Klarinet Archive - Posting 000765.txt from 2003/02

From: Tony@-----.uk (Tony Pay)
Subj: [kl] The C-T manuscript at UCSC
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:36:01 -0500

Well, here's what Mark Brandenburg writes:

> Got the C-T in my mailbox at UCSC today and here's what I found:
>
> Rosario did indeed have a MS copy of both the piano part (with
> clarinet above) and a separate clarinet part. The separate clarinet
> part has natural signs in front of the C's in bars 3 and 4, and
> natural signs in front of the C's in bars 85 and 86 also. The
> material in bars 49 and 50 has G sharps, making this the only one of
> these three appearances of the material to drop a minor third rather
> than a major third. The clarinet line above the piano part is
> identical on these points except that there is no accidental
> whatsoever in front of the C's in bars 85 and 86.
>
> Hope that is helpful--those C's do sound rather bold. Do we know how
> Rosario came by these MSS, by the way? It's very difficult for me to
> tell if they are autographs or photocopies of autographs. Is there
> anything else I can check for before I give them back to the library?

So, what questions do we need to ask him? (This is another Klarinet 101
exam question, you see:-)

Something that immediately occurs to me is: I had wanted to know
whether this was a manuscript (unlikely, I suppose) or a photocopy. But
I'd say that Mark hasn't been unequivocal about it:

> Rosario did indeed have a MS copy of both the piano part (with
> clarinet above) and a separate clarinet part.

and

> It's very difficult for me to tell if they are autographs or
> photocopies of autographs.

So we need to nail that one, even though he probably implies by the
above that it's a photocopy, and what he's unsure of is whether it's the
composer's. But perhaps a wet finger in a *very* unobtrusive corner...

And it would obviously be a good idea to check whether or not the
manuscript is in C-T's hand, which shouldn't be too difficult. But
surely it isn't likely that anyone else would have written out the
entire piece -- when did photocopying become an easy option -- anyone?

My own feeling about all of this is that there's enough evidence to
suggest that C-T wanted the fundamental theme as in this manuscript,
with a C natural at the beginning and the same when it recurs in the
same key. No-one else would *change* it to that, after all. The middle
occurrence of the theme, containing a G#, is in a contrapuntal context,
where such things are often changed, and we have another transformation
of the theme (at [9]) where the falling minor third (corresponding to a
C#) is there for a different reason (it forms a sort of pedal B natural,
sounding A, and the development of the diddle-iddle-dum gesture that
follows has both major and minor thirds in it.)

I will try to get in touch with Garbarino, but he may not be
particularly forthcoming. An ex-student of his told me that it would be
characteristic of him to rationalise the C natural/C# discrepancy
without worrying overmuch about it -- but of course we shouldn't assume
anything.

Tony
--
_________ Tony Pay
|ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd Tony@-----.uk
| |ay Oxford OX2 6RE http://classicalplus.gmn.com/artists
tel/fax 01865 553339

... The reader of this tagline exists only while reading me.

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