Klarinet Archive - Posting 000042.txt from 2006/06

From: "dnleeson" <dnleeson@-----.net>
Subj: RE: [kl] Bar 111 in K361 again
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 18:55:03 -0400


Dan Leeson
DNLeeson@-----.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Laurence Beckhardt [mailto:lbeckhardt@-----.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 3:32 PM
To: klarinet@-----.org
Subject: RE: [kl] Bar 111 in K361 again

at least the current Berlin leadership agrees with
your position on mm. 111

--- dnleeson <dnleeson@-----.net> wrote:

> 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
>
=== message truncated ===

-----------------------------------------------------------------
--
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