Extremely Long Piano Compositions - What's Their Point?

[Karl Henning]

There is no way out, listening to Sorabji again.

Good for you! Reflects well upon your intellectual mettle.

[Karl Henning]

and playing within the hearing of earnest high-mind solemn dolts strongly deprecated!

By God, the composer who has the sand to write this commands our respect.

[Luke]

I don't know how many organists maintain the tradition (I know one here in Massachusetts), but they used to practice (as it were) improvising fugues.

They did, but Jarrett never did AFAIK

[Karl Henning]

Well, let's see what Sorabji himself has to say about the matter.

Sounds pretty clear to me: deliberate withdrawal from any contact not only with the society at large, but also with fellow composers and performing musicians.

And if this is still not convincing enough, here's the dedication inscribed in the score of Opus Clavicembalisticum:

To the everlasting glory of those Few
MEN –
Blessed and sanctified in the Curses and Execrations
of those MANY –
Whose Praise is Eternal Damnation.


Incidentally, all this is not far from what Matthew Lee Knowles, composer of the longest piano piece in existence (26 hours), stated in an interview:

I see two things: I see someone committed in his desire to give himself permission to scorn a creator of significant, perhaps even great, art, yet who cannot be bothered actually to listen to the music. (Remember when critics would be pilloried for criticizing concerts they had not actually attended?—and what regard would the world have for my musical probity, if I critiqued, while refusing actually to listen to, say, Parsifal, because I disapproved of things the composer had written?)
And I see that he no longer troubles even to hide the trowel from view.

[Karl Henning]

They did, but Jarrett never did AFAIK

I trust you, and know no different. Mine was but a tangential thought.

[Spotted Horses]

Well, let's see what Sorabji himself has to say about the matter.

Sounds pretty clear to me: deliberate withdrawal from any contact not only with the society at large, but also with fellow composers and performing musicians.

And if this is still not convincing enough, here's the dedication inscribed in the score of Opus Clavicembalisticum:

To the everlasting glory of those Few
MEN –
Blessed and sanctified in the Curses and Execrations
of those MANY –
Whose Praise is Eternal Damnation.

Again, so what? He was a recluse. If he hadn't been a recluse and had an inclination to be appreciated by the public he might have written music that is more conventional and approachable. As it is he wrote music for his own satisfaction, which is impractical for public performance. It is something unique. They are extended meditations. Where else do we find a composer expanding on a musical idea at such length? Sorabji suffered from his neurosis (or whatever the technical diagnosis would be). What purpose in deriding his output as, monstrosities, not really art, gimmicky, etc? What purpose mocking him for his mental illness?

[Karl Henning]

Again, so what? He was a recluse. If he hadn't been a recluse and had an inclination to be appreciated by the public he might have written music that is more conventional and approachable. As it is he wrote music for his own satisfaction, which is impractical for public performance. It is something unique. They are extended meditations. Where else do we find a composer expanding on a musical idea at such length? Sorabji suffered from his neurosis (or whatever the technical diagnosis would be). What purpose in deriding his output as, monstrosities, not really art, gimmicky, etc? What purpose mocking him for his mental illness?

Indeed.

And if this is still not convincing enough

Convincing of what, exactly?

[AnotherSpin]

Good for you! Reflects well upon your intellectual mettle.

I don't feel like grading you in response.

[AnotherSpin]

Don't worry we are watching the thread closely! 

I don't doubt it for a minute.

https://youtu.be/kMlLfZJcML0?si=DpiYQE66Qcqe5e5Q

[Karl Henning]

I don't feel like grading you in response.

No one expects such a thing. I simply delight in what sign soever on this thread of a mind unclenching, and make free to say so.

[Atriod]

I couldn't care less about what number it is. It's the music, not the numbering, that counts. Back in Haydn's time they were not even numbered, they were simply "a symphony/overture by Haydn".

And yet Haydn was the first worldwide celebrated composer, his fame and popularity far surpassing those of any other composer before him, contemporary to him (Mozart included) and, for a while, after him --- revered and appreciated by aristocrats and bourgeois, connoiseurs and dilettanti, musicians and writers/painters alike. Impressive feat for a purveyor of sameness. Or do you imply that all those people were just stupid, unable or unwilling to tell genuinely great music from background music?

That's true. Whatever is expressly composed only for a coterie of initiates and in conscious disdain of, or indifference to, the public at large doesn't find much favor with me.

I don't know what orchestras you refer to but not having any Haydn in their repertoire is a sign of massive cultural decline.

I was not bringing up the point of numbering to signify that the number meant anything special, just that all the symphonies run together as (outside the famous ones) homogeneous. Indistinct. Blind test, name what symphony you're listening to; forget the number just say what it is.

Who cares if bourgeois, connoisseurs and dilettante, etc listened to Haydn at the time. If I was living during the time of Josquin I'd have listened to his music and liked it. CPE Bach the same. Mozart the same. Haydn the same. We were hundreds of years away from the invention of the phonograph and being able to listen to music outside of singleton performances, it says little when you don't have choice, much less the choices we have today. I'm obviously not calling them stupid just limited in what they had access to. If I were to talk about pathogens with a 14th century surgeon and he looked at me like I was insane would he be stupid? No.

And here you can't have it both ways. You say you are for music for the people, the people have spoken and what gets programmed and fills seats is on them. You can't force feed them some music because that would run contrary to your stance. Seguin shook up the Philadelphia opera scene by introducing contemporary operas (I think 21st century? It's been a while since I read the article and I know little about opera beyond the second generation serial composers) and for the first time in decades they weren't burning through their endowment but actually making money. Once again the people have spoken.

[Karl Henning]

just that all the symphonies run together

I consider this my limitation as a listener, and not any "fault" of the composer's or of the music's.

[Florestan]

Blind test, name what symphony you're listening to; forget the number just say what it is.

A symphony of the Classical period. Would I be able to tell it's by Haydn? In some cases probably yes, in some cases probably no. What's your point again?

Who cares if bourgeois, connoisseurs and dilettante, etc listened to Haydn at the time. If I was living during the time of Josquin I'd have listened to his music and liked it. CPE Bach the same. Mozart the same. Haydn the same. We were hundreds of years away from the invention of the phonograph and being able to listen to music outside of singleton performances, it says little when you don't have choice, much less the choices we have today. I'm obviously not calling them stupid just limited in what they had access to. If I were to talk about pathogens with a 14th century surgeon and he looked at me like I was insane would he be stupid? No.

Yes, we're fortunate enough to be able to listen to a thousand years of music. What's your point again?

And here you can't have it both ways. You say you are for music for the people, the people have spoken and what gets programmed and fills seats is on them. You can't force feed them some music because that would run contrary to your stance.

I have nbo idea what you're talking about.

[Maestro267]

So how bout them long piano compositions huh?

[Florestan]

So how bout them long piano compositions huh?

Okay, here's the thing: what I actually had in mind when starting the thread is very different from how it developed and I openly admit I am partially at fault for that. I should have chosen my words more carefully, both in the OP and in the subsequent posts. That being said, could we just please let this thread die out?

[Atriod]

A symphony of the Classical period. Would I be able to tell it's by Haydn? In some cases probably yes, in some cases probably no. What's your point again?

You know I meant say which Haydn symphony you're listening to.

Yes, we're fortunate enough to be able to listen to a thousand years of music. What's your point again?

What was your point on aristocrats, bourgeoisie, etc.

I have nbo idea what you're talking about.

What was your point in saying you're for music for the people.

[Cato]

Okay, here's the thing: what I actually had in mind when starting the thread is very different from how it developed and I openly admit I am partially at fault for that. I should have chosen my words more carefully, both in the OP and in the subsequent posts. That being said, could we just please let this thread die out?

If you insist...   

[Florestan]

What was your point in saying you're for music for the people.

By "music for the people" I mean music written with the audience at large in mind, suitable for being played in a concert hall or an opera hall for a paying public --- and this by necessity implies limiting its duration to lengths that are physiologically and psychologically manageable by the average listener.

And this is going to be my very last post here.

[Atriod]

By "music for the people" I mean music written with the audience at large in mind, suitable for being played in a concert hall or an opera hall for a paying public --- and this by necessity implies limiting its duration to lengths that are physiologically and psychologically manageable by the average listener.

And this is going to be my very last post here.

Was that what you truly meant?

I don't know what orchestras you refer to but not having any Haydn in their repertoire is a sign of massive cultural decline.

I can't even fathom that much arrogance.

I like to listen to Sorabji for his music, I don't tell anyone else to listen to it or judge them for liking it or not liking it. I like discussing the music with others that like the music and probably know it better than I do, i.e. @Bachtoven

[Spotted Horses]

By "music for the people" I mean music written with the audience at large in mind, suitable for being played in a concert hall or an opera hall for a paying public --- and this by necessity implies limiting its duration to lengths that are physiologically and psychologically manageable by the average listener.

And this is going to be my very last post here.

I think you have it backwards. Sorabji's huge mistake was to believe that his music should be presented as a concert. When his efforts to have his music performed failed he retreated to his reclusive world, believing only rare people who could sit through an 8 1/2 hour work were his audience.

Symphonic works are wordless drama. Even "absolute" music like classical symphonies are concise dramatic pieces, with themes that appear, come into conflict, and resolve. Sorabji's works strike as as musical novels, in contrast to the musical stage plays that work in a concert hall. No one criticizes Tolstoy or Dickens because their works can't be absorbed in a sitting, like an Ibsen play. If he could have foreseen the prevalence of recorded music Sorabji would have found his audience.