New Berlioz separated the 'Tibi omnes' from'Dignare'.
This has
BERLIOZ Te Deum (New (omplete Works, 10), ed. D.
McCaldin. Barenreiter,cloth ?22.40, paper ?13.20
Among many pleasures in this volume are some
disappointments,with which we may start. As a
policy, the editors of the New Berlioz Edition keep
the listed variant readings of the music as briefas
possible. The presentedition suffersfrom this on
two counts. First, nothing in it says that Denis
McCaldin's list is not exhaustive. In fact, com-
parison with the 1855 Brandus edition suggests
a multitudeof unlisted variants. The editor used
Berlioz's proof corrections,but there are still too
many differencesbetween NBE and Brandus to be
explained by printer's error. Second, given that
obvious mistakes in the three chief sources have
been justifiablyignored,thereare even so instances
where the reader simply doesn't get enough infor-
mation. In the firstmovementthe NBE slurs many
pairs of vocal quavers that are unadorned in the
first edition. When this profoundly affects my
reading of such importantmomentsas the climax,
bars 123-6, I should be happierknowingwhencethe
slurs originate.In the'Judex'thereis no mentionin
Brandus that the tambours are 'voiles': where did
this originate? Smaller details of ambiguity are
foundin 'Te Deum' bar I, 'double corde' cello not in
NBE, and 'Judex' bar 131, where the second violin
phrasing is obscure in the new edition. These last
points are more musically plausible in the 1855
version.
It's a question of completingthe job. As the list
of variantreadingsstands,thereis ample room fora
little more to be said on, say, major divergencies
between the proofs of the 1855 edition and the
issued engraving.The originalperformancematerial
furnished'several significantdetails' but it is hard
to imagine that from such a mass of MS paper all
these appear in the given list of variants. The
numberingof trombonesat the head of 'Te ergo'
is not helped by the situation. The Brandus score
specifies three, in explicit contrast to the first,
second and two last movements,which specifysix.
The NBE omitsthe'three'withoutcomment,even in
the editorial section on instrumentation.A note
on the performancesources here would surelyhave
been reasonable. This is especially needed since in
the first and second movements Berlioz's first
edition contains an apparent contradictionin the
remarks'Les 3 unis' (i.e. trombones),coming in the
musical text.This is ironed out in the NBE to read
'unis B 3'. A similar approach has been taken in
bar 152 of 'Te Deum', where the old score implies
one trombone ('1? solo') and the new score, two.
Linked to this problem,which goes quite unsolved,
are three serious misprintsin the list of orchestral
forces on p.2: only half the required number of
oboes, clarinetsand trombonesare specified!This
slip must not be allowed to gain currency:4, 4, 6,
not 2, 2, 4 are required.
Two other omissions seem to be important.In
view of the freedomwith which Berlioz treatedthe
selection of words, some mention, however brief,
could well have been made of the text sources of
each movement.Second, with all the background
informationon the high saxhorn in the 'Marche',
the actual pitch of the instrumentis left out.
Ironically, the composer's own footnote was for-
gotten, explaining that it sounded a 7th above
written.All this is regrettable;but it has to be
placed beside much worthwhileeditorial matter
and a general textual clarificationthat cannot but
be warmlywelcomed. I cannot resistmentioningthe
orchestralprelude which, in the autograph score,
This content downloaded from 192.70.186.247 on Fri, 27 Sep 2013 22:27:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
been placed in thesecond appendix. It is not reallya
'magnificenttone-poem' as Wotton claimed, but it
is far more fittingthan the closing march. In its
function as a dramatic modulation it counter-
balances thecarefultransitionto B major at the end
of 'Te Deum'. Moreover it breaks up a sequence of
fourchoral movementsand of two organ solos. We
should realize its value and performit. I hope the
publisherswill eventuallyinclude these 58 bars in
the orchestralmaterial. DAVID CHARLTON
OriginalHummel
HUMMEL Concerto in E for trumpet and orchestra, ed. E.
Tarr. Universal, score ?5, piano score ?3.60, parts available
Edward Tarr's new editionof Hummel's well-known
trumpetconcertoof 1803 is mostwelcome.The work
was originallyin E major, but for convenience of
playingon moderninstruments it has been published
in a numberof editions in E flat. Now for the first
time, wxehave a scrupulous and scholarly edition
which revertsto the original tonality,as well as
clearingup a greatdeal of confusionwhich involves
a numberof details in the MS of the work. This is
mainly concerned with the contribution of the
original soloist, Anton Weidlinger, the keyed-
trumpet virtuoso for whom Haydn wrote his
concerto,to changes in the solo partand cuts in the
slow movement.Both versionsof the second move-
ment are given and the revised solo part of the
outer movementsis given separately. Needless to
say, this edition should replace all previous ones.
The only thing that will stand in the way is the
relativescarcityof trumpetsin E (or the necessary
ability to overcome difficultiescaused by trans-
position from another instrument)and the astro-
nomical cost, even at today's prices and exchange
rates. Perhaps Tarr's own beautiful recordingon
HMV SXLP 30154 (see MT, Aug 1973, p.803) may
help change matters. NIALL O'LOUGHLIN
Tartinisonatas
TARTINI Sonata in D major for solo violin, ed. T. Ney
(Violin-Bibliothek, xxxiii). Schott, 60p
--Sonata in G minor, 'Didone abbandonata', op.1 no.10
for violin and basso continuo, ed. M. Abbado. Ricordi,
score and part, ?1.10
The solo sonata is taken from a manuscriptin
Padua Cathedral, autograph, though the editor
refrainsfrom identifyingit as such. Its technical
demandsare moderate,itsmusicaldemandsconsider-
able-it seems a veryworthwhilepiece, though ex-
Are your
MANUSCRIPTS AS CLEAR
AS THE PRINTED NOTE?
Stop pretending !
Playing a piece at sightfrommanuscript
difficult
can be a tryingexperience,especiallyifit is
writtenin a pooror unfamiliar hand.
Fromyourmanuscripts we can prepare
typewritten copies whichare scarcely
distinguishablefromprintedmusic.
CLEARER MUSIC MEANS BETTER
PERFORMANCE
detailsfrom:BeaminsterMusic Services,
further
Dorset
2 TunnelRoad, Beaminster,
489