Hurwitz's 'Cocaine Hippos' of Classical Music

[Alan Howe]

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.

[Ebubu]

I just can't stand the guy, his stupid humour, and his raucous voice....

[Alan Howe]

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.

[eschiss1]

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.

[Justin]

I 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.

[terry martyn]

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.

[Alan Howe]

there'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 Full scores superseded by later versions (Bruckner symphony movements)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...

[Ilja]

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.

Ah, I'm not alone here!

Anyhow, the differences are not huge and a real testament to Atterberg's musical memory.

[eschiss1]

Mendelssohn 6 belongs in the (2) category. We've even discussed it! (I don't mean the string symphony.)

[Alan Howe]

Mendelssohn 6 belongs in the (2) category. We've even discussed it! (I don't mean the string symphony.)

Apologies - I'd forgotten that some sketches existed.  Duly corrected.

[eschiss1]

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...

[Ilja]

there'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.

[Alan Howe]

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.

[Alan Howe]

Fancy a chamber arrangement of Bruckner 7?
https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/anton-bruckner-symphonie-nr-7/hnum/12240394

[tuatara442442]

This particular arrangement has been recorded by Linos Ensemble on Capriccio