Missing accidentals in Yorke Edition Bottesini

[fergus currie]

Dear professor Neher, in one of the pieces I'm learning at the moment, Bottesini's Allegretto Capriccio, there is a 'D' on the second beat of bar 104. Can you tell me if it should be a 'D#' ? The harmony seems to indicate D# but in context it's difficult to tell since the music is wavering between E minor and G major. I have only the Yorke Edition which is notorious for missing accidentals. Thank you in advance.

Fergus Currie

[PNeher]

I am sorry to tell you that I do not have that piece in front of me. It is in my library back in Tucson and I am traveling. So, the best thing to do is compare with the piano part, determine the harmony and decide. You must be your own editor anyway (to quote the late David Walter). Another way is to listen to a number of recordings and see what others have determined.
Best to you. Sorry I could not give you a definitive answer. Remember, the music is there to serve your musical interpretation and your musicality. Whether Bottesini wrote d or d# does not matter. Play what sounds correct to you AND provides you with the vehicle for expression that you desire.

PN

[fergus currie]

If you get a look at the piece let me know. As for the note I'm 99% settled on D# for what it's worth. I've ordered JQ's CD with this on it and that will be my guide. Great to get a reply so promtly either way so thanks for that.
FC

[jonn_]

Originally Posted by PNeher

Remember, the music is there to serve your musical interpretation and your musicality. Whether Bottesini wrote d or d# does not matter. Play what sounds correct to you AND provides you with the vehicle for expression that you desire.

While I agree with all the intelligence and sophistication of this approach, the delivery of this second sentence is shocking. I mean no disrespect, It's only that the last few sentences stuck me and I was wondering if you would expand your reply.


Could you give some specific examples from your experience that come to mind where those differences were so unclear you needed to decide for yourself and how? Do you recommend those solutions to your students?

a broader question at hand is one of philosophy or intent behind any decision:
Is it the music at the service of the performer, or the performer at the service of the music? both? Yes for some composers, no for others? Is this as slippery a slope as it seems?

Ok, obviously I blew your answer to a simple question out of proportion, but I'm curious to read your response.

[PNeher]

Originally Posted by jonn_

While I agree with all the intelligence and sophistication of this approach, the delivery of this second sentence is shocking. I mean no disrespect, It's only that the last few sentences stuck me and I was wondering if you would expand your reply.


Could you give some specific examples from your experience that come to mind where those differences were so unclear you needed to decide for yourself and how? Do you recommend those solutions to your students?

a broader question at hand is one of philosophy or intent behind any decision:
Is it the music at the service of the performer, or the performer at the service of the music? both? Yes for some composers, no for others? Is this as slippery a slope as it seems?

Ok, obviously I blew your answer to a simple question out of proportion, but I'm curious to read your response.

HI!
You are right, a philosophy is what I advocate. One must determine for one's self what the proportion of "involvement" each of the parties have in a particular performance / interpretation of a work. The parties being: the composer, the performer, the publisher, other interpretations/ers. I like to THINK about music and view many compositions as a puzzle - providing many questions and answers. So I tend toward a sort of pyramid approach; where my expressive desires are on top, my interpretation of the composer's intent next (unless I am being coached by a live composer then the intent is clear and takes a co-leading role), the publisher's indications next, and at the bottom - of the least influence on my approach, how others have performed the work. All aspects are important in varying degrees.

When it comes to making a decision about a particular note, a well-informed approach is advocated -- but always with personal expression as the goal. Sometimes you simply cannot determine the composer's intent (pitch, slurs, harmony, etc) from a manuscript or perhaps from the published version(s). You must be confident in your performance of the work, so you make a decision based on your philosophy and experience; your knowledge of the style, the composer's other works (if any), and the tendencies of the particular publisher (they each have a "style" too). Sheet music is, by design, to be interpreted. Classical compositions (vs pop music) become well known by being printed or written down and then premiered by an interpreter/performer. The more famous the interpreter, often the more famous the composition. Works become famous by who played them, even if it is the composer that first premiered the work. Bottesini is a great example of a composer who changed his compositions at the moment, at a particular performance. We have, for example three manuscripts of the Introduction and Gavotte (or Gavotte alone). They are very, very different. So, in this case, even the composer was influenced by the performer (himself).
All this is what I meant by the composition is YOUR vehicle for expression. Noone will ever perform the piece the way you will. Your philosophy, your approach, your study, your experience is expressed in a single pitch/note. You must have the confidence that your intent is clear, that you will play d#! "Then it grooves!" (to quote Vic Wooten) You can also justify your "change" of the print (if this is the case) by pointing out that your study has lead you to this decision. It is a personal decision -- as is any interpretation of a work, and is a calling-card, establishing your performance style. How many editions do we have of the Bach Cello Suites? Hundreds! Because these cellists want to present a "unique" approach to establish him/herself as a celebrated performer.

Just a side note into why my philosophy is such:
As a composer, teacher, concert and recording artist, producer and publisher, I am always weighing the balance of these roles in the music that I present (audibly or in print). Every time a presentation is done I establish another "who I am" to the public. Personally, I like to mix it up a lot, and keep my audiences guessing, because they are likely to pigeon-hole you as fast as possible. There is such huge diversity in my interests that I am bored if I languish in any one of these roles. So... sometimes I play a d# because it raises eyebrows!
Best to you!
Patrick

[fergus currie]

And... just in case anyone is still interested in finding an answer to the original question... I listened to Bozo Paradzik's recording and he makes a very solid case for the d#. - Rather than mix things up, he takes the one clear example of the d natural (in a G major arpeggio) and plays this bar one octave higher in harmonics pianissimo with much more rubato ( you can't get much more 'special moment' than this guys) and then returns to the tempo, dynamic, stopped notes and of course d# for the bar in question. So long story short: Yorke missed the #, I learned the piece and all is well once again in Shangrila.
FC

And I'm not sure how far you can go changing notes in non aleatoric compositions just to get your own 'calling card'. I mean where do you draw the line. There has to be ambiguity in order to have a fence to fall on one side or the other of, don't you? Execution of baroque trills and ornaments is always going to be open to interpretation but changing notes because you don't have access to a good edition is something very different. I don't think you could get away with a d# as the third note of the Dragonetti concerto even if you advertised it before hand! It would just be wrong. Interpretation is bound by definition to relate directly to the subject and any diversion in meaning is hence a deviation and not an interpretation. We have to be very careful here. Some students could see this as a cart blanc to play what the hell they liked and claim it in the name of interpretation. Oops, looks like I got an attack of Yackity-yack again!

[PNeher]

Clearly TASTE is learned as a response to trying things in public. Certainly a D# in the opening of the "Dragonetti" (actually you are speaking of Nanny's Concerto "attributed" to Dragonetti to get press, BTW!) would divert from the intended style of "Classical" era music, BUT had Gary Karr originally recorded it that way, AND it was shown to be the absolute intention of the composer (manuscript, channeling, interview, ) THEN you might say it would fly for the rest of time: Kinda like the Recitative in Beethoven's 9th Symphony that we play slowly and with rubato because of TRADITION, but the score says Presto. So, a lot of consideration, experience, and experimentation (observing audience reaction, critics' comments, teachers' winces, etc.) help us psychologically come up with some answers that we (alone?) are satisfied, even pleased with, and therefore establish a style and perhaps a genre! Without a doubt, do what the composer intends (if you can ask him/her) then, after that, a sort of collective interpretation is what usually prevails.
Best to you all for a life of creative THINKING!
PN