Quiz: Mystery scores

[lukeottevanger]

OK, sorry, I'm not sure how esnips works from your point of view, only from mine as the uploader. Any other links on the page you get to? You need to go to my 'other stuff' folder.

[greg]

OK, sorry, I'm not sure how esnips works from your point of view, only from mine as the uploader. Any other links on the page you get to? You need to go to my 'other stuff' folder.

sorry, Luke, but it doesn't take me anywhere else if i do what you say...... would having you as a 'friend' possibly help?

[Maciek]

I can attest that it certainly doesn't hurt... 0:)

[Maciek]

Actually - I downloaded the file without any problems. Thanks for this, Luke!

[Maciek]

And just finished "leafing" through it (virtually) for the first time. Luke, this is beautifully done, and obviously it was a lot of hard work. Thank you so much once again! You deserve some sort of gilded score printing press or gold medal. At least.

[lukeottevanger]

I'm just a little ashamed of the mis-spelt Messiaen and the place where the name of one score appears on the next page! But thanks - it took quite a long time, but it was fun going through the whole thread again.

Greg, if Maciek has managed to download it then, yes, I imagine making me your 'friend' would help. Alternatively, perhaps he or someone else who has got hold of it would like to upload it somewhere easier-to-get-at.

[Maciek]

I'm in the process of doing just that, Greg, though I don't know how big the file will turn out to be - pretty huge, it seems. But on my trawl through the thread, I've come across a couple of lines from a certain Pole which I find quite amusing in retrospect, given his eventual set of 90 score samples:

and, after he'd set only five of them:

and a little later the hilarious:

Well, you've embarrassed me and now I've gone and actually done a quick count. And the real figure would be about 40-60. So I wasn't that far off the mark. 0:) Anyway, many of mine where either taken from the internet (some of the Lithuanian ones), or taken from books (where they were put as examples), or promotional materials (the Kilar PC!) etc. Also - sometimes there is more than one piece in a single volume. Eg. my nos 57, 58 and 64 all come from one and the same volume.

There, that's cleared up now.

(BTW, I love the comment "more Szymanowski than you can shake a stick at" LOL! )

Incidentally, there's a pattern I forgot to point out in my nos 66-90, and I remembered about it now: in each set of 5 scores there's one by Bacewicz, one by Baird, one by Lutoslawski, one by Penderecki + each time one by a different (Polish ) composer.

[lukeottevanger]

Incidentally, there's a pattern I forgot to point out in my nos 66-90, and I remembered about it now: in each set of 5 scores there's one by Bacewicz, one by Baird, one by Lutoslawski, one by Penderecki + each time one by a different (Polish ) composer.

That's one I never spotted!

So, do we have any preferences? Continue the thread ? Start a new one ? Let the game die  ? (my smileys show where my feelings lie!)

[Maciek]

Continue the thread

My feelings exactly!




Greg, here's a link to the score pdf on mediafire:
http://www.mediafire.com/?4zxnznzjdql

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

I didn't participate because I found this thread way too late. But it was fun lurking. And several scores I recognized immediately that took you guys quite long (Delius, Brian (of course)), but with many many others I was simply hopeless.

I should say - go on!

(Hello, Maciek!)

[Maciek]

Hello, Johan, you lurker, you!

[greg]

nicely done, Luke! Congratulations and thanks for the slave labor 

now, shall we contine on? 

[lukeottevanger]

Are you sure? I'm ready to go when you are.

Last time round, I got the feeling some people thought the scores were getting a little too obscure - to me, tracking down obscure stuff is great fun, but I can see how others would prefer to work with scores which are more immediately guessable. So to start with I've prepared quite a few samples by composers who are all counted among 'the greats' - composers you would find in most sensible people's 'top 100' list, in many cases very high up it or even at the top. To keep it interesting I haven't always gone for their best known works, but nor have I been willfully obscure.

OK, here goes:

LO 165

[lukeottevanger]

LO 166

[lukeottevanger]

LO 167

[lukeottevanger]

LO 168

[lukeottevanger]

LO 169

[lukeottevanger]

LO 170

[lukeottevanger]

LO 171

[lukeottevanger]

LO 172