 | |
 | |
News by E-mail |
Cuts in TchaikovskyRepertoire: Ho many think that the last movement of the concerto is improved by cuts?
The International/Oistrakh edition is what I'm working with.
From Nicole Stacy
I mean how many, not 'ho many'...
Posted on August 20, 2008 at 12:05 PM From Marc Bettis
I'd say learn it without cuts. Cuts are easy things to do later. 'Sides it is a romantic concerto-thus most of the meat and potatos are in the 1st movement.Posted on August 20, 2008 at 12:51 PM
From Larry Samuels
Nicole,Posted on August 20, 2008 at 01:52 PM Rachel Barton Pine had a webcast discussing the Tchaikovsky, and gives her reasons for leaving the concerto uncut: http://rachelbartonpine.libsyn.com/index.php?post_year=2008&post_month=01 (that should be episode 23, in case the link does't work) One point she makes, if I remember right, is "Tchaikovsky knew what he was doing", that he did it deliberately. Also, if I recall, she makes the point that what we consider too much repetition is really an imitation of a folk idiom (I'm really paraphrasing here!). Best if you listen to her, rather than me. -) Larry Samuels From Nate Robinson
I have to respectfully disagree with RBP. The Auer cuts were approved by Tchaikovsky himself and the last movement really does sound like a broken record without the cuts in my opinion. Composers are only human themselves. Many composers have written different versions of their compositions.
Posted on August 20, 2008 at 03:13 PM From Bruce Bodden
When Rubinstein hated Tchaikovsky's piano concerto [#1] and said it needed rewriting, Tchaikovsky famously said that he would not change a single note. If he agreed with Auer's cuts, then he probably thought Auer had a point. (Maybe he was simply desperate to get it performed, but the experience with the piano concerto makes me think that's not how he did things)Posted on August 20, 2008 at 04:46 PM On the other hand, Tchaikovsky, as far as I know, didn't withdraw his own version and replace it with the cut version; so he probably thought his own work had some merit. Regardless of what you think about the repetitiveness, I'd recommend learning the complete version. One day you will play it for some important teacher or competition, and you could get nailed. "No no, don't take the cut, play the whole thing. ...What do you mean, you never learned it?! Go sit down." (Or better yet: "you never learned this part? Well, let's hear you play it anyway." Sight reading in public -- good times!) On the other hand, if you play the whole thing, the famous teacher or judge might just say "oh, you should take the cuts" and then you can do a little vindication dance in the hallway afterward. From Laurie Niles
I'm in the broken record camp. And just for the iPod generation, I'll describe a broken record: Back when everyone listened to vinyl LP records (which looked like oversized CDs) you had to put the record on a turning table and lay a needle onto it to play. The needle would travel from the outside of the circle to the inside, playing the recording. If there was a scratch in the record, the needle would trip backwards. Every time the needle tripped, it would replay a short segment, until someone came over and nudged the needle forward.Posted on August 20, 2008 at 05:07 PM I'd always heard the concerto with the Auer cuts, and the first time I heard someone do it without the cuts (a practice has gained popularity rather recently, maybe the last 15 years?) I literally jumped up, thinking it was a broken record. Except, it was a CD. On the radio! From Andrew Sords
I don't really agree with trying to "improve on" Tchaikovsky...the original is pretty damn good, and actually sounds completely balanced between all three movements without the 3rd mvt cuts. Ole Peter knew what he was doing...kudos to those who perform the original version. I'll be playing the original edition this year.Posted on August 20, 2008 at 07:34 PM Laurie, maybe this should be your next "poll" - how many play it with/without the cuts! :) From Jim Hoyle
Laurie, that's really funny! :-)Posted on August 20, 2008 at 09:47 PM Nate, don't forget that Tschaik. originally approved Fitzhagen's carving up of the Rococo Variations, then came to regret it later. There's no knowing if that applies here though ... From Rita Livs
I'd vote for all repeats to save the right music form.
Posted on August 21, 2008 at 02:19 AM From Laurie Niles
Aha! A poll! :)
Posted on August 21, 2008 at 03:38 AM From Karin Lin
Joshua Bell thinks the cuts are "horrible" and said as much when he released his second recording a couple of years ago. I don't suppose you had a chance to discuss that with him, Laurie? ;)
Posted on August 21, 2008 at 04:58 AM From Drew Lecher
Laurie,Posted on August 21, 2008 at 03:47 PM If my memory doesn't fail me, and it might, I am sure I heard Perlman perform it 'broken-record-style' in the early/mid '70's in London with the LSO. Loved it and still do:-))) (If it is cut, think of all the justification for cutting Schubert works……:-) From Nicholas Tavani
I've always performed it without cuts. If you play each repetition with a different character, it ceases to sound like a broken record...
Posted on August 21, 2008 at 05:35 PM From Marc Villeneuve
The "broken record" story has made a long way since Milstein's comments about the work...I have never found any real evidence from the composer himself or other serious documentation about the fact that he approved Auer's version... Concerning the Brahms concerto, or the Mendelssohn, there is plenty of evidence of a narrow collaboration with Joachim or David respectively.Posted on August 21, 2008 at 05:53 PM Kreisler played the original score in between 1902 and 1928... than he gave the première of his own version in New-York in 1938 Marc From Christopher McGovern
It's weird--I always thought it was me when I heard a version of the Tchaikovsky for the first time unedited! I always thought the 41st Mozart Symphony (Jupiter) was a lot draggier when they left the repeats in the 1st mvt.Posted on August 21, 2008 at 11:34 PM Hilary Hahn's supposed to do the Tchaikovsky soon--Wonder if she's going with or without the edits? From D Kurganov
i dont think there is any "right" answer here.Posted on August 22, 2008 at 01:39 AM People should do whatever they want with music, and they do! This is why we have the extreme of people that are so strict and go by every marking of the composer, often at the expense of their own individuality and expressivity all the way towards the other extreme of people like Vanessa Mae, who do what they do to classical music. AND everything in between. This is the bell curve. People should just decide what is more importnat to them and find a balance. its about choice. For me personally, I think "tchaikovsky knew what he was doing" is poor defense of not doing the cuts. I would be very interested, though, to hear of these "folk idioms" that Rachel Barton talks about, as I've never heard about that. I also agree with Nicolas that if the similar runs are played differently stylistically, this can easily fix the "broken record" issue. I heard many great violinists play both ways. I don't think it is a big deal either way :) doesn't take anything away from the performance, unless you have an irrational phobia From Scott Hawthorn
Larry Samuels posted:Posted on August 22, 2008 at 04:15 PM "Rachel Barton Pine had a webcast discussing the Tchaikovsky, and gives her reasons for leaving the concerto uncut: http://rachelbartonpine.libsyn.com/index.php?post_year=2008&post_month=01" What a superb lecture! From Nate Robinson
Rachel Barton said that Perlman did use the cuts. I have a recording right here of Perlman playing the last movement without the cuts.
Posted on August 22, 2008 at 04:56 PM From Debra Wade
Perlman did both versions - I have recordings where he cut it and several where he didn't. Personally, I like it uncut, but it seems like it's a matter of taste and preference.
Posted on August 22, 2008 at 05:16 PM From Nicole Stacy
Wow, look at all the great responses! Thanks!Posted on August 22, 2008 at 05:34 PM I guess my problem is that I don't really have a well-thought-out justification. It's just a feeling. I've always thought my instincts were fairly good, but I'll be happy to listen to what Ms. Pine has to say. From D Kurganov
I just listened to some of that Rachel Barton Pine broadcast. She completely misunderstands certain things about tchaikovsky (such as his "gayness" as she puts it)Posted on August 22, 2008 at 05:44 PM The folk thing I can kind of see, but she really doesn't back it up much other than saying how folk is about repetition (not necessarily) She says some good things, but is a very odd individual... :) I guess I would play it without the cuts myself though... From Nicole Stacy
By the way, Laurie, what's an iPod? :P
Posted on August 22, 2008 at 05:44 PM From Laurie Niles
LOL! Let me connect you with my 11-year-old daughter, who is much more of an expert on this than I am....;)
Posted on August 22, 2008 at 07:27 PM From Scott Hawthorn
Debra Wade posted:Posted on August 22, 2008 at 07:42 PM "Personally, I like it uncut, but it seems like it's a matter of taste and preference." I believe this is known as "The Jewish Version." From Nicole Stacy
Scott, I'm speechless. :)Posted on August 22, 2008 at 07:46 PM Laurie, I do have a cell phone, but it doesn't take pictures. From Scott Hawthorn
I apologize if I offended anyone.Posted on August 22, 2008 at 07:49 PM We'll be here all week! From Nicole Stacy
Scott, as the creators of South Park once said, "We apologize to anyone we may have left out."Posted on August 22, 2008 at 08:08 PM
Another example -- a teacher of mine suggested that Shakers might have mixed feelings about Appalachian Spring. Would they be honored or find it ostentatious? Yet another: I've never experienced Yom Kippur. If there are practicing Jews here, how does Bruch's Kol Nidrei compare? From Scott Hawthorn
To not respond directly to your question :-) -- I believe Rachel meant to defend the repetition in the Tchaikovsky as being part of a folk music tradition. I don't believe she meant anything else by her remark. While I know little about Russian folk music specifically, I agree that in general, far more repetition is traditional in many folk musics of the world than in the classical realm. I've heard a great deal of Eastern European folk music, which can be quite repetitious, even while in 11/4 or 7/4 time! The most obvious exmple is in most traditional African music, which uses repetition to the most hypnotic extent possible (and none other than James Brown brought this into our own popular music). Posted on August 22, 2008 at 08:06 PM /end musicology lecture From Scott Hawthorn
D Kurganov posted:Posted on August 22, 2008 at 08:13 PM "I just listened to some of that Rachel Barton Pine broadcast. She completely misunderstands certain things about tchaikovsky (such as his "gayness" as she puts it) The folk thing I can kind of see, but she really doesn't back it up much other than saying how folk is about repetition (not necessarily) She says some good things, but is a very odd individual... :)" Speaking of odd, I find you own remarks to be a bit odd. :-) I thought it was common knowledge that Peter was gay. Do you have information or interpretation to the contrary? At least you should explain your remark. And, what is it that you find odd about Rachel? I mean besides her shifting? Ha ha. From Nicole Stacy
Shoot, it's a podcast. As you might have guessed from my exchange with Laurie, I have no pod to cast to. You've really piqued my curiosity about the gay allusion...
Posted on August 22, 2008 at 09:02 PM From Scott Hawthorn
If you are running Windows, it should play normally in your Windows Media Prayer, er, Player, after you choose 'open.' Unless you have no sound on you machine. It's just a plain ol' MP3.
Posted on August 22, 2008 at 09:13 PM |
Music Giveaway
SearchDiscussion TopicsInstruments Repertoire Life in general Technique Violinists Practicing Schools Teaching Performing CD reviews Health Auditions Orchestra Concert review News DVD reviews For sale Recordings 
|
Printer-friendly version
