JAVS Fall 2008

the work more and write a review of the two fairly recent “conclusions” that many violists may be unfamil iar with. There are several very good recordings of the “incomplete” version violists can listen to including one by Paul Cortese [ASV Digital CD DCA 1094], and one by Daniel Raiskin [Arte Nova Classics ANO 807930]. Ironically, the final, incomplete movement is my favorite movement and seems to be the most cohesive of the four movements. I first heard the completed version by Marshall Fine at the International Viola Congress XXIII in Bloomington, Indiana, where I first met him. He informed me that he had composed an ending to the Bloch Suite for Viola Solo. I was very intrigued and asked him to play it for me. I was almost completely unfamiliar with the music, having only read through it maybe once or twice. As I listened to him perform it, I attempted to tell at what point the Bloch manuscript ended and his composed ending began; the music went together seamlessly enough that I was not able to tell. I was very impressed with how well he was able to continue the established style Bloch had been writing in. The unfortunate challenge in taking up the task of completing this work is that there are only twenty-five measures of given material in the fourth movement, Allegro deciso, from which to build off of. Fine does an excellent job of using this material and the established style, and he nearly maximizes the possibilities without being too repetitious. I believe Fine is correct in contin uing the quick sixteenth note driving and decisive char acter throughout the movement. Given the brevity of the given material, Fine had to include some original compositional material, but the notes Fine composes are enjoyable to play and stay within the established driving character. The ending has a Meno mosso coda that quotes from the first movement before accelerating into the Allegro deciso tempo again. Fine ends the piece on a C minor chord, which seemed an appropriate end ing, given the darker, eerier moods in this work. Fine’s version is in a hand written manuscript form. The other conclusion is by David L. Sills. It is published by Broude Brothers, the publisher of the original, unfin ished version by Bloch. Playing this conclusion, there are three things that struck me as less successful than the Fine version. The first was the very first note after the

V OLUME 24 NUMBER 2 65