Dave is a whiz at coming up with discussion ideas.

Hey David, thanks for the interesting talk. Being a composer myself I especially find truth in what you said about Rautavaara and his honesty about the compositional process, about the hope that everything will come out exactly right as you've imagined it to be like, but you never can be a 100% sure. There's always a big possibility of surprise when you get to hear a new composition being performed--or first of all just being practiced--for the first time. I now these situations very well, it's always very exciting. And even if all the people surrounding you as the composer say they like it, they find it perfect the way it is, you might nevertheless be aware o things you find worth improving, adding clarity to the piece or letting it sound better or balancing out the formal structures and developments so that the dramaturgy as a whole works better and more convincingly. And even the most experienced composers know this: You can pre-imagine a lot, but there will always be blind spots in the composition you're not aware of before you start working with it, with the musicians who perform it for the first time, who help materialize the thing that has only existed in thoughts and as black dots on the paper before. So I sympasize a lot with the humble quote from Rautavaara and with his expression, that he can never be totally sure, but that he just can hope that he knows what everything will sound like and that it will work. That's modest and honest, and that is a quality I like a lot in a good artist.

Finster and Mildred, oh those wonderful cats... Music and cats are the two proofs that perfection exists.

I prefer Monteverdi’s original ending to Orfeo, where Orfeo is dismembered by berserk Bacchantes. It hasn’t survived, so I haven’t heard it, but I still like it more somehow.

I agree completely about the superiority of one-act Dutchman over the 3-act bastardisation. I had friend once ask me "Does anyone actually *enjoy* The Flying Dutchman?" There's something in that. Looking at this the other way about, it's known that Wagner wanted to revise the first act of Gotterdammerung - because it is TOO LONG. But stupid Cosima said No, so he didn't. Bah! He was going to put Waltraute's Narration at the start of Act2, where we could enjoy it, and not after an already exhausting 90 minutes of Norns, Gibichungs and nasty Hagens. He should have. Oh well.

@markokassenaar4387

Жыл бұрын

Mindblowing to know that GD act 1 takes as much time as an average operetta or a Haydn oratorio…

@bbailey7818

Жыл бұрын

​@markokassenaar4387 As long as almost any Puccini opera! But I just finished listening to Götterdämmerung about five hours ago (Barenboim Bayreuth recording) and, personal reaction here, you can get so involved in that amazing music and dramatic progression it hardly seems anything like as long as it really is. Dutchman--I believe current thinking is that Wagner conceived it as a three act opera with intervals from the start.

@bbailey7818

Жыл бұрын

I feel that Marvin David Levy's Mourning Becomes Electra is much more effective in its original three act version with the atonal dissonances which suit the subject so well. The later two acts and his removal of so many of the dissonances to conform to the 90s "return to tonality" introduced a blandness and even banality which seriously weakens its power. (And a lot of the grand guignol fun!) I have the original Lp set of Katerina Ismailova on my shelf but haven't played it since Lady Macbeth was restored and that I've heard many times.

@markokassenaar4387

Жыл бұрын

Oh, absolutely! I love Wagner’s music. It’s just such a completely different experience of time!

@georgenorris2657

3 ай бұрын

I´m trying to imagine Wagner ever saying that anything he wrote could possibly be too long. I can´t even imagine him ever being self-critical - but I suppose he must have been?

Good old Walton. He was a character. I recall playing in Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra and from the front row of the audience we heard Walton say rather loudly after just two bars: "Oh God. I hate Bartok!!" Sheer quality. I'm with you on Belshazzar’s Feast. No need for any fiddling with the original version.

Vaughan Williams's orchestration of his cycle On Wenlock Edge. The original creates a unique, gritty sound. The orchestration, far more conventional, smoothes everything out.

@DavesClassicalGuide

Жыл бұрын

Yes, but it's not a revision, merely an alternate version.

Dave Hurwitz, I absolutely adore you. You are a star shining bright in the dark and tragic sky of the degeneracy which is the 21st century. Never stop making these videos. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. - Leo

@MichaelCattermole

Жыл бұрын

Here here, well said!

@Warp75

Жыл бұрын

I call our time now the age of the dumb f..k degenerate. DH is brilliant & very funny. I don’t use the word brilliant lightly.

@B-fq7ff

3 ай бұрын

spoken like a true reactionary 😴

Belshazzar’s Feast is everything you say: boisterous, clangorous, unruly, a masterpiece of symphonic/choral writing. I was in the double choir at a 2013 performance at the Royal Festival Hall as part of a re-creation of the music from the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II where I heard an amusing story. At the 1961 concert of the Hoffnung Music Festival (fore-runner of PDQ Bach) also at the Royal Festival Hall, the emcee announced a performance of “a brief excerpt” from the oratorio as a serious counterpoint to the usual Hoffnung hijinks. The chorus filed onto the stage followed by Sir William Walton himself. The composer raised his baton, the chorus shouted “SLAIN!” (all of measure 656), and all filed off.

@DavesClassicalGuide

Жыл бұрын

It's on the Hoffnung Festivals recordings, so you can hear the moment for yourself.

I love the Grosse Fuge but nevertheless I think Beethoven made exactly the right decision. It's much as with the Leonore Overtures Nos. 2 and 3 - it's a great work in its own right, but I think it's too big, too powerful, and out of proportion with the rest of the quartet.

@bbailey7818

Жыл бұрын

Though the Budapest Quartet always played Op.131 with the Grosse Fuge and refused to record it otherwise, playing the later finale as a separate recording.

@darrenslider9433

Жыл бұрын

I have a hard time not thinking of Leonore No. 2 as a rough draft of Leonore No. 3.

I am surprised you did not include Stravinsky's 1945 revision of the "Firebird Suite," where he changed the 1919 finale's exciting legato notes to picky anti-climatic staccato notes, which feels to me like he was trying to destroy the popularity of the 1919 suite.

@MDK2_Radio

Жыл бұрын

As he said at the start, he could think of many more than 10 and wants to see what we come up with. It wasn't intended to be complete list.

@josephgreen8149

Жыл бұрын

Didnt Stravinskyrevise booth Petrushka and Firebird to enable him to reaasertc opyright which he had lost during WWII. 🎉

@MorganHayes_Composer.Pianist

Жыл бұрын

@@josephgreen8149 yes, this is true :)

@MusicaNovaaz

11 ай бұрын

Yeah, that one was downright perverse.

A rather different example is Vaughan Williams’ Serenade to Music. The original version for 16 solo singers is magical: the subsequent choral and instrumental versions are distinctly inferior. However, the revisions did not replace the original - they just created additional opportunities for performance, so I suppose it’s up to the listener to ‘vote with their feet’.

@paradisi12

Жыл бұрын

Can't agree, love the orchestral version. Room for both I reckon.

@alger3041

10 ай бұрын

​@@paradisi12The orchestral version lacks the central 3/4 episode where various solo singers answer one another antiphonally. That is sufficient for me to rule it out of court.

David, thanks for informing us that there are two versions of Walton's magnificent "Belshazzar's Feast" as I had no idea about that. As you were getting towards the end of your list, I thought to myself "he's not going to mention Bruckner" but, of course, you did, and rightly so. I rather like the original version of the eighth but agree that the revision is better..

Agree with you about the Grosse Fugue, but I'm not opposed to hearing it.

I think Vaughan Williams' "A London Symphony" (Symphony No.2) is interesting in that the original 1913 score (published in 1914) underwent various revisions until VW consolidated matters with the now long accepted final version of c1933 (published 1936), a version that was deemed most successful in addressing long-standing concerns raised by the composer over the original work's perceived overlong, rhapsodic and episodic form, and of the allegation that the symphony contained moments of uninspired musical invention. Undoubtedly the 1933 version better presents the work as an exercise in cohesive symphonic sonata form, and it is good to have so many recordings available of it. However, it surely cannot be denied that some fine and inspired music present in the original 1913 version has been lost in the process, for example the marvellous central hymn-like section of the finale. Fortunately we have Hickox's solitary, VW estate-sanctioned recording of the 1913 version on hand to make up our own minds.

@DavesClassicalGuide

Жыл бұрын

The revision is superior in every way.

@IHSACC

Жыл бұрын

@@DavesClassicalGuide I would also like to mention the RVW London as an example of the category of this video. But I knew from previous videos (as well as your comment here) that you would not agree. I would like to state why I think that the original is better, or at least one or two main reasons: In the original version the enormous climax of the finale seems to be inevitable, a final, passionate, powerful, overwhelming struggle to sum up yet not fully resolve all of the complex moods that have preceded it: the chromatic opening and its later interruptions, the solemn march, the elegiac hymn, the martial, brassy passages, etc. But in the revised version, the climax seems entirely out of proportion with the rest of the movement. Without the repetition and development of the chromatic theme that’s found in the original, the revised version’s use of this idea in the climax seems to be “unearned” as they say. I honestly remember thinking about this before I heard the original: “Why is he having such a huge climax that’s based on an idea that hasn’t been sufficiently fleshed out? And why is it so enormous given what has preceded?” In the original, the climax really fits so much better because the chromatic idea has been developed in various guises, the martial music has also been more fully developed as well. Another reason to favor the original would be the incredible second trio of the Scherzo. Anyway, I would personally love a video on the London where you would lay out your case for the revised, and we could either continue to happily and cordially disagree or even come to a closer middle ground.

@ruramikael

Жыл бұрын

I definitely prefer the original version, and especially the finale.

@MusicaNovaaz

11 ай бұрын

The 1920 version, which is almost never done, is the one I like. It is virtually the same as 1936, but there are two cuts that he made, and the music he cut out was so beautiful. I kind of know what he was thinking in making the cuts, but no. The original original (1914) is too long and those cuts and changes are sensible.

@ColinWrubleski-eq5sh

Ай бұрын

Years ago, the Thailand Philharmonic Orchestra performance of the RVW #2 "A London Symphony" was nearly torpedoed after the first rehearsal when it became clear that the orchestral parts did not match the conductor's score. If memory serves, the players had the 1920 version, whereas the conductor had the score of the 1936 final revision. The problem was rectified, in the final event, but i cannot even remember how---> getting proper parts from the UK to Thailand must have been no easy feat. 😮

I know there will be Bruckner after just reading the title of the video)

One controversial item: Hindemith 1948 nearly wholesale revision of his original 1923 song cycle Das Marienleben. It's true that the later version is more vocally grateful and easier to manage from a performing standpoint, and so perhaps not "mangled" really, yet was the revision really necessary? On a more obscure note, Frederic Rzewski re-wrote his Short Fantasy on Give Peace a Chance to remove as many traces as possible of the John Lennon song, most likely for copyright reasons. He basically added dissonant clusters to most things melodic. To my ears the result sounds forced, and misses the original's simple point. Fortunately, Frederic allowed me to keep playing the original. Alvin Curran also added dissonant embellishments to the haunting opening section of his remarkable piano piece For Cornelius. I was never convinced by the changes, and I kept performing the original. Here Alvin and I agreed to disagree! And I actually think that in the case of Beethoven's Quartet No. 13, that the composer's new ending replacing the Grosse Fuge makes for a more satisfying and better proportioned conclusion, whereas the Grosse Fuge has more visceral and disturbing an impact when played as stand-alone composition.

The Grosse Fuge sounds like Carl Stalling cartoon music. Love it!

@tommelody4159

Жыл бұрын

Comment of the day. Now I have to go hear “Große Fuge” again (it’s been a while…)

Rachmaninov's 2nd Sonata. Some of the changes are effective, but the revised finale is too short, and some of the deleted material from the first movement deserved to be kept as well. Also, his reported reason for the revision (comparison with Chopin's 19-minute sonata in the same key) is kind of silly, since the pieces have virtually nothing else in common.

Would you consider the ending of Dvorak's: Cello Concerto being revised even though Dvorak revised it in his head after learnng about the death of his sister-in-law and first (?) love? Glad Dvorak changed his mind. It is a masterpiece the way he ended it. THANKS DAVE !!!!

The Swedish composer Peterson-Berger revised several of his works during old age. He arranged and revised his 3rd Symphony for a smaller orchestra, and it was no improvement. He also revised and shortened his opera "The Doomsday Prophets", which wasn't necessary according to musicologists (the complete opera hasn't been recorded). So it would be great if one could find the original version of the 1st symphony, which was quite a success when it was premiered (much better received than Stenhammar's 1st),

Messiaen's _Saint François d'Assise._ The scene with the juggling circus clowns was the best bit, and should never have been cut.

@ColinWrubleski-eq5sh

Ай бұрын

Juggling circus clowns...?? Do tell...

@ftumschk

Ай бұрын

@@ColinWrubleski-eq5sh Just a joke, although I must admit that it would have brought some much-needed fun to the opera ;)

Your description of Cardillac made me think of Rand's "The Fountain Head."

Very good Dave! And then there's taste! An artist taste can evolve too. Sometimes it's tricky to be objective. One needs to get away from it to hear it. There are some things in Mahler that I'd love to change. At first I wasn't aware of this. I remember some very musical minded friends mocking the ending of the 2nd movement of Bernstein's Chichester Psalms. I was stunned by this. To this day I wonder about their opinion...

For Verdi, the forced shift of Un ballo in maschera's setting from Sweden to Boston issimply ludicrous.

@DavesClassicalGuide

Жыл бұрын

Yes, but the music didn't change, and that wasn't his decision.

A valuable talk, thank you. I'm glad you came out with an opinion about the Prokofiev - I never knew which version to prefer - and about the Bruckner 3 muddle. Very helpful.

Great topic and what a great cat name Mildred is!

I'm not quite so sure about "Katerina Ismailova".In my view, the 2nd version has a better understanding of the singing voices. But it's true that some of the most powerful moments of "Lady Macbeth" are softened. Indeed, I like to hear from time to time the "Katerina"-version in the Provatorov-recording. Hindemith: "Das Marienleben" - all prefer the 2nd version, but the 1st seems the better to me, because of the expressionist sound, which is a total contrast to the Rilke-poems. The 2nd version is softer and rather (neo-)classical without the expressionist fire. About the next, we'll disagree, but having seen both versions on stage, I'm sure about that: "Billy Budd". To condense the work, was a favour for Pears, who had troubles with his heroic aria. But, in my view, this scene is necessary, because it shows, what Vere means to his seamen. Here, he is a "man of action", and all worship him as if he would be a demigod. Later, the adoration shifts to Billy, and at the end, there is a hint of mutiny in the air. This tragic development, which shows also Vere's decay, works only, when the work is played with the full 1st act. Markevitch: "Icare". What a pity that he took out the quartertones, which added such a strange and unique colour. Walton: "Troilus and Cressida" - what a mess! The 1st version is better, Cressida MUST be a soprano. The 2nd version lacks the high tessitura and the puccinesque sweetness, and there are also some cuts, which aren't necessary, in my opinion. It's a pity that Chandos recorded a hybrid version, which is neither the 1st nor the 2nd. To finish, a work I'm not sure, in which version is better: Mahler's "Das klagende Lied". I know, there is too much "Ach, Leide" in the "Waldmärchen", but also some glorious music, and it set's out perfectly the mood for a ballad. In the third part, the 1st version has some issues with the off-stage-orchestra. Here, the 2nd version makes a better job for a concert-hall-opera. But, nevertheless, the more naive 1st version has a right to exist as less operatic and more ballad-like in the tradition of Dvorák's "Svatební kosile" ("The Spectre's Bride").

@marknewkirk4322

Жыл бұрын

Totally agree about Das Marienleben

@bbailey7818

Жыл бұрын

I completely agree about "Troilus." I do feel that the original four act Billy Budd has an absolutely disastrous act break when Act 3 ends with Vere going off to inform Billy of his fate. It ruins the drama and the impact of that amazing chord sequence that follows. Perhaps a good compromise would be the original first and second acts but the later unified Act 2. With Klagende Lied, I feel something is missing without Part 1. I don't feel as "invested" in the later parts without it. For me, it's similar to what Dave discussed about Verdi and Don Carlos.

@marknewkirk4322

Жыл бұрын

If I am not mistaken, Maxim Shostakovich uses a score that restores the deleted scenes but employs some of the revised vocal writing. I noticed that at the Prague production of the opera about 15 years ago they adopted some of the revised vocal writing while otherwise following the original version. Maxim Shostakovich was not involved in that production.

@edwinbaumgartner5045

Жыл бұрын

You'right, the break is bitter, but it's the conductor's matter to shorten it. In Vienna's State Opera, Donald Runnicles made a very short break, and thanks to Britten's genius, the motiv, which lies over the last chord is resumed at the beginning of the 4th act. In act, it's one of the very few works, which I would prefer in a hybrid version: 1st and 2nd act in the 1st, 3rd and 4th act in the 2nd version.

Wow. I had no idea Walton revised Belshazzar's Feast. Has anyone recorded the original version?

@DavesClassicalGuide

Жыл бұрын

Sure. Most recordings are of the original version.

9/5 11a.m. Agree on your view on "Don Carlos". The French version has an additional act--#1-- which is needed to make sense of the rest (Don Carlos meets and falls in love with Elisabeth). As to the very end, the "disappearance into the monastery with Charrles V" is up to the opera house, I know, but what the Met does with it in the current oroduction makes no sense -- to me, anyway. Be well.

Regarding Bruckner 3, I've tinkered about with it, and prefer the Adagio from the 1889 version with the scherzo and finale from 1877 version. So I've come up with the 2023 version, edited Coleman 😮.

Thank you, Dave Hurwitz!

I remember hearing a Gardiner recording on DGG of a later version of Mendelssohn's Italian Symphony. The first movement, as I recall, was unchanged, but the three subsequent movements were greatly changed, and not for the better. Mendelssohn took an arguably perfect work, with which he was apparently dissatisfied, and managed to make it more than a little imperfect. Fortunately, the revised version , though published and readily available, remains virtually unperformed.

The revised Prokofiev 4th is my preference. For some reason this version makes it an equal to 5 and 6, creating, for me at least, a triptych of sorts.

My suggestion would definitely be Rachmaninoff's 4th Piano Concerto. I enjoy the original far more than revision. The problem is the finale: In the original, he brings back the second theme and it is GLORIOUSLY composed, and orchestrated, and features the dies irae prominently and is the most beautiful part of the whole concerto AND HE CUT IT OUT COMPLETELY, tacking on a coda that I do not like as much. The development of the finale is also more interesting and weirder. I guess this is a personal take, but I really wish he had stuck to his guns with his original conception. As far as I know, it was poorly received and he revised it so make it more accessible or so it could be taken more seriously (maybe I'm wrong with some details there).

@johnmarchington3146

Жыл бұрын

I love that concerto (especially the magnificent Michelangeli recording). Has anyone recorded the original version? It sound to me as if someone definitely should.

@andy_pandy88

Жыл бұрын

There are two recordings that I know of. One conducted by Ashkenazy, which is the one I know and love. And there is a newer one as well that I haven't heard yet... @@johnmarchington3146

Rachmaninoff: First Concerto - the original is a youthful , immature, somewhat derivative; the revision as a big improvement I've listened to all 3 versions of the Fourth Concerto, but haven't yet made up my mind about which is preferable. The more familiar final version has something to be said for its concision, but the original is richer and more expansive. I much prefer the original version of his 2nd Sonata to the revision, which has pared away too much of the grandeur and opulence of the original. Hindemith also revised his big song cycle Das Marienleben to bring it in line with his current harmonic theories; I agree with Glenn Gould - the original was better.

A marvelous expose' of letting things alone. If it's not broken--don't fix it!

Best story i have ever heard about a composer NOT realizing what his work would (or should) sound like: a Belgian clarinetist colleague narrated (when i expressed interest in the mechanics of switching between the A and Bb instruments) that a wildly contemporary piece was being recorded somewhere in Europe, with composer present throughout the marathon day of recording sessions. It was only at the very end of the day that the principal clarinetist realized to his horror that he had been using the wrong instrument throughout, and neither he, composer, nor conductor ever noticed [!?!] Said player had the disgression not to confess the error publicly until long after the fact... 😮😊😂

I don't really have much familiarity with "Appalachian Spring" other than finding it generally pleasant whenever I hear it, but once I heard the original chamber version in a church in Chicago, and it was a really beautiful experience that made me appreciate the whole work more from hearing the original.

Perhaps Mahler's Klagende Lied?

@DavesClassicalGuide

Жыл бұрын

Nope.

Boulez was prone to sabotaging his compositions, generally by extending them, like Dérive 2 and Répons. Both had an original length which was perfect but PB had to turn them into grand statements. Répons, for chamber orch, loads of expensive software and soloists around the hall was fabulous in its 25 minutes premiere but when extended to circa 45 mins became a snooze-fest. He should have left well alone

@murraylow4523

Жыл бұрын

Unsurprising remark I suppose. Each to his own, but Derive 2 I think is rather interesting @@Jaso839

@MarshallArtz007

Жыл бұрын

@@Jaso839: He should have left well enough alone and never composed either. 😎🎹

What about the Schumann 4th? Do you side with most musicians (starting, of course, with Robert himself and, after his death, Clara), who prefer the revised 1851 version? Or do you go with those, from Brahms onwards, who prefer the 1841 original?

@DavesClassicalGuide

Жыл бұрын

The earlier version is better scored, the later more musically powerful.

@iankemp1131

Жыл бұрын

There is a real case for performing the revised version with the orchestration from the original version, which was suggested by Tovey. The revised version takes the ingenious cyclic structure of the original version to a new level.

Futhermore, as a painter i must say that revising is a common thing to do. At least for me. Six months down the road can really help objectify the work. When you're in the middle of it, your instincts can faulter. You can't "see" it. Later, it just slaps you in the face. Always best to hide it for awhile. Just a sometimes thing.

I think the argument can be said of Tchaikovsky's Second Symphony "The Little Russian". The second version is less coherent structurally speaking and the ideas less interesting. Come to think of it, the same applies to Rubinstein's Second Symphony "The Ocean" and Tubin's Third (the latter even more pointless).

More Finster!!

Wow, I 100% agree! Your videos are awesome! How/where do I request a video topic?

I still remember being struck by someone one of my professors at Northwestern University back in the 1960s said about artists--and he wasn't speaking about any one particular genre--the every great work of art requires two people: One to create it; and one to tell them when to stop.

I'll give you two. I prefer Prokofiev's 7th Symphony with the original quiet ending. The razzle-dazzle coda Prokofiev added strikes me as superfluous, and somewhat spoils the ingenuous quality of the original. Not a huge deal, but that's me. The other, which may be a little outside the purview of this channel, is Stephen Sondheim's "Merrily We Roll Along." But his stuff is as important as any contemporaneous American opera, if not more so, so why not? While the original has serious dramatic flaws, it's musically superior to the revision that Sondheim and George Furth cooked up, especially in its opening sequence. The new material, like much of Sondheim's later work (e.g., "Passion" -- yech!) is comparatively stale and preachy.

@magicakalmusick

Жыл бұрын

I agree with you about the P 7; for me the revised ending spoils the piece.

@murraylow4523

Жыл бұрын

Yes, that’s an excellent example.

@musicianinseattle

Жыл бұрын

Agreed on both counts!

Symphony No 1, Tchaikovsky. The original version as performed by Ilan Volkov and the BBC Scottish SO, performed when the BBC broadcast all Tchaikovky's works...

The original 1733 version of Rameau's Hippolyte et Aricie is superior to the 1742 and 1757 revisions, which mutilate the work in various ways. I don't think anyone has recorded the 1742 version, but it cuts most of Phedre's part, for some reason. There are a number of recordings of the 1757 version, but it cuts the prologue. In both cases, first instincts were best instincts.

OK. (deep breath) A masterpiece supposedly mangled after the composer died by other hands--but further mangled and messed up by well-meaning musicologists who wanted to return to the composer's original intentions: Les Contes d'Hoffmann. What became the standard edition from Monaco 1908 is a good, solid logical theatrically effective piece of work. But now the weakest act (Venice) comes last instead of culminating in the far greater Antonia act, the most moving thing Offenbach ever wrote. Before that all sorts of surefire things were taken out like the Diamond aria because its "spurious. " Who cares, its a great piece. The scholars also tried to "fix" Bizet's Pearl Fishers and we lost the reprise of the popular tenor/baritone duet (recorded on EMI.) Fortunately, posterity rejected that "authentic" version.

Wasn't the new finale to the B-flat Quartet the last complete piece of music Beethoven ever wrote?

Appropriately, Finster is making alterations and revisions herself.

How about Prokofiev planning to revise his 2nd symphony and add a third movement?

@DavesClassicalGuide

Жыл бұрын

He didn't do it. This isn't about speculation,

An interesting topic. Your examples are good ones. By the way, is that a new bit of wisdom on the shirt? I don't recall seeing that one before, but then I'm at the age where I forget stuff sometimes.

@DavesClassicalGuide

Жыл бұрын

Yes, it's new.

I was under the impression that the Grosse Fuge was cut from the quartet under pressure from his publisher. But you're saying he did it on his own? Am I understanding that correctly?

@MDK2_Radio

Жыл бұрын

Regarding The Flying Dutchman, I saw it at Opera Colorado back in 2008 with James Morris, who was terrific. But I had only heard the overture, and was surprised at how many of the themes in it were repeated ad nauseum throughout the whole opera. I'm learning here that it was originally in one act, which explains a lot. (Except for The Dutchman's opening aria, which is really pretty remarkable.)

I also prefer the original Prokofiev 4. And what is Finster’s favorite classical music? The Magnificat?

Liszt's orignal version of Les Cloches de Geneve is superior to the final version, which is a quite different piece. I think the reason for this drastic revision was that the piece is dedicated to his daughter Blandine, and that the first version depicted a(n erotic) boat trip with Marie d'Agoult.

I tried Beethoven's green eggs and ham and I still do not like them Sam i am. I'm glad it was mangled but also glad it's accessible and there for reconstruction.

Hi Dave! What about Schumann and his Fourth Symphony?

@magicakalmusick

Жыл бұрын

I have found the 1st version better orchestrated, but the final version compositionally superior.

@claudiofornasari1263

Жыл бұрын

@@magicakalmusick I agree. For example, I consider the transition between the 3rd and the 4th movement better structured in the second version, even though the orchestration seems to me in general too "thick" compared to the first one.

@ericleiter6179

Жыл бұрын

I was going to mention this one too...Brahms was so adamant about the superiority of the original version that he published it against Clara's wishes and it caused a bug rift between them. He preferred the transparency of the original, but I like the heaviness and passion of the revision better myself.

@MusicaNovaaz

11 ай бұрын

@@claudiofornasari1263 that's partly because in general Schumann's orchestration doesn't work with large string sections. If you go with string sections of about the size he had at his disposal, the orchestration is not too thick at all. The first version of the 4th Symphony has some great stuff that he cut, but that transition between the last two movements is way better in the later version. I've conducted both versions, and on balance I've ended up preferring the later one, but they are both great.

@claudiofornasari1263

11 ай бұрын

Thank you for your explanation. I agree that, in any case, we are talking about great stuff, after all we are talking about... Schumann!

The final revision of the Faure Requiem with the full orchestra, I guess technically this wouldn’t count because Faure likely let a student do it, but the second version, I think 1893 and I’m not going to cheat and look on Wikipedia so someone feel free to tell me I’m wrong, is far more interesting in smaller the orchestration, in particular a beautiful passages for the Horn in the hostias baritone solo.

I guess Hindemith went into Cardillac arrest for his revision. Sorry - that had to come out.

@DavesClassicalGuide

3 ай бұрын

Yes, it did--about 70 years ago!

I actually prefer the revision of the quartet without the fugue. It is much more balanced and the wonderful cavatina is its core. I love the fugue but for me it stands alone.

Stravinsky’s subsequent revisions to the Firebird (1919 and 1945) is a big one for me. Each one gets progressively worse - and I suspect the sole motivating factor for Stravinsky was money and royalties. Rachmaninov’s second piano sonata is also up there. If you listen to the 2nd version without knowing the first one, it’s okay, I guess, but boy, does it pale in comparison. Mozart’s Great Mass (more specifically, its Kyrie, Gloria and Credo) repurposed by the composer as a secular cantata likewise boils my blood. Why would you abandon a masterpiece like that?

What about the Rachmaninov 2nd Symphony and the cuts he sanctioned himself in the 1930's? To be fair Rachmaninov apparently hated them, as it was purely a pragmatic decision to get around concert promoters misgivings about the work being too long - it's glorious in it's original form.

@curseofmillhaven1057

11 ай бұрын

@michaeledwards1172 apparently just before he died, he said to Eugene Ormandy “You know what the cuts do to me - it is like cutting out a piece of my heart.”

Stravinsky's revision of Petrushka. Shortened it and lost some fine music. Prefer the more lush original orchestration. Stravinsky revised the ballet to bring it under western copyright and thus earn performance royalties. Now that he's long dead, he no longer needs the money and I don’t have to feel guilty.

@musicianinseattle

Жыл бұрын

I couldn't agree with you more!