Klarinet Archive - Posting 000916.txt from 2004/07
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Tony=20Pay?= <tony_pay@-----.uk>
Subj: Re: [kl] Weber Urtext
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 17:06:50 -0400
Tony Pay <tony_pay@-----.uk> (I) wrote:
> Someone just turned up here in Siena with the Henle Urtext for the Weber
> first concerto.
>
> I have to say that the material, plus the introduction, satisfies everything
> that I've ever wanted from a publisher for this work, and probably for the
> other Weber pieces, though I haven't seen them yet.
>
> I only skimmed through it this morning; but you get a critical commentary on
> Carl Baermann's editorial reproduction of Heinrich's practices, two separate
> clarinet parts that give both Weber's original and the Carl/Heinrich Baermann
> version, plus a very intelligent commentary on how it's impossible to draw a
> clear line between what Weber wrote and what Heinrich played, and an
> invitation to decide for yourself.
>
> It's such an improvement on what has hitherto been available, including the
> edition that Pamela Weston falsely claims to be 'authentic'
Someone wrote to me offlist wanting to know why I think the Weston edition is
unsatisfactory.
So, I'll give the answer on list.
It's unsatisfactory because the clarinet part in that so-called authentic
edition consists of a mixture between what Baermann is supposed to have played,
and what, for God's sake, *Pamela Weston* thinks it is a good idea to play.
(Who she?) What Weber actually wrote is relegated to the clarinet line in the
piano part.
Now, almost everyone here knows that I'm pretty opinionated myself -- but even
I draw the line at attempting to communicate in print what I think it's a good
idea to play in these pieces. And frankly, if I think I would be unjustified
in making a permanent record of 'what I think', I'm particularly unlikely to
care what Pamela Weston thinks.
One part of that is that, even if I knew clearly what I think it would be a
good idea to play, it would be impossible to write that down explicitly. (The
notation just can't capture it.) The other part is that I don't want to get in
the way of a performer finding his or her own solution to the problem of how to
reconcile Weber's text and Heinrich's elaboration of it -- or, as close as we
can get to his elaboration of it via his son Karl.
Let me give an example.
The four opening bars of the clarinet part in the first concerto consist, in
Weber's manuscript, of a falling phrase; starting on Bb, passing through G,
with an F# appoggiatura, and ending on D, with an embellishment. Looking just
at that, it's natural to think of those four bars as a falling sigh, that
perhaps will be developed into something more dramatic to follow. And indeed,
bars 9 and 10 constitute a diminution of the first 4 bars; further, bars 11 and
12 are a more dramatic repetition of bars 9 and 10 that lead to a progressive
intensification of falling phrases, culminating in an almost desperate climax.
So in this view, something that starts by falling turns round and rises, even
though both the fall and the rise are embodied in falling phrases.
Now, looking at this, a performer finds it natural to say, listen, even if it's
true that the first four bars are a falling phrase, *you can't just pile in on
the first Bb*. The atmosphere is one of desperation, and how you attack the
first Bb must be a part of that. So, there's a certain quality to the Bb
attack that represents a resistance to it being 'just any old Bb'.
And how Heinrich does that in his edition is, he writes a pp at the beginning.
And that's *right*, even in the view of the matter I'm promoting.
But then, the convention of how dynamics work requires a crescendo to arrive at
a more normal dynamic in the third and fourth bar, and the net result is to
tilt the expressive gesture so that the third and fourth bar are made
'obviously' more important than the first and second. And, if you don't look
at Weber's original, that blocks the possibility of seeing the first four bars
as 'falling', and later events as 'rising'.
How the Henle edition with its two separate parts contributes to a performer is
that it makes clear what Heinrich Baermann added to Weber's original, and
allows us to guess a bit at why he might have made those additions. Also, it
allows us to discount the details of his additions in favour of their spirit in
some cases, whilst accepting them in their totality in other cases.
And in all this, there is no intrusion of the opinions of a contemporary editor
-- unlike the Weston edition. We get just the sources of the composer and his
closest executor.
We have Weber, we have Heinrich/Carl Baermann's evidence of how it got to be
performed in the first instance.
The rest is up to us, as it should be.
Tony
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org
