Newsgroups: rec.music.early
Subject: Re: good sources for Monteverdi
From: phoogenboom@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:50:06 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Apr7.192939.772@athena.mit.edu>, ridgway@mit.edu (Lee Ridgway) writes:
> In article <1992Apr6.135456.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
> phoogenboom@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
> 
>>I recently conducted a concert of sacred latin choral music of Monteverdi.  We
>>used the Malpiero edition.  it is remarkably true to the originals; with the
>>exception of the supplement, vol. 17, the note-values are the original ones. 
>>There are a few engraving errors and the barring is sometimes very problematic
>>and odd.  There is a newer complete works edition, which does transpose note
>>values but also includes facsimilies of original parts, publuished by the
>>Claudio Monteverdi Foundation in Italy.  I am not sure whether this series is
>>finished.  I did not use it because Indiana University's music library does
> not
>>have the volumes of sacred music.
>>        The Malpiero edition tries to mark editorial editions and changes, and
>>is generally good about it, but there are frequent omissions or errors in this
>>regard.  Whatever you do I would recommend [finding a copy of the originals.]

[unimportant deletion] 

> Denis Stevens has edited some of the madrigals and other choral pieces, with
> good commentary, editorial decisions, and suggestions for performance. One of

Whether Stevens' commentary, decisions and suggestions are good is a matter of
opinion.  If one disagrees with his opinions his editions are difficult to use
successfully.  I find the practice of transposing note values to be
troublesome.  I was conducting the Indiana University Pro Arte Singers, a
group of early music specialists.  These people are trained by their director,
who was also coachin me in my preparation for the concert, to get as close to
the originals as possible.  The responsible, informed conductor will do his or
her own research and make his or her own decisions.  We would have used prints
of the original edition except there were complications which prevented this,
the Malipiero edition was (to my surprise) the closest available alternative.
 
> the problems with the Malpiero edition is that (at least in the copies I've
> seen) he doesn't tackle some of the performance issues, such as which
> instruments, performing pitches, and some of his suggested chromatic changes
> are open to debate. 

See above.  Also, Stevens' (or any editors) ficta indications are subject to
debate.  That is one reason they are printed above the staff.  Malipiero
actually goes one better than usual:  Ficta implied by an explicit accidental
in another part are printed above the staff, while editorial suggestions are
enclosed in parentheses above the staff, frequently even with a question mark. 
In the end it is the performers decision.
 
> Some of the smaller English publishers are coming out with performing editions
> of Monteverdi. I think the London Pro Musica (name?) series has some. Go to a
> library that carries journals such as Early Music, The Galpin Society Journal,
> and related publications, and scan their advertisements from publishers. 

None of the modern performing editions I came across seemed really satisfactory
to me.  Additionally, they did not cover much of the repertoire I was trying to
perform.  I suppose in the end it is a question of how much scholarship a
performer is willing or able to do, and also of how easy it is to identify
editorial decisions in a modern edition, and ignore them if one disagrees with
them.

Peter Hoogenboom
phoogenb@ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: rec.music.early