On 8 Feb 2011 at 15:10, dc wrote: > Obviously, there's Urtext and Urtext...
Excellent example. Even critical editions can be incredibly unreliable. The original publication of the volume of early symphonies in the Neue Mozart Ausgabe (1956, I believe, hint, hint) was TERRIBLE. It was much like the edition you described, with editorial notes that even managed to reverse the derivation, i.e., things that were marked as being in the autograph were not, and things that were marked as being editorial were actually in the autograph. I've done the collation myself -- it was an early assignment in a graduate course on Mozart's symphonies, obviously with the pedagogical point that we can't trust even the most august and "scholarly" editions to be trustworthy at all. If, however, you bought the paperback NMA (as I did), you got the late 1980s complete revision of these problematic issues from the 50s. This greatly annoyed many of the original subscribers, who were stuck with the faulty original editions. -- 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
