Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> Well, the German word `Urtext' has *absolutely nothing* to do with the
> autograph! It may be translated best as `that what the composer
> intended to tell the reader', and you all know that the autograph
> isn't necessarily the best source to fulfill this request. `Urtext'
> is an abstract concept.
That is true, and I will add that you will often have a situation
where changes is made by a composer in a score as small marks, in
the margin during rehearsal. These changes often doesn't make it into
official editions, or even official autographs. I know of cases
where it is a known fact, that only the composer know what is errors
in the official autograph, and what is not.
The autographs themselves are not raw material, in comparison with the
(normally) very messy base manuscripts (which may often just be an
unorganized pile of dirty papers), autographs can be filled with
/content errors/, which sneak in during the autograph copy process.
SO not only is urtext an abstract concept, but it makes real good sense
too.
[snip]
> ......I fully agree that composers usually make the
> best editions.
>
I think that depends very much on the personality, some may be very
good,
others not so good and quite a lot may get hurt by dangers similar to
those described by Donald E. Knuth,regarding typography
"Type design can be hazardous to your other interests...",
and end up spending to much time tweaking every little detail in an
edition, while they really really should be spending time on their
new works.
I myself tend to end up in analogue situations.
Best regards,
Michael Nyvang.
--
Ref. DIEM Aarhus http://www.diem.dk/
Ensemble SIC Paris.
