In the last few days a number of compositions which were withdrawn and suppressed by their composers have been mentioned on this forum.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 The Robert Simpson Violin Concerto was withdrawn by Simpson but is still in the publisher's catalogue.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 :)
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.
Quote from: Josh on Thursday 29 September 2011, 13:50
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...)!
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...
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
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.
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.
Quote from: jerfilm on Thursday 29 September 2011, 14:34
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 ;D
I think that it may be a 'very slight' dash of paranoia ;D ;D 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.
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.
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.)
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.
Quote from: Dundonnell on Thursday 29 September 2011, 17:09
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?
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 ;D
Quote from: Dundonnell on Thursday 29 September 2011, 17:35
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 ;D
I still profoundly wish Sibelius hadn't! :'(
I am sure that most of us would agree....but, ultimately, that was his decision to make.
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.
Very well put. Even if posterity follows the composer's expressed wishes, and the work doesn't enter his/her formal canon, I see no reason to deny the opportunity to hear the music, especially if we're talking about a well-known or highly regarded composer. Some of us enjoy studying our favorite composers' stylistic development, and withdrawn works can often be significant points in a composer's development.
Then there's the question of a composer banning the performance of any of his works for many years -- namely, Sorabji. While some on this forum may chuckle and say that was a good thing, it seems a rather pointless and spiteful act.
And, of course, there's the matter of other composers' completions or reconstructions of sketches left behind by a deceased composer, for example Elgar's 3rd & Mahler's 10th Symphonies. As long as the work is competently done (as I believe it has been in these cases, and Mahler's 10th many times over by many hands), why not? We've gotten to the point where most every major (and minor) work by "greats" such as Elgar, Sibelius, etc., have been recorded. So, those of us who love this music are inevitably thirsting for more!
my earlier post somehow disapeared.
will try to repeat my opinion.
Discussion is very interesting.
And what about the music composed during the oppressive times? when the composers had to write their music in accordance to instructions or "right" rules? the question is following: is their music always worse or less interesting because their did fulfill such immoral orders? We know from hearing that quite often compositions written in above circumstances are not bad. composers in fact tried in many cases to compose engaging their real talents and using their cunningness to not betray themselves. I mean that they made some concession towards ,,superiors" to have a chance to publish or to have their compositions performed but their music kept good standard. Of corse when the music was based on propaganda texts or were provided with political title (for example To the Memory ..[of local political hero or important event)] critisizing was/is easy. But in case of pure music it is more difficult to accuse the composers of not being strong enough to resist as the music itself is not easy to be literally translated. However despite all that a number of works created in such circumstances were withdrown by the composers from their opus lists or were re-written. Do we have right to know such music /or their initial versions?
In my opinion we have right to know them because that shows us also the broader context of composers and their music. Few days ago I mentioned about one of such stuff - the Symphony of Peace by Andrzej Panufnik. It was few years ago broadcast by radio here in a program devoted to such music. Must say that in my opinion reputation of Panufnik did not suffered
Quote from: Dundonnell on Thursday 29 September 2011, 15:44
Quote from: jerfilm on Thursday 29 September 2011, 14:34
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.......
I think this is likely the case with many 20th century composers. And of course, as a fan of Romantic music, I would be most interested in the earlier works. For instance, Schoenberg's greatest works (in my opinion) are the early Romantic pieces (Verklärte Nacht, Pelleas und Melisande).
Quote from: markniew on Thursday 29 September 2011, 21:31
my earlier post somehow disapeared.
will try to repeat my opinion.
Discussion is very interesting.
And what about the music composed during the oppressive times? when the composers had to write their music in accordance to instructions or "right" rules? the question is following: is their music always worse or less interesting because their did fulfill such immoral orders? We know from hearing that quite often compositions written in above circumstances are not bad. composers in fact tried in many cases to compose engaging their real talents and using their cunningness to not betray themselves. I mean that they made some concession towards ,,superiors" to have a chance to publish or to have their compositions performed but their music kept good standard. Of corse when the music was based on propaganda texts or were provided with political title (for example To the Memory ..[of local political hero or important event)] critisizing was/is easy. But in case of pure music it is more difficult to accuse the composers of not being strong enough to resist as the music itself is not easy to be literally translated. However despite all that a number of works created in such circumstances were withdrown by the composers from their opus lists or were re-written. Do we have right to know such music /or their initial versions?
In my opinion we have right to know them because that shows us also the broader context of composers and their music. Few days ago I mentioned about one of such stuff - the Symphony of Peace by Andrzej Panufnik. It was few years ago broadcast by radio here in a program devoted to such music. Must say that in my opinion reputation of Panufnik did not suffered
Very interesting observations with which I entirely aqree.
Recalls too a discussion I was involved in on another forum about the music composed in Germany between 1933 and 1945 and the tendency in some quarters to dismiss it almost automatically as necessarily feeble.......but that IS another subject ;D
Somewhat tangentially, I wonder if anyone saw the film "An Education" (2009), based I think on a novel? of the same name...
The main character is a cellist; it takes place in 1960s London.
The one piece we see the cellist play with her orchestra is by Elgar. It is his reconstructed 3rd symphony (version by Anthony Payne)- the 3rd movement (the Naxos recording is excerpted in the soundtrack.) (No notation that they were playing anything but genuine Elgar was there, but of course there were deeper problems than that afoot, considering the date, that this was not a science-fiction movie- no time-travel...)
(Ok, I happen to like the Elgar/Payne 3rd a lot, but still... "solecism"...!)
Parsadanian's first two symphonies (To the Memory of the Commissars of Baku; and Martyros Sarian), in my opinion (and his without-title? seventh too), are all quite good works, titles or no... (I don't know symphonies 3 to 6.) (Edit: and yes, I know "Martyros Sarian" is the name of an artist, and has nothing to do with martyrs. Only the first of these has a title that might be relevant to this thread. )
Schoenberg's stated reasons for moving away from his earlier style are interesting. But it does lead first to the still Romantic (even if Ravel found it anything but- and later admired Pierrot...) first chamber symphony. (I was going to say "and expressive" but very little by Schoenberg isn't, I would say -though "expressionist" is something else entirely.)
About 30 years ago (?) Decca gave us the first recording of Grieg's symphony. Supposedly the composer had written "Never to be performed" on the cover. And there was a lot of hoopla and discussion about it. Do we still need to honor a dead composer's wish? I don't think so. Did we dishonor Grieg by playing the symphony? or making several recordings? Not in my opinion. Rather, we honored by showing that we love his music, warts and all.
Quote from: markniew on Thursday 29 September 2011, 21:31And what about the music composed during the oppressive times? when the composers had to write their music in accordance to instructions or "right" rules? the question is following: is their music always worse or less interesting because their did fulfill such immoral orders?
This is an interesting point, and one which merits further thought. One can see how an artists doesn't need to be reminded of pieces he wrote under oppression, or when in an oppressed state (e.g., a concentration camp). You couldn't really ask much of someone in that situation. On the other hand, is such music intrinsically 'bad' music? Some 'ode to the tractor' can be a thoroughly enjoyable piece and show talent, when written by a talented composer (Shostakovich is a good example). And, again, once the music is played - whether you like it or not - it becomes part of 'culture', of collective memory.
In connection with titled works etc. - Vano Muradeli's symphony 1 in B minor (1938) "To the Memory of Kirov" (awarded a prize in 1946 I think?, then he was censured for his opera two years later.)
QuoteDid we dishonor Grieg by playing the symphony? or making several recordings? Not in my opinion. Rather, we honored by showing that we love his music, warts and all.
Well put!
I am delighted that Ursula Vaughan williams gave her permission for the original 1913 version of 'A London Symphony' to be performed, especially as one of the later excisions (1936) incredibly (IMHO) removed the most poetic and moving section of the score - just before the end. However, I have my doubts as to how much the recent recordings of early withdrawn works by Vaughan Williams ('The Garden of Prosperine' for example) - actually add to his reputation. Their CD release is invariably accompanied by a lot of hype but I am often disappointed with the works themselves, which are often uncharacteristic and sounding like bad brahms or Parry. One exception is the 'heroic Elegy and Triumphal March' on Dutton, which I greatly enjoyed - and the early chamber music on Hyperion.
Quote from: Latvian on Friday 30 September 2011, 17:51
QuoteDid we dishonor Grieg by playing the symphony? or making several recordings? Not in my opinion. Rather, we honored by showing that we love his music, warts and all.
Well put!
The whole thing with Grieg, at least to me, is sort of a cop-out on his part. The story has it that Grieg was all set to have his symphony performed when he heard Svendsen's 1st. Supposedly, he was so blown away by that symphony that he shelved his own effort, never to attempt another. Although the Grieg C minor Symphony is rather derivative of Mendelssohn and Schumann, it is tuneful and competently written, certainly nothing to be ashamed of. The fact that he never tried another, to compete with Svendsen (whose symphonies certainly had an interesting destiny) is telling, IMHO. He didn't really relish working with the form, and was willing to use just about anything as an excuse to eschew it.
Quote from: vandermolen on Friday 30 September 2011, 21:52
.... I have my doubts as to how much the recent recordings of early withdrawn works by Vaughan Williams ('The Garden of Prosperine' for example) - actually add to his reputation. Their CD release is invariably accompanied by a lot of hype but I am often disappointed with the works themselves, which are often uncharacteristic and sounding like bad brahms or Parry.
Yes, indeed, and so I think the prospect of adding to a composer's reputation doesn't strengthen the argument in favour of exploring the 'lost', forgotten, suppressed or unperformed works. I think you would agree that regardless of their quality, such works are still part of the composer's output and deserve to be heard as such. It would be burying one's head in the sand not to acknowledge the dead ends, mistakes, and other compositional clutter that may have been produced along the way - one would only be seeing part of the picture. Often they are student works which reveal much about the composer's development, and they may - albeit rarely - turn out to be masterpieces - and obviously we wouldn't know this unless we gave them a hearing.
Vandermolen, did you mean "...bad Brahms or Parry", or "...bad Brahms, or Parry"? Adding the comma would be less generous to Parry, of course .... but I just wondered! ;)
Quote from: semloh on Saturday 01 October 2011, 02:22
Vandermolen, did you mean "...bad Brahms or Parry", or "...bad Brahms, or Parry"? Adding the comma would be less generous to Parry, of course .... but I just wondered! ;)
Ah-ha Semloh! You are Lynne Truss in disguise and I claim my £5.
It was a good try, but I'm afraid the Fiver has eluded you on this occasion, Lionel!
As a defender of traditional punctuation, I admit that I do sometimes slip into schoolmaster mode, but I wouldn't presume to correct fellow music lovers on this list, least of all Vandermolen! I was just seeking reassurance, as any lover of Parry would, that his omission of the comma was not a typographical error! ;D
Quote from: semloh on Saturday 01 October 2011, 11:11
It was a good try, but I'm afraid the Fiver has eluded you on this occasion, Lionel!
As a defender of traditional punctuation, I admit that I do sometimes slip into schoolmaster mode, but I wouldn't presume to correct fellow music lovers on this list, least of all Vandermolen! I was just seeking reassurance, as any lover of Parry would, that his omission of the comma was not a typographical error! ;D
Drat! However, I concur with your opinion of Parry. His output didn't just add to the store of beauty in the world but it also exercised a positive influence on those who came after him. To my mind, that makes him a very significant composer.
Quote from: Lionel Harrsion on Saturday 01 October 2011, 11:40
Quote from: semloh on Saturday 01 October 2011, 11:11
It was a good try, but I'm afraid the Fiver has eluded you on this occasion, Lionel!
As a defender of traditional punctuation, I admit that I do sometimes slip into schoolmaster mode, but I wouldn't presume to correct fellow music lovers on this list, least of all Vandermolen! I was just seeking reassurance, as any lover of Parry would, that his omission of the comma was not a typographical error! ;D
Drat! However, I concur with your opinion of Parry. His output didn't just add to the store of beauty in the world but it also exercised a positive influence on those who came after him. To my mind, that makes him a very significant composer.
A much better composer than Stanford too.....says he controversially ;D
Quote from: semloh on Saturday 01 October 2011, 11:11
It was a good try, but I'm afraid the Fiver has eluded you on this occasion, Lionel!
As a defender of traditional punctuation, I admit that I do sometimes slip into schoolmaster mode, but I wouldn't presume to correct fellow music lovers on this list, least of all Vandermolen! I was just seeking reassurance, as any lover of Parry would, that his omission of the comma was not a typographical error! ;D
I'm only too happy to be corrected! Sorry, I usually type these messages in a rush before my wife or daughter demand to use the laptop ( you get a sense of the family dynamics here :)) I think that I meant 'bad Brahms (with a capital this time) or Parry'. But I meant no disrespect to either composer I am a great admirer of Parry (especially the Symphonic Variations and Symphony No 5) - but I like my Vaughan Williams to sound like Vaughan Williams!
Personally, I should put Sibelius's bonfire (a virtual auto da fé for the work he had given the most of himself to) in the same class as Hindemith's attending Moses und Aaron in disguise. Culture wars, like all wars, have little to do with creativity, and they scar their standard bearers, sometimes superficially, sometimes deeply.
chill319, that's a tantalizing taste of a view you seem to have worked out in some detail - can you explain it a bit more? What do you mean by a 'culture wars', for example, and what is their relationship to the behaviour of Sibelius and others who destroy or suppress their own compositions?
There are a number of issues to be addressed here. Fashions change and many composers chose to discard earlier works because they were writing in a style which they were not happy with or which those who dictate taste would have disapproved. Some student works were not meant for wide publication. There are any number of prescriptive competition pieces which the composer may not have chosen write except as a means to an end.(Prix de Rome). If a composer has specifically withdrawn a work and didn't want it to be heard then it would be easy to destroy it.
I don't feel it is for others to censor works that remain either unpublished or withdrawn. Finzi's wife is an example of this. She destroyed a substantial amount of Ivor Gurneys works, feeling they were not worthy. These destroyed works could have given much insight into Gurneys mental state at the time of composition.
Someone mentioned Sibelius eigth symphony. I do not accept it was ever written. There is no evidence that it was except the verbal ones of his wife and a friend. I think it is a cantankerous old drunks way of teasing the Finnish government so that he could retain his substantial pension.
What I feel is so wrong, is when a composer has left a fragment and some one else completes it and passes it off as the work of that composer, the most glaring recent example is the so called Elgar piano concerto.
I have read records of courtly composers complaining, as long ago as the 14th-century, of being considered back numbers as a new generation followed their own with new sounds and musical manners. That will never cease. Culture wars, on the other hand, create false oppositions between contemporaneous composers. The basis for such false oppositions is usually the result of excessive abstraction, resulting in the mistaken belief that creative responses to one culture's circumstances are not situational but somehow universal.
Briefly (with oversimplifications): When we look back at, say, the culture war over Italian style in 18th-century France, or the culture war between the classicists and the New Music advocates in 19th-century Europe, or the culture war between "tonalists" and atonalists/serialists during much of the 20th century, stark divisions blur in hindsight and we tend to see how many musical permutations were in fact practiced. For us it comes down to the success or failure of each individual work as it overlaps our ever expanding but ultimately personal taste. On the other hand, for the persons writing those works, the pressure to conform to an abstraction in a culture war could be intense and could not help but be an impediment to creativity, which is always alive and never abstract.
Among the most damaged were composers like Draeseke and Hindemith with, as it were, inspiring muses capable of assimilating both sides of a culture war. With Sibelius I feel the back-number syndrome plays a part; but based on all that can be inferred from slim evidence about the 8th symphony (it was large -- in effect his Ninth), I think S could not accept what he imagined would be its critical rejection _for all the wrong reasons_. If, as the record suggests, this scenario became an enormous psychological burden to him, then in my view he burned his manuscript for all the wrong reasons. Not long before that fire Ormandy or Stokowski (I forget which) had passed when invited to give the premier of Rachmaninoff's Symphonic Dances.
In response to Gilles: you may well be correct in your assessment of the Sibelius 8th. However, I'm under the impression that Sibelius had his alcoholism under control by the 1940s. Also, IIRC the company that bound the manuscript of his 8th symphony billed him for three volumes.
Quote from: giles.enders on Tuesday 04 October 2011, 11:21
Someone mentioned Sibelius eigth symphony. I do not accept it was ever written. There is no evidence that it was except the verbal ones of his wife and a friend. I think it is a cantankerous old drunks way of teasing the Finnish government so that he could retain his substantial pension.
Giles, there is an article by Nors S. Josephson, published in 2004 in 'Archiv für Musikwissenschaft', Jahrgang 61, Heft 1, pp 54-67 'On Some Apparent Sketches for Sibelius's Eight Symphony'
Here is a preview:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/4145409 (http://www.jstor.org/pss/4145409)
The final paragraph, not shown, is worth quoting in full:
'Given the abundance of preserved materials for this work, one looks forward with great anticipation to a thoughtful, meticulous completion of the entire composition. A painstaking, conscientious undertaking would restore at least part of Sibelius's ultimate musical legacy, one the composer labored over for at least ten years before apparently completing it in 1938.'
I had some hopes for the last batch of the complete BIS edition - an 8th Symphony, possibly realised by Aho, would have been a 'worthy' ending. ;)
Now that the last release has been announced all hopes have vanished.
Quote from: giles.enders on Tuesday 04 October 2011, 11:21What I feel is so wrong, is when a composer has left a fragment and some one else completes it and passes it off as the work of that composer, the most glaring recent example is the so called Elgar piano concerto.
Dutton calls it 'Robert Walker's performing realisation of Elgar's Piano Concerto from the composer's sketches, drafts and recordings', just like the Third Symphony is branded as a 'realisation' by Anthony Payne. Nothing wrong with that, although Dutton could have been clearer in pointing out that there is no such thing as 'Elgar's Piano Concerto'. However, I rather enjoy it.
The best _online_ source I know for info on Sibelius 8 is http://www.sibelius.fi/english/elamankaari/index.htm
If anyone knows a better link, please share it.
Among the details at the above link:
"A receipt confirms that the eighth symphony was already at the transcription stage in the summer of 1933. At the beginning of September, Sibelius's copyist Paul Voigt actually sent 23 pages of the score of the eighth symphony to Sibelius, who expressed his satisfaction and wrote: 'There should be a fermata at the end. The Largo continues directly. The whole work will be about eight times as long as this.' "
Also: "The composer Einar Englund heard from his tutor Martti Paavola that Paavola had visited Kammiokatu in 1940, and that he had been allowed to look into Sibelius's safe. Paavola recollected that the safe contained 'several scores, one requiem, one symphony, most likely the eighth, and also some symphonic poems'."
The bonfire burned more than a symphony.