Please do! I'll be interested to hear if they do as great a job on yours as they did on mine.
I'm glad to be able to give them a well-deserved plug.
And, I'll take the opportunity to talk a little about what my thing was:
Rubinstein's cadenza for the 1st movement of Mozart's C major Concerto, K. 467.
That's one of the concerti for which we don't have one by Mozart. I hoped there would be one by Beethoven, although I don't 'love' his Mozart cadenzas that I knew of, and there isn't one from him either.
I looked and listened to everyone's cadenza that I could get my eyes or ears on. There must have been a couple dozen of them, including by several highly noted pianists.
It's hard to make up a Mozart cadenza.
There are so many challenges to it, the main one of course being, who can come close to matching this piece that Mozart wrote??
And then there's also that it's 'supposed to' have certain known aspects, yet not be too clichéd. Y'know -- like, it's supposed to have various of the piece's motifs in it, but not exactly the same, and there are supposed to be some harmonic modulations, perhaps one or two of them being strange and unexpected, but how unexpected can they be, since they're expected? Plus, when you do those things, you'll obviously be mimicking Mozart's own cadenzas and hundreds of other people's cadenzas, and you want to avoid mimicking them too much, but if you try to be too original, you'll probably fall on your face, at least to some extent, because, again, who can match Mozart? And, similarly to the expectation of unexpected harmonic shifts, you 'have to' have some 'unexpected' shifts of dynamics and mood, from sprightly to meditative -- and all the same traps apply as with the modulations. And then of course you have to lead up to the final trill, preferably in some reasonably familiar way, but you don't want that to be just a cliché either.....
It's an impossible task.
The great majority of cadenzas that I came across, I absolutely hated. Mostly it was that the "surprise" stuff just didn't work (for me); either it was too extreme and felt contrived, or it just pretended to be creative and interesting but was like just nothing. Also very often they seemed to overuse
neat figures from the piece -- yeah, I get it, that was great where Mozart had it, but enough already -- you're just re-doing it and re-doing it, but of course you're doing it worse than he did it; not good with such a hard act to follow.
Rubinstein's cadenza was the one I liked best, by far. Sure, it had some of those pitfalls, especially the latter one. But, for me it really really worked
, mainly because it was one of the simplest ones -- it doesn't over-try or over-reach -- and also because it's so much in the way of how Rubinstein just played
; this was pure Rubinstein, and it totally matches his overall approach to the piece, so it's a coherent part of the whole.
At first I tried transcribing it myself, but saw how hard it was, so I looked online to see if there was some transcribing service, and was thrilled to find something like Tunescribers.
BTW, when I pulled out my score of the piece, which I hadn't looked at in over 30 years, I was surprised to see that I had written some fingerings, which meant I had worked on the piece before, which I didn't remember.
What I didn't remember even more: There was a set of sheets of music paper stuck in it, with a cadenza by me.
How good is it??
I'd estimate that in an undergrad music course, it might have gotten a C+.