bombarde32 Posted June 17, 2007 Share Posted June 17, 2007 Most organists, myself included, are not able to obtain or afford the latest or most correct or learned editions of organ works, and we are frequently pulled up by others for 'falling into the trap' of playing wrong notes because of the edition from which we are performing. I am often not fully aware of these pitfalls, and would like to start a discussion of these 'errors', in the hope that others far more learned than I could point out the worst offenders! Any takers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cynic Posted June 17, 2007 Share Posted June 17, 2007 Most organists, myself included, are not able to obtain or afford the latest or most correct or learned editions of organ works, and we are frequently pulled up by others for 'falling into the trap' of playing wrong notes because of the edition from which we are performing. I am often not fully aware of these pitfalls, and would like to start a discussion of these 'errors', in the hope that others far more learned than I could point out the worst offenders! Any takers? A few months ago, I suggested on this forum that there should be a website one could visit for such things and it could be filled with suggestions/observations sent in by those interested. I would happily administer such a site. Having said this, I'm not sure if there seemed to be enough interest to get the thing off the ground. BTW Good to hear you play Gigout and (edited) Mozart yesterday in Northampton! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Lane Posted June 17, 2007 Share Posted June 17, 2007 Most organists, myself included, are not able to obtain or afford the latest or most correct or learned editions of organ works, and we are frequently pulled up by others for 'falling into the trap' of playing wrong notes because of the edition from which we are performing. I am often not fully aware of these pitfalls, and would like to start a discussion of these 'errors', in the hope that others far more learned than I could point out the worst offenders! Any takers? I think it would be a good thing, dissemination of information about errors is always useful. I seem to remember a series of articles in OR a few years ago, was it by Olivier Latry?, on corrections to Vierne's scores. I suspect like a lot of organists I make heavy corrections to scores where necessary (Barenreiter Bach for instance), often using tippex and a decent calligraphy pen to make it look half decent. Jonathan A few months ago, I suggested on this forum that there should be a website one could visit for such things and it could be filled with suggestions/observations sent in by those interested. I would happily administer such a site. Having said this, I'm not sure if there seemed to be enough interest to get the thing off the ground. Excellent idea, I would certainly support such a website, and use it! Jonathan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vox Humana Posted June 17, 2007 Share Posted June 17, 2007 I seem to remember a series of articles in OR a few years ago, was it by Olivier Latry?, on corrections to Vierne's scores. Or for those who missed that: http://sydneyorgan.com/SOJ2003.html (with thanks to whoever posted the link here before). Paul, go for it! I'm sure plenty of people would find it useful. I know I would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vox Humana Posted June 17, 2007 Share Posted June 17, 2007 I've just been playing through Franck's Choral no.2 from the Durand edition and for the umpteenth time found myself puzzling over the inconsistent treatment of the repeated notes in the three statements of the chorale. The second half of the melody begins with an anacrusic crotchet that is reiterated on the following downbeat; this phrase is then repeated in sequence a third higher. At the first appearance of the chorale, the first anacrusis is separated from the ensuing downbeat, but the second is tied. In the second statement of the chorale neither is tied and in the third both are tied. Franck may well have written it this way, but I can't help wondering. Does anyone know the answer? For what it's worth the UMP edition reads similarly, but if it was derived from the Durand, then it would, wouldn't it? The Vienna urtext edition, which should have consulted Franck's autograph score and sketches, would probably provide the answer to this, even if it's only in the form of tacit agreement. Oh yes... and is there, or is there not, a 'Vox Humana' direction missing for the final section? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
french amateur Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 In the same sort of things: the edition of Vierne's "Pièces de fantaisie". As the Master had real difficulties to see what he was writing, not only his tempo indication must be considered as doubtfull, but there is plenty of errors in the editions due to the manual scores being sometimes difficult to read. And the editor not very cautious about the transcription to the printer version. So a few years ago O. Latry took time to read the original manual scores from Vierne and quoted the corrections. The list of corrections is transmitted to the conservatoires students by teachers, occasionnaly. I used it when I played Cathédrales. I should ask for the whole list. If someone is interested... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Psalm 78 v.67 Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 Oh yes... and is there, or is there not, a 'Vox Humana' direction missing for the final section? Surely personal directions should be written in oneself!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcnd5584 Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 I've just been playing through Franck's Choral no.2 from the Durand edition and for the umpteenth time found myself puzzling over the inconsistent treatment of the repeated notes in the three statements of the chorale. The second half of the melody begins with an anacrusic crotchet that is reiterated on the following downbeat; this phrase is then repeated in sequence a third higher. At the first appearance of the chorale, the first anacrusis is separated from the ensuing downbeat, but the second is tied. In the second statement of the chorale neither is tied and in the third both are tied. Franck may well have written it this way, but I can't help wondering. Does anyone know the answer? Oh yes... and is there, or is there not, a 'Vox Humana' direction missing for the final section? Vox, I recommend that you obtain a copy of French Organ Music from the Revolution to Franck and Widor - edited by Lawrence Archibold and William J. Peterson (1995: University of Rochester Press: ISBN 1 878822 55 1). This excellent volume contains a number of essays by respected organists; the section on Franck includes an essay by Marie-Louise Jacquet-Langlais and another by Daniel Roth. The problem of notes communes which you mention is explained - although presently I cannot locate the precise page, and I do not have time to read whole sections of the book before Boys' Practice begins (in about fifteen minutes). If I have time later, I will try to find the relevant section. However, the book is well-written and a mine of useful information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giwro Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 A few months ago, I suggested on this forum that there should be a website one could visit for such things and it could be filled with suggestions/observations sent in by those interested. I would happily administer such a site. Having said this, I'm not sure if there seemed to be enough interest to get the thing off the ground. I would happily donate server space for this if someone would be willing to write up the entries - I don't have time to administrate THAT, but I'd definitely be interested. I have a list of errata in the works of Dupré... BR, - G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Barry Williams Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 An even greater number of errors can be complied if one compares Dupre's recordings of his own compositions with the printed score. As before, any lists would be gratefully received. Barry Williams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now