Klarinet Archive - Posting 000401.txt from 2004/07

From: "dnleeson" <dnleeson@-----.net>
Subj: RE: [kl] Sue Raycroft, Nancy Buckman, and the subtitle ofK.361/370a (fwd)
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 11:23:55 -0400

Urtext is derived from the word "Ur" which is a Babylonian city
supposed to have been the source of civilization. It was used to
indicate the source of all things. After a while, it became
synonymous with "original text."

Dan Leeson
DNLeeson@-----.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Ormondtoby Montoya [mailto:ormondtoby@-----.net]
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 8:08 AM
To: klarinet@-----.org
Subject: RE: [kl] Sue Raycroft, Nancy Buckman, and the subtitle
ofK.361/370a (fwd)

Dan has already answered the question, but here is why I was
asking
about "holograph" vs. "autograph".

The dictionary defines holograph to be a document that is written
*entirely* in the author's hand. So what if (as I presume has
happened) there are two copies, both handwritten by the composer,
which
differ in some detail? Is one of them the "autograph"? Or
what if
the composer hired copyists to produce a finished document from
many
scraps of paper (or cloth or goatskin or whatever) on which
he/she had
written snatches of music? If the composer declared "This copy
is my
final product", could it be the "autograph" even though it wasn't
a
holograph?

I remember some discussion about the precise definition of
"urtext" as
well, but I assume that urtext also means "holograph" or
"autograph",
but it is derived from a different language.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
----
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc.
http://www.woodwind.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org