Question:
Husa Concerto
I'm looking for information about the Husa Concerto. I have searched the web for sometime with not a whole lot of luck. Has anyone one recorded this piece (I know Harvey Pittel has...)? What do you all think of this piece? I see it included on a lot of school's audition selection list, but I can't find anything more. Any information or opinions at all... please share! :)
Thanks,

Answer:
I second this request!

Answer:
I've been trying to find a recording of the first and third movement. For some reason I only have a really good recording of the second movement. What kind of information are you looking for though? Basically it's a concerto with wind orchestra. It has a piano part that Karel Husa frowns apart using in an actual performance.
I really like the piece, btw. Would be my second choice on a list I have of concertos to perform with a band.

Answer:
I've never heard it, but having heard "Music for Prague", Husa seems like a composer who can write effectively for winds. There's a recording available on .
Edit: Okay, well someone bought it while I wrote this. I would have sworn it said "1 copy left".

Answer:
Frederick Hemke recorded this on his The American Saxophone album (not to be confused with his new The American Saxophonist). The record's entirely piano accompaniment, and also features the Dahl and Benson's Aeolian Song and Farewell.
Aside from the piano, it's a pretty nice album (and the Husa's a nice piece).
EDIT - The album Webernfan linked to is a performance by Steven Mauk, by the way. I don't own it, but I've heard it. Dr. Mauk's a little heavy on the vibrato at times (for my taste), but he's in typically excellent form. Microphone placement and mixing is such that you can hear him very well (and clearly), but the ensemble sounds quite distant and muffled - not much better than what you'd get from a camcorder in the audience of a high school band concert.
I somehow managed to forget that Rascher also recorded it - with wind ensemble. That recording may be my favorite amongst all his concerto performances. (Though of course I welcome all new contenders. ;) )

Answer:
I'm kinda lukewarm about the Husa. I thinks his Elegie et Rondo is a much stronger piece. I did hear a performance with piano and percussion that I didn't totally hate. I don't think Husa frowns upon the reduction as he did do it himself. He states in the notes that "it may be used in recital in its present form." It was commissioned by the Cornell Wind Ensemble. First performed at Cornel University on March 17, 1968 (Sigurd Rascher, sax; Karel Husa, cond.) Its a 3 movement work. About 20 minutes. Goes up to altissimo D#. You either have to have a quick tongue or double tounge for the sixteenths in the second mvt (sextuplets @ 100-104). Hope this helps.

Answer:
it was also recorded by robert black on his brewster recording, concert rep for saxophone, his recording sucks in comparison to the hemke recording.
the second movement is the bulk of the piece. the hemke recording woudl i think be available at a lot of college libraries.

Answer:
I was just told by a close friend of Karel Husa that he really does not like it to be performed with piano reduction. Piano reductions are pretty made for rehearsal purposes only in general.

Answer:
Husa Concerto recordings of which I'm aware:
LPs
Sigurd Rascher with the Cornell Wind Ensemble
Robert Black "Concert Repertoire" w/piano
James Forger "Compositions of Karel Husa" w/band
Frederick Hemke "The American Saxophone" w/piano
Frederick Hemke live with the University of Texas (band)
Timothy Timmons with the Ithaca College Wind Ensemble
CDs
Steven Mauk "Apotheosis of this Earth"
Harvey Pittel "Emerging and Celebrated Repertoire Vol. 2"
Angel

Answer:
Strange this thread should come up since I am preparing the Husa Concerto for the concerto competition at Southern Miss. I think it's a marvelous piece that is an excellent example of what Husa is all about. Webernfan - so long as you brought up "Music for Prague," the concerto has a lot of history related to that work. They were written very close to each other chronologically, and the concerto has the spirit (though not expressly the same program) as Music for Prague - great anger and bitter sorrow at the brutality of the Soviets when they invaded Czechoslovakia. Also, the Concerto was Husa's first work for wind ensemble which is significant in the history of the wind ensemble since it is a medium he is so closely associated with. There is a dissertation written about this piece that I am trying to get a copy of - there's plenty to learn about this important piece of music. MichiganSax - it's my mission to change your mind about the importance of Karel Husa!!! :) A couple things; first, Karel Husa is the most important composer in our lifetime and music historians 100 years in the future will put his name next in the succession of the big names Mozart-Beethoven-Brahms-Wagner-Debussy-Schoenberg-Husa. Specifically about his saxophone works, I think the Concerto is superior to the Elegie et Rondeau after having studied both works (not to slight EetR, it's amazing too!). People tend to define Husa almost entirely by Music for Prague (understandably so, since it's his masterpiece), but his influence is far greater than just that piece. He is synonymous with the wind ensemble (besides Prague, we have the "Concerto for Wind Ensemble," "Concerto for Percussion and Wind Ens.," "Apotheosis of This Earth," and even more where that came from), great concerti for a number of instruments such as trumpet, violin, and cello (the Cello concerto with orchestra is unbelievable), a number of great string quartets. He's the top guy in the composing world today.

Answer:
Originally Posted by DWoz5000 MichiganSax - it's my mission to change your mind about the importance of Karel Husa!!! :)
Easy!!!! Dude, I love Husa. Just not his sax concerto. Second mvt. of Prague 1968 (slow, 12 tone melody with soprano through bass saxes in octaves) - absolutely beautiful. I also just did Apotheosis a few months ago and I agree thats a stunning piece as well. I agree that he is a ver important composer and I appreciate his contributions to the sax. It's just that the concerto isn's my favorite work of his.

Answer:
Originally Posted by DWoz5000 A couple things; first, Karel Husa is the most important composer in our lifetime and music historians 100 years in the future will put his name next in the succession of the big names Mozart-Beethoven-Brahms-Wagner-Debussy-Schoenberg-Husa [...] He's the top guy in the composing world today. Barkeep! Whatever he's drinking, bring me a double! :D

Answer:
.....

Answer:
Originally Posted by DWoz5000 Karel Husa is the most important composer in our lifetime and music historians 100 years in the future will put his name next in the succession of the big names Mozart-Beethoven-Brahms-Wagner-Debussy-Schoenberg-Husa
I have had conversations with Husa on a couple of occasions, and I think he's a nice man with a compelling story and great passion. However, concert music is still recovering from the devastating damage done by Schoenberg and his Second Viennese School decades ago. I don't think Husa is helping with this, honestly, and it is difficult for me to imagine him as a composer whose works will stand the test of significant time. But who really knows for sure? Certainly not us.
All I have to say is Thank God for Philip Glass, Michael Nyman, Michael Torke, Graham Fitkin, Jakob ter Veldhuis, and others who are making the true efforts to bring concert music back into the good graces of an increasingly concert-going public; normal people who have had such a rough go since the serialists came to academic power. I would suggest that Philip Glass in particular will have a MUCH better chance of attaining a place in the canon of master composers than Husa (with Schoenberg achieving a footnote appropriate to an innovator of a failed movement).
DWoz, best of luck with the competition, keep us posted, and count me first in line if your competition-winning Husa Concerto is recorded. Interested to hear.
Angel

Answer:
Originally Posted by Angel I have had conversations with Husa on a couple of occasions, and I think he's a nice man with a compelling story and great passion. However, concert music is still recovering from the devastating damage done by Schoenberg and his Second Viennese School decades ago. I don't think Husa is helping with this, honestly, and it is difficult for me to imagine him as a composer whose works will stand the test of significant time. But who really knows for sure? Certainly not us.
All I have to say is Thank God for Philip Glass, Michael Nyman, Michael Torke, Graham Fitkin, Jakob ter Veldhuis, and others who are making the true efforts to bring concert music back into the good graces of an increasingly concert-going public; normal people who have had such a rough go since the serialists came to academic power. I would suggest that Philip Glass in particular will have a MUCH better chance of attaining a place in the canon of master composers than Husa (with Schoenberg achieving a footnote appropriate to an innovator of a failed movement).
Though music is primarily about individual taste when it comes to "greatness" ( I've yet to hear a decent argument otherwise ), I would argue that any negative impact induced by serialism in the post-war years was due more to Boulez and fellow serialists who preached serialism to the exclusion of other techniques. Schoenberg said there was plenty of excellent music still to be written in C major and even discouraged his friend Gershwin from using the technique. Boulez said that one couldn't call one's self a composer if you didn't use the technique. There is an unmistakable difference in mindset.
Personally I don't think serialism had too much of an impact on concert goers: there are still people offended by the Rite of Spring, and many people don't like any of the developments that happened post 1890 or so. Modernism in general there's more of a case for. That combined with the rise of easily accesible pop music nudged the classical tradition away from the public's general consciousness, but it's still quite healthy as far as I can see.
What I dislike about the post war serialists is that they reversed the over all trend of increasing diversity for a time, though since the 80s diversity has grown as before. And Boulez has mellowed considerably in his attitudes, as a list of the recordings he's conducted will attest to.:)

Answer:
I think there is a good possibility that Husa will be mentioned along side those other composers mentioned by DWoz5000. There is enough variety today in new music that there does not need to be a complete backlash against modernist composers such as Husa. Anyway, I think minimalist composers are too far to the extreme on the other side to really be embraced by the general public. Although Philip Glass is one of my very favorite composers, I have seen nothing but lukewarm response to minimalist music when performed in symphony orchestra's. The most favorable response I've seen to new music would be pieces in the same vein as those written by Corigliano. There is and will continue to be room for works by composers such as Husa and Ligeti (who I also believe will be mentioned alongside those other great composers), just as there is room in the painting world for artists such as Picasso.
About Husa's concerto specifically, I think it is a great piece and very powerful. It has more substance and depth than the Elegie et Rondeau (which is one of my favorite pieces).

Answer:
Originally Posted by Angel concert music is still recovering from the devastating damage done by Schoenberg and his Second Viennese School decades ago. All I have to say is Thank God for Philip Glass, Michael Nyman, Michael Torke, Graham Fitkin, Jakob ter Veldhuis, and others who are making the true efforts to bring concert music back into the good graces of an increasingly concert-going public; normal people who have had such a rough go since the serialists came to academic power.
Angel
I can't agree with your take on the Second Viennese School. They liberated the dissonance and thusly the expressive possibilities of music. People even in an "educated" audience (although I hate using terms like that since it implies most people who hear concert music are stupid, which is untrue, anyways...) aren't always in the mood to hear pantonality. This is not to say that it is ruining concert music - Artuzzi thought Monteverdi was destroying music, others thought the same of Beethoven and Wagner too. I agree with the post about the composers like Boulez who took serialism way too far and serialized everything about their music. The danger of that movement was that too many musicians became snobs and took the attitude that if some uneducated boob likes your piece then it can't possibly be a quality work. I think a lot of people can enjoy "Pierrot Lunaire" just as much as the Glass Concerto for Quartet if the performance is good. I will grant that Glass and Torke will be recognized names in the history books since they write in the minimalist style the best. Veldhuis on the other hand is doing as much damage as Boulez - not to beat a dead horse on these boards again, but "Grab It" is just bad music and his other pieces are not much better. But like you said, how do we know what people will remember in 150 years?