Klarinet Archive - Posting 000452.txt from 1999/06

From: "David B. Niethamer" <dnietham@-----.edu>
Subj: RE: [kl] New Chester edition of the Stravinsky 3 Pieces
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 20:53:39 -0400

on 6/12/99 3:13 AM, Benjamin A. Maas wrote:

>I have heard lots of stories about the numerous misprints in the Chester and
>International editions. This new edition is supposed to have corrected many
>of them. The type bothers me some, but my main concerns deal with
>performance practice.
>
>Over the many years of hearing this piece, people have become accustomed to
>listening to certain notes and rhythms. From an academic standpoint, I like
>to perform these corrections and play it as Stravinsky meant it. (I have
>heard of other misprints that are even in this edition as well as the old).
(SNIP)
According to Hare, there are only two actual "mistaken" pitches, in the
3rd movement at m. 19, where he changes the published B natural to a Bb
to follow Stravinsky's manuscript. But in every other instance, Hare
accepts the published version as the correct one (minor rhythmic notation
changes and dynamic indications). I think you have to be consistent -
either the published version is right, or the manuscript. Otherwise you
have to have very convincing evidence, which apparently doesn't exist in
this case.

Stravinsky was pretty careful about the accuracy of his editions in other
instances (big orchestral works), and had 51 years between publication of
the 3 Pieces and his death to fix any problems. I think Hare's statement
that "...we have to assume that J.W.C. 1151 (sic)
represents Stravinsky's final thoughts..." is accurate - too bad he
didn't follow through with that logic as he made his edition!

I think it's also telling that Mazzeo, in his 1991 "Clarinet" article,
makes no mention of any text errors in his edition as he played it for
Stravinsky. In that article, he mentions seeing the manuscript at
Winterthur, and never mentions any text errors. Ben, did Mitchell Lurie
show you any actual errors in your part, or point out any specific
questionable notes or rhythms that Stravinsky showed him?

(SNIP)
>
>#1: Page turns and clarinets: I find that the page turns in this piece
>were really annoying between the first and second movements in the old
>edition. My personal interpretation of these movements have me play with
>little or no pause. (I have theoretical and phrasing reasons for this) The
>page turn would interrupt this. So, I would play the first movement from
>the page, but the second from memory.

I agree - the first movement goes pretty directly to the second. But a
strategic photocopy solves this problem (without memorization!)

>I figured the change in clarinets was
>enough of an interruption that a page turn wouldn't harm the mood any more.
>
I find the clarinet change to be a big enough intrusion into the musical
flow. After all, all 3 pieces take something around five minutes. A pause
of even 60 seconds is proportionally pretty big in that context. A time
consuming page turn along with an instrument change is just too much to
me.

>#4: I had never read Mazzeo's article, but my teacher (Mitchell Lurie)
>worked on these with Stravinsky. He has similar things to say about how
>breaths should be used. To say that all of the commas should be worth the
>same amount of time is really not giving the music justice. Some phrases
>call for the breaths to be longer than others.
>
Agreed! Did Lurie have any specific points from Stravinsky about the
performance of these pieces? Any corrections to the text of the music
itself?
>
>I guess, with all of my rambling here, what I am saying is that the new
>edition has its faults, but from an academic standpoint, I find it
>interesting.

Interesting, OK. But not a terribly useful performing edition, IMHO.

>I am not familiar with all of the earlier editions to which he
>refers to by number.

Well there's really only one (from Chester). Unless, of course, there
really is a difference between J.W.C.1151 and J.W.C.1551. Can anyone from
the UK comment on that? International is the same plates with a few
changes of dynamics, and one line of performance direction for the 3rd
movement left out.

>But from what I have heard from people that knew
>Stravinsky, there were misprints that never got fixed.

I'd be curious to know what these are, and to know why they never got
fixed.

David

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org