When is it OK to make changes on a composition?

I generally abhore tinkering with composers' intentions. How conceited is it that anyone should think that THEY know better than the composer (as as your citing of Zindler above)? As far as dead composers are concerned, we cannot consult them or ask what they REALLY intended. Surely it is only respectful that we leave the composer's work intact UNLESS there is an obvious copying or editorial mistake (and plenty of these can be found).

Rimsky-Korsakov saw fit to 're-write' Musorgsky's 'Night on Bald Mountain' and 'correct' Musorgsky's orchestration and harmony. The result is a sterilised and watered-down version of Musorgsky's original, which one can all too readily hear if one compares the two versions. Stokowski also made an orchestration of the piece (based on a different Musorgsky orginal). All rather pointless as Musorgsky's original version stands perfectly well on its own.

I hate it when conductors add horn and trumpet notes to scores written before the development of valved instruments. Of course the composers were limited in what they could write, but they knew what they were doing and often wrote parts that exploited the unique qualities of these 'natural' instruments by using their stopped notes and other effects. This is particularly true of Berlioz. Sadly, these effects are too often lost when played on modern instruments (although they CAN be replicated on modern instruments). Yes, Mozart and Beethoven would have written different trumpet and horn parts if the instruments of the time had had valves. But they DIDN'T and it is arrogant to second-guess what sort of part a composer MIGHT have written under different circumstances. Neither do I agree with doubled-up woodwind parts which one often sees in Beethoven symphonies (especially the Ninth). Modern woodwind instruments are FAR more powerful than those of 200 years ago and this practice merely changes the balance and texture of the original work.

As far as the arpeggione is concerned, one has to make a choice. The arpeggione was a very short-lived instrumental mistake and disappeared almost as soon as it was invented. The music suits being played on the viola or the cello and so, if we want to hear this music at all, we have no choice but to play it on these replacement instruments. This is an exception, I think. The same with Haydn's baryton trios. Interestingly however, Mozart's A major 'clarinet' concerto was actually written for the basset clarinet (an A clarinet with an extended range down to written low C). Its life was almost as short of that of the arpeggione, but many clarinettists have now invested in basset clarinets to avoid the corrupting octave displacements of the music necessary to play Mozart's concerto on a standard A clarinet. I now find it hard to listen to this piece played on a standard clarinet.

I am also not a fan of using classical pieces as the basis for popular songs. I don't think it's enough to say "how many people would ever have heard those compositions otherwise?" because people HAVEN'T heard them - they have heard a rather cheap arrangement of them. Having said that, I have always had a soft spot for 'Hello Muddah, Hello Fadduh' (but NOT because of Ponchielli's input)!

One of the greatest culprits of medling was Gustav Mahler. As much as I admire him as a composer, I find most of his 're-orchestrations' of other composers' works (perhaps with the exception of the Schumann symphonies) rather arrogant. His version of Beethoven's Ninth, for example, addes nothing to this great work for me. I can only think it was made to comply with the excesses of the late Romantic period at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries. I am no fan of playing chamber musuic as orchestral music and his expansions of Schubert's 'Death and the Maiden' quartet, for example rather ruins this work for me. The same can be said for the expansions of some of Shostakovich's string quartets by Rudolf Barshai (another musician I otherwise admire) as 'chamber symphonies'. Shostakovich, more than perhaps any other composer, reserved his most private musical thoughts for this most intimate of chamber ensembles, something which is lost on a large sonic canvas.

Arrangements and transcriptions are quite another thing. I love good arrangements (with exceptions such as those cited above). These are not mere tinkerings - they are respectful re-workings of other composers' works. I would not be without Berio's 'Rendering' 'realisation' of the sketches for Schubert's Tenth Symphony, nor Franz Hasenöhrl's 'Till Eulenspiegel - Einmal anders!' for five instruments. I love the chamber arrangements by Schoenberg of Strauss waltzes and Mahler's 'Das Lied von der Erde' and Erwin Stein's arrangement of the Fourth Symphony. Most of all, I wouldn't want to be without Rodion Shchedrin's masterful and staggeringly skillful 'Carmen-Suite' - arrangements of Bizet tunes from 'Carmen', 'L'Arlésienne' and 'The Pearl Fishers' for strings and percussion.

The Horn parts in Beethoven 9 are another great example of handicap of an obsolete version of an instrument. Beethoven didn't have access to horns with valves, so some of the orchestration is a bit funny with the horns skipping some notes in faster passages. I've seen several conductors and editors fill in the gaps.

In Theraps by Xenakis, the bass part is sometimes physically impossible. There are intervals that can't be played, and yet Xenakis insisted that this is what he wanted. A similar circumstance arrises in Persephassa in which the percussionists simply don't have enough hands to play all the instruments. In Steven Schicks Recording he solved the problem by layering tracks. Not possible for live performance, so you need to come up with a solution that somehow captures the spirit of what is physically impossible. (you can't really dismiss the work of an established composer like Xenakis, he knew what he was doing when he wrote the impossible notes)

BRAVO, del_icio... !!!

My first thought reading the Q was, anytime, as long as it is your own work, which probably needs more revision than already known works by great composers - including instrumentation.

The handicap qualification is patently absurd.

Beethoven went deaf. Mussorgsky was a tragic alcoholic, Jean Langlais and Joaquin Turina were blind.

I would only add that when a composer such as Xenakis, or Ives, writes something physically impossible for an instrument, when we know they knew what was possible, it is expected of the performer they understand the composer has forced a choice on them, or expects the performer to strive for a gesture rather than what is exactly on the page. These situations are as deliberate and calculated as the rest of the score, and a reader / performer will get really stuck at these points unless they determine the score or its instructions cannot be taken literally, but require a performer's thinking, striving, and invention.

best regards.

I can only think of three:

1. An example on: To popularize a composition:

Have you ever heard of the Beethoven's fire? It's originally from a game in Korea called O2Jam in which, just last year, the song was accessible in the Philippines. Here's a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgY31SFSMGQ Those who played O2Jam are certainly familiar with V3 too, which is kind of Beethoven's too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuY7i6awXZI . You are familiar with the original music they came from, which is the Grand Sonate Pathetique, are you not? When I played O2Jam, the other players would always request the V3 or Beethoven's Fire be played. It's actually a nice tune for me, too, that I don't argue anymore about playing another song.

2. To borrow the music and change it's genre.

Like the above Beethoven's Fire example, it's easy to understand how genres affect the listener. They made the classical music rock, much like what Jerry C did, so it would be liked by many people.

3. If time eludes you . . .

Especially when you are in a solo recital and you are asked to play something that was just announced on the day and you can't sight read. Or if your piano teacher allows you (I doubt that would be the reason.)

That's an old wives tale sweetheart. Mangoes are good for skin because they are high in Vitamin A. I eat mangoes in the summer and have perfect skin (I have psoriasis on my scalp but it has nothing to do with mangoes). When I hear the word mango I think of Doctor No, Underneath The Mango Tree was a song that was playing on the radio in 007's car, at the bar, and Honey Ryder was singing it when she walked out of the water. That's it I have to watch that movie again!

Another few are

perception: say for instance in a particular period they didn't write a particular articulation because they felt that it was assumed knowledge. because times have changed people don't know or understand, so many editions have written articulation or dynamics because the composer didn't write it in there.

development in the instrument: say for instance for a piano that has been developing for many years. The piano has of curse increased in size, has a wider dynamic range and the pedalling is much different to the time when it was composed. Say for instance the slurs in some of Chopin's nocturnes sound very unusual when played on the modern grand piano, however it would have sounded different on Chopin's instrument.

to make it easier for people who don't know how to play a complicated work (self explanatory).

When an extremely talented and popular performer can make a contemporary interpretation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6BCT8t41iA&feature...

Beethoven virus is still a great song for rhythm games...hater..lol....but yeah it's ok....our director has did it multiple times to customize the piece for us..nothing major though.