# Should We Change The Music Score?



## JohannesBrahms (Apr 22, 2013)

I have been thinking recently, and something has occurred to me. People tend to hold up the great composers as infallible beings, and that to change something in their music is a sin. But, since God is the only perfect being, every single human is fallible, and therefor, their creations are fallible. In light of this, I see no reason why we should not have the liberty to alter the score. Sergei Rachmaninoff, one the greatest pianists who ever lived, frequently altered the score. After all, the great author's works were edited by the publishers, and we do not cry out against that. So why shouldn't we change the score when we play?

I would like to hear your opinions on this subject.


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

Composers are certainly fallible, but Beethoven was much more of a genius than I am, so I'll play all his notes thanks very much. There's still plenty of room for artistic interpretation.

(edit: when playing new music by relatively inexperienced composers I do sometimes suggest note changes, but only suggest, never randomly change and play.)


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Music is more than just the notes on the page. So no two performers and performances are going to be identical. An up bow and a down bow for the same note can sound differently. To slur the notes or separate the notes? Duration and envelope, how is the note shaped? Not to play the repeat? Which instrument at any moment has the main melody in an orchestra?

Just questions from me. Just as people will read a book differently and interpret it differently, people will read a score differently. 

I've never heard of changing the notes, especially well worn music. I'll stick with the original genius of Beethoven, Bach, Mahler and not interfere with their original ideas and intention.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

There are times when the notes in the score are not necessarily ones the composer wrote, or he didn't write notes he might have wanted to because of instrumental limitations of the time, or made situational changes due to performance venue or individual performers -- and in all such situations, the interpreter should feel free to make changes, as long as they are considered and defensible.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

In some cases , making judicious alterations in an orchestral score by a conductor is a good idea provided it does not
reach the point of distorting the music . 
Sometimes it's necessary to make altertions in dynamics (markings of degrees of loudness and softness
) by a conductor to improve balances between the sections of an orchestra . 
Often this has to do with the particular acoustics of different concert halls , which vary considerbly .
Sometimes composers will give loudness markings , piano, mezzo-paino, forte, fortissiono etc , which are the
same between the strings, woodwinds, brass and percussion . But if the conductor does not ask the brass and
percussion to play more softly than the strings and woodwinds, the brass and percussion can easily drown them out .
I know this from having spent thousands of hours rehearsing orchestral works in the horn sections of so many different orchestras under so many different conductors ..
Sometimes, conductors have made actual altertions in orchestration because they felt certain sections of a
given work did not sound effective because of the way the composer had orchestrated them .
Leopold Stokowski was famous , even notorious for doing this . Willem Mengelberg, too . Toscanini, who 
ws famous for his supposed strict observance of the written score , did this sometimes ,too , though not 
in as flashy a way as Stokowski .
Conductors have been known to add brass to sections of a score where they were not originally called for.,
and on several occaisions, Stokowski changed the instrument of prominent solos from one to another .


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

There's enough good works from the past to make the improvement of some earlier works not really necessary. Performers can milk as much expression and insight as they can, but it's right to have some natural selection where some works may not quite convince. It's those that help put the better works in perspective. And I've never considered any composer infallible anyway.

More important I think are modern realisations of classical works which are like an improvisation on them. Often these are labelled under jazz. It's not so much a matter of improving something as just creating something new. And it's better that way perhaps than attempting to be the earlier composer which is largely an impossible mission. It's much easier to impress just being yourself and giving your own take on the music.


----------



## LancsMan (Oct 28, 2013)

In the 18th century and earlier much freedom was anticipated for the performer to ornament and fill in the harmonies. But the performers of the day were part of a living performance tradition and that line has now been broken. But adding not a note too a sketchy piano part in a Mozart concerto would probably have surprised Mozart.
How about metronome markings. Beethoven got quite keen on including these in his scores. From what I've heard most performers don't stick to these - and with good reason!


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Bach certainly intended that his music be embellished or ornamented. You only have to compare sinfonia 5 with the realisation of the embellishments in a later (1723) manuscript. OK these were teaching works but the principle of ornamentation applies. Same thing with da capo arias where the second time through you can embellish.

Plus look at Handel - the 6 concerti grossi Op 3 were published in 1734 at a time of financial strain for Handel as a way of cashing in on the popularity of both Handel and of the concerto grosso form. They are a collection of odds and ends from other works rearranged to provide something new. Op 3 No 3 for example uses movements from the Chandos Anthem no 7 for the 1st and 2nd movements, the Chandos _Te Deum_ for the 3rd movement and the Harpsichord fugue in G major for the fourth. it is not typical of Handel to end a concerto with a fugue and this suggests that it may not have been Handel who added the ;last movement. But, hey, it sounds good and* it sold* so it can't have been that bad.

We sometimes have a romantic notion of musicians devoted to high art, but I am with Dr Johnson - "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money."


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

I prefer to know when performers tinker with the score just so I'm aware that what I'm hearing is partly their creation, not just the composer's, but other than that I have no qualms about it.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

Berlioz has a good rant in his memoires about conductors of his day fiddling with the scores of Beethoven; who are we mere mortals to improve upon the work of a god?

I agree a lot with Berlioz to be honest; I see the completed artwork as a closed and autonomous artifact, i.e. should not be tampered with.


----------



## LancsMan (Oct 28, 2013)

Perhaps Beethoven marks a turning point. In his major works he was consciously writing artworks not to be tampered with - statements with a serious intent. I'm not sure Mozart saw himself this way but I do think you tamper with his music at your peril.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Should We Change The Music Score?


What music score?

As pointed out, some were intended the be changed by solists. Another case is when performes are trying to add something fresh to well-known works that everybody knows by heart. For example, I don't really mind Paderewski adding extra bass effect to the reprise in his rendition of Chopin's B minor sonata march:


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

There are lots of ways for a performer to interpret a piece and make it their own while still being recognizably the same piece. I'm okay with making big alterations to the music if it is advertised as such: Revised by XYZ or XYZ's Variations on a Theme by ABC. Hearing great music is the ultimate goal, but one is bound to be disappointed if one expects a faithful performance of a piece and does not get that.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

All the changes clearly made in this recording are exactly why interpreter should feel free to change things around; if, of course, something good can come of it.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

This discussion of Beethoven's 3rd Symphony talks about some of these issues (Performance Challenges section):

http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics3/eroica.html



> Indeed, the very notion of whether the score should be considered as sacrosanct is called into question by a passage at measures 654-657 of the first movement. There, the various editions of the Eroica (including both relatively early ones by Farreure (Paris, 1835) and Litolff (1865) as well as the authoritative modern Eulenburg (1925)) consistently give the trumpet passage as shown in the illustration: presenting only the first six notes of the theme, which immediately is abandoned and drops down to repeated harmonic b-flats. As heard, the passage is a severe letdown - the trumpet figure would be the final, triumphant iteration of the theme but instead abruptly cuts out, leaving the rest of the phrase to the far less emphatic soft winds. To sustain the mood, every conductor I have ever heard (other than Scherchen, Monteux and the original instrument ensembles) allows the trumpet to complete the phrase with high b-flats, and then to repeat it a tone higher, thus providing a victorious outburst and leading smoothly in to the final harmonic shift before the conclusion. This raises two questions. First - why did Beethoven do this?


There's more on this passage and on tempo. It's pretty interesting, IMO.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

JohannesBrahms said:


> People tend to hold up the great composers as infallible beings


really?.. that's news to me.



JohannesBrahms said:


> why we should not have the liberty to alter the score


because we'd better write a new one instead.


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

Taggart said:


> Bach certainly intended that his music be embellished or ornamented.


Hang on. Ornamentation when in keeping with the intentions of the composer is different from just "altering the score" as the OP said.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

I think it's less about a composer's infallibility and more about the expectations of a paying audience.
I don't want a steel drum solo in the middle of Mahler's 6th but Mahler was the type of guy who would probably consider it.
Whilst scores are open to interpretation, straying too far from everyone's expectations can disrupt the flow for the listener.

Save the new ideas for new scores.

*Exhibit A:* 
(Sorry. I couldn't find any video of the overture)










I was in a bad mood after only 90 seconds into the overture.
Why are the horns drowning out the basses? It's one of the best parts of the overture. It sounds like a barge coming up the Thames.
This is only a minor ***** in the armour but the overture was ruined for me. 
There's no such thing as _minor changes_ when expectations are high.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

hreichgott said:


> Hang on. Ornamentation when in keeping with the intentions of the composer is different from just "altering the score" as the OP said.


How do we know the composer would have approved - i.e. what their "intentions" were? Basic ornamentation is probably all right, but what about divisions? The point I was making is that the Baroque score is often just a starting point to work and that composers expected a degree of improvisation:



LancsMan said:


> In the 18th century and earlier much freedom was anticipated for the performer to ornament and fill in the harmonies. But the performers of the day were part of a living performance tradition and that line has now been broken.


I would disagree with that because we are beginning to re-establish this performance tradition in the HIP world - the ability for example to play direct from figured bass is now part of the (intermediate and advanced) harpsichord graded exams syllabus as is the ability to play organ voluntaries for that instrument.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Well, what I think is... that I can't make my mind up! All the posts so far make good points about tradition, freedom in performance, freedom to ornament and so on. But it is a really interesting thread!


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

JohannesBrahms said:


> So why shouldn't we change the score when we play?


I don't have a problem with it as long as the original is preserved. I just listened to Solti's recording of Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra. The published score had 74 bpm for a quarter note, but he noticed the side drum had a faster marking, so he checked the manuscript and found the published score was wrong. That kind of change, I think, is warranted.

I also have a number of recordings where they list subtle changes the conductor chose to make, but they are careful to list the changes (sometimes in boring detail) in the CD booklet.

I think that's the kind of thing that makes music a living art and not a museum piece.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

GGluek said:


> There are times when the notes in the score are not necessarily ones the composer wrote, or he didn't write notes he might have wanted to because of instrumental limitations of the time, or made situational changes due to performance venue or individual performers -- and in all such situations, the interpreter should feel free to make changes, as long as they are considered and defensible.


I'd love to know how you decide if the notes in the score are Not ones the composer wrote -- short of being a musicologist, pouring over editions and original manuscripts, that sounds like a very weak rationale for liberties not to be taken.

Sorry, I like 'what it is and was.' But "defensible" still PRESUMES that if, for example, Beethoven had modern brass instruments, there would not be those dovetail sections of the orchestration where the bassoons take over from the horns -- problem is, this expert composer did not "run out of range" at those places, but knowing the instruments well, that was his understanding of those instruments, _*so that was in his imaginative concept while writing it and he planned on it and knew the sound it would make.*_. In that light, I don't find the argument for an alteration of the original "defensible."

Giving a passage to the horns which period horns could not play is like one tiny patch, unnecessary -- without revising the whole orchestration as if Beethoven had modern instruments, for which he may have written more than a little bit differently, and it is lame patch, while at the same time it alters the sound Beethoven knew he wanted.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Taggart said:


> ...we are beginning to re-establish this performance tradition in the HIP world - the ability for example to play direct from figured bass is now part of the (intermediate and advanced) harpsichord graded exams syllabus as is the ability to play organ voluntaries for that instrument.


In the late 1970's - early 80's, at a junior college with a fine music department (somewhere in northern California) all the music majors could play a little from figured bass by the end of the second year -- as per the requirements in the keyboard harmony class.

Your post reminded me that some schooling then available to the American public (the self included) outside of prestigious conservatories was here and there pretty awesome


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

I think if someone wants to change the score, they can certainly do so - but they had better be very good if they intend to change the music of the great composers. But I think people who like composing in older styles would write their own pieces instead - why change little snippets out of pieces one likes anyway?


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*High School Music Theory*



PetrB said:


> In the late 1970's - early 80's, at a junior college with a fine music department (somewhere in northern California) all the music majors could play a little from figured bass by the end of the second year -- as per the requirements in the keyboard harmony class.
> 
> Your post reminded me that some schooling then available to the American public (the self included) outside of prestigious conservatories was here and there pretty awesome


My youngest son graduated for Lake Braddock High School in Burke, Virginia in 1998. Fairfax county in Northern Virginia has some excellant music programs. They offer two years of music theory classes. He learned how to do that in the second year music theory class his senior year in high school.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I'd love to know how you decide if the notes in the score are Not ones the composer wrote -- short of being a musicologist, pouring over editions and original manuscripts, that sounds like a very weak rationale for liberties not to be taken.
> 
> Sorry, I like 'what it is and was.' But "defensible" still PRESUMES that if, for example, Beethoven had modern brass instruments, there would not be those dovetail sections of the orchestration where the bassoons take over from the horns -- problem is, this expert composer did not "run out of range" at those places, but knowing the instruments well, that was his understanding of those instruments, _*so that was in his imaginative concept while writing it and he planned on it and knew the sound it would make.*_. In that light, I don't find the argument for an alteration of the original "defensible."
> 
> Giving a passage to the horns which period horns could not play is like one tiny patch, unnecessary -- without revising the whole orchestration as if Beethoven had modern instruments, for which he may have written more than a little bit differently, and it is lame patch, while at the same time it alters the sound Beethoven knew he wanted.


A good conductor/interpreter should be familiar enough with a score from both manuscript and fair copy to various editions so he can see copyist, editorial, and printer errors. As for notes left out because of limitations the are a lot of factors ranging from a single note left out to a whole passage transposed, to a phrase batted from one instrument to another. There is no one correct answer, but cases can be made for some, and I won't condemn for a choice I may not have made, as long as some thought was put into it.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

JohannesBrahms said:


> ... After all, the great author's works were edited by the publishers, and we do not cry out against that. So why shouldn't we change the score when we play?
> 
> I would like to hear your opinions on this subject.


Just had a thought. What if you change the score *before *you play, like Bach did with Vivaldi, Avison with Scarlatti, Liszt with Beethoven. There's a long (and noble) history of transcription so what's special about that? The transcriber is merely attempting to follow the composer's intentions in a different form. Bach did it to his own works - the supposed oboe and violin concerto (BVW 1060) is now only available as an arrangement for two harpsichords and has been re-realised by scholarly interpolation. What is its status - fraud or acceptable music?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I have to agree with those suggesting making changes to pieces is ok, but it should be communicated to the listener. Minor changes to a well known piece can add some much needed freshness at times, and I've heard enough pieces with minor changes that I felt enhanced the work, that I keep an open mind about it. I'm fine with this even with the great composers Bach, Beethoven etc. As has been pointed out there is a fine line between ornamentation and altering the score, and many great composers and performers have altered scores. Music in Bach's time was highly improvisational, so these little changes would be expected in performance. Overall I agree with this improvisational approach to music and I think musical forms that take out all freedom to improvise have a tendency to get a little stale over time. This is not to say that nothing new to a work can be done without altering the score, but I feel performers are co-creators and should have this freedom of choice in their expression.


----------



## Vincent Rowley (Oct 31, 2013)

I suspect that making changes to a score for a lot of classical musicians is a scary thing because this would expose a lack of understanding with regard to harmonic and melodic content. It all comes down to competence. How competent are we as musicians? I definitely think we need to push ourselves to improvise on the thematic and harmonic content of any score so we can capture the murky depths of inner construction and in this sense make a complete and utter hash up of the score if necessary. It's amazing how much is revealed when one starts to view things out of the box. So yes I definitely believe in making changes. Look at Rachmaninoff with his enormous hands. Sometimes chords need to be adapted for a smaller hand closing the chord rather than opening it up. This does not necessarily imply a harmonic change at all. Sometimes in fact a lot of times with Bach one can change the modality of scale passages without affecting the harmonic outline and these changes can enhance ones understanding of many passages that would remain tired repetitions. So yes change is good. Music shouldn't become a dogmatic religion. Let it continually breath and grow!


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

I may be overtly pessimistic, but I have a suspicion that by the time creative liberty regarding already written scores reaches its full blossom, we will end up with a piece of rap stuck in the middle of "Die Walküre" - for the sake of being relevant, you know...


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

I feel a level of integrity and respect should be maintained for the composer's original work. If you want to play their music, then be respectful and interpret the music from their score. Interpretation gives you more than enough space to play with the music. 

If the composer's work isn't up to your standards, then by all means write your own composition... and I bet you would hope interpreters showed consideration for your intentions. Because they're always free to write their own, and not tarnish your vision....


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I may be overtly pessimistic, but I have a suspicion that by the time creative liberty regarding already written scores reaches its full blossom, we will end up with a piece of rap stuck in the middle of "Die Walküre" - for the sake of being relevant, you know...


What creative liberty regarding scores is that? My understanding and experience is that this is getting less and less so - improved scholarship, better performance practice, technically better performers able to realise original intent even (!) - than was the case maybe 100 years ago where taking licence for fashionale expression was more prevalent. But feel free to correct me because I'm not citing academic sources here!

If you're looking to get shocked by "crossover" you could probably work yourself into a fury over plenty of second rate contemporary music - Osvaldo Golijov probably has some in the pipeline (if he can ever complete it ;-). Anyway, I'm not sure a rap of Wotan's monologue would bring nasty youths into the opera house


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Haha, I don't think SiegendesLicht was completely serious....


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> Haha, I don't think SiegendesLicht was completely serious....


Who knows?.. Only a few decades ago no opera-goer would believe Wagner's operas would be one day staged as they are now - with rats and Nazis, that is. So, judging by this development, the reinterpretators of art might not be above changing the score in the way I mentioned... but I'd better shut up in case any of them are lurking here


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Who knows?.. Only a few decades ago no opera-goer would believe Wagner's operas would be one day staged as they are now - with rats and Nazis, that is.


I think staging Wagner with Nazis was fashionable already in 30's and 40's, up to 1945.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Okay, you were serious....


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

People tend to hold up the great composers as infallible beings, and that to change something in their music is a sin.

Very few people who truly love and understand any given art form hold the artists up as some infallible beings. The reason that they don't wish to change the original artist's work is because it would no longer be a work by that artist.

For example... I quite enjoy, at times, Jacques Loussier's variations upon Bach's Goldberg variations...






... but quite frankly, it is no more Bach's work than Picasso's variations on _Las Meninas_...



... can be attributed to Velazquez:



But, since God is the only perfect being, every single human is fallible, and therefor, their creations are fallible. In light of this, I see no reason why we should not have the liberty to alter the score.

Is the goal "perfection"? As much as I balk at the overused term "self expression", the goal of art seems less about striving toward some concept of "perfection" and more about conveying or expressing the individual artist's unique vision.

After all, the great author's works were edited by the publishers, and we do not cry out against that.

Actually, many artists and art lovers do take some offence at the decisions made by editors... often having little to do with aesthetics and more to do with economics. Many writers and film-makers have pushed for the release of the texts/films in their original forms when/if they attain a degree of financial power.

So why shouldn't we change the score when we play?

Largely because the audience wants to hear Beethoven or Mozart... not you.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Who knows?.. Only a few decades ago no opera-goer would believe Wagner's operas would be one day staged as they are now - with rats and Nazis, that is. So, judging by this development, the reinterpretators of art might not be above changing the score in the way I mentioned... but I'd better shut up in case any of them are lurking here


You can't conflate staging and scores.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

dgee said:


> If you're looking to get shocked by "crossover" you could probably work yourself into a fury over plenty of second rate contemporary music - Osvaldo Golijov probably has some in the pipeline (if he can ever complete it ;-).


He'll find another composer who'll willingly "help" him.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I absolutely agree a level of integrity and respect should be maintained for the composer's original work. It's a grey area in my opinion. The majority of pieces I play I do not alter. But there are some exceptions especially when making transcriptions from a different instrument (which is a different issue all together, but the act of doing this can make one aware of the many other possibilities with any given piece). Some musicians are so good at improvisation they can really enhance a work by adding something of themselves to it. So I definitely agree with respecting the composers, but suggesting one can never alter a score is just too restrictive. But any alterations should be divulged. A lot of these things the average listener would never pick up on.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Many posters are making sensible points. I too agree that in general the composer's score should not be changed, but if there is a good reason to, one should at least be told what has been done.

Not only artists & art-lovers but also the composer himself might object to alterations. I remembered something I'd read in Wikipedia about Boccherini...

In 1761 Boccherini went to Madrid, where he was employed by Infante Luis Antonio of Spain, younger brother of King Charles III. There he flourished under royal patronage, until one day when the King expressed his disapproval at a passage in a new trio, and ordered Boccherini to change it. The composer, no doubt irritated with this intrusion into his art, doubled the passage instead, leading to his immediate dismissal. 

He went to the mountains & wrote many of his best pieces but in the end died in poverty...
But why shouldn't one feel that one knows best about one's own music?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Composers and alterations -- Beethoven couldn't decide whether or not to repeat the exposition in the first movement of the Eroica. A pretty big question! There were pros and cons of course, that he discussed with his brother and others. In fact, he had it rehearsed and performed both ways, more than once. Finally (his brother wrote in a letter) he decided to go with the repeat. But it was a near thing.

The point is, it really could have gone either way. We, after the fact, treat his decision as some sort of gospel, which was never in doubt and could never have been otherwise!


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2013)

Mahler was similarly undecided about the order of movements in his sixth symphony, and since his final wish (or was it wash?), was allegro, andante, scherzo, finale, a lot of people argue for that order.

Whether it's played with the scherzo after the allegro or after the andante, however, at least all the notes are the same.

Indeed, the most compelling argument for which order to use is not a biographical one but a musical one--how does each order affect how we hear the symphony?

I think Mahler's original idea was the correct one. The symphony with the andante second is a much more ordinary work. The effect of all three of the last three movements is flattened out. (The key relations are kinda goofy, too.) And the balance of the whole work is messed up. Putting the scherzo next to the finale puts uncommon weight onto the last two movements. Ironically, the effect of that, I think, is to diminish the strength of the last movement. It's a long movement already. Putting the scherzo in front of it makes the back half of the symphony even longer. Give us a break already! (Literally.)

Together, the allegro and the scherzo, with similar material, make up a mega-movement of around 20 minutes. Then there's an andante. Then there's the 30 minute mega-finale. Perfectly balanced. Everything sounding exactly as strong as it is. Even the scherzo sounds better coming right after the allegro, using the same thematic materials. Coming after, it sounds like a continuation of the first movement, which is what it is, I think. Coming between the finale and the andante, it sounds almost like a mistake. After the andante, it's almost like starting up the symphony again. Like being a second thought. "Oh, by the way, here's some material from the first movement again." Not a natural continuation of but an unnatural second thought of.


----------

