[78-L] Marche Slav

[David Lennick]

Personal taste, of course, but I like my Tchaikovsky 5th with the cut (it 
removes what to me is just a 2 minute bunch of noodling up and down the scale. 
This wasn't just done to save record sides..I have a broadcast performance of 
it on transcription discs and the cut is taken. No idea who is performing (no 
announcements and nothing on the labels). The same goes for his Second Piano 
Concerto. And Rachmaninoff's Second Symphony can be the most boring thing in 
the world or something exciting and dynamic, depending on whether the cuts the 
composer sanctioned are used (and the tempos chosen by Sokoloff and 
Wallenstein, thank you very much).

Ravel EXPANDED his perfectly formed Mother Goose Suite into a tedious bunch of 
filler, occasionally relieved by the five original sections.

dl

On 3/10/2012 6:55 PM, Philip Carli wrote:
> Sometimes, even into the present day, Tchaikovsky is considered repetitive and "cuttable".  There's a standard cut in "1812" that is not only on many 2-side 78 versions, but that I heard taken as recently as 2001 by the Buffalo Phil at a pops concert.  "1812" was the overture played at the opening of the Eastman Theatre in 1922, and the parts used at that performance (which are still at Eastman) have that cut heavily marked in.  I was surprised when I got the 1916 Prince's Orchestra version of MARCHE SLAVE because the A side was absolutely complete but the B is cut rather substantially and erratically - and there was plenty of space left for more. PC
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: 78-l-bounces at klickitat.78online.com [78-l-bounces at klickitat.78online.com] on behalf of DAVID BURNHAM [burnhamd at rogers.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 2:47 PM
> To: 78-L at 78online.com
> Subject: [78-L] Marche Slav
>
> dl wrote:
>
> Rodzinski's Marche Slav is missing a chunk between the two sides that made a proper
> join impossible.
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> The recording I had as a kid by Fiedler and the Boston P.O. also had a cut, (probably the same one), between the sides;  the passage which was cut actually occurs twice in the piece and it was cut both times - obviously I didn't know it was a cut until many years later when I heard another version of it on LP.  I don't think the cut was to enable it to fit on two sides because there's lots of spiral on both sides and the cut isn't that long so it would easily have fit.
>
> db