Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Is the score sacred? Apparently not.

Saw this article mentioned on another forum and thought it would raise interesting discussion here. I know for some the score is sacrosanct, but apparently it isn't for everyone.

ABSTRACT: Modifying the score examines the practice, sometimes carried out by pianists, of altering a notated musical work by such devices as thickening textures, changing registers or adding pianistic elaborations. In particular, it examines this practice of modification in relation to the music of Liszt. Four main questions are addressed, and these concern: (1) the notional space occupied by modification in relation to other species of work alteration (such as transcription); (2) the modifying pianist’s relation to the score; (3) the effect of modification on the listener; and lastly (4) the article examines why Liszt’s music seems to be the object of modification more than any other composer’s. After examining several recorded performances of Liszt’s music which feature modification, the article’s conclusion is that the practice occupies a notional space not previously theorised although it shares features with philosopher Paul Thom’s notion of “realisation”. <snip>

The full article is here:
http://mpr-online.net/Issues/Volume%203%20%5B2009%5D/MPR0021%20Hellaby%20Final%20Web%20Version.pdf

Discuss

A large part of Liszt's oeuvre consists of transcriptions of orchestral, operatic, or vocal works. Since these themselves are transcriptions they lend themselves more readily to modifications by the performer who may have his own vision of the original work that was transcribed.

Scores are not sacred.

Steve,

Can you give us some parameters about what you mean, or what you think the article means? Many people think that changing a fingering is a violation of the spirit of the dead composer and their music. I think that's ridiculous, but others don't.

1- If you're asking if it's permissible for people to make arrangements or transcriptions of other people's compositions, then the answer is yes. It's done all the time and by the very best people. However, it is not permissible for people to pass that "arrangement" off as the original work.

2- Is it permissible to make changes to original cadenzas in concerti? If you ask me, yes of course. But your changes had better be as good or better than the original.

First, in his memoir, Earl Wild, who had hands close to the size of a gorillas, made a point of saying that most, if not all, of the pianists of the 19th and early 20th centuries re-worked pieces in order to fit their particular hand. Anton Rubinstein, and his prize pupil, Josef Hofman, both had small hands and did this extensively.

Second, in that I roll the chords, I have re-worked the fingerings and chords for the opening of the Rachmaninoff C# Minor Prelude, and also the "piu lento" C section of the Brahms Op. 18 No. 2 Intermezzo. My teacher didn't play them that way because bringing out certain inner voices is a big deal to some people, and I can accept and understand that. However, the overall musicality of a work is more important to me than getting every single note in the score where it is supposed to be.

Just recently, I noticed that in measure #330 of the first movement of the Schumann Piano Concerto that I can take the E with the thumb of my right hand which makes it a no brainer to play. For the last 20 years I have been playing it with the thumb of my left hand and missing the C# at the bottom half of the time.

I just bought Uchida's Henle version of this piece, and that lady switches things around all over the place. Even though I disagree with most of her fingering suggestions, it shows me that this student of Wilhelm Kempf grew up and studied in a conservatory background in Europe where this practice was commonplace.

I play a ton of Debussy, and I learned from photographs of the composer that this man had fingers like a large spider and furthermore, he was left-handed. So, I change things around all the time. He specifically stated that he did not write fingerings in his scores because everyone has different size hands and fingers.

Leaving the best for last, if you view the documentary of Horowitz's recording of the Mozart A Major Concerto, you will notice (besides arpeggiation throughout) that in measures #108 thru 113, he plays it single notes with two hands.

In measure #15 of the A Flat Major Ballade, both Carl Friedberg (Clara Schumann) and Jorge Bolet (Godowsky, Hofmann, Rosenthal) play it single notes with two hands which makes it about as simple as can be.

So, you just tell anybody who gives you any static about it that a student of Brahms and also the former head of the Curtis Institute of Music both changed things around all the time. Bolet used to refer to score purists as the "Urtext Mob!"

Sorry, the Brahms Opus is 118 No.2.

I'm just going to play what's on the page. However, if it's more of a lighter showy/dazzler piece, I might add my own flair to it. I might still note that I did some "extra-curricular" activity myself, though.

Or maybe a transcription... I saw Conrad Tao play Stravinsky's 3 movements from Petrushka, and talked about how afterward he compared the orchestral score with the piano score and slightly changed the piano part so it would fit the orchestral score more.

But my first rule is play what the composer wrote. Many times, I don't think it's appropriate to change/add anything. Seriously; it's not hard.

Along the lines of what Louis said, here's part of Debussy's (longer, ironic) instructions from the opening of his etudes about finding one's one fingerings:

<<...On n'est jamais mieux servi que par soi-même. Cherchons nos doigtés!>>

Just to be clear the article is not mine, I didn't write it. I posted it here because I thought it would provide fodder for great discussion.

Regarding your assertions, I agree with both. In fact according to copyright law even the initial transcription is an arrangement and is not considered an original work. I also agree that changing fingerings should be inconsequential.

As a composer I've heard very different interpretations of my music than my own. In general any changed notes are the result of misreading or simply mistakes. I haven't had anyone embellish my work so I can't honestly say how I'd react to that. In general I appreciate simply being noticed.

But, of course, there are tons of well known pianists who don't or only rarely alter scores.

It's not a black an white issue with all great pianists doing the same thing. Nor is it a question of the two extremes of never altering anything or altering whatever and whenever you want.

In your opinion.

I knew you'd come out to play.

Scores are not sacred.

In your opinion.

How do you know that what is on the printed page is what the composer wrote? Unless we check original autographs of the scores, we are at the mercy of the publishers, who are known to have modified works by adding pedalling, changing harmonies and time signatures. I know you have checked various editions of a work and found differences.

Well, we can use Urtext editions and do research. It's not hard to find facsimiles of manuscripts. It's also a bit of a case to case scenario sometimes, depending on the composer or the piece.

The OP quoted an article about Liszt's music. Liszt apparently considered the score to be, if not sacred, at least something to be taken seriously. This is why he reportedly used the score when playing his own music in order to show that it was a composed, serious piece, not an improvisation. In fact, it was the norm to use the score. Of course, performance practices at the time emphasized improvisational skills, which no doubt invited some virtuosi to add their own embellishments to published music. But this, it seems to me, is more about taste than anything else.

As for such issues as redividing between hands, changing fingering or even making small changes to the notes for technical convenience, in my view do not constitute changing the score, given that these changes don't alter the musical intent. The score tells us how the music should sound, not how it feels in our hands.

In our own time, improvisation is not something the audience expects or clamors to hear. Today's audiences presumably come to hear what the composer wrote and not marvel at the improvisational skill of the pianist. So for me, the score is the thing. (I also don't have any particular gift for improvisation or interest in it.)

Hi Neil,

"In our own time, improvisation is not something the audience expects or clamors to hear. Today's audiences presumably come to hear what the composer wrote and not marvel at the improvisational skill of the pianist."

That's absolutely true.

However, the question becomes more interesting, and less simple, with people like Liszt and Chopin, who left us as many as 10 very different versions of the same pieces. Which score should be sacred? I'm just asking...

In light of that, I think it's OK to re-distribute the hands when it's more convenient, or uncross them when it's a needless difficulty. Heck, Alicia de la Rocha was famous for leaving a few notes out that her tiny hands simply could not reach. And she played EVERYTHING!!!

Hi, Greg

The answer to your question is, pick a version and play it. I've played both versions of Davisbundler, even combined the two. But this is mostly about what repeats to take. If the composer wrote it, play it.

BTW I've been meaning to ask, have you published anything else on Taubman besides the Wiki article? I would like to reference it.

IMO even if it wasn't possible to use an urtext edition, or the accuracy of the urtext edition was questionable, or there were no online manuscripts to look at...one does the best one can with what one has. In other words, if one wants to follow the score using an urtext edition is the best option. That this option may not be perfect is not a reason not to use it if this is one's goal.