Klarinet Archive - Posting 000112.txt from 2009/10

From: Joseph Wakeling <joseph.wakeling@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Lorenzo Coppola plays K. 622
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:39:18 -0400

Dan Leeson wrote:
> What is in the earliest edition, and which dates from 1803 and precedes
> the B&H edition some 74 years is not evidence of what Mozart did or
> would do. The first edition of the gran Partitta suggests use of the
> contrabassoon, which is entirely uncalled for. What some editor did in
> 1803 or 1877 is not necessarily indicative of what Mozart wrote. The
> fact is that we have no idea what Mozart wrote. And that is the soapbox
> on which I stand.

But in the absence of a manuscript or other documentary record, the
first edition is the _only_ evidence we have for what Mozart wrote.

Now, we know that editors make alterations, and we know that in this
case the editor made some _big_ alterations, rewriting passages in the
basset register. But still, in these circumstances the onus is on you
to establish convincing documentary evidence that this particular
passage was altered from what Mozart wrote -- and that evidence doesn't
exist.

Your comments about Mozart's clarinet writing elsewhere are interesting,
and certainly raise the possibility that the passage _could_ have been
altered, but it doesn't prove it.

>>> While it is possible that he could have written the note, it cannot be
>>> inserted on that basis alone. The pitch of a high G has no precedent in
>>> any Mozart work that includes a clarinet.
>>
>> Yes, but nor does a clarinet concerto have any precedent among Mozart
>> works that use the clarinet ...
>
> I don't see why that statement says anything about what he might have
> chosen to do in K. 622. Except for the Requiem, K. 626, every single
> piece of clarinet music that he wrote precedes K. 622.

The point is that a concerto is an explicitly virtuoso form and thus a
different beast to clarinet writing in other forms -- even a relatively
soloistic work like the quintet. You can thus _expect_ that at least
some of the writing in a concerto will be unprecedented in its
composer's previous writing for the instrument.

Put simply I'm saying that 'He never did it like that before' isn't a
convincing reason for supposing that the text isn't accurate,
_especially_ given that this is a virtuoso work.

>> It's not evidence of what Mozart did or should have done, but it is
>> evidence that a high G in that passage is plausible.
>
> What is plausible is not evidence.

Well, that is basically my response to you too. After all, you are the
one who is arguing that the text we have is wrong, on the basis of
plausibility rather than actual documentary evidence ... :-)

Best wishes,

-- Joe

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