# Edited and abridged versions...



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

This is not only about music.

*I'm interested what people think of edited and abridged versions of not only pieces of music, but also things like novels.*

There are so many versions for example of Gershwin's _Rhapsody in Blue_. The composer at piano recorded two versions in the 1920's - one is about 8 minutes the other 9 minutes. Then there are versions that came out later on vinyl, anything from 12 to about 16 minutes. There are a number of solo piano cadenzas in this work, or long solo passages. Funny thing is, listening to even the early 8 minute one, the editing was done so well, I could not notice much difference between that and the longer versions. What's interesting is that Gershwin put all of the cadenzas into that shortest version, he obviously thought they were important.

I also remember hearing an abridged version in the 1990's done by a local conductor of Bruckner's _Symphony #8_. The original is about 80 minutes but this guy whittled it down to about an hour. Again, I think the cuts where made in the "right" places, and I didn't notice much of a difference.

This also ties in with the discussion of Wagner's operas and listener's endurance of such long works.

& maybe also whether or not performers do the repeats. I recently went to a performance of Mendelssohn's_ Italian Symphony_, they played most of the repeats. This obviously made the work much longer than I am used to. I was thinking throughout "when will this end?" although it was interesting in some ways, too.

Then there's other genres like novels. As a teenager, I liked the abridged versions of classic novels, eg. Charles Dickens. They kind of cut the waffle but still gave the story with some integrity. But now I also like novels with a fair amount of detail, but I read fiction less these days.

Similar thing is the _Shakespeare in an hour _books and plays that have been popping up all over the place in recent years.

*So what about you? What's your thoughts on editing and abridged versions of these kinds of things? Good, bad, ugly? Any good shortened versions of things you like out there?*...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

In my humble opinion can't stand abridged versions of anything. I've heard the fourth movement of Beethoven's ninth symphony played in about eight minutes I think it was. They cut out two thirds of the whole movement to fit it on some compilation album that I'm never going to listen to again.


----------



## prettyhippo (Apr 19, 2011)

I agree, I hate abridged versions. They leave me feeling ripped off. I try to stay firm with the belief that the original shoud always be greatly appreciated as a whole before abridged versions are even considered. I remember when I was younger and I found out that such great novels often get abridged. At the time I had just bought "The Count of Monte Cristo" by Alexandre Dumas and under closer examination, I found it was an abridged edition. That day I had my mom drive me back to the bookstore so I could return it. The cashier looked at me like I had three heads when I explained why I was returning it...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

As an artist I absolutely despise abridged works. I actually find them offensive. I would be absolutely outraged by the pretension of another individual who thought that he or she had the right to crop one of my paintings to that it might fit better within a given environment. By the sae token, I am insulted by the equal audacity of those who feel they have the right to edit another composer's work, a film-maker's film, a novelist's or poet's writing... and all largely in order to make the work accessible to an audience who is unwilling to invest the time into the original vision. I have no problem with excerpts... the brief quote or passage taken from a novel or longer poem... the aria or duet or overture excerpted from an opera... the detail of a painting... because the excerpt makes no pretense to being anything more than an excerpt... it is not offered as a truncated alternative to the artists original vision.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

^ And yet the Goldberg Variations still suck if they're played with all the boring repeats. Kudos to Gould for skipping all that crap.

My point is... basically, the abridged version is _sometimes_ better.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

I have come across 'abridged' versions of organ literature, where one publisher (Lorenz) has, in my opinion, totally butchered the piece, cut out parts in the interest of performance time, and altered a few chords. 

I stay completely away from 'abridged' organ scores ... for some inexperienced organists they might work out okay, but not for me. 

Kh


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Dodecaplex said:


> ^ And yet the Goldberg Variations still suck if they're played with all the boring repeats. Kudos to Gould for skipping all that crap...


Yes, Gould was controversial then in doing that as well as skipping repeats in some of his recordings of Beethoven's sonatas. I cannot judge properly, I've only read about it.



> ...My point is... basically, the abridged version is _sometimes_ better.


I don't know if I'd say better, more that if it's done well (as the Gershwin and Bruckner examples I gave in my OP), then they can be good. Don't forget that before long playing vinyls came in, abridged versions of many things were common, due to the limitations of the old 78 & 48 rpm technology (the time factor - a few minutes on each side).

So making a good edited version is like an art in itself. Sometimes it can be done well, others not so well (the example above of whittling down the finale of Beethoven's 9th to 8 minutes is very excessive editing, the result of that cannot be good, I'd say).

So what people's responses are come across to me as rather purist, but I do respect your passion and love of enjoying artworks as a whole. Caring for their integrity, etc.

But things like _Shakespeare in an hour_, done all over here in local pubs and stuff like that, has opened up "the bard's" work to a whole new audience who probably didn't have access to his plays, didn't know his stories, before.

So it can have some benefits, maybe huge benefits, esp. in this time of ours of people having little time to devote several hours to a Shakespeare play, or Wagner opera, etc. Or simply being daunted and intimidated by the prospect of going to see a play or opera that lasts for hours on end. It doesn't mean you can't experience the whole artwork at any time later if you wish. It's not "the be all and end all." For many, it's just the beginning of a whole new passion or discovery...


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

In the case of a Shakespeare play abridgement it is a disgrace, in the case of Bruckner the more the better ---some people might say. But this reminds me of the Reader's Digest abridged books , Quiet Flows the Don, War and Piece, Doctor Zhivago, The Mill on the Floss and The Three Musketeers all in 250 pages, why bother with all that padding? Who are these faceless people who do the abridging anyway ,what qualifications do they have ? You could buy LP's of Viennese operettas with no bands where the cast just sung one verse of everything with a rumpty tumpty band--awful!They used to cut the introductions to Chopins piano concertos, to what end ? Some works should never be cut because it disturbs the balance ,other times some judicious cuts are sensible. But look at the ruination caused by Siloti messing with the slow movement of Tchaikovsky.s Piano Concerto No,2. 
If people go to a Wagner opera they have to watch it all the way through or walk out. If they watch a DVD or listen to a CD at home they can spread it out over a week if they wish. That's what a serial play or a soap does, but no abridgements, no dumbing down.The problem here is that with Shakespeare in an hour they are not actually seeing the thing at all just a bastardisation, if you can't manage it don't bother.Of course you could play the music very,very fast or read the play very,very fast--that would make it all end quicker.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

I dislike anything abridged, unless it has something to do with tax law. 

I normally can't stand watching any movie or TV show, reading any book, listening to any piece of music, or playing any video game if I somehow know it's been edited or altered from its original version. The only exception may be for certain pieces that have unnecessary repeat signs, like certain instrumental works by Schubert or early classical period composers.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

I once read something on how Rachmaninov abridged some of his pieces so that they could fit on the 78 rpm phonograph records of his day. This wouldn't be necessary now, obviously, but the original recordings, which apparently are available on CD, feature Rach himself playing piano. That's not a bad thing, obviously, in spite of the abridgement. But I can't find anything much on the internet about this now. Maybe somebody who is into historical recordings would have better information.


----------



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

Assuming this qualifies one work that does succeed in my opinion is Kurt Weill's Mahagonny-Songspiel (or 'Little Mahagonny') - essentially a short trial draft of his sprawling Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny opera which followed three years later. Both contain the now-famous 'Alabama Song (Whisky Bar)'. This is a rare case where the condensed work precedes the longer version. 

Weill also created an instrumental suite from his Threepenny Opera and called it 'Kleine Dreigroschenmusik' which I think also works well. 

Paul Hindemith also deftly created two symphonies from his stage works and many composers have produced suites extracted from their longer ballet and incidental music works with no apparent ill-effects (Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Grieg, Neilsen etc). In fact, these suites are probably often useful in enticing the wavering listener to investigate the full works from which they derive.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Ravellian said:


> I dislike anything abridged, unless it has something to do with tax law.


Let's just not go there :lol:



> ...
> I normally can't stand watching any movie or TV show, reading any book, listening to any piece of music, or playing any video game if I somehow know it's been edited or altered from its original version...


If it's a long long movie, like the Lord of the Rings series, I prefer the shorter versions. A friend lent the dvd's of the trilogy to me. She had both the long and shorter versions. I asked for the shorter version & enjoyed it. But even that was long, comparatively to the norm, of course. But that's the nature of the genre.



> The only exception may be for certain pieces that have unnecessary repeat signs, like certain instrumental works by Schubert or early classical period composers.


In terms of live concerts, more of them are doing most or all of the repeats in things like Schubert and Mendelssohn, etc. I think this is okay. In terms of recordings, I don't have a strong preference, it's basically up to the performer what they think is best for that recording, etc.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

elgars ghost said:


> ...many composers have produced suites extracted from their longer ballet and incidental music works with no apparent ill-effects (Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Grieg, Neilsen etc). In fact, these suites are probably often useful in enticing the wavering listener to investigate the full works from which they derive.


Well you bring up the question of what's the line between a shorter version and a new work in itself, totally different to what it was drawn from/based on, etc.

I'd say that things like Hindemith's Mathis der Maler symphony is a whole new work separate from his opera of that title. They are different genres and also that there are vocals in the opera & it's a stage work, etc.

I can't judge things like Prokofiev's_ Alexander Nevsky_. The film score was fashioned into a cantata. I have only heard the cantata. I'd guess that again it's a whole new genre and way of putting that music across, different context, etc. But I'd guess same tunes and themes as in the movie score, etc.

In the case of some other things, there is not such a huge difference. Eg. Tchaikovsky turning his ballets into concert suites (it's still done by composers today, also making things like that from film scores). But there is an art to this as well, eg. what I was saying, making the cuts in the "right" place to make it seamless, etc.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

moody said:


> In the case of a Shakespeare play abridgement it is a disgrace...The problem here is that with Shakespeare in an hour they are not actually seeing the thing at all just a bastardisation, if you can't manage it don't bother...


Well, down here, _Shakespeare in an hour_, commonly done in more informal venues such as pubs and theatre restaurants, has made an impact. Eg. given access to Shakespeare in a more relaxed setting, not so daunting for people who haven't gone to the theatre before. Kind of demystified the whole thing for many people.

Agreed that live and recorded things (eg. dvd's) are different. The latter you can stop and come back to. No need to abridge that, I suppose. [EDIT - this contradicts my Lord of the Rings example above, but oh well]

As for operetta, I vastly prefer when they cut out the dialogue on the disc, and just give the musical items. It's another issue to what you're saying, I think, but linked. I've read some reviews on amazon and they say the same. They don't like the dialogue. Also depends whether you speak that language or not, I guess. But I just like to slap on a cd and have the music play, i'm not interested in the chit-chat in between. It just makes it longer without much benefit for me...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Sid James said:


> If it's a long long movie, like the Lord of the Rings series, I prefer the shorter versions. A friend lent the dvd's of the trilogy to me. She had both the long and shorter versions. I asked for the shorter version & enjoyed it. But even that was long, comparatively to the norm, of course. But that's the nature of the genre.


178 minutes 179 minutes and 200 minutes respectively for the long versions. You must have a short attention span if you cant sit through that. :lol:


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> 178 minutes 179 minutes and 200 minutes respectively for the long versions. You must have a short attention span if you cant sit through that. :lol:


^^Well the friend asked me whether I wanted to borrow the longer or shorter version of LOTR. I didn't ask what was the difference in time between them. AUtomatically I asked for the shorter version. That's it in a nutshell.

But even 10 minutes difference per movie is big. Eg. there's 3 movies in the series. So 3 x 10 = 30 minutes difference. I borrowed all three movies. So there you go.

The other thing is that shorter versions of things like films are on the market for good reason. They must sell if they are put on the market by dvd distributors. So there is a demand out there for these shorter versions. I'm not the only one.

Of course, the opposite can be said. Some people like the full version. I just think that it's like a kind of art to make a successful shorter/abridged version. Just like the various recordings of Gershwin's _Rhapsody in Blue _I was saying in the OP...


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

No,Sid in the case of the operettas I agree that if it's CD or LP of a Querschnitt (now there's a word) i.e. Highlights you do not need dialogue . But if I'm referring to what used to be called a "pot pourri", literally singing one verse and then plunging straight into the next number. Used to have that on 78.s by groups such as the "Grand Opera Company" and so on. But a recording of "Fledermaus" complete must have the dialogue ,just as "West Side Story" complete must have it , altho' there's nothing wrong with a CD of the musical numbers from the show.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Fsharpmajor said:


> I once read something on how Rachmaninov abridged some of his pieces so that they could fit on the 78 rpm phonograph records of his day. This wouldn't be necessary now, obviously, but the original recordings, which apparently are available on CD, feature Rach himself playing piano. That's not a bad thing, obviously, in spite of the abridgement. But I can't find anything much on the internet about this now. Maybe somebody who is into historical recordings would have better information.


Yes, it was all rather strange---a music world difficult for people now to imagine . You had abridged versions , you had the introductions cut and verses cut, but even more b izarre they would sing it or play it fast to fit it on to the side of a 78 rpm disc. When I was a kid I had "Finlandia" on a ten inch 78 ie about 8 mins. Played by a brass band, there were a lot of brass bands oompahing away on records then--but I, loved it and didn't know any better.
Another problem with piano recordings of Rachmaninoff or anyone else was that it took a long time to get piano tone correct for recording---and I mean a long time ! The voice was much better, so I'm not too keen on very old recordings of piano, piano rolls give a better idea but only if set up correctly.
There is another problem that makes the whole thing of historical recordings fraught with danger. 78 rpm was not standardised for some time, so you had recordings at 72 and at 82 imagine what happened when they were trnsferred onto LP at 78--you often had the poor tenor bleating like a sheep and the soprano sounding like a contralto, boy you really have it easy now !


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

People seem to have an unnatural horror towards abridgments, and a slavish devotion to the original artist's intent, even though artists are rarely as brilliantly inspired as their devotees believe them.

Obviously the reasons and purpose of an abridgment is the important question, are they cutting out something vital and changing the story, are they deliberately making the work less challenging, less artistically significant. Are the changes there to reach out to new audiences, are they creating new artworks with the abridgment, are they removing unnecessary padding. All this should be taken into account and while I am often suspicious of the motives to abridge I can see reason to.

LOTR is a good example as they are movie adaptations already, so does it matter if you have the long or short version of the movie. Neither version has the Scouring of the Shire, a key part of the last book in my opinion. Is the one CD orchestral abridgment of the Ring I have an evil bastardisation or a great way to sample Wagner's music without 14 hours of warbling. Does it make a difference if that is the only CD I have or if I have 2 other full versions.

Cutting down the Ring partly, removing just a few boring bits seems destructive to me because of its total art work status, but when is just enjoying an aria, or a symphonic movement or a ballet excerpt wrong. Trimming a Mahler or Bruckner symphony or any other long symphonist's work rather than excerpting a movement seems silly. If you like their work you should like it with the boring bits or not at all.

That goes the same with literature, condense soup not books! You can tell a book in a sentence, maybe two, but why would you want to, why miss out on all the detail. This ignores that artists are people with deadlines and such and not conduits for the divine or something, they produce great works, masterpieces, but not unimpeachable sacred works that can't be enjoyed however we wish. Making a short, concise work is more difficult than it is usually acknowledged, waffling on and padding out is simple in comparison. (like this post)

The letter I have written today is longer than usual because I lacked the time to make it shorter. -- Blaise Pascal

The two literature examples you give are significant. Dickens wrote his books in episodes for serial publication, individual parts that had to reengage the reader each month and end on a gripping cliffhanger to make them hungry for the next one. He did all this, pacing them to fit eventually into the 3 volume novel that was the standard of the time but still ended up with brilliant coherent works. Although I love his discursions and his padding is all beautifully observed details it is hardly essential to the plot. To cut that padding out is to cut out most of what makes Dickens great, but it was not some meticulously planned detail essential to the story, given different working conditions he probably would have written it differently. To get so over protective of this detail is quite funny, and probably a stance Dickens could have based a great comic character around.

Shakespeare is similar in that he was writing under the constraints and conventions of theatre at the time, trying to duplicate that is often difficult and confusing for a modern audience. With dialogue and humour opaque to all but a few scholars these days and some of the topical references only guessed at there is so much that can be safely cut. It is hard to imagine the people of the time treating the text with the reverence we assign to it now.

The abridgment of this post: Yes sometimes, not always.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

"Short version of Bolero, please."


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

@ moody -

I found it interesting, what you said about recordings in the old days.

I have a few of these old recordings, remastered onto cd. I think it's fair to say that the more "malleable" genre of jazz was more suited to the time constraints than classical (?). I have some recordings of Django Reinhardt among others from that time (before c. 1950) & the way the arrangements are made, they include a lot in the 3 or so minutes of each side. & he even put down light classical pieces like Grieg's_ Norwegian Dance #2 _& Dvorak's _Humoresque _& these sound great in his hands.

With classical, it varies, the cuts have to be done in the right place. On THIS recording of Schubert's _Death and the Maiden _quartet, the Busch quartet cut out two or three of the variations in the theme and variations movement, but I don't notice it, it doesn't affect the overall feel of the work for me. Of course, for musicians listening along with the score it would be a different story. But this recording is still admired across the board.

Maybe this is why performers playing concerts today like to do Schubert with EVERYTHING. Or near everything (eg. the repeats, which Schumann called his "heavenly lengths" but one critic walked out on the _Grand Duo for violin and piano _by Schubert, citing it was going on too long). Apart from better recording technology today, as well as a wide preference for going "the whole hog," I think at least a good deal of people have more patience and staying power now than before...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Re quack -

I think with guys like Dickens, his very detailed scene setting & scene description, etc. I don't know if it's integral to the story. Yes, it's setting the atmosphere, but abridged versions I remember reading cut back on that a bit - but not totally - and also modernise the language a lot. I remember, the first book I borrowed from my school library was an original version, fully original, of Oliver Twist. I started reading it and could hardly understand what was going on, it was like ancient Greek almost. Then I borrowed an abridged and modernised version, and I had no problems.

Of course later I could read Dickens originals, but the updated version was a stepping stone to doing that for sure. Nobody writing a novel would write like Dickens today. That style is really, how can I say, not current. So it makes sense to bring it up to date for young people to get into more easily, but the purists won't agree.

Then a number of people I know got into classic novels with those comic book adaptations of them. Again, not for the purists, but the purists probably read ancient Greek and Latin as far as I know. Are they average people?

As for Shakespeare in the pub in an hour, it's kind of getting "the bard" back to his bawdy roots. People eating and drinking and enjoying a show, just as I'd imagine in the Globe Theatre in Elizabethan times. Similar thing with theatre restaurants doing that kind of abridged Shakespeare. Of course it doesn't mean you can't go to the formal or normal theatre and watch Shakespeare in full. These pub Shakespeare things are a bit like a film version of a Shakespeare play. Indeed, directors working on them have stated that they do do them with the regular film goer or video watcher in mind, not necessarily the regular theatre goer. It's a totally different audience.

& I think this paragraph below is the best in your post, quack -



quack said:


> ...
> Obviously the reasons and purpose of an abridgment is the important question, are they cutting out something vital and changing the story, are they deliberately making the work less challenging, less artistically significant. Are the changes there to reach out to new audiences, are they creating new artworks with the abridgment, are they removing unnecessary padding. All this should be taken into account and while I am often suspicious of the motives to abridge I can see reason to.
> 
> ...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

People seem to have an unnatural horror towards abridgments, and a slavish devotion to the original artist's intent, even though artists are rarely as brilliantly inspired as their devotees believe them.

What is "unnatural" about preferring the original vision of the artist to an abridgment wrought by an editor or a publisher or other such individual whose primary goals are monetary: "If we can crop this film to an hour and a half we'll sell more tickets"?

Obviously the reasons and purpose of an abridgment is the important question, are they cutting out something vital and changing the story, are they deliberately making the work less challenging, less artistically significant.

Those questions are irrelevant. It is not the place of some publisher or editor to decide what aspects of a work of art are expendable. Those are the artist's decisions. In reality, I see such abridgment as insulting to the audience as well as to the artist. I wish to make up my own mind as to whether or not the passages expunged by some publisher seeking to cut a text down in size are or are not "essential".

Are the changes there to reach out to new audiences, are they creating new artworks with the abridgment, are they removing unnecessary padding.

Again... what gives the publisher or the editor the right to decide to offer up some truncated work as if it was the work of the artist? What gives them the right to decide what is or is not unnecessary "padding?"

LOTR is a good example as they are movie adaptations already, so does it matter if you have the long or short version of the movie. Neither version has the Scouring of the Shire, a key part of the last book in my opinion.

What you are confusing is the fact that a movie is an original art work in its own right. It is not a mere variation on the text, anymore than Shakespeare's plays are mere variations upon the original narratives on which they were based. The films, the Lord of the Rings are original artworks as much as the books by Tolkein (and I'm not speaking of aesthetic merit one way of the other here). When an editor or publisher or film distributor decides to edit the films or the books (largely for commercial considerations) the result is a truncated work of art that is being marketed as if it still conveyed the artist's original intentions. Under copyright law in the US, no one except the original artist has the right to alter an original work of art (or allow such alterations), let alone promote such alterations as being still the artist's work. The film industry and publishers, however, often run rampant as a result of the fact that they commonly purchase all rights to the finished book/film as part of their contracts. When it comes to artists in the public domain... anything goes.

Is the one CD orchestral abridgment of the Ring I have an evil bastardisation or a great way to sample Wagner's music without 14 hours of warbling. Does it make a difference if that is the only CD I have or if I have 2 other full versions.

Let's face it... the orchestral abridgment of Wagner is no longer Wagner, but rather a variation upon Wagner just as Stokowski's grandiose orchestrations of Bach's organ works and choruses and chorales from various cantatas are not Bach, but rather Stokowski after Bach. If you cannot appreciate the artist's intended vision, then why bother with a mutilation? Why not skip all that "filler" in Mozart and Beethoven and Brahms and just picked up a copy of "Hooked on Classics"? Mozart's better with a good disco beat after all, right?

Cutting down the Ring partly, removing just a few boring bits seems destructive to me because of its total art work status, but when is just enjoying an aria, or a symphonic movement or a ballet excerpt wrong. 

I don't thin that offering an "excerpt" is quite the same as an abridgment. Excerpting an aria... or a passage in a novel or poem or a film is not the same as editing or abridging the whole art work and then presenting this as if it were still the original art work.

That goes the same with literature, condense soup not books! You can tell a book in a sentence, maybe two, but why would you want to, why miss out on all the detail. This ignores that artists are people with deadlines and such and not conduits for the divine or something, they produce great works, masterpieces, but not unimpeachable sacred works that can't be enjoyed however we wish. Making a short, concise work is more difficult than it is usually acknowledged, waffling on and padding out is simple in comparison. (like this post)

The letter I have written today is longer than usual because I lacked the time to make it shorter. -- Blaise Pascal

The two literature examples you give are significant. Dickens wrote his books in episodes for serial publication, individual parts that had to reengage the reader each month and end on a gripping cliffhanger to make them hungry for the next one. He did all this, pacing them to fit eventually into the 3 volume novel that was the standard of the time but still ended up with brilliant coherent works. Although I love his discursions and his padding is all beautifully observed details it is hardly essential to the plot. 

You do understand, of course, that the plot is not the sole element of aesthetic concern in an novel? I think our secondary schools lean toward promoting the plot as the central element of all novels so that many readers presume that the goal in writing is to simply tell a story as concisely as possible... and the goal in reading is to simply "get it". But is this goal or destination really the measure of art? Or is it not more likely that like life itself it is the journey... not the destination... that matters? Is it not possible that there is something of an aesthetic experience laden with pleasure to be found in those long divergent passages of Dickens or Proust... those sprawling symphonies of Mahler and Bruckner... those lush epic films such as Dr. Zhivago or Lawrence of Arabia?

To cut that padding out is to cut out most of what makes Dickens great, but it was not some meticulously planned detail essential to the story, given different working conditions he probably would have written it differently. To get so over protective of this detail is quite funny, and probably a stance Dickens could have based a great comic character around.

But that's the same argument made by Ted Turner when he set out to colorize the films of the great old Hollywood film-makers. X and Y would have used color film could they have afforded it. Of course this may be true... although not always. Many black and white films were shot by directors who most certainly could have afforded color film. But even when it was true, the artist deals with the materials and the situations at hand. Shakespeare needed to deal with the limitations of the theater. Had he written 200 years later, he might have written novels which would allow an even greater degree of character development and he likely would not have employed the monologues and soliloquy, but rather, as the omniscient narrator could have simple related the internal thoughts of the characters. Dickens, like Shakespeare, dealt with the art form as he inherited it. I see no value in attempting to rewrite Dickens to suit the ideals of the novel as we see it now.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I remember, the first book I borrowed from my school library was an original version, fully original, of Oliver Twist. I started reading it and could hardly understand what was going on, it was like ancient Greek almost. Then I borrowed an abridged and modernised version, and I had no problems.

Of course later I could read Dickens originals, but the updated version was a stepping stone to doing that for sure. Nobody writing a novel would write like Dickens today. That style is really, how can I say, not current. So it makes sense to bring it up to date for young people to get into more easily, but the purists won't agree.

Andre... I can certainly appreciate the educational value of such abridgments... but I also see a certain danger in that these often stress some elements... especially plot and character development over other equally important elements such as setting, atmosphere, mood, and simply a love of language. I remember that it wasn't until I stopped looking at poetry as something of a linguistic puzzle in which the goal was simply to "get it"... to understand the "meaning"... and began to recognize the magic of the words... the language... the mood and atmosphere, etc... that I became truly enamored of poetry.

I would also note that this has nothing to do with terms such as "purist" which are nothing more than an attempt at suggesting a certain snobbism. What it has to do with is a respect for the artist's intentions... for better or worse.

I would note that it is quite likely that a student struggling with Dickens is going to find Cormac McCarthy, Jose Saramago, Anne Carson, Thomas Pynchon, John Barth, and many other contemporary writers no less challenging.

By the way... I have quite liked a number of the "classics" I have seen in the form of comic books: Kafka, Lawrence Sterne, etc... Of course I don't see these as abridgments (when done right) but as original works of art in and of themselves.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> Andre... I can certainly appreciate the educational value of such abridgments... but I also see a certain danger in that these often stress some elements... especially plot and character development over other equally important elements such as setting, atmosphere, mood, and simply a love of language. I remember that it wasn't until I stopped looking at poetry as something of a linguistic puzzle in which the goal was simply to "get it"... to understand the "meaning"... and began to recognize the magic of the words... the language... the mood and atmosphere, etc... that I became truly enamored of poetry...


Well if they are faithfully done, with sensitivity to the original creator's vision, I have no problem with them. Of course, it has to be clearly put on the cover or title page that it is an abridged or edited version.

But as I said, as an adult I do prefer the originals, by a huge margin.

Also with Shakespeare, there have been books of his plays published for decades, with notes giving the modern English equivalent - "translation" if you will - of his old terms.

RE poetry it's a tricky area. I had a book of really old poetry published like maybe around 1940's or '50's. I later found out that the more racy and ribbald bits had been edited out. Probably an overhang from Victorian prudery and "morals." Now that is a distortion of the poet's original vision, definitely. Sullying it with the editor's ideology, which should never happen.

Which is a bit like that film done with black singer/actor Lena HOrne, around the same time. The scene with her was aired in cinemas in other parts of the USA - eg. with not much segregation - but in the deep South, it was cut entirely from the film. Now of course it has been restored, I'd guess, in dvd releases.

So done with ideology, editing can be vandalism.



> ...
> I would also note that this has nothing to do with terms such as "purist" which are nothing more than an attempt at suggesting a certain snobbism. What it has to do with is a respect for the artist's intentions... for better or worse...


As I said, if it's done with integrity, it is usually okay. It may well serve a different purpose, but the artist's vision can be let to be intact.

Better of course if the original creator is still alive and collaborates or gives the green light to the editor or "re-creator," etc. Eg. Janacek, while he was alive, authorising Vaclav Talich to arrange suites drawn from his operas. That kind of thing.

But even present day arrangers, who Janacek didn't know of course, have done a faithful rendition of this kind of thing. Eg. Peter Breiner on the Naxos label has done suites from all Janacek's operas. I've got one of those discs and Breiner captures the vibe of Janacek's style in those suites very well.

The main bad thing is ideology. Eg. Carl Orff, I think it was, being commissioned by the Nazis during their rule to do an "Aryanised" version of Mendelssohn's_ Midsummer Night's Dream_. History has proven that that kind of approach is just plain wrong, a bastardisation, not much better than how they destroyed Mendelssohn's monument in Leipzig.



> ...
> By the way... I have quite liked a number of the "classics" I have seen in the form of comic books: Kafka, Lawrence Sterne, etc... Of course I don't see these as abridgments (when done right) but as original works of art in and of themselves.


I agree with that. I suppose there is so much artistic license taken by the creators of those that they do become "new" artworks in the process. Like a film, as you and others said...


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Again... what gives the publisher or the editor the right to decide to offer up some truncated work as if it was the work of the artist? What gives them the right to decide what is or is not unnecessary "padding?"


The fact that they are the publisher or editor. People are welcome to produce art in whatever scale and form they wish and then give away copies of it how they like. If they want a third party to sell it though they should probably take that 3rd party's advice. There is combative attitude against editors (no I am not an editor) an aggrieved artist will often think them philistines for daring to cut their work but usually the artist is reacting against the philistinism of the market they wish to be a part of.

If you compare many works which were heavily edited before publication with their originals you can often see how expert the editor's hand can be. D.H. Lawrence's first significant novel _Sons and Lovers_ was heavily cut for publication, hearing that and because it is Lawrence you instinctively think "censorship". But while there are a couple of sentences that may have been cut so as not to offend the potential consumers of the time, much of it is to edit out the over-writing and excessive exposition common in young writers.

I do mostly dislike abridgments, if I learn that a work is truncated I automatically want to find the fuller version to find out what I am missing and the meanderings of a great artist are fascinating compared to the terseness of a mediocre artist. What I disagree with is believing a work as sacrosanct, bequeathed to us by an inerrant god-artist that should only be appreciated and reverenced by correctly trained priests, not enjoyed.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> I see no value in attempting to rewrite Dickens to suit the ideals of the novel as we see it now.


I won't declare my post art and disagree with your editing of it to make your points. ;~) But this point seems like a fascinating literary exercise, and indeed it has certainly been done with Austen, assuming Dickens' works don't get destroyed after making a modern rewriting how interesting it is to read the the Victorian form transcribed to a supposed 21stC idiom.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^You make the point which I said, quack, good editing is an art in itself. It can potentially add and not necessarily detract from the original artwork.

There is also the issue that once an artwork is out of copyright and in the public domain, it's open slather virtually for people to do with it what they want. That's what's happened to the grafting onto various Jane Austen novels of zombie and sea-monster themes/plots. It's kind of post-modern, maybe a cliche now but just puts another spin on the original novels (which I find as boring as watching paint dry, btw, tried to read _Pride and Prejudice _and only got around halfway through, absolute torture).

Of course, in some mediums of arts, like the plastic arts, I think that changing an original artwork is hard to argue as being a good thing. I think it's not good to cut an original painting into bits or change a sculpture. Eg. as Delacroix's famous painting of Chopin and George Sand was cut into separate portraits of them after the painters death. Not on, imo.

Same with the 20th century art critic Clement Greenberg editing (eg. sandblasting the colour off) sculptor David Smith's works after his death. THIS article mentions that briefly. It is the most notorious of things that Greenberg did. If a critic today did that, I think it's safe to say that his career would be over, he would not be taken seriously, and I think that would be understandable...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

I am generally skeptical of abridged versions done not by the original composer. I assume abridged means shortened. Very good examples included Baroque opera revivals made many decades ago when the _da capo_ and or middle sections of the arias were totally cut, and recitatives were cut etc. These simply stuffed up the work's coherence and lacked the Barqoue idiom of character development important in the middle sections of _da capo_ arias. Even today, there are continued examples of recordings by supposedly top record companies who deliberately cut out recorded recitatives and _da capo_ arias so that the opera can fit onto 3 CDs or 2 CDs instead of 4 CDs or 3 CDs respectively. These are totally unacceptable. On recordings, they should give us the full version, and let the listener press the skip button if desired.

But of course, there are useful abridged versions that are intended for introductory or some other purposes in mind (i.e. stating that clearly and definitely not presenting the work as if it was a full version), and *so long as audiences know* that they are listening to an abridged version and one that has a specific purpose in mind, then that might well be useful. Good examples include the Rachmaninoff piano concerto done by the composer himself because he wanted the pieces to fit onto the recorded medium.

As for playing the repeat of pieces, I think many of us are used to both non-repeated and repeated versions that we often admire the piece anyway. Historically informed performance practice groups tend to (but not always) observe the repeats, but sometimes so did grand maestros leading the big philharmonics.

(I'm limiting the discussion to music, not getting into literature and movies).


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I have a recording of Mozart's "Le Nozze di Figaro" with Glyndebourne festival chorus and orchestra conducted by Vittorio Gui in 1956 on the EMI classics label that cuts a few arias and recitatives from acts III and IV to fit it onto two CDs with a total running time of about 158 minutes. The omissions made didn't really change the storyline much and only a few minor details of the plot are missed and I think it still is a pretty good recording. I still prefer to listen to the full opera unabridged though.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

The fact that they are the publisher or editor. People are welcome to produce art in whatever scale and form they wish and then give away copies of it how they like. If they want a third party to sell it though they should probably take that 3rd party's advice.

So does this tie over to the relationship between the artist and audience as well? It seems you are willing to give the editor and publisher control over a work of art... but few are ready to turn the same control over to the audience... who ultimately are the final voice when it comes to issues of financial success. Give the people what they want?

Why do we ewven need the artists? If the publisher and editor are so talented at knowing what makes a story or a work of art succeeed, why aren't they making their own art?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I have a recording of Mozart's "Le Nozze di Figaro" with Glyndebourne festival chorus and orchestra conducted by Vittorio Gui in 1956 on the EMI classics label that cuts a few arias and recitatives from acts III and IV to fit it onto two CDs with a total running time of about 158 minutes. The omissions made didn't really change the storyline much and only a few minor details of the plot are missed and I think it still is a pretty good recording. I still prefer to listen to the full opera unabridged though.

Of course Mozart often presented his operas in different forms in different cities. Several recordings I have of Mozart and Gliuck's operas stipulate which version (Vienna or Paris, etc...) and often include excluded arias as a sort of appendix.


----------

