Kaikhosru Sorabji's Rapsodie Espagnole De

Home , John Ogdon, Kevin Bowyer, Leopold Godowsky, Octave glissando, Opus clavicembalisticum, Pianist

KAIKHOSRU SORABJI’S RAPSODIE ESPAGNOLE DE MAURICE RAVEL-TRANSCRIPTION

DE CONCERT POUR PIANO: A COMPARISON OF THE TWO VERSIONS

FROM 1923 AND 1945

Fang Yi Chu, B.M., M.M.

Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF MUSICAL ARTS

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS

December 201 8

APPROVED:

Gustavo Romero, Major Professor Elvia Puccinelli, Committee Member Pamela Paul, Committee Member Steven Harlos, Chair of the Division of Keyboard Studies Felix Olschofka, Interim Director of Graduate Studies of the College of Music John W. Richmond, Dean of the College of Music Victor Prybutok, Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School

Chu, Fang Yi. Kaikhosru Sorabji’s Rapsodie Espagnole de Maurice Ravel-Transcription

de concert pour piano: A Comparison of the Two Versions from 1923 and 1945. Doctor of

Musical Arts (Performance), December 2018, 47 pp., 36 musical examples, bibliography, 34

titles.

Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji (1892-1988) was an English composer-pianist of Parsi descent. Although he composed many works for piano, these compositions remain largely unknown to the public due to the composer's self-imposed 40-year ban on public performances of all his works and the immense technical difficulty of his music. This research proposes a comparative study of Sorabji's two versions of Rapsodie espagnole de Maurice Ravel-

Transcription de concert pour piano (1923, 1945). These transcriptions are based on Ravel's orchestral work and are different in terms of the style of their arrangements: the 1923 version is more of a literal transcription, whereas the 1945 version has been expanded upon the former.

This dissertation compares the differences between the two versions, as well as identifying how

Sorabji infused his own style into the 1945 transcription. This study relies on primary sources including writings and manuscripts of Sorabji, and secondary sources such as articles on interpreting Sorabji's piano works and biographies about Sorabji.

Fang Yi Chu

ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

With my deepest gratitude to Professor Gustavo Romero, Dr. Elvia Puccinelli, and Dr.

Pamela Paul for their encouragement and valuable insights. I would also like to thank Alistair

Hinton and Marc-André Roberge, who kindly permitted the reproduction of the music excerpts of Sorabji’s compositions.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... iii

LIST OF MUSICAL EXAMPLES ...... v

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Purpose of Study ...... 1 1.2 Method ...... 2

CHAPTER 2. LIFE AND WORKS OF SORABJI ...... 4 2.1 Short Biography ...... 4 2.2 Sorabji’s Piano Compositions ...... 8

CHAPTER 3. SORABJI’S PIANO TRANSCRIPTIONS: LISZT, GODOWSKY AND BUSONI AS MODELS ...... 11

CHAPTER 4. RAPSODIE ESPAGNOLE DE MAURICE RAVEL – TRANSCRIPTION DE CONCERT POUR PIANO ...... 22 4.1 Interest in Ravel’s Music and Spanish Sounds ...... 22 4.2 Analysis and Comparison of Sorabji’s Two Versions of Rapsodie espagnole de Maurice Ravel—Transcription de concert pour piano ...... 23 4.2.1 Prélude à la Nuit ...... 24 4.2.2 Malagueña ...... 29 4.2.3 Habanera ...... 34 4.2.4 Feria ...... 36

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION...... 43

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 45

iv LIST OF MUSICAL EXAMPLES

All musical examples are reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

Page

Example 2.1: Sorabji: Rapsodie Espagnole (1923), mm. 1-2...... 9

Example 3.1: Sorabji: Pastiche on the Minute Waltz, mm. 44-48...... 13

Example 3.2: Godowsky: Étude no. 10, m. 42...... 14

Example 3.3: Godowsky: Étude no. 11, m. 64...... 14

Example 3.4: Sorabji: Transcription on Bach’s Chromatic Fantasy, m. 27...... 15

Example 3.5: Busoni: Kammer-Fantasie über Bizets Carmen, mm. 110-114...... 17

Example 3.6: Busoni: Kammer-Fantasie über Bizets Carmen, mm. 118-125...... 17

Example 3.7: Busoni: Kammer-Fantasie über Bizets Carmen, mm. 133-140...... 18

Example 3.8: Busoni: Kammer-Fantasie über Bizets Carmen, mm. 161-164...... 18

Example 3.9: Busoni: Kammer-Fantasie über Bizets Carmen, mm. 167-170...... 18

Example 3.10: A comparison between the end of the introductions of Busoni’s Carmen (mm. 107-109) and Sorabji’s Carmen (mm. 11-12)...... 19

Example 3.11: Sorabji: Habanera from Three Pastiches, mm. 13-19...... 20

Example 3.12: Sorabji: Habanera from Three Pastiches, mm. 40-44...... 20

Example 3.13: Sorabji: Habanera from Three Pastiches, mm. 71-74...... 21

Example 4.1: (a) Sorabji: Prélude à la Nuit (1923), mm. 1-3...... 25

Example 4.2: (a) Sorabji: Prélude à la Nuit (1923), m. 19...... 25

Example 4.3(a) Sorabji: Prélude à la Nuit (1923), m. 28...... 26

Example 4.4: Sorabji: Prélude à la Nuit (1923), second cadenza...... 27

Example 4.5: (a) Sorabji: Prélude à la Nuit (1945), excerpt from the first cadenza...... 28

Example 4.6: (a) Sorabji: Malagueña (1923), mm. 35-39...... 29

Example 4.7: Comparison between measures 44 and 45 of Malagueña (1923) typeset edition and Sorabji’s manuscript...... 31

Example 4.8: Sorabji: Malagueña (1923), mm. 52-55...... 31

Example 4.9: Sorabji: Malagueña, m. 18. Comparison between the 1923 and the 1945 version. 32

Example 4.10: Sorabji: Malagueña (1945), mm. 35-40...... 32

Example 4.11: Sorabji: Malagueña (1945), mm. 48-49...... 32

Example 4.12: Sorabji: Malagueña (1945), mm. 73-75...... 33

Example 4.13: (a) Sorabji: Malagueña (1945), mm. 81-82...... 33

Example 4.14: (a) Sorabji: Habanera (1923), mm. 7-12...... 35

Example 4.15: Sorabji: Habanera (1945), mm. 14-15...... 36

Example 4.16 : Sorabji: Feria (1923, 1945), mm. 8-10...... 37

Example 4.17: Sorabji: Feria (1923), m. 32...... 38

Example 4.18: Sorabji: Feria (1923), mm. 70-71...... 38

Example 4.19: Sorabji: Feria (1945), mm. 71-72...... 39

Example 4.20: Sorabji: Feria. Comparison between 1923 version, m. 113 and 1945 version, m. 115...... 40

Example 4.21: Sorabji: Feria (1923), m. 159...... 41

Example 4.22: Sorabji: Feria (1923, 1945), last two measures...... 41

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of Study

This research proposes a comparative study of Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji’s (1892-1988)

two versions of Rapsodie espagnole de Maurice Ravel—Transcription de concert pour piano

(1923, 1945) to examine the composer’s approaches to transcribing and the development of the

two versions. Both transcriptions are in the category of faithful arrangements, yet the later version, which is a revision of the first, contains more elaborate embellishments and is in general more full-textured. Sorabji composed many works for piano (61 for solo and 11 for piano and orchestra),1 yet his music remains largely unknown to the public due to the composer’s self-

imposed 40-year ban on public performances of all his works and the immense technical

difficulty of his compositions. Besides writing piano sonatas, concerti and individual solo works,

he followed in the footsteps of Liszt and Busoni and wrote several virtuoso transcriptions of

works by Bach, Chopin, Offenbach and Ravel.2

Sorabji composed a significant amount of literature for the piano. Of his 117 compositions, 61 are for solo piano. However, it is difficult to pinpoint the significance of

Sorabji’s works because the composer himself stopped publishing his compositions in 1931, and

after a pianist’s problematic performance of his Opus Clavicembalisticum in 1936, he decided

that there would not be a public performance of his work without his consent.3 It was only after

1976 that pianists such as Michael Habermann, Yonty Solomon, Geoffrey Douglas Madge, and

1 Alistair Hinton, “Compositions,” The Sorabji Archive, http://www.sorabji- archive.co.uk/compositions/compositions.php (accessed March 8, 2017). 2 For the complete list of Sorabji’s works, please visit The Sorabji Archive website. 3Marc-André Roberge, Opus Sorabjianum: The Life and Works of Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji, Version 1.13 (Québec: Marc-André Roberge, 2015), 222.

1 John Ogdon began receiving the composer's permission to perform and record his music. Other

pianists, such as Donna Amato, Kevin Bowyer, and Marc-André Hamelin followed the trend in

the late 1980s and early 1990s. In recent years, interest in Sorabji and his music has been growing: editions of his piano symphonies and Piano Sonata No. 0 have been published; a substantial Sorabji biography by Professor Marc-André Roberge was published in 2015; the fifth volume of the pianist Fredrik Ullén's complete recordings of the 100 Études transcendantes was

released in March 2016; in February 2017, British organist Kevin Bowyer gave the U.S premiere

of Sorabji’s eight-hour long Organ Symphony No.2 at the University of Iowa. This performance

was recorded in the documentary Sorabji in Iowa, premiered in the Interrobang Film Festival in

October 2017.4

1.2 Method

The method of this research is mainly based on analyzing and comparing the differences

between Sorabji’s two versions of Rapsodie espagnole de Maurice Ravel—Transcription de

concert pour piano. The study will present a brief biography of Sorabji, unveiling his musical

thoughts and opinions by looking at the articles he wrote as a critic, and by studying his writings

on composers, such as Franz Liszt (1810-1886), Ferruccio Busoni (1866-1924), and Leopold

Godowsky (1870-1938), whom he admired and who had a profound influence on Sorabji’s

compositions. In order to provide further understanding of Sorabji’s compositional style, the

discussion will also include his other solo piano works.

4 Marc-André Roberge, “Current or Recent Research,” Sorabji Resource Site, http://www.mus.ulaval.ca/roberge/srs/09-curre.htm (accessed September 15, 2018).

This study relies on primary sources, such as Sorabji’s manuscripts and his two published

books, Around Music (1932) and Mi Contra Fa (1947), as well as secondary sources including several articles on interpreting Sorabji’s piano works by pianist Michael Habermann; Sorabji: A

Critical Celebration, a collection of articles regarding Sorabji’s life and works edited by Paul

Rapport; Opus Sorabjianum: The Life and Works of Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji, a biography

written by Marc-André Roberge; and other scholarly sources. The 1923 and 1945 typeset

editions of Rapsodie espagnole de Maurice Ravel—Transcription de concert pour piano were

both published by The Sorabji Archive in 2005, prepared by Frazer Jarvis and Jason Acuña.

There has not yet been a performance or recording of the 1923 transcription.5

5 Alistair Hinton, “Rapsodie Espagnole (1923)” The Sorabji Archive, http://www.sorabji- archive.co.uk/compositions/piece.php?pieceid=33 (accessed September 12, 2018).

CHAPTER 2

LIFE AND WORKS OF SORABJI

2.1 Short Biography

Born in 1892 in Chingford, a small town near London, Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji was the only child of Shapurji Sorabji, a Parsi engineer and a successful businessman, and Madeline

Matilda Worthy, an Englishwoman who, according to the composer, was a singer.6 Sorabji received a private education and several years of music training at home. As a mostly self-taught pianist, Sorabji possessed a good enough technique to play through his own compositions, but it was never his intention to become a concert pianist. In fact, in a letter to his friend, Sorabji wrote that “[I am] a composer - who incidentally, merely, plays the piano.”7 Although most performances Sorabji gave were only for his close friends, featuring his works, he did perform several times in public in England, Paris, Vienna, and Glasgow.8

One characteristic feature of Sorabji’s music is its length and thick texture; it is typical that his instrumental music lasts for several hours and requires three or more staves.9 Because of the fortune Sorabji inherited from his father, the composer was free from pressure to have his music published and performed; therefore, he often wrote music not for the listeners but for himself. Sorabji believed that “the musical necessities and not the convenience or comfort of the audience are what matters in these high regions of Brahman manifesting as Art,”10 and this belief

6 Roberge, Opus Sorabjianum, 34–36, 39–41. 7 Ibid., 200. 8 Ibid., 199. 9 Sorabji’s Opus Clavicembalisticum, for example, was written for piano and lasts around four hours. 10 Roberge, Opus Sorabjianum, 11.

4 is clearly shown in many of his compositions. In a published personal statement, Sorabji

explained:

Why do I write as I do? Why did (and do) the artists-craftsmen of Iran, India, China, Byzantine-Arabic Sicily (in the first and last of which are my own ancestral roots) produce the sort of elaborate highly wrought work they did? That was their way. It is also mine. If you don’t like it, because it isn’t the present day done thing, that is just too bad, but not for me, who couldn’t care less.11

As a composer with an Eastern background and who was often inspired by Eastern art,

Sorabji wrote in his essay Oriental Atmosphere: “Orientalism makes itself felt in […] rhythmic intricacy, in richness and efflorescence of elaborate detail, in abundant, intricate arabesque, in melodic lines which, without imitating, suggest by their contours relationship with melodies of

Oriental types.”12 Sorabji’s musical aesthetic explains the nature of his compositions: complex,

full-textured, highly-ornamented. Pianist Michael Habermann once commented on the extreme

length of Sorabji’s music: “…the fact that he was isolated helped him out. It enabled him to

pursue his line of thought to the nth degree, to its logical conclusion.”13

In 1936, a section of Sorabji’s Opus Clavicembalisticum was performed by pianist John

Tobin in London. This performance was, in Sarabji’s opinion, a “foul travesty” of his

composition, and he would never let the pianist lay a “frevelnder Hand auf my work again.”14

Since then, Sorabji made up his mind that no public performance of his works would be allowed

without his permission. Sorabji never announced the ban officially, nor did he declare it publicly,

11 “Notable Quotations,” Sorabji Resource Site, https://www.mus.ulaval.ca/roberge/srs/03-quota.htm (accessed December 28, 2017). 12 Kaikhosru Sorabji, “Oriental Atmosphere,” in Around Music (London: The Unicorn Press, 1932), 148. 13 Martin Anderson, “Sorabji and Habermann: A Composer and His Interpreter,” Fanfare 19, no. 3 (January/February 1996): 91. 14 Roberge, Opus Sorabjianum, 221. “Freveln” means “trespass” or “commit a crime.” The whole sentence can be understood as “lay a trespassing hand on my work again.”

but he mentioned it several times in his writings.15 In a letter to his friend in 1944, Sorabji wrote:

“I […] have turned down quite a number of proposed performances of my own work during the

past year or two […] AND […] have made up my mind NEVER either to perform or allow to be

performed ANY of my own work in this country…”16 A harsher tone is found in his letter from

1962: “ I DO NOT WANT PUBLIC PERFORMANCE OF MY WORK EITHER BY OGDON

OR ANYONE ELSE AT ALL. […] I have set out my views about this often enough AND

NOTHING NOR NO ONE WILL MAKE ME CHANGE THEM.”17 Some of Sorabji’s

compositions also bear a warning note. The performance ban was enforced until 1976 when

Alistair Hinton, a Scottish composer and the founder of The Sorabji Archive, persuaded Sorabji

to relax the ban and grant more performances and recordings of his works.18 In the same year,

pianist Yonty Solomon gave a series of Sorabji recitals in Wigmore Hall, followed by Michael

Habermann’s Sorabji recital in Carnegie Hall in 1977. The first modern complete performance of

Opus Clavicembalisticum was given by Geoffery Douglas Madge in The Netherlands in 1982.

John Ogdon who released the complete recordings of Opus Clavicembalistcum before his death

in 1989, Donna Amato, Johnathan Powell, and Kevin Bowyer followed suit in the late 80s and

early 90s, giving performances and making recordings of Sorabji’s piano music. Marc-André

Hamelin, a renowned concert pianist, made the first recording of Sorabji’s Sonata no. 1 for

Piano, and prepared editions of L’heure exquise, Gulistān, numbers 1 through 18 of the 100

Études transcendantes. He also composed Praeambulum to an Imaginary Piano Symphony in

15 Paul Rapoport, “Sorabji: A Continuation,” in Sorabji: A Critical Celebration, ed. Paul Rapoport (New York: Routledge), 75. 16 Paul Rapoport, “Sorabji: A Continuation,” 75. 17 Ibid., 76 18 Roberge, preface to Opus Sorabjianum, XXV.

homage to Sorabji.19 Swedish pianist Fredrik Ullén began recording the 100 Études

transcendantes in 2006, and his fifth album, which contains études 72 to 83, was released in

2016.20

Besides composing, Sorabji also wrote actively as a music critic for newspapers and

magazines. From 1915 to 1949 he contributed around 580 articles to two newspapers, The New

Age and The New English Weekly.21 Sorabji was also involved in musical journals, such as The

Musical Times, Musical Opinion and Music Trade Review, The Gramophone, and others.22 Two

volumes of Sorabji’s collected writings were published during his lifetime: Around Music,

published in 1932 in London, and Mi Contra Fa, published also in London in 1947. Bold and

provocative, Sorabji was not afraid to speak his mind, and his reviews often attracted complaints

from readers.23 The following excerpt from Sorabji’s open letter to a conductor is an example of

his sarcastic, witty, and almost caustic style of writing:

Egregious, Egotistical, Empty-pated, and Exhibitionistical Sir: Pray do not think that we are all not keenly conscious of the debt we owe you for the relief, the rich fund of the most comical of comic relief, that you provide in that dreary depressing and demoralising occupation of concert-going, and without which it would be unbearable. Your strutting stalk, as of a rooster to the summit of his dunghill, your frozen and congealed state as of a taxidermatical parrot, combining in a quaint and unique manner the maximum of insolence with the maximum of imbecility, as you glance over audience and orchestra, that gesture of spurious generosity with which you invite the orchestra to share with yourself in the applause of a performance that, had you the wit to perceive it, is no compliment but an insult… […] all these things we saw and enjoyed with gurgles of

19 “Biographical Notes,” Sorabji Resource Site, https://www.mus.ulaval.ca/roberge/srs/02-biogr.htm (accessed January 3, 2018). 20 Fredrik Ullén, “Discography,” Fredrik Ullén, http://fredrikullen.net/discography/ (accessed January 4, 2018). 21 “Musical and Non-Musical Journals,” Sorabji Resource Site, https://www.mus.ulaval.ca/roberge/srs/03- newag.htm, (accessed December 23, 2017). 22 Ibid. 23 Roberge, Opus Sorabjianum, 184.

glee — were they not the major part of the fun, the only part with any fun in it at all, any compensation for what you did to the music if and when you got to and at it?24

2.2 Sorabji’s Piano Compositions

Michael Habermann divides Sorabji’s piano works into five categories based on their compositional style:25 works with strict contrapuntal sections (fugues), as in Opus

Clavicembalisticum, which contains four fugues, two variations and other musical forms; works with sections in variation form, as in Passacaglia and Variazioni e fuga triplice sopra Dies irae per pianoforte; works with sections in the motoric genre, as in his four Toccatas; free fantasies, paraphrases and shorter works, such as Three Pastiches for Piano and Rapsodie Espagnole; and lastly, the “meditative and impressionistic”26 nocturnes, such as Le Jardin Parfumé and Djâmi.

Sorabji admired composers, such as Liszt, Alkan, Godowsky, Reger, Mahler—and most whole-heartedly—Busoni. He even described himself, in a letter in 1954, as a “fanatical

Mahlerite, Regerite, Alkanite, Busoni-ite,”27 therefore, it is not surprising that Sorabji followed in their footsteps and created works of even greater complexity and virtuosity. Sorabji’s piano works are often large scale, as mentioned previously, notated on three or more staves. The Î symbol appears on the first staff indicating that the staff should be played an octave higher than written (see Example 2.1).

24 Kaikhosru Sorabji, “An Open Letter to a Conductor,” in Mi Contra Fa: The Immoralisings of a Machiavellian Musician (London: Porcupine Press, 1947), 188. 25 Michael Habermann, “Sorabji’s Piano Music,” in Sorabji: A Critical Celebration, ed. Paul Rapoport (New York: Routledge), 346-60. 26 Michael Habermann, “Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji,” Piano Quarterly 122 (Summer 1983): 38. 27 Marc-André Roberge, “Producing Evidence for the Beatification of a Composer: Sorabji’s Deification of Busoni,” The Music Review 54, no.2 (May 1993): 132.

Example 2.1: Sorabji: Rapsodie Espagnole (1923), mm. 1-2.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

Sorabji also applied the sostenuto pedal in many of his piano works, which was possibly

inspired by Busoni, who had explored new sonorities through his artful use of all three pedals.28

Another feature of Sorabji’s piano compositions is that he often calls for low notes that only exist on an 8-octave Bösendorfer,29 and sometimes calls for notes so high that they are still not

playable currently (for example, D and C♯ on the top in his Sonata III for Piano).30 On the

lighter side of Sorabji’s piano works are his fantasies, paraphrases, transcriptions, and shorter

works (the fourth category mentioned above), in which he pays tribute to the composers and the

music he liked.31 Browsing through the titles of his pianoworks, one finds that Sorabji was often

inspired by the style of a waltz (Valse-Fantaisie: Hommage à Johann Strauss and Pasticcio

Capriccioso, after Chopin’s Waltz in D♭ major), Spanish-influenced music (the Habanera from

Three Pastiches for Piano and Rasodie Espagnole), and opera (Song of the Hindu Merchant,

Schlußszene aus Salome von Richard Strauss, Variazione Maliziosa e Perversa sopra La Morte

28 As an advocate for the sostenuto pedal, Busoni wrote a piece entirely depending on the use of it, titled Mit Anwendung des III. Pedals (Steinway & Sons Sustaining-Pedal). 29 Roberge, “Producing Evidence,” 134. 30 Roberge, Opus Sorabjianum, 16. 31 Ibid., 9.

9 d'Åse da Grieg, and Passeggiata Veneziana sopra la Barcarola di Offenbach, which incorporates the famous Barcarolle from Offenbach’s Les contes d’Hoffmann).

CHAPTER 3

SORABJI’S PIANO TRANSCRIPTIONS: LISZT, GODOWSKY AND BUSONI AS MODELS

Sorabji’s piano transcriptions range from a literal reduction of an orchestral work, as in his 1923 version of Rapsodie Espagnole de Maurice Ravel—Transcription de Concert Pour

Piano, to free adaptation of a work, as in Three Pastiches for Piano and Pasticcio Capriccioso.

Sorabji had great admiration for the piano transcriptions of Liszt, Godowsky, and Busoni and often shared the same views as the great masters regarding the value of piano transcriptions. To the question of whether it is ethical to build a composition upon other composers’ pieces,

Sorabji’s answer was simple: “How a question of ‘ethics,’ the principles of moral conduct, as the

Saints, the moralists and law-givers of mankind have laid them down, can have any imaginable bearing upon the arrangement of a composition written originally for one medium to suit another medium, is not clear to the eye of reason.”32 He stated:

A transcription is “a radically different thing, and is almost a rewriting of the work in terms of the new medium. Decorative matter may be added, derived harmonically from the original… as in the piano transcriptions by Busoni of Bach’s organ works, in which the transcriber has sought literally to translate into pianistic equivalent the effect of these works as played by an accomplished organist. Here… will be a great deal of additional matter calling for a degree of ingenuity, skill, and artistry of the greatest order.33

In Sorabji’s opinion, a transcriber “expounds, enlarges and amplifies matter and thought inherent or implicit in the original text, matter and thought that it has been left to him to discover and reveal, and as in Godowsky’s case, makes the original a point de départ for a great new creation.”34

32 Sorabji, “Leopold Godowsky as Creative Transcriber,” 62. 33 Robert Rimm, The Composer-Pianists: Hamelin and the Eight (Portland: Amadeus Press, 2002), 246. 34 Marc-André Roberge, “The Busoni Network and the Art of Creative Transcription,” Canadian University Music Review, no. 11/1 (1991): 77.

11 Sorabji mentions multiple times in his writings that many works of Liszt, especially the

opera fantasies, were misunderstood as mere “virtuoso music, display pieces of the worst

type.”35 In Sorabji’s essay “The Opera Fantasies of Liszt,” he wrote with high praise about

Liszt’s Don Juan and Norma Fantasies, claiming that “they are superb and masterly compositions in which the treatment of the themes, in variety, beauty, ingenuity, pianistic richness and formal mastery is nothing short of genial […] these works should be examined and appraised as what in fact they are, original and independent compositions.”36 As opposed to the

simple, clean originals, Sorabji seems to appreciate the added harmonies and modulations in the

transcriptions, as he repeatedly describes Liszt’s transcriptions with the words “coloured”,

“Lisztian harmonic beauty” and “richness” in this essay. He further states that Gounod’s Faust

Waltz was “banal” and declares that Liszt’s modulation and harmonic twist in his transcription of

the Faust Waltz “raises and transmutes the whole thing, redeeming it from its narrow provincial

Gallicism, and giving it his own spaciousness and urbanity, perfect European, citizen of the

world that he was.”37

Another source of Sorabji’s inspiration came from Leopold Godowsky. As a transcriber,

Godowsky often aimed to expand piano technique to a higher level.38 His Studies after Chopin

Études is an example of his various treatments of original tunes, as noted in the preface of the work:

Strict Transcriptions- studies in which the text of the original is as closely followed as an adaptation for the left hand would allow… Free Transcriptions- studies in which the text is either a) freely treated, b) inverted, c) combined with another study, d) is being imitated through the medium of another study… Cantus Firmus Versions- studies in

35 Kaikhosru Sorabji, “The Opera Fantasies of Liszt,” in Around Music (London: The Unicorn Press, 1932), 194. 36Ibid. 37 Ibid., 197. 38 Rimm, Hamelin and the Eight, 241.

which the text of the original study in the right hand is strictly adhered to in the left hand of the version while the right hand is freely treated in a contrapuntal way… Versions in form of Variations- studies in which the text of the original étude is used as a basis for free variations… Metamorphoses- studies in which the character, design, and rhythm of the original text are altered while the architectural structure remains intact although the melodic and harmonic outline is often considerably modified.39

In Sorabji’s essay “Leopold Godowsky as Creative Transcriber,” he suggested that Godowsky

“must, I think, be considered as one of the supreme masters of transcription, [and] be put in the

same transcendental class as Liszt and Busoni, and even in certain respects surpassing them.”40

Sorabji also valued Godowsky’s Bach transcriptions, for Bach’s originals for solo violin and

cello were “dry,” “bloodless,” and “skeletons of compositions” to his musical taste, and

Godowsky “clothes them with flesh and blood.”41 Godowsky’s influence on Sorabji can be found in some of the latter’s transcriptions. For instance, in Sorabji’s Pastiche on the Minute

Waltz by Chopin from Three Pastiches for Piano, the composer combined two themes in mm.

44-48 (see Example 3.1), 76-78, 132-135, a practice used often by Godowsky.42

Example 3.1: Sorabji: Pastiche on the Minute Waltz, mm. 44-48.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

39 Rimm, Hamelin and the Eight, 246. 40 Sorabji, “Leopold Godowsky as Creative Transcriber,” 63. 41 Ibid., 65. 42 Marc-André Roberge, preface to Three Pastiches for Piano, composed by Kaikhosru Sorabji (Hereford, England: The Sorabji Archive, 2014): viii.

The polyrhythmic embellishments in many of Sorabji’s works, original and transcribed, were possibly also inspired by Godowsky. Examples 3.2 and 3.3 show the polyrhythmic figures from Godowsky’s Studies on Chopin’s Études (No. 10 and 11, respectively), whereas example

3.4 shows more extensive polyrhythmic ornaments in Sorabji’s Transcription in the Light of

Harpsichord Technique for the Modern Piano of the Chromatic Fantasia of J. S. Bach, Followed by a Fugue.

Example 3.2: Godowsky: Étude no. 10, m. 42.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

Example 3.3: Godowsky: Étude no. 11, m. 64.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

Example 3.4: Sorabji: Transcription on Bach’s Chromatic Fantasy, m. 27.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

Sorabji’s admiration for Ferruccio Busoni as a composer-pianist was tremendous. In a

1930 review of a piano recital, Sorabji commented on Busoni’s Piano Concerto: “I have known it for well-nigh twenty years—the towering grandeur and massive magnificence of the conception are impressed on me more and more every time I play it through.”43 It is believed that Sorabji

spent a lot of time studying works by Busoni, including his writings. While Sorabji wrote works

inspired by Busoni’s style, the length and complexity of these works were pushed to new

extremes. For instance, his five-hour, 253-page Opus Clavicembalisticum shares a similar

structure to Busoni’s Fantasia Contrappuntistica, which lasts around 32 minutes. Sorabji

considered Opus Clavicembaliticum as “admittedly an essay in the form adumbrated by the

immortal BUSONI in his great FANTASIA CONTRAPPUNTISTICA which, with the

Hammerklavier Sonata and the REGER Variations on a theme of BACH, are three of the

supreme works for the piano.”44 In addition to absorbing Busoni’s magnitude and complexity in

composition, Sorabji also absorbed Busoni’s view on composing transcriptions for piano.

43 Roberge, “Producing Evidence,” 125. 44 Roberge, Opus Sorabjianum, 174.

According to Busoni’s essay Value of the Transcription, he saw composition and transcription as

nearly equivalent:

Notation is itself the transcription of an abstract idea. The moment that the pen takes possession of it the thought loses its original form. The intention of writing down an idea necessitate already a choice of time and key. The composer is obliged to decide on the form and the key and they determine more and more clearly the course to be taken and the limitations. […] The idea becomes a sonata or a concerto; this is already an arrangement of the original.45

To the opponents of piano transcriptions Busoni raises a question: “Why are variations

considered worthy because they change the original, while arrangements are considered

unworthy because they also change the original?”46

Sorabji’s Pastische on Habanera from Three Pastiches is an example of Busoni’s influence on Sorabji’s composition. This free adaptation of the famous Habanera from Bizet’s

Carmen was inspired by Busoni’s Sonatina No. 6, entitled Kammer-Fantasie über Bizets

Carmen, which was performed in Busoni’s recital in 1921, a year before Sorabji wrote the Three

Pastiches.47 Sorabji strongly praised the performance in a review:

The Fantasia da Camera on Carmen is a necromantic modern development of the operatic fantasia so superbly initiated by Liszt—and what a development! The vulgar commonplace Bizet tunes lose all their own identity, although not rhythmically distorted, and are for the time being ‘controlled’ by Busoni in a way that recalls the control of a psychic sensitive by some powerful discarnate personality pouring its will down through the medium.48

Busoni’s Kammer-Fantasie über Bizets Carmen is built on five excerpts from the original opera:

the Act 4 chorus, Don Jose’s Flower Song, the Habanera, the Overture, and the “Fate” theme.

45 Leo Treitler, Reflections on Musical Meaning and Its Representations (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2011), 95. 46 Maurice Hinson, preface to The Pianist’s Guide to Transcriptions, Arrangements, and Paraphrases (Bloomington, IN: Indiana Unicersity Press, 1990), xi. 47 Roberge, preface to Three Pastisches, x. 48 Ibid.

The Habanera, on which Sorabji also bases his Carmen transcription, begins in D♭ major,

removed from its original key. Every single note in the melody which consists of downward half steps is clothed with harmonies, creating a rich texture (see Example 3.5). In measure 118-125,

Busoni combined two themes vertically (see Example 3.6).

Example 3.5: Busoni: Kammer-Fantasie über Bizets Carmen, mm. 110-114.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

Example 3.6: Busoni: Kammer-Fantasie über Bizets Carmen, mm. 118-125.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

After a short transition, the Habanera theme returns in measure 135, this time in D

minor, the original key in the opera. The Habanera rhythm is preserved in the left hand, while

the melody is transformed to fast triplet figures in the right hand (see Example 3.7). Following a

polyrhythmic display of the theme, the left hand starts a series of Lisztian octaves while the D

major theme is played by the right hand (see Example 3.8). The left-hand octaves continue in the

17 transition, with a distinctive rhythm in the right hand that foreshadows the upcoming Overture theme (see Example 3.9).

Example 3.7: Busoni: Kammer-Fantasie über Bizets Carmen, mm. 133-140.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

Example 3.8: Busoni: Kammer-Fantasie über Bizets Carmen, mm. 161-164.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

Example 3.9: Busoni: Kammer-Fantasie über Bizets Carmen, mm. 167-170.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

Sorabji’s version of the Habanera from Carmen bears some resemblance to Busoni’s

version. Like Busoni, Sorabji uses an octave tremolo in the left hand to end the introduction;

however, in Sorabji’s transcription the right hand cleverly hints at the Habanera melody with

continuous descending half steps (see Example 3.10).

The theme appears in measure 13 with the dotted rhythm in the left hand; similar to

Busoni’s technique, Sorabji also adds notes to the single-note melody, yet the tonality is not

obvious upon hearing (see Example 3.11). Sorabji’s treatment of the melody is somewhat looser

than Busoni’s, for he often drops or adds a half step to the original design. For instance, the F in

measure 42 would be F♯, if Sorabji had followed Bizet’s original. The same thing happens in

measures 43 and 44, where a B is changed to B♭, and G is raised to G♯ by Sorabji (see Example

3.12). Like Busoni, Sorabji writes highly ornamented lines for the right hand when the first theme reappears in measure 71. The fast embellishments vary between consecutive fifth, octaves, triads, septuplets, and nonuplets, which can be a challenge to the performer (see Example 3.13).

Example 3.10: A comparison between the end of the introductions of Busoni’s Carmen (mm. 107-109) and Sorabji’s Carmen (mm. 11-12).

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

Example 3.11: Sorabji: Habanera from Three Pastiches, mm. 13-19.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

Example 3.12: Sorabji: Habanera from Three Pastiches, mm. 40-44.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

Example 3.13: Sorabji: Habanera from Three Pastiches, mm. 71-74.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

In conclusion, Sorabji’s approaches to transcribing works for piano-combining motifs, adding new chords and voices, and writing polyrhythmic ornaments-are influenced by Liszt,

Godowsky and Busoni. More examples of these approaches will be discussed in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 4

RAPSODIE ESPAGNOLE DE MAURICE RAVEL – TRANSCRIPTION DE CONCERT POUR

PIANO

4.1 Interest in Ravel’s Music and Spanish Sounds

Sorabji took great interest in French music and French literature in his twenties. He

expressed his admiration for French composers, such as Debussy, Duparc, and Chausson in his

essays, and spoke highly of Ravel’s song writing: “His imagination tends away from intense

emotion towards whimsicality and fantasy, but his art is shot through with a vein of delicious

tenderness and gentle melancholy that crops up surprisingly but enchantingly all through his

work.”49 As a composer who often used Eastern elements in his music, Sorabji also praised

Ravel’s Schéhérazade for voice and orchestra, saying that “[it is] a vivid, fantastic, dazzling orientalism that transcends and transforms out of all knowledge those stock-in-trades of ‘Oriental atmosphere’ that are as inseparable concomitants of ‘Eastern’ local colour in Europe.”50 In 1916,

the idea of writing a book about Ravel occurred to Sorabji, but this idea was never carried out,

even though Sorabji was confident that he would have done well writing about Ravel. As he

mentioned in a letter to a friend: “I am not only thoroughly conversant with everything he has

written, but I understand and enter into the spirit of this super subtle personality in a way few can

or do, being a passionate admirer to boot.” 51 Under the influence of Ravel and other French

composers at the time, Sorabji composed 13 songs for soprano and piano from 1915 to 1920, and

11 of them were set to poems of Stéphane Mallarmé (Apparition, also set by Debussy), Charles

Baudelaire, Paul Verlaine (L'Heure exquise, set by Hahn and Fauré, and Pantomime, set by

49 Sorabji, Mi Contra Fa, 165. 50 Ibid., 166. 51 Roberge, Opus Sorabjianum, 73.

22 Debussy), Pierre Louÿs, Laurent Tailhade and Maurice Rollinat.52 Though Sorabji was well-

educated and wrote fluently in French, his settings of the texts in his early songs is problematic, as they sometimes do not correspond with French inflections.53

Likely inspired by Ravel, Sorabji began composing piano music using Spanish elements.

The first Spanish-influenced work by Sorabji is Quasi Habanera, composed in 1917. Later in

1919, Sorabji applied the typical Habanera rhythm to his Fantaisie Espagnole. The previously discussed Habanera from his 1922 Three Pastiches also belongs to this category. In 1923,

Sorabji transcribed Ravel’s Rapsodie Espagnole and composed a more elaborate second version

in 1945. Other Spanish-inspired compositions include Fantasia Ispanica (1933), Tango

Habanera from Études transcendante (1940-44), and Hispanica from Sequentia cyclica super

Dies iræ (1948-49).54

4.2 Analysis and Comparison of Sorabji’s Two Versions of Rapsodie espagnole de Maurice Ravel—Transcription de concert pour piano

Ravel’s orchestral work Rapsodie Espagnole originated from his own Sites auriculaires

(1895-97), a set of two pieces for two pianos, Habanera and Entre cloches. Later in October

1907, Ravel completed the four-movement suite Rapsodie Espagnole for two pianos, which

included the other three pieces that go along with the Habanera: Prelude à la Nuit, Malagueña and Feria. The orchestral version of Rapsodie Espagnole was finished in February 1908 and

premiered in the same year in March.55

52 Alistair Hinton, “Compositions,” The Sorabji Archive, http://www.sorabji- archive.co.uk/compositions/compositions.php (accessed May 20, 2017). 53 Roberge, Opus Sorabjianum, 73. 54 Marc-André Roberge, preface to Quasi Habanera, composed by Kaikhosru Sorabji (Bath, England: The Sorabji Archive, 1992): iii. 55 Roger Nichols, Ravel (London: Yale University Press, 2011), 392.

Sorabji completed the first transcription of Rapsodie espagnole on February 2, 1923, as

dated on the manuscript. On the last page of the manuscript, 12 initials appear as well as a name,

Benjamin Bellnoir, which possibly represented the people to whom Sorabji had considered

sending a copy.56 Sorabji’s manuscript was once possessed by Ravel, and it was not until his

descendant auctioned it in 2000 that the manuscript’s whereabouts became known; the

manuscript is now located at the Pierpont Morgan Library in New York.57

Sorabji had not written any Spanish-influenced pieces since the completion of Fantasia

Ispanica in 1933. Eleven years afterwards, in 1944, Sorabji composed Tango Habanera, the eighty-fourth étude of his 100 Transcendental Études. Likely inspired by Tango Habanera,

Sorabji wrote a second version of Rapsodie espagnole in 1945. No dedicatee is indicated in the

manuscript. Both manuscripts bear rehearsal numbers, which implies that Sorabji worked on

these transcriptions with the orchestral score rather than the piano duo version.58 However, many tempo markings and dynamics that appeared in Ravel’s orchestral score are omitted in Sorabji’s transcriptions.

4.2.1 Prélude à la Nuit

From the beginning to the end, the descending eighth-note motif that consists of F, E, D and C♯ is repeated throughout the movement, except in the cadenzas. Sorabji used this motif in

both transcriptions, yet the 1923 version is more literal than the 1945 version, in which Sorabji

creates an echo effect by adding after each eighth note the note an octave below [see Example

4.1(b)].

56 Roberge, Opus Soabjianum, 275. 57 Ibid. 58 Ibid., 276.

Example 4.1: (a) Sorabji: Prélude à la Nuit (1923), mm. 1-3.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

(b) Sorabji: Prélude à la Nuit (1945), mm. 1-3.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

From measure 19 to 25 in the 1923 version, Sorabji transforms the string tremolo on A♭ and B♭ into an octave oscillation on the piano, which is a technique often seen in orchestral reductions for piano. Sorabji adopts a similar technique in the same passage in the 1945 version, but the additional A♮ and B♮ following the A♭ and B♭ make the passage more challenging for the pianist [see Example 4.2(b)].

Example 4.2: (a) Sorabji: Prélude à la Nuit (1923), m. 19.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

(b) Sorabji: Prélude à la Nuit (1945), mm. 18-19.

. Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

In measure 28, Sorabji expands the upward embellishment—which was originally played by strings and harp—by using a polyrhythmic gesture inspired by Godowsky (as mentioned in

Chapter 3) that appeared many times not only in these two transcriptions but also in his other compositions, such as Fantasie Espagnole and Chromatic Fantasia. Examples 4.3(a) and (b) show the difference between the 1923 and the 1945 transcription.

Example 4.3(a) Sorabji: Prélude à la Nuit (1923), m. 28.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

(b) Sorabji: Prélude à la Nuit (1945), m. 28.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

Prélude à la Nuit contains two cadenzas: the first in measure 44, originally played by two

clarinets, and the second in measure 54, played by two bassoons. In these same measures in the

1923 piano transcription, Sorabji follows Ravel’s original quite faithfully, except for some added notes and a few altered notes. It is worth mentioning that the general rule of reading Sorabji’s notation, as he noted in some of his compositions, is that “the accidentals have no value except for the notes in front of which they stand—with the exception of tied notes and figures obviously of repetitive nature.”59 This rule, however, does not seem applicable to these cadenzas. Since

Sorabji’s Prélude à la Nuit is a more literal transcription, it would only make sense if the

accidentals are carried out for the whole measure in these cadenzas. In measure 54, Sorabji

transcribes the harp glissando for the left hand, while preserving the bassoon soli in the form of

double stops first in the right hand, and then in the left hand. The violins’ soft accompaniment

becomes repetitive groups of eleven thirty-second notes in the right hand (see Example 4.4)

Example 4.4: Sorabji: Prélude à la Nuit (1923), second cadenza.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

The cadenzas in the 1945 version contain more elaborate embellishments than the earlier

59 “Accidentals and Transposition Symbols,” Sorabji Resource Site, https://www.mus.ulaval.ca/roberge/srs/05- accid.htm (accessed Jun 12, 2018).

27 version. In measure 44, Sorabji further expands the clarinet soli by melting the upper voice

(clarinet 1) and its counterpart (clarinet 2) into a single longer line in the right hand, and then creates a new counterpart or adds new chords in the left hand, thus deviating from Ravel’s original (see Example 4.5).

Example 4.5: (a) Sorabji: Prélude à la Nuit (1945), excerpt from the first cadenza.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

(b) Sorabji: Prélude à la Nuit (1945), excerpt from the first cadenza.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

The second cadenza in this version (measure 54) resembles the one in the 1923 version: the bassoon soli are presented by the right hand and then the left hand in the form of double

stops. The violin tremolo in this section is also replaced by groups of eleven notes in the right

hand, while the bassoon soli are played by the left hand.

4.2.2 Malagueña

Sorabji’s 1923 transcription of this movement is quite literal: the registers and the voicing

of different instruments are mostly well-preserved, and even in the freer English horn solo

section Sorabji is faithful to the original and does not ornament frequently. Comparing Sorabji’s

transcription to other transcriptions of the same movement—for instance, Lucien Garban’s

transcription for solo piano and Ravel’s two piano version—one may find that Sorabji sets out to

capture every detail that appears in the orchestral part, while the others focus on retaining what is

obvious to the ears. For example, the harp glissando in measure 37 is captured in Sorabji’s

transcription but not in either Garban’s or Ravel’s versions [see Example 4.6(a), (b), and (c)].

Example 4.6: (a) Sorabji: Malagueña (1923), mm. 35-39.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

(b) Garban: Malagueña, mm. 35-39.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

Editors of Sorabji’s music could be confused about his notation in the manuscripts, as the

manuscripts are not always clear and are sometimes sloppy. An editor would likely encounter

missing beats, ledger lines, and measures, misspelling of musical terms, and confusing

accidentals.60 Therefore, it is not surprising to find that there are wrong notes in the 1923 typeset edition. The first beat of the right hand in measure 37 should be E and F# instead of an octave

[see Example 4.6(a)]. Both Sorabji’s manuscript and Ravel’s orchestral score indicate that there

should be an E on the first beat of measure 37, as it is part of the melody. In measures 44 and 45,

the lower G on the third beat should be an A, as shown in Sorabji’s manuscript (see Example

4.7).

There is a missing measure between bars 48 and 49 in both Sorabji’s manuscript and the

typeset edition; Sorabji corrected this error in his later 1945 transcription. The lowest note on the

second beat of measure 51 is supposed to be a B; the D# in the right hand on beat three should be

a D natural, as it is part of a descending whole-tone scale sequence (F♯-E-D-B♯-A♯-G♯) (see

60 Roberge, Opus Sorabjianum, 3.

Example 4.8). Lastly, the second half of the second beat in measure 64 is supposed to be an E♭ octave instead of an E♮.

Example 4.7: Comparison between measures 44 and 45 of Malagueña (1923) typeset edition and Sorabji’s manuscript.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

Example 4.8: Sorabji: Malagueña (1923), mm. 52-55.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

The 1945 version is in general more heavily embellished and has a richer texture than the

1923 version. Similar to the previous movement, Sorabji creates a new counterpart to accompany the already existing part. For instance, in bars 18 and 21 an ascending chromatic pattern is added to the left hand to echo the chromatic ascending part in the right hand (see Example 4.9) More differences can be found in the D major section, starting in measure 35: Sorabji adds to every note of the melody and further extends the glissando which was originally written for harp; in measure 40, aside from adding chords to the melody, Sorabji also writes irregular rhythmic

groups in the left hand (see Example 4.10); in measures 48 and 49, the original melody is kept in

the right hand while the descending whole-tone scale (F♯-E-D-C-B♭-A♭) is anticipated in the left hand (see Example 4.11).

Example 4.9: Sorabji: Malagueña, m. 18. Comparison between the 1923 and the 1945 version.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

Example 4.10: Sorabji: Malagueña (1945), mm. 35-40.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

Example 4.11: Sorabji: Malagueña (1945), mm. 48-49.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

The English horn cadenza in measure 73 is tripled one octave higher and one octave lower, while the harp glissando is extended by using arpeggios and ascending scales; the sound effect is richer and thicker than the 1923 version (see Example 4.12). In measures 80 and 81

(which should be 81 and 82 due to a missing measure) of the 1923 version, Sorabji faithfully transcribes the ascending scale which runs between English horn, clarinet, and flute; in the same passage of the 1945 version (measures 81 and 82), Sorabji not only adds a major second to each one of the original notes but also adds more chromatic runs towards the end of measure 82 (see

Example 4.13). The use of consecutive major seconds from measure 448 to 467 might have been inspired by Ravel’s Scarbo from Gaspard de la Nuit.

Example 4.12: Sorabji: Malagueña (1945), mm. 73-75.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

Example 4.13: (a) Sorabji: Malagueña (1945), mm. 81-82.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

(b) Ravel: Scarbo from Gaspard de la Nuit, mm. 448-449.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

4.2.3 Habanera

When commenting on this Habanera, Ravel said that “the Habanera, with its ostinato

pedal point and its chords with multiple appoggiaturas, contained the germ of several elements

which were to predominate in my later compositions.”61 Indeed, the C♯ ostinato pedal point in

the Habanera reminds the listeners of the B-flat bell toll in Ravel’s Le gibet from Gaspard de la

Nuit. According to Michael Habermann, it is possible that Sorabji was inspired by Le Gibet to start experimenting with the idea of pedal point, and later applied it to many of his works.62

Sorabji’s 1923 transcription of this movement is very literal and detailed. In measures 2

and 4 he even transcribed the C♯ pizzicato played by the viola on the second beat, which is not

seen in either Ravel’s two piano version or Garban’s solo transcription. In measure 9, Sorabji

indicates in the manuscript that the C♯ octave notes in the bass clef should be played silently by

notating them in diamond shapes; once the C♯ octave notes are silently pressed, the performer

should hold down the sostenuto pedal. The same instruction appears in the 1945 transcription, as

well (see Example 4.14).

To execute such an instruction without a break in the sound between measures 8 and 9 is

not possible, because the sostenuto pedal has to capture the silent C♯ octave before the right hand

plays; however, if the pianist slows down slightly and lifts the damper pedal on the last eighth

note in measure 8, then quickly presses down the silent C♯ octave in measure 9, the break in the

sound between measures will not be as obvious. Sorabji’s instruction creates a great sound

effect: the faintly resonated C♯ strings, heard in the background, resemble the C♯ octave held by

61 Michael Habermann, liner notes to Sorabji: Piano transcriptions of Ravel / Bach / Chopin, Michael Habermann, BIS BIS-CD-1306, CD, 2003. 62 Habermann, “Sorabji’s Piano Music,” 360.

two flutes in the orchestral version. The carefully designed passage shows how Sorabji paid strict

attention to details.

Example 4.14: (a) Sorabji: Habanera (1923), mm. 7-12.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

(b) Sorabji: Habanera (1945), mm. 7-10.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

There are two major differences between Sorabji’s 1923 and 1945 editions of his

Habanera. One can easily spot upon hearing the 1945 version that Sorabji adds more arpeggios,

slow and fast, in places such as the first beat of measure 9 and the second beat of measures 14

and 15 in the 1945 version. The effect of faster and longer arpeggios resembles the rasgueado, a

guitar technique of “strumming strings either upwards with the fingertips or downwards with the

back of the fingernails.”63. Rasgueado is often associated with Flamenco guitar music; it is also

63 Alison Latham, "Rasgueado," in The Oxford Companion to Music (Oxford University Press) http://libproxy.library.unt.edu:2571/view/10.1093/acref/9780199579037.001.0001/acref-9780199579037-e-5498 (accessed July 18, 2018).

used in classical guitar music, for instance, in Rodrigo’s Concierto de Aranjuez and Manuel de

Falla’s Danza del molinero (Dance of the Miller). Sorabji’s use of the rasgueado effect adds

more Spanish flavor to the 1945 transcription.

Example 4.15: Sorabji: Habanera (1945), mm. 14-15.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

Another difference between the 1923 and 1945 transcriptions is the added voice to the

existing melody and accompaniment in the 1945 version. As mentioned previously, the 1923 transcription is faithful to Ravel’s orchestral version, which mainly consists of the melody and the pedal point (a triplet tied to two eighth note pattern). Sorabji creates a fuller texture in the later version by adding a chromatic line to the C♯ pedal point, and by writing a new voice below the melody; this arrangement can be found in measures 20-22 and 29-31.

4.2.4 Feria

Feria is not only the longest but also the most festive movement of the four. It also

requires the most challenging piano technique of both of Sorabji’s transcriptions, as it involves

Lisztian fast octaves, consecutive thirds and sixths, long trills with the top voice played by the

right hand only, alternating-chord tremolos, glissandi, and other difficult technical elements. The

tempo marking is omitted in the 1923 version but clearly marked in the 1945 transcription as

Assez animé = 76, which is Ravel’s original tempo. However, a slower tempo is recommended

for both transcriptions, for a fast tempo may cause chaotic playing, and in some passages it

would be simply unplayable if one were to obey the tempo marking.

Unlike in the previous movements in Sorabji’s 1923 transcription, the dynamics in Feria

are more carefully copied from the original. Since the dynamics in the 1945 Feria are omitted, the markings in the earlier version serve as a reference. The cello tremolo in measures 8-13 is transcribed in the 1923 version, but in the 1945 version Sorabji changes it to oscillating triplets

(see Example 4.16), which sound more linear and more like the murmuring effect that Ravel intended. The same arrangement happens in measures 18-22. Sorabji’s treatment of measures 23 and 24 is similar in both transcriptions: he combines the first violin and the glissando in the second violin into one hand by changing the glissando to an ascending chromatic scale; only the span of chromatic scale in the later version is wider.

Example 4.16 : Sorabji: Feria (1923, 1945), mm. 8-10.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

In measures 29 and 30 of the 1923 transcription, Sorabji transcribes the clarinet’s E♭ trill

and places it along with the chords in the left hand. The glissandi in the right hand in measures

30 and 31 are based on the violin’s tremolo, which Sorabji replaces with a fast scale pattern in the later version. To execute the trills in the middle voice without interfering with the melody in

37 measure 32, the pianist could play the initial note of the trill (G♯, G, G♯ and A) with the right hand, and let the left hand quickly take over the trills (see Example 4.2.17).

Example 4.17: Sorabji: Feria (1923), m. 32.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

The octaves in the left hand of measure 70 are nearly impossible to play even in a somewhat slower tempo than Ravel’s original; it is similarly impossible to play the octaves with both hands, since the right hand is in charge of the tremolo. It is reasonable to assume that the pianist sees measures 70 and 71 as a free improvisatory passage, plays the octaves and thirds at a manageable tempo, and gradually transitions to the following slow section.

Example 4.18: Sorabji: Feria (1923), mm. 70-71.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

The same passage appears in measures 71 and 72 of the 1945 transcription (the cause of

the discrepancy in the measure numbers between the two versions is that a measure was omitted

by Sorabji in 1923 between measure 27 and 28), but Sorabji makes this passage easier to play in tempo by transcribing only the consecutive thirds in the violin part for the right hand, and the

descending chromatic scale in the cello and bass for the left.

Example 4.19: Sorabji: Feria (1945), mm. 71-72.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

The slow, jazzy 3/4 section in the 1923 transcription is similar to that of the later version with minor differences such as changing the register and rolling a chord or not; however, Sorabji skips a measure again between measures 94 and 95 in the 1923 version, making it now two measures shorter than the 1945 version. Starting at measure 104, the F-E-D-C♯ motif from the first movement reappears and alternates with the melody; the long chromatic scales in the 1945

version (measure 105, 106, 114, 117, and 118) are replaced in this section by series of sextuplets

of diminished seventh and dominant seventh chords, which are easier to play in tempo.

Example 4.20: Sorabji: Feria. Comparison between 1923 version, m. 113 and 1945 version, m. 115.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

The music returns to a faster 6/8 meter after measure 112 in the 1923 transcription. In measures 157 and 158, Sorabji adds descending triplets to go along with the melody in the right hand. Measure 159 holds an octave glissando starting on B, as clearly shown in the manuscript;

between the main chords in this measure Sorabji creates lengthy embellishments that consist of

scales and arpeggios to imitate the massiveness of the orchestral sound (see Example 4.21).

Sorabji simplifies the orchestra part by writing glissandi in the last two measures of the

1923 version; in the 1945 version, however, Sorabji writes a tremolo between two chords that

moves up and down within 4 octaves to further increase the sound of the piano.

Example 4.21: Sorabji: Feria (1923), m. 159.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

Example 4.22: Sorabji: Feria (1923, 1945), last two measures.

Reproduced with permission from The Sorabji Archive and Marc-Andé Roberge.

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

Unlike most of Sorabji’s transcriptions, the two versions of the Rapsodie espagnole de

Maurice Ravel—Transcription de concert pour piano adhere to the original form. By comparing

Ravel’s orchestral score and Sorabji’s 1923 version, it is clear that Sorabji aimed to preserve

details such as a nuanced sound or a short glissando when transcribing for piano. Although 1945

version still follows the structure of the original, Sorabji treated the material more freely,

expanding on Ravel’s original by adding chords to single-note melodies, creating new voices to

go with existing parts, using elaborate embellishments, and combining motifs. These approaches

further enrich the sound of this later transcription, creating a texture that better corresponds to

Sorabji’s overall aesthetic—rich, elaborately-detailed, and intricate.

Sorabji once said in his statement: “I write very long, very elaborate works that are entirely alien and antipathetic to the fashionable tendencies prompted, publicized and plugged by the various ‘establishments’ revolving around this or that modish composer.”64 Daring to

challenge convention is what makes Sorabji’s music unique. Many later musicians have been

inspired by Sorabji, including Lowell Liebermann (b. 1961), who dedicated his Concerto for

Piano, Op. 12 (1983) to him, and Marc-André Hamelin (b. 1961), who performed and edited

Sorabji’s works, and wrote Praeambulum to an Imaginary Piano Symphony in homage to

Sorabji.65 This dissertation is the first to thoroughly examine Sorabji’s Rapsodie Espagnole transcriptions and compare them to the orchestral original. Hopefully this document will inspire

64 Roberge, “Favourite Expressions and Notable Quotations,” Sorabji Resource Site, https://www.mus.ulaval.ca/roberge/srs/03-quota.htm (accessed September 15, 2018) 65 Roberge, Opus Sorabjianum, 382.

43 further interests in Sorabji’s other piano transcriptions—Schlußszene aus Salome von Richard

Strauss, Three Pastiches for Piano, Pasticcio Capriccioso, and others.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Martin. “Sorabji and Habermann: A Composer and His Interpreter.” Fanfare 19, no. 3 (January, February 1996): 89-92.

Busoni, Ferruccio. Kammer-Fantasie über Bizets Carmen. [Score.] Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1920.

Godowsky, Leopold. Studies after Frederic Chopin. [Score.] Berlin: Schlesinger, n.d.

Habermann, Michael. “Kaikhosru Shapruji Sorabji.” The Piano Quarterly, no. 122 (Summer 1983): 36-37.

______. “Strange Music: The World of Kaikhosru Sorabji.” Piano Today 15, no. 6 (November, December 1995): 56.

______. Liner notes to Sorabji: Piano transcriptions of Ravel / Bach / Chopin, Michael Habermann, BIS BIS-CD-1306, CD, 2003.

Hinton, Alistair. “Composition.” The Sorabji Archive. http://www.sorabji- archive.co.uk/compositions/compositions.php (accessed October 20, 2016).

______. “Articles.” The Sorabji Archive. http://www.sorabji- archive.co.uk/articles/hinton-who_1.php (accessed October 20, 2016).

Hinson, Maurice. The Pianist’s Guide to Transcriptions, Arrangements and Paraphrases. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1990.

Kim, Mi-Jin. “Comparative Analysis of the Musical Distortion in Kaikhosru Sorabji’s and Vladimir Horowitz’s Piano Paraphrases Based on Bizet’s Opera Carmen.” DMA diss., University of North Texas, 2014.

Latham, Alison. “Rasgueado.” The Oxford Companion to Music. http://libproxy.library.unt.edu:2571/view/10.1093/acref/9780199579037.001.0001/acref- 9780199579037-e-5498 (accessed July 18, 2018).

Nichols, Roger. Ravel. London: Yale University Press, 2011.

Rapport, Paul, eds. Sorabji: A Critical Celebration. Leicester, UK: Scolar Press, 1992.

Ravel, Maurice. Rapsodie espagnole. [Score.] Durand & Fils, 1908.

Ravel, Maurice. Rapsodie Espagnole. [Score.] Arranged for solo piano by Lucien Garban. Paris: Durand & Cie., 1952.

______. Rapsodie Espagnole (for piano four-hands or two pianos). [Score.] Paris: Durand & Fils, 1908.

Rimm, Robert. The Composer-Pianists: Hamelin and the Eight. Portland: Amadeus Press, 2002. 45

Roberge, Marc-André. Opus Sorabjianum: The Life and Works of Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji. Version 1.13, Québec: Marc-André Roberge, 2015.

______. “Producing Evidence for the Beatification of a Composer: Sorabji’s Deification of Busoni.” The Music Review 54, no.2 (May 1993): 123-136.

______. Preface to Three Pastiches for Piano, composed by Kaikhosru Sorabji. Hereford, England: The Sorabji Archive, 2014.

______. Preface to Quasi Habanera, composed by Kaikhosru Sorabji. Bath, England: The Sorabji Archive, 1992.

______. “The Busoni Network and the Art of Creative Transcription.” Canadian University Music Review, no. 11/1 (1991): 68-88.

______. “Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji.” In Music of the Twentieth-Century Avant- Garde: A Biocritical Sourcebook, edited by Larry Sitsky, 487-491. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002.

______. “Current or Recent Research,” Sorabji Resource Site, http://www.mus.ulaval.ca/roberge/srs/09-curre.htm (accessed November 2, 2016).

______. “Accidentals and Transposition Symbols.” Sorabji Source Site. http://www.mus.ulaval.ca/roberge/srs/05-accid.htm (accessed November 2, 2016).

Sorabji, Kaikhosru Shapruji. Around Music. London: The Unicorn Press, 1932.

______. Mi Contra Fa: The Immoralisings of a Machiavellian Musician. London: The Porcupine Press, 1947.

______. Rapsodie espagnole de Maurice Ravel—Transcription de concert pour piano (1923). [Score.] Edited by Frazer Jarvis. Hereford, England: The Sorabji Archive, 2005.

______. Rapsodie espagnole de Maurice Ravel—Transcription de concert pour piano (1923). [Score.] Manuscript. Hereford, England: The Sorabji A rchive, n.d.

______. Rapsodie espagnole de Maurice Ravel—Transcription de concert pour pianon (1945). [Score.] Edited by Frazer Jarvis and Jason Acuna. Hereford, England: The Sorabji Archive, 2005.

______. Rapsodie espagnole de Maurice Ravel—Transcription de concert pour piano (1945). [Score.] Manuscript. Hereford, England: The Sorabji Archive, n.d.

______. Three Pastiches for Piano. [Score.] Edited by Marc-André Roberge. Hereford, England: The Sorabji Archive, 2014.

______. Transcription in the Light of Harpsichord Technique for the Modern Piano of the Chromatic Fantasia of J. S. Bach, Followed by a Fugue. [Score.] Edited by Marc-André Roberge. Bath, England: The Sorabji Archive, 1993.

Treitler, Leo. Reflections on Musical Meaning and Its Representations. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2011.