ALKAN: Mozart Concerto no 20 in d for piano solo

[dizzyfingers]

This was tossed my way on YT. 
In light of recent (and never ending?) discussions of Alkan's merit, I thought this may be of interest.
IMO it's an excellent arrangement, very well played here by, to me, an unknown pianist, Paul Wee.

[frodo10]

First movement:  I completely agree - excellent arrangement, very well played!  I'll listen to the rest tomorrow.  Would be interesting to compare with the original score.  Without comparing with original score, It looks like the solo parts when unaccompanied by orchestra are as Mozart wrote it showing Alkan's respect for Mozart.  Not sure about that though without further work than a quick listen.

OOPS. Was actually in the process of listening to 1st mvt when I typed the above.  What the heck is going on at the end of the 1st movement??  I take everything back.  I see what he's doing.  Tossing in crazy Jupiter symphony at the end (No. 41).  Two thumbs down on this one!!  Sorry.   

No 2nd movement or 3rd movement listen.  I'm done.

[frodo10]

I guess Mozart is a joke to Alkan?  Maybe someone can explain.

[frodo10]

.

[frodo10]

So, I had a chance to cool down and reflect on this.  Yes, I needed a couple days. No, I didn’t listen to this again and I likely never will.  Also, I have not researched this (and likely never will) beyond what I asked AI as shown below.  I wanted to see how others feel about this “transcription” by Alkan.

When I started to listen to this, I had in mind the Liszt transcriptions of Beethoven’s 9 symphonies.  I know Liszt had tremendous respect for Beethoven and did everything he could to remain faithful to the original score.  Almost to the point of an obsession out of respect and love for Beethoven and his music.  When I heard the first maybe 10 minutes, I thought that Alkan had this same respect for Mozart.  On one hearing without consulting the original score, it appears he was faithfully following the score and it sounded great.  Then, if memory serves me right, it quickly went south with some made up stuff then landed on the 1st movement of Mozart’s Jupiter symphony (No. 41, his last and greatest) at or around the cadenza section.  I think the score said something like “Symphony in C” at that point which is of course the key of the Jupiter symphony.  I never made it to the end of the first movement, and likely never will.

I asked AI at the time I stopped listening if it was written as a musical joke.  AI said NO.  I then asked AI something like ‘What about the crazy reference to the Jupiter symphony near the cadenza section of the 1st movement?”  AI said I was mistaken – which I wasn’t.  I know the symphony very well.

I believe Alkan showed great disrespect to Mozart with this transcription.  But I could be wrong. I noticed it had over 1000 thumbs up so many people like this.  Maybe Alkan believed he was showing love and respect for Mozart with this “transcription”. 

What do you guys think?  Dizzy – did you listen to the whole thing or did you bail out before the 10-minute point?

My questions:
1) Did Alkan show love and respect for Mozart and his music with his "transcription" posted by Dizzy?  If yes, why do you believe this?  BTW, there is no right or wrong answer here.  Just looking for opinions.  Historical context would be great. Maybe this was the common thing to do back in the day.

2) Why such a faithful transcription for the first 10 minutes to then all of a sudden “go crazy”?

3) Does Alkan's "transcription" here show good taste using today's standards?

[dizzyfingers]

First, how well do I know this concerto?
1) I had an album of this when I was 15 or 16, probably listened to the concerto about 100+ times over the next 6 years, and have heard it many additional times since, in recordings and live performances.
2) I studied this concerto for almost a year as a college piano student.
.. so I know it well.

I listened to the first movement very carefully.  I never heard a note that did not fit with my memory of this concerto.  I just listened to the ending again, because of your comments.  It may be that what you hear reminds you of symphony no 41, but if you listened to a recording of the concerto, Mozart's ending may well remind you of this symphony.  Again, I didn't hear a single note that was off. 

I think AI was correct in this case, "you are mistaken".

[frodo10]

First, how well do I know this concerto?
1) I had an album of this when I was 15 or 16, probably listened to the concerto about 100+ times over the next 6 years, and have heard it many additional times since, in recordings and live performances.
2) I studied this concerto for almost a year as a college piano student.
.. so I know it well.

I listened to the first movement very carefully.  I never heard a note that did not fit with my memory of this concerto.  I just listened to the ending again, because of your comments.  It may be that what you hear reminds you of symphony no 41, but if you listened to a recording of the concerto, Mozart's ending may well remind you of this symphony.  Again, I didn't hear a single note that was off. 

I think AI was correct in this case, "you are mistaken".

Really?  Now you force me to read the notes that went with your youtube link to look for clues.  I did a string locate on "Jupiter".  Here is what i found:

The notes say:
The movement’s quasi-operatic drama builds through to Alkan’s characteristically acerbic cadenza, which  ... transforms the movement’s ascending triplet motif into the opening of Mozart’s ‘Jupiter’ symphony.

And then a user wrote:

@Kyujar.png49
11 months ago
Alkan quoting Mozart's Jupiter Symhpony and other parts of the Concerto in the cadenza is just pure Genius just like what he did with Beethoven's Piano Concerto 3.

And then I searched on Symphony and found:
Finally! That's very kind of you for making this!
11:04 Mvt.1 Cadenza (with Symphony No.41)
28:29 Mvt.3 Cadenza

So this is saying go to minute marker 11:04 for Cadenza (with Symphony No.41).  BTW Symphony 41 is the Jupiter Symphony.

Are you sure you are familiar with the concerto?

[frodo10]

When the cadenza started I was typing the first paragraph of my original post and listening on the side, then all of a sudden while typing (which I am terrible at) I heard music that did not sound like Mozart, then I heard the Jupiter symphony - a crazy version.  I was not prepared for this and I got upset by this and then bailed out thinking what the heck is Alkan doing adding a crazy version of the Jupiter symphony?   

I just went back and relistened to the cadenza.  It is not as bad as I thought.  If the rest of the concerto sticks to Mozart's writing then I guess I spoke too soon.  Still - what the heck is Alkan doing adding a crazy version of the Jupiter symphony?   I don't think Liszt would have done this.

[dizzyfingers]

Ah yes - the cadenza - I was excluding the cadenza when talking about how close the arrangement is.
Why?  Because Mozart didn't write a cadenza.
Since you're getting friendly with AI, you may want to ask about performance practice with Mozart concerti cadenzas.  In a nut shell:  the practice was for the performer to "improvise" (composing one, would work too) a cadenza.  Beethoven wrote cadenzas for this concerto - that's what I played.  Hummel wrote cadenzas as well.  And many contemporary pianists write cadenzas for their performances of Mozart concerti... names elude me but it wouldn't be hard to find. 
It's in standard practice for Alkan to write one, and he can write it any way he wants.

[frodo10]

Ah yes - the cadenza - I was excluding the cadenza when talking about how close the arrangement is.
Why?  Because Mozart didn't write a cadenza.
Since you're getting friendly with AI, you may want to ask about performance practice with Mozart concerti cadenzas.  In a nut shell:  the practice was for the performer to "improvise" (composing one, would work too) a cadenza.  Beethoven wrote cadenzas for this concerto - that's what I played.  Hummel wrote cadenzas as well.  And many contemporary pianists write cadenzas for their performances of Mozart concerti... names elude me but it wouldn't be hard to find. 
It's in standard practice for Alkan to write one, and he can write it any way he wants.

My questions and my opinion:  I RESPECT ALL OTHER OPINIONS!!

1) Did Alkan show love and respect for Mozart and his music with his "transcription" posted by Dizzy?

Not by including a crazy version of the Jupiter symphony in the first movement cadenza.  Yes, performers improvise on themes and ideas found in the movement.  Some may even include themes or ideas of all movements of the work in the last movement (rare) if the concerto has a last movement cadenza.  But to toss in a version of an unrelated work? Schlock art IMO.  Name a first rank compser that did this.  Don't name Alkan because he is a 2nd rank composer at best and is only a footnote in the Annals of music history.  AGAIN - JUST MY OPINION (except for the ANNALS part).  Would Liszt have done this?

2) Why such a faithful transcription for the first 10 minutes to then all of a sudden “go crazy”?

Because the cadenza is where the performer is given a chance to "go crazy".  But it should be tastefully done. See my answers to questions no. 1 and no. 3.

3) Does Alkan's "1st mvt cadenza" here show good taste using today's standards? (I changed wording here.)

I hope we can all agree the answer is NO.  What would be said if Perahia suddenly threw in an improvisation of Beethoven's 5th symphony in the cadenza of his 4th piano concerto (both share similar 1st movement themes!).  Or another symphony that has a theme similar to a 4th concerto that he morphs from one work to the other?  Today I'll bet pretty much all pianists use the written cadenzas provided by Beethoven. But some don't.  Also, cadenzas are expected nowadays to be written in the language and style of the composer who wrote the concerto.  What would be said of a Mozart concerto performance by a modern day pianist that wrote a cadenza in the style of Rachmaninov?

Anyway - this might get this discussion started.  I'll sit back and listen for a while now. 

[essence]

My questions and my opinion:  I RESPECT ALL OTHER OPINIONS!!
 Don't name Alkan because he is a 2nd rank composer at best and is only a footnote in the Annals of music history.

Stand back and watch the reaction.

[liszt-and-the-galops]

Stand back and watch the reaction.

Very good prediction.

Name a first rank compser that did this.  Don't name Alkan because he is a 2nd rank composer at best ...  AGAIN - JUST MY OPINION (except for the ANNALS part).

How do you define "first-rank" and "second-rank" composer? IMO he's one of the three greatest composers of all time + his Op. 39 is by far the greatest work for solo piano ever written. It's almost undeniable that he was among the greatest composers for the instrument. Obviously, you can have your own opinions on him and his music and it's okay if you dislike like some (or even all) of it, but I'm curious what gave you the opinion that he's "second-rank."

Name a first rank compser that did this.

Some would consider Hamelin a first-rank composer of the latter 20th and early 21st Centuries, and arguably his most famous contribution to piano music is his Cadenza for Liszt's 2nd Hungarian Rhapsody, which I think everyone can agree is not remotely in the same style as Liszt's writing. Yet, this is by far the most popular and well-liked cadenza for this piece.

This is a bit of a tangent, but I've noticed that a double standard is almost universally held for Hamelin specifically. His performances of numerous pieces are often vastly inferior to other pianists (Alkan Concerto --> Jack Gibbons, Liszt Don Juan --> Masaru Okada, Liszt HR 2 --> Hayato Sumino, Albéniz Lavapiés -->  Alicia de Larrocha, etc.), yet his are always the ones that get the spotlight. Why is this?

3) Does Alkan's "1st mvt cadenza" here show good taste using today's standards? (I changed wording here.)

I hope we can all agree the answer is NO.  What would be said if Perahia suddenly threw in an improvisation of Beethoven's 5th symphony in the cadenza of his 4th piano concerto (both share similar 1st movement themes!).

I for one would be fine with it, as long as the music itself didn't suffer (referring more to the performer choosing a passage that is a poor fit for the piece rather than choosing a passage that is unrelated in itself).

Also, cadenzas are expected nowadays to be written in the language and style of the composer who wrote the concerto.  What would be said of a Mozart concerto performance by a modern day pianist that wrote a cadenza in the style of Rachmaninov?

I again point to Hamelin.

[frodo10]

I'm from the old school.

Q: Donald Grout in his "A History of Western Music" does not even mention Alkan's name as a composer in his 3rd edition that I have. In the text Grout mentions only Kalkbrenner, Thalberg, and Gottschalk as successful display pianists but decidedly 2nd rank composers. Has the opinion of Alkan and the 3 other pianist/composers changed in recent years or are these 4 still considered 2nd rank as composers?

AI: Yes, the opinions on Alkan and the other three pianist-composers you mentioned—Kalkbrenner, Thalberg, and Gottschalk—have evolved since the time of Grout's third edition.

While Alkan's reputation has significantly risen, especially among specialists, Kalkbrenner and Thalberg are still widely considered lesser composers compared to their more famous contemporaries like Chopin and Liszt. Gottschalk's status is more complex, and he holds a different, but significant, historical position.

Charles-Valentin Alkan (1813–1888)
Alkan's exclusion from Grout's 3rd edition was standard for its time, reflecting the composer's near-total obscurity following his lifetime. A contemporary of Liszt and Chopin, Alkan was a celebrated virtuoso but became a notorious recluse, which contributed to his fading from memory after his death.

Modern opinion:
•   Rediscovered genius: Alkan underwent a major revival in the late 20th century, led by pianists who championed his music, including Ronald Smith and Marc-André Hamelin.
•   Unique and demanding: His music is now viewed as remarkably inventive, with harmonic daring that foreshadowed composers like Debussy. It is known for its extreme technical difficulty and ambitious, often eccentric, forms.
•   Complex status: While Alkan is not in the "first rank" with Chopin and Liszt for the general public, he is revered by a dedicated cult following and regarded by specialists as a composer of far greater importance and creativity than his historical neglect would suggest.

EDIT:  Might as well toss this in here.

Q: Is Robert Schumann considered a 1st rank composer along with Liszt, Chopin and Mendelssohn?

AI: Yes, Robert Schumann is unquestionably considered a first-rank composer, standing alongside figures like Liszt, Chopin, and Mendelssohn as a central figure of the Romantic era. His reputation and influence among musicologists and the broader classical music community have been consistent and have even deepened over time, particularly as scholars explore the psychological and literary depths of his work.

[liszt-and-the-galops]

Neither you nor your predictive text algorithm answered my question: "how do you define 'first-rank' and 'second-rank' composers?"

I'll also add this, which your "AI" seemingly forgot to include: Alkan is only neglected because he locked himself away from society for almost 25 years because his friend and neighbor Chopin (who, by the way, had great respect for Alkan) died.

Many well-regarded and influential figures of piano history, composition, performance, etc. (including Liszt, Sorabji, Rubinstein, Jack Gibbons, Ronald Smith, etc.) consider(ed) Alkan among the best of the best. Why is it that we discredit this view that is held by many who knew the man personally or have devoted much of their careers to studying him?

[dizzyfingers]

3) Does Alkan's "1st mvt cadenza" here show good taste using today's standards? (I changed wording here.)

I decided to check in with Mozart so I went into a deep meditation and opened my psychic channeling windows and asked Mozart what he thought of Alkan's cadenza to his 20th p.c., and he said he was fine with it, that he liked very much how Alkan cleverly shows how the 4 note first motif (ascending 32nd-note triplet + quarter note) is analogous in method to the 5 note motif (4 descending 32nd-notes + quarter note) of the Jupiter symphony.  He said it was much better than Hummel's cadenzas, which would be considered "tasteful" by many.

He also said he gets annoyed with this quibbling over minor details, and he's not going to answer any more such questions.