Peter Lundin wrote:

>Not that I feel that the Planets are incomplete as they are but just
>adding Pluto is stil atleast one short: As Holst left out the dearest
>one of the lot; Tellus, mother earth ...

Surely the point in relation to The Planets is that it is musically
complete - not that it is arguably incomplete (astrologically, or
astronomically).  Adding Pluto is simply a non-musical excuse for an
interesting idea: that of adding to an extant work.

It seems to me that some of the collaborative works written during the last
century are of more relevance to Matthews' work.  For instance, the Requiem
of Reconcilliation, which contains movements by Cerha, Berio, Schnittke,
Penderecki and Weir - among others.

I personally feel undecided about adding to someone else's work.  If a
work is unfinished, and without a completion we would be without it, then
it seems a worthwhile, though inevitably fraught and flawed, task.  Adding
to a finished work seems to me more of a curious exercise.  I am sure it
could be fascinating, particularly in the ways one solves such problems as
style and drama.

But is it more than an exercise? Could it be that musicians will feel
compelled to included Matthews' Pluto with The Planets because it fits so
well? If so, is Pluto's success an implied criticism of Holst?

For me, it begins to touch on the issue of a composer's fallibility,
and how sacred the written score is.  The examples Richard Morrison uses
(Mussorgsky, Schumann etc.) demonstrate how much we believe that the
composer is right - and that he knows better than anyone else how his music
should sound.  Its a fascinating area and not one in which I can see easy
answers.

In my own experience, composers do make mistakes.  Whether it be simple
ones, such as mistransposition, or more complex ones, such as obscuring
important lines, or even timing errors.  Almost all composers I have worked
with continually alter their scores, make improvements, change their mind.
At some point, they have to say 'well, that's it.  I'm going to move on'.
But that doesn't necessarily mean they are totally satisfied with what they
have left.  As an example, I am performing a piece by Martyn Harry that has
been done once before.  This time round he looked at the score and decided
to make a whole load of changes - taking out lines, adding whole new ideas,
even changing instrumentation.

So, maybe, as performers, it is reasonable to alter parts of the score
to make them work better.  Many things change - acoustics, performers,
instruments, tastes.  Perhaps Colin Matthews' Pluto will be a marvellous
addition to an already wonderful work.  But then again ...

Robin Newton