is quite amusing that you can't even agree on simple issues like this one.
See your self-contradiction above, togther with my response.

You will just have to admit that my response to you left you unable to respond thus "YAWN" was all you could come up with.
No, on both counts.

Now might there be any possibility of a return to the topic?

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline lostinidlewonder

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7498
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #72 on: June 30, 2019, 10:02:37 AM
You will have to decide for yourself, for what that might or not be worth (to you).
I already have formulated an inferrence as to why you did that :P

No, on both counts.
I guess we all have to take your comment "yawn" with great mystery then though not really since it is obvious how one should read it :)

Now might there be any possibility of a return to the topic?
Sure if you like, perhaps next time no need to comment on people wasting their time or if their posts are pointless :) You will find however most probably that this thread now will now die with lack of comments, difficulty of Sorabji works really isn't that interesting for the great majority of people.
"The biggest risk in life is to take no risk at all."
www.pianovision.com

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #73 on: June 30, 2019, 10:42:19 AM
I already have formulated an inferrence as to why you did that
Good for you.

I guess we all have to take your comment "yawn" with great mystery then though not really since it is obvious how one should read it
Another self-contradiction, with the latter being the correct part thereof.

You will find however most probably that this thread now will now die with lack of comments, difficulty of Sorabji works really isn't that interesting for the great majority of people.
I would be the first to agree that it isn't the most interesting aspect of Sorabji's (or any other composer's) music but it remains a fact that, as Sorabji made what are arguably unique demands on keyboard players, it might be a matter of interest to some - especially some keyboard players - and one can only assume that to be what had prompted this thread in the first place. For example, a pianist who has currently in the process of completing a world première recording of one of the smaller of Sorabji's large-scale piano works (around 140 minutes' worth) is now pondering to which other hitherto unperformed large-scale Sorabji work to turn his attentions next and, given that the three that he is contemplating are respectively of around 165, 300 and 350 minutes' duration, that decision will be an especially difficult one to make, not least to the extent that it will require so long-term a commitment on his part.

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline ronde_des_sylphes

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2934
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #74 on: June 30, 2019, 11:15:23 AM
This thread now expanding to appositely Sorabjian proportions..

Out of curiosity vis-a-vis OC recordings, I thought it was generally accepted that Madge was very sloppy in terms of what the score actually represents? I could be mis-remembering, of course.
My website - www.andrewwrightpianist.com
Info and samples from my first commercial album - https://youtu.be/IlRtSyPAVNU
My SoundCloud - https://soundcloud.com/andrew-wright-35

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #75 on: June 30, 2019, 03:10:52 PM
This thread now expanding to appositely Sorabjian proportions..

Out of curiosity vis-a-vis OC recordings, I thought it was generally accepted that Madge was very sloppy in terms of what the score actually represents? I could be mis-remembering, of course.
In terms of textual fidelity (and even this is something of an open question given that GDM did not have KSS' annotated "Working Copy" publication from which to prepare his performance and that John Ogdon who did still had to contend with a myriad of textual errors), Ogdon is your better bet and the piano in his recording is vastly superior; for textual accuracy, Jonathan Powell's your man except that he has yet to record the work commercially, even though he has performed it in public ten times. A new typeset edition is in preparation.

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline lostinidlewonder

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7498
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #76 on: July 01, 2019, 02:38:36 AM
Good for you.
Yes it is a real victory to have made you neglect signing your name at the bottom of a post and to encourage a "yawn" response since it demonstrated an unwillingness to respond to comments put to you. 

Another self-contradiction, with the latter being the correct part thereof.
No self contradictions at all since you were unwilling to expand upon why you had to use a "yawn" response but we will just have to read it as your unwilliness to continue a discussion and due to the fact you forgot to sign your name it was a rather emotional response.

I would be the first to agree that it isn't the most interesting aspect of Sorabji's (or any other composer's) music but it remains a fact that, as Sorabji made what are arguably unique demands on keyboard players, it might be a matter of interest to some
I don't think it is unique in terms of challenge, there are more difficult composers to deal with which pose challenges which are greater.

one can only assume that to be what had prompted this thread in the first place.
A lot of assumption given that it is being compared to other pieces of a different genre and wildly different levels of difficulty it is doubtful that the OP has actually played any of the OC and is merely speculating rather than inferring. The so called "unique" challenge you are suggesting thus doesn't make much sense at all as being a motivator to the creation of this thread.

For example, a pianist who has currently in the process of completing a world première recording of one of the smaller of Sorabji's large-scale piano works (around 140 minutes' worth) is now pondering to which other hitherto unperformed large-scale Sorabji work to turn his attentions next and, given that the three that he is contemplating are respectively of around 165, 300 and 350 minutes' duration, that decision will be an especially difficult one to make, not least to the extent that it will require so long-term a commitment on his part.
There will be struggle for such activity to achieve much attention, compared to the amount of time invested to simply attend this one could argue it is a waste of time and pointless for the majority of concert goers.
"The biggest risk in life is to take no risk at all."
www.pianovision.com

Offline thalbergmad

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16730
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #77 on: July 01, 2019, 06:39:00 AM
Its bollocks
Curator/Director
Concerto Preservation Society

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #78 on: July 01, 2019, 07:32:28 AM
Yes it is a real victory to have made you neglect signing your name at the bottom of a post and to encourage a "yawn" response since it demonstrated an unwillingness to respond to comments put to you.
No victory without a battle, so no victory at all; I write (and omit) what I choose to write (and omit), just like everyone else here, so no one has "made" anyone do, or omit to do, anything.
 
No self contradictions at all since you were unwilling to expand upon why you had to use a "yawn" response but we will just have to read it as your unwilliness to continue a discussion and due to the fact you forgot to sign your name it was a rather emotional response.
Not so. I made it quite clear what that response was and wht it meant; it was indeed one of the two possibilities that you had yourself put forward. I forgot nothing. What, by the way, is "unwilliness"?...

I don't think it is unique in terms of challenge, there are more difficult composers to deal with which pose challenges which are greater.
A lot of assumption given that it is being compared to other pieces of a different genre and wildly different levels of difficulty it is doubtful that the OP has actually played any of the OC and is merely speculating rather than inferring. The so called "unique" challenge you are suggesting thus doesn't make much sense at all as being a motivator to the creation of this thread.
I agree with much of this (and I cannot say what the OP might or might not have done), which is one reason why promoting discussion of "difficulty" is fraught with its own difficulties.

I used the word "unique" in this context to point up that at least some of the difficulties in preparing and performing certain of Sorabji's large-scale keyboard works are indeed unique to them; this is not intended to be interpreted as any kind of value judgement - i.e. it is not to say that other composers' works might not pose equally great "difficulties", albeit largely of a different nature.

One example of this is the sheer physical and mental stamina required to present works in which complex textures feature prominently and whose durations are unusually great; OC is some 4¼ hours long but does at least subdivide into three distinct sections and the composer appears to have expected the performer (and his/her audience) to take an interval between each (although its most frequent performer, Jonathan Powell, takes only one interval, between parts 2 and 3), whereas Organ Symphony No. 2, cast in three movements, has a middle movement that is at least as long as OC in its entirety (this movement, incidentally, receives a performance by Kevin Bowyer in Glasgow tonight) and, as it is an organ work, the stamina issue is perhaps even greater given that all limbs are pressed into service at all times.

There will be struggle for such activity to achieve much attention, compared to the amount of time invested to simply attend this one could argue it is a waste of time and pointless for the majority of concert goers.
To the extent that not all listeners might fully recognise and appreciate the difficulties in preparation and performance, one could indeed argue something like that (and why should they be expected to do so anyway? - that's hardly what the music itself is supposed to be about), but that argument is presumably with the OP.

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #79 on: July 01, 2019, 07:33:58 AM
Its bollocks
...and "it's" missing an apostrophe as well; however, since you do not reveal precisely what it is that you believe merits such a descriptor, your observation will have to be taken for the time being at face (non-)value.

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline lostinidlewonder

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7498
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #80 on: July 01, 2019, 12:15:28 PM
No victory without a battle, so no victory at all
You withdrew from the discussion by replying with "yawn" so to me that is a sign of defeat. I'm sure if it meant anything at all then people would use it more at debates lol.

I write (and omit) what I choose to write (and omit), just like everyone else here, so no one has "made" anyone do, or omit to do, anything.
It's ok if you can't admit that my response to you made you feel some negative emotion so much so that it caused you to respond with "yawn" and neglecting to sign your name, something you do with practically every single post you have ever posted here.

Not so. I made it quite clear what that response was and wht it meant; it was indeed one of the two possibilities that you had yourself put forward. I forgot nothing.
It seems like you forgot to sign your name since you do it with all your posts, indeed you probably were just more irritated and annoyed with me so much so that it encouraged you to neglect signing your name and responding with a "yawn" comment which is quite limited in presenting your opinion in a clear and polite manner.

What, by the way, is "unwilliness"?...
I will leave it up to you to decipher it, I assure you it is not difficult to puzzle out thus have full confidence you understand its intention.

I used the word "unique" in this context to point up that at least some of the difficulties in preparing and performing certain of Sorabji's large-scale keyboard works are indeed unique to them; this is not intended to be interpreted as any kind of value judgement - i.e. it is not to say that other composers' works might not pose equally great "difficulties", albeit largely of a different nature.
Unique though implies that there is something there you cannot find anywhere else, it is unique in the sense that the exact combination of notes are unique but the technical capabilities are not so unique that one cannot draw from many other sources to solve the challenges of which there are other sources which provide much more difficult mind numbing challenges.

One example of this is the sheer physical and mental stamina required to present works in which complex textures feature prominently and whose durations are unusually great; OC is some 4¼ hours long but does at least subdivide into three distinct sections and the composer appears to have expected the performer (and his/her audience) to take an interval between each (although its most frequent performer, Jonathan Powell, takes only one interval, between parts 2 and 3), whereas Organ Symphony No. 2, cast in three movements, has a middle movement that is at least as long as OC in its entirety (this movement, incidentally, receives a performance by Kevin Bowyer in Glasgow tonight) and, as it is an organ work, the stamina issue is perhaps even greater given that all limbs are pressed into service at all times.
Still it is not a unique challenge even though it is up there in length for longest works, certainly a vast majority of concert goers would not be able to sit through it all.

To the extent that not all listeners might fully recognise and appreciate the difficulties in preparation and performance, one could indeed argue something like that (and why should they be expected to do so anyway? - that's hardly what the music itself is supposed to be about), but that argument is presumably with the OP.
Difficulty to present something should not be a selling point for any concert really. After a few minutes the level of difficulty becomes uninteresting and all we are left with is trying to appreciate the music. Music which is incessantly dense and complicated loses its effect on most listeners after a number of minutes have passed. Playing for hours on end limits the human connection one can have with an audience and it is highly desirable in todays concerts that there is that human connection otherwise people often feel they might as well listen to recordings.
"The biggest risk in life is to take no risk at all."
www.pianovision.com

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #81 on: July 01, 2019, 01:48:23 PM
You withdrew from the discussion by replying with "yawn" so to me that is a sign of defeat. I'm sure if it meant anything at all then people would use it more at debates.
As you will see from my subsequent posts on or closely related to the topic (including in response to you), I have not withdrawn from the discussion of that topic; there is therefore no "defeat" or "sign" thereof outside your imagination.

It's ok if you can't admit that my response to you made you feel some negative emotion so much so that it caused you to respond with "yawn" and neglecting to sign your name, something you do with practically every single post you have ever posted here.
It doesn't need to be "OK" because there is no such "admission" and, as I had already hoped to have clarified, my response in that instance was as I described it and had been motivated accordingly; indeed, the ennui that what I had thereby responded to had induced might arguably have rendered the sign-off by whose absence you seem to set so much store largely unnecessary.

It seems like you forgot to sign your name since you do it with all your posts, indeed you probably were just more irritated and annoyed with me so much so that it encouraged you to neglect signing your name and responding with a "yawn" comment which is quite limited in presenting your opinion in a clear and polite manner.
If it still seems to you as though the absence of said sign-off was due to some kind of memory lapse, so be it; that does not make it the case.

I will leave it up to you to decipher it, I assure you it is not difficult to puzzle out thus have full confidence you understand its intention.
Your meaning here is unclear, not least becuase there is nothing that I might need to "decipher" or "puzzle out".

Unique though implies that there is something there you cannot find anywhere else, it is unique in the sense that the exact combination of notes are unique but the technical capabilities are not so unique that one cannot draw from many other sources to solve the challenges of which there are other sources which provide much more difficult mind numbing challenges.
The principal aspect of the uniqueness to which I drew attention is the physical and mental stamina that Sorabji's large-scale keyboard works invariably demand of their performers to greater or lesser degree; the (obviously very different) demands implicit in the most challenging piano works of Leopold Godowsky and Michael Finnissy, for example, do not embrace the need for their performers to maintain physical strength and alertness over anything like such long spans of time as is the case with many of Sorabji's big keyboard works.

Still it is not a unique challenge even though it is up there in length for longest works, certainly a vast majority of concert goers would not be able to sit through it all.
But now you are moving the subject from difficulties for performers to difficulties for audiences - which is fair eough insofar as it goes but is at the same time a rather different issue - and, if by so doing you are referring to the majority of listeners' limited ability to maintain due concentration for uninterrupted stretches of music beyond, say, 90 minutes, you might seem to imply a view that that such a problem extends likewise to those who confront the bigger works of Wagner.

Difficulty to present something should not be a selling point for any concert really. After a few minutes the level of difficulty becomes uninteresting and all we are left with is trying to appreciate the music. Music which is incessantly dense and complicated loses its effect on most listeners after a number of minutes have passed. Playing for hours on end limits the human connection one can have with an audience and it is highly desirable in todays concerts that there is that human connection otherwise people often feel they might as well listen to recordings.
In all of this you are spot on! - and that human connection is indeed of vital importance for the reason that you give. That said, reliance upon "difficulty" of whatever kind as a "selling point" for any musical performance is far more likely to be done by those marketing it than by those actually giving the performance. Moreover, whilst I agree about music of incessant density, Sorabji for one simply doesn't write music like that; in his Second Organ Symphony, for example, a work whose three movements respectively occupy around 75, 250 and 175 minutes, there is no shortage of oases of simplicity; indeed, the Prelude and Adagio that open its finale comprise at least 45 minutes of little else.

With your last sentence I concur with you entirely; however, in so doing, I would not wish to imply possible patronising of the concentrative capacities of such audience members, especially having attended quite a few such live performances over the years that give the lie to the issue that seems to concern you here. The point at the heart of it, though, is the content, structure, narrative, &c., of the music itself; as Sorabji once said to me, it is always important to hold the attention as far as possible whatever the stretch of time involved, be it five minutes or five hours and it's up to the composer to write in ways that as far as possible enable this.

That, however, also raises an associated question of the at times wide (if not wild!) contrast between perceived time and real time, of which I would cite a couple of examples from my own experience.

The first is John Ogdon, who used to play the piano solo version of Busoni's Fantasia Contrappuntistica as a "warm-up" piece to his recording sessions for OC (as one does, provided that one is John Ogdon!); I felt convinced that this played for a little over a quarter of an hour whereas in fact it occupied arond twice that.

For the second I revert to the middle movement - Theme and 50 variations - of Sorabji's Second Organ Symphony which, at the world première in 2010, felt to me like around an hour and three quarters of continuous music but was in reality 4½ hours.

What such discrepancies might or might not reveal about concentrative issues on the part of the listener I would be loath to speculate, but it is nevertheless a factor, I think.

Again, although a rather different kind of example, some of the longest stretches of continuous music in Wagner are to be found in Götterdämmerung, yet not only have I never felt conscious of them when listening because the music itself carries itself along (and me with it) to the extent that such a risk does not pertain, I have always rather bemoaned what strikes me as the rather curt ending of that magnificent work, as though its final pages, gorgeous though they are, seem to be over prematurely.

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline georgey

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 936
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #82 on: July 01, 2019, 05:02:19 PM
Again, although a rather different kind of example, some of the longest stretches of continuous music in Wagner are to be found in Götterdämmerung, yet not only have I never felt conscious of them when listening because the music itself carries itself along (and me with it) to the extent that such a risk does not pertain, I have always rather bemoaned what strikes me as the rather curt ending of that magnificent work, as though its final pages, gorgeous though they are, seem to be over prematurely.

Best,

Alistair

"I have always rather bemoaned what strikes me as the rather curt ending of that magnificent work, as though its final pages, gorgeous though they are, seem to be over prematurely."

You know, I never felt that way myself.  Do you mean "curt ending" plot-wise or music-wise?  Doesn't take long to jump into a fire while riding on a flying horse. ;)  But I will say compared to the extensive opening of the Ring opera in "Das Rheingold", you may have a point:

Das Rheingold opening passage: The scale of the whole work is established in the prelude, over 136 bars, beginning with a low E flat, and building in more and more elaborate figurations of the chord of E flat major, to portray the motion of the river Rhine. It is considered the best-known drone piece in the concert repertory, lasting approximately four minutes.


"some of the longest stretches of continuous music in Wagner are to be found in Götterdämmerung"

Looking at times in my Solti London CD set of the Ring.:

Gotterdammerung:
Prologue + Act 1: About 1.5 hours
Act 2: About 1.7 hours
Act 3: About 1.3 hours.

I think the largest continuous music from the Ring may be from Das Rheingold – All in 1 act takes about 2.5 hours. 

Das Rheingold is an opera in one act, divided into four scenes. It is a very long act, lasting 2 ½ hours, but it is normally played without a break as the music is continuous, even between the scenes.

Someone should double check me on this.

I think I can make it through Das Rheingold if I’m careful about what I drink before hand and the seats aren’t too uncomfortable.  I probably will never see a live performance of the Ring – so I can watch my DVD performances and listen to my CD’s and take all the breaks I need.

Offline lostinidlewonder

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7498
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #83 on: July 02, 2019, 03:55:40 AM
As you will see from my subsequent posts on or closely related to the topic (including in response to you), I have not withdrawn from the discussion of that topic; there is therefore no "defeat" or "sign" thereof outside your imagination.
Then go back and answer all the comments I gave in that post instead of replying with "YAWN".

It doesn't need to be "OK" because there is no such "admission" and, as I had already hoped to have clarified, my response in that instance was as I described it and had been motivated accordingly; indeed, the ennui that what I had thereby responded to had induced might arguably have rendered the sign-off by whose absence you seem to set so much store largely unnecessary.
I find it hilarious you are trying to talk your way out of an emotional response of "yawn" you can't do it because it is blatantly obvious but you have all the freedom to try even though it has no effect.

If it still seems to you as though the absence of said sign-off was due to some kind of memory lapse, so be it; that does not make it the case.
Yes a certain memory lapse of manners and politeness also.

Your meaning here is unclear, not least becuase there is nothing that I might need to "decipher" or "puzzle out".
The meaning cannot be unclear because you asked the question as to what it means. Surely you can work that one out yourself? It is just as if I said to you now, What do you mean by "becuase"??? It is just nitpicking which doesn't prove much but ones lack of ability to contend with spelling errors.

The principal aspect of the uniqueness to which I drew attention is the physical and mental stamina that Sorabji's large-scale keyboard works invariably demand of their performers to greater or lesser degree; the (obviously very different) demands implicit in the most challenging piano works of Leopold Godowsky and Michael Finnissy, for example, do not embrace the need for their performers to maintain physical strength and alertness over anything like such long spans of time as is the case with many of Sorabji's big keyboard works.
So you compared Sorabji to 2 composers who are not known for extremely long works and thus called Sorabji's work as unique. This is not really a correct assessment since you could compare Sorabji to composers who wrote works even longer. Though length of work should not be a measurement of difficulty and certainly it is not. Short spurts can be just as difficult and a collection creating a standard concert time averages out difficulty to a point where Sorabji is not as difficult as one could program a single concert sitting.

But now you are moving the subject from difficulties for performers to difficulties for audiences - which is fair eough insofar as it goes but is at the same time a rather different issue
There is no mutual exclusiveness between the performer, the work and the audience, if you think there is an isolating separation then you really don't do much solo concerting yourself. Of course if a performer just thinks of themselves and their work neglecting their audience then there will be a very high chance that a little amount of people coming back to the concert or really caring about what it was all about.

and, if by so doing you are referring to the majority of listeners' limited ability to maintain due concentration for uninterrupted stretches of music beyond, say, 90 minutes, you might seem to imply a view that that such a problem extends likewise to those who confront the bigger works of Wagner.
If you had any sense of what is happening to the state of live solo concerting of instruments throughout the world you would see that time is certianly an important factor to take into account and also human connection of the performer to the audience, stubbornly presenting concerts which last hours where there is no talking from the performer simply will not ever become popular or encourage people to attend more concerts. Sure it might satisfy a small circle of people or those who are given tickets for free!

That said, reliance upon "difficulty" of whatever kind as a "selling point" for any musical performance is far more likely to be done by those marketing it than by those actually giving the performance.
Those who give performance who have nothing to do with selling the concerts usually will have a concert which sells poorly or at least don't care so much about the concert itself because they are getting paid a rate and it is just a job rather than something they had to actively work at to build up and sell.

Moreover, whilst I agree about music of incessant density, Sorabji for one simply doesn't write music like that; in his Second Organ Symphony, for example, a work whose three movements respectively occupy around 75, 250 and 175 minutes, there is no shortage of oases of simplicity; indeed, the Prelude and Adagio that open its finale comprise at least 45 minutes of little else.
Sorabji does write incessant amount of notes in many of his works and there have been quote from other composers and critics I have read in the past who support this also, I can easily prove this point by rewriting passages and removing superflous notes which will maintain the sound but really is there any point to doing that, it may be considered a waste of time and pointless because who really wants to play Sorabji in the first place let alone a simplified version of it?

I would not wish to imply possible patronising of the concentrative capacities of such audience members, especially having attended quite a few such live performances over the years that give the lie to the issue that seems to concern you here.
If you have people sitting for hours listening to a single work you are really tiring them out and it will be a relief for it to finish for most of them. That is just how it goes, even with works that hit the 20 minute mark without a pause you will start losing your audiences attention. This is not being patronising at all it is just the nature of the beast and a real reality when observing the average audience. Sure if you fill the concert with complimentary tickets and invite certain people to attend many of them out of respect will sit through it all though if you are talking about people who are paying for the experience I highly doubt many would return if they are subjected to 3,4 hours of playing constantly with little break. So writing such music for this length doesn't intent to be performed normally. With things like Wagner with orchestras and operas you have a whole stage and group to entertain you, with solo instruments you are such with a stagnant scene and there lies a large difference.

For the second I revert to the middle movement - Theme and 50 variations - of Sorabji's Second Organ Symphony which, at the world première in 2010, felt to me like around an hour and three quarters of continuous music but was in reality 4½ hours.
This time dilation is not rational though, you perhaps were in ecstacy and joy but you would have to apply such emotion to every single other audience member which you will find it not to be a common case. Even if you enjoy something it doesn't always last for 4 and a half hours uninterrupted and ones backside and physical stamina to actualy sit in one place to observe a single work will nag on them no matter how enjoyable something is.

Again, although a rather different kind of example, some of the longest stretches of continuous music in Wagner are to be found in Götterdämmerung, yet not only have I never felt conscious of them when listening because the music itself carries itself along (and me with it) to the extent that such a risk does not pertain, I have always rather bemoaned what strikes me as the rather curt ending of that magnificent work, as though its final pages, gorgeous though they are, seem to be over prematurely.
Though you are comparing an opera with many performers working together to a solo instrumental work which would require a lot more focus of attention. With an opera you have a lot of things to distract the eye, it can wander about the stage and look at all sorts of things, with solo performers this is taken away, you need to consider the difference and not consider them on par with one another.
"The biggest risk in life is to take no risk at all."
www.pianovision.com

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #84 on: July 02, 2019, 07:29:42 AM
Then go back and answer all the comments I gave in that post instead of replying with "YAWN".
I have already contributed to the thread topic.

I find it hilarious you are trying to talk your way out of an emotional response of "yawn" you can't do it because it is blatantly obvious but you have all the freedom to try even though it has no effect.
You are as welcome as anyone else to find hilarity in something that does not exist; that is your prerogative. You have a most bizarre view of what constitutes an "emotional" response.

Yes a certain memory lapse of manners and politeness also.
You would presumably know about such things from personal experience.

The meaning cannot be unclear because you asked the question as to what it means. Surely you can work that one out yourself? It is just as if I said to you now, What do you mean by "becuase"??? It is just nitpicking which doesn't prove much but ones lack of ability to contend with spelling errors.
You would presumably also know about "nitpicking" from personal experience.

So you compared Sorabji to 2 composers who are not known for extremely long works and thus called Sorabji's work as unique. This is not really a correct assessment
Indeed, you assessment is not correct; writing about a particular feature of one composer's work does necessarily constitute a comparison with the work of others. My reference to uniqueness relates not to duration per se but to the demands made upon performers in terms of physical and mental stamina over long stretches of time.

Though length of work should not be a measurement of difficulty and certainly it is not.
Indeed, but I did not suggest that it was so.

Short spurts can be just as difficult and a collection creating a standard concert time averages out difficulty to a point where Sorabji is not as difficult as one could program a single concert sitting.
Whilst your first statement here is as correct as it is obvious, you would have to ask those who perform Sorabji's larger and most challenging works about the rest.

There is no mutual exclusiveness between the performer, the work and the audience, if you think there is an isolating separation then you really don't do much solo concerting yourself.
Again, I did not suggest that there is.

Of course if a performer just thinks of themselves and their work neglecting their audience then there will be a very high chance that a little amount of people coming back to the concert or really caring about what it was all about.
I know no performers who do that.

If you had any sense of what is happening to the state of live solo concerting of instruments throughout the world you would see that time is certianly an important factor to take into account and also human connection of the performer to the audience, stubbornly presenting concerts which last hours where there is no talking from the performer simply will not ever become popular or encourage people to attend more concerts. Sure it might satisfy a small circle of people or those who are given tickets for free!
But why blame the performers? Isn't what's behind your remark here the implication that it is the composers who ride roughshod over such considerations by writing pieces that exceed a certain unspecified duration or expect too much of performers?

Those who give performance who have nothing to do with selling the concerts usually will have a concert which sells poorly or at least don't care so much about the concert itself because they are getting paid a rate and it is just a job rather than something they had to actively work at to build up and sell.
I cited the Hamburg example some time back. Show me a performer who works up a large Sorabji work simply in order to be paid for his/her pains and I might consider what you write here!

Sorabji does write incessant amount of notes in many of his works and there have been quote from other composers and critics I have read in the past who support this also, I can easily prove this point by rewriting passages and removing superflous notes which will maintain the sound but really is there any point to doing that, it may be considered a waste of time and pointless because who really wants to play Sorabji in the first place let alone a simplified version of it?
"As many notes as I wanted" is attributed not to Sorabji but to Mozart. Who are you to decide on the correct number of notes per minute in anyone's work or indeed which of them are "superfluous"? Those who want to play Sorabji do so, just as do those who want to play anyone else's work.

If you have people sitting for hours listening to a single work you are really tiring them out and it will be a relief for it to finish for most of them. That is just how it goes, even with works that hit the 20 minute mark without a pause you will start losing your audiences attention. This is not being patronising at all it is just the nature of the beast and a real reality when observing the average audience. Sure if you fill the concert with complimentary tickets and invite certain people to attend many of them out of respect will sit through it all though if you are talking about people who are paying for the experience I highly doubt many would return if they are subjected to 3,4 hours of playing constantly with little break. So writing such music for this length doesn't intent to be performed normally. With things like Wagner with orchestras and operas you have a whole stage and group to entertain you, with solo instruments you are such with a stagnant scene and there lies a large difference.
Whilst your last sentence contains some sense, the remainder might be read as suggesting that 20 minutes or so represents some kind of acceptable maximum duration for a work if audiences are to be expected to concentrate on it throughout; that would throw so many works by Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Rachmaninoff, not to mention Bruckner, Mahler and heaven knows how many more besides Sorabji out of the "acceptable" repertoire. What in any case determines whether something is or should be intended to be performed "normally"?

This time dilation is not rational though, you perhaps were in ecstacy and joy but you would have to apply such emotion to every single other audience member which you will find it not to be a common case. Even if you enjoy something it doesn't always last for 4 and a half hours uninterrupted and ones backside and physical stamina to actualy sit in one place to observe a single work will nag on them no matter how enjoyable something is.
That is a bizarre assessment that takes no account of the fact that no two listeners will have identical responses to any work, whoever wrote it and however long or short it might be; moreover, one's backside and one's need to sit still in one place for the duration of the work is no different for a piano or organ work to what it is for an operatic production (see your comment below and my response thereto).

Though you are comparing an opera with many performers working together to a solo instrumental work which would require a lot more focus of attention. With an opera you have a lot of things to distract the eye, it can wander about the stage and look at all sorts of things, with solo performers this is taken away, you need to consider the difference and not consider them on par with one another.
Whilst you do have a point here, it is also the case that in a stage opera production there are far more things on which to concentrate than in a piano performance or an organ recital in which one might not even be able to see the organist - so that argument can work both ways.

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline lostinidlewonder

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7498
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #85 on: July 02, 2019, 12:46:27 PM
I have already contributed to the thread topic.
Though that contribution has not answered anything that I wrote about in the reply you responded with "yawn" to.

You are as welcome as anyone else to find hilarity in something that does not exist; that is your prerogative.
Notably you would not find it funny since it requires an observation of your peculiar interaction online, whether it exists or not is of no question since it does not require you to agree that it exists for that matter.
 
You have a most bizarre view of what constitutes an "emotional" response.
So your "yawn" response is not an emotional response? It is a well thought out an informative type response? That is even more bizarre.

You would presumably know about such things from personal experience.
Yes personal experience with my interaction with you in this thread.

You would presumably also know about "nitpicking" from personal experience.
Yes certainly from your inability to read past spelling errors and requiring to ask a question about it.

Indeed, you assessment is not correct; writing about a particular feature of one composer's work does necessarily constitute a comparison with the work of others.
You cannot sidestep using 2 unrelated composers to compare to Sorbji and then come to some conclusion that is expected to contain relevant information attributing to uniqueness.
 
My reference to uniqueness relates not to duration per se but to the demands made upon performers in terms of physical and mental stamina over long stretches of time.
There is no need to be so specific that your reference does not relate to duration in total isolation to everything else, it seems rather logical that it is a mixture of more factors in combination.

Indeed, but I did not suggest that it was so.
You made several remarks about length of time of performances so why did you mention this then if it were not to comment on the marathon type situation and thus level of difficulty?

Whilst your first statement here is as correct as it is obvious, you would have to ask those who perform Sorabji's larger and most challenging works about the rest.
I don't really have to ask them since I already have experienced them on my own and have formulated my professional assessment of it all. I am yet to experience anything that is not playable or clearly can be worked out with Sorabji however in other composers I have been left with no resolution or progress. This all makes me consider any suggestion that Sorabji is "unique" should be left with doubt since he borrows a lot from others and does not seem to have technical challenges that are unique, combining them with the length of time some of his works are this may make someone suggest there is a unique challenge but it really is no different from creating a large program of many smaller pieces.

Again, I did not suggest that there is.
Though you did say I was "moving the subject from difficulties for performers to difficulties for audiences - which is fair eough insofar as it goes but is at the same time a rather different issue" to which this suggests an isolation between the two where there is no need to isolate the two. So if you accept that they are mutually inclusive your suggestion that I am discussing difficulties which are isolated from one another or are a "different issue", this is somewhat short sighted.

I know no performers who do that.
You may find performers who play for hours on end without ever talking to their audience are actually in great danger doing exactly as I mentioned.

But why blame the performers? Isn't what's behind your remark here the implication that it is the composers who ride roughshod over such considerations by writing pieces that exceed a certain unspecified duration or expect too much of performers?
I blame the performer because they have control as to what to present, I do not know many performers who would dare doing a program where you merely play for hours on end without talking to the audience, it is not because they cannot do it, it is because as a matter of concert presentation it is a poor choice. Composers who write pieces which are extremely long should accept that their works will be broken up and presented in smaller parts and not always in its complete form. Just like if you played a Beethoven Sonata you should not be critiqued for playing only one or even single movements and not the entire collection of them in one sitting.


Show me a performer who works up a large Sorabji work simply in order to be paid for his/her pains and I might consider what you write here!
This doesn't make sense.

"As many notes as I wanted" is attributed not to Sorabji but to Mozart.
Though I have read a quote comparing Sorabji to Godowsky but with less order and more unnecessary density of notes. I don't remember where it was from I mean Sorabji is not a huge interest of mine to memorize passing quotes I read about his music.

Who are you to decide on the correct number of notes per minute in anyone's work or indeed which of them are "superfluous"?
I can easily prove superflous notes by neglecting them and producing a sound which is very much the same. Sure it will sound very slightly different but you will see that the image being conjoured up is pretty much the same. I an prove this point since Ive played countless works from hundreds of composers and know tools that are used in a broad range of styles and thus know how to add and remove notes on the fly. With Sorabji there are a number of notes that can be removed and the same idea is still presented, that should be no real surprise.

Those who want to play Sorabji do so, just as do those who want to play anyone else's work.
I never suggested there was something different.

Whilst your last sentence contains some sense, the remainder might be read as suggesting that 20 minutes or so represents some kind of acceptable maximum duration for a work if audiences are to be expected to concentrate on it throughout; that would throw so many works by Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Rachmaninoff, not to mention Bruckner, Mahler and heaven knows how many more besides Sorabji out of the "acceptable" repertoire. What in any case determines whether something is or should be intended to be performed "normally"?
Though I am talking about solo performances. Most piano solo works don't generally go past around the 20 minute mark. Sure you can go longer and maintain their focus but if you are in touch with the average concert goer you will realize that their attention span does not go much past that mark. They will much appreciate more breaks inbetween with the performer talking to the audience. You will notice that "classical" music is less and less apprecaited and if you end up doing more of the longer repetoires you wont promote a desire to return to such events for the average concert goer.

That is a bizarre assessment that takes no account of the fact that no two listeners will have identical responses to any work, whoever wrote it and however long or short it might be;
What is bizzare is that you think 4.5 hours can feel like 1.5 hours and that this will effect many people attending the concert.
 
...one's backside and one's need to sit still in one place for the duration of the work is no different for a piano or organ work to what it is for an operatic production (see your comment below and my response thereto).
Of course many people will not attend such events if they have to sit for that long.

Whilst you do have a point here, it is also the case that in a stage opera production there are far more things on which to concentrate than in a piano performance or an organ recital in which one might not even be able to see the organist - so that argument can work both ways.
This is illogical, in a stage opera there is more to look at and distract the eye, you will thus have more variation to fill your senses and be able to take breaks yourself by looking at different things. With a piano soloist you have a stagnant stage setup, it will actually challenge the attention a great deal more. So you trying to argue that because there are more activity on stage that it requires more attention doesn't make sense especially in terms of dealing with a performance that runs many hours.
"The biggest risk in life is to take no risk at all."
www.pianovision.com

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #86 on: July 02, 2019, 04:34:40 PM
Though that contribution has not answered anything that I wrote about in the reply you responded with "yawn" to.
I reiterate that I have responded to the thread topic.

Notably you would not find it funny since it requires an observation of your peculiar interaction online, whether it exists or not is of no question since it does not require you to agree that it exists for that matter.
It was you who mentioned hilarity.

So your "yawn" response is not an emotional response? It is a well thought out an informative type response? That is even more bizarre.
Not at all. You seem to want it to be either one thing or one other thing; it doesn;t have to have been either.

You cannot sidestep using 2 unrelated composers to compare to Sorbji and then come to some conclusion that is expected to contain relevant information attributing to uniqueness.
I have no idea what you mean here. The uniqueness in this instance relates to the physical and mental stamina over long stretches of time for which Sorabji's large-scale keyboard works call and which is rarely if ever to be found on such a scale in thekeyboard works of others.

There is no need to be so specific that your reference does not relate to duration in total isolation to everything else, it seems rather logical that it is a mixture of more factors in combination.
Of course the duration itself doesn't represent the difficulty in toto and it is not mentioned "in isolation" but in reference to the physical and mental stamina to which I drew attention; for example, Feldman's Second Quartet is about as long as Sorabji's Fifth Piano Sonata but doesn't require such stamina from the players.

You made several remarks about length of time of performances so why did you mention this then if it were not to comment on the marathon type situation and thus level of difficulty?
Dear me; words of one syllable time, it would seem! Of course the "marathon type situation" is a factor but the level and nature of difficulty relates not only to that in durational terms but what Sorabji expects of his keyboard players over such extended durations (see the Feldman example above for a contrast to this).

I don't really have to ask them since I already have experienced them on my own and have formulated my professional assessment of it all. I am yet to experience anything that is not playable or clearly can be worked out with Sorabji however in other composers I have been left with no resolution or progress. This all makes me consider any suggestion that Sorabji is "unique" should be left with doubt since he borrows a lot from others and does not seem to have technical challenges that are unique, combining them with the length of time some of his works are this may make someone suggest there is a unique challenge but it really is no different from creating a large program of many smaller pieces.
You say that you don't have to ask those who have performed these works but, as I have repeatedly pointed out, what Sorabji asks for over long stretches of time requires the stamina of which I wrote in ways and to extents that are rarely if at all to be found in others's works.

Though you did say I was "moving the subject from difficulties for performers to difficulties for audiences - which is fair eough insofar as it goes but is at the same time a rather different issue" to which this suggests an isolation between the two where there is no need to isolate the two. So if you accept that they are mutually inclusive your suggestion that I am discussing difficulties which are isolated from one another or are a "different issue", this is somewhat short sighted.
I did not say that the two issues are or are not related, but they are certainly not identical by any means, if for no other reason than that there is in all of the cases concerned just a single performer whereas there are as many listeners as have turned up for the performance and they will all respond differently to one another and will not have to expend the physical energies that the performer does.

You may find performers who play for hours on end without ever talking to their audience are actually in great danger doing exactly as I mentioned.
I blame the performer because they have control as to what to present, I do not know many performers who would dare doing a program where you merely play for hours on end without talking to the audience, it is not because they cannot do it, it is because as a matter of concert presentation it is a poor choice. Composers who write pieces which are extremely long should accept that their works will be broken up and presented in smaller parts and not always in its complete form. Just like if you played a Beethoven Sonata you should not be critiqued for playing only one or even single movements and not the entire collection of them in one sitting.
Performers do not usually talk to their audiences before a performance, whether it be of "conventional" concert length or longer; it is not unknown, of course but, since it is hardly the norm, it is unclear to what danger a performer of a very long work might risk exposing him/herself by not opening his/her mouth. Some composers do indeed accept that performances of their works might be broken into sections and some including Sorabji often specify where the breaks should be; however, each of the three sections into which, for example, Jonathan Powell breaks Sequentia Cyclica are considerably longer than a "conventional length" concert which would in any case usually include an interval.

This doesn't make sense.
It makes perfect sense. I wrote "Show me a performer who works up a large Sorabji work simply in order to be paid for his/her pains and I might consider what you write here!" in response to your "Those who give performance who have nothing to do with selling the concerts usually will have a concert which sells poorly or at least don't care so much about the concert itself because they are getting paid a rate and it is just a job rather than something they had to actively work at to build up and sell.". Leaving aside the Hamburg example that I quoted to you, it is clear that such performers do not spend hundreds of hours in preparing a Sorabji work just "because they are getting paid a rate and it is just a job". I have no idea what's unclear about that.

Though I have read a quote comparing Sorabji to Godowsky but with less order and more unnecessary density of notes. I don't remember where it was from I mean Sorabji is not a huge interest of mine to memorize passing quotes I read about his music.
Sorabji admired Godowsky immensely but it was up to each of them to decide how many and what notes to write when.

I can easily prove superflous notes by neglecting them and producing a sound which is very much the same. Sure it will sound very slightly different but you will see that the image being conjoured up is pretty much the same. I an prove this point since Ive played countless works from hundreds of composers and know tools that are used in a broad range of styles and thus know how to add and remove notes on the fly. With Sorabji there are a number of notes that can be removed and the same idea is still presented, that should be no real surprise.
In your opinion; one might do the same with other composers' works too if one had sufficient arrogance and lack of care for what the composer sought to achieve in what he/she wrote.

Though I am talking about solo performances. Most piano solo works don't generally go past around the 20 minute mark. Sure you can go longer and maintain their focus but if you are in touch with the average concert goer you will realize that their attention span does not go much past that mark. They will much appreciate more breaks inbetween with the performer talking to the audience. You will notice that "classical" music is less and less apprecaited and if you end up doing more of the longer repetoires you wont promote a desire to return to such events for the average concert goer.
As I mentioned previously, if a duration of around 20 minutes is to be commended as a maximum for a work on the grounds of assertions or assumptions about audience concentration, vast amounts of repertoire would have to be cast aside, including many works that are frequently performed and attract substantial audiences. Chopin wrote only one work that plays for well over half an hour but it still receives plenty of performances - and what price Bruckner and Mahler under such a stricture? Shostakovich's symphonies all exceed 20 minutes but they're frequently performed all over the world, often to great acclaim. I've yet to hear audiences complain en masseabout such works.

What is bizzare is that you think 4.5 hours can feel like 1.5 hours and that this will effect many people attending the concert.
Bizarre it might be although I did not say that because that particular instance felt like that to me it would do the same for everyone else in attendance; I also cited in any case the instance of John Ogdon and Busoni's Fantasia Contrappuntistica where the perceived duration was around half of the actual one of around half an hour, so that phenomenon is not all about individual movements of the order of 4½ hours.

Of course many people will not attend such events if they have to sit for that long.
Some might be discouraged from so doing, perhaps but then whatever other "distractions" they might find in Wagner might not suffice to avoid such discouragement because the need to sit on one place for a very long time still applies.

This is illogical, in a stage opera there is more to look at and distract the eye, you will thus have more variation to fill your senses and be able to take breaks yourself by looking at different things. With a piano soloist you have a stagnant stage setup, it will actually challenge the attention a great deal more. So you trying to argue that because there are more activity on stage that it requires more attention doesn't make sense especially in terms of dealing with a performance that runs many hours.
Again, in your opinion. Of course the action as well as costumes, sets, lighting and the rest provide other things on which to focus attention in an operatic production which one does not experience in a solo piano performance but the object of these is not to draw attention away from the music, even if only momentarily!

To return to your 20 minute argument, some might consider that the sheer amount of information contained in a Ferneyhough or Carter quartet of around that length is too much on which to concentrate for that length of time; others wouldn't. What of Schönberg's first numbered string quartet whose near 45 minute single movement is replete with thickets of thematic and motivic relationships and interactions and intense contrapuntal activity that a lesser composer might have seen fit to spin out into a work exceeding an hour; the concentration required when listening to it is proportionate to the content, so is that "too much" for most audience members?

Yes, attention span is an issue with some people today - of that there can be no doubt - but do you see that as something that composers should blandly and blithely accept and consider pandering to it? Moreover, Sorabji, Carter and Birtwistle, for example, have each spoken (independently of one another) about not considering audiences when writing their works and this has in each case been misunderstood by some people as arrogance of the "who cares if you listen?" type that was long ago quite incorrectly ascribed to Milton Babbitt; the fact is that, far from composerly arrogance, it is a matter of practical necessity, for no composer can expect fo know who will attend performances of his/her work at any time or how they might respond to it other than differently to one another.

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline georgey

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 936
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #87 on: July 02, 2019, 04:43:26 PM
I received my Madge used CD set of OC today.  I enjoyed hearing the 1st CD of 5 in the set and am I am just starting to read to booklet. 

Just a quick question for Ahinton on the Wikipedia article on Sorabji:

I imagine you were involved with writing some or most/all of this. 

1) Is this article accurate?

2) Would you say this is the one of the best BRIEF (I mean no larger or not much larger than the wikipedia article) summaries of the life and works of Sorabji? 

Thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaikhosru_Shapurji_Sorabji

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #88 on: July 02, 2019, 09:50:45 PM
I received my Madge used CD set of OC today.  I enjoyed hearing the 1st CD of 5 in the set and am I am just starting to read to booklet. 

Just a quick question for Ahinton on the Wikipedia article on Sorabji:

I imagine you were involved with writing some or most/all of this. 

1) Is this article accurate?

2) Would you say this is the one of the best BRIEF (I mean no larger or not much larger than the wikipedia article) summaries of the life and works of Sorabji? 

Thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaikhosru_Shapurji_Sorabji
No - thank you for kindly asking but I did not write this article.

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline lostinidlewonder

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7498
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #89 on: July 03, 2019, 02:04:01 AM
I reiterate that I have responded to the thread topic.
You responded with "yawn" which isn't very conversational.

It was you who mentioned hilarity.
And? Do you have any point mentioning that? You said there was nothing funny which of course is simply your stance, the problem was that you initially tried to make it look like it did not "exist" which was untrue.

Not at all. You seem to want it to be either one thing or one other thing; it doesn;t have
to have been either.
Lol, it doesn't have to be either? Then what is it? You trying to make it look like it was some mysterious mystical response where really you just had your knickers in a twist.

I have no idea what you mean here. The uniqueness in this instance relates to the physical and mental stamina over long stretches of time for which Sorabji's large-scale keyboard works call and which is rarely if ever to be found on such a scale in thekeyboard works of others.
Yet that is not unique at all, rare sounds more appropriate.

Of course the duration itself doesn't represent the difficulty in toto and it is not mentioned "in isolation" but in reference to the physical and mental stamina to which I drew attention; for example, Feldman's Second Quartet is about as long as Sorabji's Fifth Piano Sonata but doesn't require such stamina from the players.
We already established that duration in isolation to everything else is not a measure of difficulty that is logical and unneccesary to mention so you are just repeating yourself again. You again are comparing non piano works to piano works and trying to measure performance stamina which is strange and also in the past in this thread have compared solo works with operas which is even more odd.

Dear me; words of one syllable time, it would seem! Of course the "marathon type situation" is a factor but the level and nature of difficulty relates not only to that in durational terms but what Sorabji expects of his keyboard players over such extended durations (see the Feldman example above for a contrast to this).
This thread of discussion came up because you argued that you are not talking that time is a factor in measure of the unique difficulty of Sorabji to which I said length of time really is not a strong factor contributing to a call for it to be considered a unique situation. You mentioned many times about length of time and when called up on it you start saying its not length of time by itself but other factors as well which contribute to some unique difficulty in Sorabji which I believe simply is not there to be called unique, rare perhaps is more adequate.

You say that you don't have to ask those who have performed these works but, as I have repeatedly pointed out, what Sorabji asks for over long stretches of time requires the stamina of which I wrote in ways and to extents that are rarely if at all to be found in others's works.
Yes I do say I don't have to ask those who performed it because I can do it myself. The time and stamina required to play the larger works is rarely found true, but it is not unique.

I did not say that the two issues are or are not related, but they are certainly not identical by any means, if for no other reason than that there is in all of the cases concerned just a single performer whereas there are as many listeners as have turned up for the performance and they will all respond differently to one another and will not have to expend the physical energies that the performer does.
No one said they are exactly the same but they are related to one another strongly. In your first response about performer challenges vs audience challenges you said are a "rather different issue" however now you backtrack saying "I did not say that the two issues are or are not related" a fence sitting comment and contradictory to your initial stance, this fence sitting is something you like doing though it makes your position look rather weak especially when you said something else beforehand which was not a fence sitting comment.

Performers do not usually talk to their audiences before a performance, whether it be of "conventional" concert length or longer; it is not unknown, of course but, since it is hardly the norm, it is unclear to what danger a performer of a very long work might risk exposing him/herself by not opening his/her mouth.
They don't usually talk to their audience? Heaven's perhaps in your neck of the woods they are still stuck in the old tradition of bow, perform, bow. Modern concerts these days have a propensity for the performers to speak to their audience, it is a certain difference to be expected in the 21st century if you have any concerting industry experience at all. Not speaking to an audience and playing a single instrument for hours on end will not sit well with the majority of concert goers.

Some composers do indeed accept that performances of their works might be broken into sections and some including Sorabji often specify where the breaks should be; however, each of the three sections into which, for example, Jonathan Powell breaks Sequentia Cyclica are considerably longer than a "conventional length" concert which would in any case usually include an interval.
Performers should have the freedom to break it up as far as they consider appropriate for their concert program.

It makes perfect sense. I wrote "Show me a performer who works up a large Sorabji work simply in order to be paid for his/her pains and I might consider what you write here!" in response to your "Those who give performance who have nothing to do with selling the concerts usually will have a concert which sells poorly or at least don't care so much about the concert itself because they are getting paid a rate and it is just a job rather than something they had to actively work at to build up and sell.". Leaving aside the Hamburg example that I quoted to you, it is clear that such performers do not spend hundreds of hours in preparing a Sorabji work just "because they are getting paid a rate and it is just a job". I have no idea what's unclear about that.
So you expect people who perform Sorabji to have no money interest at all? That is peculiar and strange although I can safely assume that attending such concerts would not be as desireable and other options. As a professional performer I would not consider doing such concerts a valuable use of my time if I was not paid appropriately. It is not clear at all that any professional performer would spend thousands of hours preparing a work only to be paid a pittance if at all for the effort.

Sorabji admired Godowsky immensely but it was up to each of them to decide how many and what notes to write when.
Yes but try to remove notes from something like Bach for instance and see if it is any easier than Sorabji, you will find that it is many times more difficult. So one can reduce a score and still preserve the sound with works that are severely dense in notes, this is an obvious capability if you have any experience at all reducing works down.

In your opinion; one might do the same with other composers' works too if one had sufficient arrogance and lack of care for what the composer sought to achieve in what he/she wrote.
There is no arrogance at all if you have any experience at all teaching students the idea of reducing a score is hardly arrogant at all and indeed elevating and respecting the composer as some people might wish to play their works but cannot so reducing the score allows them access to it as well as preserving the sound that should be there. Your comment here that is is filled with arrogance is hardly logical at all.

As I mentioned previously, if a duration of around 20 minutes is to be commended as a maximum for a work on the grounds of assertions or assumptions about audience concentration, vast amounts of repertoire would have to be cast aside, including many works that are frequently performed and attract substantial audiences.
Of course one can go past that time but the further you go the more you lose your audience. If you start playing works that go for many hours without break you are certainly going to lose the great majority of your average audience member. This is a concern that all performers need to take into consideration and most especially soloists.

Chopin wrote only one work that plays for well over half an hour but it still receives plenty of performances - and what price Bruckner and Mahler under such a stricture? Shostakovich's symphonies all exceed 20 minutes but they're frequently performed all over the world, often to great acclaim. I've yet to hear audiences complain en masseabout such works.
Again you are comparing works which are not solo works and being over 20 minutes is fine, its when you are many times over that limit that you should start being concerned as a soloist. The effect your music has over listeners depreciates, the attention of your audience wanes, the energy of the concert drags.

Bizarre it might be although I did not say that because that particular instance felt like that to me it would do the same for everyone else in attendance
So even if you experienced a time dilation of 4+ hours being 1+ hour what is the point in mentioning such things if you don't assume others can experience the same anomaly?

I also cited in any case the instance of John Ogdon and Busoni's Fantasia Contrappuntistica where the perceived duration was around half of the actual one of around half an hour, so that phenomenon is not all about individual movements of the order of 4½ hours.
This is an odd change of story since you said "Theme and 50 variations - of Sorabji's Second Organ Symphony which, at the world première in 2010, felt to me like around an hour and three quarters of continuous music but was in reality 4½ hours." Please get your story straight because these changes are quite unusual.

Some might be discouraged from so doing, perhaps but then whatever other "distractions" they might find in Wagner might not suffice to avoid such discouragement because the need to sit on one place for a very long time still applies.
Yes exactly however if we are comparing long operas to long solo performances, operas will be much easier in general to deal with long times because there is so much more on stage to distract the eye and move attention toward, where with soloists you have a single stagnant scene.

Again, in your opinion. Of course the action as well as costumes, sets, lighting and the rest provide other things on which to focus attention in an operatic production which one does not experience in a solo piano performance but the object of these is not to draw attention away from the music, even if only momentarily!
Yes in my opinion which is hardly a marginalized perspective on the issue unlike those who oppose this stance. The argument had nothing to do with drawing attention away from the music but giving the audience more things to look at while dealing with hours of performance. Logically an opera will be much easier than a solo performance because of all the activity one can pick and choose to observe. This logically also makes much sense which strengthens the position rather than considering it being only an opinion.

To return to your 20 minute argument, some might consider that the sheer amount of information contained in a Ferneyhough or Carter quartet of around that length is too much on which to concentrate for that length of time; others wouldn't. What of Schönberg's first numbered string quartet whose near 45 minute single movement is replete with thickets of thematic and motivic relationships and interactions and intense contrapuntal activity that a lesser composer might have seen fit to spin out into a work exceeding an hour; the concentration required when listening to it is proportionate to the content, so is that "too much" for most audience members?
You clearly have problems comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Again comparing non solo works to solo works and speculating on the effect on audiences. These also hardly go up to the 3-4 hour mark which was of more concern. Going over the estimated 20min mark is fine but when you go over it by a great % margin you risk losing your audiences attention and care.

Yes, attention span is an issue with some people today - of that there can be no doubt - but do you see that as something that composers should blandly and blithely accept and consider pandering to it?
Some people? Maybe you have lost contact with the generations that have come after yours. What composers do is irrelevant they can write works that go for years on end if they want to, what we are considering is what compositions would work in a solo concert. If a composer believes that many people are going to sit through many many hours of a single work of their then they are being rather arrogant if they demand their work never be broken up into small parts. Not all composers write for their works to be performed anyway. 

Moreover, Sorabji, Carter and Birtwistle, for example, have each spoken (independently of one another) about not considering audiences when writing their works and this has in each case been misunderstood by some people as arrogance of the "who cares if you listen?" type that was long ago quite incorrectly ascribed to Milton Babbitt; the fact is that, far from composerly arrogance, it is a matter of practical necessity, for no composer can expect fo know who will attend performances of his/her work at any time or how they might respond to it other than differently to one another.
And a reason why those composers your mentioned will struggle rise to any mainstream attention.
"The biggest risk in life is to take no risk at all."
www.pianovision.com

Offline thalbergmad

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16730
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #90 on: July 03, 2019, 09:01:53 AM
Awaits 9 page response
Curator/Director
Concerto Preservation Society

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #91 on: July 03, 2019, 10:07:25 AM
You said there was nothing funny which of course is simply your stance, the problem was that you initially tried to make it look like it did not "exist" which was untrue.
It was and is true, which is why I responded as I did; if you choose to believe otherwise, that is your prerogative alone.

Lol, it doesn't have to be either? Then what is it? You trying to make it look like it was some mysterious mystical response where really you just had your knickers in a twist.
I did not seek to "make" it look like anything of the kind - or indeed anything other than what it was; should you choose to try to read more into it, whatever that may be, that is, once again, up to you alone.

Yet that is not unique at all, rare sounds more appropriate.
Fair comment, although it is far from rare in Sorabji yet there are very few instances of it in other composers' solo keyboard works.

We already established that duration in isolation to everything else is not a measure of difficulty that is logical and unneccesary to mention so you are just repeating yourself again. You again are comparing non piano works to piano works and trying to measure performance stamina which is strange and also in the past in this thread have compared solo works with operas which is even more odd.
Again, I did not and do not "compare" per se; however, the performance stamina issue is obviously pertinent in works such as those of Sorabji that have been mentioned in ways that do not apply to individual performers in a Wagner opera. "Contrast", perhaps, but not "compare".

This thread of discussion came up because you argued that you are not talking that time is a factor in measure of the unique difficulty of Sorabji to which I said length of time really is not a strong factor contributing to a call for it to be considered a unique situation. You mentioned many times about length of time and when called up on it you start saying its not length of time by itself but other factors as well which contribute to some unique difficulty in Sorabji which I believe simply is not there to be called unique, rare perhaps is more adequate.
You have already stated that and, to a point, I can accept it although, as I mentioned, it is very rare in other composers' solo keyboard works but relatively common in Sorabji's.

Yes I do say I don't have to ask those who performed it because I can do it myself. The time and stamina required to play the larger works is rarely found true, but it is not unique.
I did not realise that you had performed Sorabji's works. I am pleased to hear it now and look forward very much to hearing you do so. As a matter of interest, which ones are in your repertoire?

No one said they are exactly the same but they are related to one another strongly. In your first response about performer challenges vs audience challenges you said are a "rather different issue" however now you backtrack saying "I did not say that the two issues are or are not related" a fence sitting comment and contradictory to your initial stance, this fence sitting is something you like doing though it makes your position look rather weak especially when you said something else beforehand which was not a fence sitting comment.
Nonsense. The issues for a performer of one of these works are quite different to those for listeners to them. Listeners do not require the immense physical energy that the performers do. Mentioning that the issues are "related" is not a fence sitting comment; no one is sitting on a fence here and there is in any case no such fence on which to sit. The only related elements are the length of time that listeners and performers each have to sit still and concentrate on the music, but that's about as far as it goes. Another factor that will not affect, still less involve, the audience is the hundreds of hours that the keyboard soloist will have needed in order to prepare his/her performance.

They don't usually talk to their audience? Heaven's perhaps in your neck of the woods they are still stuck in the old tradition of bow, perform, bow. Modern concerts these days have a propensity for the performers to speak to their audience, it is a certain difference to be expected in the 21st century if you have any concerting industry experience at all. Not speaking to an audience and playing a single instrument for hours on end will not sit well with the majority of concert goers.
Well, perhaps concert traditions and practice in US are indeed different to those in UK these days; if so, you have no business to question my "concerting industry experience" other, perhaps, than in US. Indeed, most live music performances in UK do not include performers speaking to their audiences; when that does happen (and of course it does on occasion, perhaps a little more frequently now than during the past century), it is very much the exception. Lest you be in any doubt, I have no problem in principle with such pre-performance talks; indeed, there was one before Jonathan Powell's performance of OC in Oxford just over two years ago, although that was not given by Jonathan himself (who was presumably resting and psyching himself up for the performance and who had a very bad cold in any case) but by me. The only issue with having such a pre-performance talk in such circumstances is that this makes the overall event that much longer again which, given the lengths of some of those pieces, could be something of an issue.

Performers should have the freedom to break it up as far as they consider appropriate for their concert program.
Which is exactly what Jonathan Powell, for example, has done when performing Sequentia Cyclica (where no such breaks are specified in the score) and in OC (where two such breaks are implied in the score but he takes only one). Again, I have no problem in principle with that except that, again, it does mean that the entire event takes that much longer; Organ Symphony No. 2 plays for between 8½ and 9 hours but its world première took well in excess of 10 hours because intervals were taken between each of its three movements.

So you expect people who perform Sorabji to have no money interest at all? That is peculiar and strange although I can safely assume that attending such concerts would not be as desireable and other options. As a professional performer I would not consider doing such concerts a valuable use of my time if I was not paid appropriately. It is not clear at all that any professional performer would spend thousands of hours preparing a work only to be paid a pittance if at all for the effort.
I did not and do not suggest any such thing. What I did state was that it is hardly the prime motivation for playing any repertoire, be it Chopin or Sorabji - and sorry to mention Organ Symphony No. 2 again, but were one to factor in the preparation of a typeset critical edition of the score as well as the many hundreds of hours' performance preparation time, a fair fee for a single performance might run into six figures, but I've not noticed Kevin Bowyer buying châteaux, yachts or private jets on the proceeds of his performances! That said, there ARE such performances; OC itself has now received more than 20, all but one during the past 40 years and other large scale Sorabji works have likewise been performed and broadcast; if it's unclear to you why the performers have expended so much effort of such pieces for disproportionately small financial reward, you'll have to ask the performers - of whom I thought you said that you were one yourself!

Yes but try to remove notes from something like Bach for instance and see if it is any easier than Sorabji, you will find that it is many times more difficult. So one can reduce a score and still preserve the sound with works that are severely dense in notes, this is an obvious capability if you have any experience at all reducing works down.
There is no arrogance at all if you have any experience at all teaching students the idea of reducing a score is hardly arrogant at all and indeed elevating and respecting the composer as some people might wish to play their works but cannot so reducing the score allows them access to it as well as preserving the sound that should be there. Your comment here that is is filled with arrogance is hardly logical at all.
The implicit assumption here is that plenty of music could benefit from - or at the very least not be disadvantaged by - such reductions (mainly textural) albeit that Bach's would be considerably harder to treat in such a way than some other composers'; if that is not arrogance, it certainly suggests at the very least that people like you who are prepared to spend time in doing that kind of thing have questionable regard for the composers whose works they so treat. I am not, of course, suggesting that all composers' scores are and should be treated as sacrosanct - far from it - but one has only to consider how others sought to persuade Bruckner that they knew better than he did how to compose his symphonies to discover the problem and its possible consequences. How, for example, might you go about paring down one of Sorabji's fugues, where the number of voices is what it is?

Of course one can go past that time but the further you go the more you lose your audience. If you start playing works that go for many hours without break you are certainly going to lose the great majority of your average audience member. This is a concern that all performers need to take into consideration and most especially soloists.
Practical historical experience does not bear this out and I was not in any case, suggesting that pieces that play for many hours should - or are expected to - be played without breaks. All but one of Sorabji's seven piano symphonies, OC, his four extant piano Toccatas and his fifth and longest piano sonata are divided into movements; only the third piano symphony, his two sets of variations on the Dies Iræ and the Symphonic Variations are not but, even in these instances, Sequentia Cyclica is performed with two breaks and the fact that the ms. of Symphonic Variations (his longest piano work of all) was bound in three volumes implies similar expected treatment. The only other exceptions here are the second and third organ symphonies, each of which contains one very long movement and one would not usually think to break up a single movement into two sections separated by an intgerval in performance. "Your average audience member" is in any case more likely not to want to attend such performances in the first place rather than attending but not staying the course - but then not all audiences are "average"!

Again you are comparing works which are not solo works and being over 20 minutes is fine, its when you are many times over that limit that you should start being concerned as a soloist. The effect your music has over listeners depreciates, the attention of your audience wanes, the energy of the concert drags.
OK, so if not 20 minutes, what instead would you seek to advocate as a maximum acceptable duration? Holding the audience's attention over any timespan is in any case at least in part about how effectively the performer manages to do this and to what extent the music itself is capable of holding such attention.

So even if you experienced a time dilation of 4+ hours being 1+ hour what is the point in mentioning such things if you don't assume others can experience the same anomaly?
Again, I did not suggest that no one else would experience the same or something similar; I stated that I would not necessarily expect that as a matter of course, not least because no two pairs of ears will respond identically to any musical performance. That said, the person who sat next to me for the world première of Organ Symphony No. 2 did indeed more or less react as I did in that respect following the close of its middle movement.

This is an odd change of story since you said "Theme and 50 variations - of Sorabji's Second Organ Symphony which, at the world première in 2010, felt to me like around an hour and three quarters of continuous music but was in reality 4½ hours." Please get your story straight because these changes are quite unusual.
What is not "straight" about this? It is perfectly clear and unambiguous and it seems that you understood it anyway, so your quibble with it now is puzzling!

Yes exactly however if we are comparing long operas to long solo performances, operas will be much easier in general to deal with long times because there is so much more on stage to distract the eye and move attention toward, where with soloists you have a single stagnant scene.
The mistake that you make here is to assume that most audience members will react similarly to either the one or the other; yes, of course there is much more visually in an operatic performance than there is in a performance by just one keyboard player but, as I stated, the purpose of all of it is not to distract from the music and so there is a lot more on which to concentrate.

Yes in my opinion which is hardly a marginalized perspective on the issue unlike those who oppose this stance. The argument had nothing to do with drawing attention away from the music but giving the audience more things to look at while dealing with hours of performance. Logically an opera will be much easier than a solo performance because of all the activity one can pick and choose to observe. This logically also makes much sense which strengthens the position rather than considering it being only an opinion.
See above - but what might you suppose Wagner would have thought about this particular notion of the visual elements as a possible (and even implicity welcome) distraction from his music? - or does that not matter to you?

You clearly have problems comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Again comparing non solo works to solo works and speculating on the effect on audiences. These also hardly go up to the 3-4 hour mark which was of more concern. Going over the estimated 20min mark is fine but when you go over it by a great % margin you risk losing your audiences attention and care.
I have no such problems and, as already stated, this factor seems not to have pertained on the occasions when such works have been performed; the risk of which you write is therefore largely one of your own invention. Yes, occasionally there have been issues for a handful of audience members dependent upon public transport following late conclusions of such performances, but that's about it.

Some people? Maybe you have lost contact with the generations that have come after yours. What composers do is irrelevant they can write works that go for years on end if they want to, what we are considering is what compositions would work in a solo concert. If a composer believes that many people are going to sit through many many hours of a single work of their then they are being rather arrogant if they demand their work never be broken up into small parts. Not all composers write for their works to be performed anyway.
Again, see above in respect of long works being broken down into sections and the very few examples of this in Sorabji. There have not exactly been a lot of generations that have come after mine! I imagine that, in Haydn's last years, no one would have anticipated that a composer would write a symphony a century or so later that plays for around an hour and a half without intervals between any of its four movements, yet who complains about Mahler's Sixth Symphony today? A few performances in Beethoven's time included several works which came to a total duration far greater than what is expected of a "conventional" length orchestral programme today, just as Anton Rubinstein put on programmes far longer than what is expected of a piano recital today, but did anyone complain in either case or refuse to attend?

And a reason why those composers your mentioned will struggle rise to any mainstream attention.
Why should they even wish or be concerned to do so? - after all, what, today, when there are literally hundreds of thousands of composers active, IS "mainstream" attention in any case? Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and others are obviously "mainstream" and their legacies continue to last from generation to generation, but did anyone complain about the 50 or so minute duration of Beethoven's Eroica Symphony or Hammerklavier Sonata in terms of the difficulty of maintaining concentration on what they convey?

Incidentally, to return to the case of Feldman's Second Quartet, it might even be argued by some that the sheer lack of activity and contrast throughout its 5½ hours or so imposes a different challenge upon an audience because there are so few events and so little information over long stretches of time.

Anyway, since no one else seems to be participiating in this side discussion, perhaps now might be as good a time as any to turn it back to the thread topic.

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #92 on: July 03, 2019, 10:09:22 AM
Awaits 9 page response
...after reading (or not bothering to read) a post of similar length! Anyway, if you consider the length of such posts in page number terms, you are presumably printing them off in order to ascertain that number; how environmentally unfriendly is that?!

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline ronde_des_sylphes

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2934
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #93 on: July 03, 2019, 10:58:20 AM

(.. ) just as Anton Rubinstein put on programmes far longer than what is expected of a piano recital today, but did anyone complain in either case or refuse to attend?

Actually, Liszt voiced his disapproval.

I'm intensely skeptical about the merits of marathon pieces of piano music within a live performance context. Even individual operas from The Ring are asking a lot of an audience, and an orchestra has far greater colouristic capabilities than a solo piano.
My website - www.andrewwrightpianist.com
Info and samples from my first commercial album - https://youtu.be/IlRtSyPAVNU
My SoundCloud - https://soundcloud.com/andrew-wright-35

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #94 on: July 03, 2019, 11:20:19 AM
Actually, Liszt voiced his disapproval.
True, but there might be a valid argument that having too many pieces in a programme thereby making it too long for some is a different phenomenon to that of having a single piece of the same or greater length in one.

I'm intensely skeptical about the merits of marathon pieces of piano music within a live performance context. Even individual operas from The Ring are asking a lot of an audience, and an orchestra has far greater colouristic capabilities than a solo piano.
But if it appears not to be a problem for most audience members when such performances occur, mightn't your scepticism be open to question?

Yes, some pieces do ask a lot of an audience and they don't have to be especially long in order to do so - for example the Ferneyhough and Carter quartets that I mentioned earlier - yet the Pacifica Quartet has performed all five Carter quartets in a single programme with no apparent problem for the audience (although I do not expect that any ensemble - even the Arditti Quartet - is likely to do the same for all six [to date] numbered Ferneyhough quartets!)...

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline ronde_des_sylphes

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2934
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #95 on: July 03, 2019, 11:26:16 AM

But if it appears not to be a problem for most audience members when such performances occur, mightn't your scepticism be open to question?

I'd suggest that such occasions are largely "preaching to the converted", tbh.
My website - www.andrewwrightpianist.com
Info and samples from my first commercial album - https://youtu.be/IlRtSyPAVNU
My SoundCloud - https://soundcloud.com/andrew-wright-35

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #96 on: July 03, 2019, 11:30:14 AM
I'd suggest that such occasions are largely "preaching to the converted", tbh.
But if that were the case, there would surely be no - or at least very few - new audience members for such works? It might also suggest that few if any people attending such performances will not already be sufficiently familiar with such music to have at least some advance idea as to what to expect.

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline ronde_des_sylphes

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2934
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #97 on: July 03, 2019, 11:37:43 AM
I'm sure virtually everyone who attends a performance of, eg, OC, is fully aware of the time commitment, therefore by definition doesn't mind sitting for four or five hours. That doesn't mean it "works" for dramatic effect for casual listeners. On a related note, I think that the Alkan op 39 set is excellent, but I think a full recital of them would be an extremely difficult listening experience for many people (no offence to Jack Gibbons, who as I'm sure you know, has performed that exact recital). And Alkan is considerably more accessible than the OC.
My website - www.andrewwrightpianist.com
Info and samples from my first commercial album - https://youtu.be/IlRtSyPAVNU
My SoundCloud - https://soundcloud.com/andrew-wright-35

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #98 on: July 03, 2019, 12:01:27 PM
I'm sure virtually everyone who attends a performance of, eg, OC, is fully aware of the time commitment, therefore by definition doesn't mind sitting for four or five hours. That doesn't mean it "works" for dramatic effect for casual listeners.
I am pretty sure of that as well - but then it doesn't exactly seek to commend itself to "casual listeners" any more than does, for example, Schönberg's Gurrelieder, Mahler's Sixth Symphony, Bruckner's Fifth and Eighth Symphonies, Schmitt's Piano Quintet, Shostakovich's Fourth Symphony, Pettersson's Ninth Symphony or Schmidt's Das Buch mit Sieben Siegeln!

On a related note, I think that the Alkan op 39 set is excellent, but I think a full recital of them would be an extremely difficult listening experience for many people (no offence to Jack Gibbons, who as I'm sure you know, has performed that exact recital). And Alkan is considerably more accessible than the OC.
Yes, indeed I do know about the Gibbons performances of that entire cycle; Vincenzo Maltempo has done it as well. Likewise, Francesco Libetta has played all 54 published Chopin/Godowsky Studies in a single recital (and I also cited the example of the Pacifica Quartet's Carter programme earlier). The value of doing any of those things is arguably open to question, not least because there appears to be no evidence that their respective composers expected that such complete cycles would be presented to audiences, still less intended them to be so presented. I have heard the Alkan and can get along with that, but I do have some doubts about the effectiveness of the Chopin/Godowsky and Carter examples, especially the former in that it might come across as too much of a good thing! (and Carter was nervous about the prospect of the Pacifica playing all of his quartets in a single programme in case that exercise might reveal his having repeated himself which, of course, it didn't beuase he hadn't and he was therefore OK about it afterwards).

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline cuberdrift

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 600
Re: Opus Clavicembalisticum difficulty
Reply #99 on: July 03, 2019, 02:33:20 PM
I'm sure virtually everyone who attends a performance of, eg, OC, is fully aware of the time commitment, therefore by definition doesn't mind sitting for four or five hours. That doesn't mean it "works" for dramatic effect for casual listeners. On a related note, I think that the Alkan op 39 set is excellent, but I think a full recital of them would be an extremely difficult listening experience for many people (no offence to Jack Gibbons, who as I'm sure you know, has performed that exact recital). And Alkan is considerably more accessible than the OC.

It's possible to attend a recital of all Rach concerti in a row. I did, and to my surprise, it felt more like listening to a concerto of 4 movements than 4 concerti.

The Alkan thing seems pretty interesting regardless. It's like the next step up from playing the whole cycle of Liszt TEs (which is half that length) and all Chopin etudes.

Also Sorabji is Indian. Indians are used to listening to that sort of length in their own classical music.
For more information about this topic, click search below!
 

Logo light pianostreet.com - the website for classical pianists, piano teachers, students and piano music enthusiasts.

Subscribe for unlimited access

Sign up

Follow us

Piano Street Digicert