Extremely Long Piano Compositions - What's Their Point?

[Luke]

Rest assured that my remarks were not referring to you in the least. All your replies to me have been gentlemanly even when expressing strong disagreement --- and I'd like to think that I reciprocated.

Yes, of course - absolutely.

[AnotherSpin]

That's the saddest and most incomprehensible part of it all. Looks like some people take the act of criticizing music on an anonymous and inconsequential internet board as a grave personal offense whose perpetrator must be insulted, ridiculed and eventually silenced. They can't simply rebuke or ignore opinions contrary to their own, they must prevent them from being expressed at all.

And there's more. I have been called a troll, an ignorant and a pig for saying that Sorabji's music is too long and esoteric. Try to imagine the zoological imagery that would have been employed if I had said that:

- there is rythmic and melodic poverty in the music of Schubert, Schumann and Brahms

- Schubert did not understand songwriting

- Brahms' mind was bourgeois, commonplace and pedestrian and his music is enormously inferior in originality and significance to that of Max Reger

- Hindemith is a brainless ape mimicking Stravinsky, who in his turn has absolutely no taste and style

- Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue is humbug and bosh

- jazz music is pervaded by a drooling, bibulous snivelling which makes it unspeakably repulsive and disgusting to all those not besotted by it or those who flatter it from interested motives

- modern popular music is coprophiliac and deliquescent putrescence

The big irony is that there is someone who said all that drivel and that someone is Sorabji himself. You can be absolutely sure, though, that the same people who'd have torn me apart for saying it will find all sorts of excuses and rationalizations for Sorabji's saying it or for their not caring about his having said it. Because obviously, quod licet Jovi (ie, Sorabji and themselves) non licet bovi (ie, Florestan).

Sad but all too true.

Sorabji also wrote about "the desperate and femininely distraught wails of Tchaikovsky"

[Henk]

People start resorting to rules when their interactions are no longer natural. Do people who are madly in love with each other need rules? Quite the opposite. But as soon as feelings start to cool down, there is a need to introduce rules. Trust goes, rule comes.

Besides, the rules of the game, and the desire to shut someone up, to ban someone just because someone thinks differently, are not the same thing.

Also consider these thoughts by Nietzsche, shared here by me with the risk of @Florestan going mad now    ):

'Which is more Transitory, the Body or the Spirit?—In legal, moral, and religious institutions the external and concrete elements—in other words, rites, gestures, and ceremonies—are the most permanent. They are the body to which a new spirit is constantly being superadded. The cult, like an unchangeable text, is ever interpreted anew. Concepts and emotions are fluid, customs are solid.' (Human, all too human. Part two')

[San Antone]

That's the saddest and most incomprehensible part of it all. Looks like some people take the act of criticizing music on an anonymous and inconsequential internet board as a grave personal offense whose perpetrator must be insulted, ridiculed and eventually silenced. They can't simply rebuke or ignore opinions contrary to their own, they must prevent them from being expressed at all.

And there's more. I have been called a troll, an ignorant and a pig for saying that Sorabji's music is too long and esoteric. Try to imagine the zoological imagery that would have been employed if I had said that:

- there is rythmic and melodic poverty in the music of Schubert, Schumann and Brahms

- Schubert did not understand songwriting

- Brahms' mind was bourgeois, commonplace and pedestrian and his music is enormously inferior in originality and significance to that of Max Reger

- Hindemith is a brainless ape mimicking Stravinsky, who in his turn has absolutely no taste and style

- Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue is humbug and bosh

- jazz music is pervaded by a drooling, bibulous snivelling which makes it unspeakably repulsive and disgusting to all those not besotted by it or those who flatter it from interested motives

- modern popular music is coprophiliac and deliquescent putrescence

The big irony is that there is someone who said all that drivel and that someone is Sorabji himself. You can be absolutely sure, though, that the same people who'd have torn me apart for saying it will find all sorts of excuses and rationalizations for Sorabji's saying it or for their not caring about his having said it. Because obviously, quod licet Jovi (ie, Sorabji and themselves) non licet bovi (ie, Florestan).

Sad but all too true.



-

For the record I am not a fan of Sorabji's music but will defend him and his music and encourage others to acknowledge that he is a gifted composer who has created serious work. However, I find his statements nonsensical and disappointing that he would have made them.

I also have found many of your comments in this thread to be disrespectful and reductive to the point of being serious distortions of the music in question.

Two things: 1) it takes no courage to take pot shots at well-known composers and their music on an anonymous Internet forum; and 2) it requires courage to write music and place it in the public realm, opening the composer and the music up to criticism, some valid, much just adolescent snipping. The fact that some composers do not show respect for their fellow composers is evidence of their narcissism.

I don't think I have personally insulted you, but I have asked that you try to be less judgmental in how you talk about the music you don't value, or even understand. 

[DavidW]

Strict rules are introduced where there is a lack of mutual trust and  respect between people.

If you had met M Forever you would go "oh right, yeah..." 

[Brian]

Nicholas Slonimsky's immensely entertaining Lexicon of Musical Invective goes some way toward proving that many or most of the great composers had terribly judgmental opinions about all the other ones. Maybe that book (or the idea of composers as critics) deserves its own thread...?

[Cato]

I'm enjoying musing on those questions, mind you. I don't think a locking is necessary, though I'd love to discuss examples of these monster works in musical detail some more. As a composer (which once upon a time I thought I was) ...

This thread has got me thinking about trying to attempt something much larger, and I was even writing down some tentative (verbal) ideas today. So I've enjoyed it so far.


*I had a plan for one but it never came to anything - it's still sitting on my piano, yellow with age and pencil faded...

Luke!  Dude!    I recall your wonderful works, which you shared here, so let me exorcise those negative waves! 

I have great faith in your powers of composition: I understand quite well the choices in Life between family and art.

Decades ago I had to choose my wife and family over composing music: now, in my (Ahem) late middle age 😇, I have returned to a few works, as you know, and might find time to re-create other works.

Some day you might return to that yellowing music paper and fly with it into unknown territory!

[Spotted Horses]

That's the saddest and most incomprehensible part of it all. Looks like some people take the act of criticizing music on an anonymous and inconsequential internet board as a grave personal offense whose perpetrator must be insulted, ridiculed and eventually silenced. They can't simply rebuke or ignore opinions contrary to their own, they must prevent them from being expressed at all.

Have you considered that by deriding Sorabji's music in contemptuous terms, as having no value, not being genuine art, having nothing to say about human life, being gimmickry, being monstrosities (without having heard any of it) you are implicitly insulting participants here who enjoy or have expressed admiration for the music, and music that you lump together with Sorabj?

[Henk]

Nicholas Slonimsky's immensely entertaining Catalog of Musical Invective goes some way toward proving that many or most of the great composers had terribly judgmental opinions about all the other ones. Maybe that book (or the idea of composers as critics) deserves its own thread...?

Makes me wonder who were the more collegueical (spelling probably wrong?) of them. I guess Haydn, Schubert maybe Shostavokich.

[Florestan]

it takes no courage to take pot shots at well-known composers and their music on an anonymous Internet forum

Sorabji, a well-known composer??? I'm willing to bet ten to one that if you ask 100 concert-going music-lovers distributed fairly across the world and not being members of GMG "who was Sorabji?", at least three quarters of them would be at a loss to answer. And this, through no fault of their own. To be a well-known composer one has to have his music played or recorded frequently, which is far from being the case with Sorabji. And this, through no fault of the recording companies or the performing musicians. The man consciously made his music completely impracticable for concert hall and attractive only to a handful of performers willing to record it. That Sorabji is actually an obscure composer, whose music is known only to a tiny minority of the classical music audience worldwide, is entirely his responsibility: that's how he wanted it to be. And you don't have to take my word for it, you can do your own research on the matter.

I don't think I have personally insulted you

You didn't. They know very well who they are, those who did.

[Florestan]

Have you considered that by deriding Sorabji's music in contemptuous terms, as having no value, not being genuine art, having nothing to say about human life, being gimmickry, being monstrosities (without having heard any of it) you are implicitly insulting participants here who enjoy or have expressed admiration for the music, and music that you lump together with Sorabj?

Why anyone should feel so personally and so gravely insulted by criticism of music they enjoy that they must retaliate with personal insults to the critic is beyond me. Beside, you (and apparently they) surely missed the post in which I partially retracted my statements.

[Spotted Horses]

Why anyone should feel so personally and so gravely insulted by criticism of music they enjoy that they must retaliate with personal insults to the critic is beyond me. Beside, you (and apparently they) surely missed the post in which I partially retracted my statements.

I am not gravely insulted. Your creation of this thread and its contents (partial retraction notwithstanding), deriding music you haven't heard and which participants here have expressed admiration for, can come across as willfully rude. That set the tone for some of the responses.

[Florestan]

It has been frequently suggested, in this thread and elsewhere on GMG, that one should refrain from criticizing any music at all because someone, somewhere might like it and therefore feel uncomfortable about it. But why not turn the tables and suggest that one should refrain from praising any music at all, because someone, somewhere might dislike it and therefore feel uncomfortable about it. 

Obviously, both propositions are equally absurd. What one should indeed refrain from is taking criticism of music they like* as a personal offense. Not all people can like the same things but surely they all have the right to express their opinions and sentiments, don't they?

*and actually it's not even a question of so much liking: with two exceptions, I've seen people here defending Sorabji's music who, if the WAYLTN thread is any indication, have not been listening to his music for years. If anything, listening to Sorabji's music intensified after I created the thread.

[Henk]

From what I have read and interpreted you were insulted by critical views from S in the first place.

[Luke]

if the WAYLTN thread is any indication

I'm not sure it is, though. I myself have listened to* Sorabji relatively recently, but as I rarely post on the WAYLTN thread this fact isn't listed on it.

*and indeed played - the (very short) Fantasiettina, which I play through fairly often

[San Antone]

Sorabji, a well-known composer??? I'm willing to bet ten to one that if you ask 100 concert-going music-lovers distributed fairly across the world and not being members of GMG "who was Sorabji?", at least three quarters of them would be at a loss to answer.

That is not how I determine if a composer is well-known.  He was known during his time among the English classical music community, he was a well-read critic, and was championed by a couple of established English composers such as Peter Warlock.  He was reclusive and for many years did not encourage his music being performed. 

He has nearly 5,000 monthly listeners on Spotify, which granted is not high compared to Beethoven or Mozart whose monthly audience is in millions.  Schoenberg has 500K; Webern 70K; Feldman 57K. So Sorabji is listened to less than all of those by a significant margin.  But again, he tamped down his own popularity for personal reasons.

My point stands despite your attempt to deflect it by claiming that Sorabji is not well-known enough for it to matter. Obviously he is well-known among the members of this thread, and forum.

[Florestan]

From what I have read and interpreted you were insulted by critical views from S in the first place.

You interpreted completely wrong. I consider Sorabji's critical views either inanities or provocations. I don't feel insulted by them in the least --- nor by anyone else criticizing music that I enjoy, for that matter. Heck, in this very thread someone harshly criticized Mozart's music and I didn't feel insulted at all, let alone felt the need to write an equally harsh dismissal of the criticism or the critic.

[Luke]

If anything, listening to Sorabji's music intensified after I created the thread.

Nevertheless, this may be true, and this is why I personally don't mind the provocative nature of some of Florestan's posts: I may disagree with them, I may think they are populated by an army of strawmen, I may think they sometimes draw false conclusions, I may think they are unnecessarily harshly phrased at times, but I take all that with a pinch of salt. At least they create a good flurry of discussion and get the passions up.

[Luke]

That is not how I determine if a composer is well-known.  He was known during his time among the English classical music community, he was a well-read critic, and was championed by a couple of established English composers such as Peter Warlock.  He was reclusive and for many years did not encourage his music being performed. 

He has nearly 5,000 monthly listeners on Spotify, which granted is not high compared to Beethoven or Mozart whose monthly audience is in millions.  Schoenberg has 500K; Webern 70K; Feldman 57K. So Sorabji is listened to less than all of those by a significant margin.  But again, he tamped down his own popularity for personal reasons.

My point stands despite your attempt to deflect it by claiming that Sorabji is not well-known enough for it to matter. Obviously he is well-known among the members of this thread, and forum.

This is very true. He is one of those composers who is actually pretty well known even if just as a name - notorious, perhaps - compared with so many others who we also discuss here.

[Henk]

You interpreted completely wrong. I consider Sorabji's critical views either inanities or provocations. I don't feel insulted by them in the least --- nor by anyone else criticizing music that I enjoy, for that matter. Heck, in this very thread someone harshly criticized Mozart's music and I didn't feel insulted at all, let alone felt the need to write an equally harsh dismissal of the criticism or the critic.

Then why starting this thread? It was directed against S? A need to critize back the critic as a sort of resentment (so being insulted)?