Musicians attach increasing importance to the selection of edition they use for playing. There is a growing awareness of the influence of score material selection on interpretation. Historical performance raises the bar as well by encouraging the use of autographs, manuscripts and first editions. Thanks to referring to historical materials, we can quickly appreciate the effort of contemporary editors who – once publishing scores today – make them much more accessible. It would seem that basing one’s interpretation on an urtext edition should be a perfect solution combining today’s clarity with historical truth. The analysis shows, however, that even these trustworthy urtext editions differ from one another, thus differ from the autograph. Using Sonata in A Minor D 385 by Franz Schubert as an example, the article shows different approaches to music text edition. There are distinct ways in which editors interpret articulation, dynamics, and even sound pitch. The biggest number of differences can be found in terms of articulation, which it largely connected with the necessity to read handwritten material. Unambiguous deciphering (and exact placement) of numerous music markings can sometimes be downright impossible. That is why editors often use the method which consists in searching for analogies between fragments and parts, yet this method does not always seem right. As performance practice shows, treating each part individually, playing a similar fragment in a dissimilar way, often brings interesting results interpretation-wise. The article encourages own experiments, using doubts as material for interpretation, and using the benefits of contemporary editions cautiously.
Performer rights and responsibilities in historical performance
