Campana Alessandra, Opera and Modern Spectatorship in Late Nineteenth-Century Italy (Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2015). xvi+206 pp. £65.00.
F. Vella
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479409816000598
2016-11-29
Nineteenth-Century Music Review
Abstract:had not fully explored all the textural possibilities of the relationship between the two instruments, and could do so only in a composing score where the whole texture was visible, rather than in single-stave sketches such as he normally used in his preparatory material. Lockwood’s account builds on his earlier one of 1970, and inevitably there is some duplication of ideas. He suggests that there were many more such composing scores from Beethoven’s middle period, which is plausible if rather lacking in firm evidence. He also notes that his aims are slightly different from those of Brandenburg, who created an ‘earliest version’ of each bar of the movement, regardless of whether these versions were necessarily intended to fit together at any one time. Lockwood instead focuses on the development section, where the revisions are most extensive. He had already described these in his earlier article, and so the present one addresses two main questions – the significance of the changes to the development section, andwhat compositional problems they solve. His ingenious analysis of register by means of labelling five different octaves that are available for both instruments enables some important new insights about these revisions, which create within the development a sense of ‘registral climax’ not present in the early version (page 43). Lockwood’s excellent parallel transcriptions of the earliest and final versions of this section, from bar 99 to bar 154, are enormously helpful here. This part of his discussion complements that in his 1970 article, where he compared the earliest version to the latest one in the manuscript, which differs considerably from both the earliest version and the published one. It is perhaps a little surprising that he does not draw attention to this, or put all three versions side by side. The text here gives no hint that the latest version in the manuscript shows any differences from the final one, and so his claim that the development ‘shows only one basic layer of corrections’ (p. 44) is liable to be misinterpreted. The volume as a whole, then, is of considerable use, especially for those who do not have the facsimile edited by Brandenburg (now out of print). It would, however, have benefited from a more careful study of the passages addressed by Dufner; a more detailed account of the middle of the development section, with a transcription of the intermediate version as well as the earliest and latest; and ideally a reproduction of the copyist’s score used for the first edition.
History,Art