Three beautiful piano pieces to all time

[rob]

...and the aesthetics of beauty. But somehow, I don't think that as much as we'd like to think of our selves as 'serious' forum contributors, we're actually willing to go down the path of actually tackling an aesthetic argument.

Helen

I have Joseph Chiari's "The Aesthetics of Modernism" downstairs which I quite liked and used in my degree a million years ago. But of course there are no absolutes. In this regard I am something of a Phenomenologist. Truth is what you perceive it to be - since it is true for you, even if for no-one else. That does rather date me though to the immediate post-flower-power generation!!!!

[davida march]

delete

[rob]

...Liszt, above all nineteenth-century composers, was aware of the ontological strangeness of music - something that we have forgotten since the advent of recording where we can easily access a piece at any time to hear. He was acutely aware that music was an idea, only alive during the moment of performance and for the rest of its life was part of an 'imaginary museum'...

Oh I've had THAT argument many times with performers who do not WRITE music. We're well beyond that rather meagre approach now, and not even primarily because of recordings. That was fun though, thanks.

[iano]

Truth is what you perceive it to be - since it is true for you, even if for no-one else. That does rather date me though to the immediate post-flower-power generation!!!!

Rob, that's conjured a wonderful image in my mind: you in a macrame poncho. Or a tie-dye t-shirt... Certain memories from my own state school childhood, taught by a bunch of wannabe hippies...

Recently, we on the ANAM mailing list were treated to another nugget of home-spun philosophy, in which it was claimed that "if there is no audience, there is no music". This was in the context of building up audiences, so fair enough, I suppose. But as a proposition? Well, excuse me while I guffaw (notice I didn't say 'if'). Actually, I don't care if you excuse me or not. Music exists in many ways, not the least of which is in the mind, and if it doesn't begin its journey in the mind, where does it begin? What about an audience of one, in which the player and audience are one and the same? A very valuable way to experience music, in my view, perhaps the best...

[rob]

Truth is what you perceive it to be - since it is true for you, even if for no-one else. That does rather date me though to the immediate post-flower-power generation!!!!

Rob, that's conjured a wonderful image in my mind: you in a macrame poncho. Or a tie-dye t-shirt... Certain memories from my own state school childhood, taught by a bunch of wannabe hippies...

Recently, we on the ANAM mailing list were treated to another nugget of home-spun philosophy, in which it was claimed that "if there is no audience, there is no music". This was in the context of building up audiences, so fair enough, I suppose. But as a proposition? Well, excuse me while I guffaw (notice I didn't say 'if'). Actually, I don't care if you excuse me or not. Music exists in many ways, not the least of which is in the mind, and if it doesn't begin its journey in the mind, where does it begin? What about an audience of one, in which the player and audience are one and the same? A very valuable way to experience music, in my view, perhaps the best...

Oh dear, tie-dyed tshirts I have created and worn - but it was over thirty years ago!

Yes, the composer creates the music in his or her mind. It certainly has some kind of existence there. Enescu famously never of course wrote down his Second Piano Sonata!

[timgill]

Putting my simpleton’s hat on – actually, I wear it most of the time – I would suggest that beauty in music, while subjective, must also satisfy all of the following criteria:

1. It must be written from the composer’s heart, not brain – apart from the intellectual process of actually writing it down on paper
2. It must be slow; anything faster than moderato can be exciting but not, I venture to suggest, beautiful
3. It must induce a physical reaction in the listener, such as tears or a tingling in the spine/neck

So, my three choices for piano are

Shostakovich Piano Concerto No. 2, slow movement
Beethoven Hammerklavier Sonata, slow movement
Kapustin Prelude No. 9 from op 53

This last choice might seem a bit strange but knowing the composer, as I do, I know that this piece was written by a man who is taciturn to the point of diffidence, and expresses his emotions in his compositions. This particular prelude, he tells me, represents the most he has ever revealed about himself in his writing. Knowing all that – and one should of course know as much as possible about the circumstances surrounding the composition of any piece of music in order to be able to appreciate, understand and react emotionally to it – raises it, for me anyway, from the level of, say, “pretty” to a far higher emotional status.

[iano]

Tim, I think you are being disingenously self-depreciating... hardly a simpleton, ever

I like your list. I sort of agree with the idea of slow — it's borne out in so many Beethoven slow movements. But what is slow? I don't mean simply the question of where to draw the line. I mean, in addition, what makes a piece of music slow or fast? You often have plenty of ornamental figuration in slow music that is basically fast. Conversely, many fast pieces have a macro structure that is basically slow. Not to mention rates of harmonic change, which are crucial to the perception of speed. So, I have to disagree that beauty predominantly resides in the 'slow'...

[iano]

Btw, 'hardly a simpleton, ever' is very far from 'hardly ever a simpleton'. Just wanted to clarify

[Timtin]

Two things.
1. Has this thread been given a stay of execution after all?
2. At the risk of ruffling feathers, I totally disagree with the notion that music must be slow to
be beautiful. To me, slowness equates with solemnity and seriousness and fastness equates with
joy of live and living. Therefore in general the latter is far more appealing and beautiful. Those
CDs containing one slow track after another are just so boring! By all means have a short slow
passage in a fast movement to highlight the life of the work generally, but don't go slow all the while.
Beethoven's Grosse Fugue is a good example of what I mean.

[Arjuna]

I totally disagree with the notion that music must be slow to
be beautiful.

I wonder about that too. Think of Liszt's Les jeux d'eaux à la Villa d'Este from Bk. 3 of Années de pèlerinage.
Although, come to think of it, that too could be thought of as slow.... from a certain perspective.