Woodwind.OrgThe Clarinet BBoardThe C4 standard

 
  BBoard Equipment Study Resources Music General    
 
 New Topic  |  Go to Top  |  Go to Topic  |  Search  |  Help/Rules  |  Smileys/Notes  |  Log In   Newer Topic  |  Older Topic 
 How
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 (2025-08-25 13:25)

Reply To Message
 
 Re: How
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
 
 Re: How
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
 
 Re: How
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
 
 Re: How
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
 
 Re: How
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
 
 Re: How
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
 
 Re: How
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
 
 Re: How
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
 Avail. Forums  |  Threaded View   Newer Topic  |  Older Topic 


 Avail. Forums  |  Need a Login? Register Here 
 User Login
 User Name:
 Password:
 Remember my login:
   
 Forgot Your Password?
Enter your email address or user name below and a new password will be sent to the email address associated with your profile.
Search Woodwind.Org

Sheet Music Plus Featured Sale

The Clarinet Pages
For Sale
Put your ads for items you'd like to sell here. Free! Please, no more than two at a time - ads removed after two weeks.

 
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org