What are the characteristics of Clementi's music?

Object and methods


There are two ways in which the requirements on which musicological editing and textual criticism are based differ from those of those philologies that deal with linguistic texts. The first difference is based on the tradition and history of the subject of musicology and represents one of the determining factors in the delimitation of the objects to be edited and in the selection of editorial methods: In musicology, there is an institutionalized separation of sub-disciplines according to historical criteria - in the sense of an older and more recent musicology - never happened. Therefore, musicological editing and text criticism deals with the entirety of traditional musical writings and the literature relevant to music history and theory, thus encompassing the period between antiquity and the present. Depending on the type and age of the tradition, musicology is confronted with problems that can be compared with those of the older philologies, as well as with those that are mainly known from the field of the newer philologies.

A special case within the editorial efforts of musicology is the area of ​​orally transmitted folklore and the research into rock, pop and jazz music and other music that has been transmitted primarily on phonograms. Even in those cases in which there are specific forms of notation, these usually only fix a framework for the musical sentence; the concrete musical design requires a large proportion of improvisational elements and is mainly used during the performance or when working in the recording studio certainly. Conventional notation systems (Notation, types) often prove to be inadequate to fix the repertoire in writing in a form that corresponds to the tonal shape of the pieces, so that musicological ethnology and the branch of musicology, which deals with rock, pop and jazz music, have their own methods and media Had to develop forms of communication in order to make their research object available editorially (notation).

The second difference compared to the edition science in the philologies concerns the composition and nature of the objects to be edited. The corpus of texts that is relevant for musicological editing and text criticism is characterized by its media heterogeneity (Intermediality). It not only includes music in the narrower sense, but also linguistic texts as well as graphic documents and, last but not least, three-dimensional structures such as stage sets. On the other hand, the music itself proves to be a phenomenon whose textual properties can only be described and grasped within the tension between the written fixation and the sound event (font; performance). The alterity between sound and notation also exists in linguistic texts; a discussion of their relationship and the consequences of this split for textual criticism and editing can be found in the linguistic philologies, for example, in connection with medieval poetry (Orality; Old German edition studies) or the tradition of dramatic texts. In contrast to literary works, which nowadays can always be visualized in the form of individual reading, music is an art form that is only 'read' in exceptional cases. For musicological edition theory, the irreducibility of the tonal and written characteristics of the subject is both a central problem of the discussion plant- and text concept (see Schering 1928/29; Feder 1987; Seidel 1987) as well as an everlasting pragmatic problem that determines the history of musicological edition concepts in the form of the changing relationship between edition on the one hand and 'science and practice' on the other.

Traditionally, the edition of music aims at a presentation in "written form, usually in print" (Schmidt 1995, Col. 1657). However, this type of presentation is only suitable for certain types of musical texts. Even in the book medium, pictorial elements and reproductions of the notations have as facsimile the printing technique enriches musical notations, the latter are sometimes preferred by science and practice. In particular, the electronic media offer musicological editors the opportunity to include sound and scenic-musical performances (Electronic edition).

Furthermore, in the area of ​​musicological editions, the commitment and ideas of the music publisher (publishing company) plays a much larger and more formative role than is the case with linguistic editions. The reasons lie in the lower sales opportunities compared to language editions with significantly higher production costs, as well as in the much greater technical effort and degree of specialization that the production of music prints requires. The target audience is also structured much more closely. Intensive knowledge of the music market and extensive experience with musical practice are required in order to be able to assess which texts and which types of editions are suitable for practice. Nevertheless, music publishers are still not adequately represented in the discussion of musicological edition theory and practice.

This shows that the relationship between publisher and science within musicological editing can only be understood appropriately as a tense symbiosis. If the relationship is viewed negatively, science laments the publishers' lack of willingness to experiment, while music publishers are often offended by the lack of awareness in musicology of the needs of practice and the indifference to the economic aspects of the music edition. If you see it positively, science tries to make its findings available in the form of editions, while the publishers aim to present these findings in such a way that they are understandable even for users who are not primarily scientifically interested. It should also be remembered that certain publishers have not made strategic, but primarily editorial, concepts the principle of their publishing practice, such as Henle-Verlag, which, when it was founded, set itself the goal of publishing "Urtext" editions (Henle 1954). Marketing strategies such as the secondary use of scientific editions as performance material and as study scores, which largely dispense with the technical accompaniment, represent an example of compromise solutions that realize "the principle of a foundation of practice through science and a legitimation of science through practice" (Dahlhaus 1978 , 21).

In the relatively late emergence and development of an independent and self-confident musicological edition theory and practice at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century, the methods and epistemological paradigms of the German studies and the classical philologies the crucial role as role models. Up to the present day, musicological editors have always focused their attention on the methods of linguistic disciplines and have adapted them in an often fruitful way. This rootedness in philology can be observed both in the edition of linguistic writings in musicological contexts and in the edition of musical texts. In the case of the corpus of linguistic texts, the acquisition of methods of language-related scientific disciplines is obvious for several reasons, whereby a distinction must be made within the very heterogeneous text corpus. The literature that is edited by musicologists is made up of a wide variety of text types: theoretical treatises on music, scientific texts, literary texts, texts set to music and setting templates such as Libretti or stand-alone poetry and letters (Letter issue) and biographical evidence of composers, performers or other people involved in the creation, transmission or performance of music, reception documents and much more. Many of these texts also belong in the field of interest of other disciplines, so that an interdisciplinary approach is best suited for their indexing and editing. The cooperation between musicologists and classical philologists in the edition of texts by ancient music theorists (e.g. Boethius' Glossa Maior, published by von Dahlhaus 1978) has proven just as useful as the cooperation between German studies and musicology in the edition of the correspondence between artists such as Goethe or Zelter (Goethe, Zelter 1991-98).

Musicology has generally adopted editorial methods from philological disciplines and adapted them to the needs of the respective text. Differences in a specifically musicological perspective can be seen in the case of linguistic texts on music, letters and all other texts that do not appear in conjunction with music, above all in the layout of the commentary, in the selection and processing of the commentaries and in the design of the text-related text Apparatus, for example in the specific systematization of the register. These differences result from a purely subject-related interest and affect central areas of editorial work such as Text constitution or the design of the Variant apparatus, Not.

The editorial treatment of linguistic texts is more difficult where they are integrated into a musical network, for example in the case of vocal music or musical dramatic works. The coming together of language and music not only creates problems for editorial pragmatics, for example with the text underlay in works of the Renaissance (cf. Adler 1909), but also harbors conceptual difficulties, for example when editing librettos or composing templates (cf. Breig 1998; Hallmark 1987). The methods of philological edition studies reach their limits here for various reasons. So they do not offer any possibilities to recognize and convey the difference between purely linguistically motivated and musically motivated variance. Questions like "Do opera dialogues belong in a 'Werk' edition?" (Lühning 1998) express how difficult the editorial access becomes if the limits of the text are not determined by the criteria of the medium (media theory), the performance or the notation system (cf. Lühning 1998). The various partial aspects of the musical work - language, music, action, dance, stage design - which are inextricably linked during the performance, appear in the written fixation of the work as a juxtaposition of different and incompatible forms of notation and art. In the intermedia context it becomes obvious that Written form the ability to integrate the musical sound event across the board is largely lacking (Intermediality).

The history of the musical and musicological edition is embedded in a history of musicology, especially music historiography. Between the beginnings of music historiography in the late 18th century and the final establishment of the subject as a university discipline, music history developed essentially from the perspective of national and artist-oriented research interests: central concerns were music-historical overview works and musicians' biographies (author; historicity). In clear parallel to this, the two most important types of scientific editions emerged in the course of the 19th century: the Complete edition and the Monument issue (see Kroyer et al. 1922/23). While the former concentrates her interest on author corpora, the latter primarily deals with national repertoires and manuscripts.

The complete literary edition clearly served as a model for the birth of the musical one (Oppermann 1999, 57-63). This is evident in the choice of authors, in the limitation of the texts to be edited and, last but not least, in the objectives and target audience of the editions. The first complete scientific edition is likely to be the Old Bach Complete Edition initiated by the Bach Society founded in 1850 (Lehmann 1997). She released herself from the pragmatic constraints to which the group of publishing editions were subject and enriched the equipment of the complete edition with the bibliographical features that are still in use today: large format, uniform appearance, elaborate typographical design, valuable but sober cover, monumental overall impression .

The Second World War was followed by a heyday for musicological editing, when "complete editions [...] became the locomotives of musicology" (Walter Gerstenberg quoted from Feil 1979, 157). Based on non-specific musical criteria, one recognizes similar tendencies in the post-war edition projects as in simultaneous edition projects in German studies or classical philology. The more critical attitude towards author, text and plantunderstood as well as the desire to be closer to the Text carriers, after greater objectivity, verifiability and transparency made itself felt in the complete editions of musical content to this day. This change of perspective is expressed, for example, in the fact that text-critical apparatuses are now part of the permanent inventory of the complete editions and in some cases appear in the first place in the edition. The editions are also provided with texts commenting on the creation, reception and transmission, which explain the historical character of the complete edition (commentary). But also the turning away from the emphatic concept of (master) works as autonomous, closed structures, which "are created as coherent and whose individuality as art structures is only realized in the original form, in the one authentic version" (Schmidt 1995 , 1658) broadened the horizon of modern complete editions. In the guidelines of the new edition of Beethoven's works it is said: "The edition [...] aims to present the entire completed work including early versions and authentic arrangements, as well as larger fragments and extensive drafts in a critical edition." (Herttrich 1991, 7). The principle consideration of sketches (draft), Fragments and Edits has become a matter of course today. The monumental character of complete editions has been given up in favor of a definition of the complete edition, which sees its primary goal in the documentation of the work, creation and reception, taking into account its own historicity (cf. Georgiades 1971), without, however, referring to the external effort and type of to forego monumental presentation. This is how complete editions define their place in musical life in the area of ​​tension between science and musical practice. 'Secondary exploitations' of the scientific editions in Study expenses, Pocket scores and expenditures for the practice contribute significantly to the expansion of the user base.

In the application of text-critical methods, e.g. with regard to the acquisition of the Filiation (Boorman 1981; Bent 1981; Noblitt 1983), the methodological distinction between 'Recensio', 'Examinatio' and 'Emendatio' (Lachmann's method; Just 1983), the discussions about authorization and authenticity (see Altmann 1940; Schmieder 1940; Schmieder 1940), intention (Haimo 1996), the definition of the errorconcept and dealing with Text errors, the separation of Formation variants and Variants of transmission, of Findings and interpretation In principle, musicology follows the same approach as in the philological disciplines. However, there are differences in the terminology used. In musicological terminology, for example, terms such as apparatus or Text witnesses not enforced. We can find technical services in the editions under the headings'Critical report'; 'Revision report', 'Reading list' or 'Critical Commentary'. Text witnesses in turn are used in musicology as swell or 'Sources', where the literary term 'Quelle' in musicology is in turn the term template would correspond. The term Autograph split into different meanings. The Beethoven Philology, for example, uses the term only for the transcripts of works in the score, but also as Original manuscript are designated. Text genetic material (Text genesis) and score recordings are identified with the special terms of 'sketch' (also: draft, 'progress sketch' or 'orchestra sketch'). However, these terminological nuances are not binding even in musicology and are modified depending on the specific source situation. Gradual differences between musicological and philological editing also concern the consideration of those implications for the concept of text and the concept of author that result from the performance-related nature of music: for example, the discussion about the meaning of Edits, Piano reductions or performance variants have been performed much more intensively than in the case of comparable phenomena in literary studies (Gerlach 1998, Gratzer 1992, Oberborbeck 1955, Buschmeier 1998).

A specific criterion for the definition and description of the editorial tendencies in musicology, on the other hand, can be obtained from the way in which these the tension between notation and sound defines which is the central characteristic of the musical concept of text (notation). One and the same work can be fixed in different forms of notation, some of which even come from the author himself (Chrysander 1870; Birtner 1928/29; Besseler 1928/29; Schrade, Gomboso 1931/34; Ficker 1946/47; Ficker 1949; Lowinsky 1945; Bittinger 1953; Clerckx 1955; Appel, Veit 2000).

Any departure from the historical and / or from the author's notation contains parts of interpretation that could lead to a distortion of the text and the loss of potential for meaning. The reverse conclusion that appears in the postulate that "[r] is a 'scientific' [...] only the facsimile edition. Strictly speaking, any other form of the edition represents a transcription" (Albrecht 1958, 349) , however, that the editor ignores, even if he Facsimiles offers, cannot avoid suggested solutions for how the text should be read. Refusing to transcribe is therefore no solution to the fundamental problem.

Against this background, the various edition concepts in musicology can be seen in their attitude towards the one outlined here Materiality differentiate the notation. The bandwidth of possible editorial reactions to this issue ranges from a radical historism of notation to an understanding of notation as a historically conventionalized rule that must always be adapted to the respective time and to the respective user. If the first procedure emphasizes the substantial part of the notation and the written form in the representation of the musical text, the second emphasizes the function of the notation as a performance regulation and as a representation of the sound; she sees the text as a phenomenon that is in principle detached from the respective notation, which can therefore be transcribed at will. In the discussion about the suitability of Editions for science and practice the first solution is traditionally seen as belonging more to the scientific field, while the second is seen as a practical and user-friendly alternative. However, many interim solutions are conceivable between the two extremes. The corresponding tendencies are to be exemplified on the basis of three different edition types. The Facsimile edition and the Interpretation output represent the extreme positions of the spectrum. The so-called Urtext edition is suitable as a mediator between the positions, as the tensions and difficulties of the compromise solutions that have ever been reached can be presented most concisely on the basis of the dynamics of their development.

The potential of facsimile reproduction for the edition of music was quickly recognized and used extremely profitably. From a pragmatic point of view, the facsimile reproduction saves the effort of setting the music in the sheet music printing, and thus enables a relatively fast and sometimes, depending on the equipment and technology, also inexpensive reproduction of certain notations. For certain types of notation, such as autograph work records (Autograph), it seems to represent the only possible form of mediation, although it is technically much more complex and expensive. However, the criterion of economy is only a superficial one and only applies to certain types of facsimile. The decisive factor for the great acceptance and importance of facsimile editions in musicology is rather the awareness of the individuality of notation and the increasing awareness of the historical Materiality of tradition but also evidence of origin. The facsimile edition has established itself in various forms and editorial contexts as a thoroughly successful alternative for certain musical areas and sometimes even represents an unrivaled editing method. The following types of text witnesses are preferred objects of facsimile:

1) Handwritten sources from the Middle Ages and the Renaissance,

2) older music prints,

3) Manuscripts and prints that have idiosyncratic or special notations (tablature notations, etc.),

4) handwritten performance materials,

5) autograph work records,

6) draft manuscripts (draft),

7) writings on music theory.

Interest in the peculiarities of Lore and reception and also the knowledge of the specific individuality of production certificates (Text genesis) down. Although the facsimile edition is always an irreplaceable form of provision, it cannot be assessed uniformly from the point of view of its text-critical and editorial value. The widespread practice of publishing music theory works as 'reprints' only makes them accessible without editing them. Other editions also use the possibilities of apparatus and comments to ensure the legibility of the notes. Here, too, a development can be observed that reflects an expanded text-critical awareness of musicological editors. For one, take recently too Total expenditure the possibilities of facsimile come true. In the New Schumann Complete Edition and the New Mozart Complete Edition, draft manuscripts are edited as facsimiles and included Transcriptions, text-critical apparatus and comments opened up. On the other hand, genuine facsimile editions are increasingly making use of text-critical apparatus and commentaries and thus combine the original goals of facsimiles with the requirements of historical-critical edition.

A parallel development to the scientification of facsimile editions, which at first glance seems surprising, can be observed in the composition of the target audience. Facsimiles were generally regarded as products aimed at scientists and sometimes also at bibliophile music lovers, today practicing musicians have also become users of this type of edition. Historical notation and the closest possible proximity to the text witnesses are regarded as prerequisites for historically authentic performance practice. The practicality and user-friendliness of editions prove to be criteria that are themselves subject to historical change and can only be explored with regard to the knowledge and application interests of the current user.

A shortcoming of the facsimile editions, on the other hand, is that they necessarily suggest the identification of the text with a certain notation, not to mention that no traditional document is in principle error-free. With certain types of notation, however, a transcription of the original notation is essential in order to make the musical contexts clear. Notation in parts, be it part books from the Renaissance or instrumental parts from the 19th century, only allow a performance but not the reading of the entire text. As valuable as scientifically prepared facsimile editions are, their performance is limited.

Under Interpretation issues, designated issues or instructive expenses (cf. Graedener 1870; Oppermann 1999) one understands those editions that are characterized by a certain form of the transcription a notation - for example by giving up mensural notation (see Schering 1919/20), shortening the note values, modern coding (see Chrysander 1870) and orchestral division, as well as by changing the key, adding performance information, articulation marks, dynamics, character specifications, fingerings and through the more or less careful processing of the text with octave voices, more sonorous accompaniment, adaptation to modern instruments, through written figured bass parts and much more - Adapt the given musical texts to certain aesthetic ideas and technical needs in order to give the performer as precise an idea as possible of the tonal performance in a contemporary notation. A combination of all these processing methods, the renouncement of marking the editor's ingredients and the explicit naming of the editor's co-authorship of the edited text are decisive for the definition of the 'interpretation edition'. Part of these measures is legitimized by considering notation as a historically conditioned and fundamentally incomplete convention of fixing, which only takes into account the special but not the obvious. The 'lost things of course', those practices of musical performance that is, those of the contemporary musician ad hoc realized without having to appear in the notation are compensated for by this form of transcription.

The concept of interpretation needs a closer definition in the musical context. It is not their importance as a method of interpreting the text that is in the foreground, but their importance with regard to the tonal actualization, the musical performance. The prerequisites for this consist in overcoming technical difficulties, in reducing the complexity and contingency of musical notation, in linearizing the musical text by eliminating alternative text forms and in conveying an overall impression that is difficult to define, which gives the expression level of the performance a certain character confers. Of course, time-related taste ideas play an essential role here. Not only that the possibilities offered by more sonorous or in their ambitus modern instruments seduce to use them where they could not be provided at the time of the composition - for example in the sense of a translation from the piano language of the 18th into those of the XIXth century, from the clavichordic to the piano table "(Bülow 1862) - also the individual taste of Editor and his understanding of the work are explicitly inscribed in the texts in this edition type.

The historical 'interpretive edition' takes on an ambivalent role in the context of musicological editing, on the one hand as a negative foil against which at the end of the 19th century the return to the Urtext, so to the original notation, turned, on the other hand, as valuable receptionsdocument, as they convey the musical and aesthetic ideas of the editors and their style of presentation. Last but not least, these editions are the only sources in which the performing arts of great instrumental virtuosos from the 19th century, such as Muzio Clementi or Hans von Bülow, their concrete ideas about sound and their notion of faithfulness to the work can be grasped at all. Symptomatic is the explicit claim to authorship that the editors make. Who Clementi's edition of Bach's Well-tempered piano bought, got this: Clementis Well-tempered piano from Bach.

The criticism that the Urtext movement exercised of the 'interpretive editions' starts at two different points (cf. Henle 1954; Feder, Unverricht 1959; Finscher 1980; Feil 1979). From a text-critical point of view, the 'designated' editions were criticized for their preservation of the authenticity showed no interest in the text. Processing on the basis of a critically constituted text (Text constitution), you usually made use of existing expenses (textus receptus), the form of which has not been questioned. The editions also did not offer any help to check and understand the nature of the text and the criteria of the constitution. So "some works were gradually coated with a multiple layer of foreign ingredients." (Rudorff 1895, o. S.) without the user being given a handle to separate the foreign from the original. The accusation of 'source bogus' raised by the' Urtext edition 'against the' designated edition 'concerned a further aspect, namely the gradual concealment of the masters' "original writing style", which, according to Heinrich Schenker, "is the most perfect unity of inner and outward form, content and mark. " (Schenker 1925, 44f.)

The text-critical and source-critical sensitization and the reassessment of the original notation led to a complete paradigm shift in the principles of the text-making process of musicological editing. The text has been cleared of all later ingredients in its original form (originality) became the point of reference on which the edition had to orient itself. This paradigm shift in musical and musicological editing solved as many old problems as it caused new ones. Regardless of the transfer to the usual printed image, the music image, which was concentrated on the original, harbored a multitude of possible misunderstandings for the user trained in the specified editions and not yet accustomed to a historical perspective of the musical performance. The printed image on offer could suggest that the missing dynamic, articulatory or agogic information was either intended by the composer or should be understood as free space for a tendentially arbitrary interpretative design. Also the necessary, but not noted, commercials, the so-called. musica ficta (see Apel 1972; Apel 1938; Hoppin 1953; Clerckx 1955), historical forms of notation for certain rhythms (see Gombosi 1929/30) or musical ornaments such as trills, turning notes or grace notes (see Schenker 1908; Moser 1916; Moser 1918 / 19) pose problems for both the scientifically interested user and the practitioner. In a nutshell, the difficulty is that you first had to learn to 'read' the historical notation.

Had the idea of ​​the 'Urtext' edition paved the way for an objectifiable and intersubjectively verifiable text-critical method that was based on concepts such as authorization, authenticity and historicity could be measured, on the other hand, a representation of the text had been found that demanded a clear translation and mediation work from the editor: "The editor who conjures up such questions with his output but does not provide an answer, who does not provide clarity, commits - I repeat it - basically a sin of omission "(Feil 1979, 156) An essential task of the editor is to act as a 'translator' who makes the authentic text readable again (translation). As a result, however, even 'Urtext' editions were dependent on using certain transcription and editing methods and also some editorial ingredients that came from the tradition of the 'interpretive edition'. The categorical difference between the two types of expenditure can be seen, however, in the fact that those edition concepts that are outlined against the background of the claim of the 'Urtext' idea pursue the endeavor to clearly mark the editorial ingredients and to give the user the original and the ingredient, if not entirely, but within certain limits drawn on the basis of explicit and critical considerations, and also to make them plausible in argumentation. The lively discussion about the specific form of an edition, which aims to simultaneously present historical authenticity, critical penetration, transparent communication and a readable text, shows that these criteria can only be met on the basis of precise knowledge of both the historical and the aesthetic The value of the text as well as the knowledge interests and competencies of the user can be satisfied. The complexity of these circumstances contrasts with a concrete variety of editorial solution proposals, whose individuality, flexibility and imagination reflect the broad spectrum of tasks in musicological editing.


This article is linked by: