Klarinet Archive - Posting 000084.txt from 2009/12
From: "Keith Bowen" <bowenk@-----.com>
Subj: RE: [kl] Letting the players decide
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:40:04 -0500
Dan,
A related issue of editorial authority which has puzzled me in the same =
work
(I am sure you refer to K 361) is right near the end, measures 124 - 127 =
in
the last movement, the sixteenth runs in most instruments. In the
Barenreiter edition the phrasing for the runs are identical in all
instruments, in 2 x 2-measure phrases. In the autograph the oboes and
clarinets are phrased 1 + 1 + 2, the basset horns are phrased 2 + 2 and =
the
bassoons and contrabasso have one 4-measure phrase.=20
Now one does not require decades of experience and musicological =
research to
make out what Mozart wrote, in this case. The slurs are as plain as a
pikestaff in the autograph. I don't have the critical commentary,
unfortunately, so could you tell us what happened here?=20
Keith (apprentice curmudgeon)
=20
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Leeson [mailto:dnleeson@-----.net]=20
Sent: 18 December 2009 20:13
To: klarinet@-----.org
Subject: Re: [kl] Letting the players decide
Hi Joe,
Well, now there is a footnote, which I insisted be put in. But I really =
wanted was no comment whatsoever. I don't have to explain every change =
I=20
made (and I made plenty). That is editorial authority.
What I would not permit was a suggestion that the players should make =
the=20
decision. I only explained the two choices. In the critical commentary=20
(which no player is going to have access to during rehearsals and=20
performances), there are about 5 pages of text and references to =
technical=20
papers explaining the issues..
Dan
----- Original Message -----=20
From: "Joseph Fasel" <jhfasel@-----.com>
To: <klarinet@-----.org>
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: [kl] Letting the players decide
Dan,
You may be indeed be a first-class curmudgeon, but you are one of my=20
favorites.
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Dan Leeson <dnleeson@-----.net> =
wrote:
> In an edition I did for B=E4renreiter, I had a basic problem in that a =
> certain
> passage could be executed in two different ways.
>
> I had evidence that supported a particular way and that is the way I
> submitted the manuscript to the publisher. I refused to even =
acknowledge=20
> the
> "other" way. The editorial board felt that my suggested solution was =
too
> radical, so they proposed that both solutions be presented in the =
edition,
> which would give the players the opportunity to decide which way to =
play=20
> it.
Was there at least a footnote or a discussion in the editorial
introduction explaining that the incorrect alternative was included
only to document what previous editions had mistakenly done and that
the editor strongly advised against using it?
Cheers,
--Joe
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus =
signature
database 4700 (20091218) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
=20
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus =
signature
database 4700 (20091218) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
=20
------------------------------------------------------------------
