Thoughts on Arrangements

[Madiel]

Arrangements are never intended to replace original works - they supplement and extend our knowledge and appreciation of the original.  My feeling is that folk who dismiss arrangements are simply putting the original work on an inviolable pedestal. 

Those 2 sentences are not entirely consistent with each other.

I have the same school of thought about arrangements as I do of remixes in pop music: 95% of them are worthless, but occasionally you find a good one.

[Roasted Swan]

Those 2 sentences are not entirely consistent with each other.

I have the same school of thought about arrangements as I do of remixes in pop music: 95% of them are worthless, but occasionally you find a good one.

Not sure I understand the first part of your comment.  My opinion is my sentance 1- ie arrangements have a value.  My sense is that the earlier post regarding "violating" the original is therefore the diametrical opinion that arrangements can never have a value in that the result will always diminish the original.

[Madiel]

Not sure I understand the first part of your comment.  My opinion is my sentance 1- ie arrangements have a value.  My sense is that the earlier post regarding "violating" the original is therefore the diametrical opinion that arrangements can never have a value in that the result will always diminish the original.

Yes, but your opinion is also that arrangements do not, and are not intended to, replace the original. Which suggests the original retains primacy. Yet you object to people giving the original primacy.

What is the point of arrangements? In my view the primary point of them originally was the practical one of making the music available when the original version couldn't be performed. Putting the music in a format that fit with the available resources. So, for example, Nielsen provided an alternative option for when voices weren't available.

But in the age of recorded music and widespread performances, this rationale frankly loses a lot. And in the context of this forum where we're talking about choosing a recording, there are few times where it makes ANY kind of sense to me to choose a recording of an arrangement when recordings of the original are sitting right there in front of you. Live performances of an arrangement still make some sense in certain contexts. Recordings of arrangements, though, especially for particularly odd instrumentations, frequently look like a gimmicky attempt to get attention in a crowded market. Sure, there are a thousand versions of this Beethoven symphony, but we're the only version arranged for flugelhorn, electric guitar and marimba!

It's worth mentioning Beethoven because his own view was that the great majority of arrangements were crap. He's influenced me significantly.

[Florestan]

It's worth mentioning Beethoven because his own view was that the great majority of arrangements were crap. He's influenced me significantly.

Here's something that would have horrified Beethoven (perhaps it did). I wonder what you would make of it. 

[Roasted Swan]

Yes, but your opinion is also that arrangements do not, and are not intended to, replace the original. Which suggests the original retains primacy. Yet you object to people giving the original primacy.

What is the point of arrangements? In my view the primary point of them originally was the practical one of making the music available when the original version couldn't be performed. Putting the music in a format that fit with the available resources. So, for example, Nielsen provided an alternative option for when voices weren't available.

But in the age of recorded music and widespread performances, this rationale frankly loses a lot. And in the context of this forum where we're talking about choosing a recording, there are few times where it makes ANY kind of sense to me to choose a recording of an arrangement when recordings of the original are sitting right there in front of you. Live performances of an arrangement still make some sense in certain contexts. Recordings of arrangements, though, especially for particularly odd instrumentations, frequently look like a gimmicky attempt to get attention in a crowded market. Sure, there are a thousand versions of this Beethoven symphony, but we're the only version arranged for flugelhorn, electric guitar and marimba!

It's worth mentioning Beethoven because his own view was that the great majority of arrangements were crap. He's influenced me significantly.

Many fair points there - but I do not wholly agree with several!  Beethoven might well have said that but given Bach or Handel or Brahms or Mozart's (to name but 4 other "greats") willingness to adapt their own (and others) music - whether for artistic, pragmatic, or financial reasons I'm not going to take Beethoven as the last word on the art of arranging.....

There are situations/scenarios where I agree completely.  For example recently I heard a recording of Mahler 2 for reduced orchestra.  The reduction/arrangement was done to facillitate a performance in the time of covid with a distanced orchestra.  As such it was remarkably good and practical and indeed probably has a performing life where/when a venue or ensemble cannot support the original scale of the work.  However as a recording enterprise I thought it verged on the deeply pointless for exactly the reasons you state.

But there are other scenarios when I think arrangements add significant value.  Just recently I listened to Schumann's added accompaniments to the Bach solo violin Sonatas & Partitas.  I find these fascinating because they give the modern listener a sense of what Schumann thought of Bach - how he reinforces some elements of lines and harmonies.  Mendelssohn did a similar thing to the Chaconne so then you can directly compare/contrast those two great composers' approach to Bach.  Similarly with Busoni and Bach - it goes beyond 'just' an arrangement to a kind symbiotic fusion of two great minds to create a hybrid work.  So likewise when one listens to the Verein für musikalische Privataufführungen "arrangements" not so much because its Bruckner or Mahler arranged for chamber ensemble but to see how the arrangers; Eisler or Schoenberg or whoever approached the task.

I do not see this as an either/or discussion - arrangements can and should exist alongside and if the original retains primacy that does not mean everything else is worthless or should not exist.

[Karl Henning]

Beethoven might well have said that ....

... but taking an artist's opinion (even a great artist) as somehow a universally applicable truism is problematic. Also, Beethoven's scorn is legendary.

[prémont]

"violating" now there's a provocative (inappropriate?) word!  Nielsen himself offered the alternative of a clarinet and bassoon if the (obviously preferable) voices were not available.

Yes, I know, and this version has also been recorded but it sounds rather blend compared to the version with voices and should be considered an emergency solution.

Arrangements have many purposes; pragmatism - allowing music to be performed in places and by ensembles that would not be possible in the original form.  Arrangements can be enlightening - often they can throw light and give insights into works not always apparent in their original form.  Arrangements are never intended to replace original works - they supplement and extend our knowledge and appreciation of the original.  My feeling is that folk who dismiss arrangements are simply putting the original work on an inviolable pedestal. 

I agree with your "pragmatic" argument, but not with your argument that arrangements (always) supplement and extend our knowledge and appreciation of the original. Well this may be the case in a few instances when the arranger is a congenial composer (F. Liszt e.g.), but most often arrangements doesn't add anything to the original work which couldn't be left out without any harm. To realize that the composers version is to be preferred to more or less commercial arrangements is to respect the composer, not to put his work on a piedestal.

[prémont]

But there are other scenarios when I think arrangements add significant value.  Just recently I listened to Schumann's added accompaniments to the Bach solo violin Sonatas & Partitas.  I find these fascinating because they give the modern listener a sense of what Schumann thought of Bach - how he reinforces some elements of lines and harmonies

Firstly: Why is it interesting, what Schumann thought of Bach. And secondly: His "thoughts" spoil the point of Bach's violin S&P, which was to show what could be expressed by a single violin.

[Florestan]

To realize that the composers version is to be preferred to more or less commercial arrangements is to respect the composer, not to put his work on a piedestal.

How about the composer's own arrangements? After the premiere of The Abduction from the Seraglio Mozart wrote his father informing him that he (Wolfgang) was up to his ears in arranging the opera for Harmoniemusik, because if he didn't do it, someone else surely would. 

[prémont]

How about the composer's own arrangements? After the premiere of The Abduction from the Seraglio Mozart wrote his father informing him that he (Wolfgang) was up to his ears in arranging the opera for Harmoniemusik, because if he didn't do it, someone else surely would. 

That Mozart arranged his own opera music for Harmoniemusik tells us that he didn't want others to do it, maybe for financial reasons but rather because he wanted to decide how it should be done. In all cases we still respect the composer when we play his own arrangements of his own music. In this case however I don't think the arrangement was meant to tell much new about the music. It's rather the "pragmatic" argument which was at play.

[Roasted Swan]

Firstly: Why is it interesting, what Schumann thought of Bach. And secondly: His "thoughts" spoil the point of Bach's violin S&P, which was to show what could be expressed by a single violin.

Yes, I know, and this version has also been recorded but it sounds rather blend compared to the version with voices and should be considered an emergency solution.

I agree with your "pragmatic" argument, but not with your argument that arrangements (always) supplement and extend our knowledge and appreciation of the original. Well this may be the case in a few instances when the arranger is a congenial composer (F. Liszt e.g.), but most often arrangements doesn't add anything to the original work which couldn't be left out without any harm. To realize that the composers version is to be preferred to more or less commercial arrangements is to respect the composer, not to put his work on a piedestal.

We'll agree to disagree

[Mapman]

This discussion in the Nielsen thread got off-topic, so I moved it here.

[Karl Henning]

[Karl Henning]

[Karl Henning]

Well, because I understand that posting videos is not actually expressing thoughts: probably for as long as there have been composers, composers have practiced the discipline of arrangement. I see no justification for dismissing either the practice or the results as de facto "worthless."

[Madiel]

Many fair points there - but I do not wholly agree with several!  Beethoven might well have said that but given Bach or Handel or Brahms or Mozart's (to name but 4 other "greats") willingness to adapt their own (and others) music - whether for artistic, pragmatic, or financial reasons I'm not going to take Beethoven as the last word on the art of arranging.....

There are situations/scenarios where I agree completely.  For example recently I heard a recording of Mahler 2 for reduced orchestra.  The reduction/arrangement was done to facillitate a performance in the time of covid with a distanced orchestra.  As such it was remarkably good and practical and indeed probably has a performing life where/when a venue or ensemble cannot support the original scale of the work.  However as a recording enterprise I thought it verged on the deeply pointless for exactly the reasons you state.

But there are other scenarios when I think arrangements add significant value.  Just recently I listened to Schumann's added accompaniments to the Bach solo violin Sonatas & Partitas.  I find these fascinating because they give the modern listener a sense of what Schumann thought of Bach - how he reinforces some elements of lines and harmonies.  Mendelssohn did a similar thing to the Chaconne so then you can directly compare/contrast those two great composers' approach to Bach.  Similarly with Busoni and Bach - it goes beyond 'just' an arrangement to a kind symbiotic fusion of two great minds to create a hybrid work.  So likewise when one listens to the Verein für musikalische Privataufführungen "arrangements" not so much because its Bruckner or Mahler arranged for chamber ensemble but to see how the arrangers; Eisler or Schoenberg or whoever approached the task.

I do not see this as an either/or discussion - arrangements can and should exist alongside and if the original retains primacy that does not mean everything else is worthless or should not exist.

Well you've given some examples within there that I would say fall within my 5% worthwhile category (plus some I would still be a little skeptical about). Something like Bach-Busoni survives not only because people admire the result but also because it IS something rather more than an arrangement.

I suspect that a fair number of my 95% have fallen by the wayside precisely because most people have worked out the lack of artistic merit. Except of course when a performer is scrambling around for something to fulfil their recording contract. The sad reality is, I think a lot of performers and/or recording companies feel that an arrangement of something excessively popular is a better option than performing or even commissioning something that was written for the instrument(s) involved.

[Mandryka]

Here's one I enjoy - Stokowski's orchestral transcription of Dido's lament. It just seems so rich and plush.

So basically I like these straight arrangements when they're expressive, and they realise the music with cool timbres.

I also like the idea of hearing my favourite performers play the music - like Egarr.

Was Stokowski somehow abusing, or debasing, Purcell's music? I would say on the contrary, he was elevating it, by making it accessible in new ways. 

[Karl Henning]

The sad reality is, I think a lot of performers and/or recording companies feel that an arrangement of something excessively popular is a better option than performing or even commissioning something that was written for the instrument(s) involved.

Your quarrel is just.

[DavidW]

I also like the idea of hearing my favourite performers play the music - like Egarr.

Yes that also gives the performer an opportunity to play something they might otherwise not be able to play.

[Madiel]

Yes that also gives the performer an opportunity to play something they might otherwise not be able to play.

I'm a pianist. Therefore while there is an extensive repertoire for me, there is an even more extensive repertoire of things that are not for piano that I can't play.

I find it weird to resent this.

I can kind of understand why players of instruments with a limited repertoire from famous composers would seek arrangements. But piano arrangements and orchestrations, for example... it's just greedy. The last thing I think when listening to a symphony or a string quartet is that I ought to be able to perform that on piano.