Talk:Opus clavicembalisticum

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

G D Madge

What is meant by "tried to play it through"? Did he complete the work or not? Either he completed it, which makes it a performance, or he did not, in which case we shouldn't mention this at all.

I've removed the POV bit about the recording being said to be heavily improvised. Reference to the score will establish whether it was improvised or not. At the moment, this is in the category of rumour and hearsay. Cheers JackofOz 23:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can comform that Madge is often so untrue to the score that one could say his recording is a fraud.

If it was a fraud, why didn't Sorabji say anything? Any statement of the superiority of one performance over another has to be sourced. Otherwise it has to go. Xanthoxyl 19:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorabji didn't say anything as the recording came out 11 years after his death and he wasn't present at the performance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toccata quarta (talk • contribs) 09:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked around, and there is a long discussion of the issue here (by John Carey) but it can't really be used as a source. Xanthoxyl 20:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel words removed. Reworded to sound less biased. Cited. Gonna remove the POV label tomorrow if someone doesn't come in here and tell me not to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.236.75 (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation of the letter

The citation of the letter in the "Composition" section lacks its reference. I found this article contains exactly the same phrases, but is this the source? Or is it taken from another material? --Aotake 03:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of a few possible sources ; the book "Sorabji: A Critical Celebration" edited by Paul Rapoport which contains a collection of Sorabji's letters from the period of OClav's composition many of which mention specifically what stage composition was in, or in other ways give a view to the composition process definitely contains a copy of that section of that letter (I'll see if I can find my copy of Critical Celebration , might be able to provide page number). Schissel | Sound the Note! 18:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Clavicembalisticum → Opus clavicembalisticum – According to http://www.mus.ulaval.ca/roberge/srs/04-lingu.htm and http://www.mus.ulaval.ca/roberge/srs/04-opusc.htm, the capitalisation Sorabji used is incorrect. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ban

I gather, from "Sorabji: A Critical Celebration", that his phrasing (in correspondence etc) was different at different times (sometimes absolute but only sometimes) but that- at minimum- he always reserved the right that he be asked before an intended performance and that if he said no, that wish be respected (a right British law gave him for his published works. He did, however, I gather(??) wink at a small number of performances of his works that he was made aware of between 1936 and before 1976, as noted, including a performance of one of his earliest published works, In the Hothouse (#1 of 2 Piano Pieces published 1921) in 1946, e.g.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 18:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lede repetitive and confusing

I find two issues with the lede second paragraph. First, it doesn't add much to what has been said in the first paragraph: the work is known (renowned? notorious?) for its massive length, complexity, and difficulty; can't that be said in a single paragraph? Second, and worse, the second paragraph sounds self-contradictory, as written: the most technically demanding solo piano work [...] although some [other] works [...] were more difficult still. So, which is it? The most difficult or not. (The risks one runs using superlatives.) Shouldn't that be cleaned up? jmsofia (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]