Dmitri's Dacha

[relm1]

Personally, I don't really see the need for anyone to have orchestrated any of Shostakovich's SQs. They're perfect the way they are, IMHO.

This doesn't make any sense to me.  It's just like saying "Personally, I don't really ee the need for anyone else to have recorded any of Shostakovich's SQ's.  Borodin SQ performance are perfect the way they are, IMHO."  You see why this makes no sense?  Interpreters hear something new and different in a work that you might not hear.  That's the whole point.  It's a new interpretation of how they hear it.  Sometimes it's more successful (in some ways perhaps) and sometimes not but to argue no further interpretation is necessary is a very strange position, IMHO.

[Mirror Image]

This doesn't make any sense to me.  It's just like saying "Personally, I don't really ee the need for anyone else to have recorded any of Shostakovich's SQ's.  Borodin SQ performance are perfect the way they are, IMHO."  You see why this makes no sense?  Interpreters hear something new and different in a work that you might not hear.  That's the whole point.  It's a new interpretation of how they hear it.  Sometimes it's more successful (in some ways perhaps) and sometimes not but to argue no further interpretation is necessary is a very strange position, IMHO.

I meant that these works are beautiful as string quartets and this is my preferred way of listening to them --- in their original form. For me, there isn't a need for any further elaboration on them, but if you enjoy those Chamber Symphonies (arranged by Barshai if I'm not mistaken and perhaps some others) then nobody is stopping you from doing so, but I don't care anything about them.

[BasilValentine]

This doesn't make any sense to me.  It's just like saying "Personally, I don't really ee the need for anyone else to have recorded any of Shostakovich's SQ's.  Borodin SQ performance are perfect the way they are, IMHO."  You see why this makes no sense?  Interpreters hear something new and different in a work that you might not hear.  That's the whole point.  It's a new interpretation of how they hear it.  Sometimes it's more successful (in some ways perhaps) and sometimes not but to argue no further interpretation is necessary is a very strange position, IMHO.

This is a bogus argument. Different interpretations among different string quartets, the ensemble authorized by the composer, are in no way comparable to unauthorized arrangements for other ensembles. Calling the latter "interpretations" is a cynical and obvious distortion of the term's meaning. Shostakovich wrote the works for string quartet. Do you have a problem appreciating music for solo strings? Many people do. If so, why not just own it rather than brutalizing logic and good sense to justify your preference?

[Karl Henning]

This is a bogus argument. Different interpretations among different string quartets, the ensemble authorized by the composer, are in no way comparable to unauthorized arrangements for other ensembles. Calling the latter "interpretations" is a cynical and obvious distortion of the term's meaning. Shostakovich wrote the works for string quartet. Do you have a problem appreciating music for solo strings? Many people do.

FWIW, that's not how I read him.

[vers la flamme]

FWIW, that's not how I read him.

Likewise—nowhere did Relm say (s)he did/could not enjoy the string quartets nor that (s)he prefers the string symphony arrangements.

[Karl Henning]

Of course, Rudolf Barshai was the founding violist of the Borodin Quartet. No one supposes that he had any "problem" with the Shostakovich quartets qua quartets, I trust?

[Mirror Image]

Of course, Rudolf Barshai was the founding violist of the Borodin Quartet. No one supposes that he had any "problem" with the Shostakovich quartets qua quartets, I trust?

I'm being presumptuous here I'm sure, but I believe that Shostakovich had no problems whatsoever with Barshai's arrangements and perhaps felt it to be an honor to have such orchestrations done in the first-place.

[Mirror Image]

I find it rather amusing that my initial comment on preferring the SQs as they are has spiraled out-of-control. Look, everyone, I like what I like and to question or comment on what my preference is seems to me to be bizarre and comes across as finger-wagging.

[Karl Henning]

I assure you my fingers are (well, not still, as I am typing but) certainly not wagging ... just a note that "not really seeing the need for anyone to have done such-and-so" reads very differently from the straightforward expression of a preference.

[Mirror Image]

I assure you my fingers are (well, not still, as I am typing but) certainly not wagging ... just a note that "not really seeing the need for anyone to have done such-and-so" reads very differently from the straightforward expression of a preference.

Yes, but the implication is very clear in what I meant. This seems like a case of reading too much into what I wrote. Anyway, I wrote what I wrote and I can't take it back, but I reiterated this preference, so any further discussion on this matter is moot at this juncture I'd say.

[Karl Henning]

I'm being presumptuous here I'm sure, but I believe that Shostakovich had no problems whatsoever with Barshai's arrangements and perhaps felt it to be an honor to have such orchestrations done in the first-place.

I was curious, and looked in the index of Elizabeth Wilson's Shostakovich: A Life Remembered, but I don't find any reference to the arrangement.

[aukhawk]

The thing is, the Chamber Symphonies seem a bit mis-named to appear more than what they are - as far as I can hear,  very straighforward arrangements of string quartet music for massed strings.  There may be some doubling (eg cellos and double basses) but there is no new music - just different timbres.  And the big downside is you lose that chamber group interaction - what is left just sounds anodyne, elevator music almost.  It's just jobs for the orchestral boys really.
I don't imagine there is any issue with DSCH approval - some if not all of these were published long before his death.

[Karl Henning]

The thing is, the Chamber Symphonies seem a bit mis-named to appear more than what they are - as far as I can hear,  very straighforward arrangements of string quartet music for massed strings.

A fair point.

[Roasted Swan]

The thing is, the Chamber Symphonies seem a bit mis-named to appear more than what they are - as far as I can hear,  very straighforward arrangements of string quartet music for massed strings.  There may be some doubling (eg cellos and double basses) but there is no new music - just different timbres.  And the big downside is you lose that chamber group interaction - what is left just sounds anodyne, elevator music almost.  It's just jobs for the orchestral boys really.
I don't imagine there is any issue with DSCH approval - some if not all of these were published long before his death.

A very fair point.  But much the same can be said for just about ALL "rearrangements" of quartets for string orchestra.  Think Mahler's version of Death and the Maiden - he hardly changes a thing except adding some double bass doubling and a bit of dynamics and phrasing.  I can't think of a single such arrrangement that adds sunstantively to the quartet original

[Karl Henning]

[snip] but there is no new music - just different timbres.  And the big downside is you lose that chamber group interaction - what is left just sounds anodyne, elevator music almost.  It's just jobs for the orchestral boys really.

A very fair point.  But much the same can be said for just about ALL "rearrangements" of quartets for string orchestra.  Think Mahler's version of Death and the Maiden - he hardly changes a thing except adding some double bass doubling and a bit of dynamics and phrasing.  I can't think of a single such arrangement that adds substantively to the quartet original

I want to add that, from my viewpoint. the arrangement (which perforce tends to be minimal) for string orchestra in no way seems inherently dulling. I do not find that at all in the case of, say, Schoenberg's Verklärte Nacht, nor Kremerata Baltica's arrangement of Weinberg's Piano Quintet. I'd say that I find the Moscow Virtuosi performance of the Op. 110a as nervy and focused as a performance by a quartet of the original.

[Madiel]

This doesn't make any sense to me.  It's just like saying "Personally, I don't really ee the need for anyone else to have recorded any of Shostakovich's SQ's.  Borodin SQ performance are perfect the way they are, IMHO."  You see why this makes no sense?  Interpreters hear something new and different in a work that you might not hear.  That's the whole point.  It's a new interpretation of how they hear it.  Sometimes it's more successful (in some ways perhaps) and sometimes not but to argue no further interpretation is necessary is a very strange position, IMHO.

It's not all the same. What makes no sense to me is claiming this is just an "interpretation".

An interpretation does not involve ignoring or changing the composer's decisions. Changing the instrumentation does involve ignoring or changing the composer's decisions. Because instrumentation WAS a decision. And it affected everything else about the music.

I'm really amazed at just how many people believe that instruments are just interchangeable things with no consequence.

Arrangements can be done, but only with ENORMOUS care and it's done far, far too often. By far best done by the composer themselves.

[Madiel]

I want to add that, from my viewpoint. the arrangement (which perforce tends to be minimal) for string orchestra in no way seems inherently dulling. I do not find that at all in the case of, say, Schoenberg's Verklärte Nacht, nor Kremerata Baltica's arrangement of Weinberg's Piano Quintet. I'd say that I find the Moscow Virtuosi performance of the Op. 110a as nervy and focused as a performance by a quartet of the original.

The orchestral Schoenberg is indeed dull compared to the original.

[Karl Henning]

The orchestral Schoenberg is indeed dull compared to the original.

I don't doubt that there are recordings to justify that opinion.

[Madiel]

I don't doubt that there are recordings to justify that opinion.

Karajan.

[relm1]

It's not all the same. What makes no sense to me is claiming this is just an "interpretation".

An interpretation does not involve ignoring or changing the composer's decisions. Changing the instrumentation does involve ignoring or changing the composer's decisions. Because instrumentation WAS a decision. And it affected everything else about the music.

I'm really amazed at just how many people believe that instruments are just interchangeable things with no consequence.

Arrangements can be done, but only with ENORMOUS care and it's done far, far too often. By far best done by the composer themselves.

Of course it's an interpretation.  Of how the orchestrator interpreted it.  Conductor interpret composers all the time.  That means they ingore tempo sometimes and dynamics, sometimes phrasing, sometimes expressive indication.   EVERY conductor interprets the wishes of the composer.  Some far more than others.  The same with performers.  Follow the scores of operas or concerti.  I guarantee you, there is massive interpretive versions happening.  Pavaratti is NOT singing the phrasing Puccini wrote.  He's embellishing it...and making it his own version.  Some will hate his version, they can, but shouldn't dismiss that interpretive choice that each artist is making if it's the conductor, performer, soloist, or even orchestrator.  You can hate the idea of someone doing it and that's probably what Mirror meant to say but not what he said.  Some of these people are also orchestrators or other composers and are doing the very same thing.   Here is a simple challenge for you and anyone who thinks like you.  Have you ever played a work that's in the standard repertoire as an orchestral performer?  Have you ever played that work by multiple conductors...perhaps maybe even in the same evening?  How would you say they differed in the version of this work...as if they had their own...INTERPRETATION??

Anyway, enough of this topic.  Let's just saw we strongly disagree.