Klarinet Archive - Posting 000296.txt from 2007/05

From: "Lelia Loban" <lelialoban@-----.net>
Subj: [kl] R. Kell, Part 7: Beethoven Trio No. 4, Op. 11
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 13:58:41 -0400

Reginald Kell: Part 7
in the 6-disk Decca set, Beethoven Trio No. 4, Op. 11
I Allegro con brio; II Adagio; III Allegretto Theme and Variations; IV
Allegro.

In the Beethoven Trio No. 4 in Bb major, Op. 11 (1950, from Decca LP DL
9543), Kell plays Bb clarinet. Beethoven wrote versions for a choice of
clarinet or violin withpiano and cello. The startling difference between
the clarinet part and the violin version, at bar 78 and 217, is
Beethoven's, not an editor's.

Kell's partners, cellist Frank Miller and pianist Mieczslaw Horsowski, are
mic'd as full collaborators, as they should be. They don't take the repeat
in the Allegro con brio at bar I-105 (phooey!) but they do take the repeats
in the Theme and Variations. Occasionally, the balance suffers when Miller
drowns out Kell (bars I-24-26, I-56-7 and I-62-69, for instance). In some
places where the balance favors Miller too much, such as I-202-207, Kell
clearly should be the louder of the two, with the cello on harmony. By
modern standards, Miller's portamento is sentimentally excessive now and
then, though it's normal for 1950. Within the usual limitations of
recordings of that period, the piano and the cello sound normally resonant.
In comparison, Kell's tone is shrill, sometimes blasting so hard that his
intonation suffers (not a common problem for him)--although he may have had
no choice in order to hold his own against Miller. (Where was Decca's
engineer?) Kell's notey-ness bothers me during sustained tones in the
Adagio, where it sounds as if he's conducting with his head, nodding the
beat (most noticible at II-60 and II-62).

Otherwise, I think this is an excellent performance, if one accepts the
edition of the score the three use. Comparing scores, I'm as certain as
possible that Kell, Horsowski and Miller must be using the edition by
Ferdinand David (1810-1873). David's edition has been reprinted many times
by several publishers. In 1950, the high-quality Peters edition was a
reprint of the David edition. (The Library of Congress dates the first
printing of that Peters score tentatively to 1887, with a question mark.
Peters has since replaced it with a 20th century edition by Carl Herrmann
and Paul Grummer.) My husband, who plays violin, owns two modern reprints
of the David edition, although only one is properly credited as such:
International no. 952, "Six Celebrated Trios for Violin, Cello and Piano,"
credited to David, and Kalmus Chamber Music Series no. 9710.

The Kalmus edition fails to identify the editor, but when I compare the two
scores, I'm certain that this is also the Ferdinand David edition.
Although the explanatory materials are re-set into different fonts (e.g.,
for the title page, the Kalmus edition prints the instrument names in
Italian and the title and dedication in German, while the International
edition translates that material into English), the music is identical on
these two copies--same size staves, same size ossia staves showing
clarinet, violin and cello parts above the piano score, identical music
fonts, same page turns, same rehearsal letter placements, same phrase
marks--and all in slightly fuzzy focus when viewed with a magnifying glass:
photographed for the modern editions from an edition so old it's in the
public domain. And that's why these editions are cheap--although, in this
particular case, cheap doesn't necessarily mean bad.

David, a renowned virtuoso violinist, prepared a lot of editions. During
the last century, many violinists have learned and recorded from his
Beethoven scores. He's respected by violinists--but I can imagine that a
19th century violin virtuoso's edition of the 4th Trio might not suit
clarinet players today. As Dan Leeson has pointed out, 19th century
editors are notorious for their tinkering and revising.

At least International has the decency to identify the 19th century editor,
even though his long- buried skeleton isn't entitled to royalties. Problems
in identifying editors of other scores referenced in these Kell threads
make me wish all that Harry Potter stuff worked, so I could raise the old
editors' bones to materialize in publishers' bedrooms and make loud
clickety-clackety noises all night, every night, until these hoss-thieves
give their predecessors the credit (or the blame) they deserve.

The notes and their values in Kell, Horsowski and Miller are identical to
those in the David edition and the phrasing is nearly identical, with the
few deviations so tiny that they're hardly worthy of mention. A few things
that sound like deviations really aren't; they're just Kell exaggerating
some phrasing. For instance, in the third movement, in the theme before
the variations, bar 8, unless you turn the volume up pretty high, it sounds
as if Kell leaves out a note. Instead of dotted eighth c slurred to
sixteenth d, then staccato quarter note c, he seems to play two quarter
note c's, the first one cut off staccato like the second one, omitting the
d in between. Crank up the volume, though, and you can hear the d as an
odd little hiccup.

The only real exception to David's score I can hear occurs in the third
movement, Var. I, for solo piano (cello and clarinet tacet throughout this
variation), where Horsowski plays some runs arguably more legato than the
marked staccato. The other deviations from David are vanishingly few and
slight to the point of near-insignificance. The most obvious occurs in
Var. II, in the 5th and 6th bars, where Kells slurs over all six quarter
notes instead of tonguing after bar 5 -- but he still shapes these phrases
according to David's version. Similarly, in Var. II, bar 14, Kell may slur
over the whole bar instead of tonguing after the first two notes, but again
he shapes the phrase as David does and may even tongue the third note very
gently there. I can't be sure. Catch a few others if you can, but there
are levels of nitpickery to which I refuse to aspire!

The Peters reprint of David's edition would have been the natural choice
for the cellist and pianist in 1950. I don't know which of the
alternatives might have appealed to a clarinet player in 1950. Beethoven's
Trio No. 4 has been available within the last decade in at least the
following editions:

Augener (London, 1900)

Breitkopf & Hartel? (I've seen references to a 19th-century Breitkopf
score but no definite information. Does Breitkopf publish an edition now?)

Henle, ed. Friedhelm Klugmann "Urtext" / "from the first edition by Gunther
Raphael" (Raphael: 1903-1960)

International, ed. Ferdinand David

International (1952), ed. Isidor Phillips (re-edited David?)

Kalmus, ed. Ferdinand David, uncredited

Peters (1887?), ed. Ferdinand David

Peters (current), ed. Carl Hermann and Paul Grummer

Schirmer (1921), ed. by ? -- Library of Congress online listing is
incomplete; I'll look in the ant farm next time I'm there

Which edition(s) do you all prefer?

Lelia Loban
"I am not in the habit of altering my compositions once they are finished.
I have never done this, for I hold firmly that the slightest change alters
the character of the composition."
--Ludvig van Beethoven, letter, 1813
(quoted in the Wordsworth Dictionary of Musical Quotations)

Lelia Loban

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