Introduction
Comparison between the 1811 Urfassung
I and the 1822 revision II
Schlesinger's Urausgabe III...
The different versions of the solo
bassoon part...
(The following article appeared in the January, 1986 issue of Tibia magazine, pp. 22-30, in the German language. It is reprinted here in English with the kind permission of the author, editor, and publishers. Ed.)
When the bassoonist is asked which are the important classics written for his instrument, two composers spring first to mind: Mozart and Weber. As regards the available editions of the works in question: in the case of Mozart's K191, the earliest of all his concertos to be regularly heard today, this has recently been issued in a scholarly Urtext edition of the orchestral score in the Neue Mozart Ausgabe.[1] By contrast, neither of the two works for the instrument that we possess by Weber have yet received from an editorial point of view, the attention that they deserve. The lesser of them, the attractive Andante & Rondo Ungarese, Op. 35, has not even been published yet in score (!), unlike the composer's earlier version for viola.[2] His Concerto in F major, Op. 75 is frequently performed and is known to every student of the instrument: however it is only generally known today from editions that differ in many points of detail from Weber's original text.
This article will consider the main differences between the following
five versions:
I Copy of the original version dated 27 xi 1811 (D-Mb s: MusMss.2600)[3]
II Autograph - Revision dated 3 viii 1822 (D-Bds: Weber Nachlass
14 )[3]
III Edition in parts, published 1823 (Schlesinger, Berlin. PN
1246)
IV Arrangement for bassoon & piano, published c1865 (Schlesinger,
Berlin. PN 5592)
V lst edition in orchestral score, published 1952 (Eulenburg,
London. E.E. 6032)
The work thus survives in three different versions dating from
the composer's lifetime. By a happy chance, Weber's original version
survives, together with his subsequent revision of 11 years later.
Without wishing to suggest that the latter is not an improvement,
it is nonetheless interesting to see in what respects the original
version differs from the work we know today. Furthermore, until
such time as an Urtext edition is available[4] it is hoped that some knowledge of how and where
the versions in general use today deviate from the composer's
original will be of interest to players and will enable them to
give a more authentic performance of this delightful work.
The circumstances of the work's composition may be recalled here:[5] The 25-year-old composer had arrived in Munich in March 1811. The brilliant success of the clarinet Concertino written soon after his arrival for his old friend Heinrich Bärmann, the clarinettist of the Munich orchestra, had two immediate results: the King was so impressed that he straightway commissioned from him two further clarinet concertos, and the other players in the orchestra besieged him with requests to write works for them as well. The only one to be successful in this respect was the bassoonist Georg Friedrich Brandt;[6] he had trained in Berlin under the famous Ritter[7] and had already enjoyed a career as soloist before coming to Munich in 1806 as "Hofmusiker" On his behalf, King Max was persuaded to commission from Weber a bassoon concerto; it was written between the 14th and 27th of Nov. 1811; Brandt gave it its first performance in a concert given on 28th Dec. 1811 in the Munich Hoftheater. The composer himself had left Court for Switzerland shortly before; however a copy of the score was made by the Court copyist Johann Anton Steigenberger for the Koniglicher Hofintendanz, and this happily survives today in the Bavarian State Library. Its title page reads: "Concerto / per / il Fagotto principale / composto per uso / del Sig. Brandt / da / Carlo Maria di Weber". This score was evidently checked over by the composer, because it bears a few pencilled corrections and afterthoughts in his hand.[8] Brandt performed it subsequently in Wien (27 xii 1812), Prague (19 ii 1813) and Ludwigslust (21 iii 1817). Having kept the score by him for 11 years, Weber gave it in 1822 together with the two clarinet concertos Opp. 73 & 74 to his Berlin publisher Schlesinger for publication. As was the practice of the time, only the parts without the score were printed. Having heard Brandt's Prague performance, and with a decade of experience as a composer behind him, he decided to carry out a few minor revisions. He made his alterations partly by adding his amendments to the original score in ink and partly by replacing entire pages. This revised manuscript is dated 3 viii 1822 and is preserved among the Weber Nachlass in the Deutsche Staatsbibliothek in Berlin (Ost). Schlesinger's edition in parts (III) appeared the following year. It corresponds closely to the revised score.
Some 40 years later the same publisher issued a reduction for bassoon and piano (IV). Its plate number indicates a date of about 1865. The solo part has been re-engraved; an anonymous editor has added marks of articulation, dynamics and expression to the many passages where they had previously been lacking. Some that had been there already have been altered; minor alterations to notes and several misprints have also crept in. Virtually all subsequent editions are based on this version.[9] In 1952 Eulenburg Edition decided to publish the work in their well known series of miniature scores. This is the first edition of the work in orchestral score. However the opportunity to give currency once again to an authentic version was sadly missed. A foreword by Dr. Max Alberti gives the background to its composition, but he does not claim responsibility as its editor. Whoever this was took as source for the solo bassoon line Schlesinger's posthumous edition IV, and for the orchestral accompaniment a version that differs considerably from III in matters of dynamic and phrasing. The notation has in places been needlessly altered, errors and omissions in the markings abound, and the standard of proofreading is poor. A more recent edition in full score published in the U.S. is merely an unaltered (and unacknowledged) photographic enlargement of the Eulenburg plates.[10]
Comparison
between the 1811 Urfassung I and the 1822 revision II
The main alterations Weber
made are as follows:
(a) He expanded the two main tuttis of the first movement.
(b) He made a few minor alterations in the solo part and added
some marks of expression and dynamic (such as brillante, dolce,
con fuoco).
(c) He re-scored some accompanying string passages.
Those made to the orchestral accompaniment will be considered
first. The bar numbers refer throughout to the revised version
II, which are conveniently given in the Eulenburg score V.
First
Movement...
(1) Bars 8-11 appear in I
as follows:
In 1, the momentary touch of minor tonality at a is mirrored in the second subject statement that follows (see next example); in II, Weber changes them both to the major. In bars 63 and 120 the bass line is similarly "flattened" in I.
(2) Bars 13-19
The shadow cast by the sombre second
subject in the minor, with its expressive Neapolitan cadence and
wistful coda echoing the Ist Clarinet Concerto, is eliminated
in the new extended tutti of II
(3) Bar 62. Instead of a short chord from strings, horns and timpani,
I has a sustained minim chord on strings, oboes, and bassoons.
(4) Bars 118-132.
Here Weber shows a sound instinct for the overall structure by
rewriting this tutti in II to make it half as long again.
(5) Bars 205-208.
In II, Weber augments the time of this linking passage to correspond
with the parallel place in his revised opening tutti (bars 24-26).
Second
Movement...
(6) Bar 3. Weber has had
problems here with part-writing: he originally gave f' c' to the
viola. In I he has altered the c' in pencil to g': in II he has
finally corrected it to es'.
Third
Movement...
(7) Bars 27-36
This opening section indubitably gains
from the full repeat of the main theme restored in II rather than
the truncated version of it in I.
(8) Bars 52-58
In order to maintain a two-bar rhythm
throughout this section, Weber in II inserts an extra bar at a.
(9)Bars 120-127
The humour and suspense of the four new
bars inserted at a in II serve to re-introduce the rondo theme
to better effect than here.
(10) Bars 140-145.
Weber's original repetition of material
from the preceding tutti (bars 67-70) is replaced with new material
in II.
(11) Bars 159-160. In I, bar 159 does not exist and bar 160 bears
a pause.
(12) Bars 161-168. In I, the string accompaniment
is simpler, with sustained chords that do not
relate to the character of the solo part.
(13) Bars 215-226. The bass-line is not doubled by the violins,
who play what is given to the violas in II
(14)Bars 231-237.
The augmentation in time value of the
phrase at a in II is another effective touch.
Schlesinger's
Urausgabe III...
The edition of the orchestral
parts of 1823 adheres to Weber's revised manuscript closely on
the whole. The main differences are as follows: the engraver has
rationalized the rather haphazard slurring in the string parts
and added dynamics and accents in several places; some of Weber's
wedges have been changed into staccato dots (eg 2nd movement
bar 2). There are some strange mis-readings in the wind parts:
in the Ist movement, the second subject, marked Solo pp in both
the flute and oboe is given to the second players as well. In
the recapitulation, the same happens in the flute; in the oboe
parts, the four-bar melody is divided up between the two players
with bars 216-7 given to the second and 218-9 to the first. Similarly
bars 157-8, marked Solo pp in the flute part have been given to
the 2nd as well, presumably because the composer omitted rests
at the foot of the stave. However in spite of these obvious slips,
the standard of proofreading and accuracy is good.
The
different versions of the solo bassoon part...
Before starting to compare
the authentic versions I, II and III of the solo bassoon line
with the posthumous IV, the following points must be made. In
classical times, composers did not in wind concertos see fit to
dictate specific articulations or marks of expression throughout
for the soloist. Certain passages might well bear precise indications
of slurs (showing both phrasing and articulation), staccato dots,
wedges, marks of dynamic and expression; but by contrast, in virtuoso
passage work the composer would not presume to lay down the law
or trespass on the artistic prerogatives of the individual performer.
Such sections left free of any mark whatsoever called for artistic
initiative and imagination on the part of the player, allowing
him a degree of choice according to his individual preferences
and technical resources. Tutors of the time often devoted considerable
space to suggesting different ways in which such passages might
be phrased and articulated.[11] However in more recent times it has become the
rule for editors to decide all such matters on behalf of the player,
too often failing to permit him to distinguish between what the
composer himself has prescribed himself and what the editor has
added; the authentic markings are indistinguishable amidst a host
of suggested additions, and in many cases have even been changed.
In the process of modernizing the notation, subtle indications
of phrasing can also become lost.[12]
In the case of IV, the editorial additions are practicable and stylish for much of the time; however considering that they do not emanate from the composer, there is no reason why they should continue to appear as if they do. Arguably they can be improved on in many places. The following passages in the solo part appear in I, II, and III free of any markings (ie slurs, dots, dynamics or expression marks):
(i) Bars 41-54, 59, 78-80, 97-99, 103-107, 109, 112-115, 140-146,
152-155 et seq., 181-187,190-196, 217, 224-228, 230, 235-238.
(ii) 10-12, 24
(iii) 60-66, 71-76, 79-80, 169-200, 242-267, 275-283
The main differences between versions I, II, III and IV of the
solo part are as follows:
First
Movement...
(15) Bars 41-48
1. IV adds risoluto both here
and in similar contexts at bars 141 and 181.
2. Weber is inconsistent (or careless) regarding the rhythm of
the three-note phrase at a whether the second note in the
bar should be a semiquaver or a quaver. In II, while giving the
rhythm of a to bar 2, later on in bar 42 and at corresponding
places in bar 52 and 182 he writes the rhythm of b; he
also writes rhythm b at the start of the second solo entry
at bar 67. The copyist in I has transcribed all these passages
in rhythm a.[13] III gives rhythm a in bar 67, but elsewhere
has copied II literally giving rhythm b. IV follows
III, adding a slur as well. However in view of the frequent use
made of the rhythmic figure a throughout the entire movement
and the fact that b occurs nowhere else, neither reading
b nor its gratuitous slur can be considered convincing.
It is perhaps also significant that when the theme re-appears
at bar 141, all sources agree on the rhythm of a.
3. Where the crotchets at c occur in
the opening tutti, there is no question of them being slurred
together, due to the way they are accompanied.
4. Similarly regarding the slur added at d, it could be argued
that the f belongs rather to the preceding phrase.
5. Regarding the trill at e: Weber usually writes a turn
when he wants one: perhaps a staccato crotchet, trilled but without
a turn, would suit better here.
It has thus been possible to disagree with almost all of the editorial
additions to this opening passage.
(16) Bar 67. IV substitutes dolce for mf whilst in bar
71 omitting brillante.
(17) Bar 82. IV unwarrantably changes Weber's minim to a crotchet,
adding a turn to the preceding trill.
(18) Bars 88-98.
The omission in IV of the dotted figures at a and b
robs the second subject of much of its character.
(19) Bars 107-109.
Here at a and b we have
examples of where passage work has been subsequently altered in
11. We also see how on occasion Weber can meticulously mark a
particular passage, in contrast to his usual practice of leaving
semiquaver passage work free of markings for the player to articulate
for himself; here even the beams are indicative of the phrasing
intended.
(20)Bar 113. 1 and 11 has no markings, III has wedges, while IV
has accents.
(21) Bar 116. Original version in I:
(22)Bar 147. The indication con fuoco
is added here in 11; IV adds animato
- a dangerous invitation to take this section
faster.
(23) Bar 209. The acciaccatura has been added in IV.
(24) Bar 215. 1, 11, and III give a repeated dotted rhythm as
in bar 95 at b (18), which has been
similarly changed in IV.
(25) Bars 233-236. Original version in 1:
Second
Movement...
(26) Bars 13, 14, 15. The
ten markings have been gratuitously added in IV.
(27) Bars 27-29.
The accidentals added at a and b in IV sound well. However the altered rhythm at c is incorrect; it corresponds with that of its answer two bars later.
(28) Bars 52-54.
Here the expression indicated by Weber's accents on the f'sharp and on the discordant a' has been weakened by the conventional editing in IV. A gruppetto seems called for at a.
(29) Bars 59-63.
Weber's cadenza appears thus in I. In II he adds slurs across the beat at b, and enhances the expressiveness of the final note by prefacing it with a gruppetto and prolonging it into the next bar. III adds a slur at e between the f' and a.[14] IV adds staccato marks to the scales at a and d, adds a fifth triplet group to Weber's symmetrical set of four at c, and gives a bizarre forte marking to the low F.
Third
Movement...
(30) Bar 2. 1, 11 and III
all give c' as the second note: this clashes with the underlying
harmony. However when the same passage recurs at bar 126, while
I again gives c' (cf Ex. 7), 11 and III give d'. IV is surely
correct to substitute d' here too.
(31) Bars 81-90.
At a there is a sudden change of mood; Weber's dolce has been crowded out by the decrescendo and appears after it; the sudden forte at b (ff in II) interrupts this mood. These markings, together with the dotted rhythm at d, have been added in IL The editor of IV, obviously working from the part III rather than the score II, has taken the dolce to refer to the bar in the line below, where it is hardly appropriate (bar 93). In addition to these omissions, note the misprint at c.
(32) Bars 99-106.
While the four-bar phrase is merely repeated
in I, it has been tellingly varied in II.
(33) Bar 160. The scherzando marking given to this jaunty
syncopated episode in Il is omitted in IV, where it appears instead
unnecessarily at bar 1, 124 and 236.
(34) Bars 191, 193, 195 et seq. The dynamics added in IV,
which give contrived echo effects to the reiterated phrases are
gratuitous; they have already been differentiated by means of
the or
chestration of the accompaniment.
(35) Bar 232. The e' in IV is a misprint for f' (see ex. 9).
(36) Bar 242 appears in I, II and III as follows:
(37) Bars 267-271. While all the other
semiquaver passages from bar 244 to the end are free of
any mark in I, II and III, these two ascending scales are carefully
marked as slurred and with
a crescendo mark.
Deviations
in V...
Most of the discrepancies
between V and the earlier sources - such as accents omitted, dynamics
misplaced, wrong notes, etc. - seem attributable to careless proofreading.
Others are due to the Eulenburg editor having used as source a
score with conductor's retouchings. An example of this is in the
last bar of the second movement: Weber carefully sustains the
accompanying strings and horns with a pause while allowing the
soloist to disappear a beat earlier: in V the pause is omitted
and all end together. In the same movement, the drop in dynamics
from ff to mf in bar 19 (and, in IV, in bar 3) which makes the
answering phrase a pale reflection of the first, is neither authentic
nor justifiable.
ENDNOTES
1.
Edited by Franz Giegling, Barenreiter, Kassel 1981.
2. Edited
by Georg Schunemann, Schott, Mainz 1938.
3. The
author gratefully acknowledges the kind co-operation of the librarians
of both these institutions in supplying microfilms and allowing
him to inspect these manuscripts in order to carry out the present
study.
4. An edition
in full score edited by the author of this article and to be published
by Universal Edition, Wien, is in preparation.
5. For
extra details, see "Zu Carl Maria von Webers Munchner Aufenthalt
1811 " by Robert Munster in "Musik - Edition - Interpretation:
ein Gedenkschrift fur Gunter Henle"; Munchen 1980.
6. Brandt
was born in Spandau (near Berlin) on Oct. 18th 1773 and died in
Munich on Feb. 12th 1836.
7. Georg
Wenzel Ritter (1748-1808), active in Mannheim, Paris and Berlin.
8. Such
as bringing in the timpani a half bar earlier in the recapitulation
of the first movement. See also Munster op cit.
9. An exception
in recent times is the edition by Johannes Wojciechowski, for
Verlag D. Rahter (HamburgLondon).
10. In
the "Kalmus Orchestra Library", published by Edwin F.
Kalmus, New York.
11. A useful
source for us here is "Systematischer Unterricht - 2ter Ted
- Fagott-Schule" by Josef Frohlich (Wurzburg, 1829) pp 163-170.
12. See
(19) below.
13. Except
at bar 182, where it appears undotted as three even quavers.
14. Surely
a misprint: it has become displaced from the g'-f' immediately
before, where it more properly belongs.