 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: RefacerMan
Date: 2019-01-10 20:08
In the Presto first movement of the Polovtsian Dances Clarinet 1 part there is a measure that I sometimes come across in excerpt books that has an accidental that does not appear in the original part or score. Example 1 is as it appears in the part and Example 2 is as it appears in the Bonade excerpt book and also in Pete Hadcock's book. Which is correct?
Post Edited (2019-01-10 20:18)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2019-01-10 21:34
Attachment: polovtsiandances.png (123k)
It's an F# according to the orchestral part, but could that be an error on Rimsky-Korsakov's part?
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2019-01-11 03:22
The (first edition) score on IMSLP has the same thing that you quote from the part in Ex. 1. No natural on the 5th eighth-note to cancel the sharp on the 3rd one. And it's repeated 4 bars later the same way. So that score and the part match.
If there's a reason in the harmony to favor F-natural over F-sharp, I don't see it. So my strong inclination would be to think F-sharp is correct.
However, the fact that F-natural is in both the Bonade and the Hadcock books might argue that the accepted practice has been to bring the F back to a natural in spite of everything. It's a solo passage and no conductor worth his salt would miss the change from the literal text. So you'd have to assume that both players were actually asked to make the change by conductors since there seems to be no reason other than possible mis-reading for playing F-natural. Maybe some erratum that Borodin corrected in rehearsal that never made it into the published edition. Maybe F-natural is in the MS. But even in the vocal score that was published, apparently, at the same time as the orchestral edition, the passage appears as it does in Ex. 1.
If I were pressed (I don't remember what note I played when I last did this), I'd play it as written with the F# and see if I got a reaction from the conductor. In the final analysis, I'm not sure it matters much.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2019-01-11 06:24
Confusing for sure, but I've played this about 5 or 6 times and it's always been settled to be played as an F natural. What a fun and great piece to play.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bsnake1956
Date: 2019-01-11 22:49
Bob is absolutely correct. I have also played this many times. The F#'s are simply passing tones to make it to G. F natural is the correct note for the passage in question. A blast to play. But don't mess it up. Everyone knows it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2019-01-11 23:06
bsnake1956 wrote:
> Bob is absolutely correct. I have also played this many times.
> The F#'s are simply passing tones to make it to G.
I agree that F-natural sounds better, and I think I've probably played it that way. But it happens twice. A misprint might be an explanation once, but I think you have to wonder about it and maybe listen with fresh ears when the "error" is repeated, especially when both the score and a contemporaneous piano/vocal reduction also agree with the "misprint." After all, if the notation is taken literally, the note *should* be F-sharp.
To RefacerMan, listen to a few recordings on YouTube. If they're unanimous in playing F-natural, then at least you have "performance tradition" to lean on.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2019-01-12 03:22
Check the Del Marr book for orchestral misprints
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2019-01-12 04:23
The Del Marr book? I know the Hadcock book, the older McGinnins and Bonade Books, the Kalmen Bloch books, the Temple-Savage book, etc. Could you be more specific in listing the complete title and author's name?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2019-01-12 14:32
Norman Del Mar, Orchestral Variations: Confusion and Error in the Orchestral Repertoire.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2019-01-13 00:00
cigleris wrote:
> Norman Del Mar, Orchestral Variations: Confusion and Error in
> the Orchestral Repertoire.
>
So, this seems to be an exhaustive book on the subject of orchestral errata, but it's expensive if you can find a copy for sale. It's available as a non-circulating reference resource in several libraries in my area, including the Free Library of Philadelphia, where I have an account, but I'd have to travel into the city to look through it (including driving over a long stretch of construction-congested I-95). Not worth the trouble.
If anyone has easier access to the book, a few of us would appreciate reading here a paraphrase of what Dr. Del Mar has to say, if anything, about this piece.
I *am* grateful for the reference to it - I had never heard of it.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2019-01-13 10:16
There could be a whole string of human error from Borodin's original sketches to Rimsky-Korsakov's (and Glazunov's) orchestration to the publisher's score and extracting and typesetting the individual parts.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MusikFind1
Date: 2019-11-22 00:09
In the Critical Corrected edition edited from the manuscript by Clinton F. Nieweg and Nancy M. Bradburd the F natural is used.
Measure 120 and 124 has on beat 2 G, F#, E. Measure 122 and 126 has on beat 2 G, F-nat, E.
The manuscript confirms the difference in the two measures, as does the harmony notated.
Kalmus publication A1336 which is being transferred to Serenissima Music, available from EMS.
https://www.emsmusic.com/product_p/emsg21617.htm
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
