\"\"
Piano Forum logo

How to tell quality of scores? (Read 6471 times)

Offline Bob

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16118
How to tell quality of scores?
« on: July 18, 2005, 01:47:42 AM »
This was mentioned in the pf website board a little.

I'm wondering how to tell how much editting has gone into a score.  I had a teacher that knew that such-and-such an edition had been revised three times and edited in a way that was against what the composer meant.  I'm wonder how the teacher knew that.  Is it written down somewhere or printed on the score itself somehow?

It's the lineage of the score I guess.  How it got from the composers pen into my hands.  How many middle people were involved?

How can I find this out?
Favorite new teacher quote -- "You found the only possible wrong answer."

Offline Bob

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16118
Re: How to tell quality of scores?
«Reply #1 on: July 18, 2005, 01:52:29 AM »
Favorite new teacher quote -- "You found the only possible wrong answer."

Offline pianonut

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1618
Re: How to tell quality of scores?
«Reply #2 on: July 18, 2005, 02:10:47 AM »
bob, i've wondered the same myself.  i thought henle was indisputable.  then, come to find out (as i was playing yesterday) that there are a few differences (important ones) between mozart's fantasy in c minor in the henle vs. the presser (edited by nathan broder).  NEVER argue with your piano teacher (or just do as you please).  cheaper or more expensive isn't the key - it is, as you say, the closest you can get to the original that the composer wrote.  some people just write in the changes in their score so they don't have to go and buy another better one.  but, i like to read what's in the front cover.

a fun thing to do is just to walk into the music store and check out the various editions by looking at them and comparing.  editio musica budapest also is good for scarlatti - lots of sonatas in one book and easy to read - and, i believe, accurate. 
do you know why benches fall apart?  it is because they have lids with little tiny hinges so you can store music inside them.  hint:  buy a bench that does not hinge.  buy it for sturdiness.

Offline odsum25

  • PS Silver Member
  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 79
Re: How to tell quality of scores?
«Reply #3 on: July 18, 2005, 02:34:40 AM »
I believe the Dover Scarlatti are reprints of Longo, which would be very bad. I prefer Presser for Mozart, since it came up.

Offline pianonut

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1618
Re: How to tell quality of scores?
«Reply #4 on: July 18, 2005, 03:32:00 AM »
thanks! i made a mistake (should have gone downstairs to look) editio musica budapest on the scarlatti has both the L and K listings (which helps if someone asks for one or the other).  when you are a professional pianist, maybe they (teachers) never ask you for anything but the kirpatrick number.?

i realize i meant presser, not dover on the mozart (just looked at it again...it has similarity in print to dover - as it is readable! and even has measures numbered).  edited by nathan broder.

you can get the emb (editio musica budapest) for the scarlatti at some music stores, but here's also the address:
 Tel (361) 483-3100  e mail: musicpubl@emb.hu  internet: http://www.emb.hu  this edition has a forward that explains scarlatti's markings and correct interpretation. 

breitkopf and hartel (along with artaria) were among the first to publish the autographs of mozart
broder claims (in presser edition) that henle made the mistake of not distinguishing between the autographs and what comes from the early editions.  also, he says that peters does not as a rule distinguish betweeen the original material and editorial suggestions.

not being a scholar, yet, but wondering about these things also...i like bernhards suggestion of at least looking at facimiles (to see if you can make heads or tails of some and compare with your edition).  some urtexts actually have photos of the autographs.  the barenreiter urtext has this in it's kadenzen und eingange (cadenzas and lead- ins to the piano concertos)they are found at www.baerenreiter.com

very good read at the beginning!

 
do you know why benches fall apart?  it is because they have lids with little tiny hinges so you can store music inside them.  hint:  buy a bench that does not hinge.  buy it for sturdiness.

Offline bernhard

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5078
Re: How to tell quality of scores?
«Reply #5 on: July 18, 2005, 11:04:46 AM »
The best way to answer this question is to examine how a score comes to be in our hands.

1.   The composer hears the music in his head (or improvises it on the piano or both). He then writes it down. He may be very happy with it as it is (Mozart, Schubert), or he may obsess over it for years writing and rewriting it (Beethoven, Chopin). Anyway, at some point he will have a handwritten, more or less unintelligible score. This is the autograph. If the composer happens to be very neat (like those kids in school who had very good calligraphy), you can look at the autograph and read it without too much difficulty (e.g. Bach). Or he may have terrible writing skills (like Medical doctors) and you cannot make heads or tails of it (e.g. Beethoven, Chopin). So if they are considerate enough, they must sit down with the autograph and rewrite it carefully and in “good calligraphy.

2.   This is of course, the “fair copy” – a handwritten copy of the original made with care and clear calligraphy to help the publisher. And here the problems start. First the composer may make mistakes when copying from his own manuscript. Second most composers did not bother to make a fair copy leaving to the publisher to decipher the autographs. And come up with…

3.   The first edition. This is the first version of a commercial, industrially produced, nicely printed, clear score. In the old days that was all the public had access to. Only the publishers and the composers would see the autograph and the fair copy. Naturally there are again many opportunities for little mistakes to creep in – both unintentional and intentional: the publisher may misread the autograph/fair copy – or the publisher may think that what the composer wrote cannot possibly be right and make amendments.

4.   Sometimes the composer is given a chance to correct the first edition. Sometimes not (he may have died – as in the case of Chopin – or he simply may not be given the rights – like it often happens in the movie business when the producer ultimately decides the final form of a movie, not the director). If the composer does correct the first edition, then we have the 2nd edition. Again many things may happen here: The 2nd edition may not have been corrected at all. The original publisher may have sold the rights to another publishing house who does whatever they want with the piece without any concerns for the composer’s wishes. The composer may have thought again of the piece and decides to “improve” on it (Chopin was always doing that so different editions of his work were often different because he kept changing his mind).

5.   Moreover, in the 19th century printed scores were the equivalent of radio and TV today. They were aimed at the family house market, and the amateur pianist. The publishers always felt necessary to “help” by adding fingerings, articulation directions, phrasing signs, etc. In the 18th century and before, by contrast, scores were aimed at professional musicians who had been schooled in a living musical tradition, so that many performance directions were not necessary: the musician would simply know what to do. Hence the almost absence of any kind of articulation marks and performance directions in Baroque composers autographs, fair copies and first editions. It is not that the composer did not want the players to use them. It is just that he did not need to write them down because the professional musicians who would use them would know exactly what to do. In the 19th century, purchasers and users of scores either had no idea of this knowledge, or the knowledge itself had been lost. So publishers started asking musicians to add performance directions to the score when the composer had not supplied them. Hence Czerny editions of Bach being so heavily edited. Such editions are very interesting simply because they tell us how the editor played the pieces. So a lot of variation in these editions show not a variation of the music, but a variation of the performance. In the old days, without recordings, unless you could go to a concert and see a legendary pianist play the piece, you would have no idea how to emulate it. For instance, there is a very interesting edition of the Beethoven sonatas by Claudio Arrau, with strange fingerings and all sorts of extraneous performing directions. It is basically the way Arrau played the sonatas. Nowadays, such is not necessary anymore because there are CDs and DVDs that show us how piano legends played the pieces, so the responsibility for editions falls in the  shoulders of musicologists, rather than performers, and many times such editions can be as bad as the previous ones (or as good) simply because more often than not a musicologist will be working from the score rather than from the piano.

So let us sum it up.

We have autographs, fair copies and first editions (in some cases one or more of those may be missing – for instance no on has every come across a single autograph for any of the Scalattti sonatas). All of these ultimately form the basis of any new edition of past music. Then if we are lucky, we have second editions revised by the composer. These in my opinion are the ones to look for.

The best modern editions are usually the ones where the editor has examined the four sources above and came to a sort of compromise which he then should defend in the introductory notes. Most differences between so called “urtexts” reflect different compromises, and by reading the editors arguments one should be able to take sides (or not). I personally like when editors add suggested performance directions and fingerings as long as they make it clear which are their additions and which are not. In this respect the ABRSM editions are my favourites (especially the signature series). Unfortunately they do not cover the entire piano repertory (yet).

Here is a very good thread where xvimbi provides some excellent material on urtext editions:

http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,4582.0.html

http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,3497.0.html

And this may interest you as well:

http://www.omifacsimiles.com/silbiger.html
(in defense of facsimiles)


So, how do you tell the quality of score?

You have to have good judgement.

And how do you get good judgement?

Through experience.

And how doyou get experience?

Through bad judgement. ;D

Best wishes,
Bernhard.
The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side. (Hunter Thompson)

Offline bernhard

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5078
Re: How to tell quality of scores?
«Reply #6 on: July 18, 2005, 11:10:02 AM »
thanks! on some of the scarlatti it has both the L and K listings (which helps if someone asks for one or the other).  when you are a professional pianist, maybe they (teachers) never ask you for anything but the kirpatrick number.?

I guess it ultimately depnds on the age of the teacher (and recordings). Pre 1953 teachers and CDs wtill use L numbers (K numbers only came into use in 1953).

K numbers are now more or less standard (they are meant alos to be chronological).

But there are other numbering systems (mostly they challenge Kirkpatrick's chornology), like Pesteli's (P numbers).

Since there are no autographs for the Scarlatti sonatas, and since the fair copies were probably not organised by date of composition it is very difficult to decide it one way or another. :P

Best wishes,
Bernhard.
The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side. (Hunter Thompson)

Offline pianonut

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1618
Re: How to tell quality of scores?
«Reply #7 on: July 18, 2005, 12:02:42 PM »
thanks, bernhard for the great explaination!  i like the idea of looking at autographs or facimiles.  you're right about readability on some, but it teaches you more about what was going on in the composer's head and to read scores carefully. 

one of my teacher's said that with various publisher's (beethoven took some of his works to more than one) you have to bring them all together and eliminate errors by comparing which had the watermarks according to publisher's use at the time, which markings are consistent with the composer's handwriting and type of pen (and not editor), and things like that.  it is a science to figure out what is consistent with the times and composer.

at one music store i found a beethoven concerto (IV) in G major for $4.50 because it was an older edition (which are kind of nice even if they are not czerny's) that was kullak's.  it's copyright is 1901 and has notes translated from german by dr. th. baker.  even if it's not urtext - some of the old editions have interesting footnotes. franz kullak wrote a book entitled:  the art of beethoven's piano-playing.  of course, thayer (life of beethoven) is great and taken from direct sources of people who heard beethoven play. 

engraver's errors are not often talked about, but they are mentioned sometimes and it makes one laugh - because maybe even the original had mistakes.  but, as someone pointed out, you have to be discerning and think "does this sound right?  does it follow a pattern (other notes that are similar in other area, or a repeat?) and, does it make sense?"  the last one, does it make sense doesn't always work for me, because i tend to think that certain things beethoven wrote didn't make sense.  but, just like mozart and chopin, he would surprise people with something unexpected - so you have to interpret it without changing it directly to the way you think it should be.

do you know why benches fall apart?  it is because they have lids with little tiny hinges so you can store music inside them.  hint:  buy a bench that does not hinge.  buy it for sturdiness.

Offline xvimbi

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2439
Re: How to tell quality of scores?
«Reply #8 on: July 18, 2005, 02:49:45 PM »
engraver's errors are not often talked about, but they are mentioned sometimes and it makes one laugh - because maybe even the original had mistakes.  but, as someone pointed out, you have to be discerning and think "does this sound right?  does it follow a pattern (other notes that are similar in other area, or a repeat?) and, does it make sense?"  the last one, does it make sense doesn't always work for me, because i tend to think that certain things beethoven wrote didn't make sense.  but, just like mozart and chopin, he would surprise people with something unexpected - so you have to interpret it without changing it directly to the way you think it should be.

The attitude "does this sound right?" has led to a lot of errors (defined as differences between the printed score and what the composer actually wrote down). One often finds editors who decide to change a chord or move a note up or down an octave, because they think it sounds better. Performers are guilty of this sort of thing, too (e.g. Gould). Also, composers did indeed occasionally make "mistakes", to the delight of young aspiring musicologists who write whole theses about harmonic mistakes in Beethoven sonatas, etc.

There are many good arguments for and against why this must be a C in that measure and not a D. I would say, who cares? As long as one is conscious about everything in a score and makes purposeful decisions about how to play something, anything goes (of course only where there is true ambiguity, and even when there is not one can sometimes argue).

Offline Bob

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16118
Re: How to tell quality of scores?
«Reply #9 on: July 18, 2005, 04:21:06 PM »
Anyone have a list of recommended editions handy?  A list of links here maybe?

And esp. why the editions are good?  or the history of that edition?


As an example, ____ is a good Mozart edition because _____, ____, and _____.   This ______ edition is also good.  You want to avoid this ________ Mozart edition at all costs because ______________.

Is there anything like that around here?
Favorite new teacher quote -- "You found the only possible wrong answer."

Offline pianonut

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1618
Re: How to tell quality of scores?
«Reply #10 on: July 18, 2005, 06:37:58 PM »
ABRSM specifies the editions they want played for each level and piece.  i find this interesting and helpful.  maybe there are more sources for correct editions through schools like julliard and curtis institute.  i will look.  west chester university holds to very high standards as well.  they have a whole section of music journals in the library downstairs - you could search for editions - urtext  or something like that!  i'll do it if you want when i go back to school at the end of august.
do you know why benches fall apart?  it is because they have lids with little tiny hinges so you can store music inside them.  hint:  buy a bench that does not hinge.  buy it for sturdiness.

Offline pianonut

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1618
Re: How to tell quality of scores?
«Reply #11 on: July 20, 2005, 01:36:10 AM »
paderewski for chopin because my current teacher, previous teacher, and all the really good piano students have them. 

*idea for bob.  go to a music school, listen outside each door until you find a 'concert quality' pianist.  wait for them to go to the bathroom.  sneak in and copy down all the urtext editions/composers and then leave silently and quickly.  (perhaps using your digital camera to record it all quickly).

or, ask you professor for the keys to his studio to practice and come in some evening.  you could be there until morning if you are really precise about writing down everything in his musical library - including the fingerings to all the chopin etudes.  and, that secret book that he has hidden away (recording all of the eccentricities of each piano student).  of course, if you went on his computer, you could find out your grade, his girlfriends name, send e-mails from him cancelling appointments and recitals - so he has lots of time for more lessons.
do you know why benches fall apart?  it is because they have lids with little tiny hinges so you can store music inside them.  hint:  buy a bench that does not hinge.  buy it for sturdiness.

Offline Bob

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16118
Re: How to tell quality of scores?
«Reply #12 on: July 20, 2005, 02:53:14 AM »
I was wondering if there was a way to find out once and for all where all these scores come from, if any very complete list had already been made somewhere.  Or maybe we might make one then?

I want a list of recommended editions, but I also want to know where those editions came from and why they're good and other ones aren't good.

Pianonut, you have a devious mind (I like it.  It's like being a spy  :) ).
Favorite new teacher quote -- "You found the only possible wrong answer."

Offline bernhard

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5078
Re: How to tell quality of scores?
«Reply #13 on: July 20, 2005, 02:01:37 PM »
paderewski for chopin because my current teacher, previous teacher, and all the really good piano students have them. 


Paderewski will change notes though. >:(

See reply # 18 here:

http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,10402.msg107930.html#msg107930


Best wishes,
Bernhard.
The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side. (Hunter Thompson)

Offline BoliverAllmon

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4155
Re: How to tell quality of scores?
«Reply #14 on: July 20, 2005, 02:02:17 PM »
i heard mikuli was best for chopin.

Offline bernhard

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5078
Re: How to tell quality of scores?
«Reply #15 on: July 20, 2005, 02:04:21 PM »
I was wondering if there was a way to find out once and for all where all these scores come from, if any very complete list had already been made somewhere.  Or maybe we might make one then?

I want a list of recommended editions, but I also want to know where those editions came from and why they're good and other ones aren't good.



If you dig deep enough you can always get to the bottom of anything.

Here is my take on Scarlattti (I may come back later for others):


I. Sources.

Perhaps one of the most puzzling aspects regarding Scarlatti sonatas is that no autographs have ever been found for a single one of them.

The original sources for Scarlatti sonatas are as follows:

1. Venice manuscripts.

These are 15 volumes containing 496 sonatas, kept at the Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana in Venice. Thirteen volumes are numbered (I – XIII) and date form 1752 – 1757. One unnumbered volume dates from 1742 (Kirkpatrick no. XIV), and another dates form 1949 (Kirkpatrick no, XIV).

These manuscripts were acquired by the Marciana library in 1835, but it is no known how exactly they got there. It is more or less established that these were the personal copies of Queen Maria Barbara, and they may have been brought to Italy by Farinelli, the castrato who was the music director of the Spanish court and to whom she bequeathed all of her music.

2. Parma manuscripts.

These are, again 15 volumes containing 463 sonatas and kept at the Biblioteca Palatina in Parma.

The manuscripts are of Spanish origin and are copied by the same copier of the Parma manuscript. Volumes I – V are dated 1752, volumes VI – VIII – 1753, Volumes IX – XI – 1754, Volume XII – 1755, Volumes XIII – XIV – 1756 and Volume XV – 1757.

3. Münster manuscripts,

Five volumes with 349 sonatas kept at the Universitats-Bibliotekh in Münster. Originally they come from the library of Abbate Fortunato Santini (1778 – 1862), an avid collector of 18th century music.

4. Vienna manuscripts.

Seven volumes with 308 sonatas kept at the Bibliotekh der Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde. They were  mostly copied by Santini. They once belonged to Johannes Brahms.

5.  London manuscript.

There are 44 sonatas in this volume, kept at the British Museum and belonged originally to Dr. John Worgan.

6. Cambridge manuscript.

24 sonatas kept at the Fitzwilliam museum in Cambridge, UK.

These are the most important and substantial (in number) manuscripts. Apparently there are many more manuscripts scattered in European libraries, therefore the actual number of sonatas is not known.

II. First editions.

These editions, most published during Scarlatti’s lifetime, are based in one or the other manuscripts above. Given that only a handful of the 555 are present, either the editors/publishers did not have access to all the manuscripts, or even to the more extensive ones (like the Parma and Venice manuscript), or were very selective. IN practice this means that over 80% of Scarlatti sonatas only came to public notice in 1906 when Longo did the first (more or less) complete edition.

1. Essercizi per gravicembalo.

Published in 1738 and containing Scarlatti’s first sonatas (K1 – K30)

2. 42 suites of lessons for the harpsichord.

Published in 1739 (and later reprinted in 1756) in London by B. Cooke, and edited by T. Roseingrave, who goes on to tell us:

“I think the following pieces for their delicacy of Style and Masterly Composition, worthy the attention of the Curious, which I have carefully revised and corrected from the errors of the Press.”

(K1 – K42)

3. 30 sonate per il clavicembalo. Witvogel

Published in Amsterdam in 1742, this is another edition of the 30 essercizi.

4. 12 concertos in seven parts for four violins, one alto viola, a violoncello and a thorough bass done from two books of lessons for the harpsichord.

Published in 1744. Charles Avison, an organist in Newcastle upon Tyne arranged 30 sonatas from Roseingrave’s collection (no.2 above) plus some movements from an unknown source (they may have been Scarlatti’s or Avison’s additions).

5. Pieces choisis pour le clavecin ou l’orgue.

Published in Paris, 1742 by Boivin and Le Clerc. 12 sonatas also present in Roseingrave’s edition. (K2, K4, K8, K9, K30, K31, K32, K33, K36, K37, K38, K39)

6. Pieces pour le clavecin.

Again, published in Paris, between 1742 and 1746 by Boivin, Corrette, Brotonne and Le Clerc. 17 sonatas also present in Roseingrave’s edition. (K1, K3, K5, K6, K7, K10, K12, K13, K14, K19, K20, K22, K29, K34, K35, K66, K95).

7. Pieces pour le clavecin – 1er volume.

Again, published in Paris, around 1742 by Boivin, Corrette, Brotonne and Le Clerc. 20 sonatas all previously published by Roseingrave. (K1, K2, K3, K4, K5, K6, K7, K9, K10, K12, K13, K14, K19, K20, K22, K29, K30, K31, K33, K 35).

8. Pieces pour le clavecin – 2eme volume.

Again, published in Paris, around 1742 by Boivin, L’Arbresec and Le Clerc. 18 sonatas and a fugue by Alessandro Scarlatti all previously published by Roseingrave. (K11, K15, K16, K17, K18, K21, K23, K24, K25, K26, K27, K28, K36, K37, K38, K39, K40, K41, Fugue).

9. Pieces pour le clavecin – 3eme volume.

Again, published in Paris, around 1742 by Boivin, Castgnerie and Le Clerc. 9 sonatas  Scarlatti all previously published by Roseingrave. (K33, K48, K49, K55, K96, K97, plus 3 spurious sonatas)38, K39, K40, K41, Fugue).

10. Six Double Fugues For the Organ or Harpsichord Compos'd by Mr. Roseingrave, To which is added, Sigr. Domenico Scarlatti's Celebrated Lesson for the Harpsicord. Walsh, London.

The “celebrated Lesson” by Scarlatti, in this book of pieces by Roseingrave is sonata K37 (which had already been published in Roseingrave’s collection of 42 sonatas above).

11. Libro de XII Sonatas Modernas para Clavicordio- libro I – edited by J. Worgan – published by Johnson, London in 1752. (K44, K53, K55, K100, K101, K104, K105, K106 K107, K116, K117,  K140).

12. Six Sonatas For the Harpsichord III. Published by Johnson, London around 1756 - 1760 (K113, K120, K246, K247, K298, K299).

13. VI Sonate Per Il Cembalo Solo. Haffner, Nürnberg, 1753 ( K125, K 126, K127, K131, K179, K182).

14. XX Sonate Per Cembalo Di varri Autorri. Vernandez, Bayard, Castagneri, Paris 1765? Only two sonatas in this collection are by Scarlatti (K125 and K180).

15. Libro de XII Sonatas Modernas para Clavicordio – libro II – edited by J. Worgan and printed by William Owen, London, 1771. (K43, K46, K47, K49, K57, K99, K115, K118,  K119, K123, K141, K298).

16. Libro de VI sonatas modernas para clavicordio – Printed by John Welcker, London, 1776 – 1777? ( K125, K 126, K127, K131, K179, K182).

17. Piéces choisies de divers auteurs pour le clavecin ou forte-piano - ? – 1780? -  Only one sonata by Scarlatti (K113).

18. Quatre Ouvertures Composées Par Guglielmi, Wanhal, Diters, et Haydn arrangez pur le clavecin ou forte-piano et Deux Sonates Par Clementi, et Scarlati. Bailleux, Paris, 17?? (K. 113).

19. The beauties of Domenico Scarlatti.
 
“Selected from his Suites de Leçons for the harpsichord or pianoforte and revised with a variety of Improvements by Ambrose Pitman. Volume the first.”

Preston, London, 1785?

Although this is supposed to contain 15 sonatas, all copies in existence contain six sonatas: K1, K5, K13, K19, K23, K31.

20. Scarlatti Chef’s d’oeuvres for the harpsichord or pianoforte.

“Selected from an elegant collection of manuscripts, in the possession of Muzio Clementi.”

London – Printed for the editor Muzio Clementi – 1791?
(K206, K378, K381[transposed], , K380 [transposed], K400, K462, K463, K475, K490, K531, [no. 5 by Soler = no. 196 Czerny], [spurious Czerny 195]).

21. Two favourite sonatas by Scarlatti. Printed by J. Copper – London – 1792?  (K32 and K33).

22. Thirty sonatas for the harpsichord or pianoforte.

“Published (by permission) from manuscripts in the possession of Lord Viscount Fitzwilliam.”

Birchall (printer) – London – 1800?

(K54, K 236, K237, K266, K267, K366, K367, K372, K373, K 386, K387, K401, K438, K445, K446, K454, K455, K478, K490,  K492, K517,  K520, K524, K525, K533, K534, K535, K545, K552, K554).

23. Clementi’s selection of practical harmony for the organ or pianoforte.

“Containing Voluntaries, Fugues, Canons and other ingenious pieces by the most eminent composers to which is prefixed and Epitome of Counterpoint by the editor”.

Printed by Clementi, Banger, Collard, Davis & Collard (4 volumes) – 1811 – 1815.

In volume II one finds Scarlatti sonatas K41 and K30.

My main source for the above list of first editions was Ralph Kirkpatrick – “Domenico Scarlatti” (Princeton). But see also:

http://www.musicologie.org/Biographies/s/scarlatti_domenico.html

III. The Czerny edition.

In 1836 – 1839, Santini loaned his manuscript of 349 sonatas (see Münster manuscript above) to Czerny, and from it Czerny selected and edited around 200 sonatas (including some that now have been shown not to be by Scarlatti). This was the definitive edition of the time and from it sprung most of the 19th century editions:

Sämmlitche Werke für das Piano-Forte von Dominic Scarlatti. Redifirt von Carl Czerny. Wien: Tobias Haslinger (1839).

Again, writing in 1953, Kirkpatrick comments:

“Czerny’s edition, (less carefully annotated, hence less disturbing than his editions of Bach) formed the basis for many of the subsequent 19th and 20th century collections of Scarlatti sonatas. In order to further their sinking into a well-deserved oblivion, I pass over them in silence.”

Stasoff tells us that both Cramer (in 1837-1838) and Liszt (1839) visited Santini in Rome and

“played piano or organ pieces of the old schools, and most of all particularly the pieces of Domenico Scarlatti, whose Cat Fugue, such an original and admirable masterpiece, was always one of the most decided favourites of this select and intelligent music loving audience.”

(Wladimir Stasoff – “L’Abbé Santini et sa collection musicale à Rome – Florence, 1854).

Best wishes,
Bernhard.
The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side. (Hunter Thompson)

Offline bernhard

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5078
Re: How to tell quality of scores?
«Reply #16 on: July 20, 2005, 02:06:42 PM »
Modern editions of the Scarlatti sonatas:

IV, Complete editions.

Alessandro Longo – “Opere complete per clavicembalo” - Ricordi/Kalmus – First published in 1906, this was the first more or less complete collection of the sonatas amongst the existing editions then. Consisting of ten volumes and a supplement it has all in all 546 sonatas, edited from the Venice, Vienna and Cambridge manuscripts, plus the original edition of the “Essercizi.”  Here is Kirkpatrick’s evaluation, writing in 1953:

“Unfortunately, Longo’s numbering, and his arrangement of the sonatas in suites, completely disrupts the chronological and stylistic sequence of Scarlatti’s keyboard work. Numerous inaccuracies and copious insertion of editorial markings render a more satisfactory complete edition of the Scarlatti sonatas urgently desirable”.

“ The dynamic indications of Longo’s edition, while effective in terms of pianism and by no means unmusical in terms of nineteenth-century chiaroscuro dynamics, have little in common with Scarlatti’s own practice, and frequently end up by pulling Scarlatti’s musical structure ruthlessly apart. […] Longo’s markings often demonstrate a profoundly sensitive musical instinct, but one which is so distorted by 19th century conventions that most of its value is completely cancelled out by the violence his markings do to Scarlatti’s real style.”

Ralph Kirkpatrick – facsimiles – In 1953, Kirkpatrick made all of the manuscripts available in facsimile, so if you can get your hands on it, you have the closest to the source version of the sonatas. Unfortunately, he never edited a complete edition (he did edit a limited, 60 sonata edition for Schirmer, see below). Most modern editions refer to this work.

Kenneth Gilbert – “Complete sonatas” – Heugel (11 volumes) – Scholarly work, following closely Kirkpatrick’s edition (limited to 60 sonatas) and facsimiles, plus an exam of the first printings. Although prettyclose to the original, Gilbert has modernised substantially the notation (he uses modern beaming rules, for instance, and transposes awkward clefs, e.g. C-clefs).

Emilia Fadini – “Sonate per clavicembalo” – Ricordi (8 volumes out of 10 planned have alaready been published – 457 sonatas so far) Ricordi says:

“This critical edition of all the sonatas of Domenico Scarlatti is justified by the necessity of offering performers and scholars a text which is philologically faithful to the author's intentions (in so far as this can be reconstructed through a comparative study of the surviving printed and manuscript sources) and which is presented as authentically as possible, free from editorial interference or suggestions for performance or interpretation. The study of musicology and especially of the performing traditions of baroque music has advanced considerably since Alessandro Longo achieved the mammoth task of publishing the entire corpus of Scarlatti's sonatas for the first time, and today we can deal with problems of text and interpretation with a surer and deeper methodological awareness; all of these will be adequately treated in the Appendix to this edition, which will contain also a general thematic catalog of the complete sonatas.”

Fadini is also in the process of recording (for Stradivarius) all the sonatas on the fortepiano (presently in vol. 5).
 

Best wishes,
Bernhard
The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side. (Hunter Thompson)

Offline bernhard

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5078
Re: How to tell quality of scores?
«Reply #17 on: July 20, 2005, 02:08:27 PM »
Also, have a look here:

http://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2121.0.html
(best editions for each composer)

Best wishes,
Benrhard.
The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side. (Hunter Thompson)

Offline BoliverAllmon

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4155
Re: How to tell quality of scores?
«Reply #18 on: July 20, 2005, 02:19:31 PM »
holy crap that was indepth. great post.

Offline bernhard

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5078
Re: How to tell quality of scores?
«Reply #19 on: July 20, 2005, 03:15:39 PM »
holy crap that was indepth. great post.

Follow the fellow who follows the dream. ;)
The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side. (Hunter Thompson)

Offline pianonut

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1618
Re: How to tell quality of scores?
«Reply #20 on: July 21, 2005, 02:02:50 AM »
i'm impressed, too, bernhard.  will probably print that out and tape it inside my existing scarlatti (emb edition) so i can impress people.  i like the munster manuscripts you mentioned, because it sounds good.  it is like being a spy because you have so many details and then a crowd to please.  you have to be precise enough for the scholars, and laid back enough to play it like the notes don't matter.   suppose that the deeper one gets into music, the more you are interviewed, and the more you must give reasons for your choices though!  thanks for the musicology web site, too!
do you know why benches fall apart?  it is because they have lids with little tiny hinges so you can store music inside them.  hint:  buy a bench that does not hinge.  buy it for sturdiness.