This issue has popped up a number of times on this forum, so I thought I'd do a thread on it. Its a thread about pieces attributed to composers, completed by others, and also other related issues I've listed.

This seems to require some knowledge, which is probably a good thing, so I shall only reply to things (EDIT: thing as it turns out) I have some knowledge about.

Attributions and 'completions'

...

But I am very suspicious about Mozart's Requiem. Not only because its sounds to me very unlike his other things - even his other late more 'deep' and 'dark' works like the 40th symphony - but also I'm suspicious when people say 'I generally don't like Mozart but I love his requiem.' & I've read that a lot on this forum. For me, its another example of something that's been cobbled together, it aint the real deal.

The only thing to point out is that Mozart tended (so I'm told) to write Church music in a bizarre Classical fusion with Baroque pastiche. This could be what they're latching on to. The same people will swear that the thing collapses after the Lacrimosa when they believe Mozart died (he didn't - he wrote up to the Hostias). Actually, some of the bits in the Lacrimosa that are not by him are among my favourite parts of the Requiem.

Josquin was in his day some kind of musical legend, and all sorts of pieces were attached to his name to get performed. The famous remark made by someone some years after his death: "Now that Josquin is dead he is writing more than when he was alive!". He was the first one to be like this, and modern scholars have nightmares trying to deal with it.

I am suspicious of stylistic analysis, which is often used to try and attribute things, or more to the point de-attribute things. Sure some of it can be helpful. But with Josquin it can lead to an attributation with strong historical evidence being rejected because it is 'not worthy of his genius' when other works, which have very flimsy historical connections, pass without much notice.

The technique seems to me to actually key into a modern stereotype that composers ought to have a unique style, something that distinguishes them, and makes them special. This is a phenomenon which has carried from the 19th century, but one that would probably be viewed with the utmost distain by the likes of Bach, Haydn and Mozart. It tries to box up a composer, but what if the composer experimented with style? Then according to stylistic analysis it can't be by him because it's too different from the rest of his works. (speaking from a point of ignorance - probably PetrB or principe or someone will disagree)

 

Interesting read, lots of new info for me. Thanks!

 

With regard to Haydn, I read in a biography of him that said that, after the relative loosening of his contract with the Esterhazy family, there were quite a lot of 'Haydn' works floating around because his was a name that would sell well, even if the work were composed by someone else. Haydn also 'exclusively' sold his music to more than one publisher (and even, IIRC, published music by a student under his name), which can't have helped the confusion. I have also heard that several of the works previously attributed to Joseph Haydn were written by his brother Michael. At the end of the day, however, there is more than enough genuine Haydn to go round and I think it likely that his most famous works were by him, especially those that were written under commission.

With regard to Mozart's Requiem, I am still pretty sure that much of the 'dark' music was written by him. One of the composers attributed to having completed the work, I think, was Franz Xavier Sussmayr, though I think that no one knows for sure.

I have a harder time trying to work out how to approach works like Mahler's 10th and Albinoni's Adagio. I don't know the precise details of the 10th, but I do know that Alma Mahler opposed its completion for a long time before giving blessing to Deryk Cooke's performing version of it. How complete the final score had been on Mahler's death I don't know.

With regard to J.S. Bach and the Cello Suites, I have not heard this before and I'm dubious as to what 'handwriting analysis' was done. I would have though it to be easy to tell one person's handwriting from another, but there is also the fact that Bach's wife and many of his family were his copyists for many years. That seemingly original scores in her writing were found doesn't seem all that surprising to me, though I guess they must have more than that. I was also under the impression that the Cello Suites were a 'lost work' until the late 19th Century.

 

...
I have a harder time trying to work out how to approach works like Mahler's 10th and Albinoni's Adagio. I don't know the precise details of the 10th, but I do know that Alma Mahler opposed its completion for a long time before giving blessing to Deryk Cooke's performing version of it. How complete the final score had been on Mahler's death I don't know...

There is an article on Albinoni's Adagio on wikipedia and its corroborated by other sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adagio_in_G_minor

Re Mahler, it was completed in 'short score' which means that the orchestration was left incomplete. The Adagio and Purgatorio where almost finished though. There have been a number of completions, as you say Cooke (the most authoritative one), but also Wheeler and Carpenter are two others.

Controversy revolves around whether a conductor will perform the whole thing or just the two more 'authentic' movements, and if they perform the whole thing, which scholar's orchestration. When Vladimir Ashkenazy decided to conduct the Carpenter version for the Mahler cycle in 2010-2011, it was a controversial decision because Cooke's one is considered the most authoritative one. I don't remember what reason Maestro Ashkenazy gave for doing the Carpenter and not the Cooke. But it shows that these things can get hairy, as any decision a conductor makes will inevitably not please some people who are passionate about which version is 'best.'

But Cooke himself said his version was not meant to be much more than a possibility, a snapshot of Mahler's mind, or a picture as far as he got with this work. Mahler had a tendency to revise his symphonies about 5 years after their first publication/completion. So its a work in progress. Cooke's version draws on the more 'Romantic' aspect of Mahler and Wheeler's one on the more 'Modernist' and pared down direction he was taking in some aspects. Both where based on the same evidence, the manuscripts left to us by Mahler (& yes, Alma did play a huge role here, this is discussed in depth at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._10_(Mahler)).

...
With regard to J.S. Bach and the Cello Suites, I have not heard this before and I'm dubious as to what 'handwriting analysis' was done. I would have though it to be easy to tell one person's handwriting from another, but there is also the fact that Bach's wife and many of his family were his copyists for many years. That seemingly original scores in her writing were found doesn't seem all that surprising to me, though I guess they must have more than that. I was also under the impression that the Cello Suites were a 'lost work' until the late 19th Century.

Yes, I think Pablo Casals took a large part in rediscovering/resurrecting the Bach cello suites around 1900. But Dr. Jarivis' research takes in manuscripts that have come to light since then, very recently, esp. some fragments. & re what stlukes put in his big post on the first page of this thread, Dr. Jarvis did give virtually all that info, I have dug up and checked my notes, but of course he drew his own conclusions from that info and more things.

Ultimately I am not going to be as passionate about this as some people, but Dr. Jarvis in that lecture was pretty thorough (I mean it was done at a university, not just anywhere, he had a quite informed audience, I'd say) and as I said a number of his colleagues have agreed or largely agreed with his findings. But basically, I am just putting this out there, and if people want to go further you can read his book or read critiques of it by his colleagues, both for and against. Dr. Jarvis has done other good work for Australian in terms of classical music, he took a big part in setting up the first orchestra in Darwin, in the Northern Territory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Symphony_Orchestra. He's originally from the UK.

 

this Chanson Baladée, very famous and beloved in italy, was attributed for a long time to Guillaume de Machaut (strangely enough, because i don't see great similarities with the music of the french composer), while it's the work composed in 1976 of Antonino Riccardo Luciani. I think Iit's a little example of music that (like the Albinoni's adagio) contradicts the story that music composed in older styles is simply "useless".

and there are a lot of controversies about a lot of Pergolesi's works, if i remember well the Stabat mater is the only work attributed with certainty to the composer.

 

But I am very suspicious about Mozart's Requiem. Not only because its sounds to me very unlike his other things - even his other late more 'deep' and 'dark' works like the 40th symphony - but also I'm suspicious when people say 'I generally don't like Mozart but I love his requiem.' & I've read that a lot on this forum. For me, its another example of something that's been cobbled together, it aint the real deal.

Which parts of Mozart's Requiem or did you mean the entire piece? Scholars known which parts are entirely by Mozart and which parts are largely by Süssmayr, and which are likely to be based on Mozartian sketches. I wouldn't suggest the entirety is not by Mozart.

I'm not near convinced about the Bach cello suites. Handwriting alone means nothing at all. We do know his second wife, his sons and his Leipzig students were all copyists helping out JS in many cases, and Bach's oeuvre often lacked authentic manuscripts in Bach's hand but were composed by him. I am open to theories of course, but the evidence to back Jarvis' theory is not thorough.

 

"Mozart" Adelaide violin concerto, and "Hendel" viola concerto, composed by Marius Casadesus on past century. And Tartini's trill as is played by everybody, is on 80% Kreisler's.

 

Mostly, I'm just in favor of honesty. As long as misattributions are eventually corrected (much of Pergolesi, "Mozart's" 37th symphony, the Albinoni) I don't have a problem regardless of the original motives. I discussed performing versions of Mahler's 10th in the Mahler part of the forum, and enjoy the versions so long as I bear in mind that they are just that, and don't represent anything but partial rough drafts. Orchestrations/reorchestrations by other than the composer (Mussorgsky/Ravel, Mussorgsky/Rimsky-Korsakov) are fine so long as they are attributed. We haven't in the last 150 years had a lot of false re-discoveries (like the "newly discovered Shakespeare" cottage industry), but there have been a few attempts to jump on bandwagons. In the 1960s Columbia trumpeted a recording of a "newly reconstructed" Tchaikovsky Seventh -- basically cobbled together by a Soviet musicologist of bits and pieces and his unfinished 3rd piano concerto. That was purely a commercial, money-making enterprise. I'm not sure about the Prokofiev Seventh (haven't heard it in years), but seem to remember it was not a completed work in the sense that Prokofiev hadn't released it to publication.

Luckily, Beethoven's method of composing was such that he never left anything in a state that was completable. Brahms destroyed everything he didn't send to a publisher. Schubert scraps are all over the place--kind of like Picasso in that regard--but just scraps.

I remember, also from around 1970, the fecund imagination of a British housewife named Rosemary Brown, who summoned from beyond the grave little piano pieces from all the greats.

 

I can already see people will try to be smart and claim that Franz Xaver Süssmayr wrote better parts of Requiem alone, the truth is, Mozart left him sketches for most of it, and the parts that he alone tried to write were actually full of mistakes, so people had to correct them.

And of course, not a single part from the Requiem Mozart himself wrote had mistakes.

The problem is that it is actually quite impossible to tell where Mozart leaves off and Sussmayr picks up- we know that any mistakes are Sussmayr, but those are easy to fix. However, it doesn't take much effort to prove pretty conclusively that Sussmayr was lying when he claimed to have written the last three movements himself.

The simple fact is that, Sussmayr's own music shows him to have been a Singspiel composer first and foremost- almost an 18th c. Broadway composer. His music is simple and relatively one-dimensional. There is nothing anywhere in his own music as sophisticated and learned as what we find in the Sanctus, Bennedictus and Agnus Dei.

It is the thematic makeup of these movements that make it clear that Sussmayr could not have written them. The main theme of the Sanctus is the same as that of the Dies Irae- a transformation that Sussmayr had neither the talent nor imagination to come up with. Likewise, the Osanna fugue subject begins with the first four notes of the Recordare theme, followed by the theme of the Requiem in inversion. In the Bennedictus, the bridge material in bars 18-20 is taken from the "Et lux perpetua" music of the Introitus. Finally, the Agnus Dei is not only partly paraphrased from an early Mozart work (K 220), the bass line is the Requiem theme, and the violin figuration ends with the Requiem theme in retrograde and includes an elaborated quote of the fugue theme of the Kyrie. On top of that, the harmonic writing is some of the most sophisticated in all of Mozart- Sussmayr could never, ever have conceived it, let alone executed it.

The whole article:

http://kennethwoods.net/blog1/2009/04/05/who-wrote-the-mozart-requiem/

 

If I am to be at all honest, it seems to me that the raison d'etre of this thread is nothing more than to give further vent to the obsession with undermining so-called "sacred cows". The very idea that any artist whose work has survived and been admired for centuries and as such is afforded a greater level respect and is perhaps more immune from more broad and sweeping forms of criticism (sans proof) than the latest composers of the avant garde makes some bristle with indignation. It is as if artistic reputation has nothing whatsoever to do with merit and everything to do with politics and some notion of undeserved entitlement that represents a the most disturbing affront to any Egalitarian beliefs and embrace of the Underdog. Down with "Wigs!" "Down with Nazi-sympathizers!" If one can prove that this or that acknowledged "masterpiece" by this or that acknowledged "master" was in fact but a "hoax"... composed by some mediocrity... "Mediocrities everywhere! I am your Patron Saint," cried Salieri... well then the "sacred cow" is effectively skewered and deflated. Such efforts have been a favorite strategy of that branch of academia which the litearary professor, Harold Bloom referred to as "The School of Resentment."

I'll deal with only one of the claims made here... the most preposterous... and that is the suggestion that the Cello Suites BWV 1007-1012 were not in fact composed by J.S. Bach but rather by his second wife Anna Magdalena Bach (AMB) according to one Australian musicologist loon, Martin Jarvis.

Let's begin by looking at the FACTS:

*The Cello Suites (BWV 1007-1012) were composed between 1717-1723 while J.S. Bach wads employed at Köthen. According to analysis by musicologists making comparisons with other works, they were most likely composed before 1720

*AMB was born in 1701

*Bach's First wife dies in 1720

*J.S. Bach Marries AMB in 1721. There is no mention of AMB in any of the Bach family correspondences or as related to her linked with J.S. Bach in any official documentations or correspondences of Köthen prior to 1721

*The Cello Suites (BWV 1007-1012) are not merely recognized as wholly in the style of J.S. Bach... but also stand as one of the most most masterful works of Bach's entire oeuvre as recognized by music lovers, musicologists, performers, etc...

Here, then, is what Martin Jarvis theory would ask us to accept:

*A 20 year old girl with no prior experience in composition composed the whole of the Cello Suites, one of the supreme masterpieces of music... within a short period of time... while also taking charge of the other duties of the wife of J.S. Bach, including raising little Johann Gottfried Bernhard and Carl Philipp Emanuel.

Now Jarvis builds on his theory, suggesting that AMB was living in the Bach household from as early as 1712 and that she took part in composing a number of "Bach's" cantatas. This is based upon the fact that he has discerned her handwriting in a number of Bach's scores dating to as early as 1712. So rather than assume (logically) that any such manuscript was likely a transcription made by AMB of her husband's work made at a later time, Mr. Jarvis would have us accept that AMB was responsible for composing some of J.S. Bach's mature cantatas as early as age 11... which would put such child prodigies as Mozart and even Mendelssohn to shame.

*Jarvis bases the assumption that AMB composed the Cello Suites upon his personal feeling that something is not right about these works... that contrary to the opinions of every other musical expert, the suites don't sound like Bach... and due to the fact that the oldest extant score of the Cello Suites is in AMB's handwriting and is signed "Written by AMB" which Jarvis asserts proves that Mrs. Bach composed the works... not merely made a transcription as a copyist as she had done on any number of other scores by J.S. Bach.

*Finally we are left with the issue of how one account for the records showing that AMB was still living with her father, Johann Caspar Wilcke, and was even employed as a singer in Köthen as late as 1721, where Bach likely met her.

But again... if it suites the efforts to deflate one of those "sacred cows" well then it is not beyond the realm of possibility to assume that the strictly religious J.S. Bach took an 11 year old girl into his home while his first wife was still living... and that this 11 year old girl composed some of J.S. Bach's mature cantatas... in spite of no record of prior experience as a composer... and that this same girl at age 20 then composed Bach's cello suites which not only mirror wholly the style of J.S. Bach... but are among the greatest of Bach's achievements. This woman then went on to compose nothing more anywhere near this scale or level or artistic achievement.

I also have a bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale for the right price.

 

I knew some of Sid James examples.

At the end of Smetana's Festive Symphony in E Op.6 - IV. Finale: Allegro non Troppo Ma Energico there is similar parts with Haydn's 'Emperor' quartet in II. Poco adagio: Cantabile ... but it seems intended.

 

Jarvis' theory is also flawed as it does not hold on stylistic analysis because we know of hardly any compositions by Anna Magdalena Bach to infer stylistic parrallels between the cello suites and her compositions.

 

Could I attribute Beethoven's 5th to myself? It might boost my composing career quite a lot.

 

Why 5th? Take the 9th, or his late string quartets.

 

Wait, didn't Luchesi write most of Mozart's masterpieces?

 

Oh no... let's not get started with Mr. Newman again!

 

Thanks for all contributions. Re the first paragraph of this post: http://www.talkclassical.com/21284-attributions-completions-hoaxes-other.html#post353364. I'm the only one to have bias here, aren't I? But seriously, my opening post was a mixture of fact and editorial comment, meant to open up debate.

Re Josquin, its similar to him as with Mozart's requiem (& thanks all for added info on that!) - Josquin's motet 'Inviolata, integra et casta es' is of disputed attribution, but most scholars think its by him. Its my favourite work by him so far, out of a number of works I know by him. & it does have a different 'feel' for me, perhaps that's why I like it. But we hardly know anything about his life, yet he was a huge figure of his time, much like Beethoven was of his.

Re the Bach cello suites debate, I did not make a comment directly on that. I only went to his lecture. To go further with that, I would have to read his book. But I am appalled by people who 'shoot the messenger' (eg. calling Dr. Jarvis a 'loon'). The fact is that its just a conclusion. & in his lecture, Dr. Jarvis said that he had been at a conference where professors (but not him) literally came to blows over a textual issue to do with BAch! It was about one note that was smudged on a manuscript! I mean its pretty sad that people of high intelligence descend to the level of apes. Its an emotional issue, this 'sacred cow' thing, not only in my mind. & also linked to the 'cults' of various composers. I mean its not only 'wigs' or Wagner who have and had cults. Look at the post-1945 canonisation of Webern in some quarters. & correspondingly, they downplayed Schoenberg as being kind of old school and too romantic. So its ideology.

But I often think its wierd how people argue about these things, yet these guys have been dead for like decades, or 100, 200, 300 years. I mean they're dead, they don't care. The thing with history though is that the more you find out, the more questions arise. Sometimes you won't get a solid answer. Sometimes you have to let go of obsessing too much over these things. & that's part of this thread, about raising questions than we can't maybe answer 100 per cent conclusively. & sometimes the experts are in dispute too. & that's good and healthy, I think.

 

Thanks for all contributions. Re the first paragraph of this post: http://www.talkclassical.com/21284-attributions-completions-hoaxes-other.html#post353364. I'm the only one to have bias here, aren't I? But seriously, my opening post was a mixture of fact and editorial comment, meant to open up debate.

Re Josquin, its similar to him as with Mozart's requiem (& thanks all for added info on that!) - Josquin's motet 'Inviolata, integra et casta es' is of disputed attribution, but most scholars think its by him. Its my favourite work by him so far, out of a number of works I know by him. & it does have a different 'feel' for me, perhaps that's why I like it. But we hardly know anything about his life, yet he was a huge figure of his time, much like Beethoven was of his.

Re the Bach cello suites debate, I did not make a comment directly on that. I only went to his lecture. To go further with that, I would have to read his book. But I am appalled by people who 'shoot the messenger' (eg. calling Dr. Jarvis a 'loon'). The fact is that its just a conclusion. & in his lecture, Dr. Jarvis said that he had been at a conference where professors (but not him) literally came to blows over a textual issue to do with BAch! It was about one note that was smudged on a manuscript! I mean its pretty sad that people of high intelligence descend to the level of apes. Its an emotional issue, this 'sacred cow' thing, not only in my mind. & also linked to the 'cults' of various composers. I mean its not only 'wigs' or Wagner who have and had cults. Look at the post-1945 canonisation of Webern in some quarters. & correspondingly, they downplayed Schoenberg as being kind of old school and too romantic. So its ideology.

But I often think its wierd how people argue about these things, yet these guys have been dead for like decades, or 100, 200, 300 years. I mean they're dead, they don't care. The thing with history though is that the more you find out, the more questions arise. Sometimes you won't get a solid answer. Sometimes you have to let go of obsessing too much over these things. & that's part of this thread, about raising questions than we can't maybe answer 100 per cent conclusively. & sometimes the experts are in dispute too. & that's good and healthy, I think.

You need to check your semantics, Sid. Dr. Jarvis is not the messenger, he is the author of the message. "Shooting the messenger" would be attacking his publisher or his home institution.

Jarvis is just another academic desperate for fame, any kind of fame. Notoriety is better than nothing.

He's not a loon, he's a mendacious opportunist.

 

Fritz Kreisler composed no concertos in baroque style or any other ,he did however compose short character pieces.
He was reluctant to see his name too often on programmes so ascribed them to 18th century composers. When this came to light there was a fuss and they are now listed as "in the style of,"every violinist plays them and records them, I do not believe there was any intention of a hoax.
Kreisler's playing style was the least "beefy" you could imagine---have you listened to him? His tone is aristocratic and golden, i have heard nothing like it with the possible exception of Mischa Elman.

 

^^Well I was going off info I got on a radio program about these issues and also this quote re Kreisler at wikipedia.

Some of Kreisler's compositions were pastiches in an ostensible style of other composers, originally ascribed to earlier composers such as Gaetano Pugnani, Giuseppe Tartini, and Antonio Vivaldi. When Kreisler revealed in 1935 that they were actually by him and critics complained, Kreisler answered that critics had already deemed the compositions worthy: "The name changes, the value remains" he said.

Re his playing style, I was comparing it to today's interpretations of Baroque music (incl. 'HIP'). I definitely remember the string accompaniment by the orchestra to be 'darker' than I'm used to with Vivaldi. So its more that than his playing style per se, sorry I should have been more specific.

 

I doubt authenticity of many well known composers - more than I'm willing to admit. So, no sacred cows for me. And yet, why would I care what someone thinks that "Beethoven would do" if he had the time to finish 10th symphony? I'd rather go with jazz variations of his 7th symphony - they are not pretending to be completing it, they are making variations of it. Also, recomposing (recently someone made a topic on recomposing Vivaldi's Four seasons) is also a great idea - he's not pretending to be finishing Vivaldi's work, he's recomposing it using all that he has at his disposal, few centuries later.

Going back to the authenticity doubt - back in the day it was common, perfectly acceptable and unobjectionable to take someone's work, edit it, and pass as your own. It wasn't what we do today: edit only as much as to avoid ethical (or legal) issues - there were no ethical issues with it back then. Not to mention that many worked as a part of a family business, and music was a business as much as a shoe making, so all of the family would do it and only the patriarch would get the credit. I don't see why the same would not happen with music too, and we all know examples of families in music business.

Even when the music market imposed some rules, you could rip off composers who were not the part of it (or didn't have expensive lawyers, as we would say today) - so as late as 1869, Brahms ripped off not only gypsy music, but also some hungarian composers (3 of 21 hungarian dances were composed by Brahms, and it was the most profitable music for him).

Not only we'd have a hard time to find out who wrote what, but even some good indications (based in history, not musical theory) are rejected by the people whose cariers depend on that, and who could kiss their PhD's goodbye if Bach/Mozart/Beethoven didn't write this or that... Not to mention that a lot of music theory and study of one's style is based on questionable authenticity in the first place, so how can we use what might easily be groundless theory to determine who wrote what based on style? I never liked when people try to make a science out of anything, tbh...

 

...
Going back to the authenticity doubt - back in the day it was common, perfectly acceptable and unobjectionable to take someone's work, edit it, and pass as your own.

Well there's also the thing that taking a tune from a composer back then was not necessarily considered 'stealing' (or plagiarism) but a type of homage. One instance is in Beethoven's Piano (or clarinet) trio in B flat major, Op. 11. He takes a tune from an opera by a composer called Josef Weigl and does variations on it. Then there's Bruckner's quotations of various things by Wagner in his symphonies (but its not as literal a quotation). I'm not sure if this could be done today, with all the copyright laws. I mean, taking a tune by a living composer.

...
Even when the music market imposed some rules, you could rip off composers who were not the part of it (or didn't have expensive lawyers, as we would say today) - so as late as 1869, Brahms ripped off not only gypsy music, but also some hungarian composers (3 of 21 hungarian dances were composed by Brahms, and it was the most profitable music for him).

...

My understanding is that Brahms did not assign opus numbers to the Hungarian Dances. He considered them more of a transcription or arrangment rather than an original composition. & being a fan of European (incl. Hungarian) gypsy music, I can tell you that many of the 'traditional' tunes gypsy bands play there, they are the same as some of Brahms' dances. But the music played by gypsy bands is different from 'real' gypsy music, which often involves singing and is totally different. The tunes that got into Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsodies and the Brahms pieces where often written by non-gypsies for gypsy bands to play (yes, Monti's Csardas is one of them, as graaf alludes to).

Wikipedia has this to say re Brahms (adding to graaf's post above) -

Only numbers 11, 14 and 16 are entirely original compositions. The most famous Hungarian Dance is No. 5 in F♯ minor (G minor in the orchestral version), but even this dance was based on the csárdás by Béla Kéler titled "Bártfai emlék" which Brahms mistakenly thought was a traditional folksong.

So its similar to the example of the Rakoczy March I gave in my opening post. Berlioz, or Liszt, get credit for it, not the gypsy violinist who more likely composed that piece.

In contrast to Brahms, I think that Dvorak's Slavonic Dances where original compositions by him, but of course drawing on the style and feel of Czech folk musics of the time.

...If you consider this to be some kind of rip-off then composers such as Vaughan Williams, Dohnanyi and Percy Grainger are all in trouble.

Well that's a point, I think that in many cases, there is no 'cut and dried' answer to who wrote exactly what. & discussion of that, incl. its finer points, is the aim of this thread.

 

GRAAF.
Your statement that only three of Brahms' Hungarian Dances were composed by him is incorrect.
Brahms set off on a tour of Hungary with the violinist Remenyi in 1853,he was 21 years old.His interest in Hungarian tunes and rhythms was fired by this trip and remained with him and influenced his work for the rest of his life.
Although the dances were based on Hungarian and gypsy sources jotted down during his travels his treatment of them is both original and effective.
If you consider this to be some kind of rip-off then composers such as Vaughan Williams, Dohnanyi and Percy Grainger are all in trouble.

 

Bela Keler. So, some of those "Hungarian and gypsy sources" happen to have an actual name.
from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI-8QGIYN_s#t=1m26s
to

Not simply a rip off, but a lazy one too. Which reminds me of the only famous work by Vittorio Monti...

For all I care, good artist can keep borrowing, best artist can keep stealing (as the often misattributed quote says), but to pretend not to see the obvious is to keep bsing...

 

Moody, my friend: Kreisler DID compose a short concerto in C major "in the Vivaldi style", and he recorded it May 2,1945, with the Victor Orchestra conducted by Donald Voorhees.

 

That's me undone..I've not heard it.

 

Also of note is Vladimir Vavilov, a dedicated 'discoverer' of previously unknown compositions from the baroque, which were his own works. Such as this aria ascribed to Caccini:

 

Kreutzer's 13th and 25th studies for violin fit in this category. Who had the nerve to add them to the original 40?!?!

 

Just because the score was written (I say help to copy her husband) by Bach's 2nd wife and the music "did not sound" like Bach's to the mendacious opportunist "professor" means nothing at all. The 2nd wife composed hardly any other music, and then suddenly came these great six cello suites I think the music professor just wanted his name to be spread everywhere. the Darwin university is not enough Australia's best university for anything.

 

^^Well dont' worry guys. You have won. So has stlukes and someguy. I will no longer make these kinds of 'challenging' or controversial type threads. YOu can all go back and worship your gods. Or argue till the cows come how who is better, Beethoven or Mozart, or some other guys who's been dead for like 200 yeas or more.

I can't put information out there without being attacked. Or without even the writers I refer to being attacked.

This is lame guys, totally lame.

But now you have your pyrrhic victory.* Enjoy it.

* Is that a fancy enough phrase to prove me as an 'intellectual?'

 

^^Well dont' worry guys. You have won. So has stlukes and someguy. I will no longer make these kinds of 'challenging' or controversial type threads. YOu can all go back and worship your gods. Or argue till the cows come how who is better, Beethoven or Mozart, or some other guys who's been dead for like 200 yeas or more.

I can't put information out there without being attacked. Or without even the writers I refer to being attacked.

This is lame guys, totally lame.

But now you have your pyrrhic victory.* Enjoy it.

* Is that a fancy enough phrase to prove me as an 'intellectual?'

Don't worry, Sid. I believe you.

 

Where's Robert Newman when you need him?