who are those two pianists?

MIDI shmidi. I'm talking about rendering what's on the page, and if realised, as written, then nothing else need be added. It's a fairly simple concept that easily understandable and requires that no more words be put in one's mouth. There is no false premise. Simply the idea that one REALISES rather than interprets.

But I think a great deal of enlightment comes from purely analyzing a score. Not just harmonically - structurally too and thematically. (thematically.. is that a word..)

...
To me, the score and the composer's intention is only a guideline to my own interpretation and my own musical experience...

For starters, I must say I don't understand anyone who states that they disagree with a composer. On what basis? Who are you to disagree? Do you not think that the composer knew what he was doing? Are you a more knowledgeable musician, than say, Beethoven? What compositional expertise do you possess that allows you to disagree with Bach, Beethoven, whomever?
I've come to really dislike the word, interpretation, altogether. It is a far too loosely used word. I, for one, want to hear what the composer wrote, not what Joe Blow wrote. Why more performers don't simply include their own names in the programme is something I've often wondered about when listening to a performance (i.e. Sonata in f minor, Op. 2 No. 1...Beethoven/Joe). Granted any performance will have it's own personal fingerprint and you could make the case for including the performer's name with ANY performance, but I'm talking about performers who take such liberties as to have basically "re-written" the piece. There are some very famous pianists quite guilty of such practices (and, amazingly, they're lauded as brilliant, insightful performers, simply because they've done something different...whether, or not, what they've done has anything to do with what's actually on the page).
I've often thought of this comparison...the leaders of two countries with diametrically opposed ideology come to the table with the intent of finding a mutual peace between their countries. Since neither speak the other's language there is an interpreter. Leader A says, "We realise that we have long been opposed to each other's way of thinking about many things, but realise that finding a way to meet on common ground, with the end result being a mutual accord, is the only way for both of us to continue to mutually exist and interact...blah blah blah." The interpreter takes all this in and then turns to leader B and says, "Well, I know WHAT he said, but what he really MEANT was, "We see you here, but know you're a lying scumbag with a hidden agenda and would love nothing better than to nuke you off the face of the map." Now, what happens? Of course, ensuing chaos. Interpretation, is not about what YOU THINK the composer is saying, but WHAT the composer actually DID say. Did I just hear Beethoven, or was that Joe Blow? I thought Beethoven wrote it this way? Maybe he didn't. After all, Joe is deemed the genius/expert so he must be right.
"Interpretation" will, of course, continue to be something that's never truly defined, simply, because opinion exists. There are no two musicians who play a work the same way, thus leaving any score open to a multitude of thought. However, everything necessary for a successful performance of any work is included right there on the page in front of you. A composer had an idea and felt it strong enough to share with the rest of the world, so he/she developed that idea and penned it...with (in many cases, but not all) directions as to how to realise his ideas.
I've heard maybe two pianists in my lifetime who have followed a score almost to the tee, and, in both cases those performances were the most exciting performances of a work that I've heard from anyone. Why? Because, the composer actually KNEW what he was doing when he wrote the work, and, all the poetry, dialogue, drama, tenderness, etc., etc., are included in his/her work already. It's simply our job to realise (as opposed to interpret) it.

No, I was pointing out a logical flaw in the direction you took it in. Apologies if giving a verifiable example of what happens when you actually realise ideals (which you preached as your foundations for judgement) is inconvenient to you...

To me, the score and the composer's intention is only a guideline to my own interpretation and my own musical experience.

But I regard each performance as a gift. It's the thought that counts and is to be appreciated. Thoughtless/careless gifts are disappointing.

But in music you have to have a heart, and everybody's heart is different therefore you will get different interpretations.

But I think a great deal of enlightment comes from purely analyzing a score. Not just harmonically - structurally too and thematically. (thematically.. is that a word..)

You are laboring under some mistaken impression that it's the holy, spiritual duty of all pianists to faithfully realize a composer's built-in ideas and emotions. While I agree with you that a composer should not be ignored and I personlly try to respect a composer's wishes, not everyone feels the same way. And there's nothing wrong with that. There's no law that says 'Thou shalt play it as Chopin intended or else'. If there is, it's only your own personal credo and you're applying it to everyone else around you.

Chopin's nocturne in Eb minor is no longer Chopin's nocturne in Eb minor when the score is not followed, it is an imitation and should no longer be called by it's name, but "variation on ____" or "paraphrase on ____". It is the same for any piece of music. It loses it's value and purpose when a performer deviates too far from the score.

It is interesting that Chopin got brought up....

What annoys me is when I add ornaments to an older piece and someone will inevitably say "oh, that's not in the score...tsk, tsk". Well, some performance practices were understood to be done, even if not specified by the composer. They usually relied on the good common sense of their fellow performers......

If you are not even willing to acknowedlge the simple fact that a well-programmed MIDI files constitutes precisely what you described (that where all instructions are obeyed, without any deviations beyond those instructions), clearly you are too lost in a preconceived viewpoint to objectively assess the holes in the argument you made. I am deliberately dealing in objectively verifiable fact rather than opinion, but if you are not prepared to rethink anything, I realise there is no point.

I think the world is big enough for all kinds of people.

I think it's important to have artists for whom the composers' intentions and indications in the score are of paramount importance.

I also think it's important to have artists who see it as their duty to bring new and different ideas to the stage, even when it's not necessarily what the composer wanted or indicated...

...And stores, are you familiar with Nicholson Baker?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Fold

He also founded the American Newspaper Repository, now housed at Duke University, for the preservation of our country's newspapers in good old-fashioned tangible paper format!

Does anybody want to tell the story or make a comment about the Bach/Siloti Prelude in B minor?

Does anybody want to tell the story or make a comment about the Bach/Siloti Prelude in B minor?

Chopin's nocturne in Eb minor is no longer Chopin's nocturne in Eb minor when the score is not followed, it is an imitation and should no longer be called by it's name, but "variation on ____" or "paraphrase on ____". It is the same for any piece of music. It loses it's value and purpose when a performer deviates too far from the score.

.....Recently I heard a recording of the 9/2 nocturne (E flat major) by Ricardo Castro. It was heavily embellished, with the idea that Chopin always embellished it when he played it himself.....

.....I'm not really capable of it myself....

The few MIDIs I have heard are absolutely robotic in tempo and rhythm, are totally expressionless, and while it may be an endless argument as to how a certain composer "intended" a composition to be played, I highly doubt that expressionless, robotic tempos are two of the desired criteria of any composer.

If someone could direct me to a MIDI file of a well-known piano composition, then I would have a better idea of what a MIDI file is capable of and whether or not such a file would, indeed, portray exactly what the composer intended. The few MIDIs I have heard are absolutely robotic in tempo and rhythm, are totally expressionless, and while it may be an endless argument as to how a certain composer "intended" a composition to be played, I highly doubt that expressionless, robotic tempos are two of the desired criteria of any composer.

But if one says that an expressionless and robotic MIDI version is not what the composer intended, that is the same as saying that the score in fact is not what the composer intended. That is because those aspects of music that keep the music from being robotic and expressionless are in fact not found in the score, and thus cannot be part of "the composer's intent". They are found in "the performer's intent".

Last week, I started a thread in the teachers' forum, asking if anyone was familiar with Malcom Bilson and his DVD called Knowing the Score.[...]

[...]
But if one says that an expressionless and robotic MIDI version is not what the composer intended, that is the same as saying that the score in fact is not what the composer intended. That is because those aspects of music that keep the music from being robotic and expressionless are in fact not found in the score, and thus cannot be part of "the composer's intent". They are found in "the performer's intent".

Very good point. However, wouldn't it logically be that the composer's intent must thus have been for the performer to include his intent too (rather than these being entirely separate)?

I would agree and state that "the score in fact is not all that the composer intended. I also think that any composer expects that a performer "interpret" those elements in the music that simply can't be written in the score.

Regards,

Last week, I started a thread in the teachers' forum, asking if anyone was familiar with Malcom Bilson and his DVD called Knowing the Score. www.knowingthescore.com is his website......

Many players are too scared to do such things today, either from lack of training in it, lack of technical expertise (some players sweat over the smallest mordents and trills, so imagine trying to ask them to whip a few off out of the blue), lack of taste, too strict misguided adherence to the 'master's intentions', fear of screwing the embellishments up, or fear of being judged by one's peers as being disrespectful of the work.

Last week, I started a thread in the teachers' forum, asking if anyone was familiar with Malcom Bilson and his DVD called Knowing the Score. www.knowingthescore.com is his website.
You can view excerpts and read reviews of his DVD on the website.

The most striking part to me was the recording of Prokofiev (is that who it was?) playing his own piece -- and seeing how the rhythm seems to be totally different from what's written.

I would add that you also have to recognize that sometimes you have to just be open-minded because you can't always know everything you need to know about the composer and the style.

.....Just yesterday, I commented to someone that he played the "wrong" note in a piece I'm quite familiar with, and he insisted that it's the "right" note. My response? "I don't know, just check the score". It is such a natural thing to me that I didn't think about it much until now, but it just indicates how I'm used to referring to the score without thinking.

.....and we wouldn't fault you for that. Even if we believe that the score shouldn't be treated with 1000% literal reverence, it's still the main source. You said exactly the right thing.

No, I don't. There was no choice in the matter, so the issue is moot.

Obviously, a composer will be aware of the performance practice of the era in which the music is being written, and will have concepts about what performers will most likely do with a score. But that is not something truly within the range of their "intent"; it is just part of the musical environment in which the composition is produced.

If someone could direct me to a MIDI file of a well-known piano composition, then I would have a better idea of what a MIDI file is capable of and whether or not such a file would, indeed, portray exactly what the composer intended. The few MIDIs I have heard are absolutely robotic in tempo and rhythm, are totally expressionless, and while it may be an endless argument as to how a certain composer "intended" a composition to be played, I highly doubt that expressionless, robotic tempos are two of the desired criteria of any composer.

Very interesting, I hope prof Bilson can ship the DVD to Canada, cuz it's $20 cheaper!

Very good point. However, wouldn't it logically be that the composer's intent must thus have been for the performer to include his intent too (rather than these being entirely separate)?

No, I don't. There was no choice in the matter, so the issue is moot.

Obviously, a composer will be aware of the performance practice of the era in which the music is being written, and will have concepts about what performers will most likely do with a score. But that is not something truly within the range of their "intent"; it is just part of the musical environment in which the composition is produced.

Within the cultural assumptions about interpretations.....

On the other hand, I don't see why a performer can't do any fool thing they like with a piece of music, just so long as they create a context for that performance that doesn't pretend to represent the intentions of the composer.

I think a big part of the problem is the assumption implicit in western classical music performance that the performer is basically channelling the (dead) composer. Performances of many contemporary works don't get close to representing the intent of the composer due to inadequate rehearsal of work that is outside traditional performance assumptions.....

Slighly OT, but I wonder why spontaneity has diminished over time in the culture of classical piano playing. I have also heard that concert pianists in the first half of the 20th century were more liberal in their performance than the ones today, so I wonder if it's a gradual trend we are seeing here.

On the other hand, styles like Jazz has emerged from the early 20th century, and improvisation flourished under it.

I wonder if things like competition and exam system have something to do with it. They are deeply ingrained in the culture of classical piano today, and seems to discourage any risk taking, esp. in exams. Looking at Jazz as a parallel, it appears to me that competition and exam is not such a big part in it(am I correct in this?)

One of the biggest joys of Baroque music, early classical and theme and variations are the constant changes to the themes once it is given. It was a constant joy to composers to introduce a theme, and then vary it constantly throughout the piece. Most pieces could legitimately be called Theme and Variations.

What is the story about Bach/Siloti prelude?

According to Wikipedia,

"The Prelude in B minor (J. S. Bach, arranged Siloti) is an arrangement for piano by Alexander Siloti of the Prelude in E minor BWV 855a by J. S. Bach from his Klavierbüchlein für Wilhelm Friedemann Bach. Bach reused the piece (in a slightly different form) as the tenth prelude in the first volume of the Well-Tempered Clavier.

"This transcription has been described as "perhaps Siloti's most tender and perfect" composition. It transposes Bach's original down from the original E minor into B minor, and the steady sixteenth note figuration that was originally given by Bach to the left hand is changed to the right hand. Siloti also adds a repeat of the entire work, in order to allow for a change of voicing where the melody in the left hand is emphasized. The chords in the left hand are arpeggiated; however according to Siloti's daughter Kyriena (to whom the work was dedicated), he would omit the arpeggiation on the first pass and restore it on the repeat in order to heighten the effect of the left-hand melody. It has been performed by many pianists, most famously Emil Gilels."

This just seemed an extreme example of not playing what the composer intended, but I'm probably making some horrible error in definition by saying this. They're both beautiful and extremely different.

Richter plays Bach: WTC1 No. 10 in e minor BWV 855

Gilels plays the Prelude in B minor (Bach / Siloti)

P.S. Kreisler, you're funny!

I'm not talking specifics. They don't have to any particular point or expect anything specific. However, if the composer would be unimpressed by a MIDI style performance (that only obeys the isntructions, with nothing more) it logically follows on that it was part of his intention that the performer should include some of their own ideas. Otherwise they would consider the dry MIDI most representative of what they wanted. So I'm not sure why you would disagree with the statement "the composer's intent must thus have been for the performer to include his intent too". You raised a very good point, but I don't see why you have to totally segregate the two aspects. I don't think composers were under any delusions that the score itself was sufficient to do their work justice. In that respect they intend the performer to do something more than merely follow the instructions. These interpreter's ideas might not be specific intentions of the composer, but the point is that for this to occur does not fall outside of what the composer intended.

According to Wikipedia,

"The Prelude in B minor (J. S. Bach, arranged Siloti) is an arrangement for piano by Alexander Siloti of the Prelude in E minor BWV 855a by J. S. Bach from his Klavierbüchlein für Wilhelm Friedemann Bach. Bach reused the piece (in a slightly different form) as the tenth prelude in the first volume of the Well-Tempered Clavier.

"This transcription has been described as "perhaps Siloti's most tender and perfect" composition. It transposes Bach's original down from the original E minor into B minor, and the steady sixteenth note figuration that was originally given by Bach to the left hand is changed to the right hand. Siloti also adds a repeat of the entire work, in order to allow for a change of voicing where the melody in the left hand is emphasized. The chords in the left hand are arpeggiated; however according to Siloti's daughter Kyriena (to whom the work was dedicated), he would omit the arpeggiation on the first pass and restore it on the repeat in order to heighten the effect of the left-hand melody. It has been performed by many pianists, most famously Emil Gilels."

This just seemed an extreme example of not playing what the composer intended, but I'm probably making some horrible error in definition by saying this. They're both beautiful and extremely different.

Richter plays Bach: WTC1 No. 10 in e minor BWV 855

Gilels plays the Prelude in B minor (Bach / Siloti)

P.S. Kreisler, you're funny!

It's damned parodoxical and hypocritical - I'm starting to think that this whole "the score is god" motto is just an excuse to blame everything on the score: "that didn't sound right to you? Check the score..."
Does anyone agree with me on this? Surely, there must be some people who have noticed this crazy, paradoxical trend?

The authority of the composer is much dependent on the genre of music. When we are talking about classical or art/concert music following the score note for note is crucial. If we were to consider contemporary genres and bands such as AC/DC and Metallica or even genres of Jazz were improvisation is a fundamental component to the music, the performer has a bit more 'freedom' or 'allowance' to arrange and change the notes.

That's a good question and a troubling one - classical music has become so stale, so mathematical, so...urtext lately.

Interestingly, while this thread has grown quickly in a day here, there are only a handful of replies in the teacher's forum.

According to Wikipedia,

"The Prelude in B minor (J. S. Bach, arranged Siloti) is an arrangement for piano by Alexander Siloti of the Prelude in E minor BWV 855a by J. S. Bach from his Klavierbüchlein für Wilhelm Friedemann Bach. Bach reused the piece (in a slightly different form) as the tenth prelude in the first volume of the Well-Tempered Clavier.

"This transcription has been described as "perhaps Siloti's most tender and perfect" composition. It transposes Bach's original down from the original E minor into B minor, and the steady sixteenth note figuration that was originally given by Bach to the left hand is changed to the right hand. Siloti also adds a repeat of the entire work, in order to allow for a change of voicing where the melody in the left hand is emphasized. The chords in the left hand are arpeggiated; however according to Siloti's daughter Kyriena (to whom the work was dedicated), he would omit the arpeggiation on the first pass and restore it on the repeat in order to heighten the effect of the left-hand melody. It has been performed by many pianists, most famously Emil Gilels."

This just seemed an extreme example of not playing what the composer intended, but I'm probably making some horrible error in definition by saying this. They're both beautiful and extremely different.

Richter plays Bach: WTC1 No. 10 in e minor BWV 855

Gilels plays the Prelude in B minor (Bach / Siloti)

P.S. Kreisler, you're funny!

This is really about semantics and word usage at this point, from my POV. I think "intent" means something about an individual's will and their own personal actions, and which one person cannot provide for another person, e.g., the composer can't provide it for the performer. They can "expect" things of the performer, but "expect" and "intend" aren't interchangeable, at least not to me. I am probably far too picky about the word, but the reason I got that way is exactly because of this "composer's intent" usage and various discussions about it.

So sure, with few exceptions, composers will expect performers to be humans, and to bring to bear what they know about music and performance when they perform the music. But I keep that idea separate from "composer's intent". Basically, the only thing the composer can rationally intend is to make the score. What happens after that is outside of the range of what they can intend, I think (unless they are also playing the role of performer or performance coach in addition to being composer, which many have done, of course).

It is also interesting how different composers have reacted to performers and what they do with the music. Some composers seem as if they are never satisfied with anybody's performance, no matter what. Others love what performers do, and even say some performers find a lot in their music they didn't realize was there, and that they like it. In either case, the performers must not be doing what the composer "intends" even if the composer is on hand to give feedback, since the results are either unsatisfactory or unexpected. But that's just the nature of the beast, I think.

It's an arrangement/transcription. As a result it's not really a case of not heeding what the composer intended. Many composers (Liszt and Busoni come to mind immediately) did the same thing many, many times.

I have to admit, after reading through some of the responses here, that some, certainly, have some different ideas (insert raised eyebrow). To quote my favorite movie character: That's all I have to say about that.

if all the composer could intend were the score- would he not therefore be pleased with the cold MIDI? Composers realise that the score is only the beginning of an integrated process. [...] However, it is clear that composers intend the performer's input to play an active role- otherwise they would always prefer MIDI. The only real issue is what extent that role should be.

To summarize, I have always assumed:
Following the score = following the composer's intention

What actually happens is:
1. Following the score = socially acceptable practice of classical music nowadays
2. If you don't follow the score -> Shame on you, you need to be chastised!
3. Title of your crime: "Not following the composer's intention"

You better not say I was wrong because there will be some @$$ kicking =P

Finally, this whole thing drops down to respect: I don't mind people mingling my own stuff, as long as they respect them (they understand them?). I'm not obsessed with playing the perfect note, exactly as written, but I do expect some sort of explanation if I happen and ask the performer (not the "whoops, I didn't notice it!").

I think another factor about the lack of spontaneity in classical music today is how it is taught. I had 3 teachers over a 11 year period as a child, and I never knew things like improvisation and embellishment exist, let alone how to do it. When I first heard of improvisation in Jazz when I grew older, my first reaction was "wow this is so cool, I didn't know making stuff up on the fly is possible!".

Surely my teachers must have gotten this from their own teachers, so just how did this trend get started?

The ideas on MIDI, etc featured on the 1st page of the thread: I'm almost certain that if we had a very very very good sounding sampler/Virtual instrument, one could potentially reach a 'realistic' result. Yes, most usually the results are rather mechanical, but if someone can play into a midi keyboard and get very realistic performances, this simply means that it's not the midi's fault but the users (ergo performers?). I would suggest someone having a go at these beasts: http://vsl.co.at/en/67/702/703/413.htm (especially the Stravinsky links and the Williams one, by JBacal). Not piano music, but I happen to think that this guy can turn anything into as realistic as possible, in regards to midi. If there's one thing stopping him it's the tools, not his abilities (and not MIDI as a platform).

Finally, this whole thing drops down to respect: I don't mind people mingling my own stuff, as long as they respect them (they understand them?). I'm not obsessed with playing the perfect note, exactly as written, but I do expect some sort of explanation if I happen and ask the performer (not the "whoops, I didn't notice it!").

The point was not about how realistic or not MIDI can be. The point was about what a score sounds like if the notation is followed exactly, and that kind of exact reproduction of what is in a score can be accomplished by using a sequencer and MIDI. The reason this was brought up is because of the frequent claim by people who are promoting the "composer's intent" line of thought that it is a performer's highest duty is to reproduce the score as exactly as possible without adding anything to it.

But now that we can use MIDI and sequencers to produce an extremely exact rendering of what is in a score, we know that premise doesn't work.

Finally, this whole thing drops down to respect: I don't mind people mingling my own stuff, as long as they respect them (they understand them?). I'm not obsessed with playing the perfect note, exactly as written, but I do expect some sort of explanation if I happen and ask the performer (not the "whoops, I didn't notice it!").

Several composers were so unsatisfied with how they treated a melody or theme, that they used the them in later works, or transcriptions.

Anyone who doesn't understand that they are hearing the performer's take on each work performed doesn't understand performance. They should programme a MIDI file that obeys every instruction and see how they enjoy the "composer's" interpretation.

The notion that it's the lazy way out to attempt to realise all that exists on the page is pure nonsense. It's a much more difficult feat, than to simply ignore it. It is, in fact, the lazy way out to simply play what one feels is there, than to play what's actually there, but that's understandable, since most don't want to take the time to do the work.

There's a lot of effort going into this conversation in terms of asserting that it's valid to change the music from the composer's original/authorised text, but when is it valid, in your opinion?

1. A lazy person can blindly follow the score to the letter due to a lack of understanding, just as it is possible for such person to change things due to the same lack of understanding.

2. Is it always easier to play differently than the score? Not necessarily.

3. Even if it is more difficult to follow the score, does that necessarily make it more musical? Probably not.

I'm not the one that this question was addressed, but I'll take a stab replying to that. (plus I really enjoy Elissa's posts, CONSTANTLY! :D)

I think it depends (as with pretty much everything) on the context and the person. If a kid, with no prior experience decides to destroy a piece, then big chances are that it won't be valid.

Simmilarly if one decides to just reck a piece without much reason, then again it won't be very valid.

We are in an era that things are getting seperated (pop vs classical) and this confused things greatly: In pop music there is the one, the definite version of a music track (the original recording). Anything else is a cover. End of story. It is allowed, it's encouraged actually and there's nothing to say that a cover will be worst or better. Noone makes such assumptions. Even the bands themselves play most of the time covers of their own tracks (simply because studio magic doesn't work in live performances! hehe).

In classical we have the exact opposite scenario: A (music) text open to some interpretation. The interpretation can be valid if we take account that the performer can:
a. read
b. think
c. listen
and
d. play the piano

As I said (and I think teachers in this thread will agree), it's usually evident when something is out of ignorance or choice. A choice can be wrong, but valid never the less (think of anything to do with all the "bad bad words" in forums: racism, porn, etc! All are bad, all will most probably lead to banning, but it remains that all are valid.)

__________________

The other thing to consider is what changes are we talking about. I've mentioned it before, but I had a piano piece performed by someone who decide to add another 40 bars or so (in fact he was Joe Felicce, a member here). His interpretationg was the most stunning thing I've heard in my life! His changes were humongous, but his abilities made those changes very valid!

Now if one wants to make a pop song out of Beethoven, then by all means: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGQVETVVGf0 (I actually happen to like this piece a bit... I find it enjoyable and I certainly find no offense in this).

Huh? What makes you think that they were dissatisfied with a work, because they recycled a portion of a work, or the complete work itself (Bach was notorious for recycling his works). Doesn't that tend to make you think that they were rather somewhat fond of the original work and thought it worthy to be used again? If the original wasn't to their satisfaction, why wouldn't they simply rework the piece, or delete it from their oeuvre altogether (or would that be a waste of paper lol).

I've just added this to the same thread in the teachers forum....

Has anyone involved in this conversation read William Westney's excellent treatise on these matters (and the negative impact a fixation with accuracy can have on the performance of pianists) "The Perfect Wrong Note"? I really recommend it to any and all pianists who are intermediate level and above. A fantastic book.

You have misunderstood me - I never said that all recycled works are the product of dissatisfaction on the part of the composer. I said "several composers", and even then I didn't imply that those several composer's recycled works were all the result of dissatisfaction.

There are many reasons to re-use a theme or an entire piece - I gave one reason, you gave another, and there are still more yet. I'll list a few, using Beethoven as a primary example, though it was not limited to him by any means:
1- Beethoven suppressed many of his earlier works in order to re-use themes in completely different works(the 1st Piano Sonata uses a theme of Beethoven's from an early String Quartet written when very, very young - written before Mozart's symphony with the familiar similar theme), revise a piece entirely at a later date or to end up completely scrapping an entire work but somtimes taking a theme or two from them and even, in some cases, revising the actual theme quite heavily in the process. The 19th and 20th sonatas were never intended to be published by Beethoven - he stole some themes from the 20th Sonata, 2nd movement for a septet and is supposed to have intended destroying the original works. His brother Kaspar published them without his permission, according to the most accounts. All composers mature, and many are exceedingly embarrassed about earlier works and constantly want to mess with them.
2- Changes in the keyboard range - Beethoven later edited and re-released some of his early piano concertos to take advantage of the increased range.
3- Themes are commonly recycled in various pieces because the composer really liked those themes. The Creatures of Prometheus has a theme that was used in the Opus 35 Variations and Fugue, the Contredanses WoO 14 and then finally as the main theme of the Eroica Symphony. Quite a little ride that theme had!
4- Arrangements for other instruments - the Beethoven Piano Sonata no 9 was later transcribed to a string quartet by the composer.
5- Paid arrangements - though I suppose that would fit with the above No. 4.

Anyways, my original point in all of this was that many of the composers did not always treat their music as sacred as we tend to do now - they were more than willing to do the above-mentioned things to their own works, not to mention the intense joy they received from taking a simple theme and trying to get every possible variation out of it. One of Beethoven's marks a great composer was his ability to take a simple, many-time child-like theme, and exhaust it's musical possibilities as far as he was able or felt like at the time.

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice (as a certain Canadian once said), but I'm curious as to how a wrong choice carries with it any validity. 2 + 2 does not = 5, thus it is not a valid choice; it's wrong and does not apply.

If Bach doesn't like the way I play him, he's welcome to come to my house and show me what he wants; otherwise . . .

What theme from Op. 2 No. 1 did he borrow from an early string quartet? I think you have things a little confused here. The Adagio was adapted from a piano quartet written 10 years earlier. The Mannheim Rocket Beethoven uses to open the first movement is what's similar to Mozart's Symphony No. 40. It is true that the Op. 49 sonatas were probably pieces Beethoven wrote for his students and not intended to be published. I'm curious as to which concerto(s) he re-released (in order to better take advantage of the piano's range. Actually, the Eroica's last movement is a theme and variations based on a theme taken from the Creatures...the theme was obviously a favorite of Beethoven's. H. 34, the string quartet arrangement of Op. 14 No. 1, is something anyone with an interest in learning the sonata should hear. It's quite interesting and an eye opener.
At any rate, I don't think that any of the works Beethoven recycled was due to dissatisfaction with them. If anything, he would have repressed any work he was dissatisfied with (although he was never completely satisfied with Op. 19 and at one point (some time after Heiligenstadt) he made the statement that he wasn't satisfied with the work he'd done so far...thank God he didn't take it upon himself to delete all he'd written to that point!)

zxcjason: in what contexts would you think it was a good decision to make alterations to a classical piece outside of the traditional areas in which performers decide various parameters? There's a lot of effort going into this conversation in terms of asserting that it's valid to change the music from the composer's original/authorised text, but when is it valid, in your opinion?

Has anyone involved in this conversation read William Westney's excellent treatise on these matters (and the negative impact a fixation with accuracy can have on the performance of pianists) "The Perfect Wrong Note"? I really recommend it to any and all pianists who are intermediate level and above. A fantastic book.

1. That person can't be too very lazy, because to follow the score means to understand what's written there, thus they've taken the time to learn how to realise what's written in the score (and apply it).

For me, this is the bottom line...whatever you choose to do (be it ignore, or adhere to, the score) it must be musical.

You are a teacher and your student is playing a piece he's learning. He's not playing this piece for a performance or an exam, he's just showing you the piece and get your opinion. In a passage he played something differently than the score, it sounded different, but still musical to your ear, but it definitely changes the meaning. You brought this up to the student's attention, and his response is that "I want to make it more dramatic". Let's just say that this is also a very short piece, so it is less crucial to consider whether his change will fit in the piece as a whole. What would you do as a teacher?

1. Direct the student back to the "composer's intention": "I appreciate what you are doing, but that's not what Chopin would have wanted, so don't do it"

2. Encourage the exploration: "This is interesting, and if you want to make it more dramatic, maybe you wanna change something there as well to add more suspense, let's try it out and see how it's like"

3. Admonish the student: "Who do you think you are? Chopin?!" -- as I'd paraphrase someone here

Obviously this is a pedagogical question, but I believe how we approach classical music today is affected by how we were taught, and how it is taught today will affect those in the future.

Of course, I am assuming that we are restricting this conversation to changing the pitches that are played.

Do you feel as comfortable altering the rhythm to fit your musical preference? I suspect much less so. And here we could enter into a hierarchy of what constitutes the essence of the work.

Despite mounds of evidence - you still "don't think that any of the works Beethoven recycled was due to dissatisfaction with them"? That's fine lol. Makes no sense, but that's your choice.

The Opus 2 Piano Sonatas:
I don't have anything mixed up. You know... my post clearly states what theme I was talking about:
The Main Theme of Movement 1 of Opus 2, 1 - the one that sounds like the Mozart Symphony. It's from the 1st Piano Quartet of the WoO 36 Quartets - published posthumously.
Virtually the entire Movement 2 of Opus 2, 1 is also borrowed from the 3rd Piano Quartet of the WoO 36 Quartets.
In fact, ALL 3 of the Opus 2 Sonatas borrows and re-uses themes from the 1st and 3rd Piano Quartets of WoO 36.
Obviously, he suppressed these works since they were supposedly written in 1785, were more Mozart than Beethoven, and he had no intention of every publishing them as Opuses or anything else other than thematic material for his published Opuses.

Piano Concerto 3, Opus 37 and the extended range of the keyboard:
It went through several versions, and according to H.C. Robbins Landon "Beethoven radically changed his 3rd piano concerto (autograph: 1800) after the French instrument's arrival."
This instrument that is mentioned was a gift in 1803 from piano maker Sebastian Erard, and had a much extended keyboard range, which gave Beethoven the ability and the impetus to revise the concerto for 1804.
He stated several times that he would like to take advantage of the extension and revise earlier works.
We know he spent alot of time revising earlier works for various reasons, not limited to the keyboard range.
One instance of his wish to revise his works after the fact, a letter:
October- Novemeber 1803 - "With regard to a collection of my works under my own superintendence, and after strict revision, I will on another occasion explain myself in detail."

Creatures of Prometheus Ballet:
From an edition of Beethoven's letters, commentary on a letter:
Vienna, June 1803 - According to the original manuscript in the possession of B. and H. This letter makes quite clear that the peaceful theme which appears in four of Beethoven's works, was first used in the Prometheus Ballet. The Variations in E flat (Op. 35), dedicated to Count Morita Lichnowsky, which were published by B. and H. in 1803, are based on it; it occurs also in No. 7 of "12 Contre tänze for orchestra " published by Mollo and Co. in 1802 ; and finally in the Finale of the " Eroica " (Op. 55)
Not sure why you felt compelled to mention this again...

Beethoven was known for his constant revisions, corrections, scratches, blemishes, mistakes within his scores, and later revisions after the fact. Not everything can be blamed on his publishers, though he constantly fought with them over corrections AND revisions! This is not a debatable point, at all. Peruse his letters, published editions, autographs, or to make life easy a well-written work on Beethoven with references. Most of the examples are freely available online.

I'm sorry, you can choose to believe that Beethoven never recycled works because of dissatisfaction, but it doesn't hold up to close scrutiny. If still in doubt, check out the facts about the several versions of Fidelio - written because of utter dissatisfaction and bad reception - maybe not the best example, but still helps to reveal Beethoven's flippant nature toward his creations. I'm starting to think you just like to argue..I guess I'm guilty of that as well to a degree, but there's a point where one has to accept that composers were not gods and liable to change their minds.

You sound like a lucky guy to have been able to do such a thing - that's a rare oppurtunity.

Yes, I'm saying that it comes from the E-Flat Quartet. I've known about the idea for years from various sources, and a quick look at the 1st Quartet's 2nd movement (Allegro con spirito) of WoO 36 usually dispels any contrary notions.
It's certainly not as blatant as the recycling of the 3d Quartet's 2nd movement into the Opus 2, no 1 or major elements of the 1st movement into the opus 2, no 3.
Unlike the latter examples, the theme is there in very rudimentary form. And if you tell me that it's impossible because of the structure of the Mannheim Rocket as used in late Mozart or some other thing, I just might take to drink.

In fact, I've held in my hands many of his manuscripts and have had the opportunity to study them (as well as first editions, copyist's scores, etc.) Seeing as how you seem to share a passion for Beethoven, if you'd like PM me and I'd be happy to share some great photos with you.

I was considering changes more in a general sense - change/add/remove notes, ornaments, dynamics (which seems to be more acceptable), rhythm etc.

I agree that I don't feel nearly as comfortable changing rhythm, but it might simply out of my lack of idea. In another thread, someone's mentioning that the sense of rhythm is more elastic over 100 years ago than today, so that might have to do with it too.

Adding notes (which can be ornamentations or simple expansions of existing harmony) also creates new expressions of density and decoration. Of course, one might see the composer as the architect and the performer as the interior decorator.

This is an interesting analogy. In fact, in the rare instances that I play differently than the score, most of the time it is an addition of a note or ornaments, or changing how the ornament is played.

So how does everyone feel about embellishing music? I think some people think the score is too sacred to do so - but wouldn't NOT embellishing be the farthest thing from an accurate, historical performance?

that any deviance from these things would ruin the character of the piece immensely. I don't think is an issue of 'respecting a composer's wishes' but a personal view that it would be detrimental to the piece, and very untasteful to add or subract elements of it.

So, since it's the composer's creation and you feel any deviance would be detrimental to his creation, then why is deviation not viewed as disrespecting the creation's creator?

Because it's an individual perception of what you think works for the piece. It's not the necessarily the same as how the composer felt and is hence external from him. Otherwise we'd all feel the same about the piece. Anyhow, most classical music has been out of intellectual copyright for years- so, sorry Beethoven, you don't have any rights to it any longer!

So how does everyone feel about embellishing music? I think some people think the score is too sacred to do so - but wouldn't NOT embellishing be the farthest thing from an accurate, historical performance?

So our honest perceptions of how a piece will work are not from the composer. They may be inspired by from how others usually play that composer, but that is not from the composer either. It's from how other performers interpret the score. So again it may have nothing to do with the composer at all.

To assume that leaping on today's stylistic bandwagon necessarily serves the composer best would be the belief of a very lazy mind.

Where's Walter Karlos, or whatever it is calling itself these days?