Klarinet Archive - Posting 000009.txt from 2007/06

From: "Keith Bowen" <bowenk@-----.com>
Subj: RE: [kl] R. Kell, Part 6: Weber
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 04:20:18 -0400

Dan

I agree with 95% about what you say about rubbish editions and "authority"
etc, but I feel you are over-simplifying with the statement:

"The necessity to go to the source, and only the source, and
nothing but the source ..."

since this implies that there is only one source, namely the composer's
autograph, and if we use that all will be well.

Sure this sometimes applies; perhaps specially in Mozart studies, where the
autographs, where they exist, are of such superb quality that you can play
from them. On the other hand there are cases where the secondary sources
(e.g. publications) do not have a demonstrable connection with the composer
- they have some connection, sure, but we don't know what it is.

But I submit that there are many - in fact normally - cases where even if
the autograph exists an editor must consult other sources to obtain the best
edition (and the words "edition" and "definitive" or "authoritative" should
not appear in the same sentence). Examples:

1. The composer had such terrible handwriting that it is very hard to read
the score without ambiguity (Beethoven), or for other reasons e.g. damage,
the autograph is unreadable or ambiguous (some Haydn). Here, the
autograph-corrected proofs of printed editions (Beethoven) or the
composer-authorised (Haydn with Johann Elssler) copies can sort out
ambiguities.

2. The composer plainly and simply changed his/her mind. There are, for
example, two sources for Schumann's Fourth symphony, written in 1841 and
rewritten in 1851. Both are performed today.

3. There is no single source for Rhapsody in Blue. Gershwin improvised much
of the piano part at the first performance, wrote down what he could
remember, and delegated the orchestration to Grofe. This was for the
Whiteman jazz orchestra. There are two recordings of it by Gershwin, both
different. Some years later, Grofe re-orchestrated it for symphony
orchestra, the version we usually hear today. (dunno why I am telling you
this, you probably played in the first performance, Dan! ....).

4. Sometimes the autograph is just plain ambiguous, and the best we can do
is to look at the "descendants" of that manuscript, using stemmatic
filiation to sort out likely good readings. Of course there is no certainty
in this process.

5. In the end, all editors do have recourse to their sense of style in their
reading of the source. I am deliberately waving a red flag at you here, Dan!
But I do not mean their general feeling that "Mozart would not have written
that". I mean the sort of documented, evidenced information on style that I
have heard you talk about, e.g. "That (possible reading of) a high clarinet
G is very unlikely to be Mozart because in twenty-six other works in which
the clarinet was prominent he never used a note that high for this
instrument". It is still a stylistic decision.

You've been in this business longer than Methuselah, Dan. I am testing my
thoughts on you :-).

Keith Bowen

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