The last eight before 36 in the last movement of the Strauss No.2 is indeed misprinted. The "natural" after the written d# (2nd eight in the same measure= concert f#, as the part is in Eb) is missing, but we all played the right note at the end of the measure (last eight notated as d2 = f concert). I´ll have a look into the autograph score later today & let you know about).
Bozza´s "En foret", well many of us play the low "A" (concert d) as mentioned by Christopher, even it is written as one octave higher (the "a" below staff = concert "d"). Most just wanted to demonstrate, that they can play a low "A". But musically, the "a", as written by the composer is much better. He did not use the low "A", nor did he want it. And, is it really a tour de force ? It might be a tour the force for players, who have not yet developed their personal playing technique & embouchure to play this short but obviously demanding piece. x It is now later in the day & I had a look into the piano reduction, Gottfried von Freiberg, my teacher, arranged using the autograph. This arrangement is handwritten & was arranged before the Boosey & Hawkes publication. Voila, there is the natural for the last eight in the measure before the study number 36. The study numbers are by Strauss himself. The solo part is missing the natural, but von Freiberg played the written d & not a d#. And we learned the Concert, using the Boosey publication, but played it with the natural even I never inserted it into my part. The d# would be most unnatural. Just as a reminder, I inserted the natural today. Do we (my generation) or better, did we have a better feeling for such errors or eliminating such errors automatically ? I eventually corrected an error in my part for Ariadne auf Naxos, not only here in Munich, where the second premiere took place, but also in Vienna, when I played there as a guest and they had premiered the opera there, and at other opera houses. Thanks to Christopher Griffin for pointing to that stuff. ++++ Here are the missing tempo adv. In the B&H publication: 1st mov.: M7: missing frei (ad lib.), [1] missing a tempo, 5 meas. after [7] missing rit. t the 3rd beat, 2 meas. after [9] should read poco meno not rit., 4 measures before [14] breiter (piu largo) is missing, two meas. before [18] missing rall. upon the 3rd beat, one measure before [18] missing a tempo upon the last beat. 2nd mov.: four measures before [24] missing "draengen" (drag). 3rd mov.: seven before [35] missing "ruhiger" (meno mosso), one before [35] missing "viel ruhiger" (molto meno mosso), five meas. past [39] missing "calando", ten meas. past [39] missing "tempo primo", eleven meas. past [46] missing "calando", four meas. before [47] missing "accel.", [47] missing "tempo primo", [50] missing "draengen" (drag). That´s all on tempo corrections, when comparing the first performance solo part and the first piano reduction (by Freiberg) with the 1950 Boosey & Hawkes publication. But will these corrections help much, as we live in a time, when "speed" and "show off with technique" seems to be all, when musicianship is missed much ? When "singing the horn" seems to be outdated ? _______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at http://music2.memphis.edu/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
