Klarinet Archive - Posting 000570.txt from 2004/03

From: "Matthew Lloyd" <Matthew@------.f9.co.uk>
Subj: RE: [kl] Authenticity in K622 - not wholly serious........
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 05:15:55 -0500

As I said I wasn't wholly serious...

I don't accept that it is a mathematical impossibility - but it goes
without saying that it is a practical impossibility - and the whole
thing is academic anyway. Even if a player got it perfectly right - we'd
never know anyway!

I am glad that we have had a discussion concerning the Barenreiter
edition. This edition will trap the unwary as the edition is marked
clearly with the word "Urtext" on the cover - I checked mine last night
- and I think what you have said will be of use to all of us who haven't
put anything like as much into the study of Mozart and his sources as
Dan has - who will leave a legacy to future generations that I for one
envy. On a personal note the discussion of K622 has been of great use in
getting to know the greatest work written for our wonderful instrument.

I hope I haven't confused the issue with anyone. I'd tried to post with
a playful tone but seemingly missed the boat somewhere. I apologise if
anything I posted in fun was taken seriously.

Matthew

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Leeson [mailto:leeson0@------.net]
Sent: 09 March 2004 22:55
To: klarinet@------.org
Subject: Re: [kl] Authenticity in K622 - not wholly serious........

Matthew Lloyd wrote:

> Dan,
>
> Just playing but.....
>
> How can we say that Tony's recording is NOT authentic if we don't know
> what the manuscript says? It's unlikely, but he MIGHT have made the
> right choice in every single instance to reproduce what is in the mind
> of Mozart. It is, at least, logically possible.....
>
> I know that isn't what you meant - and I know more importantly what
you
> mean - but I can't resist the temptation of the above. It's the
> philosophy graduate in me coming out.....
>
> No comment on Tony's recording to be inferred as none is implied. I
> haven't heard it for a long time as I only have it on LP, but don't
own
> a turntable....
>
> Matthew Lloyd

Well Matthew, if you want to philosophize, consider this.

As Mozart was composition he made thousands of decisions as he wrote.
Which note, which dynamic, which articulation, etc.

To take this to an absolute extreme, in order for anyone ever to play
that work authentically, then all the thousands of decisions must be
duplicated perfectly, a mathematically impossible task.

But let us not bring this matter to a state where we are arguing about
angels on a pin. Without the mansucript to consult, we simply have no
way to conclude how much of the original text and all of the addenda
that gets piles on top of the text is correct. And I do not thinnk that

anyone can fall into a completely accurate text by accident. Even the
matter of where the low notes are used gives rise to many points of
view.

I don't take away from anyone's playing by suggesting that the absence
of a manuscript is a serious impediment.

Dan

>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> klarinet-digest-unsubscribe@------.org if you get the digest.
> Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.------.org
>
>

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------
klarinet-digest-unsubscribe@------.org if you get the digest.
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.------.org