Klarinet Archive - Posting 000081.txt from 2010/10

From: Joseph Wakeling <joseph.wakeling@-----.net>
Subj: [kl] An Urtext "Grrr...."
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:19:46 -0400

So, the other day I bought a CD of Janacek's String Quartets, and was so
taken that when I noticed the score of the second quartet in my local
music store, I bought it straight away. It's a Baerenreiter Urtext
edition, taken from the Complete Critical Edition of the works of
Janacek prepared in collaboration between Baerenreiter and the Czech
publisher Supraphon.

Anyway, following discussion of the sources, the introduction to the
little study score has this to say:

We have corrected obvious errors made during notation, added missing
performance markings according to analogous passages, unified
different notations of musically-identical passages to the most
suitable form, and removed superfluous accidentals

... which all seems reasonably par for the course, though I always
wonder about those breezy assertions about "musically identical
passages" -- but then it continues:

-- [accidentals] sometimes made superfluous by key signatures we have
introduced in all passages where this was appropriate.

Now I'm a little bothered. Introducing key signatures that were not
specified by the composer? OK, I can perhaps accept that there's some
norm like the composer never wrote key signatures and that during the
composer's lifetime the publisher would add them with the composer's
approval. But it still seems an odd thing to do in an Urtext edition.
Then this:

In accord with the editorial principles, we have made enharmonic
changes in notation in the following measures and instruments:
[there follows a list of over 20 passages where this has been done,
some of them spanning up to 10 bars].

Under what circumstances is that normal or justifiable? (OK, maybe
Janacek started out writing a passage in one key and then shifted to
another enharmonically. But they don't say anything about why they made
these changes; just that they did so.)

Not once in the whole score is there any indication which markings have
been editorially changed, which "missing performance indications" or key
signatures have been added, etc. etc. The introduction says "All
discrepancies among the sources are described in the editorial notes",
but of course, you don't get those with a study score.

The work's genesis in publication is something of a mess -- it was
prepared for publication after Janacek's death by the quartet who first
performed it, and they made numerous alterations; there's evidence that
_some_ (but not all) were made by Janacek in performance, but often the
evidence is inconclusive (it rests on which of a number of alterations
to a manuscript copy are from Janacek and which from others). So, it's
clear that producing an edition is far from easy. But I'm rather
shocked at finding a score where editorial intervention is not more
clearly indicated.

Perhaps it's a result of comparison to the Beethoven symphony editions
(also Baerenreiter) by Jonathan Del Mar, where editorial interventions
are scrupulously highlighted with brackets [] and similar, but I'm a bit
bothered by all this.

Experienced editorial people, what light can you shed on the thought
processes of those responsible? :-)
_______________________________________________
Klarinet mailing list
Klarinet@-----.com
To do darn near anything to your subscription, go to:
http://klarinet-list.serve-music.com