The recent discussion about the availability of the the Vaughan Williams Tuba Concerto repurposed as a work for euphonium, presumably with the composer’s consent, has reminded me of a concern that I’ve been mulling over for a while. I’d like the thoughts of others about it.
As a student, I played a great deal of material that was top level wind ensemble repertoire during the mid twentieth century. As kids we thought very little about it; the Big Guns of high quality composition had written or were writing top line music and we played it.
Recently, I’ve observed that certain pieces of that era are no longer available in print, but have emerged as “edited” or “arranged” or “adapted by” various living contemporary composers who are presumably making money on the no longer copyrighted originals by cutting out the hard parts or changing keys or in other various relatively minor ways ALTERING THE INTENTION of the original composer. Is this bothersome to anyone besides me?
I object for two basic reasons, first because it seems that the choice is being made to “simplify” something that was originally written to make it more accessible (to whom? and why?) rather than putting in the work to compose a piece from scratch that fulfills the same contemporary objective as the original, OR to “update” “modernize” “refresh” a piece that was composed within the times in which it was composed as the statement of the original composer.
This “trend” is in marked contrast to the exciting notion that Vaughan Williams himself seems to have realized that some of his own works (interestingly, not only the Tuba Concerto) might be both accessible and also very adaptable to more uses than the original form and intention written.
Although I scrupulously avoid “new” versions of old favorites, I happened accidentally to be subjected to an “edited” version of a wonderful piece the other night, and knew only a few measures in what I was listening to, a mistake I will try NOT to repeat.
So a question- can you come up for a justification for this practice? I can’t think of a single one.
As a student, I played a great deal of material that was top level wind ensemble repertoire during the mid twentieth century. As kids we thought very little about it; the Big Guns of high quality composition had written or were writing top line music and we played it.
Recently, I’ve observed that certain pieces of that era are no longer available in print, but have emerged as “edited” or “arranged” or “adapted by” various living contemporary composers who are presumably making money on the no longer copyrighted originals by cutting out the hard parts or changing keys or in other various relatively minor ways ALTERING THE INTENTION of the original composer. Is this bothersome to anyone besides me?
I object for two basic reasons, first because it seems that the choice is being made to “simplify” something that was originally written to make it more accessible (to whom? and why?) rather than putting in the work to compose a piece from scratch that fulfills the same contemporary objective as the original, OR to “update” “modernize” “refresh” a piece that was composed within the times in which it was composed as the statement of the original composer.
This “trend” is in marked contrast to the exciting notion that Vaughan Williams himself seems to have realized that some of his own works (interestingly, not only the Tuba Concerto) might be both accessible and also very adaptable to more uses than the original form and intention written.
Although I scrupulously avoid “new” versions of old favorites, I happened accidentally to be subjected to an “edited” version of a wonderful piece the other night, and knew only a few measures in what I was listening to, a mistake I will try NOT to repeat.
So a question- can you come up for a justification for this practice? I can’t think of a single one.
Comment