Szell made a cut in the last movement of the Bartók.  I have never read any explanation as to why he did so. As to the "alternative ending," I have read that it was done at the request of Koussevitzky. There is at least one commercial recording which offers both endings. The Koussevitzky broadcast features the original ending.
Regarding the Szell cut...Bartók was very precise in his sense of proportion. He often used the fibonacci series for his works. To make a cut in a work of his, seems to me, to be highly inappropriate.

Karl
 

    On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 4:30 PM, John Haley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 

 When I click the reply, Karl, it gives me your personal email instead of the list. 
Interesting thoughts about the availability of the score affecting performing decisions.  There are probably lots of reasons that go into the decisions whether or not to make cuts or do repeats, but that surely has to be one of them.  
In the old days, in the 19th Century, they would actually play short pieces between movements of longer works, and concerts could last for hours.  I have always assumed that exposition repeats were usually played in those days.  And movements written in rondo form are frequently full of short repeats, sometimes taken and sometimes not, and sometimes inconsistently in one performance of the same piece.   
I think our attention spans are definitely shorter, yet for some music, the trend is unquestionably not to cut or shorten.  Can you imagine what people would do to you if you prepared a "performing version" of the Mahler symphonies with big cuts in them?  You wouldn't be able to buy life insurance.  I personally would cut the Second Symphony if I could get away with it.  When you perform it in the chorus, you get really tired of getting up and down to scream the same music over and over.  It's great music, but just too much of a good thing.  Hopefully the impression is better out in the audience.   I like it on records, but I can't say that I play it that often.  Just me.  I realize that to some people this music is really sacred, and I can respect that.  
Re the alternate ending of the Bartok Concerto for Orchestra, is the alternate the one devised by Szell?  Or is that just his own thing?  I have never examined the score. 
Repeating the exposition of a symphony movement that is in sonata-allegro form raises interesting interpretive questions.  Should it be performed similarly, or "re-interpreted"?  Slower, faster?  Softer, louder?  I have heard many theories over the years.  Then there is Debussy's music, which very often places phrases in exact, or nearly exact, successive pairs.  Back when I played Debussy's piano music, I found that disconcerting (no pun intended), but we would never dream of applying cuts there.   
Best,John Haley  
 
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

The new edition of the Copland Third is available for purchase from Boosey. After all of this talk about the work I will pick up my friend's copy of the score tomorrow. He tells me that, in the new edition, the cut ending follows the original. I have the Boosey edition of the Rachmaninoff 2nd. There is no notation as to the cuts. The Conductor's Guild has several resources like an errata list and articles like:
 The Question of Cuts in Rachmaninoff’s Second Symphony

|   |
|   |  |   |   |   |   |   |
| The Question of Cuts in Rachmaninoff’s Second SymphonyClinton Nieweg and Ron Whitaker put their heads together to come up with a comprehensive (and historical) guide to cuts in Rachmaninoff’s Second Symphony. |
|  |
| View on www.conductorsguild.org | Preview by Yahoo |
|  |
|   |


In the case of the Bartók Concerto for Orchestra, the original ending comes first, followed by what they call the "alternative ending."
As to the reason behind repeats... Composers have chosen to do so for a variety of reasons. One finds them most often for the exposition section of sonata form movements. In the days when people were informed listeners, the exposition would be repeated to familiarize the audience with the main themes so they could follow their transformation in the development section. Repeats can also be found in many other places in an effort to balance out the form.

When you say ask if the repeat in the Rachmaninoff 2nd is needed for a work so familiar...my first thought is to write that these days I wonder what music is familiar to the majority of concert audiences. I have witnessed abominable performances of the standard literature getting standing ovations. With the repeat in the Rachmaninoff, it begins at measure 68 (Allegro moderator) and runs until measure 197. So, I would offer the notion that its function is not just to instill familiarity, but to also balance out the form.

Popular music makes great use of repetition and, often times, repeats, all of this within the usual limit of around 5 minutes. Of course, there are other reasons for all of this repetition...Most popular music can be distilled down to a few measures of music.

As for the overall length of the work...I think it is worth mentioning that in the past, classical music concerts could be much longer than they are today. These days, 90 minutes of music is often considered the limit. It is interesting to speculate the reasons for this. It could have to do with the attention spans of audiences, our life styles, the cost of rehearsal time/musicians, etc. Yet, we now see even the longer Mahler Symphonies being done with greater regularity. Some places will provide bathroom breaks (and the opportunity to sell wine, etc.) for the longer Mahler works. Many composers have written short works to serve as openers for the Beethoven 9th.

Karl



    On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 12:05 PM, Carl Pultz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


 Thanks for that confirmation, Karl. My only recent version is Pletnev's with the Russian National Orch, and it may use the standard cuts, as it runs 16:32 1st mvmnt/50 min tt - assuming that there are by now 'standard' cuts. The coupling is The Rock, which at 13 min. could have fit with a longer version of the symphony.

I assume Copland 3 is rental, but that Rach 2 is in orchestra's libraries. Do those editions include the full score, with cuts notated? If not, there may be extra expense in acquiring other scores and parts to play the full version. That's a factor that could perpetuate the use of cut or edited versions of various works. Or, in the case of Rachmaninoff, the conductor could simply prefer the edited version. It's not just recordings that reach a practical time limit. Depending on the program, the difference between 50+ minutes and 63 minutes (and how many more if the repeat is taken?) is significant for the layout of a concert. Do you drop the overture or plan a short concerto?

And, how necessary is a repeat in such a familiar work; what is its function? I imagine those are questions for which there are differing worthy answers.

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karl Miller
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Rachmaninoff 2nd

A conductor friend of mine (who has done the work without cuts) who is Previn fan, mentioned that the first Previn recording features cuts. The two subsequent recordings are "complete" but do not feature the repeat in the first movement.
Karl


    On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 7:45 AM, Carl Pultz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


 I don't have Previn's second LSO version. The first movement of Ashkenazy/Concertgebouw is 17:58 - total time 56 min. The notes don't mention the subject of cuts at all. Previn's first recording with LSO (RCA) is tt 50 min. His Telarc version 1st mvmnt 20:23 - tt 63 min. Don't have the CD, so can't consult the notes.

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eric Nagamine
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 12:45 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Rachmaninoff 2nd

My copy seems to have disappeared, but according to the internet, EMI Previn times out in the first movement at 19:10. The Wikipaedia Rachmaninoff 2nd webpage only indicates that it is complete. Some how I seem to remember that it was missing the repeat. The Wikipedia page seems to indicate that the first complete recordings with the first movement repeat occur later. (Ashkenazy/Concertgebouw)

--------------------------
Eric Nagamine


-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karl Miller
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [ARSCLIST] Rachmaninoff 2nd

Hope the subject change for the this is appropriate. I don't have the Previn recording. Does he observe the repeat in the first movement? Several do have it with the repeat. I have the Rozhdestvensky which clocks out at 66:13.
Karl (probably splitting hairs)