Klarinet Archive - Posting 000225.txt from 2010/10

From: Jennifer Jones <helen.jennifer@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Urtext
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 22:25:28 -0400

So, what do you call the non urtext versions that catch on? Kenny G?
(Please correct me if I have constructed a bad metaphor)

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Dan Leeson <dnleeson@-----.net> wrote:
> I waited until the discussion of URTEXT editions settled down, but now I'=
d like to comment on the matter.
>
>
>
> The term "Urtext" is derived from the city of UR, thought to refer to a c=
ity in ancient Sumer, today Iraq. The general idea is that Ur was the place=
where everything, including civilization, began. =A0And so, Urtext, from t=
he musicological point of view, means the text based on the original manusc=
ript.
>
>
>
> If the edition is not based primarily on the manuscript, it is not Urtext=
, even though it may be well thought out and intelligently done. Basing the=
edition on an early printing is not sufficient to claim that the new editi=
on is Urtext. It may be an excellent edition in that a thoughtful editor ha=
s spent considerable time thinking about what has to be done, but it is NOT=
Urtext.
>
>
>
> Thus, there can be no Urtext edition of the Mozart clarinet concerto or t=
he quintet for clarinet and strings, even though some very well thought out=
editions of those works are incorrectly advertised as such.
>
>
>
> Another layer of complexity is that an editor has a very big say about wh=
at the original manuscript says. =A0No autograph is so clean that there are=
no problems in preparing an Urtext edition. Every autograph has its own pr=
oblems and the editor is the authority in terms of what the composer meant =
whenever an ambiguous passage arises. One hears an editor say, "I know what=
the composer said, but I don't know what he meant."
>
>
>
> The finished product is a combination of (1) the manuscript, (2) other so=
urces in which the composer may have shed light on that same composition (i=
ncluding music other manuscripts and even letters), and editorial changes a=
nd interpretations made (with the best of intentions) by an editor who may =
or may not be qualified to interpret the sources at his disposal. For examp=
le, there were editors in the early part of the 20th century who asserted t=
hat Mozart did not know anything about the lower range of the clarinet, bec=
ause he called for notes below low written e.
>
>
>
> And to complicate the matter even further, there may be an extant manuscr=
ipt of a work, but it is unavailable at the time the first edition is prepa=
red (from a set of performance parts, for example). =A0So the first edition=
takes on a patina that it may not deserve. =A0Then, at some later time, th=
e manuscript surfaces, but what happens is that players have become used to=
the piece in the first edition. And what this means is that performers wil=
l reject changes based on the manuscript because they differs from what it =
is they are used to.
>
>
>
> The most egregious example of that phenomenon is the gran Partitta, with =
musicians rejecting an edition based on the autograph because it presents m=
aterial that contradicts the first edition in notes, rhythms, content, reso=
lution of abbreviations, etc.
>
>
>
> I gave a lecture on this matter at U. of Indiana, and it was entitled, "A=
bandon ye all hope of ever getting an Urtext of K. 622."
>
>
>
> =A0Dan Leeson
> _______________________________________________
> 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