Klarinet Archive - Posting 000803.txt from 2003/04

From: Dan Leeson <leeson0@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Why
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 00:42:19 -0400

David B. Niethamer wrote:
> on 4/18/2003 10:40 AM, Dan Leeson wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Interesting. We know from the review (in the Allgemeine Musikalische
> Zeitung [sp?]) of the first published edition that there were numerous
> alterations of the solo part. Or, at least that's what the reviewer says.
>
> But since we have no score in Mozart's hand, how do we know that there
> was no alteration to the orchestral score/parts? It makes sense, but
> where is the proof?
>
> Just curious.
>
> David
>
> David Niethamer
> dnietham@-----.edu
> http://members.aol.com/dbnclar1/

A publisher produces an edition for profit. One of the main ways to
maximize the profit is to do as little as necessary in the preparation
of the material. Since a set of performance parts existed (because
Stadler had played the work on multiple occasions including a tour of
the Baltic states), there would have been no reason whatsoever to make
any changes to them prior to publication. Just engrave the plate and
that's that.

But the clarinet part HAD to be changed because no one but Stadler could
play it in its original form; i.e., he was the only person who owned a
basset clarinet.

From the above two statements, the only hole I can come out of is that
the performance parts are far more authentic than the solo part.

Dan

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

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