In a recent newspaper interview the Dutch pianist Wibi Soerjadi states that if the music is not an aim in itself, it is kitsch. An example is a piano transcription of a musical theme, which only shows the virtuosity of the pianist.
We can think of the many dazzling transcriptions Liszt and Thalberg composed (personally I love them). But is it art or kitsch?
Not to give too trivial a reply, but if you like listening to it, isn't that all that matters?
And if Merda d'artista by Piero Manzoni is "art" to some people (why, I can't even begin to imagine), then I'd say just about anything is. I mean, one edition of this "work" sold at Sotheby's in 2007 for €124,000, so somebody thinks it's something worthwhile.
I hope people here won't consider me outrageous when I make the art-related claim that the worst musical piece ever by Thalberg should have more value than all the editions of Merda d'artista combined...
Piano transcriptions are an art form. I fail to see how they can be anything else, no matter how showy or faithful they are to the original material.
Music surely must be the aim of the transcriber & the performer. If they happen to show off the performers technique, then that is an added bonus.
Thal
"if music is not the..."
I agree about this quote and would go further: having heard such ex cathedra (so to speak) proclamations since college if not earlier, I'd say one can get tired very easily of them (whether from performers or composers- even from otherwise good philosophers, if not grounded in actual musical fact...!) :)
"Directed" only at M. W.S.' statement (remotely, as it were), not at the discussion or participants.
Unless I'm severely misunderstanding the original statement, it seems an odd thing to say. (As a point of pedantry, I assume this refers to paraphrases rather than transcriptions). Mr Soerjadi plays a lot of paraphrases, including his own ones (perhaps his are kitsch ;) ) My personal view would be that it depends on how the material is dressed up: if you want to restate the themes with really cheesy harmonies, then I'm sure you can kitschify the music. There's a lot of craft in the fantasies of Liszt, Thalberg and others, and I would be hesitant about dismissing them artistically - why can't beautiful music still be art when it is re-expressed in a new medium by a master pianist/composer?
I think piano transcriptions are fun and in a live performance, exciting. Can you imagine the excitement of seeing Lizst or Thalberg live? Transcriptions were a way of bringing the 'best' bits of a composition to an audience who may not bother with the rest of the work. I wouldn't call them Kitsch, that term can be applied to many original compositions, vulgar, perhaps.
I fully agree with you all. And yes Thal, it is certainly an art. Listen for example to the exciting Grande caprice sur des motifs de La Sonnambula, op. 46 by Thalberg. Absolutely more than just a showpiece.
Quote from: Peter1953 on Thursday 16 May 2013, 21:55
Listen for example to the exciting Grande caprice sur des motifs de La Sonnambula, op. 46 by Thalberg. Absolutely more than just a showpiece.
That work is so perfect, we might even be bordering on the masterpiece.
If someone pushing a peanut up a motorway with his nose can be considered art, then so can the piano transcription.
Thal
Kitsch is art. Lowbrow art maybe, but all lowbrow art has the potential for greatness.
mmm. I shall have to think about that.... ???
...it sounded good when I wrote it.
......all molehills have the potential to be mountains?
Hmmm. Perhaps this: All molehills have the potential to be beautiful molehills.
Just let me know when this is over. Please. :)
Trouble is, it's in the thread title. But moving on, lest we end up in Pseuds' Corner..
Hmm. Peanut nose-crushing... ???
What I don't understand here is the idea that if a transcription is not art, it must be kitsch. It could be neither.
Kitsch is art, but of a supposedly lowbrow variety. So I imagine the question actually means:
Dazzling Piano Fantasies: High Art or Lowbrow Art?
Does it matter? Eye of the beholder, etc? In any event, it must surely depend upon the quality of the piece?
Referring to the title of this thread (Piano Fantasies - but ignoring the second part!) whilst I must admit I nearly always prefer orchestral pieces, I must also admit that on a CD I got some years ago (of Hilary Davan Wetton conducting the Milton Keynes CO in Sterndale Bennett's Symphony G min plus PC F min), it also included his Pno Fantasia Op 16.
Compared to normal piano solos, what an absolute delight this was to hear - the sort of melody usually only found in the 'piano only' bits of a concerto. Whilst I've got a small selection on piano solos (=Beethoven, Brahms et al sonatas, Mendelssohn Words without ...etc), rarely are any of them so full of melody of this nature.
Can members suggest any other piano solos (Fantasias or otherwise) that have such lush, romantic melody. Leaving aside 'hi' or 'lo' art, I'm personally happy to include transcriptions if the result is pleasant to the ear.
Cheers
Richard
Kitsch also implies highly degraded taste, which I really don't see in piano transcriptions. There's nothing lowbrow in, say, Liszt's piano transcriptions of Beethoven symphonies. You could argue that they exhibit workmanship rather than artistic creation, but that is about as far it will go.
Here's a good working definition of kitsch:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitsch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitsch)
Isn't the key word "dazzling", with it's implications of keyboard virtuosity "for the sake of it", rather than being employed for some deeper artistic purpose?
Maybe; one needs to go back to the original quote. If the person meant bravura variations on "Happy Birthday" then he could have had a point. Rather than transciptions in the manner of Liszt.
... is it the words or the music of Happy Birthday that a bit surprisingly (well, to me as it happened) are less than 3 centuries old?...