I know that Mahler himself removed the "Blumine" movement from his first
symphony but I always appreciate when someone includes it -- it has some
thematic material that is developed in later movements and is a lovely
melody -- there are just a couple of recordings that include it (Ormandy
and Win Morris come to mind).

Gene

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> 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)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>