|
Example I. Long Pavan
Example J: Quadro Pavan I
Here is another instance in which the meters were changed from 2/2 to 4/4, thereby making the
piece twice too slow. In funereal mode, M. Lurie would say.
There are many other places where the rests are incorrectly placed within
the measure, as in the examples directly above:
#40,
var. 2, m. 8
var. 3, m. 4
var. 8, m. 8
var. 12, m. 4
Example K: Pavan No. 13
Example L: Dump
Matanya can't even get the simplest measure down correctly. This is the kind of
illiterate alterations that I objected to. And to no avail as shown here. What can you do when the publisher can't recognize
obvious mistakes like these even when they are pointed out to him?
That is what is so very distressing. To see disaster, and being unable to do anything about it. All those
long hours wasted.
So much effort, four years to be exact, went into creating a professional edition, one that
would meet the exacting standards of grant-offering foundations, and what happens? DESTROYED!
And whose work was it? Mine? Am I named anywhere?
Example M. "Imaginary Rests"
It makes no sense to remove the dots for the dotted notes. Are they replaced with "Imaginary" rests?
Also see the Chilesotti Exx. 1-2 at this link:
Matanya seems to have taken the dots from here, since he needed them in his Chilesotti examples.
These were correct until Matanya made them WRONG!
Example N: Delight Pavan
These are just from a little more than a single page. and illustrate how Matanya's unauthorized
re-write of John Ward's fine-tuned edition produced a disaster. I pointed out all these mistakes, and Matanya refused to make
corrections. The comments follow.
(1) The ornaments were removed.
Originally the guitar volume was advertised as having performance practice information, and the various ornaments would be
explained. I even supplied a monograoph for use in assembling the latest information. The late Robert Spencer commented
on the lack of such information in his review for Classical Guitar magazine.
(2) The A is marked with a tenue line. It is respected here.
But not always. See Galliard to Delight, above, and meas. 46 below.
(3) In preparing the guitar volume, I went through the tablatures
and indicated the courses, so that Matanya could provide accurate fingerings. Johnson's use is often very imaginative,
and should be respected. Here all the notes marked 2 are on the second course. But Ophee indicates them on the
top string in IInd position. That's a misrepresentation of what Johnson wanted. It's typical of Johnson
and his contemporaries to keep the notes on the same course in passages like this one. I guess Matanya
thinks he knows more than John Johnson.
(4) Sharp missing. As volume editor, Matanya should
have caught it.
(5) The course indications I provided from the tablature are not respected.
Matanya is "assuming authorship" by making this kind of change. He did so without telling us. I guess he considers his
ideas superior to Johnson's. Also see (3), above.
(6) The open courses are respected in meas. 32, but more frequently are
cut short as in meas. 40 and 42. It produces a jarring effect to have them missing. The ringing of strings is
an important part of writing for lute, and any string instrument. Matanya seems insensitive to this important aspect of lute
and guitar composition.
(7) The cautionary accidental is needed here. They are mandatory
according to the G. Schirmer Manual, a practice which we adopted for the series. In music like Johnson's, on the
cusp of tonality, degree inflection makes cautionary accidentals especially necessary.
(8) I often put in unusual right hand fingerings, as in this passage.
Ophee removed all of them, under the mistaken belief that he had superior knowledge of the matter. Except one strange place
where he entered his own (see page 4, meas. 7).
(9) Matanya has trouble with his dots. When the stem goes down, the dot goes
in the space below, when stem up, in the space above. It's OK here in meas. 37. But elsewhere? See meas. 39, 41,
45. Below is an example from No. 12A, The Long Pavan. Matanya flipped his stems, but did not flip his dots. The notation is confusing.
(11) The courses indicated are not observed in the notation.
(12) The strain and reprise indications should go above the staff and
not below as here, or between the staves in the grand staff transcriptions. These were changed throughout without telling
us. They create havoc with layout and my beautiful pages were mangled. All that work for nothing. See page
85.
|
