Klarinet Archive - Posting 000014.txt from 2007/06
From: "dnleeson" <dnleeson@-----.net>
Subj: RE: [kl] R. Kell, Part 6: Weber
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:38:31 -0400
Extracting what I wrote earlier, it says, "The necessity to go to
the source, and only the source, and nothing but the source is a
relatively new phenomenon, dating from approximately in the
1970s."
Though I did not say that this thrust was due to the efforts of
Wolfgang Plath, it was. The only error I made was the date "in
the 1970s." In fact, it was about 10 years earlier.
So I stress that I was citing a trend, a movement in the world of
musicology, not offering my own opinion on how things should be
done.
Dan Leeson
DNLeeson@-----.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Bowen [mailto:bowenk@-----.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 9:04 AM
To: klarinet@-----.org
Subject: RE: [kl] R. Kell, Part 6: Weber
Dan
Here's your original post below - I was trying to save space!
Thanks for
your response - we are in complete agreement.
At least Bettony had the good sense to use degradable paper!
Keith
"Lelia's comments about the Weber publication in some edition and
Kell's apparent adherence to it deserves some additional comment.
First I thank her for her analysis because it brings a
significant difference between clarinet playing of the pre 1960s
era and today, with the years of 1970-1985ish being the years of
transition years.
"Before 1960, you could barely trust any edition that presented
an
editor's name larger than the composer's. Editing of that era was
done under the supposition that the editor knew what the composer
meant, and generously modified everything in sight to give the
player the benefit of his/her knowledge about what was on the
composer's mind.
"Today, the editor is supposed to tell you what the composer
wrote, not what the editor thinks he meant. And that is not
always easy because of handwriting peculiarities, inconsistencies
in articulation types, and occasional mistakes.
"It is also safe to say that many early editors didn't make the
slightest effort to find out what the composer wrote, partly
because the location of autograph manuscripts was in an untidy
condition. And even if a manuscript was found, it was often
marked up by this or that person.
"The necessity to go to the source, and only the source, and
nothing but the source is a relatively new phenomenon, dating
from approximately in the 1970s.
"So when Lelia mentions the Cundy Bettony editions as sources, I
get the shudders because no Cundy Bettony edition was ever very
reliable or authoritative. It was shlock Boston publishing house
that used paper doomed to extinction in 10 years, maybe 20. It
turned brown and rotted.
"Schirmer was equally bad. A famous case of a Schirmer
publication was the Mozart Keggelstatt trio. It was a disaster!
The source used by the editor was a trio arrangement of the piece
for violin, viola, and piano. And because the violin part was
taken from the clarinet part, there were all sorts of changes to
avoid the low notes that the clarinet could play but the violin
could not.
"Well, this editor, edited the piece by transposing the violin
part onto a B-flat instrument without changing any of the notes
back to what they were in the original clarinet part. So in the
minuet of the trio, the luscious arpeggios of the clarinet were
all lost because they had been taken from a transposed violin
part.
"International was also no great shakes. The edition of K. 452
perpetuated some very serious errors.
"Today, you have some very authoritative publishing houses really
knocking themselves out to tell you what the composer wrote.
What he meant is not the issue, only what he wrote. You figure
out the problems and how to solve them without having somebody
else in the guise of an editor doing the hard work for you. That
is partly what your education enabled you to do, in theory at
least.
"But even so there are troubles even with the very best of
editions. You have the Henle edition of K. 622 advertising
itself as "an authoritative edition" even though it has no
authority at all. It's a good edition, in that the page turns
are good, the printing is clear, and the paper is fine quality.
But what relationship it has with Mozart is anybody's guess.
That's true with the Barenreiter edition, too.
It is a problem that we not only must face, but also recognize
that it is our problem to solve, not someone else."
-----Original Message-----
From: klarinet-return-90930-bowenk=compuserve.com@-----.org
[mailto:klarinet-return-90930-bowenk=compuserve.com@-----.org]
On Behalf
Of dnleeson
Sent: 03 June 2007 14:16
To: klarinet@-----.org
Subject: RE: [kl] R. Kell, Part 6: Weber
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-
------------------------------------------------------------------
