# When suite is not so sweet



## Guest (Mar 3, 2014)

Point raised in the five sunrises thread. A fair number of us grew up on classics that were excerpted versions of their originals.

_Karelia Suite
Nutcracker Suite
Peer Gynt Suite_

You know them.

And probably the suites from _Romeo & Juliet_ and possibly, if you were an assiduous collector, _Summer Night,_ which is a suite from _Betrothal in a Monastery._

To my ears, every one of these and every one of all the others that I know (like Nielsen's _Aladdin_) is much more interesting and satisfying than its "suite" version.

I don't particularly like _Rodeo,_ for instance, but if I had to listen to it, I would far rather hear the whole ballet than the shortened version.

What about youse alls? Does complete trump all or are there suites that are truly sweeter than their originals?


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Whether they be ballets, incidental music, film scores etc. I would normally like to hear the whole thing where possible but one exception is Shostakovich's ballet The Limpid Stream - the story itself is fairly dull and the music mostly fails to enliven it. Perhaps it should have been called The Stagnant Pond instead. DSCH created a five-movement suite from it which is all one really needs - in my opinion the water from this particular stream is much better distilled.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

In most cases, the complete ballet has musically boring parts. Don't know if watching the dancers would enliven those intervals, but if they ain't there I'll go with the excerpts.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I must admit I prefer the complete Appalachian Spring to the usual suite.

How can anyone be satisfied with a Nutcracker Suite when the complete ballet is glorious?

That goes for Sleeping Beauty and Swan Lake too!


----------



## Whistler Fred (Feb 6, 2014)

It depends. I much prefer listening to all of Tchaikovsky's three ballets complete. Ditto with Prokofiev's “Romeo and Juliet” and “Cinderella.” Kodaly's "Háry János" works for me as a suite, although there is some intriguing music from the opera I'd like to see included, such as the evocative flute solo in the first act. The complete “Firebird” falls somewhere in between. I prefer the suite, but a well-shaped performance of the full ballet can keep my attention.

I have a recording of Mendelssohn’s “Midsummer Night’s Dream” incidental music, complete with spoken monologues from the play that set the musical scene. I find that this enhances the musical effect, perhaps in a way that the music (beyond the familiar suite excerpts) by itself couldn’t do as effectively. On the other hand, I prefer the suite version of Stravinsky’s “A Soldier’s Tale” largely because it doesn’t include the dialogue and allows me to savor all of the composer’s off-kilter dances and fanfares without distraction.

So a definitive “maybe” from me!


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2014)

Well, as the early results come in, I think I may have spoken too soon, as I am now recalling a few exceptions to my hubristic "always."

The _Prologue_ from Boito's _Mephistopheles_ on that Berlioz _Requiem_ disc on Telarc. Much prefer that to the opera. And Schnittke's _Faust Cantata._ Much prefer that to the Faust opera that he made later. I think he screwed up recomposing some of the stuff in the cantata. It doesn't work as well in the opera, I don't think. And there's at least one other, that I'm not remembering off hand.

But I see all of these as exceptions, aberrations. (At least the cantata preceded the opera. It was a piece all on its own, to start with. So maybe I have some excuse there.)

Otherwise, specifically for Ukko, I really like those sort of "inbetween" moments in the ballets. There's one in _Daphnis et Chloe_ that's to die for, I think. If you have only heard the two suites from that, you never get to hear some magical music that's in the ballet. Same with the Piston. If you've only heard the suite from _Incredible Flutist,_ then you've never heard a spectacularly thrilling flute line right before the final bit that's--shoot, I already used "to die for"--that's incredibly (!) beautiful.

It is very fortunate that the only recording there is of the complete ballet of Piston's is a superb performance.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Daphne and Chloe. I rest my case.


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2014)

Wow. I somehow had no clue that the Karelia Suite was from a larger work (perhaps the name should've given it away, perhaps not). That's one of my favorite Sibelius works, as simple as it is. How's the full thing?


----------



## revdrdave (Jan 8, 2014)

Weill's _Dreigroschen Opera_...love the entire opera but love the suite even more.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Three pennies for your thoughts.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Just today I was duped by one of Stravinsky's Firebird Suites. Not only is it a handful of highlights from the ballet, the 1911 version is a truncated form of the versions most of us know. So I felt doubly cheated. I think in general the complete work will be the goal going forward. 

Thank goodness for the internet and shopping at home. Prior to that it might be very hard to tell a suite that is a self contained work from a suite that is excerpted from a larger work.


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2014)

Ukko said:


> Daphne and Chloe. I rest my case.


Hey! Wait a minute!! I just used _Daphnis et Chloe_ to rest _my_ case!!

Anyway, for arcane, yes, I think the whole thing is pretty nice, though I suspect that Ukko--fairly, I might add--might disagree. You'll just have to listen for yourself. And no, "suite" is not necessarily a giveaway, unfortunately.

The Sibelius I really favor for this is the _Press Celebrations Music,_ which is the original piece from which the much sexier named _Scenes historiques_ was devised. Oh and _Finlandia,_ too. Much more palatable in the original context. Less gagsome. (The preceding was a totally uncalled for expression of personal taste and should be expunged from your memory banks as soon as you read it.)

_Press Celebrations Music,_ though. Must be the most extreme example of cool music and lame title. New thread or just hijack this one? You decide.

If you decide to go for the complete _Karelia,_ I highly recommend the recording in which it is coupled with, you got it, the _Press Celebrations Music.
_
http://www.amazon.com/Jean-Sibelius...=1393897624&sr=1-18&keywords=sibelius+karelia

The only recording of _Press Celebrations Music _that I know of, and the better of the two _Karelia_'s, in spite of a startlingly bad splice at one point. 'Course, if you want the complete _Koulema,_ from which _Valse Triste_ came, then you will end up with the other recording of_ Karelia,_ and can decide for yourself which one you prefer.

http://www.amazon.com/Sibelius-Kare...=1393898035&sr=1-10&keywords=sibelius+karelia


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Weston said:


> Just today I was duped by one of Stravinsky's Firebird Suites. Not only is it a handful of highlights from the ballet, the 1911 version is a truncated form of the versions most of us know. So I felt doubly cheated. I think in general the complete work will be the goal going forward.


I have the complete work and, like many ballets, some parts seem pretty undistinguished (to me anyway). I'm listening to the 1945 suite now, 28+ minutes in eleven parts, Chailly. May be the best way to go. The 1919 suite is about 22 minutes. Don't have the 1911 suite...


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Many (even most) ballets have boring parts that I'd just as soon skip over -- even the original small ensemble version of Appalachian Spring. I've heard Act One of The Nutcracker too many times to be thrilled with it. Prokofiev's own R&J suites are too short and not chronological -- but the whole has a lot of filler. Several conductors have arranged longer suites that include most of the good music, mostly in order, and little of the bad. Stravinsky's ballets are generally good all the way through. The Miraculous Mandarin works both ways. Much 19th century ballet is intentionally pretty boring. Delibes' ballets work better in excerpts. The complete incidental music to Peer Gynt and Midsummer Night's Dream work pretty well; not so Egmont or Creatures of Prometheus.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Stupid joke for 10-year olds:

Q: Why did the man pour sugar into the Colorado River?

A: Because he wanted to make the Grand Canyon sweet.


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2014)

I'm sixty-one. That's like six ten year olds all rolled into one, plus that squalling infant.

Should be fun.


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2014)

Here's a dumb question. What's the difference between incidental music and symphonic poems?


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2014)

Incidental music is music for a play.

_Peer Gynt._
_Midsummer Night's Dream._

Symphonic poems is a made-up sort of category for orchestral pieces that are generally a single movement, that aren't symphonies or concertos or suites or theme and variations or some such. It's often music that's connected, however tenuously, to a story. Or that has a story, perhaps made up to go with the piece.

Les Preludes.
The Wild Dove.

Far as I know, it's another word for _Tone Poem._


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Suites can be too sweet. All that concentrated confection will rot your teeth, you need some of those boring bits to give you some respite, a little aural fibre. If there's no time for a whole ballet a suite might suffice but I would most likely take it with sips of something cool and refreshing between the slices, perhaps lieder or piano pieces.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

I listen to the Firebird Suite sometimes, but Pulcinella has to be the full work. When you drop the singing, it really ruins it.


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

Suites are good, if you regard them as a trailer for the whole work


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Quick quiz question - which composer has produced the most suites from a single work? I don't actually know the answer but the most I can think of is Khachaturian who made four from Spartacus.

There have been some interesting examples mentioned by all so far. Some Guy mentions Schnittke's Faust - I haven't heard the full opera (Some Guy reinforces the general consensus of opinion that the first two acts is not Schnittke at his best) but the cantata seems perfectly self-sustaining as a stand-alone. 

Another example of Kurt Weill which works well when reduced is the Mahagonny Songspiel - not a suite but a shorter 'pilot' work for the much longer Rise & Fall of the City of Mahagonny. In this case, both are worth hearing.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

I think they're just different ways to experience the music, but generally I prefer access to the entire work. Like if I were seeing a long concert... maybe a suite would be nice, so that a variety of other tunes could be played too, but on records, you gotta have the whole work. I mean, you can make your own damn suite if you want when its on a CD or in digital files.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

What about Ravel's _Ma mère l'oye_?. It started as a piano duet for children (1910). Then Ravel orchestrated it in 1911. Finally, the work was transformed into a full ballet in 1912!.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

It's pretty good. A bit too delicate for me.


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

There must be at least four Cinderella suites if you count orchestra and solo piano.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

John Cag'es suite for toy piano. Pretty poor stuff.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

A suite is fine for a novice, introducing him to great music. But to compare a Nutcracker Suite to the entire ballet, well there is no comparison.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

hpowders said:


> But to compare a Nutcracker Suite to the entire ballet, well there is no comparison.


I totally agree, in the case of the Nutcracker. In the suite, the boring and second-rate parts are omitted.


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

arcaneholocaust said:


> Wow. I somehow had no clue that the Karelia Suite was from a larger work (perhaps the name should've given it away, perhaps not). That's one of my favorite Sibelius works, as simple as it is. How's the full thing?


it is early Saturday morning, listening to Borodin and reading various threads when I too realise the above....Sibelius is,always was and always will be my 'mainman' in this context and so off to Amazon to buy the Ondine recording in an effort to rectify this gap.........evidence that this forum really is beneficial sometimes......good morning all from one enlightened member!


----------



## Freischutz (Mar 6, 2014)

GreenMamba said:


> I listen to the Firebird Suite sometimes, but Pulcinella has to be the full work. When you drop the singing, it really ruins it.


I was thinking of Pulcinella too when I saw this thread.

Depending on where the suites are coming from, in general I would say that I prefer to listen to whole ballets, but suites of operatic excerpts (though I'm guessing that operas have suites less frequently - one I know of is from Rimsky-Korsaov's Legend of [long title] Kitezh). This is partly because I find that ballets can be better appreciated without the visual medium - I just can't listen to a whole opera without seeing the drama because so much of the music is just filler to keep the plot going along. The singing is still great, but there's obviously a difference between a great aria and the narrative in between.


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2014)

KenOC said:


> I totally agree, in the case of the Nutcracker. In the suite, the boring and second-rate parts are omitted.


Amazing.

We've all been in this particular room before. We've already all talked at length about the elephant. And yet still, every once and awhile, someone in the room will start in on the same old steadfast ignoring of said pachyderm.

But for those whose eyes are averted, here it is, again (worded to fit this thread):

There are no boring or second rate parts in any ballet. (There are no boring or second rate parts in _any_ piece of music.) "Boring" and "second rate" are evaluations. They are responses to something, not descriptions. "Boring" and "second rate" to KenOC might be "interesting" and "first rate" to some other listener. To that listener, hearing the whole ballet for the first time could be a revelation of undiscovered treasure.

(Here Jumbo, have some hay. That's a good boy. There there.)


----------



## Freischutz (Mar 6, 2014)

some guy said:


> There are no boring or second rate parts in any ballet. (There are no boring or second rate parts in _any_ piece of music.) "Boring" and "second rate" are evaluations. They are responses to something, not descriptions. "Boring" and "second rate" to KenOC might be "interesting" and "first rate" to some other listener. To that listener, hearing the whole ballet for the first time could be a revelation of undiscovered treasure.


I would have thought that KenOC's intended meaning was "boring and second-rate _to me_", but the "to me" was omitted because it can generally be assumed in intelligent company. It becomes a little tedious to preface everything with "in my opinion..." when it's already clear that the nature of the conversation regards opinions.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> There are no boring or second rate parts in any ballet. (There are no boring or second rate parts in _any_ piece of music.)


So...all music is equal to all other music in interest and in quality. There are no differences in these respects between, say, Beethoven and Raff. Between Bach and, well, Ghostface Killa.

It's certainly hard to argue against such a commendably egalitarian viewpoint! :lol:


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

In most cases, including the _Nutcracker_, the suite was compiled by the composer himself, presumably because he thought only certain parts were suitable for the isolated concert performance.


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2014)

KenOC said:


> So...all music is equal to all other music in interest and in quality. There are no differences in these respects between, say, Beethoven and Raff. Between Bach and, well, Ghostface Killa.
> 
> It's certainly hard to argue against such a commendably egalitarian viewpoint! :lol:


We've been over this over and over again, too. But what is causing Ken such amusement is not my viewpoint at all, but his made-up viewpoint that he has substituted for mine.

There are many differences between Beethoven and Raff, for instance, though there are also many similarities as well. Interest and quality are not on either list is my point. Interest and quality are both a result of responding to music. Responses _to_ music are not the same as descriptions _of_ music.

A lot of people would find Ghostface Killah a lot more interesting than Bach. That says nothing one way or other about the music of either but about the people who favor one or the other. And when the conversation reaches that point, my interest wanes. I'm not interested in the putative superiority of one group of people over another.

Not everything is equal, no. But equality or its lack has nothing to do with the quality of anyone's experience with any particular piece of music or even with any particular style of music.

Perhaps I should also mention something I would have also thought was bleedingly obvious, which is that Bach never tried to do any of the things that Coles does; and Coles never tries to do any of the things Bach did. Where's the point of comparison?


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2014)

Freischutz said:


> I would have thought that KenOC's intended meaning was "boring and second-rate _to me_", but the "to me" was omitted because it can generally be assumed in intelligent company. It becomes a little tedious to preface everything with "in my opinion..." when it's already clear that the nature of the conversation regards opinions.


Read his post again, then. In it, he says that in the Nutcracker suite the boring and second-rate parts have been removed. If his meaning was "the parts that I find boring or second-rate" then how could those bits have been removed several decades before there was even a KenOC to have those opinions? Was Tchaikovsky prescient?

And, even more importantly, did Tchaikovsky think that his own music was boring or second-rate? Oh, wait. We're talking about Tchaikovsky here, who was (in)famous for hating his own music. Well, never mind. Maybe we'll leave that part of it out of the argument, then.


----------



## FleshRobot (Jan 27, 2014)

KenOC said:


> So...all music is equal to all other music in interest and in quality. There are no differences in these respects between, say, Beethoven and Raff. Between Bach and, well, Ghostface Killa.


It's not just because Beethoven's music is not as listenable as the songs by Riff Raff that it should be considered worse, it's just out of fashion. In some ways Beethoven was the Riff Raff of his time.


----------



## Freischutz (Mar 6, 2014)

some guy said:


> Read his post again, then. In it, he says that in the Nutcracker suite the boring and second-rate parts have been removed. If his meaning was "the parts that I find boring or second-rate" then how could those bits have been removed several decades before there was even a KenOC to have those opinions? Was Tchaikovsky prescient?
> 
> And, even more importantly, did Tchaikovsky think that his own music was boring or second-rate? Oh, wait. We're talking about Tchaikovsky here, who was (in)famous for hating his own music. Well, never mind. Maybe we'll leave that part of it out of the argument, then.


You're right. I was a little too... generous. Certainly going by his last response.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> And, even more importantly, did Tchaikovsky think that his own music was boring or second-rate?


Let's put it this way. When I listen to the whole Nutcracker, I find stretches of it rather dull. And it was mostly those parts that were *not" selected for the Suite. So I have believed (and continue to believe) that PIT took what he thought were the "best" bits for the suite. And he certainly had pretty reliable taste in judging his own music, at least comparatively, or he'd hardly be such a popular composer. And that implies that some other bits *weren't* the best, at least in his opinion.

Tchaikovsky's judgments of taste seem to agree with mine and I think with plenty of others' who enjoy his music. If you were to ask him if the entire Nutcracker ballet were written to the same high level of interest or quality, I suspect he would reply with a clear "no."

Which hardly proves that quality or interest are objective attributes of music. But it's hard to ignore the suggestion. In fact, if you were to say, as you did, "There are no boring or second rate parts in any ballet. (There are no boring or second rate parts in any piece of music.)" you would get a horselaugh from almost anybody, and certainly from any composer.


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2014)

Tchaikovsky's letters to close friends do not corroborate your conclusion about his judgements about his own music. They give the opposite impression, in fact.

And composers do not make suites in order to preserve the best bits of what is otherwise a snoozefest. (Most posts to this thread suggest that many listeners would disagree, even if this were the motivation.) They do it, mostly, to make short, symphony concert worthy pieces out of music that was for the stage. To capture an audience that might not otherwise hear it, the concert audience having splintered in the nineteenth century into several distinct audiences with very little overlap. Make a suite out of your ballet or opera for people who might never attend a ballet or an opera, and you've got another audience for your music. That it's an audience that would not sit still for a concert performance of an entire work any more than they'd go to the staged presentation says nothing one way or other about the putative quality of the music.

And if you're so certain about composers and what makes them laugh, then I suppose the only way to resolve that part of things is for each of us to make a list (!!) of all the composers we know and see who wins. The ones I know laugh at all sorts of things. The idea that "boring" is a response and not a description I don't think would get even a chuckle from any of them.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Composers make judgments of interest and quality all the time. Of their music and the music of others. They do NOT consider all music as having equal interest or quality. Examples are numerous. Beethoven alone:

- Offering his 2nd Piano Concerto to his publisher at a discounted rate, because "it is not one of my best."
- On hearing his WoO 80 piano variations, "Oh Beethoven, you wrote that? What an ***!"
- Stating that the Eroica was his best symphony (before he wrote the 9th). Obviously the others, in his opinion, weren't his best!
- Ditto the Op. 131 string quartet...
- Choosing Cherubini as being the best of his contemporaries (the others evidently weren't)
- Dissing Rossini's "soulless strumming" along with other sundry insults in Rossini's direction.

Clara Schumann, sometimes with the help of Brahms, destroying a good number of Robert's works as not being good enough.

Brahms being rather severe with his own output, sometimes discarding works he had labored over for years.

Dukas destroying just about everything.

Sibelius's famous fire...

Well, no need to go on. A successful composer makes judgments all the time as to what music is good and what is bad, what should be kept and what should be thrown away. This is true in all types of music. To suggest otherwise seems...well...a bit strange.


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2014)

KenOC said:


> A successful composer makes judgments all the time as to what music is good and what is bad, what should be kept and what should be thrown away.


No one's contesting this, far as I know.

I suppose it could be contested, but so far no one has done that.

So what is more than a little bit strange is the spirited defense of something no one, yet, has disputed. (Something that so far no one had even brought up.)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> No one's contesting this, far as I know. I suppose it could be contested, but so far no one has done that.


I can only repeat your comment: "There are no boring or second rate parts in any ballet. (There are no boring or second rate parts in any piece of music.)"

I have to suspect that among all the listeners (and composers) in history, yours is a unique view.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

Maybe I'm abnormal, but I think every number in the _Nutcracker_ ballet is marvelous. I disagree with the insinuation that Tchaikovsky chose only what he considered the best music for the suite. Considering how much magical music it leaves out, including Drosselmeyer's entrance and distribution of gifts (which just might be my favorite bit of the ballet), this would be quite surprising indeed! It seems more likely that he composed what both he and audiences believe was an incredibly successful score across the board for a ballet, and then arranged some of the catchiest dance numbers in a short suite as kind of a concert appetizer. That doesn't mean that composers or listeners consider all musical output equal. I just don't believe it's always a leading or even relevant factor for a composer when arranging a suite from a previous work.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> Maybe I'm abnormal, but I think every number in the _Nutcracker_ ballet is marvelous. I disagree with the insinuation that Tchaikovsky chose only what he considered the best music for the suite. Considering how much magical music it leaves out, including Drosselmeyer's entrance and distribution of gifts (which just might be my favorite bit of the ballet), this would be quite surprising indeed! It seems more likely that he composed what both he and audiences believe was an incredibly successful score across the board for a ballet, and then arranged some of the catchiest dance numbers in a short suite as kind of a concert appetizer. That doesn't mean that composers or listeners consider all musical output equal. I just don't believe it's always a leading or even relevant factor for a composer when arranging a suite from a previous work.


Yes. Nothing like the complete Nutcracker ballet score. Love that polonaise dance they all do at the Christmas Eve festivities, especially when the old folks kick up their heels!


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

some guy said:


> Amazing.
> 
> We've all been in this particular room before. We've already all talked at length about the elephant. And yet still, every once and awhile, someone in the room will start in on the same old steadfast ignoring of said pachyderm.
> 
> ...


I think it's being too pedantic not to understand that when someone says "This is boring", they mean that "This inspires feelings of boredom in me."


----------



## Guest (Mar 10, 2014)

apri, have you not read the exchanges on this thread? We went over that very point.

It's always an "out," for sure. But I'm not convinced--and it's certainly not the case this time--that "this is boring" was a substitute for "this inspires et cetera." It's often a possibility that these can mean similar things, but really, if you're going to mean something, why not just go ahead and say what you mean? Or?

And we all know, from other interminable discussions online, that identifying responses to objects as qualities of those objects is a common transference. Greatness, beauty, ugliness, boringness--they are all talked about pretty consistently as if they were inherent qualities of the objects and not responses of a subject to same.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

apricissimus said:


> I think it's being too pedantic not to understand that when someone says "This is boring", they mean that "This inspires feelings of boredom in me."


This would be true, except that the statement often takes the form of "what's wrong with this work/composer/era/style is that it's boring."

If it's about your reaction, there's not necessarily anything wrong with that work/composer/era/style, so either they're not saying what they mean or it actually is meant as some sort of criticism.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Sibelius's The Tempest. The first time you hear it's boring, but it gets better with each listen as you discover all the little details (perhaps a variation of the "Bruckner effect") and only in the complete incidental music it shows its true greatness. It also seems to be one of those pieces that work significantly better in concert rather than in recording as the full resonance can't be captured.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> I totally agree, in the case of the Nutcracker. In the suite, the boring and second-rate parts are omitted.


Of T's 3 glorious ballets, I find Nutcracker most integral. I love every shimmering, enchanted note. That pas de deux after the mouse king's death is so noble I die on the spot, beatifically, and am resurrected by snowflakes and the voices of children. Let me never hear the suite again!

Having got that little rhapsody off my chest, I want to express agreement with what I think you've said on this thread to the effect that quality in music is not only a matter of subjective judgment. I'm an artist, both painter and musician, and like every artist I know damn well when what I've turned out is good and when it isn't. That doesn't make my or anyone's judgment infallible, but there is perception in aesthetic matters which stands apart from personal taste, a fact not negated by the variable difficulty of separating the two in any particular case. What makes this difficult is that quality, while it can be perceived, cannot always be explained. But why is that surprising? Why should we demand rational justification of every intuitive insight? Over and above my personal tastes and interpretations, which I must concede to be subjective, I still have the right to say that Beethoven's symphonies are better than Czerny's. I cannot fully explain how I know this, but I do know that I know it, as surely as I know anything.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Ballets often get cut and reshuffled. I think that's legitimate, for practical reasons at least. I actually prefer the suites to _Firebird_ and _Daphnis and Chloe_. More concise in both cases, and not omitting much that's significantly different from what's in the suites. _Petrushka_ and _Rite_ are more tight-knit and I wouldn't touch the full scores (of course no one cuts _Rite_).


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> Wooduck: I actually prefer the suites to. . . Daphnis and Chloe. More concise. . .and not omitting much that's significantly different from what's in the suite.


-- That is to say, if you don't find the cuts of the Opening, the Religious Dance, the Pirate's Camp, and, say, Dorcon Casting His Shadow-- 'significant', which I of course do.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> Woodduck:Over and above my personal tastes and interpretations, which I must concede to be subjective, I still have the right to say that Beethoven's symphonies are better than Czerny's. I cannot fully explain how I know this, but I do know that I know it, as surely as I know anything.


Sure. It's 'tacitly' understood: We always know more than we can tell.

http://www.amazon.com/Tacit-Dimensi...id=1396277799&sr=1-1&keywords=tacit+dimension


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> -- That is to say, if you don't find the cuts of the Opening, the Religious Dance, the Pirate's Camp, and, say, Dorcon Casting His Shadow-- 'significant', which I of course do.


I'm sure you're on firmer ground than I am with _Daphnis_. I hear too many repetitive gestures and harp swooshes that give the music a fragmentary feeling and try my patience. No doubt it all works well onstage, but for listening I find it all rather much of a good thing. With _Firebird_, Stravinsky himself commented somewhere that it was a bit padded. Nonetheless I love it in any form and would jump to see it danced.

Oops. I've just realized you were talking about _Firebird_! Hey, I just got up and the caffeine hasn't kicked in yet.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> Hey, I just got up and the caffeine hasn't kicked in yet.


- It happens to me all the time. _;D_.

The Gemutlichkeit's there; just not the focus. Ha. Ha. Ha.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Sure. It's 'tacitly' understood: We always know more than we can tell.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Tacit-Dimensi...id=1396277799&sr=1-1&keywords=tacit+dimension


Looks like a worthwhile read. Thanks.


----------

