What is URTEXT?
Adam Golding
with bieng unedited, but is there an urtext society or something that
checks these things? is it a claim on the part of the publisher? what?
And, the schenker version of the beethoven sonatas put out by dover,
that isn't URTEXT, but it's supposed to be true to the originals, so
what's the difference between that and an URTEXT edition? Or did
Schenker actually make any significant changes? Do I ideally want
URTEXT? keep in mind that for now i am buying only one edition.
eromlignod
Most people refer to them as the Henle edition. It's the
edition with the bluish gray cover and the composers name in big
black roman letters. They are printed with extreme attention to
every detail about authenticity and are scrutinized by the
leading authorities in the world. There are notes in the
appendix for seemingly every measure delineating sources and any
discrepancies between them in fingerings, notes, markings, etc.
Often there is also an introduction explaining how the works
were originally published and notes about the composer. I like
them because they are well printed and easy to read on good
paper. They seldom print individual songs (though there are
exceptions) opting for entire sets of works, like the entire
Chopin mazurkas. They cost a little more than other editions,
but if you're serious about obtaining a true rendition of the
composer's music, I recommend them. A word of caution, however:
usually there are notes in English, but sometimes the appendix
notes are in German only, so look before you buy.
Don
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Dwight Munroe
>Urtext is the name of the publisher and printed in Germany.
>Most people refer to them as the Henle edition. It's the
>edition with the bluish gray cover and the composers name in big
>black roman letters. They are printed with extreme attention to
>every detail about authenticity and are scrutinized by the
>leading authorities in the world. There are notes in the
>appendix for seemingly every measure delineating sources and any
>discrepancies between them in fingerings, notes, markings, etc.
>Often there is also an introduction explaining how the works
>were originally published and notes about the composer. I like
>them because they are well printed and easy to read on good
>paper. They seldom print individual songs (though there are
>exceptions) opting for entire sets of works, like the entire
>Chopin mazurkas. They cost a little more than other editions,
>but if you're serious about obtaining a true rendition of the
>composer's music, I recommend them. A word of caution, however:
>usually there are notes in English, but sometimes the appendix
>notes are in German only, so look before you buy.
As much as the Henle editions are respected in the community, they hardly
have sole rights to the term "urtext". In the context of the original
question, you've answered "Coke" to "What's a cola?"
In my layman's terms, "urtext" means nothing more than "as the composer
intended it". This should be the result of critical examination of earliest
known manuscripts, subsequent rewrites, correction of obvious errors by the
composer, and correction of dubious editorial decisions over the time since
composition. Or, as close to the original as possible, DESPITE time and the
composer himself.
Many original compositions are "corrected" by their publishers before first
editions come out. Succeeding editions also have a stamp put upon them by
"experts" who try to "correct" what they perceive to be errors. Then,
someone gets the great idea of publishing an original ("urtext") edition,
which itself may be flawed. The more years and the more editions that go
by, more and more comes into question. (You need look no further than this
very newsgroup and others like it to find debates over preferred editions or
the composers' original intent.)
Someone once pointed out to me that the term "urtext edition", itself, is an
oxymoron. The only true urtext would be the composer's own manuscript.
What we have today called "urtext" are probably more appropriately termed
"urtext-based editions".
Henle's editions are wonderful, but don't confuse the brand-name "Urtext"
with the generic term "urtext".
dwight
eromlignod
Henle editions as the gospel. I've never been too impressed
with Shirmer, Palmer, Peters or Paderewski editions. Cortot
seems good but, again, hard to read with all the notes. The
publisher of the Henle editions is called Urtext, but I never
realized that it was a rip-off from an actual term. Thanks,
Dwight.
I still recommend the Henles if for no other reason than how
easy they are to read. I have the Paderewski edition of the
Chopin impromptus and the first page of the Fantasie-Impromptu
is almost unreadable, it's scrunched up on the page so much.
It's almost as if they were trying to save paper.
Brian
first book of Mozart sonatas and fantasias.
Peters Editions grabbed the Internet domain name for urtext.com, and has
included an interesting article on the history of the concept on its
site at:
http://www.urtext.com/urtext_text.html
I assume this is an accurate history.
Brian
Downunder
In article <0e483356...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com>,
eromlignod <gilm...@sealright.com> wrote:
> Wow! I never knew that. My instructor always consulted his
> Henle editions as the gospel.
[RESPONSES EDITED FOR RMMP BREVITY]
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Greg Presley
In addition to all the valuable information in the above post, it should be
mentioned that 99% of all things called urtexts are educated opinions. In other
words, the editor looked at all the sources, many of which were probably in
disagreement, and proceeded to "decide" which one was the composer's final
intention. Of most value to a performer with a curious mind, is an urtext with
copious notes about how some of the sources differed from one another. Then,
he/she can add his or her educated opinion into the mix. But all of us should
cultivate an awareness of the following fact. Most composers changed their minds
about details up until the moment of publication, and often afterwards as well.
Rather than being frustrated by this, we should look at it as an additional
opportunity into seeing how creative minds work, and be inspired by their
constant effort to achieve a better, more coherent artistic statement. If we
don't keep an open mind about this, then we run the risk of getting into
horrific arguments about trivial things, like the religious fundamentalists
getting their knickers in knots arguing over the exact meanings of words that
have been translated into 4 or 5 different languages before appearing in the
language of the fundamentalist (and probably in many cases, translated
poorly). Greg
Florian Weimer
> Urtext is the name of the publisher and printed in Germany.
No, that's wrong. 'Urtext' is just a German word. Anyway, there's no
well-known German publisher (of piano music, at least) named Urtext.
Nowadays, almost all reasonable[1] editions are 'Urtext' (there are some
exceptions where the source material is abundant (and self-contradicting)
or nonexistant). And 'Urtext' is relative -- I've seen Chopin editions
where everything beyond the raw notes was wildly different, but all
claiming Urtext conformance.
1. That is, not by Richard Cleydermann (sp?), for example. AFAIK, old
music was published this way back in the 19th century: random
omissions and additions, by accident and intention. I think Czeny
has done some horrible things to Bach's WTC (although it was the
first edition in print after dozens of years).
James Boyk
>
> ...My instructor always consulted his Henle editions as the gospel. I've never been too impressed with Shirmer, Palmer, Peters or Paderewski editions. Cortot seems good but, again, hard to read with all the notes. The publisher of the Henle editions is called Urtext, but I never
> realized that it was a rip-off from an actual term....
The publisher of the Henle editions is called Henle. No one ripped off
anything. "Urtext" simply means "original text." Anyone can publish an
edition that claims to be an "urtext." This *requires* the services of
one or more editors; for someone has to decide what is "original."
Hence, different "urtext" editions of the same piece can disagree.
The Henle editions, while good, are not impeccable. There's a
voice-leading error, e.g., in Fugue XXII of WTC I; and an important
error at the "Aria da capo" in the 2nd movement of the Opus 111
Beethoven.
Schirmer and Peters are publishers, like Henle; but Paderewski was a
pianist. The publishers of his Chopin edition may change over the years,
but the edition remains the same. It's the best I've found from an
"urtext" point of view, because he is explicit about the variant
possibilities from the "autographs" (the originals in Chopin's
handwriting) and the various first editions (from various countries). He
makes choices, as every editor must, no matter whether the edition is
"urtext" or not--only in desperate cases will more than one possibility
actually be presented in music notation--but Paderewski tells you what
the choice was and why, and what the other possibilities are; so you can
make up your own mind. (Chopin is an extreme case, in that the
autographs are not at all definitive; he kept revising even on the
proofs of the various first editions.)
By the way, the Neue Schubert Ausgabe, supposedly the most correct and
scholarly edition of Schuber's works, offers performing editions of
individual works. When preparing the song cycle "Die Schoene Muellerin"
some years ago from such a performing edition, the singer & I were
puzzled by some markings in the score. Finally I went to a music library
and consulted the big edition, to which ours was supposedly identical.
Lo! and behold! All the things that puzzled us were in fact additions by
an editor; and were not present in the complete set. I was frankly
outraged by this--we'd spent a *lot* of time over these things--and I
wrote to the editors. They responded with a truly snotty letter that
said that for mere performers, an accurate score didn't matter.
James Boyk
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk
Greg Presley
James Boyk wrote
:Schirmer and Peters are publishers, like Henle; but Paderewski was a
> pianist. The publishers of his Chopin edition may change over the years,
> but the edition remains the same. It's the best I've found from an
> "urtext" point of view, because he is explicit about the variant
> possibilities from the "autographs" (the originals in Chopin's
> handwriting) and the various first editions (from various countries). He
> makes choices, as every editor must, no matter whether the edition is
> "urtext" or not--only in desperate cases will more than one possibility
> actually be presented in music notation--but Paderewski tells you what
> the choice was and why, and what the other possibilities are; so you can
> make up your own mind. (Chopin is an extreme case, in that the
> autographs are not at all definitive; he kept revising even on the
> proofs of the various first editions.)
>
I'm not positive that it was THE Paderewski who edited what we call the Paderwski edition, since it was copyrighted in 1950, and I'm fairly sure that he died well before then. The notes in back are signed by the other two editors, Bronarski and Turczynski. Maybe someone out there has
more definitive information. However, I agree that this is the best working edition of Chopin's work, whether or not the famous pianist Paderewski was involved in the editing process. Greg
Radu Focshaner
> I'm not positive that it was THE Paderewski who edited what we call the Paderwski edition, since it was copyrighted in 1950, and I'm fairly sure that he died well before then. The notes in back are signed by the other two editors, Bronarski and Turczynski. Maybe someone out there has
> more definitive information.
"J'atteste que la revision du texte original des oeuvres de CHOPIN
d'apres les manuscrits et l'edition originale, pour l'institut Chopin a
Varsovie, a ete redigee entierement par moi avec la collaboration de
Messieurs Joseph Tuczynski et L.Bronarski et que j'approuve ladite
revision.
I.J.Paderewski
Riond-Bosson, le 15 Mars, 1940"
From my edition (It is the only thing I undertsand, the rest is in
russian).
Radu
Hilary Fanescor
> I.J.Paderewski
> Riond-Bosson, le 15 Mars, 1940"
Speaking of Mars, that's exactly where I am beginning to think
you are living because I just cannot get through to you.
Are you out there Radu ? Read your emails.
Hilary.
M.H...@doc.mmu.ac.uk
Hilary Fanescor <hfanesco...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> (snip)
>
> > I.J.Paderewski
> > Riond-Bosson, le 15 Mars, 1940"
>
> Speaking of Mars, that's exactly where I am beginning to think
> you are living because I just cannot get through to you.
>
> Are you out there Radu ? Read your emails.
>
Nice smoke screen. I suppose those emails had something to do with dogs
also ?
Mike
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!
>
Michael
"I certify that the editing of the original text of Chopin's works, according to the original edition for the Chopin Institute in Warsaw, was edited by me with the collaboration of Mr. Joseph Tuczynski and Mr. L.Bronarski. Furthermore, this edition has my full approval."
I.J.Paderewski
Riond-Bosson, le 15 Mars, 1940"
>
>
> "J'atteste que la revision du texte original des oeuvres de CHOPIN
> d'apres les manuscrits et l'edition originale, pour l'institut Chopin a
> Varsovie, a ete redigee entierement par moi avec la collaboration de
> Messieurs Joseph Tuczynski et L.Bronarski et que j'approuve ladite
> revision.
>
> I.J.Paderewski
> Riond-Bosson, le 15 Mars, 1940"
>
> Radu
Wayne Reimer
>
> Urtext is the name of the publisher and printed in Germany.
> edition with the bluish gray cover and the composers name in big
> black roman letters. They are printed with extreme attention to
> every detail about authenticity and are scrutinized by the
> leading authorities in the world. There are notes in the
> appendix for seemingly every measure delineating sources and any
> discrepancies between them in fingerings, notes, markings, etc.
> Often there is also an introduction explaining how the works
> were originally published and notes about the composer. I like
> them because they are well printed and easy to read on good
> paper. They seldom print individual songs (though there are
> exceptions) opting for entire sets of works, like the entire
> Chopin mazurkas. They cost a little more than other editions,
> but if you're serious about obtaining a true rendition of the
> composer's music, I recommend them. A word of caution, however:
> usually there are notes in English, but sometimes the appendix
> notes are in German only, so look before you buy.
>
>
It stikes me as pretty funny to see someone confidently holding forth on
the term urtext and also referring to piano music as songs...
wr
Kensei
Wayne Reimer <rei...@hooked.net> wrote in message
news:390B5B2F...@hooked.net...
> eromlignod wrote:
> >
> > Urtext is the name of the publisher and printed in Germany.
> > Most people refer to them as the Henle edition. It's the
> > edition with the bluish gray cover and the composers name in big
> > black roman letters. They are printed with extreme attention to
> > composer's music, I recommend them. A word of caution, however:
> > usually there are notes in English, but sometimes the appendix
> > notes are in German only, so look before you buy.
> >
> > Don
> >
> It stikes me as pretty funny to see someone confidently holding forth on
> the term urtext and also referring to piano music as songs...
>
> wr
And I suppose the Urtexten of Debussy and of Glass are in German also!
eromlignod
>forth on the term urtext and also referring to piano music as
>songs...
>wr
>And I suppose the Urtexten of Debussy and of Glass are in
>German also!
Gentlemen:
I will appologize once again for my stupidity regarding the
term "urtext" which you have so thoughtfully dredged up from a
February posting. I have been an active member of this
newsgroup for several months now and do not want to be labeled
as a crackpot. Since my urtext gaffe, I have strove to be sure
of my facts as well as forgive others for posting hasty replies.
Might I suggest that you read an entire thread (especially one
so old) before flaming individual blunders?
Don
Larry Fletcher
>newsgroup for several months now and do not want to be labeled
>as a crackpot. Since my urtext gaffe, I have strove to be sure
>of my facts as well as forgive others for posting hasty replies.
>
>Might I suggest that you read an entire thread (especially one
>so old) before flaming individual blunders?
>
>Don
>
Don,
Don't worry too much. We all know you're not a crackpot. That title would more
properly fit someone who is still reading posts from 2 or 3 months ago and
commenting on them before they finish reading how the story ends.
Larry Fletcher
Pianos, Inc.
Atlanta, GA
Dealer/Technician
Doing the work of three men..........Larry, Curly, and Moe.
"The earth is suffocating........Swear to make them cut me open so that I won't
be buried alive" (last words of Chopin)
William Harris
The German word "ur-test" means nothing more than the origial text, and
it is used of a piece of music as it was originally first written, or a
play like the first version of Goethe's Faust. The German "ur-" means
something like "ancient, old as a rock...", so UrZeit is ancient times,
UrGeschichte would be proto or pre-history.
Many European musical scores try to give pure and unedited texts for
students to work from, but there are conventions of phrasing and
especially fingering, also pedaling, which are usually the work of the
"editors". Schnabel's edition of the Beethoven Sonatas gives the
interpretations and tricks which Schnabel found useful in his own
work; some of these help one person, others may not fit all hands.
But an autograph text is another thing, great interest for research scholars
but not useable for a student's use. Yet you could read from a photocopy
of a Bach Invention, while the MS of Beethoven's late quartets would
virtually defy comprehension. So there is a long line from the penned
composer's score to the first publication, to the "purist" edition, and
down through a succession of editions each reflecting the experience of a
skilled and proven performer, famous in his day.
William Harris <har...@middlebury.edu>
Wayne Reimer
eromlignod wrote:
>
> >It stikes me as pretty funny to see someone confidently holding
> >forth on the term urtext and also referring to piano music as
> >songs...
> >wr
>
> >And I suppose the Urtexten of Debussy and of Glass are in
> >German also!
>
> Gentlemen:
>
> I will appologize once again for my stupidity regarding the
> term "urtext" which you have so thoughtfully dredged up from a
> February posting. I have been an active member of this
> newsgroup for several months now and do not want to be labeled
> as a crackpot. Since my urtext gaffe, I have strove to be sure
> of my facts as well as forgive others for posting hasty replies.
>
> Might I suggest that you read an entire thread (especially one
> so old) before flaming individual blunders?
>
> Don
Okay, I went back to Dejanews and read the entire thread, or at least
what appears to be the entire thread. And, you know what, it didn't
make any difference because I was still amused by the post. And I only
saw it in May, even though I wasn't particularly looking for old posts,
and so couldn't have responded earlier. At any rate, there's no set
time I know of for responding to a post.
I didn't intend a flame, maybe just a warm cinder, if that. Further
explanation of why I wrote is that it's one of my pet peeves when an
instrumental composition is called a song in the context of classical
music. I can't understand why it seems so difficult for people to get
the concept that a song is sung by a singer, not played by an
instrumentalist. Please, don't anyone respond with "But what about the
Mendelssohn, Faure, etc. Songs without Words?"
wr
Johnti Rhodes
David McKay
Shouldn't that be 'ISTEXT?
DAvid McKay