Instructive Editions of Bach's Wohltemperirtes Klavier: an Italian
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INSTRUCTIVE EDITIONS OF BACH’S WOHLTEMPERIRTES KLAVIER: AN ITALIAN PERSPECTIVE by CHIARA BERTOGLIO A thesis submitted to The University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Music School of Languages, Cultures, Art History and Music College of Arts and Law The University of Birmingham January 2012 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT This thesis defines the theoretical, sociological, historical, cultural and practical framework of “instructive editions” (IEs). The approach adopted evaluates, for the first time, the most significant discussions found in previous literature, realising a comprehensive overview of the issues involved. The principles expounded in the theoretical chapters are verified in practice through application to the specific case of Bach’s WTK and its role in Italy: here, in particular, the thesis dissects the “myth” of Thalberg’s edition and introduces a hitherto overlooked edition by Lanza. Careful comparison of a sample of Italian IEs identifies “genealogies” in performance traditions and their correspondence with the aesthetic trends of their era: the presence of an “Italian” attitude to Bach’s WTK, inspired by prevailing neo-Idealistic values, is shown in the coexistence of a sentimentalist approach with the fascination for structural objectivism. It is demonstrated that musicological studies in aesthetics, performance practice and the history of reception benefit from the analysis of IEs, and from their comparison with other written and recorded documents of performance: IEs are a vehicle for both preserving and transmitting interpretive aesthetics. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To the memory of my unforgettable friend Manuela Papaveri, who shared my enthusiasm, my worries and my hopes from the very first steps of my “PhD adventure”, and to whose friendship, encouragement, understanding and irony I owe so much. In remembrance of Walter Baldasso, Carla Merlini and Claudio Sensi. To my supervisor, Prof. Kenneth L. Hamilton, for whom no thanks will be ever enough. I can but mention his kindness, (Job-like) patience, availability, encouragement, understanding and – of course – the invaluable academic help and suggestions I have always found in him. Many thanks also to Professor Matthew Riley and the academic community at the University of Birmingham, in whom I have always found sympathy and support. In memory of Prof Giovanni Morelli, my MPhil supervisor at the University of Venice and the Director of Music Studies at the Fondazione Cini in Venice, with immense gratitude for having introduced me to the world of musicological research, for having supported the prosecution of my doctoral studies, and for having substantially helped me in the consultation of Casella’s letters in the Fondazione Cini’s holdings. To Drs. Emiliano Giannetti, Gaia Bottoni and Chiara Tivelli for their help in finding bibliographical documentation regarding Mugellini and Tagliapietra. To Ms Lisa Vick and Mr Andrew Wilson of the Music Library at the University of Harvard; to Mr Mickaël Hamelin of the Library at the Université Paris I – Sorbonne; to Mr David Lasocki of the Music Library at the University of Indiana – Bloomington; to Mrs Christine Streubühr of the Germanic Institute of Rome; to Mr Peter Martin, Production Associate at G. Schirmer Inc.; to Mr Renato Gattignolo, Studio bibliografico “Libri rari” (Mortara, PV, Italy); to Dr Concetta Pellegrino of the Library at the Conservatory “San Pietro a Majella” in Naples; to Dr Domenico Carboni of the Library at the Conservatory “Santa Cecilia” in Rome; to the personnel of the Library at the University of Arizona; and to Dr. Janet Crayne, Head of Slavic and East European Division of the Library at the University of Michigan, for their kind, precise and instantaneous help in bibliographical matters. To the personnel of the Library of King’s College London, for their kindness, availability and sympathy. To Professor Malcolm Bilson, Professor Francesco Scarpellini Pancrazi, Mr Willem Peerik and Dr Louise Szkodzinski for having provided useful bibliographical references. To Professor Matthew Dirst (University of Houston) for sharing with me Chapter Six of his then unpublished book Engaging Bach: The Keyboard Legacy from Marpurg to Mendelssohn. To Professors Luca Aversano (Università degli Studi Roma Tre), Francesco Esposito (CESEM at the Universidade Nova de Lisboa), Jonathan Kregor (University of Cincinnati), Janina Klassen (Musikhochschule Freiburg), Ralph Locke (University of Rochester) and Francesca Seller (Conservatory of Salerno), and to Drs Julia Ronge and Beate Angelika Kraus (Beethoven Haus Bonn) for their helpfulness. To Alberto Bertino, Giovanni Bertoglio, Ian Chadwick, Anthony Dean Hensley, Irene Iarocci, Rabea Wolfram Kirmis, Julia Mikhailovna Kunyavskaya, and Jonathan Sokol for their friendly help. To the De Sono Foundation, Professors Maria Luisa Pacciani, Daniela Carapelli and Claudio Voghera of the Turin Conservatory, and to the CRT Foundation for their support and help during the early stages of my research. To Mrs Angela Matheson, my “guardian angel” and my dearest friend in Birmingham. To all my friends, who followed and encouraged my thesis-writing and research. To my parents Ottavio and Grazia, and to my dear brother Giovanni, with infinite thanks for their continuous encouragement, supportive enthusiasm and unshaken belief in my ability to reach the top of this mountain (“per ardua ad alta”…). Special thanks to my father, for having proofread the thesis at the various stages of its writing. To the Good God, as Bruckner would have put it: thanks for having always been at my side, and for having saved my life (He knows what I mean). CONTENTS LISTINGS Table of Contents CONTENTS LISTINGS i Table of Contents i List of Illustrations vii Figures vii Graphs viii Tables viii Appendix – Figures ix Appendix – Graphs ix Appendix – Tables ix ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS AND CONVENTIONS xi CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION 1 01.01. Methodology of the thesis 4 01.02. Why IEs? 5 01.03. Why Bach? 7 01.04. Why Italy? 9 CHAPTER TWO – ALL AROUND IES 11 02.01. IEs in comparison with other notational objects 11 02.01.01. IEs and performance transcriptions 11 02.01.02. IEs and arrangements/transcriptions 13 02.01.03. IEs and realisations/versions 16 02.01.04. IEs and sample realisations 17 02.01.05. IEs and annotated scores 18 02.01.06. Four types of “arrangements” 18 02.01.07. Where is the editor? 19 02.02. IEs in editorial context 21 02.02.01. Performance IEs 22 02.02.02. Analytical IEs 28 02.02.03. Urtexts 31 02.02.04. Critical Editions 35 CHAPTER THREE – PROBLEMATIC ISSUES WITH IES 37 03.01. Theoretical problems 38 03.01.01. Types or tokens? 38 03.01.02. Work or interpretation? 39 03.01.03. Subset or intersection? 41 03.01.04. Lost in translation 42 03.02. Problems of notational contextualisation 44 03.02.01. Missing means forbidden? 44 03.02.02. Instrumental contextualisation 45 03.02.03. The questions posed by notational contextualisation 46 03.02.04. Notational contextualisation of pre- and post-1800 works 50 03.03. Pedagogical problems 51 03.03.01. Technique 53 03.03.02. Style 55 03.03.03. Notational contextualisation 56 i 03.03.04. Performance 57 03.03.04.01. Preventative indications 57 03.03.04.02. The “surprise” effect 58 03.03.04.03. “Written” identities 59 03.03.04.04. Too many indications 59 03.03.04.05. Instructive but not pedagogical 60 03.04. Textual problems 65 03.04.01. What is an IE made of? 65 03.04.01.01. Questioning the Text 65 03.04.01.02. Examples 69 03.04.02. Sachs or Beckmesser? 73 03.04.02.01. Negative and positive 74 03.04.02.02. Surprise Symphony 74 03.04.02.03. Hierarchies 77 03.04.03. Whose indications? 78 03.04.03.01. Subliminal influence 81 CHAPTER FOUR – IES IN USE 84 04.01. “How much” are IEs used? 84 04.01.01. Italian public library holdings 85 04.01.02. Survey on the spread of IEs 90 04.01.02.01. Purposes 91 04.01.02.02. Sample 92 04.01.02.03. Results 93 04.01.02.03.01. Bach performance 93 04.01.02.03.02. Complementing data 98 04.01.02.03.03. Evaluation and judgement of IEs 100 04.02. And “how” are IEs used? 105 04.02.01. An Internet discussion 106 04.02.02. IEs on the Web 107 04.02.03. Facing reality 108 04.02.04. A personal experience 112 04.03. Summarising 114 04.03.01. In literature 115 04.03.02. Multiple uses for multiple users 124 CHAPTER FIVE – THE WTK AND THE HISTORY OF IES 128 05.01. The WTK-paradigm 128 05.02. Early spread of the WTK 129 05.02.01. Bach in Vienna 131 05.02.02. Mozart’s transcriptions 133 05.02.03. Beethoven 134 05.03. The first printed editions of the WTK 136 05.04. Causes of the birth of IEs 140 05.04.01. Notational causes 140 05.04.02. Sociological causes 142 05.04.03. Philosophical causes 145 05.04.04. Instrumental causes 147 05.05. Czerny 149 05.05.01. Bach, Beethoven, Czerny 150 ii 05.05.02. The origins of CzE 153 05.05.03. Its aesthetic principles 154 05.05.04. Its critics, its influence 159 05.06.