Advertising and Web Hosting on Woodwind.Org!

Klarinet Archive - Posting 000443.txt from 2004/08

From: Jim Alguire <jalguire@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Source for K. 581 (was K. 581 performance practice)
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 15:04:27 -0400

Dan,
I certainly agree with you, cannot dispute your scholarship, and
believe me I don't want to protract this discussion. However, I think
that perhaps I would have used softer words.

In the paragraph below, I think I would have said "necessarily
authoritative." The other paragraph is a little strong too. It's as if
Breikopf said to Hartel, "Shultz! We need another Mozart! Get back to
your desk and throw something together." It is a bit hard to believe
any editor would mumble to himself "what the hell, an ff there, a pp
here."

Regards, and a book reader.

Jim Alguire
On Aug 15, 2004, at 4:55 AM, dnleeson wrote:

> Your observation is correct.
>
> The mansucript of 581 in Mozart's hand disappeared. (You really
> ought to read my novel on the subject of the manuscripts of both
> 622 and 581. See www.leesonbooks.com). Ca. 1803 the first printed
> set of performance parts were issued by Breitkopf & Hartel. Like
> 622 the clarinet part was edited to eliminate all notes below
> written low e. No trace of what was done by the editor ever
> survived. Therefore, not a single edition of 581, neither the
> first nor the most recent, is authoritative.
>
<snip>

> But the fact is,
> except for the authority of the first 4 measures (and for which
> we have an incipit manuscript in Mozart's hand), not a single
> note, phrase shape, articulation, dynamic, or anything else can
> be said to be accurate.

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

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