Composers you don't get

[mc ukrneal]

Virtuoso composers appealed to me when I first became interested in classical music, just because the pyrotechnics involved appealed to my immature mind. It was like watching a movie with awesome special effects. With time, I lost interest in pure virtuosity.

But I think this gives the wrong impression entirely. There may be pyrotechnics, but Paganini's violin concertos are pretty good music in their own right. And with Alkan, I think it doesn't come across as just a pyrotechnics exercise. I am moved deeply by the Concerto for Solo Piano. It's a piece that demands I listen to it. I must also admit that it never occurred for me to somehow separate out music in this way. As time went on, composers wrote more and more difficult pieces, and I think the composers just reflect that. I would add one last note - if the performer struggles with the technical side of a piece in any way, the impact will be to highlight those very pyrotechnics, perhaps creating the wrong impression and not showing the piece to advantage.

Perhaps you just don't like so much bombast in a solo performance?

[Josquin des Prez]

JPD: do you have the same reservation about Berlioz's later, less "statement-y" works? L'enfance du Christ, nuits d'été, Béatrice et Bénédict are more "classical" in conception, more emotionally cool.

I'm not too familiar with those. This thread spurred a renewed attempt at grasping this music, so i started chewing off Les Troyens. One thing i can concede about Berlioz is that his orchestration was simply magnificent. It makes even Wagner sound like child play at times.

[Josquin des Prez]

more than a pyrotechnician like Liszt.

I think that's a bit unfair. Yes, there are a lot of pyrotechnics in the music of Liszt, but his virtuosity was never as gratuitous as a lot of people make it out to be. In fact, i think Liszt is probably the single most elegant virtuoso that ever lived. The problem with his music is that it lacks in individuality. Nietzsche said it best when he claimed that Liszt was "the conglomerate of a hundred musicians' souls, but not enough of a personality to cast his own shadow upon them".

To bring up the case of Alkan again, one of the things that bother me the most in his works is precisely the fact that his virtuoso elements are not only gratuitous, but in many cases entirely unnecessary. Some of his works would actually sound a lot better without the continuous avalanche of technical difficulties.

[Opus106]

Here's a sub-theme: Pieces you don't get by composers you love

The Cello Suites.

Disclaimers: As of this writing, I don't "get" any music, because I cannot understand them at a technical level (although I would like to).

I don't find the cello suites repulsive... it's nice music at some level, no doubt; but I seem to connect more with even supposedly less interesting cantatas of Bach than I do with these pieces.

There isn't even a single fugue!

[Josquin des Prez]

A lot of music by Bach will always remain inaccessible unless you learn to listen to it vertically, which 90% of classical music lovers never do. Some of his compositions can be enjoyed in a more simple horizontal way, but in that case the experience is relatively limited (though sufficient for many). This is not the case for the cello suites.

[Josquin des Prez]

There isn't even a single fugue!

There's a fugue in the prelude of the fifth suite. The cello suites are bit less ambitious in scope the the pieces he wrote for solo violin, probably because they were written first. They are still very difficult works.

[Opus106]

There's a fugue in the prelude of the fifth suite. The cello suites are bit less ambitious in scope the the pieces he wrote for solo violin, probably because they were written first. They are still very difficult works.

I stand corrected. Of late, I've been taken by the fantasia-stic prelude of the 6th. I'll listen to the 5th's prelude again and listen for the fugue.

Having said that, I'm still in a complaining mood and point out that it's too little.

[mc ukrneal]

A lot of music by Bach will always remain inaccessible unless you learn to listen to it vertically...

I stand corrected.

Then all should be clear to you! 

[Opus106]

Then all should be clear to you! 

To quote MI:

[Ten thumbs]

Unlike some other long-winded composers whose work could benefit from some non-narcissistic editing (!), Mahler is really worth the effort it takes to get into his late-19th Century, late-Romantic, fin de siecle Vienna and end-of-the-old-pre-industrial-social-order mindset.  It also helps to remember that his full-time job was as an opera director and that his symphonies are infused with that operatic sensibility.

Instead of trying to force yourself to like it, just give it time to grow on you.

I can't deny the greatness of this music and when I was younger I did give it the time it needs but there is so much beautiful music out there. Most of my listening is done in short spells, so I get my immensity from lied such as Kinkel's 'Abendfeier' (5'40) and yes I may want to listen to that twice, or even three times.

[Luke]

Haha, mentioning Alkan is a sure fire way to make Luke post in a thread.

Yep, you aksed for it    hold on to your hat, this is going to be a long and unnecessarily verbose one, again...!

Truth is, i tried listening to this composer the way he does, but i just don't see it. Yes his music is a lot more technical then the average romantic virtuoso of the Thalberg variety, but its kinda like listening to Brahms with lots of gratuitous virtuosity thrown in and none of the inspiration and genius behind it. Right now its not the grand works like the concerto or the symphony that i enjoy the most, but the more intimate pieces, like the Esquisses.

So yes, I'll always be happy to talk about Alkan! I'm also happy to lead you through his best pieces bar-by-bar and show you quite how wrong you are ;-) – take Alkan's style on its own terms (which I guess is the 'getting it' of the thread title) and suddenly none of that virtuosity seems gratuitous. It is built into the structure of the music... And once one appreciates that fact – and the concerto's first movement is the best place to see it – then the inspiration and genius becomes blazingly clear. As I said, I'm happy to go bar-by-bar on this one ;-)

You cannot say you don't like something if you don't understand it.

Exactly!

Virtuoso composers appealed to me when I first became interested in classical music, just because the pyrotechnics involved appealed to my immature mind. It was like watching a movie with awesome special effects. With time, I lost interest in pure virtuosity.

Believe me, it is the same for me; it would be slightly strawmannish to imply that appreciation of virtuosity-for-virtuosity's sake is what is going on here, at least not in my case, re my experience of Alkan (or Liszt, or Chopin, or Rzewski, or Stevenson, or Finnissy, or Sorabji...). As a kid I, too, was fascinated by the extremes of virtuosity; as a young teenager I eagerly got my paws on scores, first of Gaspard and Islamey and as much Liszt as I could handle, before progressing onto stuff I hadn't even dreamt of... I also loved BIG orchestral sounds, and I think there was something of the same fascination with extremes there too. I grew out of both, but my admiration for the composers remained, when the music itself was worthy of it. As I got to know more and more about Alkan, my admiration grew and grew. It is simply extraordinary music, never mind whether it is difficult or not.

more than a pyrotechnician like Liszt.

I think that's a bit unfair. Yes, there are a lot of pyrotechnics in the music of Liszt, but his virtuosity was never as gratuitous as a lot of people make it out to be. In fact, i think Liszt is probably the single most elegant virtuoso that ever lived.

Ha! Well, that's not quite fair on me, in fact, because of course I am an ardent Lisztian and said nothing to his detriment. Liszt isn't a mere pyrotechnician, which is perhaps how you read my post. But his nevertheless his virtuosity is pyrotechnic - the dazzling show and the effect is what it is about. Alkan's virtuosity certainly dazzles too, but it isn't there for prettification and glitter, to embelish a line beautifully or to caress the senses. It is of a different order, existing in carefully graded and sequenced patterns to clarify form, to act almost a moral force, a fire through which the performer must go. And then Chopin's is different again, sometimes closer to Liszt (in the Nocturnes, maybe), sometime s to Alkan (in the Etudes) but alwys with that unique Chopin poetry.  So yes, - anything pejorative you picked up from my post was your inference but not my implication.

The problem with his music is that it lacks in individuality. Nietzsche said it best when he claimed that Liszt was "the conglomerate of a hundred musicians' souls, but not enough of a personality to cast his own shadow upon them".

And I'm not sure that is entirely fair on Liszt! But I know there is a kernel of truth there. It isn't something that could be said of Chopin, or of Alkan - both posses musical personality in bucketloads, even if Alkan's is more restricted and monomanical than Chopin's.

I do think it is worth considering these three composers together though. They make such a compelling triumvirate, these three gus, who were all active in Paris at the same time, of course, and who knew each other. I think trying to differentiate between the very different but equally valid species of virtuosity these three big mid-19th century pianistas exhibit is useful; thinking about how they differ is illuminating, especially in a thread which is about 'not getting' specific composers.

To bring up the case of Alkan again, one of the things that bother me the most in his works is precisely the fact that his virtuoso elements are not only gratuitous, but in many cases entirely unnecessary. Some of his works would actually sound a lot better without the continuous avalanche of technical difficulties

Again, this is an argument I reject; I find it hard to see Alkan's virtuoso demands as gratuitous when they are such a central feature of his work...

...I would add one last note - if the performer struggles with the technical side of a piece in any way, the impact will be to highlight those very pyrotechnics, perhaps creating the wrong impression and not showing the piece to advantage.

This is true of course, but actually there is also the other POV - that the strain on the performer is part of the piece, part of the performance, something which communicates strongly with the audience (provided the perofmance doesn't become a shambles, of course). We don't want to be played to by machines. (This argument has its end-point in Ferneyhough et al, which is one reason that I see Alkan as the starting point on that line). What I love about Alkan is that he writes music which is implacable; he traps the pianist in the machine of his music - there is no speeding up, no slowing down, there are just these notes to get through. But it is not a 'continuous avalanche' as JDP described it; on the contrary it is carefully graded with endless invention and insight. There is lyricism of a high order, there are moments of extreme simplicity, but all are under the sway of this implacable tempo - and (this is important), these moments are the more beautiful, the more exquisite, because they are under threat; there is little room to breathe, the cage of that implacable tempo is always near. That's a kind of beauty which is very rare (we don't really get it in Liszt or particularly in Chopin). It's one of the chief virtues of Alkan's music IMO. Sometimes there are things which sound hideously hard but are actually quite easy; sometimes there are things which sound doable but which almost break one's fingers off. In the solo Concerto Alkan sets himself a problem - I have to write a florid, complex, passionate 'orchestral' music; I have to write a virtuoso piano 'solo' on top of and in the middle of this. Finally, (problem 1) I have to top it all off with a cadenza which is clearly for solo piano, but which is harder than anything else so far...but (problem 2)how to grade this, how not to exhaust the reservoirs of potential difficulty well before this point? Alkan's solution: trim the cadenza down so that instead of a barrage of notes, the performer onl has to deal with one single line, monody. But in repeated notes at light speed, and for pages. This is a great  moment of compositional inspiration IMO; Alkan solves all his self-imposed problems by taking a startling look-from-the-other-side and making his music very simple in texture but requiring a virtuosit of the most cruelly, viciously exposed sort. It's moments like that (and there are several more even in that single first movement) which make me admire Alkan so much.

 

[Luke]

Sorry. I get carried away... (haven't been able to post all day!) 

[Josquin des Prez]

Haha, i'll try to tackle that later. This is what my mind feels like right now:

http://nyan.cat/

(yes i know, you can't get that out of your head too now. You are welcome).

At any rate, mind that everything i said about Alkan isn't as damning as it sounds. Even now i still don't consider him a genius in the order of a Beethoven, or even a Mahler, but he's a lot greater then, say, Paganini. And i mean, a *lot*. I think he is one of those musicians who could have attained full genius status if only his inspiration had been stronger. Doesn't help that i don't like many of the pianists that are recording his music right now. So far the only one i really liked is Roland Smith.

[mc ukrneal]

...What I love about Alkan is that he writes music which is implacable; he traps the pianist in the machine of his music - there is no speeding up, no slowing down, there are just these notes to get through. But it is not a 'continuous avalanche' as JDP described it; on the contrary it is carefully graded with endless invention and insight. There is lyricism of a high order, there are moments of extreme simplicity, but all are under the sway of this implacable tempo - and (this is important), these moments are the more beautiful, the more exquisite, because they are under threat; there is little room to breathe, the cage of that implacable tempo is always near. That's a kind of beauty which is very rare (we don't really get it in Liszt or particularly in Chopin). It's one of the chief virtues of Alkan's music IMO...

The quoted part is what really struck me - you've captured his music very well in that description.

[thalbergmad]

Yes his music is a lot more technical then the average romantic virtuoso of the Thalberg variety, but its kinda like listening to Brahms with lots of gratuitous virtuosity thrown in and none of the inspiration and genius behind it.

Perhaps Alkan wanted to replicate the orchestra with his piano compositions and Thalberg was satisfied with the strings.

As a 3rd rate hack pianist, I have tried to play both Alkan's Concerto for solo piano and Thalberg's Fantasies on Sonnambula and Seriminade. Since I didn't get very far with any of these, I consider them (probably in error) of similar technical difficulty.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

A fair amount of virtuoso piano composers -  Alkan, Scorabi & Finnessey - do nothing for me

I certainly don't "get" Sorabji and have almost driven myself to insanity in the attempt to do so.

I was once told that his music requires "intelligence" to appreciate, so no doubt the fault is mine.

It is with some relief that I no longer feel bound to subject my ears to hours of random note spinning to placate his supporters.

Thal

[not edward]

Luke, great point about the cadenza in the first movement; I've always considered it the perfect climax to a 20+-minute relentlessly building wave of musical tension, but I'd not thought of its success being specifically due to the combination of the radical simplification of the music and the ratcheting up the technical demands even further with that horrendously rough storm of double notes--a classic Alkan example of something that is extremely difficult yet not showily so. And that combination of difficulty without showy display surely has a lot to do with his lack of more general popularity--so much technical difficulty yet in many works the virtuosity is there to illuminate the musical architecture rather than to provide explosive Lisztian climaxes.

Not unrelatedly, one of the reasons I still value the Ronald Smith version of the concerto so highly, despite the cuts and technical infelicities, is that to me he clearly regards it of prime importance to treat this movement as one relentless single sweep from beginning to end, a giant accelerando e crescendo--albeit with many other layers of musical meaning woven through it. For me, there are very few performances of any work that so convincingly articulate such a large-scale sonata-form-based structure as a single breath; Scherchen's '58 VSOO Eroica first movement being one that comes to mind.

[bigshot]

Schoenberg

12 tone row stuff just makes me scratch my head.

JdP, can you explain what you mean about listening vertically to Bach? Thanks.

[AllegroVivace]

Just checked out last years' Pulitzer Prize winning piece by Jennifer Higdon, her Violin Concerto (http://youtu.be/yW-7awt9MCE). Couldn't see any substance behind the whole display of quasi virtuoso lines and orchestral tricks. Planning to give it a chance though, a couple of more times. Hopefully it will grow on me.

[Mirror Image]

Everyone has a different emotional approach to music, but still, of all three composers Simpson is the hardest to get acquainted with, for most that is, I bought these recordings the moment they came on the market, that much it grasped me, but to others his music is poison. Holmboe for me are his Symphonies, apart from them I have a hard time to connect with him. His Orchestral scores are lucid and well thought out, for me his chamber music less. Weinberg on the other hand is pivotal to me, his Symphonies a marvel, his SQ a hard piece of metal that leaves me barren in emotions, but one of the best composers I have in my collection. All three I could not do without, but I see that it influences people in a different way, and that amazes me every time I read something in this context.
Nevertheless they will grasp you all three of them!

Simpson is a tough nut to crack! Holmboe and Weinberg I can digest a little easier. But I think this is all a matter of spending more time with their music. I just find all three of them off-putting. Hopefully, I can reconcile some of this discomfort in time.