The recent Joyce Hatto revelations reminded me of the case of Giacinto Scelsi, whose amanuensis Tosatti (shortly after Scelsi's death) published an article claiming to have written Scelsi's works himself, which claim he later retracted. This would probably have amused the aristocratic recluse Scelsi, who always described himself as a "postino" rather than a composer, and it was no secret that over a long period Tosatti transcribed Scelsi's recorded improvisations as the basis for his scores, although it isn't at all clear to me how these were then worked up into string quartets making much use of umfamiliar playing techniques, or into orchestral pieces. My feeling was (and still is) that it isn't really important who wrote the music, much of which I admire greatly. Some people still find it somehow dodgy, though, or at least I have that impression.

Any thoughts?

You say Scelsi carefully cultivated this "image". It could also be said that he tried to absent himself as far as possible from such things, which we can regard as having been counterproductive but not, I think, calculated, at least on the anecdotal strength of people I know who came into contact with him, who invariably give the impression of a rather self-effacing character.

Can you be "quasi-imperialistic" and "half-baked" at the same time, I wonder.

A "single idea spun out over a certain span of time" isn't necessarily a bad thing, is it? You could describe many pieces by, say, Michael Finnissy or Howard Skempton (to name two dissimilar examples) in those terms also.

Equally, the disdain shown for him and his music by some compatriots has always struck me as somewhat strange given that, for example, Berio and Nono didn't exactly spring from lowly origins themselves and would have had far more difficulty establishing themselves as composers if they had.

However those things may be, discussion of Scelsi should really begin from the music - does it sound "quasi-imperialistic"? I don't think so. To my ears it has more melancholy than mysticism about it, but when it does get ecstatic and mystical I find it difficult to believe that it's faked. Mysticism, whatever its (neurological?) provenance might actually be, is a well-documented component of the human experience (though not of mine, I hasten to add) and maybe it's more useful to try to understand what it is rather than dismissing it as an aesthetic conceit.

"Portrayal of the mysterious and sensuous East". Hmmm. As I say, starting from the music, rather than from the composer's image or his titles, I think it's quite possible to take the view that it explores the inner structure of complex sounds in quite an interesting way, and embodies a quite radically rethought view of pitch-relationships and pitch-timbre-relationships, and to let all the other stuff get in the way of appreciating this is to wilfully deprive oneself of what could otherwise be an important musical experience.

Anyway, I would prefer this thread not to turn into a conversation between Ian and myself on the subject of Scelsi's "image" or his "aura". I think the way his work developed is one of the more interesting responses to the mid-century musical situation. What do others think?

For my ears, those 'novel sonic combinations' are thoroughly inventive and imaginative enough to amount to quite a lot.  The quartets (2-5, at least) are of course excellent, but for me it's the larger orchestral (perhaps "orchestral" says it better, since the instrumentation is so unusual) works that are the most special.  What I find most exciting about the works is that they encourage listening models that incorporate a variety of acoustic and psycho-acoustic phenomena (harmonics, difference tones, beating, etc.).  The pieces, from my way of thinking, aren't at all about the pitches/glissandi/slow linear processes but rather about the extremely intricate timbral and even spectral (?) results of those processes.

I don't have the slightest clue if Scelsi was aware of any of that or if he intended it, but ... it's there, and I find it quite extraordinary.

As for the 'does one thing' argument, much of my favorite music does this, so perhaps this is just a place where you & I disagree, Ian.  I find this aspect of, say, the work of Lucier, Ablinger, the Wandelweiser composers, etc. to be endlessly fascinating, inviting, and innovative.

I think we are coming from quite fundamentally different angles concerning what we think to be significant in music. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems that both Richard and Aaron are portraying it as being essentially about sound and sounds, which is not my view - I'm concerned with what is made manifest through those sounds, the sounds as a means to an end rather than an end in themselves. In the case of Scelsi, I'm not particularly thinking about the piano music (I know that all the pieces except for Aitsi predate his mature style, but if anything, the orchestral works above all. Whilst some of the means used may be new (but inevitably someone was going to come up with the idea of writing pieces, say, based on a single pitch), I don't really see that the end results manifest that much that can't already be found in Debussy, Ravel, Varese and others. Or, indeed, than in countless examples of 19th century exoticism and mysticism. I find a certain rather novel type of orchestral colour created and then simply sustained for whatever the duration is, for the most part.

As far as other composers' views of him, Rzewski is not an especially rigorous thinker in terms of the relationship between politics and art, and both Cage and Feldman's views on these matters are deeply suspect. Curran I know less well, so don't have a view upon.

Consider yourself corrected. Not only is the sound of Scelsi's music "different", but the reason it's different is that it's (very much) of its own time and circumstances, and certainly has nothing I can hear in common with the attitude behind the music of the other composers you mention, let alone with "countless examples of 19th century exoticism and mysticism". The idea that it might be seen as existing in some kind of tradition which also includes say Debussy and Varèse might be a useful one, but surely (sorry to keep coming back to this, but I think it's crucial) wherever the criticism of a composer's work may end up leading, it must begin with the music as music, as experienced.

To me the sounds of music have a kind of double life: they are both sounds "in themselves" and vehicles for communication on other levels,  and I don't think these two can really be dealt with in isolation from one another. It must be said, though, that I'm much more interested in finding my way to those other levels through the music itself, and, if I may be so bold, I'm more interested/uninterested in the music I'm interested/uninterested in than in the music I for some reason feel I ought to be interested/uninterested in, as a result of some Adornoesque aesthetic moralising. In other words I'm not going to let a composer's personality or political orientation or "image" stop me from appreciating what I see in their music. To do so would be to let that personality/orientation/image get the better of me.

Going back once more to what other people think/thought about Scelsi:
What does this actually have to do with the matter under discussion? What has been demonstrated is that some of Scelsi's colleagues despised him and his work, while others didn't. Their take on the relationship between politics and art doesn't come into it. End of story, surely.

Seemingly nobody here but us three has any opinions on Scelsi they wish to air, and those who have never heard of him might be thinking it's just some recondite music which intellectuals argue about when they have nothing else to do. Not so! I'd urge any music lover to give it a chance, starting perhaps here:

http://www.amazon.com/Quattro-Pezzi-per-Orchestra-Uaxuctum/dp/B000004CAS/sr=1-3/qid=1172433220/ref=sr_1_3/103-5990857-1087825?ie=UTF8&s=music

... if you can find it.

Well, I'd like you to explain a bit more of precisely how you think this is manifested in the resulting music. I'm thinking of the 'what' rather than the 'why' (in terms of what it amounts to, rather than from whence it arises).


I'm actually quite surprised you don't hear that in it.


I am talking absolutely about the experience of listening to the works. But what exactly do you mean by 'the music as music'?


I'm in agreement there, though I think the word 'communication' has too many linguistic overtones.


Well, you would be totally misrepresenting what I say if you think that it is some form of 'aesthetic moralising', Adornoesque or otherwise (that would be a very simplistic reading of Adorno, as well). But music exists in society and attains meanings in that society, and I think socialists interested in new music should not ignore those, much though they may want to exclude their own fields of interest immune from such questions.


Who says that you should? The point about image was purely in the context of particular receptions of Scelsi and cults of personality. My other points all had to do with the music.


It has to do with the matter because you brought up Rzewski as a counter-example to Berio and Nono and their views on Scelsi. Their aesthetic views were political - Nono's especially so - but so are all aesthetic views in my opinion, not least reflecting the subliminated ideologies and determinants that arise from the world from which one is formed. Adulation towards mystical 'great figures' is one of these (monarchies and ruling classes the world round use strategies of mysticism in order to perpetuate their power, by creating the impression they are 'not like us' and thus possessed of an innate right to rule); it should not be suprising if such ideologies find their way into our views of artists as well.

Sorry to pile on ... can you clarify the significance?