![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/files\/2019\/06\/Durand-aktuelle-Ausgabe.jpg\")
<\/a>Durand, current edition, flute, mm. 100\u2013103<\/p><\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/a>Durand, first edition (1874), flute, mm. 100\u2013103<\/p><\/div>\n
When reviewing the piece\u2019s sources, we come across the following notation of the place in question in the first extant autograph manuscript (1871):<\/p>\n
<\/a>Autograph manuscript, mm. 102\u2013103<\/p><\/div>\n
As in previous measures, Saint-Sa\u00ebns entered the flute part in each of the top staves of the four-stave accolades, the piano part in the two lower staves. He clearly first notated the variant I that we know from the current Durand edition in ink, but later pencilled variant II into the blank second stave, as printed in the first edition. That this is not a correction is apparent not only because he did not delete the initial version, but also because there is a brace around both variants. So, it\u2019s an alternative, not a correction. Since there are no direct musical reasons for imposing the alternative \u2013 the harmony (A-flat7<\/sup>) stays the same \u2013, we suppose that this is about simplifying the execution.<\/p>\n And indeed, as the flute teacher Christel Drebes-Heinemann demonstrated to me, the little finger is especially needed for the sequence g flat<\/em>1<\/sup>\u2013e flat<\/em>1<\/sup>\u2013c<\/em>1<\/sup> | e flat<\/em>1<\/sup>\u2013d flat<\/em>1<\/sup> in measures 102 f. For the little finger first of all has to play a\u00a0flat<\/em>1<\/sup> and g flat<\/em>1<\/sup>, then stay there for the e flat<\/em>1<\/sup>, changing position after that each time for the sequence c<\/em>1<\/sup>\u2013e flat<\/em>1<\/sup>\u2013d flat<\/em>1<\/sup>. These fingering acrobatics are especially hard on the little finger.<\/p>\n F = little finger<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n We may assume that the execution of this passage was no problem for the then famous flutists, such as the dedicatee Amad\u00e9e de Vroye, as well as later for Paul Taffanel, with whom Saint-Sa\u00ebns performed the Romance; but they would probably have let the composer know that the tone sequence in measure 102 is an awkward spot.<\/p>\n The autograph findings entail a series of questions that can be only partially answered. Saint-Sa\u00ebns provided ossias<\/em> in several of his works for such difficult or at least inconvenient passages, for example, the simplifications (single notes instead of intervals) marked as \u201cFacilit\u00e9s\u201d for the right hand of the solo part in the Presto <\/em>Finale of the 2nd<\/sup> piano concerto (HN 1355)<\/a>, or the so-called ossias<\/em> (chords instead of semiquaver violin passages) in the closing sections of the 1st<\/sup> violin sonata (HN 572)<\/a>. Why didn\u2019t he also do this in the case of the Romance? The publisher would certainly have been willing to include an ossia<\/em> here: variant I in the main text, variant II as \u201cFacilit\u00e9\u201d on an ossia<\/em> line above it\u2026<\/p>\n Back to the source situation: The already mentioned first autograph manuscript did not serve as engraver\u2019s model for the first edition three years later. There must have been a second, currently lost manuscript that might perhaps have been a fair copy rewritten for the print; but which of the variants was notated there remains unclear. It could be that the early performances, including the premi\u00e8res for the versions for piano as well as also for orchestra (Baden-Baden, 8 und 13 July 1871), were still given with variant I in measure 102. After that, and in fact during proofreading the galleys in 1874, Saint-Sa\u00ebns must have decided to change to variant II. Even though no documents are extant, the first edition would probably not have appeared in any case without the composer\u2019s authorisation. At that point in time, he unequivocally considered that the easier-to-execute version was the only one to have printed.<\/p>\n When and why then was variant I reintroduced in later editions? Evidently, in the publication of the orchestral version in 1897, notating variant I there according to the engraver\u2019s model, an undated copy, led crucially to the change in the piano version; after 1897, in any case, all prints show variant I. Was the modification undertaken on the part of the publishing house, or was it Saint-Sa\u00ebns himself, who returned to his first inspiration? We have, unfortunately, no answer here; it may be that he tolerated both variants, but \u2013 for whatever reason \u2013 did not want to decide for an ossia <\/em>in either the piano or orchestral version. The new Henle edition, soon to be published (HN 1354<\/a>), now makes up for this, for today\u2019s flutists should certainly know about the decision for variant II, uncontested for at least a long time, whilst of course the original variant I, usually played today, should not be withheld:<\/p>\n Henle edition, measures 97\u2013115<\/p><\/div>\n We reproduce variant II in the main text simply because for us the first edition of the piano version constitutes the main source, though this does not imply any evaluation here \u2013 it is up to the interpreter to make a choice, since ultimately the composer\u2019s will is not to be deciphered.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Anyone who compares the edition currently on the market of … Continue reading <\/a><\/p>\n<\/a>