Talk:Thanks be to God (No. 20 from 'Elijah') (Felix Mendelssohn)

From ChoralWiki

Possible unspecified errors in CPDL #4422

The allegation of errors seems to come from the following page edit: ":NOTE: Many errors in this edition. See m. 3, for example." Janower 14:18, 31 October 2007

I traced this page back in the history to find the source of the remark about errors. The only error that is actually mentioned is said to come from measure 3. I have examined measure 3 and it appears to be a faithful representation of the source. The simultaneous E flats at the start of the measure in the treble clef of the piano part are slightly different in superficial appearance, because this is rendered as a pair of tied quarter notes. The D is then added to the chord to produce the same musical result as the notes in the source. I hope that this clarifies the situation. If there are any actual errors here or elsewhere, I would like to know about them. In that case, please send me an email with the particulars so that the score can be corrected (for current email address, go to http://jennings.freehostia.com/ and follow the links to the contact page) Jennings 01:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It could help a lot if all would specify their sources. I compared the first page of CPDL #4422 with R. Larry Todd’s critical edition (© 1995 by Carus-Verlag Stuttgart; CV 40.130). In result the following has to be remarked:

• This movement is number 20 (not #15).
• m.3:
  • basses: 2^nd note reads b♭; 3^rd note reads a♭ resp. (violas have the same pattern)
  • piano reduction: 3^rd beat: no g appears in the score in any voice/instrument
• m.7 sopranos: 1^st note reads b¹♭ (repetition of the bass motive)
• m.9 basses: reads one quarter e♭ followed by slurred quarters e♭–d (see Vc and Cb)
• m.12 tenors: rhythm of sopranos and altos is applied to tenors

In my opinion this is quite a lot for a single page. But if the source of this edition is an older piano reduction it is possible to find such variances. Mendelssohn often made major corrections in his scores after first performances, and that’s why indicating sources for editions is that important. —Robert Urmann 01:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You didn't email me. Why? That noted (pun strictly intentional), an appropriate consideration of your comments is in order:

1 "m.3: basses: 2nd note reads b?; 3rd note reads a? resp. (violas have the same pattern)" The second note in the bass part is indeed a B flat (b with a little box after it, if you prefer) followed by an A. This applies to the file as well as the source. Were you using an outdated copy of the file? Suffice to say that anything before August of this year is out of date. I do seem to have a vague feeling that there was an error there several years ago. If the score that you downloaded came from the CPDL server, then it was a number of years out of date.

2. "piano reduction: 3rd beat: no g appears in the score in any voice/instrument" I don't have a copy of the full score, much less Mendelssohn's autographs or first printing, so I can't say whether the G is reasonable. It is there, however, in the source and sounds reasonable to me.

3 "m.7 sopranos: 1st note reads b1? (repetition of the bass motive)" The score reads B flat above middle C. So does the file. Is that bad?

4 "m.9 basses: reads one quarter e? followed by slurred quarters e?–d (see Vc and Cb)" The source reads: half note, E flat, followed by a quarter note, D. So yours is different, oh well... I can't say who is right and who is wrong, and who is just different (I am NOT a musicologist). I am unsure what the reference for Vc and Cb may be.

5. "m.12 tenors: rhythm of sopranos and altos is applied to tenors" It is the same, anyway, in both the source and the file. I gather that your first language is not English. Were you looking at Germain edition? Typically, scores for one language will have slightly different rhythm when rendered in another language.

6. "This movement is number 20 (not #15)" Ok, here you have got me. Error in the title is now fixed.

"In my opinion this is quite a lot for a single page"
In the words of Calvin Coolidge: "You lose". Six tries and only one error, and that one not even in the music. Thank you for calling my attention to that (Well, sort of...You didn't email me, as I specifically requested). Having seen what the manuscripts of the time look like, the amazing thing is that there aren't more differences from edition to edition.

"It could help a lot if all would specify their sources."
What for?...in order to know that different editions are different? If you were in doubt before, now you know. Different editions differ.

"Mendelssohn often made major corrections [sic.] in his scores after first performances, and that's why indicating sources for editions is that important."
That was typical. I think the word "changes" would be better. In the case of Elijah, Mendelssohn personally oversaw its publication, so the contents of the first edition are important for evaluating things, and not only the manuscripts.

"I compared the first page of CPDL #4422 with R. Larry Todd's critical edition (© 1995 by Carus-Verlag Stuttgart; CV 40.130)."
My source was published by G. Schirmer and was prepared long enough ago to be in the public domain. I make no special claims for its accuracy or lack thereof. If you don't like it, you can always write to them. They are still in business. Carus-Verlag is a reputable company and I am quite willing to assume that R. Larry Todd knows what he is doing. Having said that, it should be borne in mind that decisions have to be made in the editing process and that the best answer is not always clear. The matter of different languages is another complication. Elijah was written first in German, but was first performed in English. The English translation was overseen by the composer himself, thus having full authenticity (I would think).

"But[sic.] if the source of this edition is an older piano reduction it is possible to find such variances."
The piano reduction can be a lot of things. Since it is not the same as the orchestral parts, what to put in and how much to leave out is an individual choice. The choice depends partly on the anticipated skill of the keyboard artists, and it does not necessarily depend on when it was written. Do not expect two different piano reductions to be the same. It won't happen. If it did there might be a lawsuit. Jennings 19:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

My intention was to bring some light on the ‘unspecified’ part of the itself useless error report. If my remarks sound kind of offending I do apologize. Currently there are discussions on the wording of the score error template because editors wonder why their scores have been reported as erroneous. In many cases different sources have been edited, and that’s why I suggested to specify them to avoid unnecessary error tags.

I downloaded the PDF hosted on the CPDL server (I can’t use NWC). Todd’s edition has German and English text underlay.

In my opinion such matters can be discussed here. It can help other users to retrieve information about different editions. Kind regards, —Robert Urmann 16:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)