Klarinet Archive - Posting 000005.txt from 1996/12

From: "David B. Niethamer" <niethamer@-----.EDU>
Subj: Re: Schumann: ambiguous notation
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 21:57:16 -0500

Lorne Buick wrote:

>I'd like to second this notion in general terms - use the Urtext wherever
>possible. However I think Fred missed the point of my question. We are
>using a brand-new edition, prepared according to modern musicological
>principles, comparing the first edition (which Schumann himself corrected)
>to the autograph, and consulting letters of Clara Schumann (who edited it
>for the first complete edition) and Brahms (who assisted her and reviewed
>things). There were no yutzes (or is that yutzi?) involved. So I'm sure the
>trills are written as Schumann wrote them; the question is, what does it mean?

My question to Fred was (until I prematurely deleted his message) "So,
what is the urtext in this case?" So, Lorne, now I'll ask you - what
edition is this?

Then, on to all those with their editorial fingers in this pie. Pianists
I've spoken to on the subject of Schumann all seem to say that Clara's
editing of her husband's work is very controversial. Evidently those in
the know on this subject feel she distorted her husband's true intentions
(however we can determine what *that* is) about his compositions. So, in
answer to Lorn'e original question, I'd want to see what Schumann wrote,
and how he corrected it for publication. I'd care a little less about
what Clara or Brahms had to say (though it would undoubtedly be
interesting from a historical point of view).

To sum up:

1.) what edition is it?
2.) is it clearly Schumann's manuscript/first edition, and is the other
editing clearly marked?
and 3.) What did the president know, and when did he know it? (sorry,
Watergate joke, couldn't resist), and
4.) What was the original question?
(but the first two questions are serious!)

David

David Niethamer
Principal Clarinet, Richmond Symphony
niethamer@-----.edu
dbnclar1@-----.com
http://members.aol.com/dbnclar1/