Posted by Rick Denney on March 05, 2003 at 14:45:59:
In Reply to: Re: Grantham... posted by Anthony on March 05, 2003 at 12:45:43:
So far, pro musicians have supported both possible answers. As for me as a critical listener, I suppose it depends on the work.
I didn't hear Roger Bobo changing or adding notes in his recording of the Hindemith Sonata.
But lots of pieces are composed solely for showing off the prowess of the performer. In a concert setting (i.e., not an audition), I don't think anyone would care if someone hot-rodded one of the variations in "Those Endearing Young Charms" or added musical decoration to "Yorkshire Ballad". But nobody would (or should) consider modifying the music (except in adlib cadenzas) for the Hindemith or, say, the Vaughan Williams. I heard a well-known performer change the closing F of the first movement of the RVW to an F-Eb-F, and it bothered me.
Most of those showpieces are either arrangements of popular tunes, variations on popular tunes, or some other derivative work. I see no harm in deriving something from a derivative work, but it ought to be identified as such. Nobody is bothered when the horn player in the Canadian Brass uses a flutter tongue in their show-offy arrangement of the Beale Street Blues. And, of course, jazz demands improvisation, but that is built into the genre. So, perhaps non-jazz original works should follow the ink unless the composer says otherwise, but derivative arrangements, especially of entertainment-oriented popular tunes, seem less strict.
When it comes to ornamentation, however, it's more of a gray area. Up through the Baroque period, of course, adding ornamentation to the music was considered standard performance practice. When did this die? Adding a flutter tongue to a modern work in the same way a mordent or a trill would be routinely added to Bach may not be a great sin, depending on the performance practice expected by the composer, and, of course, what serves the music.
Rick "not sure there is a concrete answer either way" Denney