Klarinet Archive - Posting 000038.txt from 2006/06
From: "dnleeson" <dnleeson@-----.net>
Subj: RE: [kl] Bar 111 in K361 again
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 17:08:00 -0400
You are correct in your assumption that the seconda volta slur is
ambiguous. I have never denied this to be the case. That measure
[m. 111] could mean three things:
(1) as I continue to suggest, the second volta demands a
connection directly to the coda, eliminating m. 111, and to give
you some added evidence that we have never discussed before, I
would ask you to examine the voice leadings of the five
instruments that are used to make the connection from m. 110
directly to m. 112; i.e., both clarinets, two horns, and the
bass. Those voice leadings are absolutely perfect, something
unlikely to have occurred by accident. In effect, I suggest that
those voice leadings perfect by design, not by happenstance.
(2) it could mean the connection you suggest, which is to make
the elision between the Adagio and the faster Allegretto; i.e.,
m. 23 to m. 25. But this connection fails at every technical
level. I read to you exactly what I wrote in 1976 and again in
1991 about the possibility of that connection, and I think it to
be true to this day. The following is taken from p. 221 of the
1991 Mozart Jahrbuch, Volume 1: "Interpreting the "prima volta"
as requesting a leap from the previous measure to the Allegretto
is inconceivable on stylistic and grammatical grounds. While the
chord progression achieved occurs in deceptive cadences, it never
does so with the leading tone unresolved. Furthermore, the voice
leadings would be uncharacteristic, even awkward. Last, this
harmonic transition coupled with a tempo change has no precedent
in Mozart's music. Such an alternative is identifiably foreign to
Mozart's rhetoric."
(3) it could mean nothing, as suggested by the smudge. But in the
same article, I have half a page on how Mozart used smudging as a
technique for changing music, and the condition as found in 361
fits no known Mozartean use of smudging. I think he smudged it
because he finally realized that what he was trying to do was
much more complicated than he originally thought, and he figured
he'd get back to the problem of making that connection to the
coda more clear at some later time. He never did.
All of this is from the article, "The Gran Partitta's Mystery
Measure" as found in the 1991 Mozart Jahrbuch. An earlier article
in 1976 speaks about the whole composition, but the article from
1991 spoke only of this problem, namely the "Mystery Measure"
which is m. 112 in the fifth movement, brought about by Mozart's
habit of using abbreviations to simplify and minimize what he
needed to write down.
I did receive a polite but disagreeing note from the first
clarinet player in the Berlin Philharmonic. His remark to me was
that, from his point of view, he prefers the measure left in and
does not see any difference between leaving it in or taking it
out. And I gave him the technical reasons why the connection with
the measure left in (i.e., m. 110 going to m. 111 and then to m.
112, as it was played for 200 years) is wrong.
You and I have never discussed this, so let me tell you why that
connection with m. 112 in, is clumsy and does not work, this
explanation taken from the same Jahrbuch article: "It can be
argued that the traditional pathway (i.e., m. 110, m. 111, and m.
112) to the coda is unMozartean because the pedal E-flat heard in
the coda's first measure [m. 112] is prematurely introduced when
[m. 111] is used to make the connection." In other words, that
dominant seventh chord in m. 110 requires an E-flat in the bass
in order to resolve itself in whatever measure follows m. 110.
But if m. 111 is used to make the resolution, the surprise of
another dominant seventh chord in m. 112 is completely lost
because the E-flat from the previous measure (which should have
been left out) has already given the joke away. Think about this
as you listen to a performance in which m. 111 is left in. Notice
how premature the bass' E-flat is when m. 112 is played with an
unchanged E-flat.
I never heard from Berlin again so I presume he was not
convinced, or he would have come back and told me that I was full
of doo-doo. Alternatively, if he believed me, he would have come
back and said so. You win some, you lose some.
Last Sunday, I did a performance of the piece with George Cleve
in San Jose, and without my suggesting anything he left the
measure out and then commented about how right it is. I don't
want to speak at cross purposes, but this matter should NOT be
decided based on how right or how wrong it sounds. Only the
technical aspects of the passage should be used to accept or
reject the proposal. One conductor told me that he took a vote of
the players, and they voted to keep the measure IN. My response
was that this is not a matter that can be solved by the
democratic principles of majority/minority opinion.
Finally this: one conductor told me that, in the final analysis,
taste should be the guiding consideration. To which I responded,
that the last thing that should be used to make this decision is
taste, because your taste is influenced by the last 25
performances of the piece you have played. For a chance this
radical, you have to look at the facts.
Let me tell you Tony, my friend, that it is not easy to stand up
while everyone else is sitting down, but I hear more and more
performances of the work done the way I suggest. In 50 years,
people won't even remember that m. 111 was once used to make the
connection!!
Dan Leeson
DNLeeson@-----.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Pay [mailto:tony.p@-----.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 12:35 PM
To: klarinet@-----.org
Subject: [kl] Bar 111 in K361 again
I was looking at the holograph again, and a question struck me
belatedly --
and perhaps Dan's Jahrbuch article (which I should go to the
library to read
in detail, but perhaps he'll tell me) answers it -- if we take
seriously WHAT
IS ON THE PAGE, why don't we elide that bar leading into the
middle section?
After all, that's what's written.
In that context, I can imagine an argument saying that a possible
reason the
'seconda volta' slur is smudged is that Mozart wrote it to
indicate what he
wanted in the coda was for the bar to be elided; but then, he
suddenly
thought, "that might make them think it should be elided THE
FIRST TIME!" and
smudged it -- but then he thought, no, they'll understand...
Notice that it's a musical rather than a textual judgement that
makes us
reject that first time elision.
And....I'm not so sure....;-)
Tony
--
_________ Tony Pay
|ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd tony.p@-----.org
| |ay Oxford OX2 6RE
http://classicalplus.gmn.com/artists
tel/fax 01865 553339
... Better living through denial.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
--
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc.
http://www.woodwind.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org
