Klarinet Archive - Posting 000494.txt from 2004/03

From: Tony Pay <tony.p@------.org>
Subj: Re: [kl] Mozart K622 "urtext" edition
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 16:32:31 -0500

In message <3C942D4BA737A74295362E8F2C00FD8972BF0D@------.ad.tigr.org>
"Holmes, Michael" <MHolmes@------.org> wrote:

> I'm learning the Mozart clarinet concerto, K622, from the Barenreiter
> urtext edition.

Good!

> This edition includes dynamic and articulation markings, for both the
> basset clarinet and "traditional" soprano clarinet parts.

As source, we have only the first edition, and crucially for me, the
Winterthur fragment that antedates both the lost manuscript and the first
edition. The manuscript itself is lost.

But the fact that the Winterthur manuscript for bassethorn in G differs in
the solo line (as far as it goes) very little from the first edition, apart
from the basset notes, is strong evidence that the first edition is a very
good indication of what Mozart wrote -- again, apart from the basset notes.

The Barenreiter edition follows the first edition, with some small changes
derived from the Winterthur manuscript.

> Does that mean that these markings represent the way that Mozart intended
> the piece to be played, or the way that Stadler originally played it? What
> evidence would be behind these markings?

A more crucial question is how you read those markings. A modern reading of
classical notation produces different results from a classical reading of
classical notation -- you could say that performers of the time 'wore
different spectacles'.

See, http://www.------.org/clarinet/Study/Phrasing.html

...for what I have to say about this.

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

... Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity