NOTATIO

In the quest for an accurate text, some editors "generally refrain...from standardizing dynamics and articulation in parallel passages. We only standardize where a difference in notation is obviously due to carelessness." (from the notes to the new Henle edition of Beethoven's piano sonatas edited by Gertsh and Perahia.) Claudio Arrau's otherwise excellent edition of the sonatas has the same philosophy.

The older approach was to assume that discrepancies between parallel passages were a bad thing and needed to be fixed, but now greater weight is given to the differences, on the theory that Beethoven's creativity sometimes expressed itself through small differences in the performance indications.

It is fascinating to see the way fashions in all matters human seem to swing back and forth between extremes. I am sure that there is some sociological term for this. Being an idealist, however, I don't put much stock in fashions, and just want the truth, which I am sure exists and can be determined.

As I have discussed in several previous posts, I consider that many of the apparent discrepancies in Beethoven's piano sonatas are the result of "progressive correction". Beethoven decides that he doesn't like something, and from that point on changes it to something else. Rather than correcting the earlier occurrences by crossing out or erasing and making a mess of the manuscript, he assumes that the engravers will catch on and apply the change throughout. Chopin did exactly the same in his Etudes and probably other works.

Other discrepancies are simply errors by the engraver in reading the manuscript, or oversights by the composer. In my opinion, such inconsistencies should be allowed to stand only in a very few special cases and when they are, they must be explained in the editorial notes.

Here is an example that I just encountered: In the first movement of Beethoven's piano Sonata op. 7 the slurring at X not only doesn't match Y, but doesn't follow Beethoven's usual practice of avoiding slurring over repeated tones in a melody, which I have mentioned in an earlier post. it also sounds a little strange, for a reason that will be explained below.

Despite this, it is engraved exactly as it stands in Claudio Arrau's edition for Peters.

The following analysis shows that the slurring that Beethoven uses at Y must be the intended one, because the slurring at X completely breaks up and otherwise obscures at A and B the two-note motive (bracketed) that is forming an ascending sequence. This motive is the main idea of the the entire movement and stands out throughout. Many older editions, including Schenker's have corrected X to conform with Y. I will do the same. Adherence to the original sources is a very good thing, but there can be "too much of a good thing".

In Pergolesi's MS of his Stabat mater, he's clearly "up against a deadline", and stops drawing slurs and articulations on repeated figures, but it's obvious that they should be performed in the same way.

I also see instrumental parts of 18th-century concertante works, where only the Violino concertante and continuo parts have dynamics, but again, these should clearly be applied to all the strings. (I put them in brackets, though.)

Thanks, benwiggy. That is a related topic of interest.

It could also be Pergolesi's standard practice to leave out obvious performance indications on repeated figures. I see this not only in manuscripts but in the first editions of the time. It was both a time saver and a way keep the notation as simple as possible as a matter of principle. They almost seem to consider it insulting or obsessive to state the obvious over and over.

My practice is to put anything conjectural or supplementary in brackets or in dashed form (slurs). When the composer omits markings because they are to be applied to immediate exact repeats or in exact sequences, I do not add the markings but place a small (sim.) to clarify the situation for the modern player. This keeps the text closer to the original.

A recent article in the Henle blog:

https://www.henle.de/blog/en/2022/10/17 ... rto-k-219/

illustrates the problems of standardization in recent music editing.

Rather than repeat the facts, I refer the reader to the article and add the following:

It seems to me that an editor must take the following factors into account in deciding upon the text:

1. How often does Mozart forget ledger lines?
2. How often does Mozart change an appoggiatura in an exact repeat of a passage in a recapitulation?
3. How often does Mozart write an inferior note so that he can write a better one later?

Beethoven omits ledger lines very rarely in his piano sonatas. A famous example occurs in op. 57: Editors universally believe this low A flat to be an error, because the discarded version of the passage in the manuscript has an F. Every edition I know prints low F's, not A flats: I think that the Mozart example is quite similar in that we have the correct version in another area of the manuscript. I think that it is no crime against authenticity and the "urtext principle" to use one's musical judgement and taste to make the final decision about such a matter.

As a composer (that writes with a pencil) I can confirm that so many times I have forgotten _________* or misspelled __________*.
Only when I or someone else copy it in a notation software, the issues arise. Even after that, there is an issue left.

*) pick your option.

If you read the article at Henle blog, OCTO, I would love to know what you think the correct note is in the A major Violin Concerto. I posted with my opinion at the end of the article, and the author kindly responded.

I am no expert on Mozart's manuscripts, but in my experience, they are amazingly accurate, with no apparent corrections. I have never encountered a missing ledger line other than the alleged one in the article, or a missing note or wrong rhythm. However, he does sometimes leave out necessary accidentals, which was his one weakness. Nor do I recall a case where he changes a small detail like a single appoggiatura for no apparent reason when everything else in the phrase repeats exactly.