Klarinet Archive - Posting 000088.txt from 2010/10

From: Martin Baxter <martinbaxter1@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] An Urtext "Grrr...."
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 14:42:23 -0400

Surely if the thing is sold as an Urtext edition and it obviously isn't one that is an offence under the "sale of goods-misrepresentation" laws. I'm pretty sure that would be so in the UK.
Martin
On 17 Oct 2010, at 16:51, Joseph Wakeling wrote:

On 10/15/2010 07:47 PM, Curtis Bennett wrote:
> I'm no musicologist, but I'll comment anyway...
>
> My guess is that this is done for our modern-day desires for how music
> should be seen.

Well, sure, but this is supposed to be a scholarly/critical/Urtext
edition, not Nobby-the-Knowall-Editor's version of "how music should be
seen".

If you're talking about cosmetic changes -- changing "for." and "fmmo."
to "f" and "ff", for example -- sure. But an enharmonic change of note
isn't cosmetic, nor is the addition of a key signature.
_______________________________________________
Klarinet mailing list
Klarinet@-----.com
To do darn near anything to your subscription, go to:
http://klarinet-list.serve-music.com

_______________________________________________
Klarinet mailing list
Klarinet@-----.com
To do darn near anything to your subscription, go to:
http://klarinet-list.serve-music.com