Music, Talent, and Performance - A Conservatory Cultural System - Research Paper Example

Music, Talent, and Performance - A Conservatory Cultural System Introduction The difference in musical interpretations is not only dependent on the performance objectives by musicians. Differences in editions are also noted, specifically which arise because of the options that editors use, time frame performed and requirements of the editors. An example of how editions can differ in terms of notation and editorial notes appears in Peter Tchaikovsky’s Die Jahreszeiten, also known as The Seasons: At the Fireside. The two editions which will be analyzed include the German Edition, edited by Peters and a current edition by Alexandre Dossin. The two editions will show the differences which come both from the preferences of Tchaikovsky, as well as interpretations and alterations that were specific to the editorial differences of the works. The different interpretations and concepts defined can then be attributed to the performance experience and expectations from the editors, as opposed to the original expectations notated by Tchaikovsky. The differences in editions are important to define not only because of editorial preferences, but also because of the time frame in which they were altered. The perceived differences reflect the understanding of Tchaikovsky’s work as well as the social and cultural expectations that are related to the form of classical music. History of Tchaikovsky’s Work The Seasons were a series of work created by Tchaikovsky in the year 1875 as a response to a commission by Nikolay Bernard. Bernard was interested in expansion of his music library as the publisher of the journal Nouvellist. The agreement made was to pay Tchaikovsky 100 roubles for each piece in return for piano pieces in which Bernard could also play with his own performances. The pieces were published each month in the journal for a year, all reflecting the mood of each month. The instructions that Tchaikovsky received in response to this request was to use creative merit when writing the pieces; however, the different compositions had to be playable for by an average musician. The subtitles and the poetic epigraph which was a part of the pieces were suggested by Bernard after the pieces were submitted and were taken from Alekaander Puskin’s poem, The Dreamer written in 1815 (Cmuz, a4, no 247). Significance of Analyzing By the Fireside The decision to analyze By the Fireside is linked to several associations with the commission which Tchaikovsky received as well as personal relationships to the piece. The piece was the first written and given to Bernard by Tchaikovsky, along with Shrovetidea. When writing these pieces, Tchaikovsky also was interested in making changes and forms with the piece, specifically because it was one of the first editions to the piece and because of the commission received. He stated “You are paying me so much money that you have the right to demand any changes, additions, deletions or rewriting” (CPSS V, no 426, p 425). However, the editions went in with the original pieces going into the Nouvelliste, specifically because of the freedoms that Tchaikovsky had in the composition and the only demand to offer intermediate level applications for playing the pieces as the focus. The second reason that is based on analyzing By the Fireside is linked to personal reasoning behind the piece. This specific piece will be played at my recital and has been analyzed and looked into in terms of how to perform. The association that I have with this piece is based on analyzing and learning the main concepts which Tchaikovsky applied as well as how to communicate the intent of Tchaikovsky through the performance. By exploring the original edition and the updated version, there is the ability to make a distinction between the editorial differences and intents that were not a part of the original score. This is significant to note, specifically because there were no changes required by the original publisher and because Tchaikovsky was able to meet all demands from the original publisher. The result will be the ability to create a deeper understanding of the communication Tchaikovsky used with the original intent to write the work as well as the ability to understand why the editor made changes. The result will be the ability to deepen my understanding of the work and to interpret and communicate the piece with my own expressions for the performance. Background of German Edition The first German edition of Tchaikovsky’s work was published in 1878 two years after the editions had been published in The Nouvellete. The work then went through several publishers and editions, all which were linked to the German edition and slightly altered in order to represent the main composition which Tchaikovsky had. The second edition was published in 1881 by Adolph Furstner, specifically which was published in Berlin. A different Danish edition was also created with changes only in the title of the piece in both the German and Danish edition. Despite these differences, the text and the main notation remained the same from the original publication. The revised edition was created by Furstner in 1881, with Editor Carl Klindworth. This edition was the first to change the different components of the notation, specifically with an alternative focus on phrasing and dynamic consistency (Howe, 26: 2000). The complexities that were associated with the German edition were specifically linked to creating different European editions for regions that were interested in the music. In 1883, the piece was sold to Paris Publishers (Cju 1, pg 288). Another French edition was published by J Hamelle (CPSS XIII, no 2762). However, the main attribute with these was to match the same editions that Bernard displayed in terms of the musical expression used. The changes which were created began in 1885 with the release of the Jurgenson edition. The reason behind this change was based on the main approach Jurgenson had toward selling the cycles. When the first edition of the pieces became successful, Jurgenson created different cycle versions that could be sold as individual pieces. Other arrangements also became consistent with the pieces, such as the four hand version that was released in 1887 (CMuz, dm3, no 186). Other French compositions, such as the Complete Collected Works for Piano published by P.I. Cakkovskij were also available with the only differences in the title of the work, which changed to 12 Pieces Characteristiquese (CPSS XII, no 2498, p 383). The last edition which was created was released under this name with the publisher of Jurgenson and which was revised by the composer. It was noted that the later versions and revisions were edited by P.A. Pabst in 1891 and 1893. The significance of this edition was that Tchaikovsky gave Pabst editorial rights to make the final selections of the pieces and to edit the music as needed, specifically by changing the details. Tchaikovsky informed the publisher that he shouldn’t change the notation or other significant aspects of the music. The latest edition was further revised by the composer and was released in a later edition of Tchaikovsky’s works by a new publisher (CPSS XII, no 2498, p 383). After the German Editions The editions after the last changes from Tchaikovsky then took place after 1903 as a part of the collection series of various editors. The changes in the musical text were not made by a specific authority and were placed specifically because of interpretation. The editions after 1903 had new differentiations and changes which were not initiated by the composer or changes which were made. The dates also indicate that the Jurgenson Publishing had printed new editions after 1903 which had more editorial changes to the pieces. Many of these pieces moved into contemporary interpretations with no indication of who edited the music and whether the performance indications were associated with the main edition. The changes made may be an initiation from Jurgenson that was a part of the contract with Tchaikovsky that the publishing company could carry the rights to the compositions (GMuz, f 94, no 1006). The traditions created moved into a change in the name from 12 Characteristic Pictures to 12 Characteristic Pieces and also incorporates combining the months, which began to change to different characteristic tiles that were related to programmatic music as the subtitle. Contributions to the German Edition The changes which were associated during this time frame and which were used by different editors were not only attributed to the main components of changes required for interpretation. The attitude of Tchaikovsky and the surrounding influences also altered the way in which the music was approached. This particular time frame was known as the Golden Age for piano playing and increased in the 1870s and 1880s because of the surrounding culture. Domestic piano playing was widely used among women and children, all which used this as a hobby or to please small numbers of guests. Larger works were also popular among Russian performers, specifically with focuses on concertos, sonatas and other larger works. The amateurs which were targeted during this time were specifically based on domestic piano playing and genres as well as acceptable style which could be used by those interested in domestic playing (Ehrlich, 7: 1990). Tchaikovsky’s music contributed to this, specifically because of the social association that was used for domestic playing and the stigma surrounding finding new pieces to play in the home as a past time. Another aspect which may have affected the several editions and the flexibility of the different editions was based on the attitude that Tchaikovsky held toward the music. The attitudes which he carried about compositions were related to his relationship with the music and the associations which he carried toward the different types of compositions. Different time frames in his career and the works that he associated with created this differentiation. When there were difficulties in his life and he was able to immerse himself in music, then the different concepts would be edited more thoroughly. More important, the changes in his lifestyle through his career were known to dictate how he responded to different parts of the music. Another known relationship with the compositions was based on his ability to play piano, flute and organ. He was more comfortable with the different levels of performance needed for these compositions, which immediately began to alter his attitude toward this. When domestic pieces were written, there was not a desire to proofread the composition, specifically which left publishers to contract other musicians to read the music required (Newmarch, 102: 2002). The background of Tchaikovsky’s piano career was known to alter specifically when larger pieces were composed, specifically because this allowed more alternatives for the compositions. The publication, from this perspective, would be looked into closely and would be approached in a different manner. For instance, when writing the Second Piano Concerto and Italian Caprice to Jurgenson, he wrote: “I wish to ask you to send me both the Concerto [ ... ] and the Caprice to check again, along with the present proof. Both pieces are engraved well, but there are quite a few mistakes some of them major. Bring it to attention of your printers that they are very careless with marking [...]. Instead of sf, they constantly print ff, which changes the effect completely. Moreover, Ped. is often left out. In short it is very sloppy work, and these marking are very important” (CPSS IX, no 1563, p 237). This example shows that Tchaikovsky overlooked some of the editions more closely and was interested in the printed text and manuscript of specific editions in a different manner. This letter is also important, specifically because Jurgenson was a main editor in The Seasons, showing that there may have been different markings that Tchaikovsky may have not approved of if it were a different type of work. More important, Tchaikovsky believed that the editorial corrections and amendments distorted the music, often which stopped him from printing some of his larger works without proofreading. Another aspect to consider in terms of the Tchaikovsky edition is based on the decision not to interfere with specific works. Tchaikovsky first did not have a specific association with the different editions by publishers and often allowed the changes to be made through the works. However, in his later years, Tchaikovsky became more insistent on specific types of publishing. It was known that his attitude toward publishers changed, specifically because he lost trust in the way in which they focused on the publications as well as the ability to take specific concepts and give a musical position that was consistent with what Tchaikovsky demanded. Errors and distortions were some of the changes which Tchaikovsky first disliked. These included dynamics, expressions, beaming and stem direction and performance indications which Tchaikovsky did not approve of. With larger works, the autograph score would often alter, specifically with creative intentions and different concepts that were required to be changed from the publisher (Tchaikovsky, 670: 2004). For The Seasons, the concepts which may have applied include the sketches and draft that doesn’t have a progression with the writing. The individual pieces and the establishment of the entire cycle are unknown. More important, the editing procedure of The Seasons was not created for any of the editions. These missing pieces of information create a question over Tchaikovsky’s original intent and whether these were matched by the publishers. Background of Alexandre Dossin’s Publication The difference with the Dossin publication is based on a more contemporary method that has been used for the editing and publication. Dossin publishing is an interpretation from a piano performer that currently teaches at the University of Oregon. The edition that is created is from 2009 and consists of updates in the markings and overall interpretation of the piece. The main reason for changing this specific publication was to create a performance and recording of The Seasons and to show a specific level of expertise in Tchaikovsky. The edition was linked not only to the concept of performance, but also was related to the studies of Dossin and the expertise in piano music which he held. The Seasons became a specific set of short pieces that could easily become popular and which added onto the different components of the performance and the understanding of piano works for this time. The main manuscript source and the interpretation can be said to intertwine with the atmosphere of the university, which is based on analysis of older pieces and works, as well as the expressions which were meant to be a part of the work. More important, this is based on the intent of the Dossin publication to be used for performance and recording, which was initiated first by the teaching and works of Dossin (Hinson, 7: 1991). Analysis of Work The first difference which is noted between the two works is from the cover page and the way in which the editors laid out the editions. In the Dossin publication, the front page looks newer and more attractive by using different colors and highlighting the title of The Seasons. This is taken from the painting The Russian Winter by Nikifor Stepanovich Krylov and holds to the cultural value of the Russian compositions. The title is also in English, as opposed to German or Russian, specifically to attract pianists by allowing them to understand what the work is. The component in the German edition is based on the green work on the outside cover and the plain inner cover, which has the title in German. The text on the front page is more intricate and is based on attracting those who are interested in playing domestic piano music. This is a trademark of the German printers and is used for all works as a distinguishing feature of the publishing company. The difference in editions can be directly attributed to the attitudes of the publishers, specifically with Dossin making the front cover flashy for performance basis while the German edition didn’t have to change this look, specifically because of the popularity of Tchaikovsky as a live composer during this time. Another difference between the two components is based on the inner notes. The Dossin edition has notes for performance and includes an analysis of all 12 pieces that are to be performed, specifically with expressions of how to use the dynamics, expressions and different melody lines while performing. The performance notes are the highlight of this edition, specifically because they are the beginning of the book. More important, there is a page for author notes, which shows that the intent behind the score is based on the interpretations of Dossin and the different expressions and experience that are associated with the two scores. The German edition doesn’t have any performance notes or explanation about the piece but allows the piece to be interpreted by the individual who is playing in the home. Instead, there is a listing of the individual pieces in French, German and English. During this time, parlor piano was more popular, with the expectation that playing for smaller audiences would be more appropriate (Krummel, 15, 1990). This also shows the popularity of the pieces throughout Europe, specifically because of the language used and the expectations that were behind each of the compositions in the main book. When analyzing the difference in notation between the two versions, there are several distinct differences. The Dossin edition is one which has a variation of differences first from the approach to markings. This is a consistent difference throughout the piece and is one which can be related to the approach of performance, which leaves more room for interpretation, as opposed to consistent markings in dynamics, staccato and pedal markings. In the Dossin edition, there were specific areas which didn’t have the markings required. Measure 9, 55-63 and 69 don’t have the staccato marks that the German edition has. The second missing link throughout the pieces is the dynamic changes. The Dossin edition doesn’t include the dynamic changes in measures 10, 24, 30-34, 36-45 and with some references of 55-63. However, there are some exceptions to the dynamics that are missing in the Dossin edition. In measures 55-63, there are two similar dynamics, including a diminuendo at the middle of the section and a crescendo at the end of the section. The implication is one which is based on the performance rights, specifically with the recommendation to crescendo at the end of the section. This makes the diminuendo mandatory to begin this crescendo and also shows that the move into a louder sound is necessary to end this section. The last area where dynamics are similar is at the end of the piece, starting from measure 81 of the Dossin edition. The difference is when the German edition moves to a ppp the first time, the Dossin edition remains at a pp. When the piece ends, both are at a ppp, showing a difference in interpretation with dynamics and more fluctuation from the Dossin edition. Another main difference which is found in both pieces is through the interpretation of measures and changing of melody. There are distinct differences in melody and the notation that is used. The Dossin edition makes use of extra measures that are a part of the piece. The first extra measure is 13, which has an extra transitional line before moving back to the main melody. Measure 18 has the same additional measure which repeats the main melody line to transition back to the first theme. It is noted by most performers that this measure was a mistake in the printing and is most often deleted when being performed. The next area where this is seen is in measure 24. The Dossin edition adds a contrapuntal melody in this measure with a transposition up four whole steps (F to C). It is seen that this extra measure is seen in both editions between measures 68 – 72, which creates a question of whether it was in the original score as a part of the melody or not. The next distinctions begin in measure 35 of the Dossin edition, which has an extra measure that interchanges the left to right hand arpeggio. Measure 48 also shows a change with the Dossin edition going to the high range of the piano through the run, while the German edition goes to the low range of the piano and through the bass clef. This area is important to note as the original autograph of Tchaikovsky moves the line in an ascending form, crosses out the measure, and rewrites it into a descending form. The absence in the German version is not one in Tchaikovsky style because it is not proportionate (Dossin, 1, 2006) and most add this into the performance. Measure 50 of the Dossin edition differs from the German edition, as the German edition has an extra measure with the melody repeating. Measures 50 – 54 of the Dossin edition have a more distinct difference as there are four extra measures not in the German edition. The approach is to move from the faster runs and the main melody line, all which is excluded from the German edition. The rest of the piece is similar with melody and movement as it goes back to theme A until the completion of the piece. The differences also show missing notes that are in the last part of the piece, starting in bar 97 of the Dossin edition. Dossin begins this edition with a rest, while the German edition has an A note. The D note that follows this in the bass clef is also in a different count with a lack of pattern in the bars. This print shows that there is a distinct mistake in the printing of the German edition, as opposed to the Dossin edition, which retrieves the missing notes and changes in the last part of the piece. The last difference which is analyzed is the way in which the harmony is approached. One small difference is the notation styles used. In most places these are similar; however, there are some areas in which the accidentals are altered. Measure 14 of the Dossin edition, for instance, uses sharps instead of flats for accidentals. This is assumed to change because of the modulation to A major which occurs later in the piece. The difference in harmony then follows with the contrapuntal harmonies and melodies which are either added or taken out of the pieces. In measures 16 – 20 of the Dossin edition, there are missing 16th notes that are notated in the German edition. These are replaced by eighth notes through these measures. The same theme continues with measures 17 – 21 of the Dossin version, which changes not only the rhythm of the alternative notes, but also changes the harmony which is being played. The only similarity between the two versions is the melody which is played while the other harmonies and notes begin to alter in the two editions. While there are several differences between both editions, there are also distinct areas that are the same between both interpretations. The beginning of both pieces until measure 9 are exactly the same in harmony, melody, accent marks and movement of slurs as well as interchanges between the hands. Measures 30-34 of the Dossin edition are one of the areas which is similar in both, the only difference being that the Dossin edition doesn’t have dynamic markings. Measures 36-45 of the Dossin edition are also similar. The accents, 16th note runs, notation and stem line movement all follow the same formula. The Dossin movement again doesn’t provide the dynamics of the German edition. Measures 55-63 of both of the pieces are also similar, including accidentals, the movement of the hands and the rests. This is important to note because there is an interchange between left and right hands when going through the runs. Both editions make use of these extra markings. Discussion The interchanges which are noted between both editions may have been applied for several reasons. The main difference between the two was noted with the audience. The German edition was created soon after it was released by Tchaikovsky with the initiative of making it a popular piece for those staying in the home and playing the piano as a hobby. The first difference is seen with the extra dynamic markings, accent markings and guidelines which are in the German edition and which are taken out of the Dossin version. It can be said that this was directly because of the individuals who were playing the piece. Having the guidelines so it was directly from the composer, as opposed to having performance rights and interpretations from the piece, may have changed the approach which was taken. As guidelines through these different markings could be given, it could make it easier to learn for a piano piece in the home. However, the Dossin version was based on a performance level, which would have given more rights to the pianist to interpret the piece in terms of dynamics and accents, unless absolutely necessary from the composer. Dossin incorporated with this with going back to the original version and following the Facsimile of the autograph of Tchaikovsky, P. Vremena Goda, Muzyka 1978 and other editions, all which were designated to move back to the original interpretations of the music. It is also noted that Dossin used the Opus 37 edition from before the time that Jurgenson bought the publishing rights and changed the interpretation, meaning that closer values to the notations were available through his publishing interpretaiton (Hinson 8: 1991). The main difference and question between both is from the changing melody between both, as well as the additional measures of Dossin. The question is whether these measures were added in terms of interpretation or whether they were taken out when printed in the German edition. Measures 13, 18 and 24 as additional measures of Dossin can all be traced to other parts of the piece which have the same harmony and melody line in the same order, such as at the end of the piece in measures 57-63. This implies that the German edition may have taken out the measures for simplicity or for some other purpose in the printing and use of the song. At the same time, measure 18 is a recognized mistake in the Dossin version. 35 – 54 of the Dossin version also have additional measures, specifically which move back and forth between the melody and the arpeggio lines, as well as the transitions which are taking effect. The transitions, when heard and analyzed through the Dossin version, allow for a smoother interchange back the melody and are consistent throughout the piece while the German edition seems to have deleted these transition lines for some other purpose. The most important part of this is measures 50-54, where the Dossin edition has 4 extra measures that combine the melody line with extra runs. The German edition takes out these extra melody lines and instead moves into the arpeggios that lead back to the last section and repeat of theme A. The measures of 50-54 are important to note, specifically because of the difficulty of going from the top to bottom part of the piano when interchanging the melody with the arpeggios, as well as how this changes the significance of this piece. These measures can be noted as a transition point from Theme B and back to Theme A. The added melody line is a way of showing that this is where the transition is leading before going into the several arpeggios. It also can slightly change the musical analysis, specifically because this theme stands out against the arpeggios, which don’t seem like a melody. These four bars change the musical interpretation of this section and guide the listener back into the first melody; however, it is missing from the German edition, which creates a question of whether it was originally published and why it was taken out or placed into this specific section (Krummel, 5: 1990). The last aspect noted is between the harmony lines, specifically as Dossin has taken out some of the 16th note values that are in the German edition. The 16th notes and alternative harmonies that are in measures 16-21 are chromatic in nature with both the left and right hands playing close to the center of the piano. When playing the 16th notes, it makes the melody harder to hear and also alternates the understanding of the piece between the two hands. The German edition is one which keeps these in, despite the alternative sound given. When playing this part of the piece, it makes it easier to transition between lines and to move between notes in the harmony. The Dossin edition, without the extra harmonies and the changed note in measures 17-21; however, create a clearer sound. When playing only the eighth notes and changing the harmonies into a lower register and different tone, it also creates a clearer effect. It can be assumed that these were taken out and altered for performance effects, specifically because it makes the harmony clearer, more distinct and gives the performer the ability to focus on the melody, as opposed to the harmony, in this section (Krummel 7: 1990). The similarities between both pieces also create a discussion over what was believed to be the main understanding of the piece. Both of the editions hold to the true melody and harmony lines of Tchaikovsky in both the beginning and end of the piece, with no differences noted until measure 9 and with similarities in the major points of the piece. For instance, measures 30-34, 36-45 and 55-63 note a change and transition into a new theme. Both have the same notation markings, harmonies and other aspects of melody in this area. Notation markings, accents, 16th note runs and even stem lines all are similar in the movement of this area. Both interpret this section in the same manner and keep all concepts the same. This shows that both of the printing interpretations found that this section was pertinent to the main theme of the piece and recognized that the interchanges of arpeggios and melody held to the main essence that Tchaikovsky was interested in. The technical aspects combined with this, specifically as both notated the same concepts in terms of hand interchange, showing a distinct importance in how to play the piece to capture the sound which Tchaikovsky was thinking of. Another important area to point out is from measure 87- the end of the piece in the Dossin version. The importance of this is one which is based on the added dynamic markings and accents that aren’t seen anywhere in the Dossin version and which appear at the end of both pieces in a similar manner. While the Dossin version uses a pp instead of ppp of the German version, both show that this should be the end sound and interpretation to complete the piece. The areas which are similar are kept in this manner because it shows the essence of Tchaikovsky’s song and what it meant. The main melody, arpeggio transitional point, harmonic structures, accent marks and the end dynamics are all kept similar in the places where both printers interpreted the main essence of the song as needing to keep these components. The difference with the Dossin version can then be linked directly to the artistic interpretation for performance, both by deleting the dynamic markings and some of the accent marks, and by adding in the different harmonic structures and melody lines. The German edition incorporates the audience of pianists who are interested in playing intermediate works at home, specifically by having more guidelines, taking out specific measures which are more difficult and keeping specific harmonies similar in parts to make it easier to move between measures. The intended performers then make a large difference in how the editions were edited and printed for the intended individuals (Krummel 11: 1990). Each of these interpretations can be linked directly to the manuscript description and the overall outlook which both of the printers have. In the German edition, there is little to no description of how to play the pieces. Instead, there is reference to the poems which are incorporated into the 12 pieces and which create an appeal to the intended performers, who are interested in the hobby of playing the piano. In the Dossin version, there are distinct notes about how to perform, what the history is and how the pieces can be interpreted. These two differences show the intention of the publishers and draw attention to those who are learning the pieces for different reasons. Another difference which may have caused the deletion of the measures or the additional changes is because of the methods and places of the German print. The printer was Walter Niemann, born in 1876 in Hamburg, Germany. It is known that he made changes with deletions in bars, alterations in notes and other editorial alterations before Jurgenson bought the rights to the piece. The plate number is 10331, which carries a different edition than the original (CCW). The changes without approval may have been directly linked to the printing availability at the time. When Tchaikovsky was composing this piece, most printing was done through copper engraving, which was expensive, difficult to operate and which took time to complete. Typesetting methods and basic printing press methods were introduced by the 19th century; however, casting music and compositions wasn’t recognized or used until the late 1880s. These placed in constraints and misplacements in most of the music (ref It can also be noted that the initial component of the Tchaikovsky work was for a domestic periodical, which was a famous part of the piano parlor concept of the time. Most during this time would print books that were susceptible for publishing not only as a basic book but also which could be re-published in other periodicals as the reproduction would go to the original publisher of the work. The main component was to keep the same essence of the piece while ensuring that there was a direct fit for periodicals which would have several pieces in the same magazine. The printing methods and the initial value of a domestic periodical may have caused the alteration in printing which was done in the German edition (Miller, 883: 1994). A component which may have affected the missing measures and changes from the German edition to the Dossin edition could have been directly linked to the publication methods as well as the expectations for reproduction. In later years, it was expected that all works go from the German edition as a main publisher, specifically with a focus on exclusive rights. Reprints and other demands were then bound by the expectations of the publishing company as well as the main approach which was a part of the product and the sales and reprints which were required (Miller, 884: 1994). The interpretation of Tchaikovsky’s work may have been directly associated with the intent of the German publisher for reprinting as well as the expectations with the printing of the time for both periodicals and the methods which were used in the publication of different types of music. At the same time, there is the ability to create digital prints and to have more options for changing music because of the technology and printing methods which are now available and which make it easier to print more and to be clearer in the printing. Dossin may have been able to move back to the original interpretations specifically because of the technology available (Miller, 884: 1994). Issues Addressed From this specific analysis, it can be seen that there are distinct differences between both versions of Tchaikovsky’s piano pieces. In some places, this alters the essence, intention and meaning that Tchaikovsky originally had for the pieces. The issues which are addressed are based on the publisher rights in terms of changing and interpreting the pieces, as opposed to following the original intent of Tchaikovsky. There are also questions raised about the authority of the printers and how and why the changes were made. The information in both of the editions is one which was additional, specifically beginning with the poems added in the German edition and the performance notes in the Dossin edition. When Tchaikovsky released these pieces, he didn’t incorporate any extra notes or poems and allowed the publisher to do so at free will (Tchaikovsky, 2004). For those who want to appeal to a specific audience, the notes are able to provide a different relationship to the piece and can be used to understand how to play for a specific audience. The main concept to keep in mind with the editions is based on the chosen procedures and grounds for editorial intervention. The German edition was based on creating several editions and changes which were based on the concept of piano in the parlor. The demand of pianists was to have something simple and which could be played in the background. The music in Germany was also moving through a Renaissance of creating nationalist music which everyone could identity, specifically which was known for easy melodies, strong interpretations and which could be played even at mediocre levels. The culture was based on a social conformity to the music of the time, all which represented the beauty of the nation in which one was in. The main focus of the German edition was to create something which could easily be played, was available to everyone and which reflected the sense of nationalism that was being enforced in political realms. The additional notes of the poems, as well as the interchange into the German language, all were able to establish the love of Germany and the national language of music which was available to everyone (Hughes, Stradling, 3). To do this, the editor intervened by taking out more difficult measures, shortening the song and by making the song easily accessible to the public. The changes and attitudes in society for the Dossin edition dictate which changes have been made. The social context which has arisen in terms of classical piano music is no longer based on nationalism and social stigma, but instead is a segment of society which is drawn toward the intellectual and conservative viewpoints of the music. The main way in which this has changed is through the popularity of the conservatory to study music. Those who are interested in the classical studies are required to go through several years of training to learn specific pieces and to become fluent in the performance which is required from this. The edition that Dossin created was directly linked to his associations as both a piano performer and a teacher in the scholarly environment. The attitude which was created from this was both to create a performance piece which could be understood by scholars and to interpret the piece so it could be understood and analyzed with the melody, harmony and theoretical applications which are often used in conservatory environments. The social stigma surrounding this becomes one based on the classical music movement and the changes which the culture has incorporated and demand for keeping the essence of the music which has been created (Kingsbury, 1988). The question which arises with both of the editors is whether these attitudes and approaches for intervention can be justified. When looking at the attitude of Tchaikovsky, it can be seen that there was an expectation for editors to change the works. While he was not interested in altering larger works, such as concertos and other symphonic pieces, there was a realization that edits and changes may be needed with the smaller parlor pieces, specifically based on the audience and interpretation of the work. When first selling the editions, he noted that the publisher was paying him so much that he would be happy to change what was needed for publication (Tchaikovsky, 2004). When working with other publishers during his lifetime, he was also known not to intervene with the edits which were made, specifically because of the publishing methods and incorporation of other factors in relation to the pieces. The attitude of Tchaikovsky is one which immediately recognized that changes were inherent in pieces which he didn’t edit on his own and which would help with the sales and popularity of his larger works. However, the essence and meaning of the work is one which Tchaikovsky revered and which couldn’t be changed with the music (Tchaikovsky, 2004). The ability for both of the editors to keep the main essence in the overall piece also justifies the changes which were made. The importance of interpretations and the way in which different publishers have approached this piece have altered how performers focus on the piece today. Different samples have altered the performance with tempo, phrasing, pedaling and dynamics. The ranges of music change from 3.33 minutes to 6.32 minutes, all which are associated with interpretations of the music. Other interpretations come from arrangements of the same piece, such as the Premier Moscow Trio or the change into orchestration, such as the Moscow Chamber Orchestra. When listening to the piano pieces, such as Angela Brownridge’s recording in 1944 and Alexandre Dossin’s interpretation, these differences are distinguished. Brownridge moves at a slower tempo while Dossin focuses more on the faster movement of the melody. The interpretation of measures and dynamics also differ, specifically because of the various guidelines or interpretations that are in each printing. These distinctions show that the issue with the editing has also altered the interpretations of performers today. Conclusion and Recommendations When looking at both of these editions, it can be seen that there are specific strengths and weaknesses that are a part of the publications. Both of the aims are reached in the changes which are made, both which are based on societal attitudes toward classical music. The German edition is able to conform to the parlor and nationalist music that is a part of the time frame while the Dossin edition provides a viewpoint that is based on teaching and performance in conservatories. The aims and objectives of both are reached through the editions and have strengths in being able to provide a basis for the piano players which would be most interested in both editions. The strengths of the Dossin edition are based on the interpretations which are more true to the music, such as adding back in the measures as a part of the music as well as taking out the extra dynamic markings. The ability for performers to take the piece and re-interpret the meaning allows a different type of performance to be heard while providing a specific interpretation that may be more effective, dependent on the performer. However, the weaknesses of this are based on the inability to portray the original work in some areas. Changing of harmony and rhythm for more clarity, for instance, and altering specific areas for performance, creates a sense of loss in the music and slightly alters the main intent of Tchaikovsky. To alter this, some of the harmonies would need to be incorporated back into the edition while noting that a reflection of the original is as pertinent to the overall meaning of the song. The German edition was also able to reach the necessary value in creating parlor music while giving a sense of German identity through the song. The strengths that are a part of this are based on the easy accessibility and the written interpretation which is provided to players. If one is teaching this piece or incorporating it into the repertoire of intermediate piano players, it can work effectively. However, the edition takes out some of the essence and meaning of the piece, specifically because of deleted measures that would work as melody lines and interpretations or which were designed to form the entirety of the piece. Parts of the essence are lost, specifically with the measures which are taken out because of difficulty and because of the changing ranges and other slight alterations which may have been altered for easier access. Changing the edition with alternative measures may provide a truer sense of the piece while incorporating the original intent of Tchaikovsky through the German edition. References Ehrlich, Cyril. (1990). The Piano: A History. UK: Oxford University Press. Hinson, Maurice. (1991). Tchaikovsky - The Seasons. New York: Alfred Publishing. Howe, Sondra. (2000). “Swiss – German Music Books in the Mason – McConathy Collection: Accounts from Europe to the United States.” Journal of Research in Music Education 48 (1), 26-38. Hughes, Meirion, R Stradling. (1993). The English Musical Renaissance: 1840- 1940: Constructing a National Music. New York: Manchester University Press. Kingsbury, Henry. (1988). Music, Talent, and Performance: A Conservatory Cultural System. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Miller, Bonny. (1994). “A Mirror of Ages Past: The Publication of Music in Domestic Periodicals.” Notes 50 (3), 883-901. Newmarch, Rosa. (2002). Tchaikovsky: His Life and Works. Hawaii: University Press of the Pacific. Tchaikovsky, Modeste. (2004). The Life and Letters of Peter Ilich Tchaikovsky. Hawaii: University Press of the Pacific. James Grier, The Critical Editing of Music: History, Method, and Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) Thomas Irvine, '"Das launigste Thema": On the Politics of Editing and Performing the Finale of K. 593', Mozart Jahrbuch (2005) 3-23 D. Kern Holoman, Writing about Music: A Style Sheet, 2nd edn (Berkeley: University of California Press, c2008) Donald W. Krummel and Stanley Sadie, eds., Music Printing and Publishing (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1990) Laurie Sampsel, Music Research: A Handbook (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, c2009) Read More