Messages

Thanks a lot for the research, Greentiger! Really fascinating in many regards: an unexpected solution to this problem, a clever way of finding it out and a composer new to me. Great!

I prefer a 'both-and' approach rather than 'instead-of'. Why should one choose? Besides F2 in Barenboim's recording is an absolute aural feast...

Exactly my thoughts as well: it should rather be 'also to listen to Wetz and Scherber'. No need to play off these fine composers against each other...

Many thanks for the links, Rainolf! As you know, I bought the score (or rather the piano reduction) of Zilcher's Konzertstück many years ago in a music store in Eisenach and tried it out myself a bit. However, so far it seemed it was never recorded. Great to have the chance to listen to a performance now!

As to 17 being clearly in D major, I'd be cautious though, as I've tried to judge works' keys from broadcasts and failed to account for the sort of thing that can make a C-sharp minor work e.g. -sound- a half-tone off...

Eric, having listened to tons of broadcast recordings and LP transfers myself, you can be sure that I am well aware of problems of this sort, and I do take them into account. In the case of LPs, it is typically a question of an incorrectly adjusted turntable, while in the case of broadcasts, it's often about aging tapes / cassettes. Even then, you can still make a sort of educated guess without a score at hand, for instance if you are able to identify open strings.

Anyhow, the Cuclin broadcast is from internet radio, which doesn't mean of course everything is 100% waterproof but nevertheless such problems appear much less frequently. It's not the only reason for identifying the symphony as Cuclin 17 anyway – "with (very) high probability", if this helps...

As for the work itself, while still watching out for Cuclin updates, I am afraid I am mostly with Alan.

Well, I for my share can enjoy it the way it is, even with a slight smile here and there, which I would not say about Wilhelmj-Raff. In fact, we shouldn't forget it's a work from 1912 (and if Terry cannot stand the excerpts from the first two movements available at Presto then it's rather more linked to the music itself). Same year as, for instance, Gernsheim's Violin Concerto No. 2, which also employs a glockenspiel here and there. Still a matter of dose, of course, and Link certainly overdid things (maybe even on purpose, I assume he might have aimed at highlighting certain aspects). Anyhow, it is a mild curiosity but not as much as I would have thought based upon reading the comments.

It seems to be a reissue of the old CD, so yes, it must be Link's orchestration, which is however neither modernistic nor horrible (just maybe not completely idiomatic).

In fact, the issue has been discussed several years ago right here:
https://www.unsungcomposers.com/forum/index.php/topic,3545.0.html
At the end I also wrote a bit about Joachim-Dietrich Link.

Later in his life, Langgaard felt very much akin to Gade as documented in this interview:
http://www.langgaard.dk/litt/interv/etdramae.htm
and the classicism of many of Langgaard's later works does mirror this in some sense. However, the Third is an early work, and at least in terms of music Gade does not play a major role here. Whether the scoring is influenced by Gade is a different question, it could of course but on the other hand Langgaard was kind of an eccentric (mildly put) all over his life, so he did not necessarily need a role model for an unusual scoring, labeling or whatever sort of artistic decision.

It very much depends on which time we talk about. During Stalinism, pressure was most intense (and if we were sure it's a concerto from 1950 I would say a Soviet author should be as good as impossible), while in later years, the variety of styles among Soviet composers is actually large (much larger than commonly assumed), so that I don't really think we can exclude a Soviet composer for reasons of style. To see that a Hindemithian approach was certainly no risk, just keep in mind how many Soviet composers tried dodecaphony (so, even more modernist tendencies) in the 1960s. This said, of course there is also some possibility it's not a work by a Soviet composer, that's correct of course. For instance, I have a Melodiya LP from ca. 1980 with pieces for clarinet and piano by Martinů, Glazachev (Ukraine), Poulenc and Podkovyrov (Belarus), indicating that stuff from abroad was also played (of course).

The Clarinet Concerto is definitely a misattribution, it is far away from anything in Myaskovsky's output. The question by whom it might be is really difficult to answer and I am afraid that even Onno's site might not really help since it only represents the tip of the iceberg. There were hundreds if not thousands of Soviet composers, and it might be by anyone. Just to point out one name, the Russian wikipedia article on Vladimir Sokolov tells us that David Krivitsky (1937–2010) wrote a clarinet concerto for Sokolov. However, checking whether it might be this piece seems to be impossible.

Just as a minor point, the symphony is actually from 1915. See here:
https://imslp.org/wiki/Symphony_No.3_(Dubois%2C_Th%C3%A9odore)
and in particular the date at the end of the score. It was however published in 1923, and by then Dubois will certainly have added the dedication to the memory of Saint-Saëns.

Yes, the third link does not work, the correct one is
Vi och vår nya Röda Kvarn – Reportage från Östersund (1935)
Anyway, many thanks to Justin for pointing out these fascinating documents!

Alan, I somehow had in my memory you actually did a comparison between the two versions a few years back, and indeed, starting from here:
https://www.unsungcomposers.com/forum/index.php/topic,6860.msg74153.html#msg74153
there is some discussion with similar results as in this new topic.

Just as a quick reply to Eric's comment (I perfectly understood Mark's, all OK here): true indeed. If Brian Newbould orchestrates (or even completes) Schubert fragments he will do it in a manner which is as close to Schubert as possible (even if of course, a perfect match is impossible) – in a way, it's something scholarly, also reflecting the possibilities of the instruments Schubert had access to and so on. However, once a composer like the ones discussed here deals with orchestrating, say, chamber music by Brahms or whatever, the point will almost never be an imitation but rather an adaption which reflects the creative personality of the arranger up to some degree – so, it's much more something artistic in this case: the question is no longer "What might Schubert (or ...) have done?" but rather "What do I want to do with the material, how do I perceive it?". Another example would be Paul Dessau's Symphonische Mozart-Adaption nach dem Quintett KV 615.

Just as a quick comment: Certainly, neither Holloway nor Schönberg had the intention to do an orchestration which sounds "like Brahms", and of course, both were / are perfectly aware of their result differing from Brahms' own approach, bearing their own fingerprint (even intentionally so), reflecting their own choices, their view on the music, a sort of composed interpretation. In this sense, Holloway certainly did not "fail".