This older message thread in the Raff Forum has been archived.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   25/4/2004	Subject: Scores to Symphonies 1, 8, 9, and 11 Message: I am a composer who has had a deep interest in Raff's music since the days of Bernard Herrmann's legendary recording of the 5th Symphony. My own private library presently includes scores to Symphonies 2 - 7 and thew new edition of #10. However, I am looking for scores to Symphonies 1, 8, 9 and 11. Any information about where copies of these works might be had for sale would be most appreciated.
Mark   25/4/2004	RE: Scores to Symphonies 1, 8, 9, and 11 IP: Logged Message: Hi Avrohom, The US company Edwin F Kalmus (www.kalmus-music.com) have facsimiles of original study scores of the Symphonies Nos.1,8&9 available for hire or purchase. Symphony No.11 has me stumped at present, but I have heard that the German company Musikproduction Jürgen Höflich (www.musikmph.de) intend to produce facsimiles of all the Raff symphony scores - presently they advertise only Nos.3&5. It may be worth writing to them to see if they have a copy of No.11. Good luck,
avrohom leichtling   25/4/2004	RE: Scores to Symphonies 1, 8, 9, and 11 IP: Logged Message: Kalmus' scores are extravagantly overpriced, definitely a last resort - which is how I came to discover other sources. Repertoire Explorer (aka Jurgen Hoflich) presently has 3 & 5 out (which I own) and has announced #7 as upcoming. Nordstern (Stuttgart) has released a newly "engraved" #2 - Ries & Erler - the original publishers of 4 - 7 (and others) (Berlin) has just released #10. I've bought scores from them of 4, 6, 7 & 10. Other than Kalmus, I'm trying to locate sources for the remaining pieces. Some of the recordings are decent, and some others are intolerable abortions. Some have acceptable acoustical values, others are bottomless, or fair to middling studio jobs. None is altogether satsifying. The Marco-Polo recording of #3 has an idiotic cut in the last movement that basically turns an 18 minute sonata-form into a ten minute sonatina form by removing the development altogether. I've taken different DDD recordings of this movement and edited them together digitally so that the movement comes in complete and uncut. The chutzpah is unbelievable. These idiots think that Raff's use of repetition and sequence gives them license to "tidy things up" - which, if one pays closer attention to the music is exactly what you should NOT do. All of this is calculated for effect - as when "typical conventionality" suddenly (and without warning) slips into some totally unprepared harmonic or textural shift or change. It's marvelous how "Beethoven" suddenly becomes "Dvorak," or "Tchaikovsky" or "Chabrier" or "Mahler" - but, of course, this is all nonsense because Raff had the gist of all these syntactical kernels in his ears all along and was uncompromising enough to put them altogether "his way." And, by the way, I suspect that it was this very element that attracted Benny Herrmann back in the 40s and why he felt so strongly about the music.
peter conole   27/4/2004	RE: Scores to Symphonies 1, 8, 9, and 11 IP: Logged Message: Dear Avrohom Am fascinated by your postings. Not sure I can do anything to help with published scores - I live 10 million miles away. However, your comments on the Raff symphonies are a revelation. Let me get this straight. You are a composer. You admire Raff. You will have heard/read/experienced a big range of comment and criticisms re Raff's music over the years, or even decades. And after all that, you want unfettered and unslashed or hacked about Raff music. No compromises. To me that can only mean you want to accept the composer on his own terms. That is, you accept he knew exactly what he was doing. A common criticism is that he ' lacked self-critical abilities'. There may be some truth in that, but as I see it, he had all of the skills at his fingertips and used them in unison to reach his listeners. Have already given my suspicions about 19th century concerts on other threads. Giant affairs, with 5/6 hour programmes, several major works in one evening. Aware, expectant and accepting audiences, in every sense. Not jaded or cynical 20th century oh-so-clevers. So there stands Raff. The word chutzpah is appropriate. Could throw in a few more words or terms, such as sublime conceit (a virtue, not a vice, in Raff's case), self-confidence, nerve, integrity, assertiveness and a quite arrogant belief in his own craft skills. It all adds to that composer's charisma and charm. Will be going on a search myself to try and find an unmutilated symphony no.3. I accept your basic premise - the composer knew exactly what he was trying to do. Admitting that helps clear the air. It helps understand some experiences with his music, eg, the opening movement of violin concerto no.2, which gave me the distinct impresssion he was toying with listeners before taking them down a road they did not expect. Not the only example in his work. Am pretty sure I have got the basic drift of your views right. If so, there is a god. I do not mean to pry, but could you tell me what kind of music you compose? Just curious. regards and respect peter
avrohom leichtling   27/4/2004	RE: Scores to Symphonies 1, 8, 9, and 11 IP: Logged Message: Hi, Peter- Thanks for your comments. The way composers look at music is, I think, fundamentally different from just about everyone else. The more "normative" view would have use believe in things like fixed forms (sonata form, binary, ternary, etc., ad nauseam), "keys" (in the case of tonal music, "set permutations" (in the case of serial music), and all the other proto-neo-post-Schenkerian claptrap that tries to get into a composer's "head" without making much headway, as it were. The truth, the composer's truth, is altogether a different story. Yes, yes, the technobabble is the life blood of music theorists and record liner annotators, but it has absolutely nothing to do with music. And, if this sounds like a Herrmannesque rant - then you've got it exactly. How else can one deal with a composer except on his/her terms? Raff had the misfortune, it seems to me, of being somewhat more prolific than most of his colleagues - and, I expect, probably engendered a fair degree of professional (and unprofessional) jealousy. There are those people who do stand outside the pack, or who do not attract large, accolytic followings that enable post-mortem immortality. Raff was a solid composer with a lot of imagination and an unwillingness to compromise his ears. Does this make him a great, not-so-great, good, bad or worthless composer? I think that depends on the piece in question. You know the old nursery rhyme that goes "and when he was good he was very, very good, but when he was bad he was awful." Good Mozart is good - but bad Mozart is unlistenable. Sorry. You and I both know of a fairly sizeable list of composers who wrote "too much music" - from virtually everyone between 1687 and 1743, to Mozart, Haydn, Hindemith, Raff (perhaps), Villa Lobos, Hovhaness, Milhaud, and most Hollywood composers living and or dead, etc. We also know a large number of people at the other extreme. Is there a relation between fecundity and quality? The answer is both yes and no. I prefer to take each piece on its own terms and avoid the egregious generalities. This same species of discussion can be applied across the board: known and unknown composers are all equal here. What's unknown, it seems to me, has little to do with what's good. Often, quite the opposite is true. You get the point, I'm sure. What's the opening of the Beethoven 8th all about? Some fool will tell you its about an eight measure phrase that begins in the tonic key, goes to the dominant and ends in the tonic, or that it's the first theme in the exposition of a sonata allegro form. Hooray - score one for the Schenker boys. Perhaps its really about the fortissimo tonic F major followed by pianissimo dominant C major - and the conflict between the energy of the one and the repose of the other, between fortissimo and pianissimo as structural elements, and phrases that don't exactly match bar for bar. What's all that busyness in the development preceded by Unison Octaves fortissimo, and quiet, diminished seventh noodling in between passages (Schubert replicated this trick in the B minor symphony in exactly the same place, structurally). In the end, we know, pianissimo wins out - only to be followed by some 3 minutes of quiet, humorous orchestral clucking (or ticking, if you prefer a more viable Haydn connection), i.e the second movement. It's about setting up dramatic expectations, fulfilling or frustrating them. The conventionalities of key and form are exactly that, conventionalities - which is why composers gradually chucked them for "broader horizons." Raff's point of departure is not in the same sound world as Wagner's pregnant major sixths (Tristan) - but something earlier, more pristine, and just as pregnant - but for totally different reasons. And, further, once the deceptive environment is established, the digressions and diversions are all the more astonishing simply because, although you may expect them (knowing the "style") - you don't know how or where they're going to crop up. Imagine, eclectism as a formative compositional principle! In the mid 19th century! Perhaps Raff was way ahead of his time, in ways not normally associated with being "avant garde." Does the third movement of the 5th symphony remind you of the finale of the Schubert C major? I sure hope so. Does it foreshadow the third movement of the Tchaikovsky 6th? I sure hope so. Does that marvelous little tune in the first movement of the fourth symphony have echoes of Saint-Saens or "others"? I sure hope so. In the end, does this music work, or doesn't it - on its own terms with reference to absolutely nothing else? Well, one can make a purely technical judgement, or one can respond according to one's own tastes and preferences. In this, perhaps, the composer-listener has the advantage at least to the extent that he can see from the inside what's going on and appreciate, uniquely, all the hidden jokes and sly references, foreshadowings, remembrances and what-not. For me, at least, it works more often than not, and becomes an excellent model just as valid as any of the other more standard excellent models. Is it coincidental, for example, that The Firebird has as its main villan the same character who is the lead in a Rimsky K opera (Kaschei, the Immortal), which IS knew at the time because, I believe, he put together RKs vocal score for him, and that it shares similar, if not identical thematic, harmonic, rhythmic and orchestral materials? Is Stravinsky, therefore, "derivative?" Is Strauss being overly egomaniacal (a loaded statement, I admit) when he ends Heldenleben with a batch of self quotes, or when he parodies Kurt Weill in the opening of Die Liebe der Danae by reworking the opening of Mahagonny? (Go check it out, it's marvelous considering the who-what-where-when.) As for my own work, I am currently in the middle of String Quartet #5 which, G-d willing, will be my Opus 107. Other than that, I've written 7 symphonies, five operas, quite a few concerti, a good deal of chamber music of various types, songs (lieder with both piano and orchestra), choral music (ditto), band music, a little theater and film music (very little), and even a bit of electronic music. At this point in my life, I'd like to believe the "style" is (taking the long view) consistent - but some works are "more approachable," while others are decidedly more thorny and difficult. Different pieces require different solutions. Some of them "even use triads," others wouldn't be caught dead in the same room with them! :) I studied at Juilliard (1964-71) with Vincent Persichetti and Roger Sessions. I also studied with Darius Milhaud and at The Royal Conservatory in Toronto. Much of my life has been spent in the academic world (my children were born in different places depending on where I was teaching at the time). At present, I pay the rent as a systems programmer by day - but try to slake a voracious appetite for music (both new and old) the rest of the time. I would strongly recommend that you purchase a copy of "114 Songs" by Charles Ives. Read Ives' notes at the end of the volume - they're wonderful. And, if you call The Joseph Patelson Music House in NYC now, you can buy a copy for $20 - they're overstocked. There are some wonderful insights there that apply to Raff as to everyone else.
peter conole   28/4/2004	RE: Scores to Symphonies 1, 8, 9, and 11 IP: Logged Message: Hi Avrohom Just a quick response, about a couple of minor issues. You have given me pause for thought on a number of matters, some of which lie at the heart of the most important issue of all - why do we listen to certain favoured forms of music. It is not a simple question, because many intelligent and sophisticated contributors to the forum have catholic and very accepting tastes. They are also more learned than I on the mechanics of music making. The thing is, my journey to my present musical world has been comparatively short. A dozen years or so - and that encompasses a decade of total commitment to one particular musical 'sound world', that of the 19th century, and a subsidary commitment/devotion to certain genres of music in that world. The journey also had to be taken in isolation. Remember, I live in a small, out of the way city on the far side of the world. So how did I arrive at this destination and why? Time for reflection. Your posting was so rich in insights that I will probably return to it a couple of times. Your comments on the use of technobabble were revealing; I suspect such flammery is used as weapon by critics and 'power brokers' in the music world who have more or less deprived Raff and a myriad other composers of hearing time. John Boyer and Mark gave me some classic examples on a another thread. John quoted a terrible review by one of the 'oh-so-clevers' of a performance of Dvorak's piano concerto. The reviewer praised the performance, admitted the work had merit, but then dismissed it out of hand as being (yes) virtually beneath him. As John aptly said, Raff is going to have a tough time if a firmly established composer like Dvorak is treated like that. On an unrelated and less gloomy matter, you mentioned a couple of interesting things about Raff's 5th symphony, third movement. Does it remind me of Schubert's C Major. Sure does. Do i think it foreshadows part of Tchaikovsky's 6th? Probably. I like the term eclectic being applied to Raff. Nothing wrong with that. Oh, and maybe the odd direct and crafty quote from another composer. Adds to the pleasure when you think one has turned up. Thought I heard one today in the 4th movement of the 5th -scarcely a couple of seconds, but maybe from Berlioz' Symphonie Fantasique. Jack Kelso drew my attention to something similar in another symphony (forget which one) - an echo of Der Freischutz. I liked your comments about the key advantage of being a composer. One can be an 'insider listener' and enjoy the music from several additional new angles. Well, I am condemned to remain an 'outsider listener', but that too has its advantages. For one thing, an iron law of nature operates in the world of music. In turns of appeal, if a composer wishes to reach out and and move or otherwise affect listeners, 'outsiders' are the true objects of his attention. Well, Herr Raff and his contemporaries are winners on that score in this part of cyberspace. And it is wonderful to know there is at least one composer of today who knows Raff's music intimately. Of other matters, later regards Peter
avrohom leichtling   28/4/2004	RE: Scores to Symphonies 1, 8, 9, and 11 IP: Logged Message: Hi, Peter, Let's correct one little thing, please. When anyone becomes involved with music of any particular period, professionally or not, the key thing is the commitment to that literature, not the degree(s) of ones pedigree(s). The world of music making is made up of composers, performers and listeners - all three are necessary, important and vital to the process. Your dozen years, so to say, have been spent in exploration and discovery. You have absolutely no reason to feel self-conscious about your background or experience. The fact is that you are doing something about it. As far as critical chicanery goes, I can recommend two classic literary works that ought to enlighten and cure you of any illusions you may have about the "purity" of our beloved profession. The first is the collected critical writings of Claude Debussy who, as you may know, spent a good deal of time working as a music critic. His skewering of the foibles of his day often reads like dialogue out of The Pink Panther movies (where Debussy is the curmudgeonly Chief Inspector Dreyfus and everyone else is an Inspector Clouseau clone). The other is one of the most famous collections of assine music criticsm - that is "The Lexicon of Musical Invective" by Nicholas Slonimsky. They are absolutely required reading - I suspect you will find many jewels there. Both of these are available through Amazon.com. Just remember the "famous" story about the critic who railed against the horrible piece of new music on the concert - when it was later discovered that the program he "heard" had not even been performed because the concert had been cancelled.
avrohom leichtling   29/4/2004	RE: Scores to Symphonies 1, 8, 9, and 11 IP: Logged Message: Revision : Correction : Amplication In an earlier note I made a comment about the cuts in the fourth movement of the Marco Polo recording of the 3rd Symphony. For the record, then, here's how it actually breaks out. The last movement of this symphony is 571 measures long, not altogether unusual for a movement whose tempo is rather rapid and is filled with lots of rapid figuration which, in its own right, would take up yards of paper anyway! The only score of this work (so far as I know) was published by Kistner & Siegel (Leipzig) probably around 1870 follows the older orthographic conventions of the day by not removing staves of instruments that do not play, each of the 137 pages of the score of this movement has the same layout. In modern orthography, most, if not all of these would have been removed and the resultant number of score pages reduced, probably by about half. Indeed, the entire score of this work, as published, is 323 pages - not counting title pages and the like. A modern edition would probably be less than 200. Anyway, inasmuch as Raff is not always going to "play by the rules" (even though his critics might well accuse him of it), although the broad outline of this movement constitutes a sonata form structure, the internal details are much more involved. Suffice it to say here that there are a number of different thematic elements, and that any material presented is almost immediately subjected to some kind of transformation. Given the extrinsic programmatic elements here, the way in which various ideas are welded together reminds me very much of the kind of technique often used by filmmakers when many scenes are edited together in rapid succession to create the effect of movement and progression. So, Raff has devised the musical equivalent to cinematic montage - only with notes instead of images. There are precedents for this, the most obvious one being Liszt - which should surprise no one given Raff's relationship to him. Then, of course, there's also Wellington's Victory (Beethoven) which, when you look at the score closely, you realize does much the same thing on a vastly smaller scale. Anyway, the "exposition/development" occupies the first 287 measures of the movement (i.e. to rehearsal letter "H"). The next 205 measures are cut out in the MP recording. This passage constitutes the development/development as well as the development/recapitulation of the movement. The use of slashes here should be taken to mean the extreme blurring of function between both sides of the equation. The way in which one idea or segment morphs into the next also has a cinematic equivalent, the long dissolve. In fact, Raff does not bring things back in the order in which they were first stated. Following the rules, or, more precisely, giving a head's up to convention, a recapitulation (in tonal music, anyway) almost always involves adjustments to the original materials such that all issues of key are resolved in favor of the tonic key (F major, in this case). Raff does not even bother to begin with the same materials with which he opened the movement. Now, before you say "but it was only an introduction," let me point out that this introductory material underpins the entire movement and shows up in various guises. After the "recapitulation" is complete, and the MP recording returns to the printed text (i.e. at rehearsal letter "S"), the remaining 79 measures consists of a coda based on, what, the introduction! Of course, the "dissolve" principle is at work here, too, so precision of structural ambiguity persists to the end. And, wonder of wonders, this even leads back to materials from the first movement. My goodness, a palendrome! In 1869! So, as one composer speaking in defense of a colleague, don't touch the merchandise. Leave it alone. Play it as it is. Don't second guess the composer. You have enough to do to get the notes in your fingers. If you can't, or won't, then don't bother.
peter conole   29/4/2004	RE: Scores to Symphonies 1, 8, 9, and 11 IP: Logged Message: Hi Avrohom Will have to pass over your latest posting, for the time being. Although I suspect there are other Joachim Raff Society devotees who could say a lot about your work on the 3rd symphony. So could I, with less insight. Be that as it may, a couple of pennies dropped today. Purchased the May 2004 edition of Gramophone Magazine this afternoon. Pages 30-31 were devoted to a gentleman named Bernard Herrmann. The same composer/conductor/musician you discussed in an earlier posting, I gather. Major issue: he somehow (year 1947 - the article mentions concerts that were 'slammed' by critics, but not the works) found the support and werewithal to bring Raff's no.5 to the concert hall. Fascinating background details. Champion of Ives. Julliard student. Friend of Copland and Gershwin. Composer of about 60 film scores, and of other works (symphony, opera, cantata - other things, I imagine). The article caught my undivided attention with one phrase: 'Herrmann's feet were firmly planted in the Geramn Romantic tradition'. Well maybe, but his film scores were very varied. 'Psycho', 'Taxi Driver', 'Vertigo', 'North by Northwest', etc. Good grief. Here is pure innocence in action for you: Herrmann was the composer of that amazing and exotic romantic opera pastiche, Salammbo, part of his film score for 'Citizen Kane'. That film. Quite a shock to the system. This may sound ridiculous, but I had no idea. Even funnier, after first seeing the film as a youngster, I was under the impression the opera was 'for real', ie, the 19th century work by Ernest Reyer. Was disabused of that notion by random reading of a magazine article in the 80's. Did not pursue the issue. Now the truth emerges, along with your information about Herrmann as a champion of Raff. I suspect that Herrmann's music might be more evocative than that of his 'for real' French predecessor. And a CD is available. Thanks for your kind comments about the composer/performer/listener issue. Am told by older relatives that my musical tastes have not changed much since boyhood - love of 19th century music remains and even the hostility to rock, jazz, etc is still there. Of course, there was a gap, one that lasted several years due to study and the need to fight for and obtain job security, one in which music scarcely figured at all. Rummaged through my CD collection this evening. First purchases - Koopman's performance of the Bach clavier concertos and Shlomo Mintz's rendition of violin and orchestra works by Lalo, Vieuxtemps and Saint Saens, both dated to 1990-1991. So my estimate of some 12 years re start of real musical passion was about right. Thank heavens for that gap -the CD revolution was just something that happened to other people and the 'romantic revival' started without me. Leaving me to knock on the door at about the right time in my life. regards Peter
avrohom leichtling   29/4/2004	RE: Scores to Symphonies 1, 8, 9, and 11 IP: Logged Message: Don't worry about the technical stuff - it bubbles out like CO2 out a soda pop bottle. The subject of Bernard Herrmann (Raff notwithstanding) is something I could go on about ad infinitum. He was, for me at least, perhaps the single most important and influential composer at that time in my life when music was first becoming "an issue." Seeing the film "The 7th Voyage of Sinbad" in the theater in 1958 when it was first released (and I was then 11 years old) was the seminal musical experience of my life. It changed everything for me. I knew many of his teachers and peers - they were at Juilliard when I was there. His importance in the American musical scene can not be underestimated - not only because he championed people such as Raff, but also because of his championing of music by then emerging American composers, Ives principal amonst them. He was conducting on CBS radio while still in his 20s in the days when the major radio networks in this country maintained standing symphony orchestras, and was involved with radio music for a decade before his jump to Hollywood - where Kane was his first effort. And yes, Kane's faux opera is but one of the many wonderful musical jokes in that film. That aria has taken on a life of its own - almost the way the Cavatina wound up being the totality of Raff. In that respect, it's regrettable, for Herrmann made an important contribution to music that, outside of his film scores, is largely unknown. As a film composer, his work is absolutely of prime importance. As a concert composer, his output, in the beginning (i.e. 1930s) was quite experimental - but later moved to a much more conservative stance. His overall output was slight, relative to the film scores. By the way, back in my university teaching days, I used to give classes in music literature for non-musicians. The first thing everyone had to learn was how to read a score - not so much for content, but enough to be sufficiently comfortable with the basic orthography so as to atleast make a visual connection to the music being heard. It can be done without terribly much effort, especially if one has the interest in the music. A thought for you, perhaps.
peter conole   30/4/2004	RE: Scores to Symphonies 1, 8, 9, and 11 IP: Logged Message: Hi Avrohom Thanks for the insights, and the extra info about Mr Hermann. Could say more about Charles Ives, but for the moment no, except to say that he is one of the few 'modern' composers who has survived my periodic CD purges. I took time out to listen Raff no.3 again, both the Marco Polo edition and ASV recording (uncut fourth movement - 16 minutes) featuring Francesco D'Avalos and the Philharmonica orchestra. Had forgotten that one was on the shelves. Had a great time listening with your notes/comments to hand. Have to say that the uncut 4th movement is quite a wonder, even without any analysis. To me it seemed perfectly integrated and loaded with ideas - and the presence of the recapitulation had another highly desirable effect. That of enhanced excitement, which in turn had the flow-on effect of intensifying the splendour of the coda. It begs the question - why the cuts on the Marco Polo label? Simple folly? You won't be surprised know that I have given thought over the years to extending my rudimentary secondary schooling music education. The reasons are both positive and negative. The positive? Self-evident. The ability to tackle large-scale scores would be a vital adjunct for research, and add to listening fun. The negative reason? A gloomy one - the strong (probably certain) possibility that the vast majority of works I wish to hear and enjoy will never be recorded. That prognosis adds a lot of weight to your reinforcing comments. The skill looms as a dire necessity because it will only be possible to read many works. regards Peter
avrohom leichtling   30/4/2004	RE: Scores to Symphonies 1, 8, 9, and 11 IP: Logged Message: Why did they cut the 3rd Symphony's 4th movement? Folly is far too mild a word. Here in "New Yawk" we'd call it Simple Stupidity, Ignorance and Arrogance. You see, now, how a little information has vastly altered your view of something you thought you knew. Imagine what a little more knowledge, formally acquired, will open up for you! That's a very broad hint. There are no negative reasons to study or not study music. None. The relatively small universe you've become attached to is certainly worth the exploratory effort. A far more rewarding one awaits you when you've equipped yourself with a basic set of tools. At a certain point, you have to make the conceptual (and spiritual) jump between unknowing, interested listener, and, to a certain degree, more informed fellow traveller (in its original meaning). I'm not talking about conservatory training here, not by a long shot, please. If you think about that Beethoven example I mentioned previously, it will take you relatively little effort, properly structured, to realize its content. In fact, that entire paragraph talks only about 18 measures of music. Wow! You are certainly capable of doing it, and, if I catch the fervor of your involvement in music, would say it would be criminal for you NOT to start making the effort to acquire the necessary basic knowledge. I didn't walk into the local music store to buy scores of Raff (or any of the other 16000 scores and recordings in my library). The resources are all around you, which is how we come to have these little exchanges of ideas, around the world no less. I will grant you that my professional aspirations and needs and yours are not the same. Nu? School, even the great Juilliard (...) was, for me, a spring board for my own learning. I didn't learn about Raff there, I assure you. There's lots more "fun" to be had with music when your eyes and your mind is involved - not just your ears.
peter conole   30/4/2004	RE: Scores to Symphonies 1, 8, 9, and 11 IP: Logged Message: Hi Avrohom Thanks for your time and trouble again, Avrahom. And the convincing case you make. I know it does not a take a degree in 'rocket science' to acquire solid score reading skills - a violin playing 'mate' has drawn that to my attention on more than one occasion. Knowing myself, it would probably have expansive consequences -ie, not being satisfied until symphonies and concertos could be sight read. Of course, I stated that the latter ability may well become a necessity. The reason may have sounded 'negative' in one sense, but I think you know what I was referring to. Simply this: with the best will in the world, it is impossible to imagine a situation where all of my 'most desired' music will be available in recorded form. Add the 'eyes and mind' factor you mentioned, and the pleasures of being a 'fellow traveller', and the picture becomes enticing. Come to think of it, in any case it is a 'mind' thing in a couple of other ways. To put it bluntly, I am extremely susceptible to music and heavily impacted by it. You were quite right to use the word 'fervour'. As an aside, on the 'mind' issue, Mr Ives is an infrequent but welcome guest, simply because of certain inner things a couple of his pieces evoke. Ever lived in a small country town? It was amusing to read one authority prose on about how his music is often a nostalgic journey back to his New England youth, etc. Did not anyone to tell me that. On a more mundane level, my profession involves research and writing, often with published results. No prizes for guessing what I would like to write about in my own good time. Let me put it this way, it could only be achieved by obtaining the very skills you are encouraging me to acquire in the world of music. regards Peter
avrohom leichtling   02/5/2004	RE: Scores to Symphonies 1, 8, 9, and 11 IP: Logged Message: Hi, Peter- Just keep in mind that there's a tremendous amount of music, from the present day all the way back that is not available in print for one reason or another. Further, when such things are located, they are normally exhorbitantly expensive - regardless of currency. Professionally, at least, I am caught in the middle of all this. It is quite one thing for the various contributors to this forum, few of whom I would guess have a real professional interest in Raff's music. As a composer, however, it is impossible for me, as a matter of principle, to say anything about a colleague's work without first knowing it from the inside. That's the difference between the dillitante (however well meaning) and the professional. I won't bother to comment on many of the comments I've read here for this reason. However, in the case of Raff (who is but one example), my interest goes beyond collecting recordings. The scores are infinitely more expensive - so there must be a fundamental motivation to go after these works - and while "professional intuition" may have started this process, professionalism has demanded the requisite expenditure. So, do not be depressed about "availability" or even about "ability" (avail or not) - it's a difficult process no matter which way you go. But, as all's fair in love and war, we overcome the tyranny of wallet and income in order to satisfy the love of music. We can chat about Ives and Herrmann elsewhere if you like - the two are actually very closely related inasmuch as Herrmann was one of the first (if not the first) conductor to take Ives at his word (cf your comments to me about my taking Raff at his word). I wish I had an orchestra and a record label at my disposal - I would give us all a set of Raff recordings to put the others absolutely out of business. Perhaps one day this will be possible.