I meant to say "but I have to concur that for what might best be labeled
literary purposes the overall experience of the film is probably more
effective without the deleted scenes."
On Feb 23, 2016 8:14 AM, "Randy Lane" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I feel the same about editting Tom. I don't know why all of the fuss
> sometimes about versions like this. Many composers adapted their works for
> teh forces immediately at hand for example, and others freely admitted that
> composition is an evolutionary process.
>
> Then again it is fascinating to hear some works with cuts restored, and I
> for one like the fully restored Rach 2, provided it is "played" well. And
> Previn's mid 70s LSO recordings overall achieve high marks, with brilliant
> recordings engineered usually by Chris Bishop and Chris Parker.
>
> On a side consider all of the films available now with restored cuts, or
> with deleted scenes available as an added feature. One of the best
> commentaries I have ever heard on the whole subject, which I think is just
> as appropriate for music as film, can be found as an Extra Feature on most
> newer DVD/Blu-Ray versions of Walt Disney's Beauty and The Beast. Kirk Wise
> discusses the original wisdom behind cutting the entire set of scenes now
> known as "To be Human Again", which for me has become my favorite moment
> when watching the film. The music and animation are absolutely riveting,
> but I have to concur that for what might best be labeled literary purposes
> the overall experience of the film is probably more effective with the
> scenes. The whole as a sum of the parts is better without those parts, but
> what magnificent parts they are. And I think the same applies to some cuts
> made on classical compostions, opera in particular. Have a similar
> discussion about Verdi's Don Carlos and Rossini's William Tell and you
> could have a discussion as lively and divided as a presidential debate.
> On Feb 23, 2016 7:46 AM, "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> According to the Gramophone article linked below, Previn's 1973 recording
>> was every note Rachmaninoff wrote. That recording is also chosen as best
>> overall. I forgot about Slatkin/St. Louis, which was well recorded by Marc
>> Aubort for Vox but a better-sounding version was reissued on vinyl by
>> Reference Recordings.
>>
>>
>> http://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/rachmaninov-symphony-no-2-which-recording-is-best
>>
>> My own taste tends toward editing. I don't look on composers as some kind
>> of god. They are artists, just like conductors. It's completely
>> appropriate, in my mind, for a conductor to edit a score. A tasteful,
>> experienced conductor is much more likely to know what works in performance
>> than a composer. I don't know why there is such controversy about "editing"
>> in the classical music world, indeed in the music world overall. In the
>> world of the written word, editing is widely accepted as being a very good
>> thing. History is full of tales of artists too close to their work to make
>> good aesthetic decisions about how to nip and tuck something to the level
>> of perfect presentation.
>>
>> -- Tom Fine
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy Lane" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 9:25 AM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Rach 2nd
>>
>>
>> Previn recorded the work twice with the LSO.
>>> For the first recording, made for RCA in 1966, the cuts were not
>>> restored.
>>> The EMI recording made in 1973 has cuts restored, but I am not sure how
>>> completely.
>>> On Feb 23, 2016 5:28 AM, "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Didn't Andre Previn "restore" this to full running length, for his
>>>> performances and recording with the LSO? Was it played full-length
>>>> previous
>>>> to Previn's. The recording is still considered one of the best versions
>>>> of
>>>> this. For the "shortened" version, check out the Paray/Detroit version.
>>>> You
>>>> will be surprised if you don't think Paray could do Russians or 20th
>>>> Century.
>>>>
>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Nagamine" <[log in to unmask]
>>>> >
>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 10:05 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] A couple of Mercury questions for Tom Fine
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Re:cuts in the Rachmaninoff 2nd symphony. There is an
>>>> Ormandy/Philadelphia
>>>> video with shots of the violin parts where large swaths are covered up
>>>> where the cuts occur. In the case of this work, I think the cuts leave
>>>> out
>>>> too much glorious music.
>>>>
>>>> Eric Nagamine
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 22, 2016, at 11:14 AM, Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> As for imposing cuts...it is not uncommon in art music, especially in
>>>>> opera.. Conductors also make changes in orchestration. Repeats, in say
>>>>> a
>>>>> symphony by Beethoven, are often omitted.
>>>>> Regarding the Copland, the cuts in the finale are at a slow tempo and
>>>>> do
>>>>> make a difference. I would need to check the writing of Crist to see
>>>>> who
>>>>> made the two measure cut in the Koussevitzky performance. ............
>>>>> Composers often "approved" cuts. Consider what Sokoloff did with the
>>>>> Rachmaninoff Second Symphony. These cuts were supposedly done with the
>>>>> composer's approval. The cuts amounted to over 10 minutes worth of
>>>>> music.
>>>>> ........
>>>>>
>>>>> Karl
>>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, February 22, 2016 10:32 AM, John Haley <
>>>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I wish you would do an article, Tom, setting forth all of those Mercury
>>>>> facts you have put in this post. Nobody else knows all these things
>>>>> the
>>>>> way you do.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for imposing cuts...it is not uncommon in art music, especially in
>>>>> opera. Conductors also make changes in orchestration. Repeats, in say a
>>>>> symphony by Beethoven, are often omitted.
>>>>> Regarding the Copland, the cuts in the finale are at a slow tempo and
>>>>> do
>>>>> make a difference. I would need to check the writing of Crist to see
>>>>> who
>>>>> made the two measure cut in the Koussevitzky performance.
>>>>> I am reminded of a Koussevitzky broadcast of the Diamond Second
>>>>> Symphony.
>>>>> Koussevitzky made a cut to accommodate the time allotted for the
>>>>> broadcast.
>>>>> For the non-broadcast performance, he played it complete. Bernstein
>>>>> cut it
>>>>> when he performed the work with the New York City Symphony.
>>>>> It is because of Koussevitzky that we have the familiar ending of the
>>>>> Bartok Concerto for Orchestra. Bartok supplied it at the request of
>>>>> Koussevitzky.
>>>>> Composers often "approved" cuts. Consider what Sokoloff did with the
>>>>> Rachmaninoff Second Symphony. These cuts were supposedly done with the
>>>>> composer's approval. The cuts amounted to over 10 minutes worth of
>>>>> music.
>>>>> Consider the Gershwin Second Rhapsody. It is usually performed in the
>>>>> version done by Robert McBride. That version was done, to the best of
>>>>> my
>>>>> knowledge, after the composer's death. The composer's own
>>>>> orchestration is
>>>>> much more interesting.
>>>>> As to the ego of the conductor playing a part in this...well, you can
>>>>> look at it as a conductor's knowledge and perspective being a part of
>>>>> the
>>>>> process. Copland mentioned he was not totally appreciative's of
>>>>> Bernstein's
>>>>> cuts, but then Copland did write something like, "well he was probably
>>>>> right." Copland was very careful with what he did and would rarely
>>>>> revise...the Symphonic Ode being a major exception. But, it was
>>>>> Copland's
>>>>> choice to do so. Copland also reduced the size of the orchestra,
>>>>> making it
>>>>> less expensive to perform.
>>>>> Even Toscanini made changes in orchestration.
>>>>> Karl
>>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, February 22, 2016 10:32 AM, John Haley <
>>>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I wish you would do an article, Tom, setting forth all of those Mercury
>>>>> facts you have put in this post. Nobody else knows all these things
>>>>> the
>>>>> way you do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Re the Copland cuts, it is really astonishing today that a conductor
>>>>> (Bernstein) would impose cuts of only ten measures (or in
>>>>> Koussevitzky's
>>>>> case, only 2 measures), on a poor contemporary composer who is
>>>>> obviously
>>>>> anxious, first of all, to get the work performed. What possible
>>>>> difference could it make to an audience to hear 10 (or especially two)
>>>>> additional measures of music, as envisioned by the composer. Even
>>>>> Szell
>>>>> felt to urge to "improve" what Bartok wrote. Imagine that. I could
>>>>> understand shortening a work by several minutes if is is getting dull
>>>>> (although I would rather hear the piece myself to judge that), but
>>>>> whacking
>>>>> out small numbers of measures seems like nothing more than the triumph
>>>>> of
>>>>> a
>>>>> conductor's ego. Don't you wonder about putting the shoe on the other
>>>>> foot--how Bernstein would have reacted if another conductor had imposed
>>>>> small cuts on his "serious" compositions?
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> John Haley
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Eric:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no idea why Mercury used the various colored labels. It could
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> to do with what vinyl compounds were used, or the distribution lists,
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> something else. I am pretty sure that Mercury's Richmond plant, at
>>>>>> least
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the early 60's, used a quieter vinyl compound for the broadcast-only
>>>>>> pressings. I have plenty of Limelight albums pressed there in the late
>>>>>> 60's, with Broadcast Only labels, and the vinyl is awful, so
>>>>>> apparently
>>>>>> some Philips cost-cutter changed the protocol at some point. The early
>>>>>> Richmond Mercury Living Presence cuts, the ones with "RFR" in the
>>>>>> deadwax,
>>>>>> generally aren't bad. I think a noisier vinyl compound was generally
>>>>>> used
>>>>>> for Philips USA pressings of the same era. The PHS90000/PH50000 series
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> cut at Fine Recording, from tapes sent over by Philips, and pressed at
>>>>>> Richmond. The USA cover art and liner notes were original to this
>>>>>> market,
>>>>>> too. At first, after buying Mercury, Philips tried to establish a
>>>>>> unique
>>>>>> label/brand in the US market. They never put enough money behind it
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> never had any marketing skill, so it didn't catch fire. They pulled
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> plug on all of this by the early 70s, consolidating their classical
>>>>>> record
>>>>>> business in Holland. There is also some overlap in the Mercury and
>>>>>> Philips
>>>>>> classical catalogs. Mercury made a series of recordings for Philips,
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> released on the Philips label, in 1961 in England. And, in the SR90400
>>>>>> range, there are some recordings from Philips released under the
>>>>>> Mercury
>>>>>> Living Presence label here. Mercury producer Harold Lawrence produced
>>>>>> recordings for Philips, notably Colin Davis/LSO Handel Messiah. And,
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> 1965 on, Philips engineers made the Mercury recordings in England,
>>>>>> using
>>>>>> their own version of the 3-spaced-omni mic technique, which they
>>>>>> called
>>>>>> "M3."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Nagamine" <
>>>>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 4:03 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] A couple of Mercury questions for Tom Fine
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for the link to the Penndorf page. I'd forgotten about his
>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> labels. I found that he does mention that the colored labels were
>>>>>>> promo/for
>>>>>>> broadcast pressings in section 11. It's interesting that there were
>>>>>>> various
>>>>>>> colored promo labels when labels like Columbia generally only had
>>>>>>> white
>>>>>>> label promos. I think that RCA had no promo labels only the "for
>>>>>>> demonstration" stamp on the backs of their jackets. London only had
>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>> round promo stickers on the front of the jacket. I don't think I've
>>>>>>> ever
>>>>>>> seen EMI or UK Decca promo labels.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks to Karl Miller about the Copland 3rd. I guess I need to
>>>>>>> purchase
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> Pristine release of Carnegie Hall performance of BSO/Koussevitzky.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>>>> Eric Nagamine
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>>>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 3:00 AM
>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] A couple of Mercury questions for Tom Fine
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Eric:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't have answers to all your questions, but some info. See below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Nagamine" <
>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 3:21 AM
>>>>>>> Subject: [ARSCLIST] A couple of Mercury questions for Tom Fine
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hopefully Tom can answer a couple of questions..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. I've been sorting through a deceased friend's collection
>>>>>>>> and I
>>>>>>>> noticed there were many different colored labels in addition to the
>>>>>>>> normal
>>>>>>>> Dark Plum or later Red labels. There's the common white label promo,
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> I've also found Pink, Green, Yellow and Gold labels in place of the
>>>>>>>> normal
>>>>>>>> plum or red labels on stereo SR series discs. Some say promo and
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> don't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any significance in this? I know some of the early mono Mercuries
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Gold Label and I think so does the Civil War sets, but these are not
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> those.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First of all see this, from the late Ron Pendorf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://ronpenndorf.com/labelography3.html
>>>>>>> Ron got his information directly from Harold Lawrence, so I assume
>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>> correct. Ron doesn't address
>>>>>>> the green, pink and yellow labels I have seen from time to time. I
>>>>>>> assume
>>>>>>> they have to do with
>>>>>>> promotional or other uses. Ping me off-list with some deadwax info on
>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>> records and maybe we can
>>>>>>> figure out some things. One thing I can tell you is that the
>>>>>>> non-glossy
>>>>>>> sleeves of early issues,
>>>>>>> even if they have color printing on the back, indicate an inferior
>>>>>>> pressing
>>>>>>> from Mercury's own
>>>>>>> Richmond IN plant. The best pressings, 1951 through about 1962, were
>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>> RCA Indianapolis and
>>>>>>> have an "I" somewhere in the deadwax. What has surprised me is how
>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> Richmond "for broadcast
>>>>>>> only" white-label pressings are! Those were supposed to be the best
>>>>>>> vinyl,
>>>>>>> for broadcast. The
>>>>>>> examples I have did not shine a nice light on the quality of
>>>>>>> Mercury's
>>>>>>> plant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. Do you know if the Dorati/Minneapolis Copland 3rd in the most
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> recent Mercury box has the uncut version of the finale? From what I
>>>>>>>> understand, every recording from the late 50's on use Leonard
>>>>>>>> Bernstein's
>>>>>>>> cuts from the late 40's, even the 2 Copland led recordings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am not familiar enough with the work to know the answer. Here is a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> video
>>>>>>> said to be of that
>>>>>>> movement:
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZruGxBJwwg
>>>>>>> BY THE WAY -- I can tell you that all the wow and flutter and
>>>>>>> distortion
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> hear in this lousy
>>>>>>> transfer DON't EXIST in the new CD reissue, thanks to Plangent
>>>>>>> Process.
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>> work is available in Box
>>>>>>> Set 3 and as a 96/24 download from HDTracks. We also got a much more
>>>>>>> full
>>>>>>> sonic spectrum, thanks to
>>>>>>> Andy Walter at Abbey Road Studios. If there were enough potential
>>>>>>> sales,
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> thus interest from the
>>>>>>> corporate parent, I'd remaster all the mono recordings the way we did
>>>>>>> Copland 3rd.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for any light you can shed on this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're welcome!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Eric Nagamine
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>