David Fention writes:
"Hogwood has replaced one categorical tradition with another one."
"Hogwood has replaced one categorical tradition with another one."
No, not really. I think Christopher Hogwood just believes in observing da capo marks that's in the music.
What you see is what you get. No more, no less. At least you can say he's taking the music at it's face value.
Since the repeat symbols are there are in the scores, the onus is you to show that they were meant to be ignored.
Neal Zaslaw (who edited the new Kochel catalogue), also has stated there is no such evidence. As have other researchers.
I can't imagine why they would lie about such a matter.
All the other ancillary issues about what was added by Hogwood/Zaslaw, or what version of the NMA was used, or what you found in your sources doesn't matter to me because
I'm speaking of the instances where there are no questions about the da capo markings that are written into the scores or parts.
Kim Patrick Clow
On 5/30/06, David W. Fenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
On 30 May 2006 at 7:08, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
> David Fenton wrote:
>
> "Repeats were obligatory in the repertory Christopher Hogwood plays
> *only* if you *vary* the repeat in some way. If you don't have
> anything different to say in the repeat, then you're under no
> obligation to take it.
>
> Secondly, many of the original sources are quite contradictory about
> where repeats are intended, and often ambiguous as well, so we can't
> always say for sure whether a repeat was intended by the composer or
> not.
>
> In short, there is no hard and fast rule about whether repeats are
> obligatory just because they are found in the score, even if it's the
> composer's autograph. I don't know that Hogwood had any justification
> whatsoever for doing this. Do you have any documentation that the
> repeats were expected on the da capo?"
>
> What malarkey.
>
> I'd say the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise, since
> the manuscripts and parts DO have the repeat signs. . . .
No, they don't in all cases. Hogwood takes repeats in the early
symphonies that are *not* in that autographs. I know, because I did a
systematic study of all of Mozart's early symphonies, including all
the source materials I had available, and found that both the NMA and
the Hogwood recordings (which didn't use the NMA for the early
symphonies, because it wasn't out yet) put in repeats that aren't
found in Mozart's autographs.
> . . . And you really
> don't offer any other proof than make broad statements with absolutely
> no citations for any facts. . . .
As did you.
> . . . Mr. Hogwood has demonstrated clearly,
> there are absolutely no such statements for any music prior to 1800,
He has demonstrated this? Where has he done so?
> where the repeats are to be ignored. And to be honest with you, Mr.
> Hogwood has a lot more cache with me. Let's see: Mr. Hogwood is a
> graduate from Oxford, musicologist for how many years, on the
> editorial staff of how many publishers?
He's also a musical cypher.
> I mean it's so obvious that you have it right, and Mr. Hogwood is so
> wrong:
[quote not related to this discussion deleted]
Hogwood has replaced one categorical tradition with another one. I'm
arguing for something in between, a "leave it up to the performers"
approach, one that seems to me to be in line with the way composers
of the time wrote about their own music, and also consistent with the
kinds of things you see in sources from the time (including authentic
ones).
I don't think composers thought of their music (or their scores) as
cagegorically as you seem to think they did. An example of this is
the tempo markings for Mozart's work that are listed in his personal
catalog of his own works -- they aren't the same as found in the
composer's autograph. Does this means there's an alternate tempo? An
alternate version? A lost second autograph?
No, all it means is that when Mozart was writing down the incipit by
memory, he wrote something that captured the same musical output,
even if it wasn't exactly what was in his autograph. The result is
that the exact tempo marking is not the same, but we can presume that
this tempo marking would have produced the same musical results.
That loose approach to notation and meaning is what I'm arguing for,
not some slavish devotion to a printed page whose meaning we really
can't say for certain, since no one at the time seems to have seen
fit to comment on the subject of taking repeats or not.
--
David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
--
Kim Patrick Clow
"There's really only two types of music: good and bad." ~ Rossini
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
