 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2009-11-30 21:56
Hello Everyone,
I'm performing the Weber next year in a few recitals and was wondering if anyone could recommend an Urtex edition of the work. I have my old Boosey and Hawkes from when I was at school.
I've checked Henle and they don't have it.
Any thoughts appreciated
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-12-01 00:44
The version I have doesn't say Urtext on the cover, but for practical purposes it is one because, as noted in the preface, the editor took the music straight from the manuscript and any editorial marks he made (which are very few in number) he put in brackets to let you know they weren't Weber's. A few dabs of correction fluid and you have yourself an instant Urtext. 
My copy is actually part of a book containing several important pieces. It's called:
"Masterworks for Clarinet and Piano," edited by Eric Simon, published by Schirmer
In addition to the Grand Duo, it also contains Schumann's Fantasy Pieces (in the original A clarinet and Bb transposition) and both Brahms Sonatas (and a couple of other pieces by Weber and Mendelssohn).
Musicroom carries it, and although the price is a little higher than what you can get it for here in the States, at GBP 11.95 it's still a pretty good bargain.
http://www.musicroom.com/se/ID_No/018679/details.html
[Edit -- Now that I'm back at home, here's what the preface says, so you can more easily decide for yourself if you think this will work for your purposes. After a brief discussion of the virtues of using Weber's original phrase marks and other markings over those in Carl Baermann's editions, it says....
"In this edition we present Weber's clarinet works in their original form. All deviations from the original manuscripts and from the basic editions are clearly marked. The editor's additions are put in brackets, and suggested omissions in parentheses. Otherwise, changes are limited to notation only. Suggested breath marks have been added to the clarinet part. Weber's Grand Duo Concertant for Clarinet and Piano was composed in 1815-16. It is his last work for clarinet. Our edition is based on the autograph, now in the Library of Congress, and on the first edition."
Simon also wrote an article for "The Clarinet" on the subject of Weber's original manuscripts, which you might find interesting (if nothing else, Simon makes a great case for why you should always use an Urtext edition):
http://www.clarinet.org/Anthology1.asp?Anthology=11 ]
Post Edited (2009-12-01 04:29)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LarryBocaner ★2017
Date: 2009-12-01 02:28
Schott Edition (KLB 58) is "Nach dem Text der Carl-Maria-von Weber-Gesamtausgabe..." with profligate musicalogical footnotes. I'm not sure that it's the most practical performing edition, though.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2009-12-01 02:50
The Master Works book is a great book for the price. Simon was a very good editor. I highly recommend it. Besides, I studied with him for several years. ESP http://eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2009-12-01 12:06
Tony,
Thanks so much. At least now I can make a performance judgement by comparing my Boosey and Weber's original.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-12-01 18:13
Thanks for posting that, Tony. It looks to be slightly different than the Simon edition I have (which is based on the first edition as well as the manuscript). The one thing Simon doesn't say is which of the two sources he's pulling from at any given time--but now I can see what he did.
I just briefly looked through your PDF version, but there were a couple of things that didn't look quite right to me--I wasn't sure if that's because that's what the manuscript looks like or if it's just a typo or something, so I thought I'd ask.
In the 3rd mvt. the second trill looks like it should be a B natural instead of a B flat, I think (because it's the leading tone of a V-I cadence in C). Likewise, I think the nachschlag in the previous measure is probably a B natural, too.
The next line down where the C# trills occur also looks funny, like it's missing an accidental somewhere. If the first C# trill is tied to the next C#, it seems like the next trill should have a sharp sign. On the other hand, if it's a slur rather than a tie, the second C# under the slur ought to have a sharp sign.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2009-12-01 22:03
Mike wrote:
>> In the 3rd mvt. the second trill looks like it should be a B natural instead of a B flat, I think (because it's the leading tone of a V-I cadence in C). >>
Yes, that's right. Mistake on my part: the MS does indeed have a natural sign in front of it, which I should have reproduced.
>> Likewise, I think the nachschlag in the previous measure is probably a B natural, too.>>
Yes, I agree; however, this doesn't have a natural sign in the MS.
As you say, the context requires a B natural in both cases.
>> The next line down where the C# trills occur also looks funny, like it's missing an accidental somewhere. If the first C# trill is tied to the next C#, it seems like the next trill should have a sharp sign.>>
In this case, though, the 'next trill' doesn't have a sharp sign in the MS, though 'technically' it should have, in order to make sense. However, I have reproduced what is in the MS -- as had been my intention throughout.
You should clearly play C#.
>> On the other hand, if it's a slur rather than a tie, the second C# under the slur ought to have a sharp sign.>>
I don't really understand what you mean by the difference between a slur and a tie. There is a ligature connecting the two notes, written rather late in the bar.
To add to the confusion, in the MS, the nachschlag is incomplete; there is only one gracenote, a semiquaver C, with what might be a miswritten B or a sharp sign in front of it.
There are a couple of instances of this sort of inconsistency on Weber's part -- they don't excuse my own error above, of course -- but they, like my own error, are the sort of thing that a performer would 'naturally' correct. For instance, the first clarinet entry after the pause after the second time bar is written: (quaver rest) E G# B E F G A and then B in the next bar.
Everyone (rightly) plays F# and G#, not F natural and G natural.
The point of posting the pdf was a rather different one, however, to do with making clear the extent to which subsequent editing (as in the 'lusingando' section I mention in the the thread in which the pdf appears) routinely applies dynamic markings like crescendos, contra both Weber's MS and the classical tradition.
You might want to do that, of course; but you should at least have the option not to do so available to you.
Tony
Post Edited (2009-12-01 22:20)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-12-02 04:05
Attachment: ties.pdf (19k)
Tony Pay wrote:
> >> On the other hand, if it's a slur rather than a tie, the
> second C# under the slur ought to have a sharp sign.>>
>
> I don't really understand what you mean by the difference
> between a slur and a tie. There is a ligature connecting the
> two notes, written rather late in the bar.
Sorry. I think I was kind of getting ahead of myself, so what I wrote wasn't exactly clear.
What I was trying to figure out was what the purpose of the ligature mark was, and I was going about it in an admittedly roundabout way. One way of interpreting the ligature would be as a tie, and by that I mean that the two C#'s are played as a single note (and in this case I suppose it would mean one long trill) with a duration equal to that of the two notated C#'s combined. The other way would be as a slur, and in this context what I mean by that is that the second C# is articulated as you would a passage of notes with staccato dots under a slur (since the second C# also has a dot--I think the Italian term for this is portato, but I've never heard any wind players call it that before)--so if the ligature is a slur, you play two C#'s, and if it's a tie you play one.
The reason I brought up the accidental signs was that with two tied notes across a barline, you generally don't put an accidental sign on the second note, because the two tied notes are considered one note. I think you'd need a sharp on that next trill, then, because at that point you would not have had any previous C# in that bar (the tied-over C# "belongs" to the previous bar, not this one).
If the mark is a slur, on the other hand, you have two notes rather than one, so you have to put sharp signs on both of them. The second C# trill, then, wouldn't need an sharp sign, because you already had a C# start in that bar.
This sort of distinction comes up frequently when you use a text-based program like Lilypond (like I do) to write scores. You use one sort of syntax for ties and another for slurs. You get different results that way. For instance, if you write:
{ cis'1~ cis'2 cis'2( cis'2) cis'2 }
in Lilypond (the tilde means tie this note to the next one, whereas the open and close parentheses mean "begin slur with this note" and "end slur with this note") you get a result like in the attached PDF--the first ligature is a tie and the second one is a slur. I'm not sure how Sibelius handles this sort of thing--I'm guessing you probably just draw the same kind of mark for both slurs and ties and Sibelius doesn't care what it means. Lilypond would not let you write the two C#'s in that bar in Grand Duo with no accidentals whatsoever unless you explicitly told it to override the usual conventions or told it to write a C instead of a C#.
I probably never would have given this much thought had I not started using Lilypond to write all my scores. Funny how computers can force you to think about such seemingly trivial things.
Thanks again!
Mike
Post Edited (2009-12-03 07:10)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda ★2017
Date: 2011-10-08 00:27
After many years of leaving this piece in my box of sheet music I'm finally at the point where I'm brushing it off again. This one seems to be easy under the fingers, unlike other pieces I've struggled with for exams, but the above notes written by each of you will be valuable. I've owned this sheet music for over 35 years ever since I first heard it. Now after years of lessons, Trio performances, STUFF happening in life, I'm finally ready to dig in and polish it. It's just way easier than when I attempted it all those years ago.
The trills are all started from above, I assume. That's just about the hardest detail to internalize.
The Burgmüller Duo is another piece of cake, however. That one I'm having to whittle at from time to time. My piano accompanist heard this piece played by James Campbell so once she told me about it I obtained the recording and the sheet music. We're both hoping to get this not-so-well-known piece ready for performance in due time.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
