Orfeo by Claudio Monteverdi; Edward H. TarrReview by: Albert SeayNotes, Second Series, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Sep., 1975), pp. 125-126Published by: Music Library AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/896329 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 02:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Music Library Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Notes.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.111 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 02:50:17 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

knowledge of Italian opera in the period, essential for the background to Mozart's Don Giovanni, and a good example of Gaz- zaniga's efficient and theatrically effective art. We know that Da Ponte used the libretto; we assume that Mozart also saw the score (there are similarities between the first two scenes, musically: see Abert II, 477,486, 539f.; also Dent's Mozart's Operas, etc.), but we do not know for certain. Otherwise, to compare the two operas from the musical standpoint is useless: Gazzaniga was writing for a small ensemble with a tiny orchestra (oboes, horns, strings). But the work was a distinct success, and there are manuscript sources throughout Europe. The fact that it was later obliterated by

Mozart, just as Paisiello's sparkling and witty II barbiere di Siviglia was to succumb to Rossini, is no excuse for our not studying the originals. Not to do so is as uncivilized as for a Shakespeare scholar not to look at Marlowe.

Stefan Kunze, of Munich University, is well known as a serious and accurate editor for the Neue Mozart Ausgabe, and this new edition (with a full critical apparatus) is all one might expect from a scholar of his reputation. The score is beautifully pro- duced, and once again a credit to Birenrei- ter-Verlag.

H. C. ROBBINs LANDON Vienna, Austria

Claudio Monteverdi: Orfeo. Ed. by Edward H. Tarr. Paris: Editions Constellat, 1974. [Notes, libretto, 38 p.; score, 120 p.; no price given]

In view of the many editions of Claudio Monteverdi's first opera, Orfeo, one may well wonder why another is needed. With editions by such distinguished figures as Eitner, D'Indy, Malipiero, Orff, and Respi- ghi, to name but a few, plus easily available facsimiles of the editions of 1609 and 1615, there would seem to be already a surplus of sources. Granted, most of the editions heretofore available have reflected the atti- tudes of men who were primarily composers, not musicologists, something that tends to make them unusable in today's attitudes toward authentic performances, but nevertheless at least one, that of Malipiero, published in 1930 as part of his scholarly edition of Monteverdi's complete works, would seem to have straightened out the situation for once and for all. Many subsequent performances based on this version have been given and with success.

Tarr's incentive for the preparation of yet another edition came from his prepara- tions for a recording of the opera made by Erato in 1968, one released in the United States fairly recently by the Musical Heri- tage Society (MHS 939/940/941). In comparing Malipiero's version with the fac- simile of the 1609 print, Tarr discovered a number of printer's errors in the modern edition as well as arbitrary changes in cer- tain details such as the placement of ties, the addition of bar-lines and suggested ornamentation. To achieve his goal of an

authentic performance, Tarr felt it neces- sary to redo the edition, starting again from the sources and returning to Monteverdi's original. The intent, however, was not that of merely providing one more performing edition, but the provision of a scholarly edition that would clearly show the founda- tion on which the procedures adopted was to rest.

I have compared Tarr's final result with a facsimile of Amadino's print of 1615 (Westmead: Gregg, 1972). The comparison has been ample proof of his attention to accuracy in reproduction of his original exactly and in such a way as to make clear what he as editor has added to Monteverdi's score as we have it. All the original direc- tions are given, Tarr's scoring and added indications underlined as a way of differen- tiation. Original barring is shown and, when reduction of note values has been used for ease in performance, the ratio adopted is clearly indicated. The continuo has been given additional figures for the help of the performers, but those appearing in Monte- verdi's score are circled, making immedi- ately clear what are Tarr's own suggestions. The realization is a simple one, to act as but a guide and not a prescription. It is Tarr's hope that by using this procedure the performers will be encouraged to invent their own solutions, as customary in the Baroque. The Introduction, in French, German and English, explains in some

125

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.111 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 02:50:17 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

detail the editorial principles followed, with remarks on the suggested instrumentation. A critical commentary lays forth all the procedures, closing with the usual list of errors found in the original. As additional material of interest, Tarr gives Striggio's original libretto of 1607, with triple transla- tion; this libretto is then compared to that actually used by Monteverdi. At the end of the score, Tarr presents a contemporary ornamented version of Orfeo's aria, "Ecco pur" (Act II), taken from the manuscript, Florence, Conservatorio, Barbera (MS Cod. No. 83).

It was one of the regrets of the great Monteverdian scholar, Leo Schrade, that no really first-class edition of Orfeo was available at the time of the writing of his monumental Monteverdi: Creator of Modern Music. I cannot but believe that he would

have been proud of this edition, the achievement of one of his students, for it supersedes what has gone before on all counts. It may be referred to as a scholarly edition with no hesitation. It may also be used as the basis of a stylistically correct and authentic performance of what we all recognize as a landmark in the history of opera. And a hearing of the recording which came out of Tarr's labors can only convince the listener that authenticity and faithfulness to the past can produce an emotional experience that no other ap- proach can give. Regardless of what other editions of Orfeo a library may own, this new one by Edward H. Tarr (and the recording as well) should be a must for the acquisition list.

ALBERT SEAY Colorado College

Giaches de Wert: Motectorum quinque vocum (1566). Ed. by Melvin Bernstein. (Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae, 24; de Wert's Collected Works, 11.) [n. p.]: American Institute of Musicology, 1969. [Notes, xi p.; score, 108 p.; $17.00]

Since the incipit, neatly nestling in the top left-hand corner of the 3 x 5 card, is a good servant but a bad master, the musi- cologist engaged in medieval and renais- sance studies ought to take particular care lest he confuse one text with another through too brief an abbreviation. I have mentioned three examples of brief incipits that cause a confusion of liturgical attribu- tion in Egon Kenton's otherwise monu- mental study of Giovanni Gabrieli (cf. Jour- nal of the American Musicological Society 22 [ 1969]: 520). Another came to light recent- ly in Charles Hamm's edition of Power's motets (Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae, 50, vol. 1), where among the Critical Notes (p. xxiv) we find that No. 14, Salve sancta parens, is described as "introit, at mass, BVM (?)," the query presumably referring to the Marian ascription. Now it is quite true that the standard introit for Lady Masses from Candlemas to Advent was, with few excep- tions, Salve sancta parens enixa puerpera regem; but Power's text does not correspond to this after the first three words, nor does it correspond to the hymn-like sequence Salve sancta parens/rosa spinis carens as- signed to the Lady Mass Vultum tuum in the early printed Sarum missals. A glance

at Power's setting reveals that the text is quite distinct from any other apparently similar one, for it begins: Salve sancta parens speciosa Regina polorum, continuing with end-rhymes "miserorum" and "saecu- lorum" which point to a hymn or sequence as the possible origin.

Quite obviously no harm is done by so small a slip; but I begin to be genuinely worried when I look at this present CMM edition, which is the first of a projected series of volumes containiing all the motets of Giaches de Wert. The editor, Melvin Bernstein, has clearly tried very hard to assist those who make use of his edition, for the Critical Notes go into considerable detail concerning the liturgical aspects of the texts. Unfortunately, much of this detail emerges from a none-too-clear under- standing of incipits, terminology, and li- turgical forms, and it is rather in the hope of preventing too blind and widespread an acceptance of these errors, than out of a desire to complain or criticize, that I offer the following observations.

No. 2 Noli timere. (Numbers and titles refer, of course, to the pieces as they appear in the edition.) This text is indeed from Isaiah X, 24-25, but it must have been

126

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.111 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 02:50:17 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions