IMSLP Forums

I thought it would be neat to see what pieces people have transcribed to a different instrumentation. I will start out with myself.

Balakirev: Mazurka in A-flat major arr. clarinet duet
Barber: Violin Concerto, first movement solo violin part arr. clarinet and first movement arr. clarinet and cello duet (last one is in the process)
Borodin: String Quartet No. 1 in A major, first movement arr. clarinet duet
Brahms: Four Serious Songs, third movement arr. clarinet and piano (in the process)
Brahms: String Quintet No. 1, first movement arr. clarinet duet (in the process)
Beethoven: Duo "With Two Eyeglasses Obbligato," viola part arr. clarinet
Beethoven: Symphony No. 6, first movement arr. clarinet duet (in the process)
Weber: Violin Sonata No. 1 arr. clarinet and piano (I'll soon upload to IMSLP)

Any thoughts?

I'm scared. So many clarinets...

Schubert: Die Schöne Mullerin, D. 795, Op. 25 for Orchestra and Tenor. (not the other way around!)

None. Couldn't think of anything more boring than arranging other pieces (plus I don't believe anyone should arrange pieces anyway).

That's very cold, Yagan.

Let me say this, it gives a person whom plays a different instrument than the one written the oppurtunity and pleasure of playing a piece he or she loves.

It is extremely boring. It's more fun to do rewritings (but it feels like heresy) or variations/potpourris, etc. which feel inadequate.

That said, sometimes it's a good idea (Not pictures at an exhibition, however)

Villa-Lobos Prelude No. 1, originally for solo guitar, arranged for string quartet

Yagan Kiely wrote:plus I don't believe anyone should arrange pieces anyway).

You're serious? Even what Bach did it? Or Mozart, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Liszt, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, etc etc etc?

I have to agree with Melodia. It doesn't make sense that arrangements would bother a person that much. They are neat.

I wasn't being harsh, I do find it terribly boring to do. And my opinion that it mostly shouldn't be done still stands.

It's boring for me, probably because I am a composer and there is (relatively) not much creativity in it.

Pieces are tailored (in almost all cases) for certain specific instruments and their idiosyncrasies. Changing the instrument completely destroys these links, and confuses the music. I can't stand Harpsichord music on the Piano (that said, Gould's realisation brings it back up).

I certainly agree with arrangements of orchestras down to a piano for various reasons, and some piano pieces into orchestra, but I don't like the idea of a substituting a clarinet for an oboe. I know the oboist may really[]/i] like the piece, but in all reality, the composer didn't write for it (on that occasion). At the very least, I don't believe they should be performed.

And what about when a composer does it with their own music at a later date (sometimes it's much later)?

Or when they write it for one instrument but allow an alternate (like Brahms's clarinet sonatas)?

And of course, composers are always much better authorities on instrumentation than mere arrangers. (Irony alert!)

Recently I made an arrangement of the final section of the William Tell Overture for a 5-part chorus of kazoos. Our performance was so well-received we were dragged from the stage by the, err, appreciative audience.

Mozart, Berlioz (not Beethoven - arrange him! make it better!), Strauss, Wagner, Mahler, almost all 20th century composers did know a considerable amount on instruments.

And of course, composers are always much better authorities on instrumentation than mere arrangers. (Irony alert!)

However, no matter how much they try, unless they re-compose the piece, if the composer did specifically write it for that instrument they aren't going to effectively arrange it, regardless of how knowledgeable.

Recently I made an arrangement of the final section of the William Tell Overture for a 5-part chorus of kazoos. Our performance was so well-received we were dragged from the stage by the, err, appreciative audience.

I never said anything about other peoples opinions, especially audiences.

Beethovens Oboe Trio to some extent...2 Friends (Flutists) and I (Trumpeter) were doing a Beethoven project in German class and they left it to me to find something to play ('cause I'm the local symphonist in those parts). All I really did was transpose the English Horn part from "F" to "Bb"...We played the finale.

I don't believe anyone should arrange pieces anyway.

I'm actually in agreement here, unless the composer was an idiot with any instrument (which RARELY happens) or the instruments needed aren't avalible (for exapmle: my HS hs no English Horn or Contrabassoon which are usually substituted with saxophones). And sometimes a certain ensemble isn't avalible (like an orchestra) and in order to perform a work, it HAS to be arragned (usually from orchestra => Band, like a performance of Karl Orff's Carmina Burana in Forbes, North Dakota...the piece would need to be arrange for chapel choir with and organ and bluegrass band).

Mozart, Berlioz (not Beethoven - arrange him! make it better!), Strauss, Wagner, Mahler, almost all 20th century composers did know a considerable amount on instruments.

Mozart also hated trumpets, thus I "fix" those sometimes. Beethoven was a great pianist and his general emsembles were pretty standard; his problem is that even his chamber music is symponic. Mahler's arrangings are interesting to listen to. His Schumann Symphonies are really quite worth looking at side by side with the originals.

his problem is that even his chamber music is symponic

Zac, not only is that an untrue blanket statement, what is wrong with that?

pml wrote:And of course, composers are always much better authorities on instrumentation than mere arrangers. (Irony alert!)

[Irony understood]

Yes, Broadway and lots of film music being the major exceptions.