Klarinet Archive - Posting 000694.txt from 2003/04

From: Dan Leeson <leeson0@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Why
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 00:40:30 -0400

Well Av, from a historical point of view, the accompaniment is far more
authentic than the solo clarinet part. The solo part was very much
modified from the original in the first edition whereas the instrumental
parts underwent no change.

Dan

Matthew Lloyd wrote:
> The "accompaniment" is part of it - the work is incomplete with any part
> missing.
>
> It is Mozart - not some study!
>
> Matthew
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avrahm Galper [mailto:agalper@-----.com]
> Sent: 18 April 2003 16:56
> To: klarinet@-----.org
> Subject: [kl] Why
>
> Why don't listers comment on the actual notes of 622 rather than on the
> accompaniment? Abe Galper
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Klarinet is supported by Woodwind.Org, http://www.woodwind.org/
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Klarinet is supported by Woodwind.Org, http://www.woodwind.org/
>
>

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is supported by Woodwind.Org, http://www.woodwind.org/