Klarinet Archive - Posting 000586.txt from 2004/03
From: Dan Leeson
Date: 10 Mar 2004 19:25:34 -0000
I fully agree with Tony that even in the presence of a manuscript, it is
difficult, and in some cases very much so, to produce an authentic
performance. But I stick by what I said, because no matter how one
would like to believe that what we have in K. 622 has some authority, I
suggest that it does not.
Perhaps an example will serve to show how negative I am on the absence
of a manuscript and what it does to the performance material over the
centuries. I'll use the Gran Partitta for that example, because that
case is documented.
A performance of that work in 1784 is documented, though only of four
movements. Strong evidence exists that all 7 movements were written out
in the parts AND FROM THE AUTOGRAPH at the time of this 1784
performance, but Stadler chose to play only four. I think they were 1,
2, 5, and 7, but no one is certain. 3 was definitely not done. It could
not have been done. That is certain. Wanna bet?
Now at the time of this performance, the only source was the manuscript,
and those parts that Stadler used for that performance were, in theory,
very close to Mozart's intent since they were taken from the manuscript
in his hands.
Within 15 years the manuscript disappeared and the there is no record of
any other performances of the work from 1784 until well after Mozart's
death.
The performance parts were preserved and used to produce the first
printed edition of the work in 1803. By the time that printing came
about, the manuscript was lost and it did not surface again until 1917.
I have a copy of that first printed edition, and now I have a copy of
the manuscript of the Gran Partitta. They can be accurately compared.
The genealogy of the performance parts I have is this: manuscript made
into performance which were then used to produce the first printed
edition. So the printed parts are the grandchildren of the manuscript.
Pretty close, eh?
An examination of the two items produces the following very objective
statement about how much the two items differ.
In plancement and intensity of dynamic, close to 800 differences.
In notes, approximately 50 wrong notes.
In notes, approximately 50 wrong notes.
In rhythms, approximatly 12 differences
In articulation types and patterns, the number was so large, I stopped
counting after several days of trying to figure out a way to present it
intelligently.
In complete misundertstanding of the manuscript layout and which
resulted in music that did not represent what Mozart wrote: at least 2
cases. Possibly more.
Now, did all of these changes come about as the music was copied from
the manuscript, or did some number of them come about when the music for
the first edition was copied from the manuscript performance parts? I
don't know, nor does anyone else.
If this history is in any way analagous to what probably happened to the
Mozart clarinet concerto, you can understand my negative position when I
say that very little in terms of Mozart's wishes probably is being
presented in performance of today. That means that we have some wrong
notes, a lot of wrong dynamics, the phrase shapes are undoubtedly
different from what Mozart wrote, the articulations have been altered
substantially, the rhythms may have suffered, and possibly even the
Eingange in Mozart's own hand (if he wrote them) have been eliminated.
Without a better case for the music itself, no one can claim that we
have authenticity in terms of what is available to us today.
--
Dan Leeson
leeson0@------.net
