Klarinet Archive - Posting 000010.txt from 2007/06

From: "dnleeson" <dnleeson@-----.net>
Subj: RE: [kl] R. Kell, Part 6: Weber
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 09:15:34 -0400

I am no longer sure of the context of what I said about going to
the source. I think (if my memory is correct) that I was
speaking about Wolfgang Plath and was quoting what he thought.
And if that is the case, I don't back down one inch, because I
was expressing a correct interpretation of what another person
thought about the problem of source documents.

But if my memory is flawed and I was not speaking about what
Plath had in mind, I do agree that the original manuscript, as
the source, is not the only place to look for authority. There
are cases (with string quartets), where Mozart played the work
with some colleagues and made changes to the manuscript
performance parts, thereby making them more authoritative than
the autograph.

So please check what it was you had in front of you when you
wrote your note (copy below).

Dan Leeson
DNLeeson@-----.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Bowen [mailto:bowenk@-----.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:20 AM
To: klarinet@-----.org
Subject: RE: [kl] R. Kell, Part 6: Weber

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

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

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

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