Giacinto Scelsi: Preludes for piano, Series II (1930/1940)

For those who say Scelsi didn't know how to write...

Scelsi was mistreated for years, I suppose, because of his educational background. An atypical composer and even initially rejected by Italian culture (See the first edition of the Garzanti).

I would say instead that he is someone to take well into consideration. For those who do not know him, I suggest listening to his string quartets. Only a few in the 1900s can boast of having truly paved the way for this established ensemble; Scelsi is one of them.

Frank wrote:

but still unpublished

... and therefore, fortunately, there is now YouTube to compensate at least in part for this serious deficiency towards him/her

Nothing new for the regulars of twentieth-century music, but perhaps curious for others: Scelsi – not “Scelsi's music”, but rather “Scelsi as a composer” – has been, and ultimately remains, and will probably remain, at the center of a controversy that has some interesting implications on an hermeneutic level (if you'll excuse the expression). Now, I cannot describe the whole matter as it deserves (I have a couple of pieces due) but, in short, and perhaps exaggerating a little: Scelsi did not write – in the sense of “put to paper” – his pieces. He improvised on a sort of primitive electronic keyboard, capable of producing microtones and glissandi, and then had them orchestrated by composers he trusted: among them Vieri Tosatti, his collaborator for several decades, who upon Scelsi's death published an article declaring “Scelsi is me”.

The whole thing deserves to be told better, but I will limit myself to pointing out these two pages, and the related discussions, because they represent two different perspectives on the same problem.

http://www.aldobrizzi.net/popup_press1_5.htm

http://www.maurograziani.org/wordpress/archives/1949

As far as I am concerned, I only add that I keep a memorable memory of Anahit, heard live: and listening to it, I couldn't help but think “an orchestration by the Madonna” (also because during the same concert they played the recording of Scelsi's improvisation from which the version for instruments was taken).

In Mauro Graziani's article, regarding Sciannameo's memories, reference is made to this URL

http://www.musicaltimes.co.uk/archive/0102/scelsi.html

It doesn't work, alternatives?

The Scelsi affair always disturbs me greatly. Reading the comments on Mauro Graziani's website was an ordeal, especially because no one, from either of the two "sides," truly spoke about the compositions in question, the sonic result, or the reasons for their success and appreciation.

Musical philology often leads to high philosophical questions about what a musical work is, what an author is, who holds the authorship responsibilities of a score, etc. Rarely are these issues resolved with direct interventions; more often, attempts are made to broaden definitions, making them inclusive, in such a way as to understand all possible musical worlds without establishing moralisms, unwritten rules, or ostracisms.

Some unanswered questions that may provide food for thought for those who wish to reflect:

Did John Cage write 4' 33''?

Did Duchamp sculpt "Fountain"?

Listening to a performance of "Composition 1960 #10" by LaMonte Young, can one assign the authorship responsibility of that piece to LaMonte Young? (I will spare you the research: the score for "Composition 1960 #10" consists of the phrase "Draw a straight line and follow it").

In one hand I have the Beatles' White Album and in the other hand I have the sheet music with the transcriptions of that album, which would allow me to play and sing it with my cover band: what is the original text of the White Album, the album or the sheet music that reports the notes played?

... Who wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey?

Regarding the compositions attributed to Scelsi, what were the creative roles of Scelsi and the transcribers? Are there such strong ethical implications? Are the compositions attributed to Scelsi appreciated for the underlying idea or for the practical realization? Is it possible, indeed, to establish this distinction between the underlying idea and the practical realization, and to give different aesthetic importance to the various elements?

I repeat, there are no unequivocal answers.

Any musical product can be created by teams of musicians collaborating for a result. In less sophisticated contexts, the term "Feat" exists—and not without reason.

That being said, all film music is the product of multiple musicians... with someone's brand name on it, who obviously contributes actively and perhaps makes the choices (and certainly supervises the result). I don't see anything scandalous in that. Is Sequence III for voice by Berio or his wife? In my opinion, if it hadn't been for his wife, the piece would have been different. Out of gallantry toward Berio, we continue to delude ourselves that it is 100% his. The same principle applies to soundtracks signed by Hans Zimmer.

As it happens, this discussion can also be applied to his Folk songs... because of the rendering? And the symphony? ... etc.

Joking but plausible, Scelsi could even be just a signature or an 'intuition'.

1. The composer's name functions as a kind of "logo," or "seal of guarantee," or "trademark." The Sonatina by twelve-year-old Beethoven is something else entirely from the Sonatina by thirty-year-old Salieri, even if the notes are the same: we listen to it differently, we give it different meanings; the Trio in A major is a masterpiece on par with – and perhaps more than – the other three by Brahms, but its authorship is uncertain, and therefore it is never listened to; and so on.

2. Among all, Scelsi is the composer least affected by this problem. After all, sound is: Scelsi limits himself – like all "true composers" – to listening to it, and making us listen to it. Scelsi, Tosatti, Beethoven, Salieri, Brahms... what does it matter? All are – we all are – temporal manifestations of that which is, outside of time.

3. Meeting Scelsi was Vieri Tosatti's greatest fortune: a unique, unrepeatable opportunity to exercise his truly boundless ingenuity and sensitivity on an external, neutral object, on something he could observe as being detached from himself (because when we do our own things, we are slaves to them, right?). From this, a total – enviable – freedom.

Open content (youtube)