Extremely Long Piano Compositions - What's Their Point?

[Maestro267]

If it has value for them, it has value.

[pjme]

Take that Cage ASLAP thing. Do you really believe that it has any artistic value whatsoever, or indeed any value at all?

Some musicians are willing to take a plunge in infinity ... I'm not able/inclined to follow them. 

https://research.vu.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/243186536/project_muse_746554_Coping_with_Cage_On_ORGAN2_ASLSP_listening_and_music_making.pdf

[Florestan]

Some musicians are willing to take a plunge in infinity ... I'm not able/inclined to follow them.

https://research.vu.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/243186536/project_muse_746554_Coping_with_Cage_On_ORGAN2_ASLSP_listening_and_music_making.pdf

"nothing is accomplished by writing, playing, or listening to music"

This might very well be true of John Cage's own music, but with respect to the whole history of music it's just balderdash. 

[Cato]

This might very well be true of John Cage's own music, but with respect to the whole history of music it's just balderdash. 

I think Cage was often acting as a provocateur or, in his later years, a terrible homme ancien. 

To be sure, Music "neither sows nor reaps," but given that cave people had flutes tens of thousands of years ago, it would seem that Music has had beneficial effects on Humanity's development.

[Florestan]

I think Cage was often acting as a provocateur or, in his later years, a terrible homme ancien. 

If you play the clown long enough, you end up by becoming one. 

[Karl Henning]

If you play the clown long enough, you end up by becoming one. 

To borrow a line attributed to Hunter Thompson, there's also a negative side.

[AnotherSpin]

If it has value for them, it has value.

It seems to me that value arises in exchange, in human interaction. If a composer's work is of interest only to the performers and not to the listener, then the value is questionable.

[Maestro267]

But it's still value.

[Karl Henning]

If a composer's work is of interest only to the performers and not to the listener, then the value is questionable.

I'll call that a strawman in the present discussion. There are several listeners on this thread who clearly find value in Sorabji's pieces. In the face of that evident fact, denial that the music is of value is what is questionable.

[Luke]

I'll call that a strawman in the present discussion. There are several listeners on this thread who clearly find value in Sorabji's pieces. In the face of that evident fact, denial that the music is of value is what is questionable.

Was just writing an almost identical message.

[AnotherSpin]

I'll call that a strawman in the present discussion. There are several listeners on this thread who clearly find value in Sorabji's pieces. In the face of that evident fact, denial that the music is of value is what is questionable.

What is important, however, is the fact that when certain music is valuable for one listener it does not automatically mean that it is valuable for another listener. The whole forum is a demonstration of that simple fact.

[Karl Henning]

What is important, however, is the fact that when certain music is valuable for one listener it does not automatically mean that it is valuable for another listener. The whole forum is a demonstration of that simple fact.

That's absolutely true. Say hypothetically that as a listener I find no value in the operas of Rossini: My indifference to the operas says zero about their value.

[springrite]

What is important, however, is the fact that when certain music is valuable for one listener it does not automatically mean that it is valuable for another listener. The whole forum is a demonstration of that simple fact.

Absolutely. It does become a problem when a message implies that certain music has no value--not for that one individual, not that it has no value for "me", but it has no value in absolute term.

[Karl Henning]

Absolutely. It does become a problem when a message implies that certain music has no value--not for that one individual, not that it has no value for "me", but it has no value in absolute term.

Also a salient point!

[DavidW]

I'll call that a strawman in the present discussion. There are several listeners on this thread who clearly find value in Sorabji's pieces. In the face of that evident fact, denial that the music is of value is what is questionable.

I listened to what you posted last night and I really liked what I heard.  Just like with Wagner you can always do bloody chunks if it is too long to commit to the beginning to end listen.

[Karl Henning]

I listened to what you posted last night and I really liked what I heard.  Just like with Wagner you can always do bloody chunks if it is too long to commit to the beginning to end listen.

Excellent. I listened to sections 1-13 yesterday, and I'll resume on my return from grocery shopping. I could see myself at some point setting aside a day to hear the whole, not uninterruptedly, but the same day.

[Cato]

It seems to me that value arises in exchange, in human interaction. If a composer's work is of interest only to the performers and not to the listener, then the value is questionable.

The performers are simultaneously listeners!

How many conductors have championed works which intrigued them, but must have initially mystified audiences, or even outraged them?

Leopold Stokowski premiered a quarter-tone piano concerto by German-American composer Hans Barth with the Philadelphia Orchestra.

Later it was played in Cincinnati with Fritz Reiner conducting the C.S.O.

Both Stokowski and Reiner would never have programmed, rehearsed, and played a work which they found lacking in merit!

Quarter-tone music is, to be sure, a niche market, yet they offered such a work in the 1930's.  They thought it had "value," and must have also thought that the public needed to hear it for the expansion of the audience's experience.

That's absolutely true. Say hypothetically that as a listener I find no value in the operas of Rossini: My indifference to the operas says zero about their value.

Your comment reminds me of certain students in my German courses: when I announced at the beginning of the year that, among the exciting activities awaiting them in German, German songs and excerpts from operas in German would be included.

Too often some tyro would sniff: "Oh, I hate operas!"    😇

To which I would blithely respond: "Really?  How many operas have you attended?"

Student: "Uhhh, none."

"How many you have heard on a CD or on the radio?"

"None"

"Then how do you know that you don't like them?"

At this point, the student usually shrugged, illogically said "I don't know," or admitted that his only knowledge was "everybody says they're boring."

To which I would puckishly respond: "Well, not everybody, obviously, because...thousands of people attend operas and buy recordings of them every year."

To be sure, such a student often remained hostile, but others did find my choices (which were not always operas, but with operatic singing e.g. Isolde's Liebestod, Erwartung, Gurrelieder, etc. ) of interest and even to their liking.

[Florestan]

The performers are simultaneously listeners!

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

Leopold Stokowski premiered a quarter-tone piano concerto by German-American composer Hans Barth with the Philadelphia Orchestra.

Later it was played in Cincinnati with Fritz Reiner conducting the C.S.O.

Both Stokowski and Reiner would never have programmed, rehearsed, and played a work which they found lacking in merit!

May I ask, how long is the Barth concerto?

Quarter-tone music is, to be sure, a niche market, yet they offered such a work in the 1930's.  They thought it had "value," and must have also thought that the public needed to hear it for the expansion of the audience's experience.

That's exactly my point: music needs to be listened to by the public. A composer who voluntarily isolates oneself  and one's works* from the public acts against one's own interest and cannot blame the public at large for ignoring him, or considering him an eccentric. "Who cares if you listen?" can easily, logically and rather fairly be answered with "Who cares if you compose?".

*either by making them completely unsuitable for public performance or by banning their public performance

[Cato]

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

  Heh-heh!  Actually, it was super easy, barely an inconvenience! 

May I ask, how long is the Barth concerto?

I do not know, but since it was played at regular subscription concerts, I would assume under an hour.  Given the reaction to microtonal music by many people, like Mrs. Cato, who has promulgated an interdict against it, when she is within earshot  , nothing lengthy would be involved.

Sadly, none of Hans Barth's works have been recorded (as far as I know): there are recordings of him playing the works of other composers (Sinding, et al.).

That's exactly my point: music needs to be listened to by the public. A composer who voluntarily isolates oneself  and one's works* from the public acts against one's own interest and cannot blame the public at large for ignoring him, or considering him an eccentric. "Who cares if you listen?" can easily, logically and rather fairly be answered with "Who cares if you compose?".

*either by making them completely unsuitable for public performance or by banning their public performance

Yes, that is quite understandable.  Sorabji may have been disgusted by whatever, or in an abnormal state of mind, as has been mentioned.

[Florestan]

This is a 21-minute section: Tempo di valzer con molto fantasia

I didn't dislike it (at no time did I feel the need to turn it off) but I doubt I'll listen to it again any time soon. Even for an independent waltz, there's still too many notes (pace Joseph II) and it's still too long. I mean, come on, it's almost as long as a Haydn symphony yet not even half as interesting...