Extremely Long Piano Compositions - What's Their Point?

[San Antone]

I think that what @AnotherSpin meant was that all imagined things are necessarily imagined in the head, so that the expression "the imagination in your head" is rather pleonastic: one cannot imagine anything save in the head.

I should have made it obvious, with the use of italics, that the most important phrase in that sentence was "your head" - not "imagined in". 

[Luke]

I found this video featuring one of Rachmaninoff's students, at around 3:45 she begins to talk about his preludes and says that Rachmaninoff stated that it is 'more difficult to write a miniature than to write a large composition.'

Everyone know what he was getting at, and it's the sort of thing that is often said - and of course creating something small and perfectly formed is a kind of miracle of a very special type (and I should point out that in general I myself am much more susceptible to small forms than large ones, despite my defense of longer forms on this thread). But at the same time it's also just one of those charming paradoxes that provokes a bit of mystery and wonder, and points up the specific magic that tiny fragments of music can have.('It may be small but it's so perfectly formed!') But it's a point that is made only because of that obvious paradox, which is that of course it's harder to write something long, in terms of time, effort, and the skill required in holding the piece together etc etc.

At one and the same time on this thread we have people saying that it's harder to write a smaller piece, and that no composer of a long piano piece has done so successfully. We also have the evidence of numbers: if it's easier to write longer works, why aren't there more of them? (How many Preludes did Rachmaninov write? 32. How many sonatas? 2)

[AnotherSpin]

I think that what @AnotherSpin meant was that all imagined things are necessarily imagined in the head, so that the expression "the imagination in your head" is rather pleonastic: one cannot imagine anything save in the head.

The same elements make up both the Self and the perceived objects of the external world.

[Karl Henning]

The repetitive kvetching about the music on this thread is far more tedious than listening to Sorabji's pieces.

[atardecer]

Everyone know what he was getting at, and it's the sort of thing that is often said - and of course creating something small and perfectly formed is a kind of miracle of a very special type (and I should point out that in general I myself am much more susceptible to small forms than large ones, despite my defense of longer forms on this thread). But at the same time it's also just one of those charming paradoxes that provokes a bit of mystery and wonder, and points up the specific magic that tiny fragments of music can have.('It may be small but it's so perfectly formed!') But it's a point that is made only because of that obvious paradox, which is that of course it's harder to write something long, in terms of time, effort, and the skill required in holding the piece together etc etc.

At one and the same time on this thread we have people saying that it's harder to write a smaller piece, and that no composer of a long piano piece has done so successfully. We also have the evidence of numbers: if it's easier to write longer works, why aren't there more of them? (How many Preludes did Rachmaninov write? 32. How many sonatas? 2)

I see your point and I think they are probably difficult in different ways. I think some people under estimate the difficulty of the miniature, and perhaps some might feel impressed when a work is longer and multi-faceted, even if the longer work itself isn't put together all that cohesively, or compellingly. I remember having a discussion with a musician who performed in a prog rock band and he stated he thought it was more difficult to write a good pop song than it is to write a good prog rock composition.

[AnotherSpin]

Speaking of Sorabji. Tried listening to his Sequentia Cyclica last night. The first part was okay. Reminded me of Keith Jarrett, in bad mood, but listenable. With the first sounds of the second part I hurriedly switched it off.

[atardecer]

We also have the evidence of numbers: if it's easier to write longer works, why aren't there more of them? (How many Preludes did Rachmaninov write? 32. How many sonatas? 2)

This point I think is a little misleading, because outside of solo piano Rachmaninoff wrote many longer works, including concertos, chamber music, symphonies and vocal music. The fact he composed more preludes than sonatas for solo piano can be explained by the fact he found them more challenging and in a sense valued them more. Also as far as solo piano pretty much all composers with an over all Romantic harmonic language composed more shorter form pieces than sonatas. Sonata form does not seem to work as well for Romantic (or even post Romantic) solo piano music compared to the Classical era aesthetic.

By the late Romantic era we have a number of major composers focusing almost exclusively on long works like Wagner, Bruckner and Mahler.

[atardecer]

I like some of the Sorabji I've heard, but an 8.5 hour long work to me seems a little excessive. He has every right to compose such a work, and I have every right not to listen to it, and it is unlikely that I will (but not beyond the realm of possibility).

[Luke]

This point I think is a little misleading

Well, I make it semi-seriously, because obviously there are more shorter piano pieces than longer ones! It's true of Chopin, of Schumann, of Brahms, of Debussy, of Ravel, even of 10-sonata Scriabin, and of almost all the greatest Romantic and post-romantic composers for piano (maybe not Ives or Medtner, perhaps)

because outside of solo piano Rachmaninoff wrote many longer works, including concertos, symphonies and vocal music. The fact he composed more preludes than sonatas for solo piano can be explained by the fact he found them more challenging and in a sense valued them more.

Or, more plausibly, by the fact that he found composing sonatas more challenging than composing shorter works (look at the composition history of the 2nd sonata) and also, simply that they take longer to write and take more out of the composer. R's sonatas never seem to me very convincing - seems to me they were a huge challenge to him...

Also as far as solo piano pretty much all composers with an over all Romantic harmonic language composed more shorter form pieces than sonatas. Sonata form does not seem to work as well for romantic (or even post Romantic) solo piano music compared to the classical era aesthetic.

I agree. Look at the plethora of short form pieces. Look at the dearth of truly extended giants. So why are we asked to believe that short forms are harder to compose?

By the late Romantic era we have a number of major composers focusing almost exclusively on long works like Wagner, Bruckner and Mahler.

Significantly these are not piano compositions, and significantly they are writing in forms (opera and symphony) that were always long, even if they became more swollen under the romantic aesthetic. That aesthetic always veered to two extremes - the tiny Schumannian fragment form, usually for solo piano and the immense world-creation of a Mahler or a Wagner, for enormous forces. Both are equally valid. I don't see why a fusion of the two- an extended work for a solo piano - shouldn't be equally valid. Its certainly an interesting proposition, one that poetically juxtaposes intimacy against vastness...

But in standard composition, the very small and the very large are aesthetic worlds apart, and to compare them for 'difficulty of composition is nonsensical and tells us nothing about intrinsic quality. I repeat what I implied before: if, as some have said on this thread, there have been no successful or worthy extended, hyperlong piano works, how can it also be true that they are easier to compose than the miniatures of which there are so many wonderful examples?

[Bachtoven]

I like some of the Sorabji I've heard, but an 8.5 hour long work to me seems a little excessive. He has every right to compose such a work, and I have every right not to listen to it, and it is unlikely that I will (but not beyond the realm of possibility).

His extremely long compositions work better for me in roughly hour-long chunks. I did sit through Jonathan Powell's live performance of Opus Clavicembalisticum, during which he took two intermissions as I recall. Anyway, watching someone negotiate virtually the entire keyboard at times is more compelling to watch than simply listening to it!

[Karl Henning]

I like some of the Sorabji I've heard, but an 8.5 hour long work to me seems a little excessive. He has every right to compose such a work, and I have every right not to listen to it, and it is unlikely that I will (but not beyond the realm of possibility).

This is obviously completely reasonable.

As a rule (and I have in mind participants other than yourself) I am done writing in advocacy of Sorabji's work in this thread, mindful of Mark Twain's admonishment, Never try to teach a pig to sing: it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

[Karl Henning]

His extremely long compositions work better for me in roughly hour-long chunks. I did sit through Jonathan Powell's live performance of Opus Clavicembalisticum, during which he took two intermissions as I recall. Anyway, watching someone negotiate virtually the entire keyboard at times is more compelling to watch than simply listening to it!

Indeed. I found that even of the substantially more modest (of time-scale) Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk.

[atardecer]

to compare them for 'difficulty of composition is nonsensical and tells us nothing about intrinsic quality.

I think this pretty much sums it up. Comparing for 'difficulty' in music composition is rather non-sensical. If one looks at the process closely, it appears that some of the greatest pieces of music did not seem to be a struggle (though some were). Many pieces that were a struggle did not amount to much. I think the difficulty in composing something, isn't really that relevant. One idea is that some composers, maybe just due to the time, place and circumstances of their lives were chosen by the universe as vessels, or instruments for ideas to flow through. This may sound crazy to some but it is how Stravinsky described composing the Rite, Brahms made a similar statement about how musical ideas came to him, many other composers have made similar comments. Carl Jung believed something along these lines as well. I don't think the human aspect of the creation is non-existent but if the creation of musical masterpieces has some other mysterious element involved such as this it is another reason why thinking of things in terms of difficulty doesn't really make sense.

[Karl Henning]

I don't think the human aspect of the creation is non-existent but if the creation of musical masterpieces has some other mysterious element involved such as this it is another reason why thinking of things in terms of difficulty doesn't really make sense.

Another sign of the shortcomings of concentrating on manner rather than content.

[Spotted Horses]

Yeah, right. The concert-going rabble; the dirty, clumsy paws of the herd; the enormous majority who demand offal --- these are actually affectionate terms.

To begin with, you are quoting Busoni and Sorabji describing Busoni, which doesn't bear directly on Sorabji. I don't normally pay much attention to the notions that fill a composers head or what they say about their own music or the music of others. I pay attention to the music. Busoni, outside some remarkable Bach transcriptions, has typically not resonated with me. On the other hand, I have been enjoying my initial exposure to Sorabji (in small chunks). I don't hear any "distain" in it, although it is inconveniently long.

[AnotherSpin]

This is obviously completely reasonable.

As a rule (and I have in mind participants other than yourself) I am done writing in advocacy of Sorabji's work in this thread, mindful of Mark Twain's admonishment, Never try to teach a pig to sing: it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Do you identify with Mark Twain or with a pig?

[Florestan]

The level of grossness to which one of the posters sunk is appalling, one that I would have never thought him capable of, and all the more surprising as I have been perfectly civil to him (or anyone else, for that matter). Oh well.

[Luke]

His extremely long compositions work better for me in roughly hour-long chunks. I did sit through Jonathan Powell's live performance of Opus Clavicembalisticum, during which he took two intermissions as I recall. Anyway, watching someone negotiate virtually the entire keyboard at times is more compelling to watch than simply listening to it!

Jonathan Powell taught me fugue at university. The fugue teaching left less of an impression than the figure of this amazing young virtuoso/composer, who would often turn up in Cambridge straight off the train from last night's concert, still in his tails having not slept. 

[Karl Henning]

Do you identify with Mark Twain or with a pig?

There is no question of identification, only of the futility of the endeavor. How did you read it?

[Bachtoven]

The repetitive kvetching about the music on this thread is far more tedious than listening to Sorabji's pieces.

Absolutely. The initial post, which was pointless at best, has morphed into a new beast. Time for a moderator to lock it.