# Cuts- unkind and otherwise



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Recently, I considered that when cuts in Classical Music are discussed nowadays, they are frequently accompanied by words like "savage," brutal," and so on. One almost never hears about cuts being "well-judged," "tasteful," and the like. Though some of my favorite composers are scarcely known for their brevity (Wagner, Mahler, Bruckner), there _are_ rare occasions when we can have "addition by subtraction," no?

Exhibit A, for me, is the exposition repeat in movement 1 of Mahler's 6th symphony. There is conflicting testimony on whether the repeat was considered by Mahler to be obligatory or optional, but that repeat, taken in performance, carries all the charm of a point belabored, from my perspective.

We are much more tolerant of a Mahler cut when it issues from the composer's own initiative. Does anyone miss the 'Blumine' movement from Mahler's 1st, for instance? Those who do, I think, are outnumbered by those who get worked up about whether or not the repeat in 6 is taken.

Exhibit B is Bruckner's 8th, Haas vs. Nowak. There are a lot of folk whose opinions I normally respect (Cooke, Simpson) who argue for the lengthier treatment of Haas, but to these ears, Haas' variances still sound more like bloat than grandeur.

A couple of passing observations on Wagner- when Wagner reworked *Tannhäuser* into the Paris version, he trimmed from Dresden's Act II treatment, to the benefit of the work (IMO). Of course, there are many who believe that *Tannhäuser* is Wagner's weakest canonical work, and that the second part of Act II is the very weakest link in that chain- so passing by more quickly is helpful.*

To take another example, I've heard in more than one quarter that *Götterdämmerung* wouldn't suffer from losing the Norn Scene, to which I can only react with an emoticon...! I think the Norn Scene is GREAT music, and would consider its absence a mutilation.:angry:

So, over to you, is anyone willing to provide rare evidence of a little righteous editing- or alternatively, RECENT examples of truly distortional cuts? [Seeking to limit the second case to latter-day instances, as there are too many 'historical' cases to easily count.]

*Currently, in 'another place,' TANNHÄUSER is being beaten with a stick. I don't think it deserves it- and one day, I may start a thread demonstrating that TANNHÄUSER is Wagner's *most widely misunderstood* opera, where even commentators like Mann and Fr. Lee have lost their way- but that's an issue for another time.


----------



## David C Coleman (Nov 23, 2007)

To be honest with you, I think cuts and revisions in music are largely down to people pressure! One can think of Bruckner especially. Other good examples are the The Great C Major Symphony of Schubert and the replacing of the Grosse Fugue with a "more conventional" Finale to Beethoven's String Quartet in BFlat Op, 130.
If the audience didn't like it, they demanded change. I think it's poppycock!. After all would a great painter " revise" his or her picture because the public didn't like it? How can a painter reproduce exactly what was in his mind at the time? No! it becomes a different work. And so it is with musical scores. True a composer can learn from his or her mistakes and work to make his music sound more "pleasing" to the public but is art more than just entertainment? Shouldn't we just take an artist at his own merit and qualities and make our own minds up as to whether we "like" it or not???:angry: I tell you if Bruckner hadn't revised his symphonies over and over again, we might have had twelve maybe thirteen symphonies out of him...who knows?


----------



## Lang (Sep 30, 2008)

With the single exception of cuts which involve not playing the exposition repeat in some symphonies, I have never heard a cut which improves the piece.


----------



## Rondo (Jul 11, 2007)

David C Coleman said:


> I tell you if Bruckner hadn't revised his symphonies over and over again, we might have had twelve maybe thirteen symphonies out of him...who knows?


Just the same, Beethoven could have written another opera! Only pure speculation, of course.


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2008)

This could develop into a long thread, I think some pieces benefited from cuts and some that IMHO would benefit from cuts but I want to recheck and gather facts before I say any more.


----------



## soundandfury (Jul 12, 2008)

One cut that's ok imho is Wood's Fantasia on British Sea Songs. _Everyone_ starts it from rehearsal mark 5 (I don't know the name of the song at that point), which is the first loud bit; a few weeks ago we tried it right from the beginning and it just drags tbh.


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2008)

*Chi_town/Philly *

I feel with Bruckner and Mahler that they are taking us on a meandering journey and although I love their works very much I can see that a cut here or there would not spoil it for the majority _*[ I guess this will raise a few hackles]*_ and must confess that I have not studied either composers works in any depth, I am hoping that those that have the necessary knowledge will take the rest of us through the intricacies of these cuts and various editions in a manner that we can follow, with a few detailed examples thrown in e.g. "1st mov from such a bar to this bar" compared to…………..

I have only two "Bruckner 8" CDs BPO Karajan a studio recording made in 1975, it is a 1887 Haas edition, my other CD is a historic one of VPO Furtwangler Recorded live 1944 in Vienna, no other information is given but I suspect the it is the same as Karajan as it lasts 77min which is close to the 82min of Karajan or would that possibly be a Nowak version???.

I have just noticed that the VPO CD is a Furtwangler arranged version


----------



## David C Coleman (Nov 23, 2007)

But the point is, it's ok if the composer himself thinks that the work itself benefits from a cut or revision, not the public!. 
In the case of Bruckner and Mahler, yes! they are very long works. But if they're tampered with too much they're balance is upset and they sound even more odd!. I'm sure that B & M don't say to themselves, "Ok we are just going to compose very long pieces just for the sake of it and the public are going to complain about it later on, so we'll just have to prepare ourselves for making cuts later on", No, of course not. 
I think we just have to adapt to a different way to listen to very long pieces...


----------



## David C Coleman (Nov 23, 2007)

Andante said:


> *Chi_town/Philly *
> 
> I have only two "Bruckner 8" CDs BPO Karajan a studio recording made in 1975, it is a 1887 Haas edition, my other CD is a historic one of VPO Furtwangler Recorded live 1944 in Vienna, no other information is given but I suspect the it is the same as Karajan as it lasts 77min which is close to the 82min of Karajan or would that possibly be a Nowak version???.


Not sure of those two particular recordings, but the Nowak version is the shorter of the two "revised" versions, and the most dissatisfying version in my book of all the "versions" of the 8th. The Haas version is the "revised" 8th but he had the sense to re-incorporate sections of the original (and true) version of the symphony to make the symphony sound more balanced....


----------



## shsherm (Jan 24, 2008)

Does everybody have such short attention spans and impatience that they can't listen to an entire composition? I know many Wagner enthusiasts who attend the Beyreuth Festival every year. and can't wait to hear the Ring. None of them want to shorten the five hour operas that Wagner wrote. None of the Mahler or Bruckner symphonies should ever be tampered with.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

I don't mind not repeating section (of long works), but I really hate it when they don't repeat when there is a special ending. I want to hear that bar.

Basically I don't mind cutting straight repeats as long as NOTHING new is missing.


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2008)

*Regarding Bruckners 8th*, Which is the accepted long (original) version that Bruckner himself was happy with [if he was happy with any] how much longer is it compared to the Haas version, and where are the cuts?


----------



## David C Coleman (Nov 23, 2007)

Andante said:


> *Regarding Bruckners 8th*, Which is the accepted long (original) version that Bruckner himself was happy with [if he was happy with any] how much longer is it compared to the Haas version, and where are the cuts?


Andante, if you follow this link it will explain the work far better than I am likely to...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._8_(Bruckner)


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2008)

Thanks DC, I have read the article but find no references as to the actual difference in length (time) of work, I have however copied and edited some interesting bits from the article that may wet the apatite of posters on this thread I would urge all posters to have a look at the full article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._8_(Bruckner)

*Edit from Wiki Article:*

*1892 edition*
This was the first publication of the symphony, and was also the version used at the first performance. It contains some relatively minor changes from the 1890 manuscript, the most notable being a six-measure cut and a two-bar repeated passage in the Finale. The alterations were made by Joseph Schalk and Max von Oberleithner, almost certainly without Bruckner's direct involvement, but were probably approved by the composer before publication. Korstvedt writes that while the 1892 edition may not be "pure Bruckner" - whatever that might be - to all appearances Bruckner authorized it, and for that reason it needs to be taken seriously.. This edition is available in complete recordings by Wilhelm Furtwängler, Hans Knappertsbusch, Josef Krips, William Steinberg, George Szell, Bruno Walter and Takeo Noguchi. Serge Koussevitzky also used this edition in his severely cut broadcast performance of 1947; this performance, which has been preserved on disc, amounts to a wholly new Haas edition

*Robert Haas* published his edition of the Eighth Symphony in 1939. Haas mainly based his work on the 1890 autograph but also included some passages from the 1887 version that were changed or omitted in the 1890 score.

Haas took what he admired from Bruckner's different versions and rolled them into his own version. He justified the rejection of various features of Bruckner's 1890 revision on biographical grounds: they are the ideas of a Bruckner who mistrusted his own judgment, and therefore non-Brucknerian.
The most significant omissions that Bruckner made (and therefore of Haas's restorations) are in the Adagio and Finale of the work. In addition, Haas inserted eight measures into the finale that he appears to have composed himself by combining the harmonies of the 1887 manuscript with material Bruckner penciled into the margin of the 1890 score, discarding five measures of Bruckner's own music in the process. 
There were no footnotes or other indication in Haas's edition that these changes had been made. 
The controversy over the Haas edition centers on the fact that its musical text was a fabrication of the editor and was never approved by Bruckner himself. In particular Leopold Nowak, who succeeded Haas as principal editor of the Bruckner complete works, argued that there is little evidence for the psychological breakdown that Haas claimed Bruckner suffered upon Levi's rejection of the work. Bruckner's letters at the time suggest that he was frustrated by Levi's judgment (dismissing Levi as having a "hard time grasping things") and psychologically healthy. Bruckner's revisions, according to this view, are the result of his artistic perfectionism. Nowak therefore rejected Haas's approach by sticking closely to Bruckner's autograph scores. Since its publication Nowak's edition of the 1890 version has become more popular than Haas's, although Haas's is still often performed.
_*
There is also an interesting bit on instrumentation*_


----------



## David C Coleman (Nov 23, 2007)

*Thanks DC, I have read the article but find no references as to the actual difference in length (time) of work, I have however copied and edited some interesting bits from the article that may wet the apatite of posters on this thread I would urge all posters to have a look at the full article*

I think the original 1887 version is the longest, The Haas, revised version is the next longest and the Nowak revised version is the shortest. My recordings of all three versions as original - 90 mins, Haas is 87 mins and Nowak is 80 mins..(of course it all depends on the conductors interpretation). But the Nowak is the shortest bar wise!!...o ..I tell you bruckner has to be the most complicated composer that ever lived. Unless anybody knows any different!)....


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2008)

So DC, there is not a great deal of difference between Bruckner @ 90min and Haas @ 87min but Nowak is considerably shorter @ 80min, which is confusing because

*QUOTE* "Nowak therefore rejected Haas's approach by sticking closely to Bruckner's autograph scores" which I take as meaning 'Nowak stuck close to the autographed score or am I interperating this wrongly' ?


----------



## David C Coleman (Nov 23, 2007)

Andante said:


> So DC, there is not a great deal of difference between Bruckner @ 90min and Haas @ 87min but Nowak is considerably shorter @ 80min, which is confusing because
> 
> *QUOTE* "Nowak therefore rejected Haas's approach by sticking closely to Bruckner's autograph scores" which I take as meaning 'Nowak stuck close to the autographed score or am I interperating this wrongly' ?


Haha!, well It's all a bit beyond my territory as well..I guess you will have to ask a musicologist..I just listen to the darn things!!...


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2008)

Same here DC but I do like to go into these things, and I see not too much harm in the odd cut or edit, but some of these jokers add bits as well.


----------



## David C Coleman (Nov 23, 2007)

Andante said:


> Same here DC but I do like to go into these things, and I see not too much harm in the odd cut or edit, but some of these jokers add bits as well.


Well, surely the truest autograph score must be the original 1887 version. Trouble is the revised version(s) are generally accepted as aesthetically more pleasing. This is typical Bruckner, he was pressured into revising his works. If the composer, himself realised that his works would benefit from revision then he would be far less controversial. I have to admit that his original scores for his symphonies do sound rather crude and amateurish albeit exciting. The revised versions are generally accepted as masterpieces, whilst the originals sound more like an experimentations...

The Bruckner saga will always continue!....


----------

