<\/p>
Transcriptions can be divisive. Taking an existing work and recreating it with a different instrument, voice or ensemble: some will say that these works are wrong, or always inferior to the original, or some kind of lesser pursuit. And it is true that there are some pieces that probably shouldn\u2019t be transcribed, that already feel like the ultimate expression of those musical ideas, and there is no sense that they would work as well in any other form. But those who are against transcriptions ignore the incredible possibilities that the best transcriptions can offer.<\/p>
You have to ask, first of all: what is a transcription, really? Why is playing Bach<\/a><\/strong> on a Steinway, so different to the original instrument he wrote for, not<\/em> a transcription of a kind? Yet we easily accept that, and appreciate the different range of sounds through which a modern piano expresses Bach\u2019s music.<\/p> Transcriptions can be revelatory. When I first heard the ballet Mayerling<\/em>, which was premiered in 1978 and transcribed pieces of music by Liszt<\/a><\/strong>, including some of his piano music, I was absolutely astonished. Hearing the music in that orchestral context revealed new qualities – suddenly I heard harmonies and modulation and much more, that sometimes we lose sight of with Liszt because the pianism itself is such a dominating feature of his music. So Mayerling<\/em> gave me a new appreciation, not to say liking, for Liszt!<\/p> Liszt himself was a great transcriber. His piano paraphrases on operas by Verdi<\/a><\/strong> and Wagner<\/a><\/strong> are great, and he also transcribed a lot of his own music himself – there are many versions of his Mazeppa<\/em>, for instance. Because Liszt clearly believed that a work can have several identities, which different instrumentations can bring out. And many other composers also transcribed – Brahms<\/a><\/strong>, Ravel<\/a><\/strong> and Prokofiev<\/a><\/strong> among them.<\/p>‘A work can have several identities’<\/h2>