Klarinet Archive - Posting 000202.txt from 2006/02
From: "Keith" <bowenk@-----.com>
Subj: RE: [kl] Gran Partitta - the mystery measure
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:36:05 -0500
Thanks Dan, for your explanation of the footnote re m. 5/111 and your
thoughtful discussion of the role of an editor.
I think there is one other factor, which makes the Monty Python analogy
otiose. The pythonic wrestlers did not actually determine the truth of the
theory of evolution. But the GP performers (including the conductor if there
is one) DO actually determine what is played in a particular performance.
This is not a democratic process in the pejorative sense in which you use
it, but an actual process of everyone agreeing to play certain measures.
I am playing the GP this weekend in our Kammermusik workshop. No doubt, with
a group largely introduced to the issue by you, and with David Whitwell
leading, there will be no m. 5/111. BUT if I or anyone could impress upon my
colleagues by the force of my personality and argument that we should not
only play the measure, but repeat it three times fortissimo while burning an
effigy of Dan Leeson eating pizzas, that is what would happen.
I have no problem with your view of the editorial process, and the
Barenreiter edition does offer a firm opinion (in the English version). And
obviously people who have not studied the evidence have no opinion worth
pursuing. I probably feel intermediate between your view and Wiese's view:
present the evidence but make a decision, and point out that it is a
decision.
While not every player is a musicologist they still have the responsibility
of deciding what notes they play when it is not clear. I agree it is
nonsense to say "I prefer it this way". But they can still review the
evidence. I've read your article, and we had a very interesting discussion
on it once. I recall asking you why, if it was obvious that the measure
should be omitted, it took you seven years to decide that it was obvious.
You then reviewed the evidence, including, as I recall, dealing with an
objection that there was no second ending by taking two years to travel to
see a number of original Mozart manuscripts and finding a number of others
which had a first but not a second ending. I was convinced ... but I also
felt that I had done my due diligence.
Actually, Dan, you inspired me to begin to study musicology in my
retirement. I shan't attain your heights, but I hope to excavate some decent
Harmoniemusik from the thousands of manuscripts lying around Europe and make
it available in playing editions.
Keith Bowen
>Barenreiter, in the critical commentary, suggested that the
players should decide if the measure is to go in or out. And I
think that is absolutely the WORST POSSIBLE WAY do handle the
issue! This is not a problem that should be solved by the
democratic process of voting. Can you imagine if a vote were
take about the truth or falsity of The Theory of Evolution.
Technical truth is not resolved by a vote. There was once a
chapter on Monty Python in which a Cardinal of the Church of Rome
and an Official of the English Scientific society wrestled to
conclude on the truth of The Theory of Evolution, two falls out
of three.
Dan Leeson
DNLeeson@-----.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THE WOODWIND.ORG ANNUAL DONATION DRIVE IS GOING ON NOW! VISIT
https://secure.donax-us.com/donation TO FIND OUT ALL THE FACTS!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THE WOODWIND.ORG ANNUAL DONATION DRIVE IS GOING ON NOW! VISIT
https://secure.donax-us.com/donation TO FIND OUT ALL THE FACTS!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org
