Extremely Long Piano Compositions - What's Their Point?

[DavidW]

Every composer deserves an audience? This seems to me going a little far. It seems to perhaps devalue the music of those composers whose music has resonated with so many through time, because of it's merits, not because they were a human being composing therefore deserve an audience.

No that is absolutely absurd to think that any composer deserving some kind of audience denigrates the greatest composers.  If I choose to listen to Telemann this morning, I have not dismissed Bach out of turn.  It is not a zero sum game.

It brings to mind this quote by Aristotle - "A friend to all is a friend to none."

That quote doesn't even apply here.  I didn't say that any composer should have ALL people enjoy their music, just that they should have some form of audience.

[Cato]

Not the same thing. Performers don't have to like what they perform, when a listeners is unlikely to listen to something they don't like through sheer force, or merely neccesity. Some of the composers don't like what they compose either. How can one love the shapeless and unharmonious?

True, but they still must listen and sometimes it is even painful.

Performers are listeners, and therefore, exactly like listeners who are not performers, everything about the experience is individual.

I remember an interview with some members of The Cleveland Orchestra about performing an avant-garde work (it was not named), which one of the trumpet players described as "painful to play."

It is possible that one member enjoyed the experience and did not find it painful at all, and that others were at varying degrees of indifference.

[AnotherSpin]

True, but they still must listen and sometimes it is even painful.

Performers are listeners, and therefore, exactly like listeners who are not performers, everything about the experience is individual.

I remember an interview with some members of The Cleveland Orchestra about performing an avant-garde work (it was not named), which one of the trumpet players described as "painful to play."

It is possible that one member enjoyed the experience and did not find it painful at all, and that others were at varying degrees of indifference.

I can feel this pain in some recordings. Fortunately I can press a button and end the torture. Orchestra musicians have a harder time. Hope they know how to play without listening.

[atardecer]

No that is absolutely absurd to think that any composer deserving some kind of audience denigrates the greatest composers.  If I choose to listen to Telemann this morning, I have not dismissed Bach out of turn.  It is not a zero sum game.

That quote doesn't even apply here.  I didn't say that any composer should have ALL people enjoy their music, just that they should have some form of audience.

I agree that listening to Telemann doesn't mean you've dismissed Bach out of turn, your second point is not what I meant. It doesn't apply to what I was getting at.

What you said feels off to me, and I think it is because you are making pronouncements about situations even in which you do not have any knowledge of the music. So your point doesn't even really have much to do with the music itself. To a large degree music is it's own reward. Deserving an audience doesn't really come into the equation. I think it would be a rare thing for a good composer who wanted an audience, not to have one to some extent. To say anyone who dabbles in composition regardless of the effort or originality they put into their music automatically deserves an audience, is an idea I don't agree with and I don't think it makes much sense.

[Karl Henning]

yet not even half as interesting.

Well, you already know that we disagree on this point, as does @DavidW 

You seem bent on denigrating Sorabji, no matter what we say, who appreciate, enjoy, and yes, value the music, which does not somehow become non-Art because you don't like it. Arguably, you created this thread specifically to give vent to your scorn. If your mind is no longer even slightly ajar to the reception of this art, you must really have worthier ways in which to expend your energy.

[Karl Henning]

A favourite of mine is Terry Riley's haunting The Harp of New Albion

Thanks for the reminder, i've been meaning to listen to this forever.

[Karl Henning]

They are, but that's quite a bit of sophistry, Leo, ain't it?

Perhaps only in the adverb simultaneously, if then.

[DavidW]

I think it would be a rare thing for a good composer who wanted an audience, not to have one to some extent.

But it is very common!  Only in your head is it rare. 

To say anyone who dabbles in composition regardless of the effort or originality they put into their music automatically deserves an audience, is an idea I don't agree with and I don't think it makes much sense.

It makes perfect sense actually!  Just think about.  There are eight billion people in the world.  If a work is good enough to be performed, shouldn't there be some audience that can be found for that music?

[Brian]

You seem bent on denigrating Sorabji, no matter what we say, who appreciate, enjoy, and yes, value the music, which does not somehow become non-Art because you don't like it. Arguably, you created this thread specifically to give vent to your scorn. If your mind is no longer even slightly ajar to the reception of this art, you must really have worthier ways in which to expend your energy.

I agree with this. I think at this point, there have been a surprising number of thoughtful, insightful contributions from many people about the value of art to its creator, the importance (or not) of an audience to art, the many reasons to create, the different reasons people listen to music, the varieties of physical experience music can provide... all in contrast to OP's basic position that he doesn't understand it and therefore it must be bad.

The phenomenon is a very cool one, though. Usually on GMG a thread starts well and dissolves into bickering. Here we have one that started with bickering and ascended to philosophy! I think I'm going to try LaMonte Young and the Riley piece mentioned because of it 

[Luke]

Both Young's Well Tempered Piano and Riley's Harp of New Albion retune the piano radically - below is an image which shows how much, where the top line shows the pitches of Young's Eb centred work compared to Equal Temperament, and the lower line shows the same with Riley's C# centred piece. One of the most headscratching facts about the Young, which can be seen in this visualisation, is that his G#s and C#s ended up lower than his Gs and Cs!   

[Karl Henning]

Both Young's Well Tempered Piano and Riley's Harp of New Albion retune the piano radically - below is an image which shows how much, where the top line shows the pitches of Young's Eb centred work compared to Equal Temperament, and the lower line shows the same with Riley's C# centred piece. One of the most headscratching facts about the Young, which can be seen in this visualisation, is that his G#s and C#s ended up lower than his Gs and Cs!   

Fascinating/peculiar!

[Cato]

Wanted to highlight this, as I felt it got lost in the shuffle, as I think also acts as an explanation regarding performers and performance.

Shortness or longness tell us nothing about the quality. A great contrast to this, at least when it comes to time, is 1980s hardcore punk, with many songs not even lasting 30 seconds, but there is great purpose beyond their self-selection, a great amount of intentionality.

Webern predicted that his music would end up on the playgrounds of the young! 

Both Young's Well Tempered Piano and Riley's Harp of New Albion retune the piano radically - below is an image which shows how much, where the top line shows the pitches of Young's Eb centred work compared to Equal Temperament, and the lower line shows the same with Riley's C# centred piece. One of the most headscratching facts about the Young, which can be seen in this visualisation, is that his G#s and C#s ended up lower than his Gs and Cs!   

The Finns have advanced microtonal/quarter-tone music in the last years: I offered this Concerto for Quarter-Tone Piano (2-hands)

And then this popped up, while I was listening:

https://sites.uniarts.fi/web/quartertonepiano/keyboard-design

and

https://limelight-arts.com.au/news/new-design-for-the-quarter-tone-piano-unveiled-in-finland/


Concerning length...

I must give the Piano Concerto by Sampo Haapamäki offered above another chance: after listening to the opening, I began hearing a collection of formerly avant-garde effects, i.e. 1950's Penderecki, Gorecki, Ligeti, Stockhausen, et al.

I found it increasingly unfocused and therefore tedious. 

Its use of the quarter-tone piano was interesting for...a while.

In comparison, Sorabji's works - much longer than the 42 minutes in the above concerto -  are superior, because one can hear that he is going somewhere!

But, I will give Sampo Haapamäki's concerto another chance!      Perhaps I was missing something and prevented thereby from following the composer's auditory map.




 

[Karl Henning]

In comparison, Sorabji's works - much longer than the 42 minutes in the above concerto -  are superior, because one can hear that he is going somewhere!

The more I listen the more I am impressed with his inventiveness.

[Cato]

The more I listen the more I am impressed with his inventiveness.

That inventiveness struck me in the few works of his available in the early 1980's on the Musical Heritage Society label, with pianist Michael Habermann.

[AnotherSpin]

Well, you already know that we disagree on this point, as does @DavidW

You seem bent on denigrating Sorabji, no matter what we say, who appreciate, enjoy, and yes, value the music, which does not somehow become non-Art because you don't like it. Arguably, you created this thread specifically to give vent to your scorn. If your mind is no longer even slightly ajar to the reception of this art, you must really have worthier ways in which to expend your energy.

The word we is hardly appropriate. I tried listening to Sorabji years ago, and I never had the desire to repeat this unnecessary experiment.

[Karl Henning]

The word we is hardly appropriate

We is perfectly apt. I was addressing @Florestan so "we means he and I, and we undeed disagree.

[Spotted Horses]

Truth be told, I remember reading Bachtoven's post in which he mentioned listening to 4 hours of the notorious 8.5 hour piece, and the thought occurred to me that 8.5 hours might be longer than necessary. I went as far looking at the track list and saw a sequence of approximately 8 minute movements, but then there was one for 33 minutes. I could imagine listening for a half hour a day, but that would be 17 days. That's a big commitment. Comparable to deciding to listen to all of the Mozart piano concerti. But no need to do it consecutively. I couldn't do the Mozart consecutively either.

[atardecer]

But it is very common!  Only in your head is it rare. 

If one composes good music then surely at some point in their life they will have an opportunity to show that music to another human being, that is what an audience is. Composers who do not play an instrument are at a disadvantage, yet still with the internet, software and various tools available for sharing information, yes I do think it is rare that someone would not be able to find one other person to share their music with, if the music has value it will tend to stick around.

It makes perfect sense actually!  Just think about.  There are eight billion people in the world.  If a work is good enough to be performed, shouldn't there be some audience that can be found for that music?

But now it seems you have changed your position, before it came across as though anyone composing music deserves an audience, now you are saying that 'if it is good enough to be performed.' there should be an audience for it.

Either way though I don't think the 'should' comes into it at all. Either music gets an audience or it doesn't. By saying 'should' it seems to suggest a kind of moral obligation to pay attention to everyone's music. I don't think it works that way. I would not want anyone listening to my music because they think they should, or they are obligated to. I would want them listening to it because they think it is good music and it compels them to listen.

 

[atardecer]

I would not want anyone listening to my music because they think they should, or they are obligated to. I would want them listening to it because they think it is good music and it compels them to listen.

For the record I've only ever dabbled in composition, have not got very far with it and have not composed anything that I think deserves an audience. But I do like to create little things, and maybe one day I will compose something I think has value. I think everyone should create who feels the desire to do so, whether they are good or bad at what they are doing. That doesn't mean they deserve anything from anyone else in regards to their creativity. If a composer stated I 'deserve an audience', it would seem to me a pompous statement.

[AnotherSpin]

Truth be told, I remember reading Bachtoven's post in which he mentioned listening to 4 hours of the notorious 8.5 hour piece, and the thought occurred to me that 8.5 hours might be longer than necessary. I went as far looking at the track list and saw a sequence of approximately 8 minute movements, but then there was one for 33 minutes. I could imagine listening for a half hour a day, but that would be 17 days. That's a big commitment. Comparable to deciding to listen to all of the Mozart piano concerti. But no need to do it consecutively. I couldn't do the Mozart consecutively either.

Every minute spent with Sorabji is stolen from Mozart.