Klarinet Archive - Posting 000511.txt from 2004/08

From: "dnleeson" <dnleeson@-----.net>
Subj: RE: [kl] The making of K. 581
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:18:52 -0400

Of course the editor had a copy of the score in front of him. I
never said there was NO score. You can't make an edition without
a score. But who says that it was the original manuscript? They
had to make up a score from the set of performance parts they
used. You need it for a dozen reasons including the evaluation of
harmonies at troublesome points. It is almost mechanically
impossible to create an edition of a work without making up a
score. Working from parts would drive one crazy.

I have seen the score derived from the set of parts of 361 after
it was played in Vienna on Mar. 23, 1784. It was created from
those parts ca. 1802. And it is worse than awful. From that
score came the first printed edition that we lived with for 2
centuries. 800 errors of dynamics, countelss phrase shapes
altered, 56 wrong notes, a number of rhythm errors, and serious
misjudgement of articulation.

That is what I think happened with 581.

Dan Leeson
DNLeeson@-----.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Pay [mailto:tony.p@-----.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 3:05 PM
To: klarinet@-----.org
Subject: RE: [kl] The making of K. 581

On 17 Aug, "dnleeson" <dnleeson@-----.net> wrote:

> The authority for the disappearance of the manuscripts of both
622 and 581
> is found in a letter from Constanze dated 1799. By that date,
both
> manuscript were said (by her) to be either stolen or pawned. (I
put that
> part in my book. You read it. I didn't make it up. It is
what is found
> in every book on the history of those two works.) In either
case, neither
> manuscript entered into the publication process which took
place in 1803.

Where did I suggest that the *manuscripts* did enter into it?
You're right,
I did ask on what authority the manuscripts were said to have
disappeared,
and your quote from Constanze constitutes a reply to that.

But the AMZ reviewer said that he had a score in front of him.

You said that the first edition came from the parts. Clearly, if
the AMZ
reviewer had a score, it was likely to be a copy -- but the fact
that he had
a score casts doubt on your assertion that there were no scores.

> I should add that there is almost nothing that Constanze says
that I
> believe, but you asked for the basis of the assertion that
neither first
> edition came from the manuscripts. Do you have any information
that says it
> happened another way?

No, I have no information that it came from the manuscripts. But
there is,
in the AMZ article, evidence that the first edition could have
been produced
from a score.

Where is *your* evidence that it didn't?

Not, actually, that I find any of this particularly interesting.
You quite
often write things I find generative, and those I use.

In this case, dubious stuff about how what we have in our version
of K581 is
'probably crap' helps me not in the least.

> After that, everything you say and everything I say is opinion.

No, it's argument. And in my case at least, it's very often,
subsequently,
performance.

> Have a nice day.

No, I'll have a nice night, with any luck; after which I'll go
tomorrow and
play the final rehearsal of Das Rheingold on period instruments
with Sir
Simon Rattle, in a performance that I expect, on the basis of the
rehearsals,
to be an intensely moving, integrative and above all, humanising
experience.

You can listen to it on Radio Three on Thursday on the BBC3
website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/proms

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

... Your cat's missing? Have you checked my bumper?

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

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