Try this for size:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27tbEVIBeW0
Dave's examples:
1. HIP Brahms Symphonies (e.g. from Adam Fischer/Dausgaard), and the like.
2. Completions of unfinished works which the composer(s) never wrote, e.g. Elgar/Payne 3; Beethoven 10; multiple Bruckner Symphony versions, etc.
3. Conductor/Performer grab-bags, i.e. box sets of recordings of little value that nobody wants.
The 'thinking' behind all this: 'we do it because we can.'
The problem: it's all a huge waste of time, effort and money.
I just can't stand the guy, his stupid humour, and his raucous voice....
Yes, I understand that - and I agree. But, looking beyond his annoying traits, does he have a point here? HIP is, after all, a frequent matter of (friendly) dispute in our discussions, and from time to time speculative completions of compositions appear here too.
There are any number of works on CD the composer "never wrote" (Brahms clarinet concerto...) - some are even interesting conjectures - but there's a difference between "never wrote" and "never FINISHED". For a man once employed as a music critic I want to be able to expect knowledge of the language.
Quote from: Ebubu on Wednesday 26 March 2025, 21:53I just can't stand the guy, his stupid humour, and his raucous voice....
Funny enough, I enjoy him for the same reasons, but to each his own! I am grateful to him for being a big proponent of unsung works, or what he calls "non-standard repertoire."
I agree with the examples, although I am curious what everyone thinks of recreating works based on memory, and recording those. Consider for example Atterberg's reconstruction of Stenhammar's first piano concerto when it was thought the original score was lost. A possible project in the future is doing a new recording of York Bowen's third symphony, as the score for that was destroyed in a publishing house flood if I remember correctly.
I laughed out loud at times, as I watched this.
Justin mentions Atterberg's take on the Stenhammar. Frankly,I prefer it to the original.
Quote from: eschiss1 on Thursday 27 March 2025, 02:48there's a difference between "never wrote" and "never FINISHED
Yes, that's true. And, I suppose, there are these sub-categories:
1. Never wrote at all (AI?)
2. Only left sketches (Elgar 3; Schubert Unfinished scherzo; Bruckner 9 finale; Mendelssohn 6)
3. Full scores superseded by later versions (Bruckner symphony movements)
4. Speculative orchestrations (Elgar Organ Sonata; Piano Quintet)
Speaking personally, I don't much care for 1., find 2. of interest, am intensely annoyed by 3., and often enjoy 4.
Of course, nobody gets worked up about Ravel's orchestration of Mussorgsky's Picture at an Exhibition or Schoenberg's orchestration of Brahms' Piano Quintet in G minor.
Sometimes if you can, you should...
Quote from: terry martyn on Thursday 27 March 2025, 09:55I laughed out loud at times, as I watched this.
Justin mentions Atterberg's take on the Stenhammar. Frankly,I prefer it to the original.
Ah, I'm not alone here!
Anyhow, the differences are not huge and a real testament to Atterberg's musical memory.
Mendelssohn 6 belongs in the (2) category. We've even discussed it (https://www.unsungcomposers.com/forum/index.php?topic=7008.0)! (I don't mean the string symphony.)
Quote from: eschiss1 on Thursday 27 March 2025, 18:27Mendelssohn 6 belongs in the (2) category. We've even discussed it (https://www.unsungcomposers.com/forum/index.php?topic=7008.0)! (I don't mean the string symphony.)
Apologies - I'd forgotten that some sketches existed. Duly corrected.
I do have the advantage in this connection that a late friend of mine, a Mr. Seamarks, once sent me a photocopy of an old Groves' Mendelssohn entry in which the first few bars were included...
Quote from: Alan Howe on Thursday 27 March 2025, 10:18Quote from: eschiss1 on Thursday 27 March 2025, 02:48there's a difference between "never wrote" and "never FINISHED
Yes, that's true. And, I suppose, there are these sub-categories:
1. Never wrote at all (AI?)
2. Only left sketches (Elgar 3; Schubert Unfinished scherzo; Bruckner 9 finale; Mendelssohn 6)
3. Full scores superseded by later versions (Bruckner symphony movements)
4. Speculative orchestrations (Elgar Organ Sonata; Piano Quintet)
Speaking personally, I don't much care for 1., find 2. of interest, am intensely annoyed by 3., and often enjoy 4.
Of course, nobody gets worked up about Ravel's orchestration of Mussorgsky's Picture at an Exhibition or Schoenberg's orchestration of Brahms' Piano Quintet in G minor.
Sometimes if you can, you should...
3. Rather depends. I would hate to lose the early versions of Sibeliius's 5th or
Finlandia, which show us interesting possibilities. The quadzillion Bruckner versions on the other hand...
In general, though, so long as something shows genuine creativity I'm okay with it, but it does depend on the result.
Agreed, Ilja. The examples in my sub-categories were in no way intended to be comprehensive.
But the 'Bruckner versions' industry just drives me nuts - so much time expended on all the variants and so little thought given to whether the recordings are actually any good/whether the composer really intended them to be his final thoughts/whether particular variants are actually any good.
Fancy a chamber arrangement of Bruckner 7?
https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/anton-bruckner-symphonie-nr-7/hnum/12240394
This particular arrangement has been recorded by Linos Ensemble on Capriccio
A seriously downgraded hippo.
.....my new favourite word, which I shall endeavour to use liberally in future, is "hippopotamously" ;D
I agree with DH. I have grown to love the man, his quirky sense of humour and even his raspy voice. It 'Paine's' me but I think he's even right about the Elgarian 3rd - yes, in truth I bought the CD because I hankered after a 3rd symphony but it's not Elgar. Less is sometimes more.
If they weren't churning out 'cocaine hippos' the companies might give more attention to the neglected UCs.
Quote from: semloh on Yesterday at 09:30If they weren't churning out 'cocaine hippos' the companies might give more attention to the neglected UCs.
Quite right!
And some people's first exposure to Theodor Kirchner will be on discs with his arrangements of Brahms' string sextets. Etc. (And while Raff may no longer need as much name recognition- though actually I'd say that's only true among strongly-classically-focused- more performances of his arrangements might help expand his name recognition more generally, and similarly for other still-neglected composers who wrote good arrangements and paraphrases of better-known music, especially if these works are available to pianists or other solo performers.)
No-one would argue with that, Eric; but the issue here is, in the midst of the plethora of Bruckner 7 recordings, an arrangement of that work for chamber ensemble is released. Someone's been sniffing the cocaine...
A new arrangement or the Stein/Greissler one? Because it looks like it's part of MDG's ongoing series of the Vereinigung's arrangements. And what you're saying is, don't include an arrangement in that -already ongoing series- unless it's of a work I want to hear.
Which is your right.
I was just wondering what the point would be. After all, these days we don't need an arrangement in order to get to know the work (the purpose of many arrangements in the past). In other words, was there a purpose in the past which is no longer relevant?
Perhaps up to a point. Listening to several arrangements (in this case by the composers) of Brahms and Schumann works made it easier to pay attention to what was happening in the original orchestral works, and not always because those composers are especially poor orchestrators (actually, Zemlinsky's arrangement of Mahler 6, a work I also know fairly well after 30+ years, had a similar effect.)
That's a good point, Eric. I can understand that.