Klarinet Archive - Posting 000087.txt from 2005/01

From: "dnleeson" <dnleeson@-----.net>
Subj: RE: [kl] RE: Klocker
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 10:59:20 -0500

On the contrary, the chord with the fermata in the slow movement
is quite correct, though it is not the chord that calls for a
cadenza. A dominant 7th chord with a fermata was a very typical
18th century device that calls for a "lead in." In German it is
referred to as an "Eingang." So Mozart does call for a
particular thing at the place you referenced (but not a cadenza)
at the three places in the concerto that have fermatas, two in
the first movement and one in the second.

But you have a valid point. Considering the fact that the first
edition of 1803 (which is not an arrangement as you suggest, but
rather a set of performance parts) has no manuscript by which one
can confirm what is printed there, there is no assurance that
anything in K. 622 is correct, though much of it is probably what
Mozart wrote. But considering that the 1803 publication is the
ONLY source for the complete work (discounting the Winterthur
mansucript), and since there are no cadenzas called for in that
source, the only statement one can make that has a factual basis
is that the piece we call the Mozart clarinet concerto has NO
CADENZAS. It never did have any and the use of that term in
contemporary life shows only that musicians are not at all
certain as to what a cadenza is or how it is called for.

This is not an arguable issue. It is not a matter decided on by
taste or experience. Either a cadenza is called for by the
composer using a very specific device (fermata and a tonic chord
in the second inversion) or else no cadenza is called for.
Something else might be called for with another specific device
(fermata and dominant 7th chord), but that is not a cadenza. This
is a black and white issue.

If you wish to argue that the original manuscript had a cadenza
or two, and, in publication, the composition was distorted to the
point where the technical requests for them were eliminated and
something else inserted in its place, I don't think you have a
chance to get such a theory validated.

This is what happened to concerto: (1) Mozart composed it in 1791
and did so on manuscript paper as was typical; (2) Performance
parts were prepared from that manuscript for use with Stadler's
performances of the work. When and where he had this done is not
known, but at least one performance by him is documented in a
program for a concert in Latvia or Lithuania, and a picture of
his basset clarinet was lithographed into that program; (3)
Stadler lost or sold or pawned the original manuscript of K. 622
in Mozart's hand before 1800. Mozart's wife makes reference to
this in a letter, even though what she says is confusing and
contradictory; (4) A publisher produces an edition of the work in
1803. That edition was taken from the performance parts owned by
Stadler, and the clarinet solo was altered significantly so that
the work could be played by a clarinet of normal compass; i.e.,
one with a lowest note of written e. That 1803 publication is the
single sole source of the K. 622.

None of this history has anything to do with the presence or
absence of the cadenza, but I thought you should know generally
what happened to the work and why there is a question of the
authority of what is played today. But there is no question that
the work as we know it HAS NO CADENZAS in it.

Dan Leeson
DNLeeson@-----.net

-----Original Message-----
From: pwHarris1 [mailto:pwharris1@-----.net]
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 6:35 PM
To: klarinet@-----.org
Subject: Fw: [kl] RE: Klocker

----- Original Message -----
From: "pwHarris1" <pwharris1@-----.net>
To: <klarinet@-----.org>
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: [kl] RE: Klocker

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "dnleeson" <dnleeson@-----.net>
> To: <klarinet@-----.org>
> Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 8:54 AM
> Subject: [kl] RE: Klocker doing too many cadenzas
>
>>
>> It is precisely the absence of this mechanism in the several
>> places of the clarinet concerto (two in the first movement and
>> one in the second) that demonstrate the COMPLETE ABSENCE of
>> cadenzas in K. 622. And this is the case despite the fact
that a
>> large body of intelligent and mature clarinet players keep
asking
>> "Which cadenza shall I use for K. 622?" And when one responds,
>> "There aren't any cadenzas in K. 622," they look at you as if
you
>> had said "xtawplgh awelh jvqwv slvm."
>>>
>>
> Dan Leeson
>
In view of the fact that the first published example of K622 was
an
arrangement 10 years after the authors death and that there is no
autograph
or original of the work in existence, how can you be sure that
there is no
call for cadenza especially in the Adagio about measure 59 where
in several
of my scores a fermata does exist. Is it possibly that the cord
is not
right even though we know that this is at least an arrangement at
the very
best.

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

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