Messages

It very much depends on which time we talk about. During Stalinism, pressure was most intense (and if we were sure it's a concerto from 1950 I would say a Soviet author should be as good as impossible), while in later years, the variety of styles among Soviet composers is actually large (much larger than commonly assumed), so that I don't really think we can exclude a Soviet composer for reasons of style. To see that a Hindemithian approach was certainly no risk, just keep in mind how many Soviet composers tried dodecaphony (so, even more modernist tendencies) in the 1960s. This said, of course there is also some possibility it's not a work by a Soviet composer, that's correct of course. For instance, I have a Melodiya LP from ca. 1980 with pieces for clarinet and piano by Martinů, Glazachev (Ukraine), Poulenc and Podkovyrov (Belarus), indicating that stuff from abroad was also played (of course).

The Clarinet Concerto is definitely a misattribution, it is far away from anything in Myaskovsky's output. The question by whom it might be is really difficult to answer and I am afraid that even Onno's site might not really help since it only represents the tip of the iceberg. There were hundreds if not thousands of Soviet composers, and it might be by anyone. Just to point out one name, the Russian wikipedia article on Vladimir Sokolov tells us that David Krivitsky (1937–2010) wrote a clarinet concerto for Sokolov. However, checking whether it might be this piece seems to be impossible.

Just as a minor point, the symphony is actually from 1915. See here:
https://imslp.org/wiki/Symphony_No.3_(Dubois%2C_Th%C3%A9odore)
and in particular the date at the end of the score. It was however published in 1923, and by then Dubois will certainly have added the dedication to the memory of Saint-Saëns.

Yes, the third link does not work, the correct one is
Vi och vår nya Röda Kvarn – Reportage från Östersund (1935)
Anyway, many thanks to Justin for pointing out these fascinating documents!

Alan, I somehow had in my memory you actually did a comparison between the two versions a few years back, and indeed, starting from here:
https://www.unsungcomposers.com/forum/index.php/topic,6860.msg74153.html#msg74153
there is some discussion with similar results as in this new topic.

Just as a quick reply to Eric's comment (I perfectly understood Mark's, all OK here): true indeed. If Brian Newbould orchestrates (or even completes) Schubert fragments he will do it in a manner which is as close to Schubert as possible (even if of course, a perfect match is impossible) – in a way, it's something scholarly, also reflecting the possibilities of the instruments Schubert had access to and so on. However, once a composer like the ones discussed here deals with orchestrating, say, chamber music by Brahms or whatever, the point will almost never be an imitation but rather an adaption which reflects the creative personality of the arranger up to some degree – so, it's much more something artistic in this case: the question is no longer "What might Schubert (or ...) have done?" but rather "What do I want to do with the material, how do I perceive it?". Another example would be Paul Dessau's Symphonische Mozart-Adaption nach dem Quintett KV 615.

Just as a quick comment: Certainly, neither Holloway nor Schönberg had the intention to do an orchestration which sounds "like Brahms", and of course, both were / are perfectly aware of their result differing from Brahms' own approach, bearing their own fingerprint (even intentionally so), reflecting their own choices, their view on the music, a sort of composed interpretation. In this sense, Holloway certainly did not "fail".

Goltermann's Fourth Cello Concerto (in G Major, Op. 65) is a sort of student concerto (I played it myself in my cello lessons years ago). Not that difficult but a tuneful and attractive piece, something you can learn from and at the same time just enjoy.

Certainly one of the most interesting new releases of these days!

Recently, I bought the CD with Stavenhagen's A Major Piano Concerto – years after this discussion. In fact, as Gareth suggested contacting Joachim-Dietrich Link at some point, I should add that this is no longer possible – Link (b. 1925) already died in 2001. He was a composer himself, in his earlier years he seems to have written two operas and a symphony, for instance, but also quite a bunch of film music.

His orchestration of the concerto is certainly not very idiomatic and probably does not even really try to be. However, as I was expecting a vibraphone as suggested by Gareth, I should add that Link actually does not employ this instrument. Sure there is a lot of glockenspiel (most probably much more than in Stavenhagen's original score if at all), often also combined with a harp, but no vibraphone.

Any idea what's actually on the score?

You can check all the parts on IMSLP:
https://imslp.org/wiki/Symphony_No.3_in_C_major_(Mayer,_Emilie)
As it is explicitly pointed out that the copies of the percussion parts were not written by Mayer herself it seems that all the remaining parts should be due to herself. In any case, the spelling is always "Sinfonie militair" and "Finale Militair".

Of course, Gareth's remark is fully valid also for the German language – if you read 19th century German texts you will come across many spelling issues which would have counted as mistakes in later days but these were the times before (Konrad) Duden. I have no idea about the French language, and even less about this particular issue (which is finally a minor one as I agree).

Voilà:
https://imslp.org/wiki/File:PMLP856931-MayerE_Symphony3inC_PPN1015735703_strings.pdf
So, "Sinfonie militair" is what is written on the title page indeed. Probably jdperdrix's explanation is quite right (and, of course, Alan is totally correct: "Sinfonie militair" is not German, one could say "Militärsinfonie", "Militär-Sinfonie", "Militärische Sinfonie" or whatever): Mayer wanted to gave the piece a French title and made a grammatical error.

Thanks for the alert! Just as a side note: Bruch's Piano Quintet was composed between 1881 and 1888 (often, 1886 is given as the date of composition, but at that point Bruch had not yet finished the finale, which he only did two years later, cf. the liner notes of the CPO recording for the details). It does not have an opus number, however, and was not published during Bruch's lifetime. In fact, the piece is one of the few chamber works Bruch wrote in the middle of his creative career, almost all the other works either date from his (partially very) early or late(st) years.

If anybody is really interested in Lyudkevych's symphonies, all three are available on a CD-R (which contains mp3s and flacs) which can be bought on Discogs:
https://www.discogs.com/de/release/14661022-Stanislav-Lyudkevych-Symphonic-Works
I actually have it since I am a completist when it comes to Soviet symphonies. However, I couldn't say I would rate these works particularly highly. A few days ago, I was already about to type a reply which would have resembled what Mark wrote earlier today. The same holds for the A Minor symphony, by the way, which is from 1963 (and recalls Tchaikovsky, moreover parts of the scherzo are derived from Mussorgsky's "Ballet of the Unhatched Chicks"). I don't think this approach is related to Soviet politics, in fact – basically any Soviet composer active in 1963 (to take the A Minor symphony) wrote in a (partially far!) more advanced idiom. I would guess that he simply wrote works resembling the music which was dear to him.

Maybe Lyudkevych's best works are among his cantatas which usually transport decisively heroic messages (based on texts by Ukrainian 19th century authors like Taras Shevchenko or Ivan Franko), at least they usually convey a lot of energy and are fun to listen to. His works in more 'abstract' genres tend to be weaker in general. Altogether, even if his music is not unpleasant at times, I don't consider him to be a composer of greater significance (even though he is a kind of legend in Lviv). A few days ago, and at almost the same time as when this discussion on Lyudkevych was started if I recall correctly, Sergei Vasilenko was mentioned as well, a Russian composer of about the same generation. I wouldn't regard him as a particularly outstanding figure either, but he was certainly a much more accomplished composer.