Advertising and Web Hosting on Woodwind.Org!

Klarinet Archive - Posting 000333.txt from 2001/04

From: eric james <eric_d_james@-----.net>
Subj: [kl] Re: [Re: [kl] On the matter of editing and other things]
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:55:01 -0400

Once again, I must thank the Klarinet list for all its input on the C cla=
rinet
issue and now the subject of editing in general. I wish the horn list we=
re as
erudite as this one is. =

Without identifying exactly the music I am working on, I will say that it=
is a
contemporary (i.e., late 18th century) arrangement of some pretty well-kn=
own
music. I wonder if its being an arrangement changes some of your opinion=
s on
editing. For instance, does one go with the arranger or original compose=
r
whenever something in the score is unclear. There are many, many
discrepancies within the arrangement itself as to dynamic and articulatio=
n
markings. There are obvious wrong notes. There are short-cuts which we =
don't
use nowadays such as indicating articulation only at the beginning of
passages. There is the idiomatic use of the term "dolce" which is often
misunderstood these days. There are apoggiaturas galore in all sorts of
incarnations: quarter, eighth, sixteenth note, with or without slur marks=
in
some parts and not others. I could go on. As an editor, do I list every=
last
change to the original arrangement in some sort of Revisionsbericht at th=
e
back of the score? Or should I make general comments as to what and how
changes were made in an introduction? My gut feeling about Revisionsberi=
chte
is that they offer comforting proof of the editor's diligence, but that p=
eople
rarely read them. My decision then, is to go with a generalized outline =
of
what I have done in the introduction. In cases where there is no consens=
us
among all nine parts I have occasionally adopted markings from the origin=
al. =

Until I began dealing with a publisher, I had every intention of publishi=
ng
the horn and clarinet parts in their original keys and it is still my wis=
h to
do so if I can convince the publisher. I had gathered, incorrectly I gue=
ss,
that clarinettists of today preferred a Bb part, but I'm happy to hold ou=
t for
the original mix of Bb/C.

Eric James =

Bilwright@-----.net (William Wright) wrote:
> This discussion highlights the fact that there is more than one
> purpose for printing music. A sheet of printed music cannot satisfy
> all goals simultaneously.
> =

> Where the discussion goes haywire is when someone asserts that a
> particular purpose is the highest and best purpose. Talk about value
> judgements!
> =

> =

> =

> It seems obvious to me that when an editor's name appears on a
> sheet of music, some changes have been made. If I want to see what th=
e
> composer actually put onto a particular sheet of paper (there may have
> been more than one such sheet) (which may not be what was originally
> played), then I need to do some research. I may need to be satisfied
> with what I think "sounds good" even after I've done my research.
> =

> My own school boy level of 'research' into J.S. Bach's "Bist Du Be=
i
> Mir" (BDBM) is a good example. I originally saw the theme of BDBM in=

> an 'easy clarinet duets' book. I wanted to see the entire piece ---
> was it an aria from an opera? an excerpt from a symphony? a hymn? a fol=
k
> melody? piano + voice? full orchestra?
> =

> Imagine my surprise to find that BDBM is known *only* (allegedly)
> through the personal notebook of Bach's second wife. The music is not=

> written in Bach's personal hand. It is believed (open to discussion)
> that Bach collected only the first two pieces in his wife's notebook an=
d
> left the rest of the notebook's contents to her pleasures and judgments=
=2E
> After 4 or 5 years, he (allegedly) bound his wife's notebook as an
> elegant birthday present. =

> =

> So did J.S. Bach even write BDBM? Perhaps someone who has done
> serious research knows, but I sure don't.
> =

> Should I condemn everyone who has published a copy of BDBM because=

> the authorship is not clear? Perhaps if a copy says "This is the
> guaranteed accurate composer-authorized version"; but not otherwise.
> =

> ....but my tale is only beginning.....
> =

> When I looked at an (allegedly accurate) reproduction, it includes=

> several 1/8-rests that are filled in by the piano accompaniment. Thes=
e
> rests don't appear in my 'easy clarinet duets' book. Without a full
> piano keyboard, no single note from a clarinet fills the void properly
> (to my ear, at least, I spent several weeks trying). So he editor too=
k
> the only reasonable approach (IMO). He extended a few 1/8-notes into
> 1/4-notes.
> =

> I could go on, but I hope that I've made my point: there is more
> than one purpose to printing music. We shouldn't dismiss those
> publishers who have goals other than the goal that interests us. When=

> a piece of music has an editor's name on it.... well, it's been edited;=

> and thank goodness it has. I play clarinet, not some other instrument=
=2E
> =

> =

> Cheers,
> Bill
> =

> =

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
> Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org=

> Unsubscribe from the Digest: klarinet-digest-unsubscribe@-----.o=
rg
> Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
> Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org

Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=3D=
1

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org