# Piano Transcriptions: No longer trashy?



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/04/arts/music/piano-transcriptions.html

First, I'm having a bit of déjà vu here, as I thought I read this article before, but the date is clearly yesterday. Maybe someone wrote something similar not too long ago?

Second, I'm happy to report I never see antipathy toward piano transcriptions in my circles. I do absolutely love them, from Martynov's (and Leslie Howard's) recordings of Liszt's Beethoven to those in the standard repertoire (Faure's Sicilienne, Brahms' Hungarian Dances, Horowitz's version of Saint-Saëns' Danse Macabre) to the very many piano transcriptions of harpsichord and organ music. I'm so thankful they exist.

Anyone else have similar feelings? Anyone averse to these transcriptions? Is the snobbery against them still a thing?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I can only answer that with Busoni's transcription of Bach's Chaconne. Here's Kissin, though I like Demidenko a bit better.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I like piano transcriptions! 
One of the reasons is that I'm very difficult when it comes to solo singing in classical music (my problem; not the music), so I'm glad for all the solo piano transcriptions of songs for voice+piano (of Schubert, Schumann, Rachmaninoff...).


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I don’t mind them at all. It’s sometimes an opportunity to hear a familiar work from a new perspective, such as the Beethoven symphony transcriptions. I find them delightful.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Good info here;


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Michael Finnissy surely deserves mention as a contemporary master of pano transcription. The _Gershwin Arrangements_ and _Verdi Transcriptions_ show his amazing facility for this. It should be said, however, that these are not 'transcriptions' in the sense of Liszt's Beethoven, but rather original compositions based on the material of others. Finnissy's work here is more in-line with the numerous 19th-century potpourris based on popular opera melodies (of which Liszt also wrote his fair share).


----------



## ECraigR (Jun 25, 2019)

I think piano transcriptions are quite interesting. I’ve never heard of people not liking them, so that’s kind of news to me. I agree with the post above that they allow for a new way of listening to a work, and if done well they have the possibility of revealing something about the original that may be lost in the mix. It’s kind of like translating, in a way. It’s a new piece but comes from an old. I think it has great potential.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Great song by Schumann, great transcription by Liszt and great performance by Kissin!


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

ECraigR said:


> I think piano transcriptions are quite interesting. I've never heard of people not liking them, so that's kind of news to me. I agree with the post above that they allow for a new way of listening to a work, and if done well they have the possibility of revealing something about the original that may be lost in the mix. It's kind of like translating, in a way. It's a new piece but comes from an old. I think it has great potential.


It's easier to hear the logic of a complex work. But many people want to hear the intentions of the composer's (or the arranger's) orchestral ideas.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

What's the point of a piano transcription from the listener's point of view?



Luchesi said:


> It's easier to hear the logic of a complex work.


Why? I mean, I don't believe you're right. In fact, you're not right. You're wrong.



Portamento said:


> Michael Finnissy surely deserves mention as a contemporary master of pano transcription.


A total red herring. They're just not transcriptions. They're very good though, I like them much more than the Gershwin things.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

AeolianStrains said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/04/arts/music/piano-transcriptions.html
> 
> First, I'm having a bit of déjà vu here, as I thought I read this article before, but the date is clearly yesterday. Maybe someone wrote something similar not too long ago?
> 
> ...


Horowitz said



> "I don't like the sound of a piano as a piano. I like to imitate the orchestra - the oboe, the clarinet, the violin and, of course, the singing voice. Every note of those symphonies is in these Liszt works."


The problem is that these instruments can sustain, a piano can't. And so you end up doing what Liszt did when you write a transcription -- tremolo.

Tremolo

Yuck.

Here's an example, it's just soooooooo vulgar and old fashioned,


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> What's the point of a piano transcription from the listener's point of view?
> 
> Why? I mean, I don't believe you're right. In fact, you're not right. You're wrong.


Because it's a piano reduction.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> What's the point of a piano transcription from the listener's point of view?


Because the transcriptions permitted the audience to hear great works they might never have heard performed by a full orchestra. The transcriptions carried the music all over Europe and it was great training and an insightful learning experience for the composer who did it, such as Liszt.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Larkenfield said:


> Because the transcriptions permitted the audience to hear great works they might never have heard performed by a full orchestra. The transcriptions carried the music all over Europe and it was great training and an insightful learning experience for the composer who did it, such as Liszt.


 I asked (or meant) what _is_ the point, not what _was_ the point.

The idea that appeals to me is that a transcription is a fresh composition, inspired by an existing work but not at all an attempt to recreate or evoke the original on piano à la Liszt. Like Wagner/Gould Siegfried Idyll for example, and indeed Busoni tried to achieve this. Or even the Finnissy - but the problem with the Finnissy is that the original is too hidden from view.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> The problem is that these instruments can sustain, a piano can't. And so you end up doing what Liszt did when you write a transcription -- tremolo.
> 
> Tremolo
> 
> ...


The only moment where the tremolos annoy me is during the climax around 5:08 of the video below. That's just too much, but I think the rest of the transcription is fine. The passage at 5:43 really highlights the beauty of the theme. I think it's wonderful to hear it on the piano. Has its own magic.


----------



## Schoenberg (Oct 15, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> I asked (or meant) what _is_ the point, not what _was_ the point.
> 
> The idea that appeals to me is that a transcription is a fresh composition, inspired by an existing work but not at all an attempt to recreate or evoke the original on piano à la Liszt. Like Wagner/Gould Siegfried Idyll for example, and indeed Busoni tried to achieve this. Or even the Finnissy - but the problem with the Finnissy is that the original is too hidden from view.


There is no longer any point, for the listener alone.
However, for the player, transcriptions are great works that allow them to play works that they can't in their original form⁠.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Larkenfield said:


> *Because the transcriptions permitted the audience to hear great works they might never have heard performed by a full orchestra. * The transcriptions carried the music all over Europe and it was great training and an insightful learning experience for the composer who did it, such as Liszt.


Yes, this made the transcriptions useful 150 years ago. But to day, when phonographic reproduction is widespread, and pianos are a much more rare occurrence, transcriptions are pointless from the listeners point of view.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

premont said:


> Yes, this made the transcriptions useful 150 years ago. But to day, when phonographic reproduction is widespread, and pianos are a much more rare occurrence, transcriptions are pointless from the listeners point of view.


Transcriptions of songs, Bach chorales are wonderful poetic encores in any piano recital. I love Sokolov playing Ich Ruf zu Dir:





When a piano has to copy the entire orchestra however, the magic disappears immediately. It maybe great and educational for the pianist to play it, but I can't listen to it.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

As Liszt lover and servant, I have lived my whole life with (his) transcriptions (and paraphrases) . Are the works I love beyond comparison to any others. After the Master are coming the GREAT Thalberg and Busoni. Stellar pianists and transcriptions composers.


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

premont said:


> Yes, this made the transcriptions useful 150 years ago. But to day, when phonographic reproduction is widespread, and pianos are a much more rare occurrence, transcriptions are pointless from the listeners point of view.


I entirely disagree. There's something simple and elegant about piano transcriptions that an orchestra can never approach.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

NLAdriaan said:


> Transcriptions of songs, Bach chorales are wonderful poetic encores in any piano recital.


I agree with this to some degree, but I always find myself preferring the original in the end.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

AeolianStrains said:


> There's something simple and elegant about piano transcriptions that an orchestra can never approach.


On the contrary I often find piano transcriptions of orchestral works awkward, because the pianist usually has got all too much to fill out with just two hands. Add to this the monochrome sound of the piano as opposed to the sound of an orchestra.


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2019)

premont said:


> Yes, this made the transcriptions useful 150 years ago. But to day, when phonographic reproduction is widespread, and pianos are a much more rare occurrence, transcriptions are pointless from the listeners point of view.


I enjoy some piano transcriptions, so I don't find them pointless.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Piano transcriptions are still another way to gain a new perspective on great works, such as the famous Beethoven Symphony transcriptions by Franz Liszt. It’s the spirit of an entire symphony being interpreted by one person and quite revealing of his or her ability to bring it to life.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

I'm usually tickled to see it all reduced down into something playable by one person. That should count for something. 

Also, what they can't include is also interesting. Only 10 fingers and only piano sounds, so sometimes there's glaring omissions.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Just thought I'd mention that, inspired by this thread I've been really enjoying some Vivaldi/Bach here, I've never heard the original as far as I can remember


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Larkenfield said:


> Piano transcriptions are still another way to gain a new perspective on some great works, such as the famous Beethoven Symphony transcriptions by Franz Liszt. It's the spirit of an entire symphony being interpreted by one person and quite revealing of his or her ability to bring it to life.


These works may be exceptionally well transcribed by Liszt, but I only know one pianist who is consistently able (if we use recordings as our standard) to play them like anything else than simple piano reductions, and she is Idil Biret.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Am not really a fan of the Salon-style repertoire etc., but George Copeland's rendition of the Prelude de lApres-Midi has a lot of poetry, and Hamish Milne's recording of Liszt's Ad Nos Fantasia in the Busoni transcription for piano is another favourite of mine. Nyiregyhazi's recordings of Liszt transcriptions can also be interestingly eccentric.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

premont said:


> Yes, this made the transcriptions useful 150 years ago. But to day, when phonographic reproduction is widespread, and pianos are a much more rare occurrence, transcriptions are pointless from the listeners point of view.


I love Bach keyboard music but dislike harpsichords and most organs, so transcriptions are far from pointless from this listener's point of view.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

howlingfantods said:


> I love Bach keyboard music but dislike harpsichords and most organs, so transcriptions are far from pointless from this listener's point of view.


Really it shouldn't need much of a transcription to take a work from harpsichord to piano, I mean you may have to make some adjustments if the piece needs two keyboards some of the time, but that's all. This isn't the same as moving from orchestra to keyboard, or from a cantata to piano (I'm thinking of those things that Walter Rimmel wrote.)

Organ is another matter, because of the sustain, the range and the complexity of the music - music which needs pedals and a couple of keyboard may be hard to transcribe in a way which reflects the harmonic and contrapuntal interest of the original.

But saying « I don't like organs » seems to me as strange as saying « I don't like wine » - there are so many different types that if you continue to explore you'll find some that you like I'm sure.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

howlingfantods said:


> I love Bach keyboard music but dislike harpsichords and most organs, so transcriptions are far from pointless from this listener's point of view.


This was not what I pointed to in the post of mine, you quote. Read Larkenfield's post (post 13) again and then mine (post 17). This was about the importance of transcriptions before we got phonographic reproduction.

BTW most transcriptions (for piano and for everything else) were made, because the transcriber wanted to play the music on his own instrument and only secondarily with the listener in mind.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

premont said:


> This was not what I pointed to in the post of mine, you quote. Read Larkenfield's post (post 13) again and then mine (post 17). This was about the importance of transcriptions before we got phonographic reproduction.
> 
> BTW most transcriptions (for piano and for everything else) were made, because the transcriber wanted to play the music on his own instrument and only secondarily with the listener in mind.


Larkenfield was talking pretty specifically about piano reductions of orchestral scores but was responding to Mandryka who appeared to be making a pretty generalized and global comment about transcriptions as a whole.

Disagree that most transcriptions were made for the benefit of the transcriber. Bach himself was a big transcriber of his own music, and he transcribed his music for the purposes of performance. Liszt transcribed as a showcase for performance. Busoni transcribed works for piano so that people could hear Bach's music.


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

premont said:


> On the contrary I often find piano transcriptions of orchestral works awkward, because the pianist usually has got all too much to fill out with just two hands. Add to this the monochrome sound of the piano as opposed to the sound of an orchestra.


I mean, we all have a difference of opinions with regards to preferences. I was thinking more along the lines of trashiness or not.


----------



## Guest (Jul 13, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> Really it shouldn't need much of a transcription to take a work from harpsichord to piano, I mean you may have to make some adjustments if the piece needs two keyboards some of the time, but that's all. This isn't the same as moving from orchestra to keyboard, or from a cantata to piano (I'm thinking of those things that Walter Rimmel wrote.)
> 
> Organ is another matter, because of the sustain, the range and the complexity of the music - music which needs pedals and a couple of keyboard may be hard to transcribe in a way which reflects the harmonic and contrapuntal interest of the original.
> 
> But saying « I don't like organs » seems to me as strange as saying « I don't like wine » - there are so many different types that if you continue to explore you'll find some that you like I'm sure.


Actually some people don't like wine. (Not me.)


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Baron Scarpia said:


> Actually some people don't like wine. (Not me.)


What? Not even premier cru Sauternes?


----------



## Guest (Jul 13, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> What? Not even premier cru Sauternes?


You'll have to ask a wine hater.

Today I listened to Demidenko's recording of the Busoni Transcription of the Prelude and Fugue in E-flat, BWV 552 (Sometimes called the St Anne). It is not a rote transcription, the organ pedals have to be integrated into the work, making use of piano pedals, etc. Very effective in capturing the august sonority of the organ in the prelude. The fugue starts off with a mouse-like smallness, but blossoms and comes to a satisfying conclusion. To pull it off the transcriber has to be a talented composer in his or her own right, as Busoni was. It is a wonderful transformation of the music that I would not want to be without (although it does not replace the proper organ version).


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Transcriptions are fine as a complement to the original. But Busoni's arrangement of Bach's Chaconne could never be a replacement for the genius of the original which is one of the greatest works ever written by anyone. I remember a young woman holding a whole Albert Hall audience spellbound with it. But the Busoni opens it out for pianists which is fine.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Actually inspired by this thread I did a bit of investigation on Busoni's attitude to transcription, which seems to be quite complicated not least because he changed his point of view, and the well known Bach/Busoni paradigm may not be the best way to hear his final ideas. I've been surprising myself by how much I've been enjoying the _Elegies_. Normally I can't go near this sort of music without feelingthe urge to run away.

Hamelin plays them, they're like parodies of music by Mozart, Luther and indeed his own music. _Parody_ as in _parody mass._ Unfortunately _Mein Seele Bant_ doesn't seem to be on youtube so I can't post a link.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Transcriptions are fine as a complement to the original. But Busoni's arrangement of Bach's Chaconne could never be a replacement for the genius of the original which is one of the greatest works ever written by anyone. I remember a young woman holding a whole Albert Hall audience spellbound with it. But the Busoni opens it out for pianists which is fine.


The Brahms, which really is a simple piano reduction, "opens it out for pianists." The interesting question is why exactly Busoni decided to embellish the music so much.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

AeolianStrains said:


> I mean, we all have a difference of opinions with regards to preferences. I was thinking more along the lines of trashiness or not.


I presuppose, that we are talking about transcriptions for piano exclusively. As I wrote above, I always find the original compositions better than any transcription for piano. But this does not imply, that I think all transcriptions are trashy. There are good transcriptions (many of which were made by Liszt) and trashy transcriptions (Busoni's "transcription" of Bach's BWV 1052 e.g.). But I do not quite understand this "everything must be transcribed for piano" attitude. Is it so hard for even a serious classical music listener to listen to anything but piano?


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Baron Scarpia said:


> The fugue starts off with a mouse-like smallness, but blossoms and comes to a satisfying conclusion. To pull it off the transcriber has to be a talented composer in his or her own right, as Busoni was.


Sounds like a very romantic transcription. This leads me to think, that the purpose of many transcriptions of Bach's music is to romanticize it. And this tells me, why I don't like that kind of transcriptions.


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

premont said:


> I presuppose, that we are talking about transcriptions for piano exclusively. As I wrote above, I always find the original compositions better than any transcription for piano. But this does not imply, that I think all transcriptions are trashy. There are good transcriptions (many of which were made by Liszt) and trashy transcriptions (Busoni's "transcription" of Bach's BWV 1052 e.g.). But I do not quite understand this "everything must be transcribed for piano" attitude. Is it so hard for even a serious classical music listener to listen to anything but piano?


It is not a difficult thing, but a different one. I am of the same opinion concerning orchestral arrangements as well (such as Ravel's arrangement of Mussorgsky's Tableaux or Brahms' Hungarian Dances arranged by the composer himself (along with Dvořák, Gál, et al.). It is not a difficult thing to listen to the piano originals, but the orchestrations add, adorn, and are essentially different.

Why can't we like both? No one is suggesting _replacing_ en masse orchestral music with piano transcriptions or vice versa.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

AeolianStrains said:


> Why can't we like both? No one is suggesting _replacing_ en masse orchestral music with piano transcriptions or vice versa.


Agreed. In some cases piano transcriptions are enjoyable in their own right, even if they of course never can replace the original compositions. This is true e.g. of Liszt's LvB symphonies transcriptions, which I - on my part - think are some of the best piano transcriptions ever made, because they serve the symphonies very well. But there are also some transcriptions which romanticizes the music in a way which just trivializes the original composition. So one has got to distinguish.Transcription and transcription may be two different things.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> Actually inspired by this thread I did a bit of investigation on Busoni's attitude to transcription, which seems to be quite complicated not least because he changed his point of view, and the well known Bach/Busoni paradigm may not be the best way to hear his final ideas. I've been surprising myself by how much I've been enjoying the _Elegies_. Normally I can't go near this sort of music without feelingthe urge to run away.
> 
> Hamelin plays them, they're like parodies of music by Mozart, Luther and indeed his own music. _Parody_ as in _parody mass._ Unfortunately _Mein Seele Bant_ doesn't seem to be on youtube so I can't post a link.







Ferruccio Busoni, 6 Elegies, BV 249
Svetlana Belsky

Published on Mar 19, 2018
Recorded Live; Souers Recital Hall, Miami University, 3/15/2018

00:00 1. Nach der Wendung (Recueillement) ["After the Turning" (Contemplation)]
05:15 2. All' Italia! (In modo napolitano) ["To Italy!" (In a Neapolitan Mode)]
12:19 3. Meine Seele bangt und hofft zu Dir (Choralvorspiel) ["My soul trembles and hopes of thee" (Chorale Prelude)]
19:52 4. Turandots Frauengemach (Intermezzo) ["Turandot's Bower" (Intermezzo)]
24:05 5. Die Nächtlichen (Walzer) ["The Nocturnal" (Waltz)]
29:01 6. Erscheinung (Notturno) ["Visitation" (Nocturne)]


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I never felt that transcriptions were "trashy." Sometimes even the composer himself will do a transcription of his own work, with perhaps one of the most thrilling being...






Plus his own charming transcription of Petrouchka, in a brilliant performance:






There are other marvelous piano transcriptions for four hands:






And perhaps one of the best transcriptions of all (on a rather bright sounding instrument and too slow in the beginning for me):






Cyril Scott Symphonic Dances transcription by Percy Grainger:






Look for a far better Duo-Arts Romeo & Juliette performance by Percy Grainger & Ralph Leopold on Klavier Records: https://www.amazon.com/Plays-Schumann-Strauss-Tchaikovsky-Grainger/dp/B000003M68/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=Schumann%2C+Strauss+%26+Tchaik ovsky&qid=1563157733&s=music&sr=1-4


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> But saying « I don't like organs » seems to me as strange as saying « I don't like wine » - there are so many different types that if you continue to explore you'll find some that you like I'm sure.


I've explored a fair amount and so far have not heard an organ Bach performance that doesn't make me miss the contrapuntal clarity of the notes I hear in good piano performances. They always sound like a mushy mess in my ears. The thing that you note about pianos--that the notes decay instead of sustain--is one of the reasons it's such a great Bach instrument, because the complex multi-voiced counterpoint is far more transparent. It's not about performer either--I get the clarity I want from Rubsam on the piano (although his rubato is too frequent and extreme for my tastes) but not from Rubsam on the organ for instance.

Of course, harpsichords also share that feature of decay with pianos, but they sound thin and insubstantial in my ears--exactly the opposite of how Bach sounds in my mind's ear. Of course this is complete speculation but I bet if you built a time machine and sent a modern piano to Bach, it'd be his favorite instrument--Bach's compositions indicate that he loved the big dramatic noise of organs and the clarity and complexity possible with harpsichords; and the piano is the best instrument that allows both at the same time.

Also I'm more of a scotch guy.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

In very contrapuntal music, I often like to hear instruments which aren't homogeneous in all registers -- being able to appreciate the dramatic interrelationships amongst the voices is easier for me if the voices have different timbres. Of course there are some pianos and organs and clavichords which have irregular registrations, though less so in modern pianos I think.

You _can_ bring out the narrative of tension and release amongst the voices on a homogeneous instrument, you have to give each voice a life and a personality of its own, and bring the whole together in a way which is musical, poetic.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> In very contrapuntal music, I often like to hear instruments which aren't homogeneous in all registers -- being able to appreciate the dramatic interrelationships amongst the voices is easier for me if the voices have different timbres. Of course there are some pianos and organs and clavichords which have irregular registrations, though less so in modern pianos I think.
> 
> You _can_ bring out the narrative of tension and release amongst the voices on a homogeneous instrument, you have to give each voice a life and a personality of its own, and bring the whole together in a way which is musical, poetic.


I know what you mean--exceptional Bach pianists are exceptional in my mind specifically because they're able to assign ownership of each note to each voice to a truly impressive degree. Gould, Sokolov and Schepkin really stand out for me in this regard.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

howlingfantods said:


> I know what you mean--exceptional Bach pianists are exceptional in my mind specifically because they're able to assign ownership of each note to each voice to a truly impressive degree. Gould, Sokolov and Schepkin really stand out for me in this regard.


I must say that I think their way of playing counterpoint has been so much put into the shade by Rubsam on lute harpsichord that I can't bear to listen to Sokolov play baroque music any more. I don't know Schepkin and I don't enjoy Gould.


----------



## CatchARisingStar (7 mo ago)

I didn't realize some people considered piano transcriptions trashy. I love 'em. Collected quite a few, m'self. To wit:
Mahler - Symphony No. 1 (Evelinde Trenkner & Sontraud Speidel).
Tchaikovsky - Symphony No. 6 (Chitose Okashiro), (Duo Crommelynck)
Tchaikovsky - 1812 Overture (Valentina Lisita)
Tchaikovsy - Symphony No. 5 (Sergey Koudriakov)
Beethoven - Complete Symphonies (Cyprien Katsaris)
etc.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

In the days before the phonograph, piano transcriptions were largely the only way to become familiar with orchestral works aside from what your local symphony chose to play that year. There was good business in making piano transcriptions as such (Liszt made hundreds). Today they are mostly obsolete because you can hear any orchestral work on demand anytime you want. But as a pianist, they provide a lot of insight into how a work was written and they're easier to follow along to with the music than the full orchestral score.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I dunno if "trashy" is the right word but I think the (post)modern tendencies for HIP with the idea of great fidelity to the source material along with their purpose not being particularly relevant anymore make them a bit less popular. It seems like I rarely see things like orchestral adaptations of SQs or piano works either, a few warhorses like Pictures at an Exhibition aside. 

That said piano/two-hands/two-piano recordings are still fun.


----------

