Extremely Long Piano Compositions - What's Their Point?

[Luke]

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) miniatures came relatively easily to me, but I never managed a convincing piece that was more than about 10 minutes.* 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]

Earlier in this thread there was a general accusation that the gigantosaurus works under discussion are prolix, rambling mutants which just accrue length by the continuous and injudicious addition of material, sans quality control. But I can't think of one that comes close to that (strawbuilt) model.  The structures that spring to mind in these works are rigid ones which provide strong formal skeletons, whether passacaglias (e.g. Stevenson) or variations (e.g. Rzewski) or sequences of fugues linked by fantasias and cadenzas (e.g. Sorabji). Riley's Harp of New Albion works its way through the keys like Bach (although as the piece is in just intonation each key has a totally different harmonic world); Feldman's long works are a miracle of repetition-which-is-not-repetition, creating a fastidiously maintained floating structure whose ineffable drift requires incredible control. Etc etc.

[Iota]

Feldman's long works are a miracle of repetition-which-is-not-repetition ..

Such a great way of putting it!  : )

[AnotherSpin]

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

What did I read? Some participants lack stamina and respect to others.

Of course, I'm not accusing anyone of anything. People don't choose their actions, they just act according to conditioning they have no influence over.

[Brian]

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

I'm not so sure. My position a few days ago was found here:

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 

It seems that there are some people who'd love to keep talking about the value and listening experience of these big works. Maybe even a fan club! And there are some people who feel that the conversation is now going in circles. I think the natural solution is for the topic to evolve in the way that Luke suggests, or slowly, naturally go quiet.

[AnotherSpin]

I'm not so sure. My position a few days ago was found here:

It seems that there are some people who'd love to keep talking about the value and listening experience of these big works. Maybe even a fan club! And there are some people who feel that the conversation is now going in circles. I think the natural solution is for the topic to evolve in the way that Luke suggests, or slowly, naturally go quiet.

I find it hard to see why policing is needed at all, no matter how much the discussion is heated. No one chooses a thing. Every one is entitled to write whatever he/she/[...] pleases, and no one has control over the consequences. Either way, there is no threat to life.

[atardecer]

For the most part I've found this thread interesting. Often times it is the threads that get heated that stimulate the most interesting dialogue. What I find less interesting (speaking about these kinds of threads in general) are the kinds of comments that seem to disregard all music of a certain type, which are then often followed by comments that seem to praise all of that music across the board, and then you get sort of teams or cliques showing up, supporting each other. I am more interested in people's authentic impressions based on their own listening experiences and impressions. The kind that I sense are genuine and made with a security in the strength of their own opinion without concern for trying to fit into either of these polarized groups which represent a kind of group-think. I also don't appreciate when people try to shut down other members freedom of expression and ability to form their own opinions on things and stimulate discussion.

[Brian]

I find it hard to see why policing is needed at all, no matter how much the discussion is heated. No one chooses a thing. Every one is entitled to write whatever he/she/[...] pleases, and no one has control over the consequences. Either way, there is no threat to life.

We have rules that the forum stays true to for a variety of reasons (from civility to keeping the ability to stay online), but I don't think those rules have been strongly tested in this discussion at all.

[AnotherSpin]

We have rules that the forum stays true to for a variety of reasons (from civility to keeping the ability to stay online), but I don't think those rules have been strongly tested in this discussion at all.

Strict rules are introduced where there is a lack of mutual trust and  respect between people. For example, the rules of road driving. Where people feel each other well, and where they generally integrated well, without excessive rationalisation, strict rules are much less needed. I spent years in India and there are virtually no traffic lights, other hard restrictions are minimised. There are very few road accidents, virtually none. Surprisingly?

[Luke]

...I take your point,although.... India ranks first for road fatalities... 

Edit: not sure that link works. But it's googlable

[Florestan]

Earlier in this thread there was a general accusation that the gigantosaurus works under discussion are prolix, rambling mutants which just accrue length by the continuous and injudicious addition of material, sans quality control. But I can't think of one that comes close to that (strawbuilt) model.  The structures that spring to mind in these works are rigid ones which provide strong formal skeletons, whether passacaglias (e.g. Stevenson) or variations (e.g. Rzewski) or sequences of fugues linked by fantasias and cadenzas (e.g. Sorabji).

That's fine but consider this: if you skip two bars from a Chopin prelude you audibly botch it, whereas entire sections could probably be skipped from Sequentia ciclica and most people wouldn't even notice.

[AnotherSpin]

...I take your point,although.... India ranks first for road fatalities... 

Edit: not sure that link works. But it's googlable

Most likely, these are total figures, which for a country with a billion plus population should be noticeable. I am not afraid to cross a multi-lane road in Chennai with hundreds of tuk-tuks, motorbikes, buses, cars, cows and pedestrians. Whereas in a western town I will cross the street at a traffic light only for fear of being hit by some crazy lunatic listening to Sorabji while driving

[AnotherSpin]

That's fine but consider this: if you skip two bars from a Chopin prelude you audibly botch it, whereas entire sections could probably be skipped from Sequentia ciclica and most people wouldn't even notice.

Some skip the repeats when they play the Goldberg Variations. For various reasons, not only to make listening more enjoyable for people with short attention spans. Personally, I like long compositions, ever since I started listening to prog rock as a kid. Or Dark Star by the Grateful Dead, some live renditions are for 30 or 40 min, what could be better.

[Luke]

.... some crazy lunatic listening to Sorabji while driving

Sorabji is for long distance truck drivers only

[Henk]

Strict rules are introduced where there is a lack of mutual trust and  respect between people. For example, the rules of road driving. Where people feel each other well, and where they generally integrated well, without excessive rationalisation, strict rules are much less needed. I spent years in India and there are virtually no traffic lights, other hard restrictions are minimised. There are very few road accidents, virtually none. Surprisingly?

Rules shape a culture, like rules shape a game or sports, or a country, whatever, written and/or unwritten and imo written ones are necessary and common and there's as well a need for authority, written rules are in this sense a form of law and order but also equally concerns rights. And culture evolves by the members/people, rules give some guidance and durability imo and that's important. I had a time when I didn't like the culture here, but it's take it or leave it. Rules alone aren't decisive in this respect. For me personally I got a bit wiser through the years and it appeared that GMG fits me more. I think there's some flexibility and decency here and people willing to have you on board (if only for the reason of having an interest in classical music and wanting to share that interest).

As a sidestep: Someone like Trump ignores good manners and rules that define a decent democracy and he gets to power by dirty tactics that appeal to a majority of (uncritical, uneducated, but equally, unsatisfied) voters. EDIT: though Trump might be not that bad.

[Florestan]

I also don't appreciate when people try to shut down other members freedom of expression and ability to form their own opinions on things and stimulate discussion.

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.



-

[AnotherSpin]

Rules shape a culture, like rules shape a game or sports, or a country, whatever, written and/or unwritten and imo written ones are necessary and common and there's as well a need for authority, written rules are in this sense a form of law and order but also equally concerns rights. And culture evolves by the members/people, rules give some guidance and durability imo and that's important. I had a time when I didn't like the culture here, but it's take it or leave it. Rules alone aren't decisive in this respect. For me personally I got a bit wiser through the years and it appeared that GMG fits me more. I think there's some flexibility and decency here and people willing to have you on board (if only for the reason of having an interest in classical music and wanting to share that interest).

As a sidestep: Someone like Trump ignores good manners and rules that define a decent democracy and he gets to power by dirty tactics that appeal to a majority of (uncritical, uneducated, but equally, unsatisfied) voters.

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.

[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.

Love also has rules and depends on culture.

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.

Rules need interpretation. Rules can be rewritten when there's unfairness.

[Luke]

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).

Let me be that person - although I don't think I have either torn you to shreds or insulted you. I hope not.

You're right: some of Sorabji's views and opinions were ridiculous/repellently-expressed.* Same goes for another great musical imagination, Busoni, who you have also pointed out, and who is closely connected to Sorabji. Indeed this is often the case with people who are also able to think new thoughts and imagine new creative worlds. Witness Wagner; witness Gesualdo; witness Stravinsky; witness most musical iconoclasts (and artists in other fields too, of course). In fact, a bit of crazy may be a prerequisite for the most creative artists - indeed I believe someone has pointed this out early in this thread, wrt Sorabji: maybe he was a bit bonkers, but maybe he needed to be. If he'd been normal he wouldn't have done anything so odd. So I'm not as bothered by his less comprehensible views as I am interested in the music that came from the same mind. Whereas (and I'm not saying this of you or anyone on this thread, but as a theoretical comparison) someone who has peculiar or dumbfounding views but nothing new or interesting to show for it creatively does not interest me.



*although it must be said that he was a music critic/writer, and there is a large element in his writing and his recorded opinions which was calculated to shock and to outrage; that is not a defence of views which I think most of us here would not share, however, and I'm not presenting it as such.

[Florestan]

I don't think I have either torn you to shreds or insulted you. I hope not.

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.