Issues with Bottesini work pages

Reports of various issues on work pages.

Moderators: vinteuil, Leonard Vertighel, Lyle Neff, Wiki Admins

bicinium
forum adept
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 10:54 pm
notabot: 42
notabot2: Human

Issues with Bottesini work pages

Postby bicinium » Mon May 29, 2017 1:47 pm

I'm listing some issues with this double bass idol which I don't think I can tackle:

  • Concerto No.2 in B minor: The manuscript (#350086) on this page is not a transposition of the concerto, but is actually the Concertino in C minor. To be fair, the concertino is basically a transposition and an arrangement for soloist and string orchestra, but the composer treated it as a seperate composition, and it has a different catalogue number. If the pages are not to be merged, can the manuscript be moved (thus prompting the deletion of the Concerto page anyway, since it'll be empty)?
    • Extra information regarding transposition: in the concerto, the sounding key is B minor, but the bass is intended to have a 'solo' tuning that is one whole tone higher than usual; the bass part is therefore written a whole tone lower, with the key of A minor. If no solo tuning is used, the entire orchestra must play in A minor to preserve the soloist's fingering. In the concertino, there doesn't seem to be any solo tuning, and the bass plays a (written) major sixth lower than in the concerto; and yet all videos I see where the 'concertino' is supposedly performed feature the higher fingering from the concerto, which I don't understand.
  • Gran Duo Concertante for Violin and Bass: The original is actually for two basses; the violin & bass version is an arrangement by Camillo Sivori. A little known fact, even among performing soloists! Also, I have always seen the piece referred to as the Gran Duo Concertante, rather than simply the Duo Concertante.
  • Elegy: The editor of #53837, Italo Caimmi, probably lived 1871-1964 (source). The file is therefore non-PD EU. I don't know why so many websites list 1889-1918, especially when they go on to list publications bearing his name from decades after his supposed death.
  • Concerto No.1 in F-sharp minor: Are we sure that Umberto Ferrari did not orchestrate #388080 himself, as often happens with editions of the concerto no.2, thereby negating the urtext rule? I've also seen comments that the original had string orchestra for accompaniment, or even just piano. If only I had scans of the manuscripts in Parma...
    • Edit: The first page of the manuscript can apparantly be found here, and it checks out with the Ferrari edition, so never mind.

Carolus
Site Admin
Posts: 2201
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:18 pm
notabot: 42
notabot2: Human
Contact:

Re: Issues with Bottesini work pages

Postby Carolus » Fri Jun 02, 2017 5:15 am

In order to not be classified here as an arrangement (and transposition), the "Concertino" really must have some significant structural differences with the Concerto. Musicologists who create separate catalog numbers for arrangements and transpositions of the same work (Liszt, for example) only further cloud what is often already a very confusing issue with respect to works, different versions of works (think Bruckner), and the far more commonly encountered arrangements of works (which are the same number of measures as the original, same structure, etc.) from a given composer - who might very well produce all of the different things listed above.

The info on the Sivori arrangement is very useful, so we'll be fixing this acordingly. As for Caimmi, you may well be correct, but works of long-dead editors can be reprinted many decades later. Often when identical names pop up in a VIAF search one needs to look at a sampling of associated publications to see if the name is that of the actual musical editor.

Good to see that the edition here followed the composer for the first concerto.

bicinium
forum adept
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 10:54 pm
notabot: 42
notabot2: Human

Re: Issues with Bottesini work pages

Postby bicinium » Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:13 am

Carolus wrote:In order to not be classified here as an arrangement (and transposition), the "Concertino" really must have some significant structural differences with the Concerto. Musicologists who create separate catalog numbers for arrangements and transpositions of the same work (Liszt, for example) only further cloud what is often already a very confusing issue with respect to works, different versions of works (think Bruckner), and the far more commonly encountered arrangements of works (which are the same number of measures as the original, same structure, etc.) from a given composer - who might very well produce all of the different things listed above.

Thank you for the reply. I actually do feel that the two pages should be merged - especially now that I've discovered that the concertino is almost always transcribed back into the key of the concerto nowadays so that the solo part is the same. I've considered transcribing the solo from the concertino manuscript (as it's the only part not included in the edition on IMSLP) and also producing a transposed version, but it would end up on a different page!

Carolus wrote:As for Caimmi, you may well be correct, but works of long-dead editors can be reprinted many decades later. Often when identical names pop up in a VIAF search one needs to look at a sampling of associated publications to see if the name is that of the actual musical editor.


This is one of the lists I was referring to. Some of those publications are reprints, but I don't think all of them are. VIAF also turns up only one entity. I've found some compositions and further editions of Bottesini by this person that I'd like to upload once this is cleared up.


Return to “Work Page Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests