APPROVED: Stacie Mickens, Major Professor Hendrik Schulze, Committee Member John Holt, Committee Member and Chair of the Division of Instrumental Studies Felix Olschofka, Director of Graduate Studies in the College of Music John W. Richmond, Dean of the College of Music Victor Prybutok, Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School HORN CONCERTO IN E-FLAT MAJOR (C41) BY ANTONIO ROSETTI: A CRITICAL EDITION Brandon Gregory Stewart, B.M., M.M. Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of DOCTOR OF MUSICAL ARTS UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS December 2019
Transcript
APPROVED: Stacie Mickens, Major Professor Hendrik Schulze, Committee Member John Holt, Committee Member and Chair of the
Division of Instrumental Studies Felix Olschofka, Director of Graduate Studies in
the College of Music John W. Richmond, Dean of the College of
Music Victor Prybutok, Dean of the Toulouse Graduate
School
HORN CONCERTO IN E-FLAT MAJOR (C41) BY ANTONIO ROSETTI: A CRITICAL EDITION
Brandon Gregory Stewart, B.M., M.M.
Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF MUSICAL ARTS
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS
December 2019
Stewart, Brandon Gregory. Horn Concerto in E-Flat Major (C41) by Antonio Rosetti: A
Critical Edition. Doctor of Musical Arts (Performance), December 2019, 147 pp., bibliography,
38 titles.
This project delivers to the scholar and performer a critical edition of a little-known horn
concerto by Antonio Rosetti. Standing in contrast to performance or practical editions, critical
editions demand that the editor exerts a non-trivial measure of authority over the state of the
text. Performers often find this fact to be uncomfortable given the normal tendency to revere
the perceived intent of the composers based upon the text that they set down. When engaging
with sources, it is rarely clear what that intent is, or which of the available sources most closely
represents that intent. Those available sources often disagree with one another, even those in
the composer’s own hand. It is vital for the editor to know, as precisely as is possible, who
created the source material, when they created these sources, and why they created these
sources. At that point the editor must decide which sources will best fit his or her framework
for the creation of the critical edition. At that point the editor will grapple with numerous
inconsistencies and ambiguities within those sources, and then use his or her own authority to
fix the text of the composer’s work into a single version for today’s use. The Horn Concerto in E-
flat Major (C41) by Rosetti presents a unique case to the editor, scholar, and performer, in that
it exists in two versions that carry substantial differences in the solo part. These differences are
so great that it is often difficult to consider them as representative of the same work. This
edition presents both versions, as each have different original purposes, and edits them in
parallel so that the performer may determine which usage is most appropriate for his or her
needs.
ii
Copyright 2019
By
Brandon Gregory Stewart
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The most heartfelt thanks for this work goes to my family, especially my wife Melanie.
Without her faith in my ability to persevere, and her infinite patience waiting for me to do so,
this project would have never reached completion.
No less patient are the faculty advisers who have guided me through this process over
the years, Dr. William Scharnberg and Dr. Hendrik Schulze. Their encouragement was vital and
unwavering. Thanks also goes to Dr. Stacie Mickens for her willingness to play a helpful role in
the completion of this project.
Countless other instructors and colleagues are owed a measure of thanks for their
influence on my life and education. I specifically wish to thank Charles “Skip” Snead, Professor
of Horn at the University of Alabama, and Christopher M. Smith, Professor of Horn at Texas
Tech University, without whom I would not be where I am today.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................................................... iii PART I. CONTEXT AND FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................. 1
Bibliography ...................................................................................................................... 20 PART II. THE EDITION .................................................................................................................... 23
Movement 1 Critical Notes ............................................................................................. 131
Movement 2 Critical Notes ............................................................................................. 141
Movement 3 Critical Notes ............................................................................................. 144
1
PART I
CONTEXT AND FRAMEWORK
2
Historical Context
Antonio Rosetti, born c. 1750 in Leitmeritz, Bohemia, was a prolific composer of the
eighteenth century. Uncertainty has long clouded research on Rosetti. Works have been
misattributed to Rosetti, and his works have been misattributed to other composers, due to
confusion surrounding his name. Such a change was not an uncommon occurrence during that
period. The virtuoso horn player and composer Johann Wenzel Stich (1746-1803) famously
worked and performed under the name Giovanni Punto. In his article “The Rösler-Rosetti
Problem: A Confusion of Pseudonym and Mistaken Identity,”1 foremost Rosetti scholar Sterling
Murray affirmed the idea that Rosetti was born Anton Rösler. However, in his recent book, The
Career of an Eighteenth-Century Kapellmeister: The Life and Music of Antonio Rosetti, Murray
challenges his own prior claim by referring to this Italianization as a “mistaken belief.”2 His new
position is based on a commentary written about Rosetti shortly after the composer’s death,
and the assertion that Bohemia was home to a significant Italian demographic. This assertion
suggests that one or both of Rosetti’s parents may have been Italian and casts doubt on the
notion that he was born Anton Rösler.3
Rosetti spent most of his professional life in the service of Kraft Ernst, Prince of
Oettingen-Wallerstein. He entered the Prince’s service in November 1773 not as Kapellmeister,
but as a double bass player.4 Though he was at first appointed only as a servant musician,
1 Sterling Murray, “The Rösler-Rosetti Problem: A Confusion of Pseudonym and Mistaken Identity,” Music & Letters Vol. 57 No. 2 (April 1976), 130. 2 Sterling Murray, The Career of an Eighteenth-century Kapellmeister: The Life and Music of Antonio Rosetti [Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2014], 2, 13. 3 Ibid., 13. 4 Ibid., 48.
3
Rosetti was already active as a composer, having written numerous works that were ostensibly
intended for performance by the Wallerstein Hofkapelle.5 These early works include several
wind concertos written for players at the Wallerstein court, as well as a collection of
symphonies published by Breitkopf.6 On the strength of his works and his connections with the
skilled musicians at court, Rosetti quickly earned a reputation as a composer both at home and
abroad.7 The Prince had such confidence in his abilities that he commissioned Rosetti to
compose a requiem for the tragic death of his young wife, Marie Therese, from complications
of childbirth in 1776.8
Rosetti remained in the service of Kraft Ernst until 1789. At that time, the Prince granted
his release to enter the service of the Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin as Kapellmeister, a
position Rosetti held until his death in 1792.9 During his years at Wallerstein, Rosetti composed
a sizeable volume of works. Most noteworthy, perhaps, is the abundance of solo and double
concertos for horn. Some question remains over how many concertos Rosetti composed and
how many others are falsely attributed to him or other composers. In his book The Music of
Antonio Rosetti (Anton Rösler) ca. 1750-1792: a thematic catalog, Sterling Murray points out a
number of instances of such spurious attributions while adding informed conclusions as to
which works are probably those of Rosetti.10 In all, there are twenty-three works for one or two
5 Ibid., 60-61. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid., 61-62 9 Ibid., 163. 10 See Sterling Murray, The Music of Antonio Rosetti (Anton Rösler) SH. 1750-1792: a thematic catalog [Warren: Harmonie Press, 1996] for Murray’s accounting of spurious attributions.
4
horns that are attributed to Rosetti,11 a compositional output for horn at the time rivaled only
by Giovanni Punto.
Rosetti’s attention to the horn is due in no small part to the players who were available
to him at Wallerstein. This includes the high-horn virtuoso Johann Türrschmidt,12 his son, the
low-horn virtuoso Carl,13 and beginning during the reorganization of the Hofkapelle,14 the duo
of Joseph Nagel and Franz Zwierzina.15 Horn players from Bohemia were in demand throughout
Europe16 and these players afforded Rosetti the opportunity to write horn parts that were
technically challenging as well as musically satisfying. These conditions, and the possible decline
in Johann Türrschmidt’s abilities as he approached retirement,17 speak directly to the unique,
competing versions of Rosetti’s Horn Concerto in E-Flat Major (C41).
11 Ibid. 12 12 Horace Fitzpatrick, The Horn and Horn-Playing and the Austro-Bohemian Tradition from 1680 to 1830 [London: Oxford University Press, 1970], 119. 13 Ibid., 14 See Sterling Murray, The Career of an Eighteenth-century Kapellmeister: The Life and Music of Antonio Rosetti [Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2014], 61-74. After the untimely death of his wife the Prince’s Hofkapelle entered a period of inactivity while he was in mourning. Many players returned after sojourns in the service of other courts, while others ended their service at Wallerstein. It is around this time that the services of Nagel and Zwierzina were secured. 15 Ibid., 86-87. 16 Horace Fitzpatrick, The Horn and Horn-Playing and the Austro-Bohemian Tradition from 1680 to 1830 [London: Oxford University Press, 1970], 221. Fitzpatrick has translated Gerber (Ernst Ludwig Gerber, Historisch-Biographisches Lexicon der Tonkünstler (Leipzig, 1792), ii, 547) where he says “…who can measure the progress of Bohemians on this instrument? For such is their skill that even Paris herself when she wants good horn-players, has been obliged for years now to fetch them from Bohemia.” 17 Sterling Murray, The Career of an Eighteenth-century Kapellmeister: The Life and Music of Antonio Rosetti [Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2014], 87. Upon the arrival of Nagel and Zwierzina, probably as a pair, Türrschmidt moved from the first horn chair to the principal viola chair. It is possible that C41 was composed for Türrschmidt, but declining abilities necessitated some of the initial changes to the horn part seen in the C41 manuscript.
5
Sources
The Horn Concerto in E-flat Major (C41) survives in two early sources. The primary
source is a manuscript in the hand of copyist 13,18 a scribe in the employ of Prince Kraft Ernst
who copied several of Rosetti’s works from that period. This source is hereafter referred to as
the “Copy.” The manuscript is located at the Fürst Thurn und Taxis Hofbibliothek und
Zentralarchiv in Regensburg, Bavaria, Germany. The handwriting appears to be consistent
throughout, with the possible (but unverifiable) exception of the occasional alterations to the
solo horn part. These alterations, labeled corno variazione, are linked by a common symbol to
the measures of the original solo part that they are meant to replace, and sit directly under
those measures at the bottom of the score. These alterations appear only in the first and third
movements of the concerto. See mm. 64-67 in figures 1a and 1b.
Figure 1a
Figure 1a is excerpted from the solo part indicated at the top of the score by the original
copyist responsible for preparing this copy. Figure 1b, clearly marked as corno variazione, lies at
the bottom of the score. The line is an octave lower, the dynamic markings (that are perhaps
not idiomatic) have been deliberately omitted, or possibly assumed to be the same, and an
18 See Sterling Murray, The Music of Antonio Rosetti (Anton Rösler) SH. 1750-1792: a thematic catalog [Warren: Harmonie Press, 1996], for an exhaustive list of all copyists at Oettingen-Wallerstein who are known to be associated with Rosetti’s works.
6
editorial trill is added to the penultimate note of the line. In spite of these changes the original
melodic idea largely remains intact.
Figure 1b
The secondary source is a print of the first published edition, issued by French
publishing house Le Menu et Boyer during Rosetti’s residency in Paris.19 This source is
hereafter referred to as the “Print.” Because Rosetti arrived in Paris only very late in 1781, it is
likely that the initial publication dates from no earlier than 1782, possibly appearing after
Rosetti had already returned home.20 It survives in a set of parts for solo horn, violin, viola,
cello, double bass, a pair of tutti horns, and a pair of oboes. For creating a critical edition of the
concerto, a later published edition might appear unremarkable in light of the existence of the
manuscript copy, however even a cursory review of the source quickly reveals the existence of
numerous and substantial discrepancies between the two solo horn parts, but with an
unaltered orchestral accompaniment. See mm. 55-58, the first solo statement, in figures 2a and
2b.
Figure 2a is excerpted from the first solo entrance in the print of the published edition.
Figure 2b is excerpted from the corresponding measures of the manuscript copy. The
19 Sterling Murray, The Career of an Eighteenth-century Kapellmeister: The Life and Music of Antonio Rosetti [Rochester, University of Rochester Press, 2014], 134-135. 20 Ibid.
7
alterations are immediately clear. For the printed edition, the phrase was adjusted into a lower
range while maintaining similar melodic contour and intervallic relationships.
Figure 2a: First Edition Figure 2b: Manuscript Copy
The concerto also exists in two modern editions. The first is a performance edition
which was edited by Klaas Weelink and published by Edition Kawe.21 This edition reflects the
version of the work presented by the Print and it is likely to be the edition used for
performances prior to 2004. The second, also a performance edition, is edited and published by
Robert Ostermeyer in 2004.22 This edition also relates directly to the Print, rather than the
manuscript Copy. This version of Rosetti’s concerto is of particular interest for my critical
edition, as it helped to influence my decision to include both versions of the concerto in my
edition.
In the foreword to his edition, which is based upon the original published version,
Robert Ostermeyer makes note of the several errors and omissions. Most significant among
them are a series of lengthy, conspicuous gaps in the solo part that are not missing from the
part books of the orchestral accompaniment.23 The solo part is missing measures 144-149 from
the opening allegro movement and measures 74-84 from the second movement adagio. These
21 Antonio Rosetti, Horn Concerto no. 6 in E-flat major [Amsterdam: Edition Kawe, 1975]. 22 Antonio Rosetti, Concerto für Horn und Orchester Es-Dur (Murray C41) [Leipzig: R. Ostermeyer Musikedition, 2004]. 23 These omissions are detailed in the critical report of the present edition.
8
lost measures are interesting for two reasons. First and foremost, it demands inquiry into how
such a large omission could have made its way into the earliest publication, one which
presumably is based on a manuscript in the hand of Rosetti himself or a copyist. Second, since
Ostermeyer’s edition restores the missing measures, one wonders what source material he
utilized to arrive at that restoration. Though Ostermeyer’s setting of the concerto is informed
by the Print, it is clear from his foreword that he is aware of the existence of the manuscript
copy. While it is true he was not seeking to produce a critical edition, it is a curious choice to
present the print version of the work given his awareness of an earlier, potentially authoritative
source, without mention of the differences contained within those sources.
There are a number of possible explanations for this choice, and an exploration of those
possibilities is of great interest to my edition, which seeks to present both versions of the
concerto as authoritative and worthy of inclusion into the horn repertoire. One such
explanation is that Ostermeyer simply had not seen the manuscript copy or heard any of the
recordings24 that reflect the manuscript version of the concerto. Thus he would be unaware
that textual differences are present and would consider it unlikely that the Copy contains
anything new for his edition. While a reasonable explanation on its face, it appears unlikely
after an examination of the measures he added to his edition to fill the gaps found in the print.
Ostermeyer has, apparently, taken these measures from the Copy to complete the
omission from the Print. Almost in spite of this, however, he alters the remaining measures (80-
24 Barry Tuckwell (horn), Horn concerto in E flat major, by Antonio Rosetti with the English Chamber Orchestra, recorded 1986, EMI Eminence CD-EMX 9514, 1986, compact disc. Also Peter Francomb (horn), Horn Concerto No. 6 in E flat major, by Antonio Rosetti with Northern Sinfonia of England, conducted by Howard Griffiths, recorded 1997, on Horn Concertos, Pan Classics 510 095, 1997, compact disc.
9
84) in a way that makes them easier to play while still appearing to take inspiration from the
measures found in the Copy. If he had seen the copy he must have known that the Print
represents a significant departure from the Copy. By borrowing from the Copy only slightly, he
chose to fix his version of the text congruently with the Print.
His own writing on his edition itself supports another explanation. “This horn concerto
of Rosetti is now also thoroughly revised in a new edition, after the almost 30-year-old edition
of KaWe.” 25 Given that the Kawe edition was the only one available, it is probable that most
listeners had only ever heard a version of the concerto that follows the Print, and few hornists
would be aware of the existence of the Copy, much less have any knowledge of the
discrepancies it contains. The decision, therefore, is one of consistency of presentation,
marketability, and playability (perhaps the same reasons of marketability and playability
implied by the alterations in the original publication). Rather than bringing to light a significant
new reading of the concerto, Ostermeyer sought to update the edition that was familiar to
performers at the time. This is in itself a worthwhile aim, which at the very least restores the
concerto to a state of convenient availability.
25 Robert Ostermeyer, “Rosetti, Antonio – RWV C41 Concerto Eb major for Horn,” Robert Ostermeyer Musikedition, https://www.corno.de/shop/concertos/Horn-Orchester/rom135.html?language=en (accessed August 22, 2019).
10
On the Creation of a Critical Edition
The solo horn output of Rosetti encompasses twenty-three known works, though some
are of questionable authorship.26 With such a substantial collection of horn works, rivaled only
by that of Giovanni Punto, it is peculiar that the breadth of his catalog receives relatively sparse
attention from horn performers and scholars. Even Horace Fitzpatrick’s book, The Horn and
Horn-Playing and the Austro-Bohemian tradition from 1680 to 1830, 27 mentions Rosetti only in
connection to specific players with whom he associated as a composer.
In spite of this large of body of work and the general availability of sources, performers
hold Rosetti’s horn concertos in lower esteem than the works of his more revered
contemporary, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Mozart’s horn concertos have received numerous
editorial treatments, both practical and critical, with dozens of publications of both types still
available. Rosetti’s concertos have received scant attention from both editors and performers.
The most obvious explanation for this disparity is Mozart’s lofty stature as a composer relative
to Rosetti. Simply put, Mozart was more famous in life and remains more famous after death
than Rosetti. Performances of Mozart’s works were and are more ubiquitous than Rosetti’s.
There is, however, another explanation specific to the horn concertos written by both
Mozart and Rosetti that informs the thesis of my edition. One of the most significant similarities
26 Sterling Murray, The Career of an Eighteenth-century Kapellmeister: The Life and Music of Antonio Rosetti [Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2014], 254. For a complete list of spurious attributions see Sterling Murray, The Music of Antonio Rosetti (Anton Rösler) SH. 1750-1792: a thematic catalog [Warren: Harmonie Press, 1996]. 27 Horace Fitzpatrick, The Horn and Horn-Playing and the Austro-Bohemian Tradition from 1680 to 1830 [London: Oxford University Press, 1970], 82, 120, 174, 202-204.
11
between the circumstances leading to the composition of these horn concertos is that the
composers wrote them for specific, well-known players that were readily available.
In this, there is a distinct difference that may explain the disparity in editorial attention.
Mozart penned his concertos with a specific player in mind, Joseph Leutgeb,28 for his own use
to perform as he was able. Rosetti also wrote his concertos with players in mind but rather than
writing them for a personal friend horn virtuoso, he wrote them for his horn-playing colleagues
at Oettingen-Wallerstein, ostensibly for performance as part of the normal operations of Prince
Kraft Ernst’s orchestra. As a result of this business context it seems unlikely that Rosetti went to
much length to preserve the concertos for posterity.
As mentioned above, there are only two performance editions of Rosetti’s Horn
Concerto in E-flat Major C41, one edited by Klaas Weelink29 and another edited by Robert
Ostermeyer.30 The Weelink edition is based entirely on the Print, and the recent Ostermeyer
edition follows almost entirely from the Weelink edition. No critical edition has ever been
produced and to date there is no published edition that claims as a basis the manuscript found
in the Wallerstein library.
The creation of a critical edition presents the editor with a series of challenges that he
must overcome, or at least thoughtfully navigate, in order to produce a text that performers
and scholars will consider to be a good-faith representation of the composer’s original intent.
28 Joseph Leutgeb was a prominent horn player in Vienna, having performed works by Mozart and others. He was known to be close with Mozart, with the composer even including a multitude of crass but playful insults to his friend in the solo horn parts, notably the Concerto No. 1, K. 417. 29 Antonio Rosetti, Horn Concerto no. 6 in E-flat major [Amsterdam: Edition Kawe, 1975]. 30 Antonio Rosetti, Concerto für Horn und Orchester Es-Dur (Murray C41) [Leipzig: R. Ostermeyer Musikedition, 2004].
12
The editor must establish a framework to balance his own authority with that of the
composer,31 and this framework is the overarching idea that will justify to the reader all of the
decisions that the editor makes. This process begins with identifying, locating, and obtaining
sources. These sources are numerous and varied in age, type, condition, and purpose. They
include the ordinary and often abundant performance editions, the less common and often
problematic composer’s autograph, manuscripts in hands of copyists, sketches, and parts and
scores prepared for live performance, to name a few. Among the first decisions the editor
should make is to determine which sources fit best into the editorial framework that will
support the reading of the work.
When determining a hierarchy of sources there is a natural inclination towards the
authority of an autograph or composer sketches, but these sources are frequently lost or
incomplete (notably the case for Mozart’s horn concertos), and, even when available, there
often exists issues of condition and legibility as well as curious discrepancies between the
autograph and published editions based on those sources.32 Since an early published edition
will undoubtedly be an invaluable resource, the editor must determine the extent of these
contradictions and decide which readings will be represented in the final product. Later
published editions may also interest the editor, particularly in cases where these editions are
based upon sources that are no longer extant, as they offer an insight into what those sources
31 James Grier, The Critical Editing of Music: History, Method, and Practice [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 1996], 2. 32 Ibid., for an example highlighting such a problem in Beethoven’s Hammerklavier Sonata, Op. 106, in which the first published edition contains a different reading of a pitch than the composer’s own sketches.
13
looked like and they are informed by more recent scholarship on the work and the composer.33
The very act of selecting sources and excluding others imparts the authority of the editor,
parallel to and perhaps superseding the authority of the composer.34
For most editions this naturally results in a singular reading of the text derived from the
authority of the editor, in concert with the authority of the composer. This Rosetti edition will
take a different tack. Here, it is my decision to present two readings which boast an equal right
to exist and claim the title of Horn Concerto in E-Flat Major C41. It is predictable, then, that the
editor might face accusations of abdicating his authority by making no meaningful decision with
regards to which source has the better claim. In the case of this concerto, however, the two
existing readings differ in such substantial ways that it is difficult to identify them as a
congruent work. For this reason, the two versions are presented adjacent to each other on the
score so that the differences are immediately obvious, to facilitate discussion on the likely
genesis of those alterations, and to provide eventual performers with the information
necessary to decide which version best fits their needs.
Why, then, do these two versions of the concerto exist? James Grier offers a theory for
answering this question. He says, “Understanding of the musical idioms that make up a piece,
knowledge of the historical conditions under which it was composed or the social and economic
factors that influenced its performance, coupled with an aesthetic sensitivity for the
33 Ibid., 8-9, see for his example of recent scholarly developments informing the editions in the Neue Mozart-Ausgabe. 34 Ibid., 5, again in regards to Hammerklavier: “…they must assume authority over the text, for the state of the sources leaves it uncertain as to whether the composer’s authority generated the reading of the source.”
14
composer’s or repertory’s style, can all contribute to a heightened critical awareness.”35 For
C41, Rosetti utilizes many of the musical idioms that are commonplace in horn writing of the
period and necessitated by the strengths or limitations of the natural horn. 36 Typical in his horn
writing are frequent arpeggios covering a wide range and flowing lyricism in the upper register
of the instrument. The arpeggios require great facility and agility to execute with the proper
lightness of character, while the soaring melodies demand physical strength and stamina in
order to sustain the musical lines to completion. Players who could satisfy these demands were
readily available to Rosetti at Oettingen-Wallerstein37 where he enjoyed a stable of the finest
horn players in the Bohemian tradition.38 In light of this, it is curious that the manuscript
contains occasional alterations to Rosetti’s original solo line, alterations that make the line
easier to perform. It is likely that Rosetti used this score in performance with the Wallerstein
orchestra, which suggests that these alterations were made at the behest of the soloist. It is
surprising that players of the caliber of Türrschmidt or Nagel would feel it necessary to make
such a compromise. If either of these virtuosi felt compelled to do so, what would be the
approach of a lesser player? This question follows naturally to the probable reason for the two
versions: economics. Like any other composer, Rosetti sought to have his music published
35 Ibid. 36 To which of these you subscribe is dependent on your perspective as a player. Today’s players frequently consider this music easier to perform on the modern instrument since stopping is unnecessary. This stopping changes the timbre of the instrument and might be considered unnecessarily difficult. It is also argued, however, that the player should find it more simple to perform without valves, with less coordination required. 37 See Sterling Murray, The Career of an Eighteenth-century Kapellmeister: The Life and Music of Antonio Rosetti [Rochester, University of Rochester Press, 2014], for various references to the horn players who performed under Rosetti in the Wallerstein orchestra. Of particular note are the father and son virtuosos Johann and Carl Türrschmidt, and the player for whom C41 was likely written, Joseph Nagel. 38 Horace Fitzpatrick, The Horn and Horn-Playing and the Austro-Bohemian Tradition from 1680 to 1830 [London: Oxford University Press, 1970], 82, 120, 174, 202-204.
15
either to elevate his professional stature or for monetary gain.39 Despite his position at court,
Rosetti struggled financially and was frequently in debt to his employer and others.40 It was
undeniably better for his wallet that he sell as many copies of the concerto as possible, and to
do so it needed to be accessible to a wide range of players. It is for this reason that the Print
and the modern Ostermeyer edition features such frequent and substantial deviations from the
manuscript.
The practice of musical editing arises primarily from the need to make these works
available to scholars and performers41 and that is the central goal of this edition. Despite the
large volume of Rosetti’s solo concertos, only two of them receive regular performance: a
concerto in E-Flat major (C49) and another in D-minor (C38).42 I hope this edition will mark the
beginning of my continued efforts to produce additional critical editions of infrequently or
never-performed Rosetti concertos, as well as similar works that include horn by Rosetti and his
contemporaries. Alongside this aim, but no less significant, is the musicological need to
emphasize editing as a practice which depends upon an understanding of the circumstances of
the work’s creation in any and all states that it is known to exist. “This approach emphasizes the
processes through which a work comes into being, instead of reification of a particular state of
39 Sterling Murray, The Career of an Eighteenth-century Kapellmeister: The Life and Music of Antonio Rosetti [Rochester, University of Rochester Press, 2014], 134-135. Rosetti maintained a successful relationship with French publishing firm Le Menu et Boyer, which he established shortly before and during his trip to Paris between December 1781 and May 1782. 40 Ibid., 56. 41 James Grier, The Critical Editing of Music: History, Method, and Practice [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 1996], 8. 42 The only available source of which is a published edition that is based on sources which are no longer extant.
16
a work.” 43 In order to avoid anointing either one of these distinct versions as sole rightful
claimant to its title, my edition offers them as discrete works that owe their independence to
the processes and context of their creation. It is conceivable that today’s performers might find
one version or the other the more appropriate choice for the performance situations that arise.
They may even consider borrowing from both versions in order to craft their desired
performance.
Musicians and scholars inevitably seek to determine which version of a work is
legitimate. Publishers capitalize on this desire by issuing urtext editions that make a claim for
legitimacy. Performers consider these urtext editions to be representative of the composer’s
will without alteration or ambiguity, often without realizing that the state of the sources
renders that will indiscernible. Thus, we frequently consider those urtext editions to be superior
to prior versions even when the editor is unable to directly connect that reading to the original
intent of the composer. After all, how do we know that a manuscript represents the composer’s
authority? In the case of the Rosetti Horn Concerto (C41), the manuscript was prepared by a
copyist, not Rosetti, and it is impossible to determine precisely when and why that manuscript
was created, or whether or not the work was done under the composer’s supervision. That
multiple versions of a piece might be equally legitimate emphasizes the performative aspect of
the work concept, rather than the written document.
43 James Grier, The Critical Editing of Music: History, Method, and Practice [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 1996], 10.
17
Editorial Procedure
In order to produce a critical edition, it is necessary to create a comprehensive editorial
framework. This framework guides consistent decision making and contributes to a critical
report that is intelligible and practical to anyone who makes use of the edition.
Dynamics
Dynamic markings account for the bulk of the emendations in the score. The most
frequent occurrence involves adding missing dynamics in all of the orchestra parts. The copyist
regularly included a dynamic indication for one instrument or one pair of instruments (e.g., one
horn, or one oboe, but not the other, even though their parts at the time are clearly linked). I
made the decision to extend these dynamics over to every instrument of the accompaniment
where appropriate, with proper metric offsets to account for the point where that instrument
begins playing. I made minor adjustments to both horn solo parts, but these involved altering
an ambiguous marking on the part of the composer or the copyist. In both cases, I made the
decision based on matters of idiomatic phrasing and/or practicalities of performance from a
difficulty standpoint; essentially, to give the line proper direction and to make it readily
playable. All dynamic modifications are indicated in the critical report.
Measure Numbering
The source presents the editor with measure numbering decisions due to what is likely
an effort by the composer and/or the copyist to conserve ink and paper. This effort appears in
the copious use of the marking “da capo” which first appears in the opening movement, then
once in the second movement, then frequently in the rondeau third movement. In the first
18
movement the da capo marking truncates the lengthy orchestral introduction—a feature
commonly seen in Rosetti’s works for horn—part of which serves to close out the movement.
This marking serves the same purpose in the second movement even though it avoids the
reprinting of only a trivial number of measures. The third movement is an obvious place to find
such a technique, as the sixteen-measure rondeau statement returns on three occasions after
the opening of the movement. This edition will not preserve this shortening for two reasons. It
does not suffer from the same needs for conservation as a score from an eighteenth-century
composer. More practically, writing out each measure will make any rehearsal and
performance of this work easier by avoiding a large number of inconvenient page turns for the
players and the conductor. This extension will, of course, result in a substantial increase in the
number of measures over the extant sources. The solo part from the print is missing seven
measures of music, indicated in the part as a rest, which the composer clearly intended to
contain some notes for the soloist. Some practical editions based on the Print have composed
new music for these measures, or transferred music from the Copy to fill the gap.44
Style
A great deal of emendation is made with regards to style. All long form markings—
rinforzando or rinf being the most common—are abbreviated appropriately. Articulation
markings indicated in one part but not another parallel part are added in a similar fashion to
the dynamic additions. Also found are examples of one statement containing unambiguous
articulations, only for some of those to be missing in a repeating statement. Those omissions on
44 Antonio Rosetti, “Concerto für Horn und Orchester Es-Dur (Murray C41),” (Leipzig: R. Ostermeyer Musikedition, 2004).
19
the part of the copyist are corrected here. Grace note appoggiaturas, rather than adjusting the
overall rhythm, are retained. The rhythmic values of these grace notes are occasionally
adjusted to correct lengths. A few examples also exist of the editor reinterpreting one style
marking as another, such as recurring rfz markings changed to a simple accent mark. Also, some
erroneous rhythms are editorialized in order for the measure to achieve the full complement of
beats. The solo horn line also contains several editorial trill (tr) markings at obvious and
idiomatic cadential figures.
Accidentals
As a rule, copious unnecessary courtesy accidentals are omitted from the score except
in a few cases where a reminder for the player is of practical benefit. A few examples exist
where a needed accidental is missing from the source or an ambiguous marking is clarified
based on the harmonic structure at that moment. These adjustments are indicated in the score
inside brackets.
20
Bibliography
Barford, David Christopher. “The Horn Concertos of Antonio Rosetti.” DMA diss., University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, 1980.
Borroff, Edith. Notations and Editions. Dubuque: W.C. Brown and Co, 1974.
Caldwell, John. Editing Early Music. Early Music Series 5. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.
Dart, Thurston, Walter Emery and Christopher Morris. Editing Early Music: Notes on the Preparation of a Printer’s Copy. London: Novello, 1963.
Dauprat, Louis François. Method for cor alto and cor basse. Edited by Viola Roth. Bloomington: Birdalone Music, 1994.
Domnich, Heinrich. Méthode de Premier et de Second Cor. Translated by Daryl G. Poulsen. Kirchheim: Hans Pizka Edition, 1985.
Emery, Walter. Editions and Musicians. London: Novello and Company Ltd., 1957.
Feder, Georg. Music Philology: an introduction to musical textual criticism, hermeneutics, and editorial technique. Hillsdale: Pendragon Press, 2011.
Fitzpatrick, Horace. “Historical Notes on the Horn in Germany and Austria.” The Galpin Society Journal Vol. 16 (May 1963), 33-48.
Fitzpatrick, Horace. The Horn and Horn-Playing and the Austro-Bohemian Tradition from 1680 to 1830. London: Oxford University Press, 1970.
Francomb, Peter. Griffiths, Howard, dir. Horn Concerto No. 6 in E flat major by Antonio Rosetti. [Recording.] Northern Sinfonia of England. CD. Zurich: Pan Classics 510 095. 1997.
Goehr, Lydia. The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works: An Essay in Philosophy of Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Goehr, Lydia. “’On the problems of dating’ or ‘Looking backward and forward with Strohm.’” Ed. Talbot, 231-246.
Grier, James. The Critical Editing of Music: History, Method, and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Grier, James. "Editing." In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press.
21
Hiebert, Thomas. “The Horn in the Baroque and Classical Periods.” In The Cambridge Companion to Brass Instruments, 103-114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Humphries, John. The Early Horn: A Practical Guide. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
James, Ifor. Czarnecki, Vladislav, dir. Horn Concerto in E flat major, C41/K 3:39 by Antonio Rosetti. [Recording.] Südwestdeutsches Kammerorchester Pforzheim. CD. Bietigheim-Bissingen: EBS 6045. 1995.
Landon, H. C. Robbins. “The Concertos: Their Musical Origin and Development.” In The Mozart Companion, edited by H. C. Robbins Landon and Donald Mitchell. New York: W. W. Norton, 1969.
Langweil, Frantisek. Pesek, Libor, dir. Concerto for French Horn and Orchestra No. 6 in E-Flat Major by Antonio Rosetti. [Recording.] Prague Symphony Orchestra. CD. Suprahon CO-72544. 1988.
Machala, Kazimierz. “The Horn Concertos of Francesco Antonio Rosetti.” DMA diss., The Juilliard School, 1978.
Monteverdi, Claudio. Vespro della Beata Vergine. Edited by Hendrik Schulze and others. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 2013.
Morley-Pegge, Reginald. The French Horn: Some Notes on the Evolution of the Instrument and of its Technique. London: Ernest Benn Limited, 1976.
Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus. Concertos for French Horn. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart neue Ausgabe sämtlicher Werke, series V, workgroup 14, vol. 5. [Score.] Edited by Franz Giegling. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1987.
Murray, Sterling E. The Career of an Eighteenth-Century Kapellmeister: The Life and Music of Antonio Rosetti. Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2014.
Murray, Sterling. “The Double Horn Concerto: A Specialty of the Oettingen-Wallerstein Court.” The Journal of Musicology Vol. 1 No. 4 (Autumn 1985 – Autumn 1986), 507-534.
Murray, Sterling E. The Music of Antonio Rosetti (Anton Rösler) ca. 1750-1792: a thematic catalog. Warren: Harmonie Press, 1996.
Murray, Sterling E. "Rosetti, Antonio." Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press.
Murray, Sterling. “The Rösler-Rosetti Problem: A Confusion of Pseudonym and Mistaken Identity.” Music & Letters Vol. 57 No. 2 (April 1976), 130-143.
22
Pizka, Hans. Das Horn bei Mozart. Munich: Hans Pizka Edition, 1980.
Rosetti, Antonio. Concerto für Horn und Orchester Es-Dur (Murray C41). [Score.] Leipzig: R. Ostermeyer Musikedition, 2004.
Strohm, Reinhard. “Looking Back at Ourselves: The Problem with the Musical Work-Concept.” Ed. Talbot, 128-152.
Talbot, Michael, ed. The musical work: reality or invention?. Liverpool Music Symposium 1. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000.
Talbot, Michael. “The work-concept and composer-centredness.” In Talbot, 168-186.
Tuckwell, Barry. Soloist dir. Horn concerto in E flat major K3:39 by Antonio Rosetti. [Recording.] English Chamber Orchestra. CD. EMI Eminence CD-EMX 9514. 1986.
Measure Part Remarks 1 VLN II Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 1 VLN II Note 1: Printed “D” corrected to “Eb.” 1 B Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 1 Cor I Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 1 Cor II Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 1 Ob I Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 1 Ob II Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 2 VLN II Note 6: “f” dynamic marking moved to m. 3 n. 1. 2 B Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 2 Cor I Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 2 Cor II Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 2 Ob I Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 2 Ob II Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 3 VLA Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 3 B Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added, as in VLN I and II. 3 Cor I Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 3 Cor II Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 3 Ob I Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 3 Ob II Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 4 VLA Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 4 B Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 4 Cor I Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 4 Cor II Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 4 Ob I Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 4 Ob II Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 5 VLN I Note 8: Grace note length clarified as 16th note. 5 VLN II Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 5 VLA Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 5 B Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 5 Ob I Added "f" dynamic marking. 5 Ob II Added "f" dynamic marking. 5 Cor I Added "f" dynamic marking. 5 Cor II Added "f" dynamic marking.
132
Measure Part Remarks 5 Vla Added "f" dynamic marking. 5 B Added "f" dynamic marking. 6 VLN I Note 7: Courtesy accidental removed.
14 Ob I Notes 4-5: Eighth notes changed to quarters. 16 VLN II Note 3: Courtesy accidental removed. 19 VLN II Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 19 Ob I Added "f" dynamic marking. 19 Ob II Added "f" dynamic marking. 19 Cor I Added "f" dynamic marking. 19 Cor II Added "f" dynamic marking. 19 VLA Added "f" dynamic marking. 19 VLN II Note 4: “p” dynamic marking added. 20 Ob I Added "f" dynamic marking. 20 Ob I Added "f" dynamic marking. 20 Cor I Added "f" dynamic marking. 20 Cor II Added "f" dynamic marking. 20 VLN II Notes 1-4: One slur over all 4 notes, matching VLN I. 20 VLA Note 3: Courtesy accidental removed. 21 VLN II Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 21 VLN II Note 4: “p” dynamic marking added. 23 VLN II Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 25 VLN I Eigth rest corrected to sixteenth rest. 25 VLN II Note 1: “ff” dynamic marking added. 25 VLA Note 1: “ff” dynamic marking added. 27 VLN II Note 4: Ambiguous pitch clarified as “Bb.” 28 Vln II Added "p" dynamic marking. 28 B Added "p" dynamic marking. 32 VLN I Note 1: Courtesy accidental removed. 33 VLN II Notes 2-8: Accidentals above in different hand removed. 33 Ob I Notes 3-6: Unclear slur marking over all notes, like Ob II. 34 VLN II Notes 1-2: Repeated eighth note flag added. 35 Ob I Notes 3-6: Unclear slur marking over all notes, like Ob II. 37 Ob I Notes 3-6: Unclear slur marking over all notes, like Ob II. 38 B Note 1: Clarified as quarter note.
133
Measure Part Remarks 39 VLN I Note 1: “rfz” interpreted as accent. 39 VLA Note 1: Courtesy accidental removed. 40 VLN I Note 1: “rfz” interpreted as accent. 40 VLN II Note 2: Courtesy accidental removed. 41 Vln II Added "f" dynamic marking. 41 Ob I Added "f" dynamic marking. 41 Ob II Added "f" dynamic marking. 41 Cor I Added "f" dynamic marking. 41 Cor II Added "f" dynamic marking. 41 B Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added, from VLA. 42 Cor I Note 1: Tie added into m. 43. 45 B Note 3: Courtesy accidental removed. 46 VLN II Note 4: “p” dynamic marking added. 46 Orch Note 1: “fz” marking added to match VLN I. 47 VLA Note 3: Courtesy accidental removed. 47 VLA Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 47 Cor I Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 47 Cor II Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 48 VLN II Note 4: “p” dynamic marking added. 48 Orch Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added to match VLN I. 49 VLN I Note 1-4: Slur marking changed to match m. 47. 49 Cor I Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 49 Cor II Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 50 VLN II Note 5: Change repeated eighth note flag to sixteenth. 50 VLN II Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 50 Ob I Added "f" dynamic marking. 50 Ob II Added "f" dynamic marking. 50 B Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 50 Cor I Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 50 Cor II Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 52 VLN I Rest 1: Changed to sixteenth rest for proper counts. 55 CS “Fine” marking omitted. 56 VLN II Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 56 B Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added.
134
Measure Part Remarks 57 VLN I Note 4: Possible double stop is actually ink blot. 59 CS Note 2-5: Slur added, compare to m. 57.
64 CS
Note 1: Rhythm changed to likely intent of composer, rather than adding one beat of rest to correct measure length. Implications also for idiomatic phrasing, as well as mechanical challenges of re-entering on written B.
64 CS Note 3: "p" marking removed to accommodate idiomatic phrasing. 64 CP Note 3: "p" marking removed to accommodate idiomatic phrasing. 64 VLN II Note 1: Courtesy accidental removed.
65 CS
Note 1: Rhythm changed to likely intent of composer, rather than adding one beat of rest to correct measure length. Implications also for idiomatic phrasing, as well as mechanical challenges of re-entering on written B.
65 CS Note 3: "p" marking removed to accommodate idiomatic phrasing. 65 CS Note 1: Redundant "f" marking removed. 66 CS Note 6: “tr” marking added for cadential figure. 67 VLN II Note 2-6: Staccato marking added, compare m. 68. 67 B Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 67 Ob II Note 2-6: Staccato marking added, compare Ob I. 68 Ob II Note 2-6: Staccato marking added, compare Ob I. 71 VLN II Note 1: “rfz” marking added. 71 VLN II Note 4: Added missing repeated eighth flag. 71 VLA Note 1: “rfz” marking location clarified. 71 B Note 1: “rfz” marking added. 72 B Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 73 B Note 1: “rfz” marking added. 74 B Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 77 CP Note 10: Added “#” accidental. 78 VLN I Note 6-9: Staccato marking added. 78 VLA Note 1: “f” dynamic marking moved. 78 B Note 1: “f” dynamic marking moved. 78 Ob II Note 2-6: Staccato marking added. 79 VLN I Note 5: Natural accidental added. 79 Ob I Note 1: Natural accidental added. 79 Ob II Note 2-6: Staccato marking added. 80 VLN II Note 1: Natural accidental added.
135
Measure Part Remarks 80 B Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 89 CS Note 2-4, 5-7: Redundant slur markings removed. 89 VLN I Note 1: “mezofor” marking normalized to “mf.” 89 VLN II Note 1: “mf” dynamic marking added. 89 VLA Note 1: “mezofor” marking normalized to “mf.” 89 B Note 1: “mf” dynamic marking added. 90 CS Note 1: “tr” marking added for cadential figure. 91 B Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 92 VLN I Note 5: Grace note changed to sixteenth. 92 VLN I Note 5: Unclear marking interpreted as natural accidental. 92 VLN II Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 92 B Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 92 Cor I Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 92 Cor II Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 92 Ob I Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 92 Ob II Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 93 VLN I Note 3: “#” accidental changed to natural. 93 B Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 93 Cor I Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 93 Cor II Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 93 Ob I Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 93 Ob II Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 94 B Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 94 Cor I Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 94 Cor II Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 94 Ob I Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 94 Ob II Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 95 Cor I Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 95 Cor II Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 95 Ob I Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 95 Ob II Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 96 VLN I Note 1-2: Slur added. 96 VLN Note 1: “rfz” interpreted as accent. 97 VLN I Note 10: Natural sign added.
136
Measure Part Remarks 98 VLN I Note 1: “rfz” interpreted as accent. 98 VLN I Note 1-2: Slur clarified not to include Note 3.
100 VLN I Note 1: “rfz” interpreted as accent. 101 VLN I Note 1: “rfz” interpreted as accent. 105 VLN II Note 2: Natural sign added. 107 VLN I Note 1: “forz” marking changed to “fz.” 107 Ob I Added "f" dynamic marking. 107 Ob II Added "f" dynamic marking. 107 Cor I Added "f" dynamic marking. 107 Cor II Added "f" dynamic marking. 108 VLN II Note 5-8: Added slur. 108 VLA Note 3: Courtesy accidental omitted. 109 Ob I Added "f" dynamic marking. 109 Ob II Added "f" dynamic marking. 109 Cor I Added "f" dynamic marking. 109 Cor II Added "f" dynamic marking. 109 VLN I Note 1: “forz” marking changed to “fz” 109 VLN II Note 4: "p" dynamic marking added. 109 VLN II Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 110 VLN II Note 1-4: Slur added. 110 VLN II Note 5-8: Slur added. 110 VLA Note 1: "p" dynamic marking added. 111 VLN II Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 117 VLN II Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 118 CS Note 4: Eighth-note grace changed to sixteenth. 119 CS Note 1-2: Slur added. 120 CS Note 4: Eighth-note grace changed to sixteenth. 120 VLN II Note 1: “rfz” marking added. 122 VLN I Note 1: “rfz” interpreted as accent. 122 VLN II Note 1: “rfz” taken from VLN I, interpreted as accent. 122 VLA Note 1: “rfz” taken from VLN I, interpreted as accent. 122 B Note 1: “rfz” taken from VLN I, interpreted as accent. 123 VLN II Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added.
124 CS Note 5-7: Ambiguous markings for beats two and three have been realized. Smudged note head and apparent written letter “g” above
137
Measure Part Remarks smudge seem to intend for the pitch “g” to be played. Have left this note in the same octave as previous notes in order to retain idiomatic voice leading. Notes 5-6 interpreted as eighth-notes owing to the quarter rest written in beat 4.
124 Cor I Added "f" dynamic marking. 124 Cor II Added "f" dynamic marking. 124 VLN I Note 2: added "f" dynamic marking. 124 VLN II Note 2: added "f" dynamic marking. 125 VLN I Note 1: Courtesy accidental omitted. 125 VLN II Note 1: Courtesy accidental omitted. 125 VLA Note 1: Courtesy accidental omitted. 125 B Note 1: Courtesy accidental omitted. 126 VLN I Added "p" dynamic marking. 126 VLN II Added "p" dynamic marking. 127 CS Note 3: “tr” marking added. 127 CS Note 3-5: Rhythm adjusted for idiomatic tr figure. 127 VLN II Note 1: Courtesy accidental omitted. 129 CS Note 3: “tr” marking added. 129 CS Note 3-5: Rhythm adjusted for idiomatic tr figure. 129 CS Note 3-5: Slur added to match m. 127. 132 VLA Note 2 "f" moved to m. 133 note 1. 132 B Note 2 "f" moved to m. 133 note 1. 133 B Notes 3-6: Staccato marking added. 134 VLN II Note 3-6: Staccato marking added. 134 B Note 2: Courtesy accidental omitted. 136 VLA Note 1: Courtesy accidental omitted. 137 CS Note 1: “#” accidental carried over from m. 136. 137 B Note 1: Courtesy accidental omitted. 139 CS Note 1:”#” accidental carried over from m. 138. 139 VLN I Note 2: “rfz” reinterpreted as accent. 139 VLN II Note 2: “rfz” reinterpreted as accent. 139 VLA Note 2: “rfz” reinterpreted as accent. 139 B Note 2: “rfz” reinterpreted as accent. 140 CP Note 6: Courtesy accidental omitted.
138
Measure Part Remarks
141 CP Note 1-2: Marking resembling decrescendo are interpreted as accent marks.
141 VLN II Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 141 B Added "f" dynamic marking. 142 CS Note 7: Courtesy accidental omitted. 142 VLN II Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 142 B Added "p" dynamic marking. 143 CS Note 7: Ambiguous marking interpreted as “tr.”
144 CP
7 measures missing from solo part. It is unlikely that rests were intended. Music at mm. 144-45 should actually be at mm. 151-52 respectively. Measure 144 is thus missing a note on the downbeat, like a printed “A” to complete the cadence.
144 VLN I Note 3: Courtesy accidental omitted. 144 VLN II Note 3: Courtesy accidental omitted. 144 VLN II Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 144 Ob I Added "f" dynamic marking. 144 Ob II Added "f" dynamic marking. 144 Cor I Added "f" dynamic marking. 144 Cor II Added "f" dynamic marking. 144 B Added "f" dynamic marking. 145 VLN II Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 145 VLN II Note 1: Smudged note interpreted as “Eb.” 145 Ob II Added "p" dynamic marking. 145 B Note 1: Missing notehead interpreted as written “C.” 148 VLN II Note 1: Courtesy accidental omitted. 151 VLN I Note 2: Courtesy accidental omitted. 151 VLN II Note 2: “pp” dynamic marking added. 151 VLA Note 2: Courtesy accidental omitted. 151 VLA Note 2-4: Staccato marking added. 151 Cor I Added "pp" dynamic marking. 151 Cor II Added "pp" dynamic marking. 154 VLA Note 3: Courtesy accidental omitted. 154 B Note 2-3: Courtesy accidentals omitted. 155 B Note 1-3: Slur added. 156 VLN I Note 4: “tr” marking added to match m. 155.
139
Measure Part Remarks 160 VLN II Note 1: “cresc” dynamic marking added. 160 Ob I Added "cresc" marking. 160 Ob II Added "cresc" marking. 166 CP Note 1-3: Slur changed to include only these notes. 166 VLN II Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 168 CS Note 1-4: Articulations altered to match m. 166. 168 CP Note 1-3: Slur changed to include only these notes. 172 Ob I Added "p" dynamic marking. 172 Ob II Added "p" dynamic marking. 172 Ob I Note 2: Added tie into m. 173. 172 Ob I Note 1: Courtesy accidental removed. 173 VLA Note 2: Note moved to beat 3, after quarter rest on 2. 174 B Note 1: Changed from “G” to “Ab” for correct harmony. 176 VLN I Note 2: “f” dynamic marking added. 176 B Note 2: “f” dynamic marking added. 179 VLN II Note 1: “p” dynamic marking added. 179 Cor I Added "p" dynamic marking. 179 Cor II Added "p" dynamic marking. 180 CS Note 1-2: Slur added. 180 Ob II Note 1: Long slur added over all notes through m. 183. 181 CS Note 1: Courtesy accidental omitted. 183 VLN I Note 1: Courtesy accidental omitted. 187 CS(a) Note 5-8: Ambiguous marking interpreted as slurs, matching CS. 187 Ob I Added "mf" dynamic marking. 187 Ob II Added "mf" dynamic marking. 187 Cor I Added "mf" dynamic marking. 187 Cor II Added "mf" dynamic marking. 188 VLN II Note 1: “mf” dynamic marking added. 190 Orch Note 1: “f” dynamic marking added. 191 VLN I Note 4: Graced changed from eighth-note to sixteenth. 191 Ob I Added "p" dynamic marking. 191 Ob II Added "p" dynamic marking. 191 Cor I Added "p" dynamic marking. 191 Cor II Added "p" dynamic marking.
140
Measure Part Remarks 192 VLN I Note 2-3: Slur marking added. 192 VLN I Note 4-7: Staccato marking added. 192 Ob I Added "f" dynamic marking. 192 Ob II Added "f" dynamic marking. 192 Cor I Added "f" dynamic marking. 192 Cor II Added "f" dynamic marking. 193 Ob I Added "p" dynamic marking. 193 Ob II Added "p" dynamic marking. 193 Cor I Added "p" dynamic marking. 193 Cor II Added "p" dynamic marking. 194 Ob I Added "f" dynamic marking. 194 Ob II Added "f" dynamic marking. 194 Cor I Added "f" dynamic marking. 194 Cor II Added "f" dynamic marking.
141
Movement 2 Critical Notes
Measure Part Remarks 1 CS Downbeat quarter-note omitted. Intent is cadence out of cadenza. 1 VLA Note 1: "f" dynamic marking added. 1 B Note 1: "f" dynamic marking added. 2 VLN I Note 1-2: Staccato marking added. 2 VLN II Note 1-2: Staccato marking added. 2 VLA Note 1-2: Staccato marking added. 4 VLN II Note 7: Location of "f" dynamic marking clarified. 4 VLA Note 7: Location of "f" dynamic marking clarified. 4 B Note 3: "f" dynamic marking added. 5 VLN II Note 2-3: Staccato marking added. 5 B Note 3-4: Staccato marking added. 6 VLN II Note 1: Missing natural sign added. 6 Orch Fermata over double barline removed due to omission of Da Capo. 7 VLN II Note 1: "f" dynamic marking added. 8 B Note 3: 'p" dynamic marking added. 9 CS Eighth-note grace changed to sixteenth for correct meter. 9 CS Note 1: Tie added into m. 10 Note 1. 9 VLN I Note 1-2: Slur marking added.
10 VLN I Note 1-2: Slur marking added. 13 CS Note 1: Semitone raising corrected to "#" sign. 15 VLN II Added "p" dynamic marking. 15 VLA Added "p" dynamic marking. 15 B Note 1: "p" dynamic marking added. 21 VLN II Note 2-4: Staccato marking added. 21 VLA Note 2-4: Staccato marking added. 21 B Note 2-4: Staccato marking added. 32 CS Note 4-5: Possible slur marking omitted. 34 B Note 1: "col arco" marking changed to "arco." 36 VLN II Note 1: "mf" dynamic marking added. 37 CS Note 1: "tr" marking added into cadential figure. 38 VLA Note 1: "pp" dynamic marking added. 43 B Note 1: "f" dynamic marking added. 45 VLN I Note 1-2: Slur marking added.
142
Measure Part Remarks 46 VLN II Note 1-2: Slur marking added. 46 VLN II Note 7: Location of "f" dynamic marking clarified. 46 VLN Note 7: Location of "f" dynamic marking clarified. 47 VLN II Note 3: Staccato marking added. 47 VLA Note 3-4: Slur removed, staccato marking added. 47 VLN I Removed "p" dynamic marking. 47 VLN II Removed "p" dynamic marking. 47 VLA Removed "p" dynamic marking. 47 B Removed "p" dynamic marking. 49 B Quarter-note on beat 1 omitted. 50 CS Note 1: Missing flat sign added. 50 CS Note 4: Courtesy accidental omitted. 51 CS Note 1: Courtesy accidental omitted. 52 VLN I Note 3: Courtesy accidental omitted. 53 VLA Note 6: Courtesy accidental omitted. 53 B Note 6: Courtesy accidental omitted. 54 VLN II Note 2: "p" dynamic marking added. 54 VLA Note 2: "p" dynamic marking added. 54 VLA Note 1: Missing flat sign added. 54 B Note 5: Courtesy accidental omitted. 54 B Note 2: Location of "p" dynamic marking clarified. 55 B Note 1: Courtesy accidental omitted. 56 CS Note 2: Courtesy accidental omitted. 56 VLN I Note 1: Courtesy accidental omitted. 57 VLN I Note 4: Courtesy accidental omitted. 57 VLN II Note 1: Courtesy accidental omitted. 57 VLN II Note 1: "f" dynamic marking. added. 57 VLA Note 1: Courtesy accidental omitted. 57 B Note 1: Courtesy accidental omitted. 57 B Note 1: Location of "f" dynamic clarified. 58 VLN I Note 2: Location of "p" dynamic marking clarified. 58 VLN II Note 1: "p" dynamic marking added. 58 VLN II Note 2: "p" dynamic marking added and location clarified. 58 VLA Note 1: Courtesy accidental omitted.
143
Measure Part Remarks 58 B Note 1: Courtesy accidental omitted. 58 B Note 2: "p" dynamic marking added. 59 VLN II Note 2: Courtesy accidental omitted. 59 VLA Note 1: "p" dynamic marking added. 59 VLN I Note 2: Courtesy accidental omitted. 60 B Note 1: Courtesy accidental omitted. 63 VLA Note 2-4: Staccato marking added. 64 CP Note 8: Missing "#" accidental added. 64 VLN II Note 2: "f" dynamic marking added. 65 B Note 2: "f" dynamic marking added. 65 B Note 2-4: Staccato marking added. 66 VLN II Entire measure doubling VLN I. 67 VLN II Note 5: "p" dynamic marking added and location clarified. 67 VLA Note 1: "f" dynamic marking added. 67 B Note 1: "f" dynamic marking added. 68 VLN II Note 5: "p" dynamic marking added. 73 CS Note 1-2: Slur marking added. 74 CP Source skips from m. 73 to m. 85, resulting in 11 missing measures. 74 VLN II Rest 1: Missing eighth-rest added. 74 VLN II Note 1: "f" dynamic marking added. 75 VLN I Note 1: Tie added into m. 58 Note 1. 75 VLN II Note 1: "p" dynamic marking added. 75 VLA Added "p" dynamic marking. 75 B Note 2: Courtesy accidental omitted. 84 VLN II Note 1: "fp" dynamic marking added. 87 CS Note 10: Added missing natural sign to correct harmony error. 90 CS Note 1: "tr" marking added into cadential figure. 94 VLN II Note 1: "f" dynamic marking added. 94 VLA Note 1: "f" dynamic marking added. 94 B Note 1: "f" dynamic marking added.
144
Movement 3 Critical Notes
Measure Part Remarks 1 VLN II Note 1: "p" dynamic marking added. 1 B Note 1: "p" dynamic marking added. 3 CS Note 1-4: Staccato marking added. 6 VLN I Note 1-4: Staccato marking added. 9 VLN II Note 1: "f" dynamic marking added. 9 Ob II Added "f" dynamic marking. 9 Cor I Note 1: "f" dynamic marking added. 9 Cor II Note 1: "f" dynamic marking added.
10 Cor I Note 1-4: Staccato marking added. 10 Cor II Note 1-4: Staccato marking added. 11 Cor I Note 1-4: Staccato marking added. 11 Cor II Note 1-4: Staccato marking added. 11 Ob I Note 1-4: Staccato marking added. 11 Ob II Note 1-4: Staccato marking added. 12 B Note 3-6: Slur marking added. 12 Cor I Note 3-6: Slur marking added. 12 Cor II Note 3-6: Slur marking added. 12 Ob II Note 3-6: Slur marking added. 14 Cor I Note 1-4: Staccato marking added. 14 Cor II Note 1-4: Staccato marking added. 15 Vln II Note 3: Sixteenth-note grace changed to eighth-note grace. 17 B Note 1: "p" dynamic marking added. 24 CS Note 7-8: Slur marking added. 25 CS Bar 1: Tie into "A" section removed. 34 VLN II Note 1: "p" dynamic marking added. 34 B Note 1: "p" dynamic marking added. 34 Ob II Added "f" dynamic marking. 37 VLN I Smudge after Note 1 interpreted as attempted eighth-rest. 38 CS Note 2: Courtesy accidental omitted. 41 VLN II Note 1: "f" dynamic marking added. 41 B Note 1: "f" dynamic marking added. 43 VLN II Note 2-7: Slur marking changed to encompass all 6 notes. 43 B Note 2-7: Slur marking changed to encompass all 6 notes.
