Klarinet Archive - Posting 000178.txt from 1999/07
From: Tony@-----.uk (Tony Pay)
Subj: RE: [kl] New Chester edition of the Stravinsky 3 Pieces
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 14:02:12 -0400
On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:40:09 -0400, dnietham@-----.edu said:
> 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!
Two things about that: Hare explicitly notes the differences between
1151 and MS in some significant places. For example, although he
decides (wrongly, in my view) to choose a Bb over a B natural in bar 19,
he gives us all the information necessary to do the opposite.
Then, I remember talking to Charles Rosen about his attempts to get
Stravinsky to commit himself about inconsistencies in the piano music,
some of which he was about to record -- in several cases, Stravinsky
said that he didn't know, couldn't remember and that it didn't matter.
In fact, Stravinsky was often inconsistent about what he wanted. He
engaged in considerable discussion in print over other people's tempi in
the Rite, and recorded it himself several times. Yet when you put all
the evidence together, and try to make up your mind 'what he wanted',
you begin to wonder whether Stravinsky actually existed, or was dreamed
up by several ghost-writers.
> 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?
If you compare 1151 with the new edition, you can see that some
articulations have been slightly changed in the last movement. I was
told many years ago by a clarinet professor in Sweden that the
Winterthur manuscript of the last movement was in some minor ways more
logical than the printed publication, and given a list of these
alterations, though I never saw the MS myself. The differences are that
in the MS:
Bar 10: No dot over 2nd 16th
Bar 23: Slur only between 4th and 5th 16th
Bar 44: Slur between 1st and 2nd 16th
....and I think all that makes sense, and I follow it, on the theory
that these were typos.
But there is also
Bar 60: Dots *and* slur over the whole bar
....but I never follow that because I feel the contrast between the
'definite' staccato and the limp-wristed flick at the end helps the
surprise ending, the change to which was clearly a definite decision by
Stravinsky.
I also much prefer the B natural in bar 19.
[snip]
> 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.
This must be a typo from you. Did you mean 6 seconds? I'd say 2 or
perhaps 3 seconds is a better estimate of the time needed to turn a page
calmly, if it's well prepared and practised.
[snip]
> > 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.
I used to have another edition, without the correction in bar 43,
which was pretty obviously a typo, and which we all corrected, but I
seem to have lost it. The one in front of me, which doesn't have a
number, though it's from Chester, is marked 'copyright for all
countries, 1920, 1990'. Hare mentions a 1986 reprint in the footnote to
bar 43 too. I don't think there are any other differences except bar
43.
> > 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.
I think they're the ones I list above, and I think Rosen's testimony
makes me think the reason is that Stravinsky just couldn't be bothered.
(I suspect his keenness to revise things was sometimes just to get more
money out of his publishers:-)
There is one other difference, which someone often committed to using
dynamic and/or timbral shapes to show the written phrases (ie, me;-) is
more liable to notice.
When you have a written phrase (that is, a group of notes lying
under a slur) that ends with a note that is not writable with just one
sign (like a quarter, a half or a dotted half note), but instead has to
be written as a note tied to another note, possibly across a barline;
then the overall slur can be written ending either on the beginning of
the first of these tied notes, or on the end of the second of the two
tied notes.
1151 takes the first option (first movement, bars 3, 7, 9, 29) whilst
the new edition takes the second.
This difference is often thought to be 'just' house style, but in my
view, it can make a psychological difference to how we play. In the
first option the phrase looks as though it finishes on the first tied
note, and then we hang about a bit, whilst in the second option we 'see'
the whole phrase shape.
Look at the opening of the Copland clarinet concerto. In the clarinet
part, the slurs obey the first convention. The full score on the other
hand, probably following the MS (can someone confirm this?) obeys the
second. I much prefer to see, and represent the second; and I always
change it in a student's part.
A similar thing occurs in the MS of the Brahms clarinet trio opening.
In this case, Brahms actually goes so far as to have bar 2 of 5 quarters
duration, and bar 3 of 3 quarters duration, without changing the time
signature, in order not to spoil the clarity of the structure.
Tony
--
_________ Tony Pay
|ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd Tony@-----.uk
| |ay Oxford OX2 6RE GMN family artist: www.gmn.com
tel/fax 01865 553339
.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
