Christine Labroche wrote: >Robert Peters: > >>I disagree. A cadenza can be (and I say can be) a totally vain act of >>showing off virtuosity. Classical music can turn into a circus act (just >>think of some of the stuff by Paganini). Thus the inclusion of a cadenza >>has a pretty big psychological meaning [...] > >Even if so, would it really matter? Cadenzas can be so beautiful, and >they always have one wonderful advantage which is that they allow us to >hear the sound of the instrument solo. When I appreciate the concerto, >it is an additional joy. > >Do you think it is rationally possible to generalize about such things? In fact, cadenzas are often invaluable as a (unique) method of allowing one composer to comment directly on the work of another. Beethoven on Mozart; Britten on Mozart; Schnittke on Beethoven; Rachmaninoff on Liszt (to the Hungarian Rhapsody no .2, which is a particularly interesting example, being instantly recognisable as the work of the composer and as an antidote to "flashiness") and doubtless others. I also suggest that cadenzas were actually first written out to _stop_ "vain acts" - the infamous first performance of the Beethoven Violin Concerto (which was enlivened by the violin being played upside down at the strategic points!) was probably a catalyst. (Mendelssohn didn't allow similar latitude). Alastair