New Traditions

Well, I would say that every performance that any of us, or our parents, ever heard of music written before, let's say 1900, was an "arrangement". First of all, the instruments used in the performance in all cases were modifications and in some cases radically different than the instruments in the composer's mind. But, more importantly, the style of performance, in technical details but also in the attitude of performers and audiences was dramatically different from that which prevailed at the time the works were composed. A listen to Mengelberg's remarkable 1939 performance of Matthew Passion (which is more about 19th century performance practice than Bach of course) or for that matter any number of early recordings of canonical works, gives a sense of just how far away we are from original performances.

And I definitely include in this assessment "historically informed performance" performances – another form of arrangement (one which I personally find very satisfying and effective, but an arrangement nonetheless). While the decision to allow historical instruments and a thorough knowledge of the period and the context in which works were written inform interpretation is laudable, no one seriously thinks they can actually recreate with any certainty something as ephemeral as music that sounded centuries ago. On a certain level, no matter what is informing your interpretation, every performance is a premiere and final performance at the same time.

So I welcome new approaches to familiar works - some will work, some won't and some will be mere novelties, but even the ones that attempt to be "normal" will in fact be brand new!

Some people may not know that most of the standard classical works for orchestra were introduced to the New York City public though transcriptions performed in Central Park by the Goldman Band. Yes, Ravel's rendering of Pictures was also a transcription, as is Grofe's rendering of Rhapsody in Blue for symphony orchestra. There are far too many examples to list.

At the end of the day, a great piece and a great transcription (and great musicians) equals a great performance, irrespective of whether the treatment is what the composer originally intended.

I'd take it even farther and say that contemporary composers (and composers' estates), as well as copyright law, should be MUCH more liberal in allowing arrangements of their music. You'd need to have full disclosure in advertising of course, as discussed above. But it happens all the time in pop music and no one complains about it there. Why not in classical too?

Sure many of the "cover" versions would not live up to the original, same as in the pop world. Still it would be worth it for the ones that do transcend the original and bring something new. And 99% of us contemporary composers could use all the exposure we can get.

If an artist's work is not mis-advertised, then ticket-buyers should be and are free to make a knowing choice about whether to buy tickets and attend the performance. But it is wrong -- ethically and even legally -- when the work is mis-advertised. In this case, it would have been misleading if the performance were advertised as "J S Bach, Chaconne from Partita No. 2, for solo violin, arranged by Mark Starr" (with the last four works in small print). Instead, the performance should have been advertised truthfully: something like "Mark Starr's new arrangement for orchestra of J S Bach's Chaconne from Partita No. 2". In that case, there would be no mis-representation ('passing off Mark Starr's work as Bach's'), so ticket-buyers would make an informed decision.

I see nothing inherently wrong with the idea of producing transcriptions of well-known masterworks. However, I'd rather see the program space taken up by new works.