 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2025-08-25 13:24
Urtext versions of musical compositions are supposed to be true to the original; hence, the word "ur" in German, which means "original". Yet the manuscripts to the Mozart Clarinet Concerto and his Clarinet Quintet have been lost, so I don't see how a publisher would claim that the text he edits is true to the original. A few years ago, Mr. Pay sent us a photograph of the original manuscript of Mozart's Kegelstatt Trio in which the accents one always plays and hears in the first movement are missong. Henle editions-which pride themselves on being accurate and true to the original manuscript, are beautiful ..and rather expensive...but how "ur"? Maybe this is like buying organically-grown food. The extra price you pay doesn't ensure the food is organic.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
Post Edited (2025-08-27 09:25)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rose42snowden
Date: 2025-08-25 14:34
Even without the original manuscripts, Urtext editions of Mozart's Clarinet Concerto and Clarinet Quintet are based on the earliest and most reliable sources, such as first editions and copies made by trusted associates. The "Ur" in "Urtext" signifies a commitment to scholarly research and a reconstruction of the composer's intentions based on all available historical evidence, even if the primary source is missing. While paybyplatema portal for ticket not a direct copy, the goal is to present a text as close to the original as possible by critically evaluating all surviving sources.
Post Edited (2025-08-26 08:55)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2025-08-26 04:20
Yes, I think urtext is a bit of a marketing gimmick. (Wouldn't playing from an urtext mean playing from an autographed manuscript?)
I think what most people are looking for are scholarly editions, which contain front matter discussing editorial decisions and various source materials, such manuscripts, copies, proofs, first editions, etc. (But even then, if my memory is correct, the Neue Mozart-Ausgabe edition of the concerto has a slur on the first page that doesn't conform to what's in the Winterthur manuscript.) I do wonder, aside from how beautiful Henle and Barenreiter editions look, if a part of their appeal stems from musicians wanting to outsource their critical thinking to editors: Find the most authoritative edition; play exactly what's on the page; and therefore have an authoritative performance, with which no one could rightly find fault.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2025-08-26 05:14
Two light-hearted thoughts:
1. "Educated guesses" - who knew?!
2. How many composers even really know (deep down inside) what they mean/want themselves? Hahaha!
In all honesty though - couldn't/wouldn't most composers be open to subtle changes (?improvements? ?interpretations?) being applied to their music over the course of years, decades, etc.?
I ask the above honestly. I'd think if I created something, and then I heard someone change it up a bit - that there's a chance I'd find the changes an improvement or at least interesting. I think of pop music in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s - songs were arranged and rearranged to fit every style. Every performer released versions of songs recorded by their contemporaries - all with their own unique spin. Today - it's a blessing to have access to all those ideas...all those different "takes" on the music.
I guess the root of my question is: Would a composer (if he lived to be 200 years old) want his music played the same way over the course of decades and centuries, regardless of what happened in the world around him - or would he, hearing the development of music in general around him, opt to change his music over the course of the centuries?
Sort of a futile question if taken in the literal sense, but I do think there is some merit in the thought exercise.
Fuzzy
;^)>>>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2025-08-26 06:41
Fuzzy wrote:
> I think of pop music in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s
> - songs were arranged and rearranged to fit every style. Every
> performer released versions of songs recorded by their
> contemporaries - all with their own unique spin. Today - it's
> a blessing to have access to all those ideas...all those
> different "takes" on the music.
>
> I guess the root of my question is: Would a composer (if he
> lived to be 200 years old) want his music played the same way
> over the course of decades and centuries, regardless of what
> happened in the world around him - or would he, hearing the
> development of music in general around him, opt to change his
> music over the course of the centuries?
>
I've known a few composers - certainly none of Mozart's or Beethoven's stature - and one thing that I often notice is that they often don't, 10 or 20 years after they've composed and published something, remember the details of what they wrote.
I think "urtext" editions are, or ought to be, less about representing exactly what the composer would want 200 years later than about establishing a base on which performers can build their individual readings. Otherwise, you get an exercise in "whispering down the lane." "Performance traditions" begin to get baked into listeners' and performers' expectations and can lead to increasing distortions' being accepted as mandatory.
I think there's a big difference in intent between "classical" and "pop" music. "Classical" composers create what they hope is a coherent whole that will be performed intact, not simply a melody to which performers can apply any adaptations they think (hope) will sell.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2025-08-26 07:30
Karl,
You make great points.
'Otherwise, you get an exercise in "whispering down the lane." "Performance traditions" begin to get baked into listeners' and performers' expectations and can lead to increasing distortions' being accepted as mandatory.'
For me - in jazz, Picou's treatment of the flute obbligato in "High Society" falls into this category. Or Louis' opening to West End Blues. (Yes, the context is different from what you reference in classical, but to me it has a similar effect.) The fault doesn't lie with Alphonse or Louis.
'I think there's a big difference in intent between "classical" and "pop" music.'
Of course this is true, and I stretched the point too far.
Still, I'd like to think composers would be interested in hearing different interpretations of their work - but maybe that's just my ignorance of the classical world.
Fuzzy
;^)>>>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2025-08-26 16:29
Hi Fuzzy. Classical composers have varied widely over how insistent they've been on performers doing exactly what they wrote. Stravinsky was reportedly a stickler; Rachmaninoff was permissive. If a piece catches a listener's or a performer's fancy and impels their imagination to extend and otherwise use it, that means it's fertile and good, no? Perhaps it also means they failed to grasp or otherwise undervalued the composer's intentions, but, well, sometimes life is too damn short.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2025-08-26 18:12
Clearly, I have extra time on my hands this week.
One obvious influence over the issue of "classical" composers' intent vs. performers' interpretive freedom is the advent of recordings over the last century or so. We can actually hear how 20th and 21st century composers meant for their music to sound. There are many recordings made by the composers themselves as conductors (or at least by closely associated conductors - think Robert Kraft - under the composer's supervision) or as soloists. The extent to which they stuck to their own notated tempos and specific expressive gestures gives some idea of how invested they were in the details once the music was published. And notation became more precise and detailed through the later Classical, Romantic, and "modern" eras.
As a result, "urtexts" probably have more meaning in Bach or Mozart, where the sparsity or absence of expressive detail in the original notation has led over the centuries to more and more "stuff" being added in by later editors. We don't really need urtexts of Stravinsky (except to edit out actual errata - unintended misprints) or Shostakovich. Maybe less sloppy engraving and proofreading would help, and those corrections are significant, but removing layers of hand-holding by performers and editors added long after earlier composer's death can be illuminating.
If Mozart wrote a florid passage with no phrasing or articulation at all, we may want to know that the articulations and dynamic gestures in someone's modern edition were the editor's ideas and not necessarily anything Mozart was committed to. If we see expressive marks and staccato notation all over a Bernstein piece or one by Honegger or Stravinsky, it probably was something the composer meant to ask for unless there's an editor cited.
That modern performers should necessarily want to reproduce a composer's original intent is obviously an ongoing point of dispute here and elsewhere. Whether or not composers of 200 years ago or ones still living actually cared deeply about the details of what they wrote in their scores is yet another question for a different discussion. And transformation of "pop" music in myriad ways by a plethora of performers is, likewise its own deeply engaging thread.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2025-08-26 20:15
Listening years ago to Stravinsky works conducted by Stravinsky and Kraft led me to think most of his music was dry, boring and worthless. I'd never recommend them to unfamiliar listeners. I only revised said opinion (upward) by hearing other interpreters like Boulez, Solti, Muti etc. performing and illuminating the same works.
Rachmaninoff was around during the big change that recording technology brought to music performance. When Horowitz asked about modifying the 2nd Sonata for performance, Rachmaninoff told him to play it however he wanted. Rachmaninoff himself admitted to altering his own music in performance depending on the audience.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2025-08-27 09:31
I'm delighted with the responses and the rich information I got on this topic from all of you! In fact, I think I'll have to read it again carefully to take it all in. Just a little anectotic evidence: once I was rehearsing Mozart's Kegellstat trio with a violist that wasn't playing the rather quirky accents in the first movement in all editions. She refused to play them because she found them unmusical. I protested and said that Mozart wrote them and we have to respect a composer's intentions; especially when his name is Mozart. It turns out that Mozart didn't write them!
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2025-08-27 09:50
Philip, the problem is than neither Stravinsky nor Kraft (Craft?) were really conductors. Kraft was an intellectual and scholar and Stravinsky was, of course, a great composer but no conductor. I have spoken with musicians that worked with him -all dead now- and they said that, nevertheless it was a very interesting and unique experience to play under his direction (Stravinsky's. -less so, Craft's).
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
Post Edited (2025-08-27 10:35)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2025-08-27 12:18
Fuzzy-I have premiered quite a few pieces in the presence of the composer (not Beethoven or Mozart, unfortunately), and one thing I have noticed is how slipshod they are about their metronome markings. I tried to observe the markings that were on the printed page only to find that the composer had totally changed his mind about tempos-or hadn't indicated them accurately.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2025-08-27 16:19
Hi ruben, thank you for the information about Stravinsky and Kraft. It stands to reason.
Also, the violinist who chose to vary from the printed score for musical reasons is someone after my own roguish heart. I'm not advocating performance anarchy, but I see grey amidst the black and white.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2025-08-28 02:45
Thanks for sharing that bit of info, ruben.
I know that if I composed something, I'd probably want to see certain changes as time went on (tempo, or articulation...maybe even rhythm).
Whether by my own preferences changing - or some input by someone else that made me see it differently - or realizing (in retrospect) that it was better if I had written it thusly. Etc.
Fuzzy
;^)>>>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2025-08-28 05:06
Fuzzy wrote:
> Thanks for sharing that bit of info, ruben.
>
> I know that if I composed something, I'd probably want to see
> certain changes as time went on (tempo, or articulation...maybe
> even rhythm).
>
> Whether by my own preferences changing - or some input by
> someone else that made me see it differently - or realizing (in
> retrospect) that it was better if I had written it thusly.
I guess that's how we have all those versions of Bruckner's symphonies.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2025-08-28 09:25
A composer writes a piece, then the piece has a life of its own. Your children grow up and leave you.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jarmo Hyvakko
Date: 2025-08-28 16:56
To be or not to be, that is the question... As this conversation goes around Mozart the main thing with urtext editions is to remove things that have found place in numerous editions
Concerto and Quintet both have this problem that there is no manuscript. And this small fragment of the concerto doesn't help a lot. Just read through the first orchestral tutti! No one surely doesn't want it to be played like that? But some things come clear: Mozart is not afraid of beginning the slur offbeat and is not afraid of slurring over the barline. Beginning a slur off beat is Jazz of 18th century! One must read: Antony Pay's article "Phrasing in Contention". An excellent introduction to 18th century playing style!
Jarmo Hyvakko, Principal Clarinet, Tampere Philharmonic, Finland
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2025-08-28 17:47
ruben wrote:
> A composer writes a piece, then the piece has a life of its
> own. Your children grow up and leave you.
>
Some parents have a hard time with this, too. ![[frown]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie2.gif)
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2025-08-29 09:18
Quote:
As a result, "urtexts" probably have more meaning in Bach or Mozart, where the sparsity or absence of expressive detail in the original notation has led over the centuries to more and more "stuff" being added in by later editors.
With Baroque keyboard music, many (most?) musicians prefer performing editions because modern players don't have the ability to realize figured basses in an idiomatic way. Something similar is true for Mozart piano concertos, for which, in some spots, the composer wrote long notes and expected the performer to fill them out with arpeggios and scales. The idea of an "urtext" is to print exactly what the composer wrote without editorializing (though when engraving a score, there's always some editorializing, such as, at the least, line breaks and page breaks). At any rate, exactly what Bach, Handel, C.P.E. Bach, Mozart, etc. wrote sounds incomplete because it is incomplete. And in these cases, many musicians need an editor to tell them what exactly to play.
(But yes, I do agree that seeing the composer's articulations is important.)
Moreover, the more heavy-handed performing edition, when used by an educated musician, can be an excellent historical source. Czerny's Well-Tempered Clavier edition, for instance, can tell us something about how Bach was played in the post-Beethoven era. Or, with clarinet, the Baermann edition of the Weber concertos can show us something of how these pieces were played in the second half of the 19th century. Perhaps in music schools, we need some musical edition literacy courses similar to how some high schools are offering media literacy courses to combat the use of TikTok as a news source, dietician, or therapist.
Quote:
Rachmaninoff was around during the big change that recording technology brought to music performance. When Horowitz asked about modifying the 2nd Sonata for performance, Rachmaninoff told him to play it however he wanted. Rachmaninoff himself admitted to altering his own music in performance depending on the audience.
What a great anecdote! No doubt Rachmaninoff's attitude stems from the performer side of him (whereas Stravinsky wasn't ever a serious performer and perhaps therefore held rather extreme views about the role of performers/interpreters). And as with the discussion about performing and teaching, it just goes to show that being skillful at one aspect of a thing doesn't necessarily mean you'll be skillful at its other aspects. Stravinsky was a brilliant composer but a rather bad performer.
Quote:
A composer writes a piece, then the piece has a life of its own. Your children grow up and leave you.
Very well put! I'm also reminded of what Goethe's Faust tells his academic assistant, Wagner: "The so-called spirit of the age, you'll find, in truth is but the gentleman's own mind in which the ages are reflected."
Post Edited (2025-08-29 11:16)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2025-08-29 12:21
Dear Brycon, If ever you write a book on music: aesthetic, technical, historical and philosophical considerations -I will buy it and read it with great pleasure and benefit.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
