Is it right to revive works withdrawn by their composers?

[Dundonnell]

In the last few days a number of compositions which were withdrawn and suppressed by their composers have been mentioned on this forum.

A few examples:

The Second Symphonies of three American composers-Roy Harris, George Antheil and William Schuman. The Harris 2nd has actually been recorded by Albany and a member very kindly posted the last off-air performance of the Schuman 2nd. Schuman also withdrew his 1st symphony.
Peter Mennin, Vincent Persichetti and Wallingford Riegger also all withdrew their first two symphonies!

Allan Pettersson's unfinished 1st Symphony has been released by BIS in a performance edition by Christian Lindberg.

Naxos and Dutton have released a quantity of music by William Alwyn which has been edited/orchestrated/completed by other hands. Chandos have done this with some Bax, orchestrated by Graham Parlett. There was a suggestion earlier today that Rubbra's early and suppressed Piano Concerto be re-examined if possible. The Robert Simpson Violin Concerto was withdrawn by Simpson but is still in the publisher's catalogue.

A number of early works by Vaughan Williams have been revived and recorded over the last few years-the latest being 'The Garden of Proserpine' and now the Fantasy for Piano and Orchestra.

Now it would be ridiculous to make generalisations and I fully appreciate that each case has to be taken on its merits. In the case of Vaughan Williams, for example, it was his second wife Ursula who withdrew some of these early compositions from circulation.

But where does all this stop? If it was the composer's own decision that a particular composition did not represent what he wanted to put before the public is there still a right to resurrect that score after his death and put it onto cd?

Sibelius certainly solved the problem by burning his 8th symphony

[Josh]

I believe that the practice of obeying those dead composers' wishes in these matters is nothing but a reduction the possible musical experiences available to the world.  Even when it involves works that I loathe, I don't see anything positive about such a thing.

[Lionel Harrsion]

I believe that the practice of obeying those dead composers' wishes in these matters is nothing but a reduction the possible musical experiences available to the world.  Even when it involves works that I loathe, I don't see anything positive about such a thing.

I agree entirely.  In any case, composers are not necessarily the best judges of the merits of their own works (no names...)!

[eschiss1]

I wouldn't want to agree too readily that composer's wishes (in this- or other matters) should be adhered to (or entirely ignored) so consistently, either, if composers start following the lead of Heinz Holliger and continue asking performers to regulate their breathing...

[jerfilm]

You're right, Lionel.  How often over the course of history has posterity judged artists of all persuasions and media quite differently than the individual himself.  Isn't he reverse often true as well?  I'm sure many composers have thought that just about everything they wrote was a masterpiece. 

Interesting too that virtually everyone who has been named so far is a 20th century composer.  I'm not really very familiar with any of their works - well, I heard some Wm Schuman years ago when old Stanislaw was Music Director of the Minnesota and didn't care for it at all.   But I digress.   Are these withdrawn early works, by chance, mostly written in a more romantic/post-romantic/melodic/tonal idiom that was not terribly likely to be programmed by the majority of 20th century Music Directors?  And so the composer didn't want to be associated with THAT stuff.......

Or is it just my paranoia.....

Jerry

[Josh]

If you want to get Romantic, there's always the very famous Richard Wagner and his Die Feen.  It's an opera I really like, but apparently its creator didn't care to have it performed again.  Or at least, I get that impression.  Overall, it's actually my favourite Wagner opera, and surely must be relatively unsung today.

[Rainolf]

My opinion is, that it is better to know more music than to know less music. And withdrawn works belong to the creative development of their composers as do the acknowledged ones. Sure: Every composer has the right to decide, which of his works should leave his desk to come into the public and which works shouldn't. But I think, when he doesn't destroy the withdrawn work in his lifetime, the people of the next generations have the right to study this composition and to try, if it "works" in practise. And maybee then there are some people, who like it - and find, that the composer was to critical with himself.

I don't want to miss eg. Bruckner's withdrawn Symphony "No. 0", a work I like more than his acknowledged No. 2.

[Dundonnell]

You're right, Lionel.  How often over the course of history has posterity judged artists of all persuasions and media quite differently than the individual himself.  Isn't he reverse often true as well?  I'm sure many composers have thought that just about everything they wrote was a masterpiece. 

Interesting too that virtually everyone who has been named so far is a 20th century composer.  I'm not really very familiar with any of their works - well, I heard some Wm Schuman years ago when old Stanislaw was Music Director of the Minnesota and didn't care for it at all.   But I digress.   Are these withdrawn early works, by chance, mostly written in a more romantic/post-romantic/melodic/tonal idiom that was not terribly likely to be programmed by the majority of 20th century Music Directors?  And so the composer didn't want to be associated with THAT stuff.......

Or is it just my paranoia.....

Jerry

I instanced 20th century composers because I am rather more familiar with their work. I am sure that there are plenty of examples, a couple of which have now been mentioned, from the 19th century

I think that it may be a 'very slight' dash of paranoia   The early Rubbra Piano concerto is certainly reputed to be in a rather more advanced idiom than the composer was later to adopt, the Schuman 2nd Symphony certainly sounds no less 'modern' than his later works, the first version of the Bernard Stevens Piano Concerto was more difficult to play than the simplified second version.

[Ilja]

I fail to see the dilemma here. When an artists releases something to the public, be it a painting, a sculpture, a novel, or a composition, he effectively relinquishes control. That's one reason why I've always considered it slightly bad form to start tinkering with a composition after release. Some may argue that music is slightly different, or was in the 19th C., because a performance is not as tangible as, say, a painting or novel. That certainly doesn't hold in the case of published music, and only to a limited extent in the case of performances. After all, there is a collective memory, often recorded in critiques.

After publication, in whatever form, the composer ceases to be of much relevance (not counting the composer as a performer, of course): I'm certainly not of the school that thinks that a composer's opinion about performance should be treated as gospel. After publication it is up to the performers, to form a second 'layer' of creativity, so to speak.

So the retraction of works after performance, to me, is just not on. You should've burned them before you released them.

[eschiss1]

effectively relinquishes control- I gather this is more or less true in the copyright law in some countries (or after performance in some, I think, with music?... vague memory, here.), with some caveats, very definitely not in many others, one can argue the underlying philosophy.

The reason, according to the notes I read, that Elgar's estate allowed Anthony Payne to go ahead, was that the copyright term was coming to an end anyway, that they agreed they found his work in progress a good realization and wanted to give something an official imprimatur before the term did end and open season began. (Similar reasoning may have been at work in some other cases. Copyright law may be moving in the direction of permanent rights but - I have seen it convincingly argued and tend to agree even as an occasional composer and writer though never a good one myself - was never intended to be a permanent-for-one-and-one's-estate-and-publishers sort of thing- originally and once a time. But that's slightly off the topic, I'd agree.)

[Dundonnell]

Thanks to those who have contributed so far to this thread. Some excellent points have been made.

I understand and tend to agree with Ilja's point about a work which has been released to the public-published, perhaps performed. Schuman's 2nd Symphony would certainly fall into that category.

But what about an unpublished manuscript?  Rubbra wrote his (first) Piano Concerto in the early 1930s but did not have it published and he did not wish the piece to be heard. And there are similar examples.

Do we have the right to ignore his wishes, seek out the manuscript and have the work performed? That I am not so sure about.

[Lionel Harrsion]

Do we have the right to ignore his wishes, seek out the manuscript and have the work performed? That I am not so sure about.

I think we do, with two provisions: first, that the composer is deceased and cannot, therefore, be upset or offended; and secondly, that alongside any performance or recording of the piece it is made clear that the composer withdrew the work.  Each listener will draw his or her own conclusions about whether the work is 'below standard' (and that the composer's judgement was therefore correct) or that the piece was, indeed, worth hearing, in which case they'll be grateful for having heard it.  Thus, the reputation of the composer will remain, at worst, undiminished and possibly enhanced.  Does that make sense?

[Dundonnell]

It makes perfect sense

I think that as a solution to the problem it strikes exactly the correct balance between the composer's wishes and our natural interest in hearing the work and, in doing so, widen our knowledge of the composer and his art.

If he was so absolutely sure that the manuscript should never be heard then he should consign it to his equivalent of Sibelius's bonfire at Ainola

[Lionel Harrsion]

If he was so absolutely sure that the manuscript should never be heard then he should consign it to his equivalent of Sibelius's bonfire at Ainola

I still profoundly wish Sibelius hadn't!   

[Dundonnell]

I am sure that most of us would agree....but, ultimately, that was his decision to make.