Klarinet Archive - Posting 000426.txt from 2004/08

From: Andy Raibeck <klari_1@-----.com>
Subj: [kl] Source for K. 581 (was K. 581 performance practice)
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 23:37:54 -0400

An observation from all this discussion: it seems to me that, instead of simply
creating new editions of classical works where the editors insert their own
performance markings (usually without comment indicating which markings are
theirs and which are original), the musical community would be far better
served by the creation of editions which include scholarly information about
the work, such as a history of the piece, what the performance practices were,
etc. If they insist on stick their own performance markings in as
"suggestions", then those should be clearly marked as such. Or include two
copies of the music: one unedited and one with the "suggested" markings. And it
should be made clear that the "suggestions" are merely that of the editor, and
should not be construed as definitive.

On a related topic: if the original autograph for 581 is lost, then from what
source do the editions in use today derive? I tried searching through the
klarinet archives and saw similar discussion about 622. If I understood that
correctly, we do not know whether that first edition came from parts or a
score; so is the point that, because we cannot link the origin of the first
edition back to an autograph in Mozart's hand (which would have almost
certainly been a score), we cannot say for sure how much of what we know today
as 622 was actually written by Mozart? Is the story for 581 similar?

If this is the case, then why are these works typically attributed entirely to
Mozart, without further comment?

Regards,

Andy

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org