Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner What's so bad about Islamey?

But (Rach 3 and Liszt Sonata) are also a lot harder! And longer.

And why not?? It's perfectly fine to have less-than-masterpiece works in your rep.

because musically it's not satisfying to her perhaps?

Just sayin'...

Many would disagree with you that the Liszt Sonata is technically harder than Islamey, disregarding length.

The world of classical music would be pretty boring if every note had to count for something (what was that Emperor Joseph II said about a Mozart opera? ). Once you've reached a certain standard of technical proficiency, a certain fascination with difficulties for their own sake is no bad thing: it encourages the acquisition of more technical armory which leads to dividends in the long term with simpler music. Noone would claim that Paganini's Caprices are great music like Bach's Sonatas & Partitas for solo violin are, but their difficulties are precisely the reason great violinists are fascinated enough to want to play them.

Personally, I find that that the pieces I choose to keep in my memorized repertoire (not the same as the majority of pieces I actually learn to play, but not memorize) are those with technical difficulties that are a delight to play again and again, just as a runner enjoys the exhilarating sense of exertion as he pushes himself hard up a hill, or sprinting for the finish.

While Islamey doesn't encompass quite the range of technical difficulties as Scarbo (and is a lot more repetitive), one can safely say that if you have the chops to do it full justice, you've got a technique better than 99.99% of pianists. Add to that its charming Russian folksiness, the fact that it actually looks fiendishly difficult, and a conclusion that you can really go to town with (hopefully eliciting some 'Bravo's/'Brava's from the audience ), and you have everything you need for a great showpiece.

Perhaps that's why Horowitz played it in 7 minutes? To get it done more quickly?


pianoloverus- I think you're right about the 3rd section.. it seems like he did it to balance the work, almost mathematically, so the tranquillo is split relatively evenly.. but to me, it just starts to get a little long at that point. (Probably why there's the optional cut.)



What was it Mozart said back to the Emperor?

The same as what Balakirev said to all those naysayers about his Oriental Fantasy: "Only as many as I require, Your Honor". (Substitute the Russian equivalent of 'you duffers!" for 'Your Honor' in his case - Mili Alexeyevich wasn't known for his diplomatic skills....).

I find an important point in here. There's a difference between music that's difficult for the sake of being difficult (Islamey) and music that's difficult but also entertaining (Pagannini's Caprices) and finally music that is difficult but also has gravitas (Bach Sonatas and Partitas). If Islamey has a problem it's that it's a bit too repetitious and in the process loses some of its entertainment value. Then there's music like Sorabji which is just difficult and the only appeal is that it's difficult and for me the problem then is that it's only fascinating for a short period of time. Sadly, most of Sorabji's music is far too long by several orders of magnitude.

(Sorry to be OT for a moment, and I've said this before: but for me, discovering Sorabji was life-changing! Try some of his 100 Transcendental Etudes, many of which are on YouTube. Difficulty is *not* the only appeal. These are fascinating pieces. I sometimes think that the length of his "Opus Clavicembalisticum" (which I don't really know) has made him something of a punch-line, much as 4'33" did with Cage.)

I would also object for this reason (more so than being "difficult for the sake of being difficult"). I do find it to be repetitious, and it definitely brushes up on that borderline of "too much repetition".

But I'm not sure I would agree that it is difficult for the sake of being difficult. It doesn't seem to have any particularly bombastic technical sections that add nothing more than a technical challenge to the piece (where I think select measures in Liszt pieces, particularly the transcendental etudes, do this frequently).

Perhaps this has more to do with my unfamiliarity with composing, though. I've admitted that before, and I still offer it freely now. I'm interested, Steve: what do you see from a composer's standpoint that makes it seem like Balakirev wrote it purely for the sake of being difficult?

Does anyone know if the subtitle 'Oriental Fantasy' came from Balakirev? Considering the roots of the tunes in the Caucasus and the Crimea, it seems inappropriate and even misleading.

Why? Do you not know the meaning of the word "oriental"?

If you consider the Caucasus or the Crimea 'Oriental', I believe it is you who doesn't know the meaning of the word. And if you don't know where the subtitle came from, what motivated you to make such a condescending reply?

Depends on where are you from, no?

To me, it means of the Far East. Even if it means 'Near East' or 'Middle East', it's certainly Asia. But the Crimea is in Europe and the Caucasus straddles the 'boundary' of Europe and Asia - so I think the term 'Oriental Fantasy' is a big stretch.

I think that given the time when Islamey was composed, it must've sounded quite oriental... :-/ It is a big stretch by todays standards, but back then I think it was perfectly fine. (plus I 'named' it "ethinc" a few posts back, which goes to show that it gives out a rather non classical feeling)

I don't actually know the piece but my "Islamey" would be Schubert's Wanderer Fantasy

Given that there is a vast amount of classical music with a pretty strong ethnic flavor, from Chopin's mazurkas and polonaises to Bartok's folk arrangements (actually, much of Bartok, come to think of it), it is a bit surprising to hear that you have some kind of problem with it.

That makes no sense.

"Orient" means "East". The Near East is widely regarded as the extent of the Ottoman Empire, which included both Crimea and Caucasia. I think, today, most people consider the Far East to mean the "Orient", but at the time, that wasn't necessarily the case.

In other words, you do not know that "oriental" means "eastern." To people in Europe at the time, anywhere to the east of Europe was "oriental."