Alkan is not "empty virtuosity."

[liszt-and-the-galops]

Since Alkan is probably my favorite composer at this point, I've grown increasingly annoyed with people saying some variant of "Alkan is empty virtuosity/pointlessly difficult/a musically bankrupt maximalist composer/etc."

1. This is blatantly false. Ignoring Alkan's early period (e.g. Le Preux and Op. 76), very few of Alkan's pieces are even of notable difficulty; I'd go so far as to say that Alkan's music, on average, is about as difficult as Chopin's. The only Alkan pieces that are actually exceedingly difficult are: Op. 17, Op. 33, Op. 34, Op. 39 nos. 1, 8, 10, 12, and Op. 76 no. 2. Compare that to more than 30 Liszt pieces, just off the top of my head.

2. Alkan actually hated the empty virtuosity that so many criticize him for. He disliked the music of Berlioz and played almost nothing more recent than Mendelssohn in his concerts. When Alkan wrote something difficult, you can trust that it was because difficult writing was needed to convey that particular musical idea; after his early period, you'll find almost nothing by Alkan that can actually be properly simplified without the piece completely falling apart in some way or another. Compare that to Liszt, who frequently had to simplify his own pieces because they were often hilariously overwritten.

3. In regards to Alkan's transcriptions (there was a thread on this forum a while ago about his transcription of Mozart Concerto no. 20), he believed that piano transcriptions should be as exact as possible, and as such considered the number of pieces that could be reduced to solo piano very small. This also explains why his Symphony and Concerto for Solo Piano are so "maximalist;" Alkan was writing for an orchestra on a grand piano rather than simplifying an orchestra to a grand piano.

4. Though much of Alkan isn't extremely technically difficult, his music is often very hard to get "right." Unfortunately, the most popular interpreter of Alkan (Marc-André Hamelin) treats Alkan as a show-off; he plays only Alkan's most technically difficult pieces as fast as he possibly can with very little regard for the actual music. Even as a massive fan of Alkan, Hamelin's Alkan sounds, and I cannot stress this enough, horrible. If Hamelin's Alkan is the only Alkan that you've heard, then I can't blame you for not liking Alkan in the slightest (I would think the same as you). But again, I cannot stress enough that this is a problem with the pianist, not with the composer.

[liszt-and-the-galops]

I'll end this rant with some of the best Alkan recordings that I'm aware of. These are some of the best pieces ever written IMO, and most of them aren't particularly virtuosic at all. Hope you enjoy them. :)
Op. 63 Esquisses (Laurent Martin) -- IMO Alkan's true "magnum opus." I especially love Book II, which starts at 20:10.

Op. 31 Preludes (Huseyin Sermet and Laurent Martin) -- shares the title of Alkan's "magnum opus" with Op. 63.

Op. 38b Chants (Stephanie McCallum)

Op. 22 Nocturne (Jack Gibbons)

Op. 30 Piano Trio (Ronald Smith)

Op. 10 Concerto da Camera no. 3 (Dmitry Feofanov) -- one of the most beautiful chamber pieces ever written; starts at 22:09. (no. 2 is also great though it's not in the same ballpark as no. 3, which is probably because he wrote it when he was 21; starts at 14:33)

Etude WoO (Mark Viner)

Op. 33 Grande Sonate (Ronald Smith) -- Not a fan of the first movement, but the rest is fantastic. The fourth movement is one of the darkest and most crushing things ever written, and the second is probably my favorite sonata form movement, with the possible exception of Beethoven Sonata no. 29 mvt. 1. It also had a significant influence on Liszt's Sonata from a few years later.

Op. 39 nos. 4-7 Symphony for Solo Piano (Jack Gibbons) -- no list of the best Alkan pieces would be complete without this one.

Op. 39 no. 9 Concerto for Solo Piano mvt. 2 (Jack Gibbons) -- probably my favorite movement of the Concerto; mostly because I don't particularly like the first 10 minutes of mvt. 1, though the latter 20 minutes of it are also incredible.

Op. 39 no. 11 "Ouverture" (Jack Gibbons) -- my favorite piece for solo piano at time of this writing.

Separate post because pianostreet is being weird.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I haven’t read a word of this yet but I can’t wait to argue with you hahaha

[perfect_pitch]

Since Alkan is probably my favorite composer at this point, I've grown increasingly annoyed with people saying some variant of "Alkan is empty virtuosity/pointlessly difficult/a musically bankrupt maximalist composer/etc."

I must admit, I have never thought that about Alkan - I heard his Allegro Barbaro and was just astounded at the piece. He was a brilliant composer and clearly a gifted pianist given the virtuosity of his works. Then I heard his Le Chemin de Fer and was enthralled.

Can't argue with you.

[quino-lane]

I would agree with you on most things EXCEPT for the fact that Hamelin is a "horrible pianist." The way he treated the Concerto may not have had as much nuances as one may expect from a pianist of his level, but I believed he viewed it as a whole rather then noting intricacies in the moment. He may not be the best of the best, but it's not all or nothing. IMO, he is not a horrible pianist.

[frodo12]

You say "Op. 39 nos. 4-7 Symphony for Solo Piano (Jack Gibbons) -- no list of the best Alkan pieces would be complete without this one."  I tried to quote this post but got error message from pianostreet saying "An Error Has Occurred! The post you are trying to quote either does not exist, was deleted, or is no longer viewable by you."

I listened to the Gibbons recording you provided - just the 1st mvt.  I thought this was well written and worthy of hearing.  It is in sonata-allegro form and it was easy to follow the form on just 1 listening.  You would do well to study the form of this movement and see if you can write a sonata-allegro movement yourself - but only if you are interested.  You may need to study some theory first including harmonic analysis and detailed description of sonata-allegro form with associated textural changes and the feeling of momentum that "drives" the work forward (e.g. transition that takes you to the 2nd theme or the "drive to the double bars" at the end of the exposition).  Sonata-allegro form needs the feeling of tension followed by resolution and arrival, such as arrival to the 2nd theme.  The Alkan symphony 1st movement had all of this in abundance!

BTW - I enjoyed hearing your sonata but it was not in sonata-allegro from and lacked certain things that are normally found in works based on traditional forms such as the sonata-allegro form.  It was "static" in the sense that lacked drive and the feeling of arrival and it maybe lacked enough textural changes, etc.  However - it was enjoyable to hear.......

[liszt-and-the-galops]

I would agree with you on most things EXCEPT for the fact that Hamelin is a "horrible pianist." The way he treated the Concerto may not have had as much nuances as one may expect from a pianist of his level, but I believed he viewed it as a whole rather then noting intricacies in the moment. He may not be the best of the best, but it's not all or nothing. IMO, he is not a horrible pianist.

I don't think that he's a horrible pianist (he's definitely a fantastic technician and there are plenty of pieces where he shines), but I think that his Alkan is horrible because Alkan requires that nuance.

You say "Op. 39 nos. 4-7 Symphony for Solo Piano (Jack Gibbons) -- no list of the best Alkan pieces would be complete without this one."  I tried to quote this post but got error message from pianostreet saying "An Error Has Occurred! The post you are trying to quote either does not exist, was deleted, or is no longer viewable by you."

Yeah, I was having trouble getting it to post for a while. Don't know why.

[frodo12]

Yeah, I was having trouble getting it to post for a while. Don't know why.

Try quoting the post yourself now - your 2nd post to this thread.  It is there now - I can see it and read it - but the error message given when I try to quote it says it is not there.  Very strange.

[thorn]

How do we define "empty virtuosity"? I think it's really tricky! To start with the implications of the OP:

1. ... Ignoring Alkan's early period (e.g. Le Preux and Op. 76), very few of Alkan's pieces are even of notable difficulty...The only Alkan pieces that are actually exceedingly difficult are...

Are all exceedingly difficult pieces empty virtuosity? Is it possible for less difficult pieces to sound like empty virtuosity in the hands of certain performers?

2. ..after his early period, you'll find almost nothing by Alkan that can actually be properly simplified without the piece completely falling apart in some way or another.

This takes us into territory of what is/is not contributing to the music in question, and if the ultimate goal of music is/should be economical writing. To give a visual arts example, "too much paint" means a different thing if the stylistic aim is Turner vs. if the stylistic aim is Pollock.

3. In regards to Alkan's transcriptions (there was a thread on this forum a while ago about his transcription of Mozart Concerto no. 20), he believed that piano transcriptions should be as exact as possible

This point seems related to the previous issue.

4. Though much of Alkan isn't extremely technically difficult, his music is often very hard to get "right." Unfortunately, the most popular interpreter of Alkan (Marc-André Hamelin) treats Alkan as a show-off; he plays only Alkan's most technically difficult pieces as fast as he possibly can with very little regard for the actual music.... But again, I cannot stress enough that this is a problem with the pianist, not with the composer.

So "empty virtuosity" is a performance style vs. something innate to a composition? (Links back to #1)

I'm not being difficult btw, I just think it's important to define some of these derogatory terms that get thrown around (perhaps we need a related thread about defining "atonality").

[quino-lane]

It's sad that Alkan's Concerto isn't more accessible; it was be amazing to hear more pianist's interpretations of it. It's difficulty makes it so formidable that only technical champions like Hamelin that play more exotic repertoire would even consider it.

[liszt-and-the-galops]

How do we define "empty virtuosity"?

The rough definition that I see most often (and also the one that I'm arguing that Alkan isn't in this thread) is something along the lines of "virtuosic/showy textures that don't enhance the music," so for example the coda of Mereaux Op. 63 no. 45.

(perhaps we need a related thread about defining "atonality").

Given how much the Rach 3 thread devolved, probably.

It's sad that Alkan's Concerto isn't more accessible; it was be amazing to hear more pianist's interpretations of it. It's difficulty makes it so formidable that only technical champions like Hamelin that play more exotic repertoire would even consider it.

Alkan actually authorized a significant cut to the first movement (IIRC, cutting out everything between the first climax at about 8 minutes in to the penultimate one about 24 minutes in; don't have it in me to check the sheet music for the measure #s so I'm going off of Jack Gibbons' live performance). I prefer the full version though the shortened one is undoubtedly more practical to learn (cutting out the hardest part of the entire Concerto as well as reducing its length by about 30%).

I'm actually not sure if the cut version has ever been recorded though, lol. I think Ronald Smith recorded a version with his own cuts, but I don't think he used Alkan's.