 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ford, let me ask YOU a question. Have you read all my posts on this thread? .
OK, this is a classic dodge..
This as a rule happens when FANBOYS are asked a question that they really don't want to answer because if they are truthful they will look like a clueless fool.
If the answer was yes, he'd have a point to make.
BUT CLEARLY he hasn't, so the answer is NO, he has not looked at the written score and thus is solely going on the film track.
I rest my case.
Ford A. Thaxton
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you stack the FSM Ben-Hur set next to the re-recordings of Rozsa scores in the last couple of decades it becomes clear that, without Rozsa himself conducting, these scores lose something.
But to say these re-recordings are not worthy is like saying new recordings of Beethoven or Brahms shouldn't be made because their originators are dead.
Eventually, some interpreter with chops like Pierre Monteux or Bruno Walter will come along who has the same affinity for Rozsa, Tiomkin, et al. that those conductors did for Tchaikovsky or Mahler.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, Graham, you have a good ear!
I've been a fan of the Rózsa violin concerto and the Private Life of Sherlock Holmes score (separately and together) for over three decades, have played in orchestras for a couple performances of the concerto, and even written some program notes for the piece, but I didn't notice a wrong note when I first listened to the Tadlow recording.
Yet here's an excerpt from the score of the slow movement to the violin concerto:
and in fact the soloist in the Tadlow recording (at 0:50 into track 7) plays a G-flat instead of a G on the third sixteenth note of the third beat in bar 10.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yet here's an excerpt from the score of the slow movement to the violin concerto:
and in fact the soloist in the Tadlow recording (at 0:50 into track 7) plays a G? instead of a G on the third sixteenth note of the third beat in bar 10.
I'm not seeing a symbol on the thread, but having listened I think you placed a sharp there? #?
It's a tiny semiquaver in an ascending rush of notes. What Graham is saying is that it's a repeated feature on every performance of that motif throughout. Is that what you're saying? I don't feel up to wading through every instance of this melody in the score.
I'm just not sure how valid this really is. You could find an off-note anywhere, maybe even on the Heifetz, but to say it's repeated throughout is, well, a damaging assertion that probably doesn't achieve much.
Why do they call me 'erudite' Graham? Hell, you'd better believe I put the 'rude' in 'erudite'. Without that, it'd be just 'edit' ... which is the Thor way...
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not seeing a symbol on the thread, but having listened I think you placed a sharp there? #?
It's a tiny semiquaver in an ascending rush of notes. What Graham is saying is that it's a repeated feature on every performance of that motif throughout. Is that what you're saying? I don't feel up to wading through every instance of this melody in the score.
The soloist plays a G-flat (apparently not all browsers display the HTML flat entity correctly, so I've edited my previous post and written it out) instead of the G-natural in the score. I only listened to track 7, but if the same note is "flattened" in corresponding passages in other tracks it may have been a transcription error replicated via copy and paste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So the fanboy was correct all along? The indignity!
While the self-appointed "experts" stand around with egg on their faces! Hi-larious...
Perhaps he couldnt face the REALITY this time. Good riddance for the time being.
I wouldn't be smug quite yet.....
I've talked to several PROFESSIONAL musicians (One of whom is a fiddle player) and after showed them the thread that they were rather puzzled by the comments.
The Long and the short is that the player was more then likely a bit out of tune at that point, I suspect they used the take because liked the performance and that mattered more then anything else.
As a wise person once told me "I'd rather have a lively and enthusiastic performance with some flaws and wrong notes over a letter perfect and lifeless performance any day of the week"...
You'd be amazed at how much orchestra's (and players) tuning came vary during the course of a recording or live performance.
So, you can either be very anal and focus in a a single note or enjoy the performance in it's total..
I fall into the later camp.
Ford A. Thaxton
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 15, 2014 - 5:51 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
finder4545
(Member)
|
I come to this thread for curiosity and wonder why it went so long and complicated.
The variation of that note, in the Tadlow version, was evident, clear and OUT OF QUESTION from the beginning. There was no “sensation” but a “real” variation (the second note of that block repeated 3 times, at the third repetition, so clearly depicted by experts). I am familiar with both Rozsa’s HOLMES and Violin Concerto performances, including the Rumon Gamba on Chandos, enough to say that only the Tadlow’s version shows this difference on that precise note, so “adapted” and so repeated along the entire performance. Which means a “mistake” in typing or an “intention”. The strange is that nobody explains nothing on this simple occurrence, first of all the Tadlow responsibles. There is nothing strange if something come “different” in different performances, and musical world is full of oddities and "interpretations". You can listen Rozsa himself conducting his own Overture to a Symphony Concert with Frankenland State Symph.Orch. and with RCA Italiana Orchestra in two different versions, “original” and “revised”, where sections and not notes are truncated. To not mention the countless modification in tempi and structure of a endless number of re-recordings (as an example, I remember with horror the Anthony Bremner/Frank Collura massacre of the Friedhofer’s “Bomber” sequence in “Best Years”). So, I wonder because of the Tadlow silence in this simple and friendly debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 15, 2014 - 9:50 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Graham Watt
(Member)
|
Okay, now this is getting interesting.
Jeff - Thanks for that little picture of the staff/ stave notation. I'm not musically literate enough to say they're playing a G-flat instead of a G-natural. I'd say that they're playing it "minor" when it should be a half-step up in "major!" Certainly when I whistle or sing the Tadlow version, I do the "minor" note. It really does seem that distinctive.
William - Yes, it's a repeated feature on every performance of the motif throughout. It doesn't get lost at all, at least to my ears, in "an ascending rush of notes."
finder - Nice to see your comments. You are obviously a lot bolder than me, because I never stated clearly until last week, when I listened to the Quartet, that I was so sure it was a wrong note. I was beginning to doubt my sanity. However, my objective is not for Mr Fitzpatrick or the Tadlow team to suddenly post here offering explanations. This recording was seven years ago and they must have other things to do than look at message boards.
Going back to Jeff's post that it might have originated from a transcription error replicated via copy and paste... well, the really interesting part is that it's not heard only on the violin line. For the most part yes, but not exclusively. In my post of February 8 (February!) in which I gave all those YouTube links I also gave details of the eight instances on the Tadlow where the note is played as a flat. And the curious thing is that it's played the same way when performed by a larger ensemble.
Perhaps the most noticeable example of a more heavily orchestrated cue which includes the flat instead of the natural occurs in Track 19 at the 3:59 mark. That's not just the violin line doing that. Compare it to the Quartet, Track 27 at the 0:26 mark - it's exactly the same music, but that one note is now a "natural" (or, in my jargon, a "major".)
Anyway, thanks to all who have contributed in a positive manner (even if to say "I don't hear it!"). I'll stress once more that my intention was never to cry sour grapes over what is an otherwise splendid re-recording. Throughout this lengthy thread I've stated on numerous occasions my respect for the Tadlow team. Some won't be bothered by the change of note, most won't hear it, but I personally felt its presence jarring. It's my love of Rózsa's music which made me feel disappointed that the recording comes so close... and then misses on something seemingly so basic. These things are important to me.
Anyway, I'm not closing the chapter on this. I'd be interested to hear other opinions, speculation, observations, constructive criticisms on this issue. See ya later!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Going back to Jeff's post that it might have originated from a transcription error replicated via copy and paste... well, the really interesting part is that it's not heard only on the violin line.
That's what I was trying to establish, and it's what confuses me.
Both Jeff and yourself put this down to 'transcription' errors. In some of Rozsa's MSS, you do (as with everyone I suppose) get the occasional 'Is that on a line or a space?' moment.
But here's the thing: surely in the piece's key sig (I dunno what that is for this) there'd need to be a specific flat placed there at the start on the G line, and that would imply that the key involves a 'Gb' on every G played unless reversed by a natural. So it'd appear with EVERY G no matter in what context played flat. Now, if the key doesn't involve a default G-flat, then there'd need to be a flat symbol before every G in these passages, or at a certain point), and that clearly couldn't be a 'typo' style mistake, and certainly isn't so.
The implication would have to be that a change was made, it was then deliberately duplicated throughout, and then the whole thing 'brought into line' throughout in all the orchestral parts.
That'd mean only one thing: that Tadlow used a sketch score (like the one Jeff posted) rather than parts. And surely that's what they'd have done with a film-score, where parts aren't easily available?
I freely own I didn't hear it. It casts light on a certain issue I won't go into here about where estate permission goes for Rozsa recordings. But remember .... LUCIE PLAYED WHAT WAS IN FRONT OF HER, so 'no rain on her parade.
It implies that the concerto parts weren't looked at, since it was 'fixed' throughout, and only the film's sketch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That'd mean only one thing: that Tadlow used a sketch score (like the one Jeff posted) rather than parts.
Actually, I posted a scan of the conductor's score for the concerto. (Only the strings are playing at this particular moment, so none of the blank lines for the rest of the orchestra are included.)
And there's no need to surmise what materials Tadlow had at their disposal: James Fitzpatrick discusses that in detail in the CD booklet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
