Is it right to revive works withdrawn by their composers?

[Latvian]

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 And withdrawn works belong to the creative development of their composers as do the acknowledged ones.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works should leave his desk to come into the public and which works shouldn't. But I think, when he doesn't destroy the withdrawn work in his lifetime, the people of the next generations have the right to study this composition and to try, if it "works" in practise.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 Some of us enjoy studying our favorite composers' stylistic development, and withdrawn works can often be significant points in a composer's development.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!

[markniew]

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

[Balapoel]

  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).

[Dundonnell]

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

[eschiss1]

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"...!)

[eschiss1]

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.)

[mbhaub]

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.

[Ilja]

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?

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.

[eschiss1]

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.)

[Latvian]

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.

Well put!

[vandermolen]

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.

[JimL]

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.

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.

[semloh]

.... 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!

[Lionel Harrsion]

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.

[semloh]

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!