Robert Clements wrote:

>Bert Bailey <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>Richard Pennycuick reported new releases, including:
>>
>>>Naxos American Classics: Schuman's wonderful Violin Concerto with
>>>his New England Triptych and Variations on America.
>>
>>This last piece, btw, is by Charles Ives.
>
>One would assume that this is Schuman's orchestration of Ives's organ
>score.  Sloppy wording on Richard's part; but not completely incorrect.

Thanks for that partial vote of confidence, Robert - sorry my writing
wasn't quite up to your high standards this time.  Had I not made the
assumption that people would know the work I was referring to without
having it spelt out, I should, of course, have referred to it as Schuman's
orchestration of Ives' "Variations on 'America'", so that we were clear
that Ives had varied the tune and not the continent.  I might even, had I
thought it important, have mentioned that "America" is known in some parts
of the world as "God Save the King" or "God Save the Queen", bearing in
mind that not all members of the list are familiar with it.  The most
recent words were, I've learned, written in 1831 by the Rev (short for
Reverend, if you're not sure) Samuel Francis Smith, although my reference
does not detail to which church he belonged.  Anyway, the work is, IMO, the
least of the three on the CD.

This all prompts the question of who should get the greater share of
credit for arrangements? We're used to Mussorgsky/Ravel:  Pictures at an
Exhibition, but if you were compiling a CD catalogue/catalog (delete the
one you don't use), would you put, say, Liszt's transcriptions of the
Beethoven symphonies under Beethoven or Liszt?

Richard Pennycuick
[log in to unmask]

[I always list the arranger/transcriber.  Your example is easy because
 Searle cataloged Liszt's works, and gave a number to all the arrangements,
 which I use in my database.  I think of this as being in the same category
 as "... on a Theme by ..." works (as in variations on a ...).  -Dave]