 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2009-11-13 03:28
I have the Dowani Tri Tempi edition of the concerto, and it is missing most of the articulation.
So, I bought the Fisher edition, and it has bad rhythms and no cadenza.
What edition is the "authoritative" one? Please, I need to prepare it by December 2nd.
Thanks
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2009-11-13 14:48
Thank you, Glen; I've ordered a copy.
It appears that there are two versions of the concerto. I thought that a performance on youTube was terrible in that the performer "missed" some of the details of the rhythm. In the first movement, a descending figure in one of my versions is straight 1/16ths; while in the other, the descent hesitates for a full 1/8 and later makes up for that by playing the last 6 notes as a sextolet.
Strange.
The version I've ordered includes the Baermann cadenza.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2009-11-13 16:47
Henle provides both a transcription of the earliest available edition (without going back to read the notes, I think it comes from a set of early performance parts or maybe the first published edition), which is considered to be more urtext - i.e. closer to what Weber actually wrote - and a version transcribed from sources based on H. Baermann's performance practice, which has ornamentation and articulations not in the "original." Earlier 20th century editions like Fischer, Schirmer and others are, it seems to me, closer to the Baermann version.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: djphay
Date: 2009-11-13 23:41
Weber churned out both Concertos (concerti) very quickly, and apparently he was prone to miss out a lot of dynamic markings and articulation. Both were written for Carl Baermann, who added considerable adornments to them during performances, apparently with Weber's consent.
Debate now rages as to what version is actually correct, as Carl's son Henrich published an edition after both Carl Baermann's and Weber's deaths that apparently incorporated the Baermann embellishments, which extend beyond the cadenza in the 1st movement. The accuracy of this is unknown, as apparently Henrich was only a very small boy when he travelled with his father when he performanced the work.
I have the Verlag edition, which contains both the rather pared down urtext and the Henrich Baermann version. The Baermann version differs rhythmically in places too, with straight 16ths replaced with combinations of sixteenths, eighths and triplets.
I learned the concerto using a high school copy of the Brietkopft edition, which was closer to the Baermann, but when I obtained a later copy of the Breitkopft for myself, it contained a pared-down, urtext version. There seems to be some variation even between different copies of the same edition.
Personally I prefer the Baermann, simply because it gives me more of a steer as to dynamics, articulation and is what I learned initially. I've also never heard a performance or recording of this work that hasn't been closer to the Baermann version than the urtext.DavidBlumberg wrote:
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-11-14 00:47
djphay wrote:
> Debate now rages as to what version is actually correct, as
> Carl's son Henrich published an edition after both Carl
> Baermann's and Weber's deaths
I think you have the names reversed. Weber's clarinetist was Heinrich Baermann. Carl Baermann was his son.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2009-11-14 09:13
David wrote:
>> Debate now rages as to what version is actually correct, >>
I think the thing to see is that there is no such thing as 'correct' in this instance. What I applaud about the Henle edition is that it gives you all the information you need to make an informed choice of how to play the piece yourself.
Weber wrote 'thinly' at least partly because he knew his clarinettist Heinrich Baermann would make free with what he was given. In Carl Baermann's edition we have some evidence of what that freedom entailed, unavoidably filtered of course through his son's memory.
All the other editions are just what later clarinet players have seen fit to add of their own.
I would say that the Henle edition carries an implied message to us. It is, "We at Henle are not interested in adding further to the plethora of self-serving promotional versions produced by other publishing houses and their pet modern clarinet players. We give you the scholarship, which consists of BOTH versions of the clarinet part, and leave you to make up your own minds which of Baermann's additions you want to follow, which of them you want to ignore, and the implied freedom to create whatever additions of your own you feel to be true to the spirit of the work and its time."
Good for them.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: elmo lewis
Date: 2009-11-20 23:30
Next year Schott will publish the Weber Complete Edition including scores for the concertos. Piano reductions will follow. It will be interesting to see if there are any differences with the Henle.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2009-11-21 04:32
i got the Henle edition today, and is fascinating. In the 10-years that Heinrich Barmann had the sole performance rights to the piece, he phrased it beautifully; and it is a real joy to read his (an his son's) transcription!
In contrast, the Weber version is pretty dead and is without many hints for expressivity.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-11-21 19:48
Bob Phillips wrote:
> In contrast, the Weber version is pretty dead and is without
> many hints for expressivity.
Back in the good old days composers didn't write in a whole lot of expressive marks--they expected the performers to be able to figure out what to do themselves. That was certainly true of Weber's Uncle Wolfgang and his clarinet concerto--I imagine Weber himself probably took a somewhat similar approach.
Another thing to keep in mind about Weber was that often he wrote in a hurry. According to Pamela Weston, he wrote the Concertino in 3 days and orchestrated the 1st movement of the Concerto we're talking about in a day. Where he wanted a particular articulation, he'd write it in only the first time it appears. So it's no surprise that Weber's original keeps the expressive markings to a minimum.
So it's not really fair to call Weber's original "dead." It's just that Weber doesn't spoon-feed the performer with the expressive/stylistic elements of the music. He expects the performers to understand the style and fill in the expressive details themselves.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2009-11-23 14:37
Mike wrote:
>> So it's not really fair to call Weber's original "dead." It's just that Weber doesn't spoon-feed the performer with the expressive/stylistic elements of the music. He expects the performers to understand the style and fill in the expressive details themselves.>>
That's true.
But there's a further wrinkle, in my view. It's not just that Weber was anticipating Baermann's nuances.
He was writing 'thinly' because that's what people like Mozart did routinely before him.
When Weber writes his scores -- and this applies to Beethoven too, for that matter -- he is writing 'into' a classical performance background -- one that would have been shared by the run-of-the-mill performers of the time. That background meant that the notation of a relatively undadorned score was to be interpreted according to the classical tradition, just as Mozart's music was interpreted.
So, what is written ON TOP OF THAT by Baermann doesn't throw away those classical structures. Instead, Baermann's notations are best thought of as nuances 'on top of' the classical structures.
And actually, that's true of Beethoven's scores as well.
If I may put it this way: it's not as though you do NOTHING when you're not being TOLD what to do:-)
Here are some relevant posts of mine about the Weber to the Klarinet list:
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/2000/07/000107.txt
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/2000/07/000114.txt
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/2004/07/000916.txt
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2009-11-23 19:50
Thank you mrn and Tony.
I've spent a lot of effort trying to get the clarinet mechanics out of the way so that I can use it to make music. Therefore, I'm new to taking black marks on a page and turning them into music that is worth listening to.
I never fail to be enlightened by my teacher when I bring a prepared piece in to him for review. It is amazing how insightful he is. "Bob, that's riff is difficult, but it is not important; it is merely a pick-up to the following D."
I can work for hours on something only to have him improve my interpretation while sight reading the piece.
I'm hungry for that sort of insight.
And, the third of Tony's links demonstrates how, I hope, to learn to "see."
thanks
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
