Reviews of Music
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
REVIEWS OF MUSIC Debussy, Claude, Preludes, Book I, ed. Michael Stegemann. (Wiener Urtext Edition, Schott-Universal, Vienna, 1985.) [Kalmus] Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ml/article/72/1/160/1045729 by guest on 27 September 2021 Debussy, Claude, Preludes, Deuxieme livre, ed. Ernst-Giinter Heinemann. (Henle, Munich, 1988, DM.24.) Debussy, Claude, Preludes, ed. Roy Howat. 'Oeuvres completes de Claude Debussy', I/v. (Durand-Costallat, Paris, 1985, subscription price F.368.) Those of us educated in the 'old maths' will remember injunctions to 'show your working', and this policy seems particularly relevant in reviewing these three volumes, where a single 'right' answer is often not indisputably to be had and where, as a result, the player is entitled to be guided by his taste, once he has absorbed the evidence. The most helpful approach may, then, be to take the Preludes one by one and deal with such problems, together with inconsistencies and omissions, as they arise. BOOK I I 'Danseuses de Delphes' bars 3-4 Schott-Universal (henceforth S) follows autograph (A) in making a long slur under the first five beats. Durand-Costallat Oeuwes completes (OC) retains pair of slurs from the first edition and from the corrected reprint of 1913 (El, E2). Dr Howat has now intimated that he would prefer to adopt the autograph reading. As the notes in S indicate, the analogy with bars 8-9, where a pair of slurs is found in all sources, is far from exact. 8-9 OC addsFl),Gl| under treble ninths, following Debussy's piano roll recording of c. 1913 (R). This is tempting, since, as Howat points out, Debussy made these rolls with a copy in front of him. There is also an analogy with bars 16-17, including an autograph correction to the proofs. However, it has to be said that to include the addition is rather to fly in the face of Howat's statement regarding the changes made in these rolls, that 'none of these variants is taken into the main text unless it solves an existing problem or fills a probable omission'. There is no real problem with the previously accepted text, and I feel it may be too much to describe this omission as 'probable'. 10 All sources except A give the last chord as a minim. The declared policy of S to prefer A to El, come what may, and in ignorance of the existence of second proofs, corrected by Debussy, in the Durand archives (EP), already begins to look doomed. The notes in S fur- ther state that 'the comparison of certain passages on these piano rolls with the manuscripts and the first editions reveals that the composer followed the reading given in the autograph rather than that of the first edition'. Whatever is meant by 'certain passages' {bestimmten Fallen) here, in R the final chord of this bar is a minim, even if a very slightly abbreviated one. 16 OC adds Clj.Dl) on final quaver, following autograph addition in EP. 5 remains ignorant of this. II 'Voiles' 17 OC initial quaver Bl> should be a crotchet, as in A, not a quaver, as in EP, El and E2. Both here and in bar 19, there is a case for OC to print a crotchet rest for the second half of the bar, as in bar 15. 5 reasonably does so in square brackets. 160 29 first two semiquavers Dij.Elj have staccato dots in A. These need to be added by analogy in bar 30 also. 62-64 Through ignorance of EP, 5 misses out autograph addition of sustaining pedal to these last three bars. (The fallibility of S being well enough established by now, the re- mainder of the review of Book I will concern itself mainly with OC. S will be referred to only when it has useful suggestions to offer.) III 'Le vent dans la plaine' 11 In OC, quavers 3 and 7, the second note down should be Db not Ctj. A and EP give Co in both bar 9 and bar 11; El corrects it to Db in bar 9 only, E2 in bar 11 also. 16, 20, 37, 41 5 is probably right here to follow A and take crescendos as applying to left Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ml/article/72/1/160/1045729 by guest on 27 September 2021 hand only, Durand's engravers sharing the habitual tendency of engravers to normalize. R is no help, here, since, almost certainly, Debussy's technique in 1913 was not up to making such distinctions. Keeping the ostinato level for the most part reinforces the sense of two opposing forces, clearly present in the OC reading of 58-59, indicating a pedal release at the beginning of 59. IV 'Les sons et les parfums . .' 7 Howat would now like OC to include pp marking in A on the first beat of the bar. This seems to have been simply an omission on Debussy's part. V 'Les collines d'Anacapri' 88, 90 Debussy altered bar 88 to OC phrasing on EP, but it seems possible that he meant this to apply also to bar 90 and then forgot to make the change. I cannot see any musical point in distinguishing between the phrasing in these two bars, as OC does. VI 'Des pas sur la neige' 32, 33 the alignment of the octave semiquavers in OC is faulty, suggesting that the left- hand note be played before the right-hand. VII 'Ce qu'a vu le vent d'Ouest' 19-20 Frankly, the notation of these two bars has always been a mess, right from A. Debussy realized that the two equal semiquavers with which the upward scales began did not convey the required urgency and proceeded to unequalize them, since when most pianists have scrambled through somehow with generous support from the sustaining pedal. Howat rightly recognizes that some of the trouble stems from problems of space and from Debussy's refusal to use triple dots on the crotchet chords, but I still find the OC solution unconvin- cing, as I do the alternative propounded in the notes. I feel one has, for once, to proceed from the premiss that Debussy got this notation totally round his neck (not for the only time when he ventured into demisemiquavers or beyond) and be perhaps dangerously bold in suggesting a solution. My own hunch is that Debussy did not go far enough in rectifying the equality of the first two semiquavers and that the demisemiquavers were no more than a shorthand for 'fast'. In my view a more likely solution is This preserves the triplet motion, gives prominence to the Eb's and agrees with the note at the bottom of page 28 in OC in treating the upbeat chords as demisemiquavers. IX 'La seYdnade interrompue' 19 Although OC respects the sources in not bringing the phrasing of this bar into confor- mity with that of its later appearances in bars 41, 85, 90 and 92, it is hard to see how it 161 can reasonably stand on its own. In isolation it is more likely to be irritating than anything else. X 'La Cathedrale engloutie' 7, 13, 22, 84 It is good to have in print the tempo changes clearly present in R. My only demur is that the indication J = J could be misleading to the less experienced pianist without the usual rider 'du mouvt precedent'. As a general rule, this convention offends against common sense, since it works in the opposite direction to the eye following the music, and it could with profit be replaced by the pragmatic, if inelegant, 'go twice as fast'. For Book II, the Henle edition provides more equal competition than did the Schott edi- Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ml/article/72/1/160/1045729 by guest on 27 September 2021 tion for Book I. Heinemann did not know of the existence of the corrected reprint of 1913, but in the event this does not matter because he has consulted the copy of the first edition an- notated by Debussy and now in the possession of Mme Lamy. He has also been able to con- sult OC and has occasionally reached different decisions. BOOK II III 'La puerta del Vino' 55 OC and Henle (H) both adopt the crescendo, absent from A, though Howat has reser- vations, since no proofs for this book have survived, as to whether it may have been a printer's confusion with bar 56. The wealth of repeated bars in the piece suggests nothing is amiss. IV 'Les fe"es sont d'exquises danseuses' 16 The asterisk in H means 'refer to the notes' —an indication to that effect (cf. p. 27) has gone missing. Also missing perhaps in OC is dark type for this bar number in the notes, which is designed to show that a question of particular importance is involved (though readers are left to make this deduction for themselves). Howat is presumably happy with his addition of a natural to the two G's (as I think he should be —for one thing, Gb's here are almost unplayable), but pianists who don't comb through the notes will be alerted to the possibility of flats only through the shrinkage of the natural signs. In places such as this, the old convention of square brackets has much to recommend it, since not all pianists are watchmakers or entomologists. 9, 39 In OC, the extent of the arpeggiation on the third beat is not regularized, //chooses to extend arpeggiation up to F!) in both places.