Klarinet Archive - Posting 000022.txt from 2005/10

From: Joseph Wakeling <joseph.wakeling@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] K622
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 14:50:54 -0400

dnleeson wrote:
> Yes. Both are good editions, but there is no such things as an URTEXT
> edition of K. 622. Barenreiter and Henle have tried to interfere as
> little as possible and there is merit to that. But don't think that
> out there somewhere there is an authentic edition of 622.

Hmm, I think you and I have had this discussion before about the
conceptual difference between an "Urtext" (the text as the composer
conceived it), and an "Urtext Edition", which is not Urtext per se but
rather a scholarly edition that uses the available textual evidence to
try to reconstruct, to the best degree possible, what the Urtext might
actually be.

I agree that the textual evidence available for K622 is rather scant
compared to what we would like, mind you, and I promise if any of my
physics colleagues build a time machine I will make sure to get them to
visit a certain pawn shop in Vienna in the 18th century. ;-)

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