Klarinet Archive - Posting 000552.txt from 2001/08

From: Daniel Leeson <leeson0@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Mozart K.622
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 19:19:02 -0400

Well, I suppose that hyperbole got the best of me. It is true that the
Barenreiter edition does have that advantage (and in four places, two in
the clarinet and two in the accompaniment). And it is an important
point, but insofar as the entire edition is concerned, it is still the
best guess of an editor. That does not mean it is a bad guess, only
that it is a guess, an educated one.

There is simply not enough in any of the editions to suggest that one is
significantly better than any other. It is obvious, of course, that we
have to use one of the editions, but one should not consider any of them
authoritative. Same is true with K. 581 but that is a more complicated
case.

Dan

Ian Black wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Leeson [mailto:leeson0@-----.net]
> Sent: 30 August 2001 15:41
> To: klarinet@-----.org
> Subject: Re: [kl] Mozart K.622
>
> If the purpose of an edition is to state what the composer wrote, then,
> by definition, there are no good editions of K. 622. The manuscript has
> been lost since 1801 and, in the final analysis, we don't know what
> Mozart wrote except for a few measures of the opening tune. And the
> only reason we know that is because it is duplicated in his catalog of
> his own music into which he would invariably write an incipit of 3 or 4
> measures. We also have a pretty good idea of what the clarinet part
> looks like for a piece of the first movement because of the manuscript
> in his hand that rests in Wintherthur, Switzerland, but one can just as
> well argue that that manuscript is not for clarinet but for basset horn,
> so it doesn't count.
>
> The bottom line is that ALL editions (including Barenreiter's) represent
> an editor's view of how the piece should go. All phrasings,
> articulations, lead ins, dynamics, and even range of the instrument are
> someone's guess.
>
> That does not mean you can't do any of them, but only that none of them
> have any real authority. Some people will hold up the 1875 Breitkopf
> edition as if it were given on Mt. Sinai, but it is no better (and in
> some ways worse) than any other edition. "Old" does not necessarily
> mean "Good."
>
> So I repeat: there is no good edition of K. 622. Look for something
> that has good page turns and readable print. Nothing else is
> authoritative.
>
> Dan,
>
> You once pointed out a common "error" in many editions of K622 - mvt.1, bar
> 109, 6th note. You highlighted that the Winterthur manuscript (and the
> Barenreiter) indicated an F natural as opposed to the F sharp carried in
> many editions. Would you not recommend the Barenreiter edition on this
> basis, or are there other failings in this one?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ian
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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

--
***************************
** Dan Leeson **
** leeson0@-----.net **
***************************

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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