Not what it says on the tin

[giles.enders]

I have recently acquired a recording of the piano concerto by Granados.  however most of it is not by Granados but a 'realisation' by Melanie Mestri.  this is not a new issue, the Alkan piano concerto is in reality by Klindworth, based on themes by Alkan, The Stanford third piano concerto is completely orchestrated by Geoffrey Bush.  The so called Elgar piano concerto is cobbled together with a lot of wishful thinking by Robert Walker, and going back even further, Balakirev's second piano concerto had very substantial input from Lyapunov.  There is a serious issue about how much of the original composers work exists for someone to claim it is by them and not a joint effort. 

[eschiss1]

At least in those cases, this was credited somewhere visible.  I gather some editors (for Muzyka/Sov. komp.?) had a reputation for very, very interventionist editing-without-comment (from a review of Roslavets recordings - of some of his later, rather more retro and Romantic works, I think- which because of this might have had to have been considered Roslavetz/(editor's name) in unknown proportion.  At least in some of the cases above, I think- certainly in one that you rightly didn't mention, the Elgar/Payne 3rd (also, some recent completions of the Bruckner 9th finale, and a new edition of the Bruckner 9 as a whole)- the editor was very clear about, and published at length, just what they did, where, how, when )

[Claude Torres]

The Alkan Piano Concerto is an orchestration by Karl Klindworth (in 1872 and revised in 1902.) of the three Etudes 8 to 10 of the Op. 39 set
It is also available on CD NAXOS 8.553702
Dmitri Feofanov (piano)
Razumovsky S.O.
Robert Stankovsky, conductor
Rec. 16-18 Dec 1995 Bratislava

See

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdFt2tda1Ho
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xvWmISPS1o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AazXk1XMlY8

Claude

[sdtom]

I do feel that a very important issue has been raised in regard to who did what and who really gets credit.
Tom

[Dr Gradus]

For some reason the "Albinoni Adagio" is creeping into my mind. When is someone going to start attributing it to Remo Giazzotto?

[Alan Howe]

The 'completion/realisation' industry is in full swing these days. Of course, on occasions the result is a revelation (who'd be without Elgar/Payne Symphony 3?), but more often than not the product is some sort of hybrid using original material by the composer involved which is then imaginatively re-composed by someone else. I have no particular objections myself to this industry provided that it is made clear what one is buying into. So the real issue for me is what these hybrid works should be called. In the case of the Granados, for example, I'd've thought the piece should be called Concerto for Piano and Orchestra 'Patético' by Melani Mestre after music by Enrique Granados. In other words the name of the person responsible for the completion/realisation should really be up front and central.

[JimL]

In the case of Balakirev/Lyapunov it is fairly certain that only the finale was left incomplete by Balakirev, and that the composer did have fairly extensive input through deathbed consultations with his acolyte Lyapunov on how the finale was supposed to go.  I think it was mostly the orchestration that was left incomplete, although some material might have been left up to Lyapunov's descretion.

[Mark Thomas]

Whilst in no way disparaging Bogatyrev's effective and idiomatic reconstruction of Tchaikovsy's Symphony in E flat, it has always irritated me that it was, and indeed still is, dubbed "Tchaikovsky's Seventh" when, had he not repudiated it, it would have been his Sixth. A related piece, the posthumously published Andante & Finale for piano and orchestra Op.79,  which is also based on Tchaikovsky's sketches for two of the abandoned Symphony's movements, contains as much Taneiev as Tchaikovsky. An early example of the modern phenomenon, I suppose.

[sdtom]

What kind of credit is due Raff as far as Liszt is concerned and perhaps vice-versa?
Tom

[Alan Howe]

Aren't we talking here about modern-day realisations, though?

[Dr Gradus]

And how does one classify Night on the bare mountain in the Rimsky version? Every note is by Mussorgsky (I think) but it has been restructured and rescored. Should every performance carry R-K's name in the title, or does a mention in the programme note suffice?

[sdtom]

I think his name should be mentioned as orchestrating is concerned. I'm assuming there quite different but I've only heard the RK version.
Tom

[sdtom]

I thought Alan that we were discussing any changes?
Tom

[Alan Howe]

We could be, Tom. But the Granados realisation is an example of a peculiarly modern phenomenon. It's almost a type of personal wish-fulfilment.

[Richard Moss]

A couple of examples that come to mind of 'doing it right' (IMHO) are
(i) Brian Newbould's realisations of Schubert symphonies and
(ii) Lev Vinocour's similar efforts re Schumann piano concertos. 

In both cases, they have extensively explained in the booklet notes what they have added/altered and why to produce a performing version.  From memory I think this is true of most of these modern reconstructions/recompositions that I have seen.

However, I agree a statement on the cover such as 'completed/realised/arranged by/recomposed by xxx' would be the most honest approach so that, as Alan infers in his lead comment, it (now) does what it says on the tin'.  Where these works stray a bit too far from honesty, I think, is to give CDs titles such as Rachmaninov's 5th PC, or Brahms 3rd, when the result (usually some sort of transcription) is little if anything to do with the composer other than the original work it is based on.

I think Alan's title is right - it is not the artistic integrity of the work 'per se' which is the main issue, rather its mis-representation on the label before purchase.

I can see this thread running and running!

Cheers

Richard