TromboneChat

Imagine that you're playing some trombone feature -- it could be a concerto, an old Arthur Pryor piece, or something else that's known in the trombone literature. People have heard this piece and played it.

Now imagine that you have an idea about changing some passage, playing it differently somehow. Not the notes on the page. You're the soloist. Imagine no one can dictate it to you; it's completely your own decision to make.

Maybe you like your idea better, or it can show off a strength of yours, or you have some other reason. We're not talking changing the piece substantially, just a passage or two. You just want to add a flourish, or make it moodier, or play a passage going down when the original goes up. Whatever. Doesn't matter what it is. But it's your idea, and you like it, and you think it will sound good.

Do you think it is okay to play what you want to play rather than what is written, or is that frowned upon? How much fidelity do you owe to the original? How much fidelity do you owe to your own creative juices? Would you do it in an audition if you're not changing one of the mandated excerpts? And does it matter who you are, like it might be okay for Christian Lindgerg but not Joe Blow? And if it's okay, what are the limits of that right to make it your own?

What are the lines we cannot cross and the freedoms we can give ourselves?

The Great American Songbook consisted of songs that were written to be interpreted, not strictly by the page.

It's not the Star Spangled Banner... go for it.

If it was written before 1930, you can do whatever you want to change the music. For these pieces, like the David Concerto, it's probably not frowned upon to make up a new Cadenza, but it would probably be frowned upon to write a completely new third movement (because, you know, the third movement is basically copied from the first) and perform that as if it was what F. David wrote. I change the last descending scale in that piece to a chromatic rip from Bb3 to Eb5, and nobody every got mad at me.

If it was written after 1930 (ie. still protected by copyright), and the changes weren't mistakes, depending on the setting you are performing in you might not be actually allowed to change the piece like you're thinking, especially if it is a recording. Making changes to the structure, chords, melody or lyrics of a piece of music and writing it down OR performing it live creates what is called a derivative work, and you need permission to do that. You can change instrumentation if you are making a recording, under a compulsory mechanical license, but even with a new arrangement, you can't change the melody, chords, lyrics, structure, etc. I think in the Jazz world, people change chords all the time with no problem and have a lot more liberty... but that might be because it's expected and the publishers only care that they are getting paid. If you commissioned a piece for some big name orchestra and on the day of the performance don't play what the composer wrote and what you had finalized together, I could see the composer getting pretty upset about that.

Does this mean that the publisher/copyright holder will find out and care? Probably not, especially if it's some small time venue. Or if you do justice to a jazz chart and credit the composer and pay your royalties. But it's not legally allowed.

It depends on the context.

If you are playing for a Jury or some hyper-critical group, play the ink. They will probably mark you down for not conforming to the original.

If you are playing in a concert for the public (maybe even a public of one), fine. Only exception is if you are playing with a conducted ensemble and the change you want to do is going to mess up the backing group.

I want to hear Dana do Bolero. She might be the one to fix that thing.

Harrison explains what a sick world this is.

Performers change around things all the time in a lot of genres and no one cares that Frank Zappa's recording of Stairway to Heaven is significantly different from Led Zeppelin's original. Typically in a "classical" performance there is usually more attention paid to playing the composer's intention. I wouldn't worry about any copyright, I don't believe that is an issue unless you're going to start claiming you own the rights or don't cover legal royalties (if applicable).

Does your planned alteration go against the way you're performing the rest of the piece or does it fit stylistically with the rest of the solo? There's certainly some room for interpretation, but what musical message are you trying to convey by making changes that would be noticeably different? Do you care if someone notices you made the change? If someone does, what's the worst that could happen?

Play the gig you've got so that your client/audience is happy (if you care about that), otherwise play the way you want.

baileyman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 12:07 pm I want to hear Dana do Bolero. She might be the one to fix that thing.

ROFL! You give me way too much credit. Man, I hate that Bolero solo. For me it comes under the heading "you can't polish a turd."

Wilktone wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 12:44 pm Performers change around things all the time in a lot of genres and no one cares that Frank Zappa's recording of Stairway to Heaven is significantly different from Led Zeppelin's original. Typically in a "classical" performance there is usually more attention paid to playing the composer's intention. I wouldn't worry about any copyright, I don't believe that is an issue unless you're going to start claiming you own the rights or don't cover legal royalties (if applicable).

Frank Zappa's cover was live, I believe. Again, I think with live music, you play the music and the venue pays the royalties through ASCAP or whatever, and if someone made a stink about it changing you could go "Rock and Roll Jazz, Baby. It was live, and I was pretty sure that's how that song went. We can't listen to the recording because we aren't releasing it and don't want to make any trouble. So just believe us."

For the recording of the live event, though, I'm sure whoever cut the records had to get permission from the copyright holders to have a derivative version on the record. You have a lot of leeway on what you can do under the compulsory mechanical license, but it's not unlimited. Or you pay the royalty, cross your fingers and hope they like what you did or at don't want to argue that you deviated too far from the original recording.

For me if it is a classical concerto I wouldn't change it unless it already is an editor who has made changes and adopted the music to trombone from something else, like the Bach Cello Suites for example or other music that's transcribed. It happens all the time in arrangements.

If I go and listen to a concert to hear the old masterpieces? I have heard those concertos a lot and I do not think I would like to hear things like "one octave up" from the original for no typical reason. That has happened in the Lars-Erik Larsson Concertino when someone wanted to improve that one, and even recorded it. No, in those situations I think that what the composer wrote is what should be played, but of course it depends on what is in its place. I might change my mind if I'm totally blown away.

/Tom

The best is the Bourgeois concerto that has a line that I thought Lindberg added to "spice up" the piece (the part that goes up to a high D).

Turns out the line is not written in the solo part ... But is written as an ossia in the full score! Maybe just my edition was whack, but talk about playing the piece as written!

My least favorite change is what folks do to the END of the Bourgeois concerto. It doesn't need to go up to a high F. What the composer wrote is correct and sounds better.

You're the one performing the piece, you do what you want. Some people might not agree or think what you did was bad taste, or maybe you do it with great taste and everyone loves it, that's the risk you take, but there's nothing "wrong" about doing it your way. I would argue the other extreme, playing the ink AND do it in a totally boring and un musical way, would be way less "right".

That's one of the things I love about early music. There's almost nothing on the page (no dynamics, no articulations, no phrasing marks, no tempo indications. Even the accidentals are to. Some extent up to the performer), which means you have a not only the freedom but also the obligation to come up with something interesting. And a much more larger portion of the process of creating music was considered to be the realm of the performer and not that of the composer. You are allowed, and expected, to show off both your technique but also your restraint, good taste and intelligence by ornamenting however much you want and riding that fine line between being virtuosic and being obnoxious

Someday I hope to play Mozart Requiem with a conductor who'd be happy for me to add a few (tasteful) ornaments in the trombone solo. There are hundreds of pieces from the same tradition with trombone obbligato from around Vienna in that time period, and with a out any other of those, we'd (rightly) feel free to add ornaments. And Mozart was a great improviser and there's not a single that he didn't add ornamentation when playing other people's music. But because it's Mozart and it's the Requiem, today it would somehow be scandalous to add anything.

Hi Folks.

I think that there are a lots of music genres in which you can ( and have to) make changes to the original tunes : Jazz , Pop , Rock , Folk , Funky , Early Music , etc.

But , in my opinion , if you play things such F. David' "Trombone Concerto" , or A. Pryor "Thoughts of Love" , etc , would be better that you leave the score as it is . You can add your own Cadenzas , if you want to .

If you announce that you will perform a piece that was written by a composer named XY , I think that you have to respect what XY wrote .
Anyway , if you want to make some changes , would be better to specify it . Changes shouldn' t not be made "in secret" , without specifying it to the audience .

About adding ornaments to the Mozart Requiem trombone solo , In my opinion this is not a scandalous thing , rather a pretty presumptous action , whatever one can add to explain this choice.
To me , if conductors such C. Maria Giulini , H von Karajan , etc , considered the "commonly" performed score to be "correct " , it could be the same for others too .

The strange thing is that nowadays some are very picky ( ad nauseam..) about things like which instrument is historically more appropriate to perform a X piece ( both in Classical or Jazz ) , and then others want to change or modify the originals written notes...

Regards
Giancarlo

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 2:05 pm For the recording of the live event, though, I'm sure whoever cut the records had to get permission from the copyright holders to have a derivative version on the record. You have a lot of leeway on what you can do under the compulsory mechanical license, but it's not unlimited. Or you pay the royalty, cross your fingers and hope they like what you did or at don't want to argue that you deviated too far from the original recording.

No one truly understands copyright law - especially me. If you've got any concerns or questions about copyright you'll need to hire an expert.

Another disclaimer, the book I'm getting this info out of ("All You Need to Know About the Music Business" by Donald S. Passman) is probably out of date (1991). It states that mechanical royalties fall under "compulsory licenses." In other words, "once a work has been recorded the publisher is required to license it to anyone else who wants to use it in records." (p. 173)

The bold and italic emphasis is from the author.

When you get into changing the music enough (e.g., an original arrangement) then you are creating a derivative work, which you need the copyright owner's permission to publish sheet music, but not to perform or record it (assuming performance or mechanical license has been secured properly). There needs to be a significant amount of material changed before it gets to that point, however. I don't get the impression that Dana's interest in changing around a phrase or three in some minor way falls into that category.

Then again, I'm probably wrong about all that so don't trust me.

LeTromboniste wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 1:19 am That's one of the things I love about early music. There's almost nothing on the page (no dynamics, no articulations, no phrasing marks, no tempo indications. Even the accidentals are to. Some extent up to the performer), which means you have a not only the freedom but also the obligation to come up with something interesting.

Yes, and there are other "classical" styles where the performance practice of the time was much more improvisatory than we tend to perform that music today. As other have suggested, as long as it is done with attention to performing appropriately within the style of the piece, I don't know that anyone would care (or even notice) the minor changes Dana is asking about.

GGJazz wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 7:29 am The strange thing is that nowadays some are very picky ( ad nauseam..) about things like which instrument is historically more appropriate to perform a X piece ( both in Classical or Jazz ) , and then others want to change or modify the originals written notes...

Yes. It is interesting how different performers might take completely opposite approaches to performing the same piece. That's one of the things that makes music so fun to play and listen to. Some musicians strive to perform the music the same way every time. Others barely play it the same way once.

Dave

Wilktone wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 8:57 am

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 2:05 pm For the recording of the live event, though, I'm sure whoever cut the records had to get permission from the copyright holders to have a derivative version on the record. You have a lot of leeway on what you can do under the compulsory mechanical license, but it's not unlimited. Or you pay the royalty, cross your fingers and hope they like what you did or at don't want to argue that you deviated too far from the original recording.

No one truly understands copyright law - especially me. If you've got any concerns or questions about copyright you'll need to hire an expert.

Another disclaimer, the book I'm getting this info out of ("All You Need to Know About the Music Business" by Donald S. Passman) is probably out of date (1991). It states that mechanical royalties fall under "compulsory licenses." In other words, "once a work has been recorded the publisher is required to license it to anyone else who wants to use it in records." (p. 173)

The bold and italic emphasis is from the author.

When you get into changing the music enough (e.g., an original arrangement) then you are creating a derivative work, which you need the copyright owner's permission to publish sheet music, but not to perform or record it (assuming performance or mechanical license has been secured properly). There needs to be a significant amount of material changed before it gets to that point, however. I don't get the impression that Dana's interest in changing around a phrase or three in some minor way falls into that category.

Then again, I'm probably wrong about all that so don't trust me.

I'm replying just because I find the subject fascinating, and like discussing it. I think we are both right, in a way. It is true that changing instrumentation creates a derivative work of a type that is allowed under a compulsory license, and you can record it. But that type of license does not cover significant changes to the structure, lyrics, or melody of the work. So you could do that and record it live, but releasing the recording might get you into trouble since you changed more than what the compulsory mechanical license allows for. In other words, certainly the compulsory mechanical license *must* be granted (indeed, you don't even ask the publisher for permission, you just record the work and keep records of unit sales, paying royalties each quarter), but that doesn't mean you get to just do whatever you like and say it's a legal cover song.

I'm sure that if the recording is great and brings in royalties, and positive press for the piece, the copyright holder would not care.

But there are instances of songwriters being sticklers over covers of their works. Michael Jackson, for example, got into a spat with the Beastie Boyz over them trying to cover one of his songs. Should have been okay but they changed a few words and also changed enough of the rhythms and chords that he was able to block the release.

What Dana is talking about is probably in a live context AND jazz ... So it's probably not going to be any kind of a big deal.

GGJazz wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 7:29 am
About adding ornaments to the Mozart Requiem trombone solo , In my opinion this is not a scandalous thing , rather a pretty presumptous action , whatever one can add to explain this choice.
To me , if conductors such C. Maria Giulini , H von Karajan , etc , considered the "commonly" performed score to be "correct " , it could be the same for others too .

See that's exactly my point! Setting aside that Giulini or Karajan having done Mozart a certain way has absolutely no relevancy in what was common in Mozart time, or with what one should consider good or bad taste, ornamentation absolutely was a part of the performance practice in Mozart's own time and musical tradition. The composers knew and expected it, and did it themselves as performers. When we in the field of historically-informed performance perform 18th century music, we routinely add ornaments. If I was given a newly-discovered 18th century Requiem by some lesser-known composer not named Mozart, and there was a movement with obbligato trombone, I would absolutely feel free to add ornaments (within reason and in the style of ornamentation of the time). The fact is we do it all the time. The reason I wouldn't do it in Mozart specifically is precisely that everyone would say or think "who do you think you are messing with Mozart?". So although I continue to stick to not doing it, I also do find that it's a really stupid reason to make (or not make) musical choices.

Hi again .

In my opinion , you are a bit disrespectful about these great conductors .
I think that they knews a lot about the 18th century music .
To me , if they chose not to add ornaments , they certainly did so due to some reasoned and justified choices . Not because they didn' t know about .

I think that historically - informed people draw many conclusions from the facts , but also making many assumptions .
There are a lots of autograph scores written by Mozart' hand . If even adding ornaments was a common practice at that time , so that there was generally no need to point them out in the score , how can you be sure 100% that Mozart himself did not like ornaments , and considered them to be too much redundants and superfluous to his music ? Mozart was a bit ahead , compared to others composers of his time ... .

Anyway , apart Giulini and Karajan , it seems that also all the others great conductors - including the contemporaries- do the same , when performing Mozart Music.

To me , it seems that you refer to yourself as the " absolute truth keeper" ...

Regards
Giancarlo

GGJazz wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 4:38 pm Hi again .

In my opinion , you are a bit disrespectful about these great conductors .
I think that they knews a lot about the 18th century music .
To me , if they chose not to add ornaments , they certainly did so due to some reasoned and justified choices . Not because they didn' t know about .

Anyway , apart Giulini and Karajan , it seems that also all the others great conductors - including the contemporaries- do the same , when performing Mozart Music.

To me , it seems that you refer to yourself as the " absolute truth' keeper" ...

Regards
Giancarlo

There are many, many books on the topic of ornamentation of Mozart and other classical repertoire, both modern books and texts from the period (including several detailed chapters in the violin method written by Mozart's own father). I'm not inventing anything here. People in my field (and a fair amount of modern instrumentalists and singers too) do add ornamentation to Renaissance, baroque and classical music in accordance to historical sources and practices. All the time. That is simply a fact.

I don't know where you're getting that I disrespect Giulini and Karajan. I said nothing about them, you're the one who brought them up. I think they were fantastic musicians. What they knew or didn't know is neither here nor there. They were conducting modern orchestras for modern audiences in the context of a modern style of playing the classics, and made decisions accordingly. And there's nothing wrong with that, at all. But saying that Giulini and Karajan did things a certain way in their performances and recordings, and therefore that must be the one and only correct way, is absolutely wild. With that reasoning there's no point in anyone ever playing any of the classics anymore, because we've all already heard "the one way". Pack your instruments and go home, everyone...

Look all I am saying is that it's interesting that we have no problem with people ornamenting repertoire that is not part of the core classical music canon, but for some reason when we get to analogous music, from the same time period and tradition, but that is part of that core canon, suddenly what might have the previous day been tasteful (and expected, even required) personal touches becomes completely unacceptable and presumptuous (and I'm including myself and fellow performers in this: even if given the chance I most likely would still shy away from ornamenting the solo in Mozart Requiem, despite doing exactly that in other comparable repertoire, because who am I to do that with this giant masterpiece.) And I think the question of why that is, is a very interesting one, and worthy of reflection. If there's that limit on certain specific works or composers, why not on everything else? And if not on anything else, then why on those few specific "sacred cows"?

.

"It doesn't matter. They won't know the difference."

• Sir Georg Solti, before going out to conduct Brahms' 3rd Symphony and being told that the audience's printed program listed Brahms' 2nd Symphony.

Beyond that, I don't know of a ready metric to answer your question.

Hi .

Well , of course there is NOT a ONE and ONLY correct way , because, to say , the Mozart Requiem was not performed and recorded only by ONE conductor.
There are hundreds of performance of this music , with a lots of differents conductors and differents orchestras . And all these are differents , maybe in a - apparently - slightly way , but differents . Despite anyone adding any ornaments .

I think that classical musicians have not to be obsessed to find an " individual" way to perform a masterpiece : Mozart Requiem is not Giulini' s or Solti' s or Abbado' s ; is Mozart' s .
You do not go to listen a classical performance to find something "new" in a X composition .

Regards again
Giancarlo

GGJazz wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 8:10 pm I think that a classical musicians have not to be obsessed to find an " individual" way to perform a masterpiece : Mozart Requiem is not Giulini' s or Solti' s or Abbado' s ; is Mozart' s .

Well, to be precise, Mozart's Requiem is not quite Mozart's, it's to a fairly large degree Süssmayr's...but that's beside the point. The point is also not about the Tuba Mirum being a great piece as it is and whether it can or can't benefit from anything at all added by the performer on an artistic level. It's about questioning on a philosophical level why we have such "sacred cows" in music, what makes them "sacred cows", whether the existence of this "sacred cow" status is beneficial for music as an artform, and whether it can or cannot, should or should not be changed.

On the tangent of Mozart belonging to Mozart and not to the performer, I would add that a prescription against having a personal or individual way to perform music is about the starkest antithesis I can think of to everything Mozart believed in and stood for. He was the epitome of personality and individuality, and I think he would probably be appalled at the idea of his music (or any music) treated like some form of museum artefact, to be observed but not touched. It's also quite ironic that "Mozart Requiem is Mozart's" is an argument against applying elements of the very language and practice that Mozart himself knew and employed.

GGJazz wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 8:10 pm You do not go to listen a classical performance to find something "new" in a X composition .

I for one do hope to hear something new in any concert I attend. Music I didn't know before. Music I did now before, but with details brought out that I hadn't noticed before. A different perspective or direction that I hadn't contemplated before. Something that refines my understanding of the work, of the composer's language. If nothing else, the unique (and by nature "new") blend of the particular music being performed with the ideas and style of playing of the particular performers playing it. Otherwise, I would ask, what's the point?

Hi.

Of course the performer has some individual ideas ; as I wrote above , all the recorded performances of Giulini , Solti , Karajan , etc , they are differents .

About the " new" , I was talking about going to a concert to listen something that you already know . In this case , the things you mentioned (the details brought out / something that refines your understanding of the work / etc ) are the differences I was talking about . This is not like adding something as ornaments by the player' taste , that one have never listen before .

We have differents ideas ; that' fine to me ...

Regards
Giancarlo

You know that Modest Mussorgsky wrote "Pictures at an Exposition" as a piano piece, right? What we play is an orchestration by Maurice Ravel. Some time in the 1960s Leopold Stokowski created his own orchestration which was recorded on a premier label with some fantastic sound properties. It was jarring to listen to just because it was so different (imagine Bydlo not as a tuba solo). We don't seem to play this arrangement much today -- we seem to prefer Ravel's work. But there is nothing wrong with what Stokowski did.

Incidentally, you can find radio programs of musicologists comparing different conductors doing the same work with very different interpretations. That's what we pay them to do. Which version I prefer may be different from yours. That's OK.

What is not OK is to disobey the guy waving the stick (if there is one) and make your own change without permission.

GGJazz wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 4:38 pm Hi again .

In my opinion , you are a bit disrespectful about these great conductors .
I think that they knews a lot about the 18th century music .
To me , if they chose not to add ornaments , they certainly did so due to some reasoned and justified choices . Not because they didn't know.

Regards
Giancarlo

If you have listened to recordings of the Bach b minor mass you should be able to trust your own ears that these conductors, great as they are/were only heard music within their own times' context. I'll use Herman Scherchen's Vienna recording that used a large orchestra and huge choral forces. Compare that to more recent offerrings from Gardiner or Concentus Wien. Trust your ears that the Scherchen effort, as imposing and mighty as it is, is not really true to the character of the music as it was created by Bach. You can be a more critical, less subservient listener, and still honor the greats of the past.

Hi folks.

@Bruce .@ Richard
To me , a different orchestration of a piece originally wrote for piano is totally another thing , compared to adding NEW notes to the original written by the composer . As different interpretations / different characters are another thing too ; here you may like it or dont' .

If you read my answers above , I did not bring Giulini' or Karajan' names into the discussion to say that their interpretations are the only one that have to be played and followed ; rather , to show that they , of course , did not add any ornaments to the commonly played score.

We was talking about ADDING / NO ADDING extra notes to the score .
As adding ornaments to the Tuba Mirum trbn solo.
As OP wrote , " play a passage going down when the original goes up" ; so , RE-WRITING some lines.

Anyway , this thread is about a clear question : it is ok to change the music?
To me , in classical pieces , the answer is : NO .
This is my opinion ; of course , yours can be different . It' s perfectly fine !

Regards
Giancarlo

GGJazz wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 5:07 am Anyway , this thread is about a clear question : it is ok to change the music?
To me , in classical pieces , the answer is : NO .

Which may be why symphony orchestras are sometimes characterized as 19th century cover bands.

Which reminds me: Many years ago I played a gig with a cover band, and we had a sub guitar player. I forget the tune, but the guitar player played what I thought was a very nice solo on it. On a breatk, the bandleader berated the guitar player for his solo, saying, "You didn't play the solo right! The solo on the record is a great solo. Why didn't you play it that way? Who do you think you are, to go changing the solo from what's on the record?"

And the pissed-off guitar player responded, yelling, "Mo-fo, I'm the guy who played it on the record!"

Personally, I don't believe in sacred cows. Music is art. It's expression. It's a living thing. And it needs a constant supply of fresh oxygen to breathe.

Now that's funny.

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 9:27 am I'm replying just because I find the subject fascinating, and like discussing it.

Agreed, it is a topic I'm curious to learn more about, but every time I've tried to get deeper into it I realize that it's something that no one really truly understands. John La Barbara told me as much when he visited as a guest artist when I was a student.

The Beastie Boys legal dispute was over a Beatles tune they had reworked ("I'm Down"), not one of Michael Jackson's tunes. Jackson had bought all the rights to the Beatles catalogue. I tried to find out more about what the specific details of the dispute were, but I could find that on a cursory Google search. It might be related to a sample (which I do believe requires permission, but maybe I'm wrong), not the arrangement itself.

As far as I can tell, multiple sources I glanced at indicate that once a piece of music has been commercially released anyone who wants can cover that piece, as long as they pay the mechanical royalty rate. In the case of the Beastie Boys cover, they may have decided that the legal dispute wasn't worth fighting their right to record in court and just gave up, even though they may have had the legal right. Or it might be related to the samples they used. But I don't really know.

tbdana wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 8:23 am And the pissed-off guitar player responded, yelling, "Mo-fo, I'm the guy who played it on the record!"

That's a good story!

tbdana wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 8:23 am And the pissed-off guitar player responded, yelling, "Mo-fo, I'm the guy who played it on the record!"

excellent!

GGJazz wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 5:07 am We was talking about ADDING / NO ADDING extra notes to the score .
As adding ornaments to the Tuba Mirum trbn solo.
As OP wrote , " play a passage going down when the original goes up" ; so , RE-WRITING some lines.

Hi Giancarlo!

I'm wondering, would you object to adding notes when performing Monteverdi's Orfeo or Vespro della Beata Vergine?
What about in the Da Capo of an aria from Handel's Giulio Cesare?
What about in Bach's Brandenburg Concertos?

You'd be hard-pressed to find any performance or recording of these that doesn't include any ornamentation.

Let's remove names and specifics altogether, as a thought experiment. Let's imagine a fictional composer, without giving them a name or dates of birth or death, and without knowing if their music is great, good, mediocre. But we do know they were a great improviser who often didn't write everything down in their own music that they were going to play, because they'd anyway improvise the rest, and knew that others playing this music later would also anyway do the same. Perhaps they themselves wrote and published writings about ornaments and how to perform and improvise them. Or perhaps their father or their teacher did, or perhaps their offspring, who they taught. Assuming that we know this, should ornamentation of their music today be allowed? And if not, on what basis?

tbdana wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 8:23 am
Which may be why symphony orchestras are sometimes characterized as 19th century cover bands.

That’s funny.

tbdana wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 8:23 am
Which reminds me: Many years ago I played a gig with a cover band, and we had a sub guitar player. I forget the tune, but the guitar player played what I thought was a very nice solo on it. On a breatk, the bandleader berated the guitar player for his solo, saying, "You didn't play the solo right! The solo on the record is a great solo. Why didn't you play it that way? Who do you think you are, to go changing the solo from what's on the record?"

And the pissed-off guitar player responded, yelling, "Mo-fo, I'm the guy who played it on the record!"

Personally, I don't believe in sacred cows. Music is art. It's expression. It's a living thing. And it needs a constant supply of fresh oxygen to breathe.

This made my morning.

BGuttman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 12:03 am You know that Modest Mussorgsky wrote "Pictures at an Exposition" as a piano piece, right? What we play is an orchestration by Maurice Ravel. Some time in the 1960s Leopold Stokowski created his own orchestration which was recorded on a premier label with some fantastic sound properties. It was jarring to listen to just because it was so different (imagine Bydlo not as a tuba solo). We don't seem to play this arrangement much today -- we seem to prefer Ravel's work. But there is nothing wrong with what Stokowski did.

Ravel's and Stokowski's are also far from the only orchestrations of that piece. Wikipedia lists 28!

Taking a piano piece and setting it for full orchestra is an excellent orchestration exercise, so composers do it all the time. In fact, it is a standard assignment in a composition degree in some music schools. It certainly was at IU - one of our duties in the (paid!) Conductor's Orchestra was to read a few composition majors' orchestrations of the same piano piece. It's an interesting experience hearing and playing three or four very different interpretations of the same piece back to back.

tbdana wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 8:23 am Which reminds me: Many years ago I played a gig with a cover band, and we had a sub guitar player. I forget the tune, but the guitar player played what I thought was a very nice solo on it. On a breatk, the bandleader berated the guitar player for his solo, saying, "You didn't play the solo right! The solo on the record is a great solo. Why didn't you play it that way? Who do you think you are, to go changing the solo from what's on the record?"

And the pissed-off guitar player responded, yelling, "Mo-fo, I'm the guy who played it on the record!"

I've noticed that famous guitar solos get more scrutiny in this regard than anything else. Doesn't matter who the player is, including the one who played the solo on the record. If they dare to play anything different, people get upset...unless the new solo is even better (and even then...).

Well the same is true of solos in well known big band tunes.... In the Mood everybody expects to hear something close to the original solos... Jack Jenny's Startdust solo in the Artie Shaw recording.

I played in the Shaw band for almost 20 years and only rarely played the original, I mostly tried to give my solo a similar vibe but not at all the same. And I never played the same solo twice except the times I played Jack Jenny's solo.

I think that's an acceptable approach.

Hi again Folks !

@Tbdana.
Well , you first ask a question , then you wait for an answer which anyway must reflects your thoughts ...
So , the only possible answer is : "Yes Dana " ?
As I said , and explained , my personal opinion is that in a classical context , one have not to change anything.

I do not know which Symphony Orchestras you referred to , but I don' t think that the good ones sounds as a " 19th century cover band" .

Have you ever played for a while with some very good Symphony Orchestras ? With some renowed conductors ? Have you ever played pieces written by Stravinsky , Ravel , Mahler , Bartok , Stauss , Bruckner , Berlioz , Brahms, etc ?
I did it for seven years , before switching to a career as Jazz player .
I played with some of the main Italian Orchestras , such RAI Symphony ( italian broadcasting national company ) ; Maggio Musicale of Florence ; Orchestra " A. Toscanini " Teatro Regio of Parma , etc.
In Florence , the resident conductor was Zubin Metha . I played under conductors such Esa -Pekka Salonen , Riccardo Chailly , Vladimir Delman , Lovro von Matacic , and others.
The music was FANTASTIC , no need for supply of fresh oxigen at all ...

@ Le Tromboniste
Hi Maximilien !
Well , I think that in the music of Monteverdi , Handel , Bach , you can add ornaments , of course.
But they were much earlier composer than Mozart ; Monteverdi was born ( maybe ? )1570 , Bach 1685 , etc.Mozart was born 1750 or so . I think should be better if you ask about adding ornaments on Haydn music.
To me , in this case , the answer is NO .

I am not against adding ornaments , but I think that in Mozart or Haydn music , they will sound too much redundant , heavy , not appropriate ; also if in that period was still a common practice . For Monteverdi , Handel , etc , they are beautiful. I find Mozart music very agile , fresh , joyful , etc . To me , there is nothing to add .
Of course , this is only my point of wiew !



Regards
Giancarlo

GGJazz wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 4:26 pm
@Tbdana.
Well , you first ask a question , then you wait for an answer which anyway must reflects your thoughts ...
So , the only possible answer is : "Yes Dana " ?

Huh??? What??? Um, no.

As I said , and explained , my personal opinion is that in a classical context , one have not to change anything.

Okay. I asked for opinions, and you gave yours. Thank you.

I do not know which Symphony Orchestras you referred to , but I don' t think that the good one sounds as a " 19th century cover band"

Have you ever played for a while with some very good Symphony Orchestras ? With some renowed conductors ? Have you ever played pieces written by Stravinsky , Ravel , Mahler , Bartok , Stauss , Bruckner , Berlioz , Brahms, etc ?
I did it for seven years , before switching to a career as Jazz player .
I played with some of the main Italian Orchestras , such RAI Symphony ( italian broadcasting national company ) ; Maggio Musicale of Florence ; Orchestra " A. Toscanini " Teatro Regio of Parma , etc.
In Florence , the resident conductor was Zubin Metha . I played under

Hmmm. Well, I've played with a few decent symphony orchestras. Ironically perhaps, the best one was actually a pops orchestra, the Hollywood Bowl Orchestra, and the conductor was John Mauceri, though we had a number of guest conductors and a whole bunch of performing celebrity soloists and artists.

I don't think any particular orchestra is referred to as an 18th century cover band, it's just a phrase used to describe the purpose of symphony orchestras in general from a particular tongue-in-cheek humorous perspective. And it has some humorous validity. The "bread and butter" of a symphony orchestra is to play pieces by long dead composers, and their ethic is to show the most fidelity possible to those composers' intent...which perfectly describes what a cover band is, which plays songs by other composers and tries to remain faithful to the originals rather than making the songs their own.

I'm not sure what your gripe is with me, or what point you're trying to make to me. If I spoke Italian (a language I absolutely adore), I might be able to understand you better, but I'm sorry, I do not.

Hi .

@Tbdana
Hi Dana . Just to be clear ,it was not a gripe , and I don' t try to make any point .

To me , the expression " 18th century cover band" was a bit derogatory .

Probably I just miss the "humorous perspective " ...

Regards
Giancarlo

GGJazz wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 5:35 pm Hi .

@Tbdana
Hi Dana . Just to be clear ,it was not a gripe , and I don' t try to make any point .

To me , the expression " 18th century cover band" was a bit derogatory .

Probably I just miss the "humorous perspective " ...

Regards
Giancarlo

Oh, my. It is not derogatory that I know, and certainly not by me, but is intended to be a humorous description of what an orchestra does, that's all.

Surely to be an 18th Century cover band one must use 18th Century instruments?
This hardly happens

As others have said, it's entirely dependent on context.

There is a school of thought that holds composers as god-like creatures putting performers squarely in the role of divining the composers' intentions (I'm not sure why we don't call these musicians Priests, but hey). There's another that says the source material is a starting reference and the performer is entirely in charge of what they do with it.

Both are valid, and I'd expect a performer to explicitly choose where along that spectrum each performance should lie. If you're in any doubt I'd ask the conductor/promoter.

As an aside, I really enjoyed this look at where Yunchan Lim deviated from Chopin's manuscript:
Then on the flip side there was an article by Katherine Needleman (Oboeist in the Baltimore Symphony) where she cut a piece short to better fit a recital programme. She asked the composer for permission first and got all giddy with excitement at the possibilities of changing up existing music to suit a given performance. That struck me as a little sad - first of all it wouldn't even occur to me to need permission from the composer to make such an adjustment, second that she hadn't felt empowered to do that to all the rest of her repertoire until then.

mgladdish wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:31 am Then on the flip side there was an article by Katherine Needleman (Oboeist in the Baltimore Symphony) where she cut a piece short to better fit a recital programme. She asked the composer for permission first and got all giddy with excitement at the possibilities of changing up existing music to suit a given performance. That struck me as a little sad - first of all it wouldn't even occur to me to need permission from the composer to make such an adjustment, second that she hadn't felt empowered to do that to all the rest of her repertoire until then.

I had the same reaction to Katherine's post, of thinking how sad that even such highly proficient performers don't feel that artistic freedom unless expressly given to them.

I also remember however feeling that excitement when I was preparing to conduct Mahler 6 and had to decide on the order of the inner movements and thinking how refreshing that we actually even have that choice available to us for once!

Seems to me to just be a nice gesture to ask, rather than feeling the need to ask permission.

A question...

Who gets to make said changes?

The performer. Or the music director if it's an ensemble.

In musical theater, for example, stuff gets cut all the time. Or performed in a slightly different order.

"The map is not the territory."
(Korzybski, me thinks.)