This older message thread in the Raff Forum has been archived. Just click on the icon to email the writer direct. To see all the archived messages return to the Message archive.

Unfortunately it is not possible to add further messages to this archived threads. Instead, just start a new thread in the current Raff Forums.

Posted by	Message
Avrohom Leichtling   02/5/2004	Subject: Marco Polo does it again: Cuts in the 10th Synphony Message: The score of the Raff 10th arrived yesterday and, going through it with the MP recording, I noted another in what is evidently the insidiously egregious practice of making "adjustments" to the music. In this case, the first movement of #10 suffers an idiotic cut in the exposition of the first movement. More often than not, Raff does not use the standard convention of repeating the first movement exposition, complete with first and second endings (which are there to facilitate the move back to the tonic key, and then the transition to the development). This is because, in the main, his expositions are not simple statements of materials, but frequently combine both expository and developmental processes within the same statements. The first movement of #10 is different, not only in its use of the older literal repetition, but also because its entire "demeanor" is quite a bit more subdued that other works. Indeed, it is not really until the final movement that the orchestra is permitted to "break out" into a more extrovert state. It is all the more important, then, that the two very brief climactic moments in the first movement be left in tact. Regrettably, the idiot that decided to make the cuts had not the slightest notion of what that cut did to trample and distort the music. In the repetition of the exposition, immediately after the first brief tutti (and it is literally only four measures long), we are thrown headlong into the development, with the remainder of the exposition removed - and the dramatic balance so carefully established destroyed. It is alway a matter of sheer lunacy when "conductors" decide that they know better than the composer how "it should go." By the way, Ries & Erler, the original publisher, who just now has released a new edition of the score which, as it turns out, is nothing less than a reprint of the original engraving, makes absolutely no reference to any cuts, authorized or otherwise. Arrrrrrrrrggggghh!!!!!
Mark   03/5/2004	RE: Marco Polo does it again: Cuts in the 10th Synphony IP: Logged Message: This cut, like the huge one in the same CD's recording of the finale of the "Im Walde" symphony, will likely have been Urs Schneider's decision, not Marco Polo's. Klaus Heymann, referring to the "Im Walde" finale cut, advised me in an email last year : "...this cut was made by the conductor without consulting with me ... I have always insisted with artists on recording works complete , especially in the case of Marco polo where often recording is or was the only one available. I will never authorized cuts if they're only purpose is to make a work or works fit on one CD." Cheers,
avrohom leichtling   03/5/2004	RE: Marco Polo does it again: Cuts in the 10th Synphony IP: Logged Message: That may be, but someone had production oversight and evidently granted Schneider de facto authority to butcher both of these pieces. To "insist" that things be done sounds very commendable - but only when the result backs up the claim. To push it off as "I was not consulted" is, I would say, spineless posturing - "passing the buck" or whatever. From the composer's viewpoint, it is unacceptable at any time. Sorry. Speaking both as a composer and for a professional colleague (Raff), it is impossible for me to accept any of this as anything other than what it is - which is thoroughly unprofessional and artistically dishonest.
Mark   03/5/2004	RE: Marco Polo does it again: Cuts in the 10th Synphony IP: Logged Message: Well, Avrohom, whilst appreciating your point of view, I don't share it. We don't live in an ideal world and I for one am happy to give Heymann the credit for actually having the vision and committment to get a complete Raff symphonic cycle on the shelves a full decade before anyone else. Were it not for him, I doubt that there would be anything like the interest in Raff that there now is. We should be grateful, not carping. I don't condone the cuts, I would rather they were absent, but I'm prepared to take his word for the fact that he regrets them too and was ignorant of them at the time the recordings were made. Have you any evidence to the contrary?
avrohom leichtling   03/5/2004	RE: Marco Polo does it again: Cuts in the 10th Synphony IP: Logged Message: But that's exactly the point, Mark. The cycle is NOT complete, not by a long shot. And idealism has nothing to do with it. If your artistric credo is to bring the works to market precisely because there is nothing else available and you have a concommitant commitment to doing so completely, then you do so completely. You take responsibility for completeness, and you accept nothing else. Either that, or else the results are unacceptably flawed. The remark about "not making cuts IF the purpose is ONLY to fit the work onto a CD" is unbelievably arrogant. This presupposes that there are valid reasons to cut a work. There aren't any, ever - and certainly none for a composer who's been dead over 120 years and has no way to defend or, perhaps, approve. Yes, I, too am grateful to have this music available. But, since I understand from the inside what this is all about, having worked as a conductor, a recording engineer and editor and producer, I can tell you that these are not decisions that happen by themselves. It infuriates me, ESPECIALLY when the literature is not well known, that conductors and producers take advantage of the ignorance of their audiences by hoping to "make the case" for unknown works by cutting out their guts and presenting the results to an unknowledgable public as "emes" (truth). You may call it "carping" - and you are certainly welcome to characterize my complaint as you wish. But when you know what's NOT there, and you understand WHY what's not there is not there, you understand exactly how others have been mislead and duped. This is not cause for celebration. So, for whatever it's worth, at least you have on record one composer laying out the details of the evisceration of another's work. And, as we both know, other record companies are also not free of the same artistic crimes. Perhaps one day we will have a set of recorded performances that does what the composer wants. It is not idealistic to insist that performers play the notes on the page, all the notes, nothing but the notes. It is simply a matter of professional honesty. Tell me, Mark, should we perform Le Sacre du Printemps in the version as cut for the Disney film "Fantasia" because Stravinsky agreed to allow his music be used in that movie? A person who first heard Le Sacre that way would be astonished to encounter the "real" work in its original form. Those of use who knew Stokowski also have a bit of insight into that famous episode as well. Fortunately, Le Sacre survived Mickey Mouse and has gone on to hundreds of complete recordings. It's doubtful at this juncture that Raff will enjoy the same universality - all the more reason to be annoyed at the cavalier way in which the music has been treated, as if to show how "flawed" it was, and how it can, should, must be fixed. :)
John Boyer   03/5/2004	RE: Marco Polo does it again: Cuts in the 10th Synphony IP: Logged Message: I must also defend Mr. Heymann, who has done wonders making inexpensive recorded classical music available through his Naxos label, and who blazed a trail into the world of forgotten romantic music with his Marco Polo label. Given the many releases from both labels, Mr. Heymann cannot personnally oversee every one. Like Mark, I am grateful for the many things he has made available, things which few if any other labels were interested in. Better these Raff symphonies with a few cuts than no Raff at all. Michael Ponti's pioneering recordings of romantic concertos were also frequently cut, but I'm still glad to have them. Now we have complete performances of many of those works, just as we now have several complete "Im Walde"s. I don't think we would if it weren't for artists like Mr. Ponti and producers like Mr. Heymann. And as for composers and their music, history has shown that sometimes composers are not the best judges of their own works. Rachmaninoff supressed his 1st Symphony and drastically cut the 2nd Piano Sonata, but now the 1st Symphony is frequently recorded, while pianists prefer the original 2nd Sonata. Rubinstein was wrong to keep expanding his 2nd Symphony. Most agree that the work is worth hearing, provided the supplementary movements are eliminated. Look at Beethoven. No one plays the slow movement of the 7th Symphony at the composer's tempo. Much could be said for the entire 9th Symphony, except that some enterprising conductors have begun experimenting with playing the 9th "a tempo" (which results in a work just about one hour long, at least ten minutes shorter than the norm). Many Rossini operas are simply too long. The only reason they are staged at all is because of judicious application of the blue pencil. And there are some composers' works that you just can't cut enough...
Mark   03/5/2004	RE: Marco Polo does it again: Cuts in the 10th Synphony IP: Logged Message: It's clear to me that we aren't going to agree on this one and, tempting though it is, I don't see much point in simply restating our respective positions. Cheers,
avrohom leichtling   03/5/2004	RE: Marco Polo does it again: Cuts in the 10th Synphony IP: Logged Message: When a composer makes decisions about his own work, then perhaps those decisions can be be defended by the fact that the composer made them. Beethoven's tempi? What about the state of metronome technology in the 1820s? I believe you're on shaky ground there, historically and musicologically. When alternative versions of works appear, one is free, I suppose to choose which particular version of a work the composer provided at any given time. Had Rachmaninov destroyed the parts as well as the score of the 1st Symphony, the question would be rendered moot, anyway. And, in any case, if you're going to talk about Rachmaninov's symphony, you need also to discuss Glazunov's alchoholism as a factor in the disaster that was the first performance, as much as you need to discuss Rs psychological problems which were exascerbated by it. Then, when the score "disappeared" only to turn up in parts many years later does the whole story begin to make sense. For the record, should anyone take these remarks the wrong way, I've studied a great deal of Glazunov's work in score, and am an admirer of his work both as a composer and as a listener. His alchohol issues are a matter of fact, all else being equal. Grieg also supressed a symphony - not because it was a bad work, but because he thought it too much in the Medelssohn tradition, something he did not want to be perceived as supporting. But, eventually (i.e. in 1984), the work was published and recorded and performed (uncut, I should add). From our vantage point today, we can understand Grieg's motivations even if they are no longer valid. But this is a different kind of situation which has nothing to do with music as we hear it (and Grieg) today. Forgive me, but comments about composers not being the best judges of their own work are, on the whole, rubbish. Suppression of works is one thing, but only when all traces are destroyed. Cutting works to fit the fashion is quite another. When I study a work in score, I study it from bar one to the end, as written. If there is more than one version composed by the same person, and if both (or all) versions are available, then I can see for myself what changed and understand how and why. If the composer made but one version, then that's the final word, bar none. The work stands or falls. When you look into Raff's works, you realize their tremendous technical facility and their unerring sense of direction. Was Raff successful all the time? Of course not. Does that give me the right to "correct" his "mistakes?" Absolutely not. That blue pencil of yours has an awfully fascist tone to it and it scares me! :) And who told you that Rossini's operas are too long? Who told you that? Who is "Everybody" that passed judgement on Rubenstein's Second Symphony? Mahler cut a movement out of his 1st Symphony. It was done for structural and dramatic reasons. The manuscript was not destroyed, and was published separately. It is sometimes performed. In Mahler's case, the decision was a good one. In Rubinstein's case, it may not have been. But forget the blue pencil. Burn it! As for "what if" scenarios, I suspect the interest in Raff is not dependent on Klaus Heymann. I'm greatful for the effort - but not because he's responsible for the "great Raff revival!" that followed. I haven't seen it, have you? :) And again, ad nauseam, you'd better be prepared to defend, in the minutest technical terms, exactly your support for a given alteration in a given finished work. "I don't feel it that way" (and nothing else) is, from every point of view, intolerable effrontery! Finally, I hope you understand my combative view here is not offered negatively - but, rather, as a professional partisan defending the homeland! :)
John Boyer   03/5/2004	RE: Marco Polo does it again: Cuts in the 10th Synphony IP: Logged Message: What matters is not what the composer wanted, but what is the most artistically satisfying result. Should we use the "Disney" version of "Le Sacre"? If it's an improvement, then yes. But since most would agree that Stokowski's excerpt for "Fantasia" did not constitute an improvement, then in this case we may say no. Remember that even one of the greatest works in English literature, "Hamlet", is rarely performed uncut. Those who have read the original know why. Shakespeare padded the work, and it benefits from excising some of the less important scenes. As with the Beethoven examples earlier, as Bernstein showed in performance after performance of these and other works, sometimes it's better to ignore what the composer wrote and do what works best. If the changes are ill-advised, the critical community will let the performer know. But if they work (as with "Hamlet"'s padding, Beethoven's tempos, Rossini's prolixity), then by all means, let the blue pencil leave its mark.
avrohom leichtling   03/5/2004	RE: Marco Polo does it again: Cuts in the 10th Synphony IP: Logged Message: Hi, Mark- In the Talmud when there are extensive disagreements about very thorny legal issues it does happen from time to time that no resolution is possible. In such cases, the gemara (i.e. the commentary on the mishna, the legal "item" under discussion) ends with the aramaic word "taiku" - "it is a difficulty." (How these decisions are ultimately resolved are not properly the province of this forum. But,in the end, there is a resolution.) On our mundane "artistic" level, it seems that you are clearly in favor of making decisions which you think the composer incapable, and which you believe render the results more artistically acceptable. I am clearly in favor of leaving the composer to make the decisions and living with works defects notwithstanding. It is a conflict without resolution because of the diametrically opposed nature of the arguments. Taiku.
Mark   03/5/2004	RE: Marco Polo does it again: Cuts in the 10th Synphony IP: Logged Message: It's clear to me that we aren't going to agree on this one and, tempting though it is, I don't see much point in simply restating our respective positions. Cheers,
Luis de Orueta   04/5/2004	RE: Marco Polo does it again: Cuts in the 10th Synphony IP: Logged Message: Hello Avrohom, (and... Excuse me, Mark) First of all many thanks for leting us know about the cut in the exposition( or is it development ?)section of the 1st movement in the 10th symphony. I happen to like this movement more than almost anything else Raff wrote. Yet I always thought it was a bit too short for the intensity of the music therein. One year before Marco Polo, Musikszene Schweiz (EX- Libris)issued what I consider the first recording of this symphony, played by the Radio-Sinfonieorchester Basel, conductor: Francis Travis. I give you the time comparison with the forgetable Urs Schneider version (in brakets) I 10,18 (8.56) II 5.56 (4.56) III 10.52 (9.49) IV 7.31(7.54). The way the music of the first movement flows (helped, admittedly, by better sound tracking) in Travis´s perfomance makes one wonder if Schneider had the benefit of hearing it before he went on with his own delivery. But... After listening carefully to both I find that the cut you mention is already present in the first recording. Therefore Marco Polo just followed the bad example of Ex-Libris. Conclusion: If the Francis Travis mutilated version made such an impression on me,can you imagine the impact of the unabridged ? I would very much like yo get hold of the score. And let me add that I do appreciate your stunch defense of Raff´s music the way he wrote it. Luis.
avrohom leichtling   05/5/2004	RE: Marco Polo does it again: Cuts in the 10th Synphony IP: Logged Message: Thank you, Luis. I appreciate the thoughts. You see now how a little knowledge can completely change your perception of a piece or its performance! Rather dramatic, eh? Timings for given performances are not always the clue to the completeness of a given movement, section or composite of an entire work. A small cut, such as in the 10th Symphony might go unnoticed if two performances, one with and one without the cut take about the same time. If the cut performance is played at a slower tempo, slow enough to "cover the evidence" you'd have to know the piece from score unless it were pointed out - which is what I tried to do, to realize anything was amiss. With larger movements, it's harder to do this unless you happen to know two performance of the same piece whose performance times are so different as to, perhaps, draw attention to itself. Whatever. I know that there are many people who will argue passionately (as you've already read in this thread) for the "freedom to cut and paste" at will. Many folks simply don't "get it" on any level - or, worse, confuse those elements in music which are, by their very nature, inexactly (or, perhaps, "ideally") notated but which will almost never be performed as written with "the composer doesn't know what he's doing." For example, composers will indicate tempos, dynamics (gradations of loud and soft), articulation & phrasing, etc., that is, often idealized, and not always practical. It is a given that these things will almost always have to be adjusted given the acoustics of a particular performance environment. Any performer will tell you without hesitation that forte (loud) in one hall is not the same as in another, that all dynamic markings are relative. As often as not, a composer will give you the jist of what he wants, but clearly leaves it up to the performer/conductor to adjust as necessary. The larger aspect of this issue has to do with the relative balance between instruments or sections of instruments. A conductor's most important tool are his ears - since it is he that must determine how it all fits together. The written forte in the trumpets may need to become mezzo-piano because a)there are not enough strings to balance the trumpets as written, b) the acoustics of the hall tend to favor trumpet sonorities, c) etc., ad nauseam. But, there is a difference between making adjustments for the sake of performance and changing the dynamic structure altogether. If a composer wants a certain passage played pianissimo (very soft) but the performer (or any of his cohorts) decide that "it makes better sense to play it fortissimo (very loud), then you have crossed the line between that which the performer is expected to do and that which he must never do. Tempo is another murky area. Before the invention of the metronome in the early 19th century, composers and performers relied solely on performance tradition anmd circumstance to determine the exact meaning of the expressions they wrote into their scores indicating tempo. It is only in the twentieth century that there is any consistent use of metronome markings to indicate exact tempos. But, here again, the acoustics of a performing space may make adjustments necessary. Fast passage work played in a very resonant or live hall can, and often does sound extremely muddy and unclear. Sometimes slowing things down a bit helps to work with the acoustical environment to make the effect of the music work as intended. For example, we use the Italian "Allegro con brio" descriptor - but this phrase is as much an "attitude" as it is a "tempo." What is "Allegro con brio?" - how fast is fast? Even within the same piece, the same tempo marking (without a specific metronome indication) can mean very different things. Well, here's where the whole issue of performance practice and tradition comes in. That's a very open question - and all of us have debated it ad nauseam since the invention of notation. I should point out, by the way, that Raff is very explicit about his metronome markings! But, if a composer says "begin to accelerate here..." and the performer does not, or if the composer says subito piu mosso (suddenly faster) and the tempo remains unchanged, then we have crossed another line. It always amuses me to note of how conductors often don't read the score at all. Without mentioning names, there was a certain conductor of the NY Philharmonic who had the annoying habit of beginning changes of tempo the minute his eyes lit on them, whether or not he was anywhere near the place so marked in the score. As an example, if this conductor happened to see a change of tempo on any page the minute he turned the page of the score he would "anticipate" the change by making it right then and there, even though he might have been many measures too early. With all due respect to my friends on this site who argue that the composer doesn't know beans about composing, this conductor does it in virtually every recorded performance of his I have ever heard. This is not "the freedom of interpretation" as much as it is deaf-blind stupidity and a lack of basic musicianship. This guy simply doesn't know how to read music! But, I better stop with this now before the next barrage of arguments from the "blue pencil brigade" comes barreling my way in a wave of outrage and indignation! :) The issue of cutting sections or movements out of pieces is, to me, so egregiously offensive (as you've gathered by now) that I won't repeat anything I've already said before. As a composer, I would rather the piece NOT be played, then to be vandalized, corrupted or bastardized by some fool who thinks he knows better than me "how it should go." My answer is simply this: write your own damn piece and leave mine alone. I grant you the right to play it as I wrote it (noting the "adjustable" elements above, and allowing for a reasonable degree of interpretation) - the end! I suspect Raff, given his well known "rigidity" in such matters, would agree with this without reservation. But, that's just a guess. In the meantime, though, keep on listening! Keep on learning! Keep on growing!