# Salvatore Sciarrino



## Edward Elgar

I recently got into this guy's music. His 12 madrigals were featured in the Huddersfield Contemporary Music Festival and I rated them highly as they were completly without pretence like such a lot of modern work.

I then found some of his piano music and it bowled me over! He has redefined the virtuoso pianist in his sonatas which are mostly comprised of crazy runs and ornaments. He truly is one of the greatest and versatile avant-gardists of our time in my opinion.

He also has a sense of humor, check out this cool piece which combines a well known popular melody with a Ravellian accompaniment.


----------



## Guest

Yeah, Sciarrino's a bit of all right, alright.

I recently purchased several CDs of his music on the recommendation of James L. McHard in his book _The Future of Modern Music._

_Luci mie traditrici,_ which is a two act chamber opera
_Lohengrin,_ which is an "Azione invisibile per solista, strumenti e voci
and vol. 1 of works for flute, which are very tasty indeed.

Two of those are on the Stradivarius _times future_ series, which has unfortunately for my bank account been very consistently good so far. I've gotten twenty-two of those in just the past year. Good times!


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> He also has a sense of humor, check out this cool piece which combines a well known popular melody with a Ravellian accompaniment.


Yes, that's why it is easy to listen to , is the rest of his stuff as good or does he loose his way?


----------



## Edward Elgar

You make your own mind up as to whether he looses his way or not, but I find all his works to be of the same high quality regardless of their stylistic content.

Search on YouTube for more stuff of his. It won't be easy to listen to, but the effort it takes to think about what Sciarrino wanted to say and the meaning of the music will be rewarding.


----------



## Guest

Yes Andante, he loses his way, much like Beethoven lost his way, veering off from those charming Mozartian pieces and ending up eventually with those hideous monstrosities like the ninth symphony and the opus 111 and such....


----------



## Guest

Beethoven never lost his way his hearing yes but he never took his eye off the ball, it is a pity some modern so called composers will not stay as focused, Regarding the P Son #1 of Salvatore Sciarrino I did enjoy all of the Tacets but Son #3 is rubbish


----------



## Guest

Ah. Impervious to sarcasm, I see. 

OK, then.

(And you think "Andante doesn't enjoy it = It is rubbish"? Hmmm.)

((And yes, I did catch your joke, but as you'd already trampled all over it yourself, I didn't feel I needed to enjoy it!!))


----------



## Lang

Edward Elgar said:


> .
> 
> He also has a sense of humor, check out this cool piece which combines a well known popular melody with a Ravellian accompaniment.


I have to say, I was not impressed by that. It reminded me of the improvisations (In the Style of ... ) Joseph Cooper used to do in Face the Music.


----------



## Edward Elgar

I merely posted a link to his most accessible work so you may find enough interest to listen to his other works that have more originality.


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> Ah. Impervious to sarcasm, I see.
> 
> OK, then.
> 
> (And you think "Andante doesn't enjoy it = It is rubbish"? Hmmm.)
> 
> ((And yes, I did catch your joke, but as you'd already trampled all over it yourself, I didn't feel I needed to enjoy it!!))


What Joke??

If you think #3 is not worthy of me thinking of it as rubbish will you explain what is so good about it "musicaly" I will then listen to it again and pay particular attention to the parts of it that you bring to my attention, I am reminded of the Art world where paint is flicked onto a canvas from a 10 inch house painters brush and then everyone pontificates on what it means, these people want to appear as Art intellectuals the same attitude exists in the music world.

Listening to a lot [not all I must add] of modern classical is like eating unwashed, raw road kill, basically it is food but who in their right mind would choose it over roast Beef, a tasty steak or grilled Salmon.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Andante, give it another hundred years or so and today's contemporary music will be the roast beef, steak or salmon! Premier performances of loads of classical and romantic music that we love today were total disasters back then. It's a common theme in musical history where the new material is rejected by mainstream audiences and then loved centuries afterwards. Why not try to understand the music of today and get one generation ahead of the game?! We are living in the most exiting time in musical history and that notion for me is encouraging.


----------



## Guest

Firstly, What are these loads of premier performances that were total disasters due to the composition of the music and not poor performance by the musicians ?? that future generation will find some of this music loved I find hard to accept I think they may say “what on earth were they thinking of” or it will simply fade into the mists of time as did a lot of the earlier composers, but this is pure speculation. 
As far as understanding music goes I suggest it is in the same category as the Art I mentioned in my earlier post so perhaps you could explain in your own words what you understand about Sciarrino’s 3rd Sonata. 
I enjoy music as do all people on this forum, what is there to understand ?? Perhaps the compositional method used by the composer or what he/she was trying to project is this what you mean? 
I think today’s musicians are technically far more advanced then their predecessors but not necessarily better at interpretation or emotional expressions, to days composers may be very good technically but do not appeal to the vast majority of music lovers something has been lost or is just too hard for them. In the end music is mostly an audible experience and of course subjective so what is the point of very clever music if to the majority it sounds awful ??


----------



## Lang

Andante, I have already seen it in my lifetime. I was about eighteen when I first heard the Berg Violin Concerto. At that time it was seen as a 'gritty' modern work, and most people would have described it in the terms you use for contemporary music. Now I am sixty-six, and the Berg has taken its place in the repertoire as one of the great concertos.


----------



## Guest

Andante said:


> I enjoy music as do all people on this forum, what is there to understand ??


That the words "I enjoy music" do not suffice to make you an adequate judge of whether a piece is good or not in and of itself (or even if a piece _can_ be said to be good in and of itself!). "I enjoy music" conceals in itself a judgment, too, does it not? "I enjoy music" really means "I enjoy only certain kinds of music, relegating what I don't like to the dustheap." You keep trying to get people to tell you what's musically convincing about Sciarrino's third piano sonata (or what they understand about it), but you've done nothing yourself but dismiss it as rubbish. How about you go first? How about explaining, in non-prejudicial language, what you find unmusical about it?

The art analogy is maybe not the way to go, by the way, as modern art has proven to be capable of pleasing people just as much as older art. That's what you don't seem capable of understanding, or crediting. That music or art that _you_ don't like can possibly be anything but rubbish or road-kill. You seem also to think that no one else really likes it, either, but that there are a few strange folks who _claim_ to like it.

Why is someone who admires a Jackson Pollock, for instance to be only characterized as someone trying to be an Art intellectual? Why can't it simply be that they _like_ Pollock? (I think the answer to that might have already been given, that if _you_ don't like it, you cannot believe that anyone else can, either.)


----------



## Edward Elgar

Come on Andante! The Rite of Spring, Brahms' 1st Piano Concerto, Schumann's Symphonies, Bizet's Carmen. The list is endless of pieces that were poorly recieved and are now established classics! Lang can even tell us of a work that gained popularity in his lifetime, less than 50 years!

As for "poor performances by the musicians" of the time, who are you to decide this was the case! No, the reason those works didn't catch on was more likely because of closed-minded idiots who were scared of change from what they were used to.

All the music we love, we love because of conditioned listening. If we were conditioned to like Sciarrino and nothing else we would dismiss the polite harmonies of Mozart.

Sciarrino's 3rd piano sonata I find intriguing as it makes outrageous demands on the performer and gets many different and exiting sonorities from the piano. The dissonance or "awfulness" as you describe it as, I find delightful. I embrace his breaking free from tonal constraints as it allows more of the composer's imagination to shine through. Saying that, my favourite sonata is the 1st, an uncompromising piece that doesn't seem to me to have the right amount of notes in it!


----------



## Guest

Regarding the Berg, I have heard the you tube performance by Frederieke Saeijs and admit it is one of the more accessible pieces and hers was a fine performance, but I find it very simular to Schoenberg with no melody that stuck in my mind … can you hum or whistle any of it? To me it has no attraction at all and I would certainly not purchase it, I fail to see how it is one of the great V Con and would suggest that the vast majority of music lovers would not have it in their collection, The same applies to P Son #3 by Sciarrino
*Someguy*, I have asked you before to explain certain modern music and you never do!


----------



## Guest

Andante said:


> *Someguy*, I have asked you before to explain certain modern music and you never do!


When? I looked through several threads just now, threads in which we both took part, and found nothing of this sort. So you'll have to remind me when you've done this.

When before now, that is. I cannot explain anything about Sciarrino's third piano sonata as I have not heard it yet. There's quite a lot of Sciarrino I've not heard yet. Some day....

As to whether I ever could possibly explain anything to you may be indicated by this:



Andante said:


> If you think #3 is not worthy of me thinking of it as rubbish will you explain what is so good about it "musicaly" I will then listen to it again and pay particular attention to the parts of it that you bring to my attention


The last part sounds OK, but the first part strongly suggests that the effort will not pay off. (That is, my task would be not just to point out musically good bits of a particular piece, which can be done, but also to overcome your prejudices.)

But sure, remind me of some other time that you've asked to have "certain modern music" explained, and I'll see if I can oblige.


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> When? I looked through several threads just now, threads in which we both took part, and found nothing of this sort. So you'll have to remind me when you've done this.


I am not in the slightest way interested in hunting through numerous posts to answer your question so lets say I was mistaken, it is pointless getting into a did - did not exchange that would have no outcome.

What you call my prejudices probably will not be overcome They are my preferences after a lifetime of musical listening as I have said before certain music of to day I find enjoyable but a lot more IMHO [just to make the point] is just not worth the continued effort that would be required.

Edward Elgar asked why don't I try and understand the music of to day ,, I really do not know what that means so _*I will ask you to explain it to me*_? however I contend that it is not necessary to ["understand" what ever that means] to be able to enjoy it.


----------



## Guest

Andante said:


> it is pointless getting into a did - did not exchange that would have no outcome.


We wouldn't. I have no question you did ask me this. I just couldn't find it.



Andante said:


> I contend that it is not necessary to ["understand" what ever that means] to be able to enjoy it.


I agree. I enjoy contemporary musics because they sound good, have always sounded good, to me. Some things didn't, at first, but I never felt that one or two not good sounding things meant there was something wrong with modern music generally. I only thought something might be wrong with me, an attitude that might be proven to be wrong from time to time but the only attitude that leaves me open to new experiences.

Liking all sorts of different sounds, different combinations of sounds, is all that's necessary for enjoying new music, I suppose. For enjoying old music, too, I guess.

(Several not good sounding pieces have become favorites, too. Some have become palatable, at least. A very small minority have remained not good sounding. Another smallish group is composed of the ones that sounded good at first but no longer do.)


----------



## Guest

Well, I am surprised, it looks as if we are closer in our thoughts than I realised


----------



## Edward Elgar

For me, I have to be able to understand how a peice of music (or any art) came to be to enjoy it fully. This includes its historical context, who composed it and why it was composed.

I also think there is good and not-so-good music of all musical eras. There is good and not-so-good music from our modern day composers, just like there is good and not-so-good music that Mozart composed.

My admiration for Sciarrino lies in the fact that I've not yet heard a work from him that's not-so-good in it's artistic construction.


----------



## Guest

What about " how it was composed" form, method etc how did the composer construct the work, this is what I take as understanding a composition, 
I suggest that not many would understand in this sense, perhaps only a few musicians and of course all composers, this is why I fixed upon your use of [understand]


----------



## Edward Elgar

You are right, only people who are interested in classical music will read up on it.

Look at the word "includes" that appears in my last post. I acknowledge that understanding how a piece was composed is also an important step in fully appreciating the music.

Sciarrino appears to have devised forms and structures of his own demonstrating his musicality and originality.


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> Sciarrino appears to have devised forms and structures of his own demonstrating his musicality and originality.


OK, but what are they and how are they constructed,


----------



## Edward Elgar

Listen to them!!! Open your ears!!! Their structures are simple to work out because of the variations of musical material and how they relate to each other during the work! Just like a Mozart Sonata or a popular song!


----------



## Guest

I mean what are they called in musical terms and what is the structure


----------



## Edward Elgar

Music doesn't have any relevant terms, music is music! Listen!


----------



## Guest

Sonata form for one?????


----------



## PostMinimalist

I actually miss Christi. 

Was she any good?????


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> Music doesn't have any relevant terms, music is music! Listen!


I* have* listened, to what I assume to be the 1st movement which is posted in 2 parts on youtube (Son #3) and I can detect no form or structure save for the tinkering runs being followed by forceful chords, [does this have a specific name?] I ask in order that I could follow it up and try to understand, I find nothing enjoyable or memorable in the piece, I have listened to short takes of some of his other music and it sounds very simular, so this is his musical language !


----------



## Lang

Andante said:


> Regarding the Berg, I have heard the you tube performance by Frederieke Saeijs and admit it is one of the more accessible pieces and hers was a fine performance, but I find it very simular to Schoenberg with no melody that stuck in my mind … can you hum or whistle any of it? To me it has no attraction at all and I would certainly not purchase it, I fail to see how it is one of the great V Con and would suggest that the vast majority of music lovers would not have it in their collection, The same applies to P Son #3 by Sciarrino
> *Someguy*, I have asked you before to explain certain modern music and you never do!


Yes, I most certainly can hum or whistle virtually all of it, although it is not an aural experience I would recommend. Particularly easy with the Berg, because part of it is actually Bach! The thing I found quite remarkable was that I came to the Berg years before I heard the Bach. I knew it was a quote, but I couldn't find anything Bachlike in it at all. When I finally did get round to hearing Es Ist Genug, I was amazed to find that it is quoted virtually note for note!

The Berg is actually an overwhelming emotional experience, and it is a shame that it does not touch you. Mind you, there is much music admired by others that leaves me totally unmoved. We all have our blind spots, and it is tempting to regard one's blind spots as absolutes. Many people admire Shostakovich, a composer whose music has absolutely no interest for me whatever. But the assumption I should make is that there is something in Shostakovich that I cannot hear, not that everybody else is deaf.


----------



## Guest

Yes, We all have different tastes, I just can't resist poking a bit of borax at the Mod stuff


----------



## Edward Elgar

You could try listening to the mod stuff! And I mean real, active listening with an open mind. If you don't like it after you've listened to a variety of contemporary works, fair enough.


----------



## Guest

What makes you think I haven't tried? I listen to at least 3-4 premiered works a year, at Concerts and some is OK "not memorable" but bearable, I just find the majority is not enjoyable, I seem to be locked into *form and order* which is in short supply in an awful lot of mod stuff that I have heard and I would wager the same would apply to most listeners.


----------



## Edward Elgar

As some of you may know, Britain has suffered a catastrophe of epic proportions. Around 2cms of snow fell and the transport systems just couldn't cope with the savage nature of our climate. While waiting for a train that was an hour delayed, I began listening to Sciarrino's 4th piano sonata and, even though it is the most brutal of his sonatas, it calmed me to know that everyone get frustrated sometimes. A small minority take it out on a piano!


----------



## science

I like a couple Sciarrino works:

View attachment 62122
View attachment 62123


I intend to try more later. Somehow he fell afoul of the sentinels of modern taste, I believe. Maybe too much of his stuff got on Italian TV. I don't know know. Maybe I have the wrong impression anyway.


----------



## tortkis

science said:


> I like a couple Sciarrino works:
> 
> View attachment 62122
> View attachment 62123


The attachment images cannot be seen. What are the works you like?

Today finally I was able to listen to String Quartet No. 9. The streaming stopped too often, but I downloaded the video and listened to it offline.

Streaming from La Musica di Rai3
Salvatore Sciarrino / Domenico Scarlatti: Quartetto d'archi 'Prometeo' (00:40~)
Salvatore Sciarrino: Quartetto n. 9: 'Ombre nel mattino di Piero' (13:50~)

Giulio Rovighi, Aldo Campagnari, violini
Massimo Piva, viola
Francesco Dillon, violoncello

Filled with Sciarrino's typical figures, short notes with glissandi and crescendo/decrescendo, which are like brushwork of Asian black-and-white paintings or calligraphy. Very nice.


----------

