Author: brycon
Date: 2017-10-19 07:06
Quote:
Your reply is really informative here but I feel difficult to follow. Could you include bar numbers in your analysis?
Apologies--didn't have a score with me. It's the pickup into m. 86.
Quote:
For composers like Mozart, usually it is not a good idea to strictly follow the scholarly editions (e.g., NMA). This is mostly because during Mozart's time, composers gave too much freedom to the players in terms of dynamic, articulation etc. This is particularly true for Mozart's clarinet pieces given that the autograph scores of the quintet and concerto are lost and the arranged versions for standard clarinet are of poor quality...
I don't follow the logic. For music from eras that used less markings (or with more things left to performance convention), I think most modern performers would want to know exactly which markings are the composer's and which are the editor's. Scholarly editions of Mozart, then, are more important than those of someone like Elliot Carter, for instance.
To take a more drastic example: if I were playing continuo for a Monteverdi opera, I'd certainly want to know if my pitches were written or the editor's realization of Monteverdi's figured basses, in which case, I'd supply the realization.
Quote:
One reason I haven't followed the markings in that section is that they're all staccato the second time it happens
Well, we know that Mozart didn't often change material in the recapitulation section (as opposed to Haydn and Beethoven). And when we look at that spot in the recap, we see that the music again shifts from major to the minor (D major, here, to the mediant, F# minor)--exactly as it does in the exposition.
Although Mozart's manuscript stops at the end of the exposition, then, it makes complete sense to use the same articulations/phrasing here. So I don't really follow your argument.
Post Edited (2017-10-19 07:10)
|
|