Klarinet Archive - Posting 000208.txt from 2006/02

From: "Keith" <bowenk@-----.com>
Subj: RE: [kl] Gran Partitta - the mystery measure
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 22:28:38 -0500

I'll make him argue his case at the weekend!

Keith

-----Original Message-----
From: klarinet-return-86289-bowenk=compuserve.com@-----.org
[mailto:klarinet-return-86289-bowenk=compuserve.com@-----.org] On Behalf
Of Laurence Beckhardt
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 3:14 AM
To: klarinet@-----.org
Subject: RE: [kl] Gran Partitta - the mystery measure

actually, Whitwell takes another approach in his
edition of the Gran Partita (Emerson?), which is more
absolute than Dan Leeson's: he leaves the measure out
altogether, no explanation. Now that's power.

--- Keith <bowenk@-----.com> wrote:

> 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-unsubscribe@-----.org,
> klarinet-digest-unsubscribe@-----.org if you get
> the digest.
> klarinet-help@-----.org
> 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-unsubscribe@-----.org,
> klarinet-digest-unsubscribe@-----.org if you get
> the digest.
> klarinet-help@-----.org
> Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc.
> http://www.woodwind.org
>
>

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

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

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