Klarinet Archive - Posting 000003.txt from 2005/02

From: "dnleeson" <dnleeson@-----.net>
Subj: [kl] Another mistake in K. 622???
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 13:34:34 -0500

You must have access to a copy of the Winterthur fragment of the
basset horn concerto in G to make any sense out of this posting.
But if I am right (and I think I am), there is another part of K.
622 that needs to be played differently!!

Tony Pay and I have had many wonderful public and private
discussions about the authority of the various printed edition of
622. We both agree that the Winterthur fragment, which is the
preliminary version of the clarinet concerto, though written for
a basset horn in G, is an extremely important document. Tony's
confidence in the authority of much of the first movement of 622
is based in no small degree to its similarity (indeed, almost
identical) presentation in the basset horn version.

But something has just come up.

Most people know about a note, part of a 16-th note passage, that
is different in the basset horn version. In fact that changed
note exists in two places, the clarinet and the violin. The
authority for making that change in the clarinet version derives
exclusively from the Winterthur fragment. In the Winterthur
manuscript (see p. 171 of the Bärenreiter edition of 622), the
change for clarinet is in the fourth measure of surface 7 recto
(6th note), specifically the change from the traditional f-sharp,
to the now more frequently played f-natural. There is a
corresponding change in the parallel passage that occurs in the
earlier-heard violin part. (For those who want to see the change
in the clarinet version of 622, look at measure 109 and the
corresponding violin part played earlier AND in the parallel
passage when the tune comes back again later.)

OK. Enough on that one. That's old stuff and I mention it only
to show the impact that the Winterthur fragment has had on
contemporary performances of 622 as played on a clarinet.

NOW, THERE IS ANOTHER SUCH CASE!!

See page 170, surface 6, recto. There the third measure of the
basset horn part has the following notation: (1) quarter note,
low c-sharp in the bass clef; (2) half note, b-flat above the
staff; (3) two eighth notes, a and g.

Now, examine the half note b-flat above the staff. Notice that
there is a double dot above the note. And that same double dot
condition occurs two measures later in the first violin part.
That passage in the clarinet version of the concerto occurs at m.
92. Notice that m. 92 is and has always been a half-note high
b-flat without any double dot notation, whatever that
abbreviation was intended to convey..

However, that double dot notation means something very important,
and the result is non trivial.

Examine the material under "abbreviations" in Groves dictionary
of music, and there you will find that the "above-the-note"
double dot (also below the note, too) was a shorthand for
multiple repetitions of the same note. So if one had a half note
with four dots below it, one played four eight notes. If one had
a whole note with two dots below it, one played two half notes.
At least that is what Groves says. I think it is correct..

What Mozart wrote in that passage for basset horn is shorthand
for the following: )1) quarter note, low c-sharp in the bass
clef, (2) TWO QUARTER NOTES, both b-flat above the staff, (3) two
eighth notes, a and g. Correspondingly, the violin 1 part is
also an abbreviation for two quarter notes.

NOW THAT IS VERY MUCH NEW MATERIAL, or at least it was to me. In
effect, that condition in the basset horn concerto may also have
been intended in the clarinet concerto and the copyist did not
accurately translate the abbreviation, or else, perhaps, Mozart
did not use it. I don't know what happened. All I do not know is
that the double dot in the basset horn manuscript has not had any
importance attached to it.

There are also phrasing issues that arise as a result of this
observation. Should the two quarter notes be separated? How
does this impact the violin part which reproduces the change two
measures later? Where else in the movement might this issue
arise?

Now here is potentially another case where our understanding of
the text of 622 has been looted from us by the use of an edition
possibly based on some previously faulty understanding of the
manuscript, which is, of course, lost. Certainly this
observation requires the same consideration as the change of note
spoken of above. It is at least as important, though it is a
rhythmic change and not a pitch change.

It isn't every day when one discovers a possible change to the
solo part of 622.

PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT.

Dan Leeson
DNLeeson@-----.net

+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jan 31 10:25:22 EST 2005 - end of day 10 - 103 donors |
| The 2005 Woodwind.Org Donation Drive is Underway. |
| Please visit http://secure.donax-us.com/donation for more |
| information. Help Keep the List Going! |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org
Sat Jan 29 11:56:46 EST 2005

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