Report comment

Tony, this sort of thing is aggravatingly common; more common than most realize. I brought this out in a comment I made some time back, on this site, in response to another comment. But think also of the songwriters such as Rodgers, Berlin, Arlen, Porter, Youmans, etc., whose tunes everyone is humming, and then think of those magnificent settings that all of us in these light music societies have come to revel in and enjoy. Those responsible for those settings, such as Robert Russell Bennett, Ander Kostelanetz, Morton Gould, Leroy Anderson, Robert Farnon, David Rose, Victor Young, etc., etc., are the ones - I fully agree - that should be given full credit for their efforts, and back in the early 1950's, when I had discovered this genre and listening to and collecting recordings, many of these figures in some cases actually were, but times are different today. But this goes back even into the realm of serious music, most notably with the Five Russian Nationalist composers. Perhaps we should reappraise many of their efforts and give Rimsky-Korsakov that which is commonly assumed to be by Mussorgsky, and similar give to Glazunov that which we think of as by Borodin. Many purists will of course insist that they prefer the original unadulterated versions by the composers themselves, but I will offer the opinion that just as in my preferences in my contacts with others, I prefer listening to music that presents itself in a form that is completely articulate and literate - that is the analogy that I draw. And whether it is the composer him/herself or a transcriber four times removed, that makes for me not one whit of difference - the important thing is: how does the music present itself to us? - and if it engages us to a great extent, let us give the proper credit for what thus engages us to whomever it is due to.