{"id":6604,"date":"2022-01-31T08:00:10","date_gmt":"2022-01-31T07:00:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.henle.de\/blog\/en\/?p=6604"},"modified":"2022-01-31T08:19:43","modified_gmt":"2022-01-31T07:19:43","slug":"latest-news-about-mozarts-piano-sonata-in-a-major-k-331","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/2022\/01\/31\/latest-news-about-mozarts-piano-sonata-in-a-major-k-331\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cLatest news about Mozart\u2019s piano sonata in A major, K. 331\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

W. A. Mozart (1756\u20131791)<\/p><\/div>\n

\u201cAll good things come in threes\u201d \u2013 this phrase came to mind as I sat down to address the following text, having already posted twice on the Henle blog about Mozart\u2019s famous \u201cAlla Turca\u201d piano sonata in A major: Post number 1<\/u><\/a> dealt with the sensational Budapest discovery of the Mozart sonata\u2019s part-autograph and its editorial consequences ultimately leading to our new, revised edition. Post number 2<\/u><\/a> unravelled for the first time the previously misinterpreted \u201crepeat\u201d instructions on Mozart\u2019s last autograph page of the \u201cRondo Alla Turca\u201d. And now number 3<\/u>: Turning up in the meantime has been a copyist\u2019s copy from Mozart\u2019s time (!), so far completely unknown.<\/p>\n

Today\u2019s post is, in a nutshell, about the new editorial consequences \u2013 actually very few \u2013 that this source has had for the Henle Urtext (HN 1300<\/a>), and about how erroneously this source finding was evaluated in another publishing house \u2013 namely, B\u00e4renreiter Verlag.<\/p>\n

This was one of my most exciting experiences in recent years as a Henle editor: At the end of 2016 I was invited by the Munich auction house Zisska & Lacher to evaluate a completely unknown copyist\u2019s copy of the A-major sonata. I thoroughly examined the source and, describing it in detail, consulted the musicologist Dexter Edge, the world\u2019s leading expert on the complex topic of \u201c18th <\/sup>century copyists\u201d, about the question of dating the undated source. He actually recognised the anonymous Viennese hand and reliably dated the manuscript to the \u201cearly 1780s at the latest\u201d. For its catalogue<\/a> (pp. 13\u201315, lot 34), the auction house wrote up its detailed source appraisal based on our preliminary work. The copy was ultimately sold to the USA, its owner (Christopher J. Salmon) then generously made colour scans of the source available to me.<\/p>\n

I introduced the exciting source to my Mozart colleagues at the Prague Mozart Congress in the summer of 2018, describing it in detail with several illustrations and a meticulous source evaluation; the oral presentation<\/a> has meanwhile been published (Zu einer bislang unbekannten zeitgen\u00f6ssischen Abschrift von Mozarts Klaviersonate A-Dur KV 331<\/em>, in: Mozart Studien<\/em> 27, Vienna, 2020, pp. 193\u2013213).<\/p>\n

Suffice it to say here that this newly discovered copyist\u2019s copy is definitely relevant and important from the viewpoint of the Urtext editor, though it is unfortunately not as spectacular as was initially anticipated. Why? Because it was copied either directly from Mozart\u2019s autograph, or, more likely, from another copy of the autograph, and contains no entries by a third hand (for instance, by the composer himself). But since Mozart\u2019s autograph is known to be extant only in part (see my blog post number 1), the copy quite respectably replaces the autograph\u2019s missing sections. \u201cQuite respectably\u201d indicates that the copy includes writing errors and lots of inaccuracies \u2013 as evidenced by the meticulous comparison with the available autograph sections. The source value of the new copy can also be summarised as follows: Had Mozart\u2019s autograph of K. 331 survived intact, the new source would have no editorial significance. But as it is, the source is very helpful in approximately replacing the lost sections.<\/p>\n

I have incorporated all the insights to be gained from the new source within the newly-revised Urtext edition \u00a9 2021 (HN 1300<\/a>). Moreover, I have delineated all the readings and anomalies within a very detailed \u201cCritical Report<\/a>\u201d for downloading.<\/p>\n

The few new (!) readings resulting from the copyist\u2019s manuscript, which are certainly of interest to every pianist, have been included in the main music text of the new Urtext edition or in footnote annotations. These are summarised here for my blog readers (C<\/strong> = copy, A<\/strong> = autograph, FE<\/strong> = first edition):<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Mvt.<\/strong><\/td>\nMeasure<\/strong><\/td>\nPassage<\/strong><\/td>\nComment<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1<\/td>\n1<\/td>\nOpening<\/td>\nC: \u201csotto voce\u201d (A lost) (see illustration 1),<\/em>
\nFE \u201cp\u201d instead of \u201csotto voce\u201d.
\nText adopted from FE, C in the footnote comment, for no engraver alters such \u201con his own initiative\u201d.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1<\/td>\n26<\/td>\ntop, 3rd<\/sup> quaver,<\/p>\n

bottom note of the chord<\/td>\n

C: d1<\/sup> (A lost),
\nFE: e1<\/sup>.
\nText adopted from C; FE, commented on in the footnote and in the critical apparatus, because assumed is an engraving error in FE.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1<\/td>\n29<\/td>\ntop, 4th<\/sup> from last semiquaver<\/td>\nC: b1<\/sup> (A lost),
\nFE: g sharp1<\/sup>.
\nC evaluated as writing error (A would probably have had g sharp1<\/sup>), because the chord differs from, for example, m. 11; reading from C in the footnote.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1<\/td>\n48<\/td>\nbottom, final note<\/td>\nC with additional lower octave (A lost) (see illustration 2),<\/em>
\nFE: only e1<\/sup>.
\nText adopted from C (A would probably have an octave), FE, commented on in the footnote and in the critical apparatus, because presumed in FE is an engraving error.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1<\/td>\n54<\/td>\ntop, 9th<\/sup> note<\/td>\nC: d1<\/sup> (A lost),
\nFE: e1<\/sup>.
\nText adopted from C (A would probably have d1<\/sup>), FE, commented on in the footnote and in the critical apparatus, because presumed is an engraving error in FE.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\n65<\/td>\nEntire measure<\/td>\nMeasure lacking (!) in C (A lost); (see illustration 3)<\/em>
\nFE with certainly correct text. Couldn\u2019t (!) C transmit here an early version of A? (Would still be musically possible).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\n82\/83 and 83\/84<\/td>\nBottom<\/td>\nTies over the bar line only in C (A lost); commented on in the critical apparatus<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3<\/td>\n1<\/td>\nHeading<\/td>\nC: \u201cAllegrino\u201d, no \u201cAlla Turca\u201d (A lost, would probably be identical with C);
\nFE: \u201cAlla Turca\u201d, which we adopted together with \u201cAllegrino\u201d (with footnote comment and detailed commentary in the critical apparatus<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3<\/td>\n42<\/td>\nTop<\/td>\nC with slur on the semiquavers of the 1st<\/sup> and 2nd<\/sup> crotchet (A lost);
\nFE no slurs.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
\"\"<\/a>

Illustration 1: Excerpt from C, start of the first movement.<\/p><\/div>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Illustration 2: Excerpt from C; 1st movement, m. 48.<\/p><\/div>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Illustration 3: Excerpt from C; 2nd movement, mm. 62-66, lacking m. 65.<\/p><\/div>\n

But now before you transfer these indications to your textually outdated music edition, I\u2019d recommend purchasing the new Henle Urtext edition HN 1300<\/a> \u00a9 2021, with the completely correct music text, a detailed preface and a concise critical apparatus.<\/p>\n

Even though the editor of the B\u00e4renreiter edition of the A-major sonata (BA 11816, \u00a9 2020) views the issue otherwise \u2013 and is, in my opinion, utterly wrong \u2013 it must finally be emphasised that professional source criticism cannot ignore the following facts: The extant manuscripts of the three piano sonatas, K. 330\u2013332 (autographs and the new copyist\u2019s manuscript of K. 331), document the sonatas\u2019 emergence as \u201cstage 1\u201d. Available with Artaria\u2019s publication of the textually revised first edition (Vienna, 1784) is \u201cstage 2\u201d within the genesis of this work and hence the \u201cdefinitive version\u201d or Mozart\u2019s \u201clast word\u201d. For:<\/p>\n