Unfamiliar Composers To Me

[Josquin des Prez]

Oh, I don't know about that. I'm looking at the C major fugue published in the dissertation someone quoted above. I haven't had time to print it and read it at the piano yet, but from the look of it, the four-square design of the subject, with the rest at bar 4 and the second voice entering on the upbeat to 5, seems very un-Bachian. Bach - and a quick look through WTC 1 will confirm this - always provides greater rhythmic fluidity in the way he introduces the voices in the expositions of his fugues, often overlapping the entrance of the second voice rather than this clumsy breaking off and starting again.

Bach rhythms don't swing though. Of course, Bach is just a greater composer in general, but even so, writing a fugue with such tortuous rhythmic patterns creates a different set of challenges and requires a different approach altogether. 

From looking at the page, the piano writing seems very awkward too (e.g., the left hand quoted on p. 113), not lying easily in the hands.

Arguable. Its possible that, given Kapustin wrote all of his music for his own personal amusement, much of his music conforms to his own idiosyncrasies as a pianist, but at the same time, without playing the entire piece its hard to say whether a certain passage would be easier to play in a different way without taking into consideration what comes before and after.

[karlhenning]

Bach rhythms don't swing though.

They can be (and have been) made to, of course.

[jowcol]

True, but i find it unlikely that two individuals may have such an extremely polarized reaction, because many of the things that make music great are objectively assessable. For instance, for the longest time i just couldn't stand the music of Prokofiev. I'm not sure for the reason, but it just didn't resonate with me. But even then, i still recognized that he was an artist of great talent, i just wouldn't listen to him often. To go to the extend in which James and the others are going, that is, to imply that Kapustin is not merely to their liking, but that he is downright incompetent, that his music is poorly crafted, derivative and essentially worthless, that to me, is perfectly contestable on an objective level.

I guess I still struggle with the "objectively assessable" part.  For one thing, the assessments keep evolving over time.  I won't bother reviewing how many great composers first met with critical disdain.  To assume an objective criteria doesn't seem to account for all of the disagreement in the last three hundred years of music theory.

And, terms like whether something is "well crafted" are still extremely ambiguous and subjective.  Which is okay, the tools we have to describe music are what we have-- it just helps to know their limitations.  And where does our opinions and preferences start.  I know that you and  me prefer minor scales.  The fact they are minor is objective. The fact they I find them more appealing and honest is subjective on my part.  By drawing associations between the objective elements and my subjective reactions, I'm  better equipped to search out the music that  will give me that reaction I'm looking for.

I certainly have not been convinced from "evidence" on this  this thread that Kapustin is incompetent, or even worse, a pernicious fraud.  But providing the opposite objectively when everyone carries their own set of criteria is just as impossible. 

[karlhenning]

I guess I still struggle with the "objectively assessable" part.  For one thing, the assessments keep evolving over time.  I won't bother reviewing how many great composers first met with critical disdain.  To assume an objective criteria doesn't seem to account for all of the disagreement in the last three hundred years of music theory.

And, terms like whether something is "well crafted" are still extremely ambiguous and subjective.  Which is okay, the tools we have to describe music are what we have-- it just helps to know their limitations.  And where does our opinions and preferences start.  I know that you and  me prefer minor scales.  The fact they are minor is objective. The fact they I find them more appealing and honest is subjective on my part.  By drawing associations between the objective elements and my subjective reactions, I'm  better equipped to search out the music that  will give me that reaction I'm looking for.

I certainly have not been convinced from "evidence" on this  this thread that Kapustin is incompetent, or even worse, a pernicious fraud.  But providing the opposite objectively when everyone carries their own set of criteria is just as impossible. 

A fine post IMO.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Arguable. Its possible that, given Kapustin wrote all of his music for his own personal amusement, much of his music conforms to his own idiosyncrasies as a pianist, but at the same time, without playing the entire piece its hard to say whether a certain passage would be easier to play in a different way without taking into consideration what comes before and after.

Arguable. A pianist (are you one?) can often evaluate the playability of a passage just by looking at the score.

[Luke]

I may be wrong, but I would hazard a guess that I'm the only person on the board who has actually played - at the piano, I mean - both all of the WTC (many times over) and all of Kapustin's Preludes and Fugues op 82. I've played a few other Kapustin pieces, too, and read the scores of lots more - and my conclusion from that experience is that the op 82 fugues may well represent him at his best, at his most complex and most technically sophisticated, IOW represent him as the composer Josquin is trying to describe.

Sforzando's mini-critique of the C major fugue is spot on, of course, but speaking more generally I would be very happy to make a case for the compositional virtuosity exhibited in these op 82 pieces. There are some shockingly good pieces in there, from a technical and formal point of view - though very, very hard, in a specific and idiosyncratic way, some of them! As Josquin says, the difficulty probably derives from their roots in Kapustin's own fingers as he improvises, but I'm not sure that's really a good excuse. If he is aiming to classicise, formalise, regulate the jazz language - to write classical using the jazz language, as Josquin says - then he ought to be able to tame and depersonalize the technical demands too, I'd have thought.

In the end, I'm afraid I fall down somewhere in the middle. I think Kapustin is an extremely fine and very skilled composer - to claim otherwise would be foolish, having played through much of it. He has an ability to write and write and write endless stunning keyboard displays that, as Josquin hints, suggest Scarlatti - suggest him, too, in the ability to find so many shades within the language he chooses. No two pieces that I've seen are quite alike (with the exception of some of the sonatas, perhaps, but I haven't played them much) and that in itself is impressive. His compositional technique is formidable, to say the least.

But at the same time, I think the confusion of form and content that others find troublesome remains an issue - confronted with Kapustin I am always uneasy, too. I feel like he is a composer who is all mask and steely framework but with little beneath the surface - frankly, with nothing beneath the surface that I have discerned. He may indeed write superbly structured classical music using the language of jazz as Josquin says, but what he is saying in that language, within that structure, seems to me to be uninteresting and impersonal. In the final analysis, despite knowing quite a bit of Kapustin, and despite having played, many times, through some of his best work - something that usually makes me feel much closer to a piece than just listening - I find that though the technique and the difficulty have impressed themselves on my memory, the music itself is strangely vacant, and I think that says quite a lot. I know this is only one reaction, of course - Josquin discerns a potent personal style that I simply can't locate, for instance. But I can't shift that uneasy feeling that Kapustin gives me, impressed though I certainly am.

[karlhenning]

Most interesting, as ever, Luke, thanks!

[Josquin des Prez]

@ Luke: you can play Kapustin? I'm impressed.

I think sometimes the reaction we have to a particular artist is based on some underlying, personal affinity. Kapustin is a reclusive, serious and introspective man. I'm a reclusive, serious, introspective person myself. It was just love at first sight. It also helps that Kapustin is one of the most amazing pianists i ever heard. Obviously he has the advantage since he's playing his own music, but among the hundreds of recordings i own, there are very few that compare to the perfection of his playing and interpretations. Its regretful he never pursued a concert career, would love to hear him play some of the classics, particular Beethoven. 

[Luke]

@ Luke: you can play Kapustin? I'm impressed.

Not always very well! He's bloomin' hard!

For the rest - I think you are quite right.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Its regretful he never pursued a concert career, would love to hear him play some of the classics, particular Beethoven.

Would have been interesting to hear him tackle that jazzy variation in Op. 111.

[71 dB]

I sampled some Kapustin in Spotify. Not my cup of tea. Meaningless fast jazz pianism to my ears.

[karlhenning]

I sampled some Kapustin in Spotify. Not my cup of tea. Meaningless fast jazz pianism to my ears.

I may be wrong, but I would hazard a guess that I'm the only person on the board who has actually played - at the piano, I mean - both all of the WTC (many times over) and all of Kapustin's Preludes and Fugues op 82. I've played a few other Kapustin pieces, too, and read the scores of lots more - and my conclusion from that experience is that the op 82 fugues may well represent him at his best, at his most complex and most technically sophisticated, IOW represent him as the composer Josquin is trying to describe.

Sforzando's mini-critique of the C major fugue is spot on, of course, but speaking more generally I would be very happy to make a case for the compositional virtuosity exhibited in these op 82 pieces. There are some shockingly good pieces in there, from a technical and formal point of view - though very, very hard, in a specific and idiosyncratic way, some of them! As Josquin says, the difficulty probably derives from their roots in Kapustin's own fingers as he improvises, but I'm not sure that's really a good excuse. If he is aiming to classicise, formalise, regulate the jazz language - to write classical using the jazz language, as Josquin says - then he ought to be able to tame and depersonalize the technical demands too, I'd have thought.

In the end, I'm afraid I fall down somewhere in the middle. I think Kapustin is an extremely fine and very skilled composer - to claim otherwise would be foolish, having played through much of it. He has an ability to write and write and write endless stunning keyboard displays that, as Josquin hints, suggest Scarlatti - suggest him, too, in the ability to find so many shades within the language he chooses. No two pieces that I've seen are quite alike (with the exception of some of the sonatas, perhaps, but I haven't played them much) and that in itself is impressive. His compositional technique is formidable, to say the least.

But at the same time, I think the confusion of form and content that others find troublesome remains an issue - confronted with Kapustin I am always uneasy, too. I feel like he is a composer who is all mask and steely framework but with little beneath the surface - frankly, with nothing beneath the surface that I have discerned. He may indeed write superbly structured classical music using the language of jazz as Josquin says, but what he is saying in that language, within that structure, seems to me to be uninteresting and impersonal. In the final analysis, despite knowing quite a bit of Kapustin, and despite having played, many times, through some of his best work - something that usually makes me feel much closer to a piece than just listening - I find that though the technique and the difficulty have impressed themselves on my memory, the music itself is strangely vacant, and I think that says quite a lot. I know this is only one reaction, of course - Josquin discerns a potent personal style that I simply can't locate, for instance. But I can't shift that uneasy feeling that Kapustin gives me, impressed though I certainly am.

Hmm, I wonder which opinion is better formed? . . .

[Sergeant Rock]

Hmm, I wonder which opinion is better formed? . . .

Ooooo! Ooooo! I know the answer to that one! Pick me! Pick me!




Sarge

[skyg]

Who out there with their knowledge knows of these composers whose names I came across while perusing various sources.  Just curious; thought I knew at least most 20Th century maestros.
Richard flury
Alan Payette
Ernesto Lecuna
Cecil Chaminade
Jopseph Holbrooke ( I did order a symphony.  A forum post recommeded hs work.)   
Szel Gowski
Lidia Kozubelk
Nikolai Kapustin
Milton Babbitt (name does ring a bell.)
Tischenko
Howard Ferguson
Oswald Stoyanov
These are a mere few of composers whose works I don't know.  I'm certain there are those who do know.

Who is actually Oswald Stoyanov? A word or two about him or his work? Surname sounds Bulgarian, name not so much...

[Josquin des Prez]

Who is actually Oswald Stoyanov? A word or two about him or his work? Surname sounds Bulgarian, name not so much...

I like how googling his name only yields this thread as a result.