Klarinet Archive - Posting 000603.txt from 2004/03

From: Tony Pay <tony.p@------.org>
Subj: Re: [kl] K622 and Tony Pay's note
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 17:23:09 -0500

In message <404F6C5B.60706@------.net>
Dan Leeson <leeson0@------.net> wrote:

> 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.

So now, what do you mean, that 'one would like to believe that what we have
in K622 has some authority' -- but you suggest it doesn't?

Because this is dear to my heart too, I feel I have to pin you down, and I'm
sorry about that.

Will you really not accept that, if Mozart initially produced a sketch of the
work in another form, for bassethorn in G (which we know he did), and went on
to complete it for basset clarinet in A (and we have nothing other than that
sketch in Mozart's hand, the complete autograph having been lost); but, that
nevertheless, the solo part in the sketch for bassethorn in G, for its couple
of hundred bars, is practically identical with the solo part of the first
edition, apart from the basset notes;

-- then that means that the first edition, apart from the basset notes, is
very likely to be close to Mozart's autograph of the work?

Of course, we may well have lost some details -- but wouldn't you be one of
the first persons to suggest that many of those details would probably be the
sort of thing that embellishment would obscure in any case?

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

... A single fact can spoil a good argument.

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org