Klarinet Archive - Posting 000106.txt from 2008/08

From: Tony Pay <tony.p@-----.org>
Subj: Re: [kl] Poulenc Sonata
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 13:43:30 -0400

On 31 Aug, "sarah elbaz" <sarah@-----.com> wrote:

> Tony, I have not heard from Deplus and Cuper yet, but they were never quick
> with e mails. I will up date the list when I get an answer. Sarah

They'll have nothing to say about my post, though, which was about how Sean
knew that his edition was 9th edition, 1983.

BTW, I think you still haven't seen the implication of the MS I posted. For
example, I see that you ask in another thread, why did I post that MS, and
not the 'other' one?

Well, it's because the MS I posted is an ALTERATION to the other one, as
evidenced by the fact that you can see that Poulenc whited out 'the notes in
the other one' and wrote over them -- which shows that they were his second
rather than his first thoughts.

I have to say, one thing impresses me about this whole saga. It is that on
each of the two occasions that someone has been asked to view the evidence
and assess ON THAT BASIS what most probably Poulenc finally wanted, they have
come up with the non-F version.

I'm afraid I don't believe the argument that French clarinet players are
somehow privy to a sort of 'Frenchness' that enables them to tell which of
the two versions is more 'French' -- and therefore more likely to be Poulenc.
Both versions are plausible, which is what is a bit irritating about all of
this. See:

http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/1999/01/001310.txt

Tony
--

_________ Tony Pay
|ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd
| |ay Oxford OX2 6RE
tel/fax 01865 553339
mobile +44(0)7790 532980 tony.p@-----.org

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