Total Members Voted: 21
Voting closed: January 08, 2020, 12:08:48 PM
Arthur C. Clarke once said “My favourite definition of an intellectual: 'Someone who has been educated beyond his/her intelligence.”. This could be changed appropriately here in ‘My favourite definition of an snob: someone who is judgemental beyond his/her level of (and/or desire of) understanding’.
Alistair, you look small for getting dragged into line-by-line level pique.
This thread is to promote a major musical moment in history with the release of this gargantuan piece that was for a long time just a fable!
Tranquillo e Piano: The transition into this movement makes much more sense. This is squarely in Sorabji's later style (heavily influenced by Baroque forms), though as the title suggests softer to the ears than most. The first section (up til 11:30) was well-composed, but I'm not sure how pianistic it is. I say this because this movement is the first that's direct enough for me to be able to 'interpret in my head' along with a first listen, and I almost never agreed with Powell's interp. But it seemed highly plausible in most cases that it could have been just too hard to mitigate the density in terms of getting some of what seemed to be the right/obvious affects and articulations in a classical setting. In other words, I'd say the piece is better than the recording, for this part of the movement, it being unclear whose fault that is.The next section is more nocturnal (up to 28:30); it's all well and good, but it extends for such a period of time as to really lose all relation to the first section, and certainly wipe it completely clean from my memory. The effect of this extended nocturne sort of conflicts with an aurally intelligible structure for the movement, so I'm not sure that this should have been conceived as a single variation. I would say that this section overall is pleasant listening, but nothing especially captivating or engrossing. It's followed by a brief climax that was welcome, but which also meandered a bit, though maybe it should be considered a separate 'section' in its own right - but that doesn't really change my impression.Around 32:50 we get a novel transformation and the start of another big section (which sounds *insanely* hard in places, props to Powell on getting a lot of nice colors in this section) which functions as the start of an enormous tension in the piece. I was fully ensconced in the piece for this section, so that probably means it's good.About ten minutes later we got the start of a reprise of the tension built up in the previous section, and the introduction of a bell motif that comes in and out, and really reminded me of the first movement of the 2nd Mosolov Sonata. VERY close to that in terms of both form and function, though the Mosolov would have been so obscure at the time that I'm sure there could be no claim of 'borrowing.' Or actually, Alistair, do you know whether Sorabji had any familiarity with Mosolov's stuff?
So yeah, there was this massive structure all thrusting toward a huge, dramatic climax . . . but it fizzled. There was a smidge of uproar toward the end of this section, but it just wasn't enough. I was really let down. It would be like if you took the presto at the end out of the Bach Chaconne, the whole piece was propelling itself toward something and then we were denied. I guess that was his choice, but it left me simply unsatisfied.Now at 47:30ish we're back to a more nocturnal setting, though with more sense of resolution than before by injecting more classical harmony. It seems like he was going for a Messiaen-like 'big church' sort of feel, but again it never really built to anything. Just a swamp of chords. He pulls the rug out one more time with this contrapuntal finale section (which actually often takes a Chaconne form), but it also refuses to climax. This movement needed a Viagra. I liked a lot of this ending section, especially the Lisztian modal sections with the big arpeggios which were incredibly beautiful. I liked the little 'jazz interlude' with all the Impressionist chords, too, it fit in oddly well with the rest of the piece. The ending went on FOREVER though, downright-boring.So, overall I liked the vast majority of this movement, but it had some macro structural problems that really left me high and dry. The highlight IMO is the first section, namely up to 11:30ish. Do I think it warranted the 65 minute time stamp? Hell no. I think its enormity didn't contribute, and if anything detracted a bit by obscuring the relations between the sections.
Oh well, the crap won.Some people on this forum have bad taste.Thal
I'm sorry, but I have to agree with this...
Also, Thal - you're starting to develop the same bad habit as Alistair does, in that he signs every post with his name. Beware... it's a slippery slope...
Next, you'll start liking Sorabji
That isn't as offensive as some of his dross , but it is still 7 plus minutes of puerile note spinning.
I don't get it. Did Sorabji have an affair with your wife?
If you don't like it, don't listen. How hard is that? Why get riled up because other people do like him?
I don't get it. Did Sorabji have an affair with your wife? If you don't like it, don't listen. How hard is that? Why get riled up because other people do like him?
I have no wife
Sorabji was as bent as a boomerang.
Would have been rude not to and not give my opinion.
As in 'keeps coming back no matter how hard you try to throw it away'?
Nothing's impossible! Try this - ...
Try this Best,Alistair
And no matter how many times you try to dress up the music
What it sounds like, is the aforementioned monkeys playing random notes... possibly with a cat walking across the keys as they do so.
You omitted a couple of words; your sentence should have begun "What it sounds like to me"
Nah - I worded it rather accurately, and it was correct in my original post.
And no matter how many times you try to dress up the music, that doesn't sound ANYTHING like Debussy. What it sounds like, is the aforementioned monkeys playing random notes...
I find that very beautiful. I used to dislike most modern piano sounds until over the years I found bits of my improvisation were starting to produce much the same effects. That opened the gates for me and I began to expand the variety of composed music I listened to. I remember "quantum" on our forum said a similar thing happened with him. I expect to broaden my taste still further in my later years, I couldn't bear standing still.
possibly with a cat walking across the keys
even Debussy sounds flat compared to something like this (music which for me stops time itself for a while)
Gulistan is tolerable to my ears but shows very little craft or skill.
It has no melody and no tune. No development, just an endless stream.You could put the end at the beginning, the beginning at the end, play it backwards or with 200 wrong notes and it would not diminish the composition, nor would the majority be any the wiser.Remove one note from a Beethoven Sonata and it would be diminshed. That is skill.
I have nevertheless to say that it represents your own personal opinion
Actually, there is truth to Thalbergmads statement.
I have perfect pitch
so I know that when people waste their lives learning crap like this, they spend ages trying to learn and play the correct notes - and I can tell when they deviate from that.
As Thal said, you could literally play the piece with wrong notes galore, and I doubt ANYONE on this thread or this forum would know unless they have a VERY keenly tuned ear with perfect pitch.
You ASSUME that what the player is playing is correct, but he could deviate mildly from the score and almost NO one would realise... that's not art.
Do you consider Jackson Pollock an artist?
Personally, I believe he is an overhyped fraud when he paints crap like this. The above is worth $140,000,000 - just picture that. This painting is basically the visual equivalent of Sorabji's music - messy, unstructured and without any finesse. People have tried to hype it up to being something it clearly isn't.
Totally agree with you perfect_pitch. It may be just our opinion but certainly it is a mainstream opinion
"Mainstream"?
Here - let me demonstrate with this here pie chart...See if I can clear things up.
hahahahahah PP
Yes, go take a random 100 people from the street and see what the average of the opinion turns out to be.
All members here spend most of their time here discussin music that is a minority interest in the greater scheme of things; are they therefore wasting their time in so doing?
It is a pity that such as you and Thal who wilfully adopt this standpoint purely because you happen not to like the music
It doesn't take much to laugh since he is explaining something very clearly to you which you pretend not to understand
Oh yes now please write a thesis of how you are not pretending anything at all
I've made the task easier, just take 100 and see what you get, otherwise just surround yourself with the small group who share your interests and feel safe.
This is a discussion you are creating on your own, have fun with it on your own. You are certainly wasting your time in useless threads, why do you like to do that? Fans of Sorabji works are a minority amongst the minority. That is a small minority
I suspect you have this the wrong way round, and that it is more likely that they find the music disorganised and incoherent, therefore they don't like it.
I "understand" it perfectly and "pretend" nothing.
Sorry to disappoint; no theseis required - just what I have written above.
There is no task so you have not made one any easier or more difficult.
For the record, however, I do not at all confime myself and my activities to a group of any size that shares my interests and, in any case, I suspect that you refer here to one specific interest only rather than all of them. Moreover, there is little "safety" in the interests that I do pursue.
On the contrary, I am not creating a discussion and you admit yourself that I did not initiate this thread. Whilst I agree with you that the principle behind this thread was/is useless", oney might well ask why you waste your own time on it but, that said, despite the false premise of the OP, it has at yielded something of use from time to time.
Not at all. I don't doubt your assumption that those people find the music (or most of it) disorganised and incoherent but that does not of itself make it so.
Thats good at least perfect_pitch has enforced your education.
Why would you think I would be dissapointed? It still is the same in nature to what I knew you would respond with.
It has made the task 10 times easier, pp used 1000 sample, i suggested 100 sample. Much easier, do you deny that? If you don't want to take the task up in the first place that is meaningless because the potential logistics of the task still remains if one ever wants to take it up and educate themselves.
Then you should allow people to express their opinion that Sorabji is crap music without having to debate them in such a feeble manner. It makes you look so weak trying to debate people for hating Sorabji's music. Let them have that opinion without you having to try and limit its value.
You are misquoting me and taking what I said out of context. The discussion I mentioned you are creating is all in the quote that I quoted from you nothing else. YOu are trying to change what I am suggesting which is wrong and then allows you to talk off in your own world.
You don't ask a question with a question
why are you wasting your time in a thread which is anti Sorabji and goes against what you want to promote?
This is a rather arrogant response pretty much saying people can have opinion but they are wrong.
People can find it discorganised and incoherent and THAT DOES MAKE IT SO FOR THEM and, AND, the vast majority of people you ask. Go ahead go into public and ask them to listen to a many hour long Sorabji work, who of them could manage it, which of t hem will say it is AMAZING and want to listen to it all? You wont get much at all. So the mainstream opinion that the music is disorganised and incoherent remains as a mainstream fact for the majority of listeners.
Brilliant. Pissed myself
I have to say, I find all the contempt for Sorabji's music quite baffling. I always found his music incredibly intriguing. It's colourful, original, and exquisitely pianistic. Why all the hate?
To be serious, though, the "pie chart" is based on no evidence
It's anecdotal evidence... that's a 'type' of evidence.
I quite like Jackson Pollock. Anyone who thinks is structureless pointless spatters should try to do an abstract painting in Pollock's style. It's not easy, and most attempts are far less interesting to look at than the real thing. Ditto for lots of abstract art - if you think a child could do it, go ahead and try. It's not as easy as it looks.
Not so.
It is not, although whether or not you are disappointed is of no concern to me.
To me, there is no task as it would be a largely pointless exercise given that almost all of the music listened to, played and discussed on this forum is a minotiry interest and the only qualification of that is that some is more of a minority interest than others.
But I do. I am not interested in persuading people whose view of certain music (not only Sorabji) I happen not to share to change their minds about it, still less that what is after all their personal opinions are "wrong"; discussing it and reading others' reactions to any such music is by no means synonymous with wanting to do either and if anyone decides to change their mind about any music it's up to the music to do that for them, not you or me.
Were that true, your should ensure that your specific context is expressed with greater clarity. I am not trying to "change" anything, nor do I need your permission to write as I choose.
How else would anyone ask a question?!
Given that I wrote previously that one might as well ask why you are wasting yours in a thread that you have stated that you regard as useless, you would do well to concern yourself with the use of your own time rather than that of anyone else.
It is nothing of the kind because I have said nothing of the kind.
One cannot in any case disagree per se with a personal opinion; one can only either share it or not share it. I have never stated that anyone is "wrong" not to share any of my musical tastes and values and I have no interest in so doing.
Much the same could be said for many other works that exceed the attention spans of some of those whom one might ask if minded to do so; Sorabji has no exclusivity in that respect.
"The majority of listeners" indeded wouldn't listen to this music
....but they also wouldn't listen to most of the music discussed here;
...as I stated previously, it's all relative - and the specific listener statistics for any music (such as one could ever come by reliable ones in any case) would be of scant interest to anyone other than statisticians.
Moreover, it seems necessary to point out - again - that most of Sorabji's works are not several hours in duration in any case.
Indeed it has by your very own words was [I "understand" it perfectly and "pretend" nothing.]So indeed it has enforced your education given your "perfect" understanding.
It is but because I said you would say exactly what you did, except it was shorter than I suspected but exactly of the same nature.
It is irrelevant if you think it is pointless or not or any other postulations, the fact is if someone was to undergo such a research my route would be 10 times easier since it is 10 times less people to interview. If you disagree then I'm sorry you are just ignorant of maths.
You will have to work hard on your persuasive skills because the way you try to change peoples minds by putting down their opinions doesn't really open them up to anything you have to offer. Sugar catches more flies than vinegar, that is good to mediate upon if you want to sharpen some of your persuasive tools.
"Were that true" lol, it is true because I discussing what I wrote, I wrote it not you. You are taking what I wrote and trying to make it apply somewhere else, you need to read more carefully. Now that I have clarified that you took it out of context you still refuse to go back and read again, so I will also refuse to restate it and clarify. You are complaining that I was not clear enough, again you are putting down someone else to give an excuse for your failing, that is not very good use of persuasive skills coming of you.
I asked you why you waste your time here on a thread which is meant to be against Sorabji's works, you respond with a similar question back to me without answering the question asked of you first. Evasive.
But you are asking me a question that I am asking you but for you it is more important because you have some duty to the work of Sorabji and should be interested to promote it, however your attempts to promote it on a thread which is meant to ridicule Sorabji is a rather unprofessional move and perplexing.
Your quote was:" I don't doubt your assumption that those people find the music (or most of it) disorganised and incoherent but that does not of itself make it so.You are simply saying it is all their opinion and it has no effect on Sorabji's music one bit.
You are putting down an audience reaction to the music and simply saying, ok you can have that opinion but the music is not what you think it is.
Maybe for YOU it is opposing what they are saying and you see all the beauty and amazing things, fine good great!
Read what you wrote, maybe you can see how you have not been clear enough to hold value of other peoples opinions and simply try to make them look null and void.
You wrote: "...those people find the music (or most of it) disorganised and incoherent but that does not of itself make it so."
Perhaps you should reevaluate how you manage peoples opinions, to say that their opinion "does not of itself make it so" is a very obvious remark putting down someone opinion. It is real to them and you are saying well its just in your own head and its not a truth. It is a truth, their opinion and it is a mainstream truth.
It is important when considering what a mainstream ideology would be and that was the point of my response to this thread. It is a mainstream opinion that Sorabji's music is not worth peoples time to listen to, that doesn't mean Sorabji is terrible music some of it I find is nice (the shorter works which to me avoid being self-absorbent rambling junk yards of music with a few salvagable bits here and there, those works which run hours and hours and to which I find pp artistic comparisons worked very well), but because i find it nice doesn't mean that it should be nice for everyone otherwise they are mistaken and wrong, most people hate it, so the mainstream hate it and I acknowledge that and share that same boat for the majority of the works from Sorabji. Though in any case the works described here run for many hours.
Poll
Topic: Sorabji vs Microwave Background Radiation Hiss 