|
richard barrett
Guest
|
 |
« Reply #45 on: 11:17:31, 10-04-2007 » |
|
I have come to wonder whether Elgar's First Symphony, Schönberg's First Quartet and First Chamber Symphony, Sibelius's Fourth and Seventh Symphonies etc., will ever reveal all their secrets at one sitting so as at last to provide that "complete" listening experience in one go - and I even take leave to dount that they should, actually... Indeed not. I wouldn't think such a thing as a "complete listening experience" is either desirable or possible, and I'm also inclined to doubt the reality of a "gradual revelation of secrets", in so far as the state of mind (and experience, and situation) of the listener is itself not a static phenomenon, so that the way a given piece of music "interacts" with a listener is constantly changing - presumably deepening, but without there being an end result in terms of having understood/assimilated everything. I think the chaos-theory concept of the "strange attractor" is an interesting analogy here (as well as being a suggestive phrase in itself!), always tracing out the same kind of pathway without ever visiting exactly the same spot twice. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #46 on: 11:25:56, 10-04-2007 » |
|
I have come to wonder whether Elgar's First Symphony, Schönberg's First Quartet and First Chamber Symphony, Sibelius's Fourth and Seventh Symphonies etc., will ever reveal all their secrets at one sitting so as at last to provide that "complete" listening experience in one go - and I even take leave to dount that they should, actually... Indeed not. I wouldn't think such a thing as a "complete listening experience" is either desirable or possible, and I'm also inclined to doubt the reality of a "gradual revelation of secrets", in so far as the state of mind (and experience, and situation) of the listener is itself not a static phenomenon, so that the way a given piece of music "interacts" with a listener is constantly changing - presumably deepening, but without there being an end result in terms of having understood/assimilated everything. I think the chaos-theory concept of the "strange attractor" is an interesting analogy here (as well as being a suggestive phrase in itself!), always tracing out the same kind of pathway without ever visiting exactly the same spot twice. Indeed! I'm with you on this. Now I must go do some work! Apart from anything else, I've got to go and make some copies of Sorabji scores for people who want them (and, as one of those scores is the complete 100 Transcendental Studies - all 864 pages of them), that'll take a wee while... Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
George Garnett
|
|
« Reply #47 on: 11:55:45, 10-04-2007 » |
|
I think the chaos-theory concept of the "strange attractor" is an interesting analogy here (as well as being a suggestive phrase in itself!), always tracing out the same kind of pathway without ever visiting exactly the same spot twice. I do like that! It works very nicely. It also reminded me that I nearly excited myself yesterday by linking this quote from Autoharp.... Here's a passage from Christopher a Becket Williams writing in The Sackbut in June 1924 -
"At first sight his works appear to be a sort of chaos of incoherence and over-elaboration, but this is not so. It must always be remembered that he is an Oriental, and his music must be looked at from a distance as it were. It is like an intricate piece of Benares work or Chinese ornamentation. The arabesques, which are a feature of such work, when examined closely are exquisitely conceived, but appear meaningless; yet from some way off they sink into their place and the whole design becomes apparent. So it is with these works . . . " .......with both Islamic (non-figurative) art and with fractal theory. But then I didn't dare after Ian dumped on it from a great height on another thread (although I can't actually see it is about 'aura' as charged). Anyway, no opportunity to repeat the phrase "Christopher a Becket Williams writing in The Sackbut" should ever be passed up. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
Guest
|
|
« Reply #48 on: 12:06:42, 10-04-2007 » |
|
At the risk of incurring Sydney's ire once more by making crossreferences between threads, anyone interested in the possible relation of music to fractal theory ought to have a look at Per Nørgård's "infinity series", explained on the composer's website here http://www.pernoergaard.dk/eng/strukturer/uendelig/uindhold.html and embodied most clearly in his Second Symphony and Voyage into the Golden Screen. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
roslynmuse
|
|
« Reply #49 on: 17:19:46, 13-04-2007 » |
|
Have just received the first volume of Sorabji etudes, 1 - 25, so will report back in detail in the fullness of time; however, first impressions - great use of the instrument, some wonderful moments, a certain elliptical quality to the harmonic writing that makes me think that more of the logic/ inevitability comes from the rhythm, and that perhaps the notes themselves are not so important; and a sense of free association/ stream of consciousness which is a little disconcerting and contributes to the elliptical quality. Self-indulgent? Perhaps, although I hear clear parameters too that stop it being mere self-gratification.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
Guest
|
|
« Reply #50 on: 17:48:33, 13-04-2007 » |
|
The ones which stick most tenaciously in my mind are numbers 1, 10, 13, 14 and 20.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #51 on: 23:43:21, 14-04-2007 » |
|
The ones which stick most tenaciously in my mind are numbers 1, 10, 13, 14 and 20.
Some of us have a nickname for the second of those that you mention: "Op. 1, No. 10" (the significance of which I'm sure will not escape you!)... No. 3 is also rather wonderful, don't you think? - with its initial melodic line almost reminiscent of the middle section of Chopin's Fantaisie-Impromptu... Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
Guest
|
|
« Reply #52 on: 00:00:32, 15-04-2007 » |
|
a nickname for the second of those that you mention: "Op. 1, No. 10" (the significance of which I'm sure will not escape you!)... Indeed it doesn't, though KSS's no.10 reminds me more of the Godowsky version than the original! Yes, now you mention it, no.3 stands out too, as does no.6 for that matter. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
Guest
|
|
« Reply #53 on: 20:32:02, 22-04-2007 » |
|
Last night I posted in "now spinning" a few words about John Ogdon's recording of Opus Clavicembalisticum, which comes unstuck somewhat in the most crazed passages of the piece but does so in a spectacular way, such that even if supplanted in terms of accuracy in the future, it will remain an essential example of Ogdon's pianism. I think some of the fugue material tends to drag as well, with the voices not individually audible a lot of the time, but keeping fugues of this kind of duration in perspective, and in the context of the larger work, is a tall order anyway. By the way, one thing one hardly hears in OC, I couldn't help noticing, is "orientalism", rather a massive expansion of the baroque forms which Busoni had already expanded on, and otherwise also a higher degree of objectivity than in most of the other Sorabji pieces I know. I suspect, though, that this sense of abstraction is shared by many of the larger works in Sorabji's oeuvre, in contrast to the more familiar expressive world of the nocturnes, studies and variously Italianate pieces. Or is OC actually an exception in his output? (I suppose this is a question for Alistair, unless there are other experts looking in.)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #54 on: 20:54:24, 22-04-2007 » |
|
Last night I posted in "now spinning" a few words about John Ogdon's recording of Opus Clavicembalisticum, which comes unstuck somewhat in the most crazed passages of the piece but does so in a spectacular way, such that even if supplanted in terms of accuracy in the future, it will remain an essential example of Ogdon's pianism. I think some of the fugue material tends to drag as well, with the voices not individually audible a lot of the time, but keeping fugues of this kind of duration in perspective, and in the context of the larger work, is a tall order anyway. By the way, one thing one hardly hears in OC, I couldn't help noticing, is "orientalism", rather a massive expansion of the baroque forms which Busoni had already expanded on, and otherwise also a higher degree of objectivity than in most of the other Sorabji pieces I know. I suspect, though, that this sense of abstraction is shared by many of the larger works in Sorabji's oeuvre, in contrast to the more familiar expressive world of the nocturnes, studies and variously Italianate pieces. Or is OC actually an exception in his output? (I suppose this is a question for Alistair, unless there are other experts looking in.)
I've not yet read what you've written in the other thread as you mention (I'll go have a peek there momentarily), but you are pretty much right about what you say re "orientalism" as distinct from expansions of baroque structures; the only thing that OC doesn't have that the later piano symphonies do is the kind of first-movement form that you have already found on a smaller scale in the Fourth Sonata - one where many themes and motifs jostle with one another as they take the listener on an often long and sometimes arduous journey (for the momory faculties, at least) towards a kind of rationale of the whys and wherefore of their existence (among much else, of course); to that extent, OC is indeed something of an exception - and another way in which it is so is that, unlike any of his other large-scale works, it is punctuated by fugues (where, in the case of other large works, one fugue - even if a very substantial one - is usually enough). Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Biroc
|
|
« Reply #55 on: 11:09:41, 01-05-2007 » |
|
I like the Interlude from "Prelude Interlude and Fugue" - it does do what Richard suggests some of Sorabji's works do, i.e. consist of almost too many ideas that begin to run away within too small a framework, but it does manage to rein itself in and returns to the evocative opening before the fantastic slow arpeggios at the end. A beautiful little jewel really!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Believe nothing they say, they're not Biroc's kind."
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
Guest
|
|
« Reply #56 on: 23:47:16, 04-05-2007 » |
|
Not really appreciation as such, but today a colleague told me that he'd heard that Sorabji at some point had met (visited?) Giacinto Scelsi in Rome. They certainly had in common an indifference to public performance of their work. But (this is a question primarily for Alistair) is this true, do you know? and did Sorabji ever express an opinion on Scelsi as a composer? (I wouldn't imagine he heard any of his work though.)
Some might say that such a meeting would establish an Axis of Orientalist Evil...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
pim_derks
|
|
« Reply #57 on: 10:11:22, 05-05-2007 » |
|
today a colleague told me that he'd heard that Sorabji at some point had met (visited?) Giacinto Scelsi in Rome I never had such colleagues.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"People hate anything well made. It gives them a guilty conscience." John Betjeman
|
|
|
|
Sydney Grew
Guest
|
|
« Reply #58 on: 09:23:50, 13-05-2007 » |
|
. . . as his literary exeuctor and archivist . . . We have long been intrigued by something the admirable Mr. Lebrecht writes in respect of Sorabji: "He never married, and was said to enjoy puerile charms." Those are the good Mr. Lebrecht's words. We have not seen a reference to this characteristic anywhere else, and would be most grateful to Mr. Hinton if he would be kind enough to tell us more, if he knows more . . . We have as yet seen nothing from Mr. Hinton which addresses this question, and wonder whether he might now at last be in a position to turn his mind for a moment from his doubtless important and indeed delightful contributions to the shampoo thread to it (to our request we mean) and ideally to provide either a confirmation or a denial? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #59 on: 12:26:04, 13-05-2007 » |
|
Not really appreciation as such, but today a colleague told me that he'd heard that Sorabji at some point had met (visited?) Giacinto Scelsi in Rome. They certainly had in common an indifference to public performance of their work. But (this is a question primarily for Alistair) is this true, do you know? and did Sorabji ever express an opinion on Scelsi as a composer? (I wouldn't imagine he heard any of his work though.)
Sorry - only just noticed this post. No in both cases, I'm afraid. Some might say that such a meeting would establish an Axis of Orientalist Evil...
I wonder - though I promise to try not to - which "some" that might be?! - and, in the meantime, I wonder also if some of that "some" might even cut GS out of the loop and ascribe the very existence of such an Axis to Sorabji alone... Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
