Cadenzas

[herlich]

Was ist SEO Suchmaschinenoptimierung?

[mjames]

Be daring, write your own cadenza.

[chopinlover01]

Be daring, write your own cadenza.

This. Cadenzas were, historically speaking, grandiose improvisations to finish a movement. To copy and paste another's cadenza, except perhaps in concertos like Rach 3, is a bit of a wasted opportunity, don't you think?

[8_octaves]

This. Cadenzas were, historically speaking, grandiose improvisations to finish a movement. To copy and paste another's cadenza, except perhaps in concertos like Rach 3, is a bit of a wasted opportunity, don't you think?

Cadenzas and fermatas - who wouldn't mourn about that?

The great violin virtuoso Nigel Kennedy in the biography "Spielen ist alles" already criticized the widely accepted opinion, that performers should play the cadenzas created by stiff cadavers. He DARED (!!!!!!) to perform his own ones - and succeeded.

Cordially, 8_oct!

[j_menz]

I agree re writing your own. There are two examples on IMSLP by composers unknown to me, and Benjamin Britten and Wanda Landowska both wrote ones. Search them out, listen and then steal ideas (not copy passages).

A cadenza of this period should (a) fit the period and (b) showcase your brilliant abilities. Writing your own means you can include lots of things you are really good at, and avoid things that give you trouble, thus making you look as tremendously gifted as possible. Don't waste that opportunity. 

[mjames]

This. Cadenzas were, historically speaking, grandiose improvisations to finish a movement. To copy and paste another's cadenza, except perhaps in concertos like Rach 3, is a bit of a wasted opportunity, don't you think?

Why should Rach's 3rd be an exception? A cadenza is still a cadenza.

[coda_colossale]

Why should Rach's 3rd be an exception? A cadenza is still a cadenza.

I wonder what the reactions would be if a pianist were to play a new cadenza in place of the original one in Rach 3 or Prok 2.

[alistaircrane4]

Why should Rach's 3rd be an exception? A cadenza is still a cadenza.

Because if a cadenza is not Ad Libitum it's disrespectful to the composer to play something other than what was written by said composer.

[mjames]

Because if a cadenza is not Ad Libitum it's disrespectful to the composer to play something other than what was written by said composer.

I don't get it. A cadenza by definition is free in time, like it is in the concerto. shouldn't we worry about the music instead of a corpse? Why should it matter if its disrespectful or not? If you think that playing an entirely new cadenzas aren't appropriate for concertos like rachs 3rd give me a reason why. Reasons like "the dead guy won't like it" doesn't do it for me.

[chopinlover01]

Because Rach 3's cadenza is such a famous cadenza (both the written one and the ossia) that people will hear it, and most will go "What the hell? I want the original!". With something like HR2, it's much more fitting, as Liszt was all about showing off and being a virtuoso.

[mjames]

So there isn't a real reason at all? Okay I get it.

[chopinlover01]

I said perhaps, and probably should've put quotations around it. The cadenza written by Rach is very famous, and it may throw off performers if an original one (that may well by of "lesser quality" given that it was written by a pianist who likely isn't a composer, much less one of Rach's caliber) is put there instead. If you perform the concerto, by all means, feel free to insert your own. Perhaps it's more of a personal taste thing?

[alistaircrane4]

I don't get it. A cadenza by definition is free in time, like it is in the concerto. shouldn't we worry about the music instead of a corpse? Why should it matter if its disrespectful or not? If you think that playing an entirely new cadenzas aren't appropriate for concertos like rachs 3rd give me a reason why. Reasons like "the dead guy won't like it" doesn't do it for me.

I did give you a reason. I said because it is not what was written. The only cadenzas that one should write a new section for are those that are Ad Libitum. Which essentially means it's up to the performer. Like in Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody no.2. A composer writes a cadenza for a piece and it is then part of that piece same as any other note in the piece. You hopefully would not rewrite a new opening or ending to a piece. Writing a new cadenza when it is not Ad Libitum is the same thing.

[mjames]

My point is that performers should have the freedom to perform their own cadenzas. People should stop letting silly traditions affect their music (like not sight-reading during a solo recital because Liszt thought it was cool). Whether it's inferior or superior to the composer's original is irrelevant.


I feel like virtuoso pianists could easily write something of equal caliber because to me I see nothing clever in Rach's cadenzas. It's all just bang, bang, and bang harder.  

[mjames]

I did give you a reason. I said because it is not what was written. The only cadenzas that one should write a new section for are those that are Ad Libitum. Which essentially means it's up to the performer. Like in Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody no.2. A composer writes a cadenza for a piece and it is then part of that piece same as any other note in the piece. You hopefully would not rewrite a new opening or ending to a piece. Writing a new cadenza when it is not Ad Libitum is the same thing.

Explain this to me. English is not my first language. I googled the word and in reference to music it said "free of time", and that's what cadenzas are. If it's not free of time should it really be called a cadenza?

Edit: Hmm never-mind I get it. Kinda like the cadenza in Chopin's op. 45 prelude, right? It's cadenza but it's not meant to be replaced and improvised by the performer. Yes thank you, that clears things up a bit.

[ahinton]

A certain composer of whom I have knowledge was once asked to compose a cadenza for the third and last of Medtner's piano concertos, despite thhe fact that Medtner himself had not written one for it, from which fact one can only presume that he saw no need for one in that work (and, as he was its composer, that must surely be understandable). The other composer nevertheless proceeded with this request which was scheduled to be included in the work's Italian première. In the event, however, the concert was cancelled. Whether that constitutes poetic justice or a merciful release for the then long deceased composer of the concerto or both might be open to speculation...

Best,

Alistair

[alistaircrane4]

Explain this to me. English is not my first language. I googled the word and in reference to music it said "free of time", and that's what cadenzas are. If it's not free of time should it really be called a cadenza?

Edit: Hmm never-mind I get it. Kinda like the cadenza in Chopin's op. 45 prelude, right? It's cadenza but it's not meant to be replaced and improvised by the performer. Yes thank you, that clears things up a bit.

Yes exactly like that cadenza.

[8_octaves]

Yes exactly like that cadenza.

The cadenza in Chopin's prelude op. 45 c sharp minor has "a piacere", in both of my volumes: Henle, Preludes, and Peters: Preludes and Rondos. A short description of the 2 expressions "ad libitum" and "a piacere" can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_musical_terminology#A

As sources, Henle refers to D (German First Edition, Mechetti, Vienna, 1841) and F, the French First Ed. (Schlesinger, Paris, 1841) , of which the latter is, in the Henle-textcritic appendix, called "very unreliable." But to the cadenza, nothing special is mentioned.

It isn't exactly said that it should be completely left out, nor be replaced by other cadenzas. But "a piacere", at least, should describe a certain freeedom, as it is explained in the link mentioned above.

Cordially, 8_octaves!

[j_menz]

It is Beethoven who killed off the cadenza ad libitum across the course of his 5 concerti. You may find Stephen Hough's article on the subject illuminating.

There are, probably naturally, some throwbacks to the earlier practice (HR2 being perhaps the best known example), but those exceptions aside there is, as in so much, pre-Beethoven and post-Beethoven.

[chopinlover01]

but those exceptions aside there is, as in so much, pre-Beethoven and post-Beethoven.

Isn't that true of just about all things classical piano?