 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Sigal Hemy
Date: 2008-02-04 12:48
Hello,
Does anyone know what is today considered the "correct" edition of Stravinsky's Three Pieces? I am a Clarinet Performance sophomore revisiting the piece and would like a good original to play from.
Thanks,
Sigal
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2008-02-04 15:05
What does your instructor say? I've always used the Chester, myself.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-02-04 15:19
I like the Chester too but you will find it is a matter of Opinion, and you will get several. I don't believe there is a "difinative" one. ESP
peabody.jhu.edu/457
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2008-02-04 22:03
It may not really matter. Sometime ago I read of a clarinetist asking Igor about certain notes and rhythums in the "Three Pieces" and his reply was something to the effect, [paraphrased] "I don't remember--play it your way". In the end, there may be no final answer or "correct" edition, only that which seems to satisfy ones educated "guess" and aesthetic judgement.
As a young musician, I first heard the Three Piecies played by Reginald Kell, and thats is how I have preferred they should be played. As the twig is bent, so grows the tree, I guess.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2008-02-04 23:33
Sorry for getting off topic, but...
The manuscript for the 3 pieces was written in C, and in the margin Stravinsky wrote A clarinet for the first two pieces and Bb for the third. Stravinsky must have assumed the publisher would transpose the parts for production.
The first two pieces where correctly transposed, but the third appears exactly as it did in the manuscript. Therefore we can assume that the third of the 3 pieces was mistakenly left untransposed.
I thought this was interesting when discussing "correct" editions because arguably no edition is correct.
Post Edited (2008-02-05 03:11)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2008-02-05 02:58
"The first two pieces where correctly transposed, but the third appears exactly as it did in the manuscript. Therefore we can assume that the third of the 3 pieces was mistakenly left untransposed."
I went to one of Charlie Neidich's concert a few years ago. He played the 3 pieces, and mentioned the same thing that brycon just did. He then performed the pieces- first 2 "normal" and the last trasnposed up a whole step from the published edition. It was quite interesting and the entire feel of the pieces changes. I think that if I were to perform it sometime, I might be inclined to play it with the 3rd piece transposed.
After the concert, I heard him saying to a few people between handshakes about some things in the harmonic structure become more clear and seem a more logical progression from the other pieces. He was busy and didn't go into much detail.
For me, it feels better that way.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brent
Date: 2008-02-05 13:08
Is the manuscript someplace where we can see this for ourselves?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-02-05 15:23
Bryan wrote:
>> The manuscript for the 3 pieces was written in C, and in the margin Stravinsky wrote A clarinet for the first two pieces and Bb for the third. Stravinsky must have assumed the publisher would transpose the parts for production.
>> The first two pieces where correctly transposed, but the third appears exactly as it did in the manuscript. >>
Could you give us a source for this?
>>Therefore we can assume that the third of the 3 pieces was mistakenly left untransposed.>>
Well, Stravinsky didn't complain when it was published by Chester, and he heard many people play it in that version -- he even coached Rosario Mazzeo on the pieces, as you can read in the Klarinet archives. Moreover, he had to have been involved in the publication, as there are one or two revisions of the manuscript that only the composer would have made -- for example, the change in the last bar of the third piece from crescendo to diminuendo, and the adding of a fermata in that diminuendo.
Of course, if the manuscript is written a third lower than the Chester publication in the first two movements, then they would have HAD to be transposed and be for the A clarinet, as they go below the written range of the clarinet and below the sounding range of the Bb clarinet.
Brent wrote:
>> Is the manuscript someplace where we can see this for ourselves?>>
The manuscript is in Winterthur, Switzerland, as is the 200-bar sketch of Mozart's Allegro for bassethorn in G, which became the first movement of K622. I think with a bit of effort you could probably arrange to see it, if you're near there...
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tara
Date: 2008-02-06 02:50
Wow. This is all quite interesting... I didn't know any of the mystery and scandal surrounding the transposition (or lack of) the Three Pieces.
You learn something new EVERY day! Thanks to this board, my clarinet nerd-ness is reaching an all time high!
Tara
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-02-06 20:27
William wrote:
>> I read of a clarinetist asking Igor about certain notes and rhythums in the "Three Pieces" and his reply was something to the effect, [paraphrased] "I don't remember--play it your way">>
That's probably why Stravinsky wrote, in JWC1151, "Dans ces 3 pièces respecter toutes les respirations, les accents et le mouvement métronomique."
>> As a young musician, I first heard the Three Piecies played by Reginald Kell, and thats is how I have preferred they should be played. As the twig is bent, so grows the tree, I guess.>>
If that is how you have construed your musical world, then that indeed is how it will turn out to be construed, I guess.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-02-06 20:42
I wrote:
>> Bryan wrote: "The first two pieces where correctly transposed, but the third appears exactly as it did in the manuscript.">>
<<Could you give us a source for this?>>
The beginning of my contribution to the matter is that Nicholas Hare (editor of the 1993 version) says he's now retired and can't remember the details of his viewing of the MS. I am in touch with Chester Music, to whom he has returned his files, and perhaps they can help.
Meanwhile, can Bryan please answer my query? (I suspect, from what other people have said, that Neidich has recorded III a tone higher, and wrote about it on his record sleeve -- but that's just a guess on my part.)
Tara wrote:
>> I didn't know any of the mystery and scandal surrounding the transposition (or lack of) the Three Pieces.>>
No, neither did I -- but I STILL don't, until I'm given some information that has a better provenance than the recent report here on Stanley Drucker's health.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2008-02-07 04:07
Tony Pay wrote "(I suspect, from what other people have said, that Neidich has recorded III a tone higher, and wrote about it on his record sleeve -- but that's just a guess on my part.)"
I heard that concert of Mr. Neidich in 2004-05. I don't know if he has recorded the pieces sice then.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2008-02-07 06:11
On the Naxos CD 8.557505 Charles Neidich performs the Stravinsky 3 pieces at the "traditional pitch" (ending on concert A flat). This was recorded in 1999.
I'd be very interested to hear a version with the 3rd mvt transposed (and to discover if this was indeed the composers intention).
donald
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-02-07 11:42
Donald wrote:
>> I'd be very interested to hear a version with the 3rd mvt transposed (and to discover if this was indeed the composers intention).>>
Well, you could try PLAYING it like that. But pretty clearly it can't have been the composer's intention, otherwise he'd have said so.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: elmo lewis
Date: 2008-02-07 23:25
Still waiting for brycon to back up his statement with some documentation.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-02-08 13:58
Elmo Lewis wrote:
>>Still waiting for brycon to back up his statement with some documentation.>>
On checking Bryan's history here, I see that he is or was a pupil of Neidich's, so perhaps the information is essentially direct from Neidich, and it would be up to him to say where he got it. (He might have viewed the original himself in Winterthur, of course.)
Anyhow, Chester Music are looking into their Archives, and will respond when the file arrives at their London office, they tell me.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2008-02-08 18:34
It would be great to see the autograph copy of this work so many of us can have some answers. Let us know when Chester contacts you Tony!
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-02-14 11:13
Bryan wrote:
>> The manuscript for the 3 pieces was written in C, and in the margin Stravinsky wrote A clarinet for the first two pieces and Bb for the third. Stravinsky must have assumed the publisher would transpose the parts for production.
>> The first two pieces [were] correctly transposed, but the third appears exactly as it did in the manuscript. >>
So, it turns out that this is complete codswallop. The notes of the manuscript are identical in pitch to what is published in JWC1151, apart from minor corrections that Stravinsky made prior to publication. It would be nice to know something about the process of publication, but unfortunately the relevant correspondence between Stravinsky and Chesters has been lost.
The MS has a title page for each piece, viz:
Première pièce pour Clarinette solo en La (de préférence)
Deuxième pièce pour Clarinette solo en La (de préférence)
Troisième pièce pour Clarinette solo
...so if there is any argument to be made about transposing the last movement, it must rest ENTIRELY on the missing 'en Sib (de préférence)' -- but that's pretty thin, given that Stravinsky heard and coached the pieces in his lifetime, and SAID that he wanted the last movement played on the Bb, quite apart from what is written in JWC1151.
So Tara's 'mystery and scandal' applies rather more to the behaviour of those who put the false rumour about in the first place:-(
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2008-02-14 13:13
Thank you Tony, for putting your connections at our disposal and getting to the root of the missinformation!
Greatly appreciated!
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2008-02-14 19:47
Yeah, James, Tony just plain rocks in my opinion...
Vernacularly yours,
Katrina
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: elmo lewis
Date: 2008-02-15 18:59
But - if the original manuscript is in Winterthur, what manuscript does Chester have? Presumably Igor wouldn't send his only copy to Chester. He kept the original and made another copy for Chester. He may have done some transposing at that time. I would still like to know what the Winterthur copy looks like although the fact that Stravinsky was personally involved in Chester's publication is important evidence.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-02-15 20:44
elmo lewis wrote:
>> But - if the original manuscript is in Winterthur, what manuscript does Chester have?>>
They have a photocopy of what is in Winterthur.
>> Presumably Igor wouldn't send his only copy to Chester. He kept the original and made another copy for Chester. He may have done some transposing at that time.>>
I thought I had been sufficiently clear when I wrote:
>> It would be nice to know something about the process of publication, but unfortunately the relevant correspondence between Stravinsky and Chesters has been lost.>>
...so we don't know how the publication was organised between IS and Chester. Clearly photocopy was not available technology in 1920, but all Chester now have is JWC1151 and a photocopy of the original in Winterthur, which is enough to give the lie to what Bryan, and perhaps Neidich, claimed.
>> I would still like to know what the Winterthur copy looks like although the fact that Stravinsky was personally involved in Chester's publication is important evidence.>>
I've already spoken about the note pitches, which are as in JWC1151, but the manuscript looks very different from what I have seen of other later Stravinsky scores, I have to say. First of all, it's on many more pages than I would have imagined, the format being A4 landscape with 8 five-line staves to a page. Stravinsky leaves a blank stave between each line of his MS; movement I takes 2 pages, movement II 4 pages, and movement III 5 pages, with an introductory page for the title of each movement as I described.
The handwriting was also surprising to me, in ink with great variation of line thickness.
You may also be interested in the overall title page, which reads, enclosed in a double black rectangular border:
"Musique pour Clarinette-Solo et pour Werner Reinhart composée par Igor Strawinsky"
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2008-02-15 21:16
Tony -
Has the MS ever been reproduced? I'd love to get a look at it.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-02-15 22:52
Ken Shaw wrote:
>> Has the MS ever been reproduced? I'd love to get a look at it.>>
As far as I know, not. I'd never seen it before, and actually hesitated before asking Chester to see a photocopy if they had one (which I didn't know at the time). I imagine copyright is a problem, as it is in the case of the Mozart sketch that the people at Winterthur asked Mark to take off the Bulletin Board -- but actually, that's now available via the online NMA, as I think you know.
I'll find out.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2008-02-16 15:16
Tony Pay wrote,
>>> It would be nice to know something about the process of publication, but unfortunately the relevant correspondence between Stravinsky and Chesters has been lost.>>>
and he later added,
>>...so we don't know how the publication was organised between IS and Chester. Clearly photocopy was not available technology in 1920, but all Chester now have is JWC1151 and a photocopy of the original in Winterthur, which is enough to give the lie to what Bryan, and perhaps Neidich, claimed.
>>
I'll be interested to see what information turns up from your inquiry. It's possible that Chester might own period photographs of the original manuscript in addition to modern photocopies. While Xeroxing and like techniques were unavailable, black and white photography was highly advanced by 1920, and arguably better-quality than most of the photographic techniques available today. While I'm not familiar with music publishers' practices in the 1920s, some book and magazine publishers did use photographs then, in order to protect original copies and fragile or insufficient carbon copies.
Book and magazine publishers expected an author to submit the original with two carbon copies, but often an author would neglect to correct all of the errors on the carbons or would correct them illegibly--a serious problem, because, typically, the publisher would give the copy editor one of the carbons, not the original. (My information comes from my work as a book and story reviewer and from my paternal grandmother, who wrote short fiction and articles for magazines and murder mysteries for the Doubleday Crime Club in the 1920s and 1930s.) After the copy editor finished, when the publisher then sent an author pre-publication galley proofs, the author might dispute something a copy-editor had added or deleted. At that point, the publisher might give the copy-editor (or a different copy editor, if the author got the screaming oopazooticks over the first one...) photographs of the original manuscript pages containing the disputed material, to sort out the problem.
FWIW, during an earlier discussion here about Reginald Kell's performance, I looked at the earliest copies of the Stravinsky in the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., USA. The LoC's three earliest copies are all Chester firsts, two given to the LoC in 1920 and the third in 1923. All three appear to have been printed from the same set of plates. Unfortunately, the LoC hasn't got a photocopy of the manuscript.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
