# Are versions of modern works more radically different?



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I have had The Ligeti Project boxed set for some time, but have not gotten around to listening to all of it. A little goes a long way. But this afternoon I finally got around to the Requiem.

Those of us who grew up in the 60s have heard movement 2 of this all our lives as the voice of the monolith in 2001: a space odyssey. However that version is so radically different from the box set version I can scarcely recognize it as the same piece. For one thing the orchestra is more prominent in the box set. The instruments and voices do not blend seamlessly in and out of focus as they do in the (uncredited as I recall) 1960's version.

I have also noticed that John Cage's Sonatas and Interludes can sound almost like different pieces when there are different performers.

Is there something about modern composition that allows more freedom of interpretation? What is the role of the composer in that case?

Weirdly I don't have this problem with Ligeti's Atmosphere's. It almost always sounds the same. And I certainly don't notice this with romantic or earlier works. Maybe it is only _some_ modern works?


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

1. Ligeti: I have a couple of Ligeti works duplicated by different performers, but I never noticed that they sounded _that_ different. It was _Lux Aeterna_ that was used in _2001: A Space Odyssey_. It's always completely recognizable to me 

2. Cage: I read recently on Wikipedia that _Sonatas and Interludes_ is his last composed work, before he employed randomness and chance. Those later works would likely sound different, I am _guessing_, but all of the versions of _Sonatas and Interludes_ I have heard (3 or so) are all recognizable as the same work. The only factor (another guess) that might influence the sound would be how the piano is prepared, which would depend on how strictly Cage defined the modifications.

3. Freedom of Interpretation: Yes, _some_ works by _some_ composers allow for freedom of interpretation. Stockhausen is a famous composer who made fairly wide use of this technique. I confess that it is not something I greatly appreciate (I prefer that a composer think something out, rather than to leave it to chance), although there are some good recordings of some such works. Here, the way the chance events coincide definitely can influence the listening pleasure either favourably or unfavourably: it's all random chance.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I've heard various versions of _Atmosphères_ and I own 2 on CD, one conducted by Abbado on DG and also a recording on Wergo (I can't remember whose recording it was). The DG recording I found to have greater clarity and dynamic contrast and also a bit slower (about 9 minutes compared to the 8 and a half minute recording on Wergo). Upon listening to those two I found that they were a fair bit more different than when I compared Ligeti's other works. Two recordings I own of the Chamber Concerto seem to me to be more similar than the two recordings _Atmosphères_ that I own.

As for freedom of interpretation, Brotagonist is definitely right about Stockhausen. There are some 20th and 21st century styles which are very very specific about how the music should be interpreted: integral serialism and new complexity, to name but two. However, different interpretations are always bound to arise.

There is an interesting piece of music for percussion solo by Morton Feldman (I think it's called "For the King of Denmark") which at first glance looks like just a guided improvisation without very many specific intructions, however, different performances of the work do indeed sound more similar than one would expect due to the specific sets of instruments that Feldman calls for. At one point in the score the percussionist may be asked to play "three high notes at once" and due to the limitations and specifications of the instruments Feldman scored for, there might only be one or two ways to play "three high notes at once."


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

^ I am glad you brought up Feldman, as he seems to be a good contrast to Cage.

Feldman was very strict and precise with his instructions, such that his works are very predictable. Each performance, although technically not identical, is obviously of the same work. It is, very much, a composition with an outcome determined by the composer.

Cage, on the other hand, appears to have been rather loose (sloppy, lazy  ) with his instructions, so that the outcomes of performances would seem to be more random, less determined by the composer. It is for this reason that I am somewhat reticent to call Cage's 'chance' pieces _music_, as we usually understand it. One definition calls music _ordered sound_. I think Cage stretches this notion, perhaps beyond the breaking point, as chance appears to have the upper hand. I prefer to think of them as _musical performance art_ pieces. Granted, these are my perceptions, as a listener. A close analysis of the 'scores' might prove me wrong.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

brotagonist said:


> 1. Ligeti: I have a couple of Ligeti works duplicated by different performers, but I never noticed that they sounded _that_ different. It was _Lux Aeterna_ that was used in _2001: A Space Odyssey_. It's always completely recognizable to me
> 
> 2. Cage: I read recently on Wikipedia that _Sonatas and Interludes_ is his last composed work, before he employed randomness and chance. Those later works would likely sound different, I am _guessing_, but all of the versions of _Sonatas and Interludes_ I have heard (3 or so) are all recognizable as the same work. The only factor (another guess) that might influence the sound would be how the piano is prepared, which would depend on how strictly Cage defined the modifications.
> 
> 3. Freedom of Interpretation: Yes, _some_ works by _some_ composers allow for freedom of interpretation. Stockhausen is a famous composer who made fairly wide use of this technique. I confess that it is not something I greatly appreciate (I prefer that a composer think something out, rather than to leave it to chance), although there are some good recordings of some such works. Here, the way the chance events coincide definitely can influence the listening pleasure either favourably or unfavourably: it's all random chance.


Yes. But it's true that the Requiem and Atmospheres were also used.

Requiem: 




The Requiem is one of Ligeti's more difficult pieces to play. Some parts can only be "approximated" by the singers. So I guess one can expect differences between recordings.
I just checked the credits of the movie and all the recordings are dutifully credited. Kubrick chose different conductors and I'm lazy right now as to write their names (the font in the credits is really tiny).
For Atmospheres, I prefer the Abbado version. It's more "romantic", i.e., it has more drama, contrast, and color. And that's exactly what Ligeti wanted. Check this:


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

brotagonist said:


> 1. Ligeti: I have a couple of Ligeti works duplicated by different performers, but I never noticed that they sounded _that_ different. It was _Lux Aeterna_ that was used in _2001: A Space Odyssey_. It's always completely recognizable to me
> 
> 2. Cage: I read recently on Wikipedia that _Sonatas and Interludes_ is his last composed work, before he employed randomness and chance. Those later works would likely sound different, I am _guessing_, but all of the versions of _Sonatas and Interludes_ I have heard (3 or so) are all recognizable as the same work. The only factor (another guess) that might influence the sound would be how the piano is prepared, which would depend on how strictly Cage defined the modifications.
> 
> 3. Freedom of Interpretation: Yes, _some_ works by _some_ composers allow for freedom of interpretation. Stockhausen is a famous composer who made fairly wide use of this technique. I confess that it is not something I greatly appreciate (I prefer that a composer think something out, rather than to leave it to chance), although there are some good recordings of some such works. Here, the way the chance events coincide definitely can influence the listening pleasure either favourably or unfavourably: it's all random chance.


Its not his last composed work. Many of the chance pieces aren't different every time, they just employed chance in the process of composing, not in performance. Besides, usage of chance and "randomness" is a compositional decision, so it doesn't make it "not composed" when you utilize those techniques.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

I think alot of the discrepancies you will hear in different performances of modern classical music come from the musicians just not playing them well in many recordings, especially the older/premiere ones. Many of these pieces were likely underrehearsed, and there are many techniques and new ways of playing that many musicians may not have been used to, and there's also the fact that alot of more conservative classical musicians might scoff at modernist pieces and just not put effort that is required into them (even though its their job to). That isn't to say there aren't many elements that are up to interpretation, even in pieces with pretty rigid scores, but if its sounding like a completely different piece, it is likely due to serious performance mistakes.

Thankfully more musicians nowadays really care about this music, and will work to be able to play it correctly, and passionately.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

Max Richter's picture of of VIv's much-loved pizza is a re-imagining too far ... so far in fact that he needs a new camera, a bit like me.


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2013)

Thank you BurningDesire. Those are some refreshingly sensible, intelligent, and well-informed remarks, there!!

Please, brotagonist, please read her remarks and take them to heart.

(And please don't say anything more about Cage until you know more. My sincere request to you.)

((As for Stockhausen, he was trying to use Cage's ideas but put them into a European context. Allowing a little bit of very circumscribed indeterminacy in a context of determinacy. That is, he was trying to have his cake and eat it, too.))


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

aleazk said:


> Yes. But it's true that the Requiem and Atmospheres were also used.
> 
> Requiem:
> 
> ...


Ahhh! Nice memories. I was about 11 when I first saw this and I remember sitting in the theater with my fists clenched, fingernails digging into the flesh of my palm, not quite drawing blood, but I had marks there for a few days. I was absolutely terrified because I didn't know what I was seeing and hearing. It was among the most profound experiences I have ever had.

I hope Ligeti would be proud to know that decades later I had that part of the Requiem (I must start thinking of it as the Kyrie) playing on a tape in my car. My three year old niece was with me and I cut it off, afraid it might frighten her. "Sounds like somebody died," she said in a matter of fact way. That sent goosebumps up arms. There must be something universal if a three year old picks up on the intent that quickly!

Back to The Ligeti Project recording, I'm thinking now it might just be a different sized ensemble. You simply can't hear the choirs and soloists very clearly at times and instead get blasts of brass covering them. It's still a great version, but it is a sad fact we often feel the first version heard is the best, and that may the case here. I think I must seek still more versions, if there are any, to find a happy medium.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

The most blatant differences in recordings of (relatively) contemporary music I´ve come across were in Pettersson - the one-movement 9th Symphony with Comissiona is 15-20 mins longer than that of Francis/CPO, making it a much more lyrical and less stressful piece. Likewise, the 2nd Violin Concerto , Ida Haendel on Caprice versus the CPO; the first one has melodical emphasis, the second seems much more fragmented and has very different accents, making it at times sound like another work.
Kamu in the 6th likewise emphasizes the melodical content much more than the CPO, IMO.

On the other hand, the four versions of Messiaen´s "Des Canyons aux Etoiles" I´ve been listening to (Salonen, Constant, Chung, De Leeuw) seem to have only very minute differences. It´s quite rare that there are so many versions to choose from in a contemporary work, with some exceptions.

Overall, I find that there aren´t _more_ differences in recordings of contemporary music than in the already established repertoire, but BurningDesire`s point is of course very valid; the public and the musicians have to get better acquainted with these works. Moreover, the more complicated the score, the more one will be able to vary and accentuate details during the recording process, I guess.

For example, I´m looking forward to a possible second recording of the Nørgård Piano Concerto "In Due Tempi", since the overall architectural lines that complicated work could be emphasized more than with Salo/Segerstam (such as pointing to Finale-like effects at the end); the aspect of downplaying them is not an uncommon feature in Segerstam´s recordings generally, however.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

If anything I think they would be more similar since they have more of a chance to be overseen by the composer. I see a lot of new composers these days actually going slightly the route of popular music and writing a album-long piece and getting sort of a "definitive" recording of it.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I may have gotten to the bottom of my issue:



Autonomeus Amazon CD review said:


> . . . The best available recording until now was the one included in the Ligeti Project IV disc, with Jonathan Nott leading the Berliner Philharmoniker and the London Voices.
> 
> This new recording is the best yet, making clear a point that might be missed by many classical listeners -- while it was a coup, no doubt, to convince the Berlin Philharmonic to record several of Ligeti's orchestral works for the composer-supervised Ligeti Project, the world's best symphony orchestra in traditional 19th century repertoire is not necessarily the best in late 20th century avant-garde repertoire. . .


Interesting.

So I wonder if this is the effect I am perceiving. The all too brief sample of the Kyrie for the album being reviewed sounds a LOT more like what I was expecting. So I am purchasing this disc, profoundly unattractive cover design notwithstanding, and even though I'm not overly fond of "San Fransisco Polyphony."


----------

