(M.J.E. / Composer Listings / Bainton / Concerto-Fantasia Errors)
List of possible errors in
Concerto-Fantasia by Edgar Bainton
Compiled by Michael Edwards
Edgar Bainton was born in England in 1880, and died in 1956, and is very
firmly within the tradition of English late romantic composers that also
includes such figures as Frederick Delius, John Ireland, Arnold Bax, E. J.
Moeran, Frank Bridge, Cyril Scott, William Baines, and George Lloyd.
His Concerto-Fantasia for Piano and Orchestra is one of the most
wonderful pieces of music I know, and one of my favourite compositions of all
time, even though it is very little known. There is an Australian recorded
performance from the 1970s by Ffrangcon Davies with the Adelaide Symphony
Orchestra conducted by Myer Fredman; however, unfortunately it is a private
A.B.C. (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) recording and it has never been
commercially released to my knowledge, although it has been broadcast by the
A.B.C., especially during the late 1970s and into the 1980s, when it was not too
difficult to hear this performance.
I hope it will be released commercially one day, as other A.B.C. recordings
have been, because it is a very good performance, and has the right dreamy
atmosphere. I would paraphrase Michael Jones of the Edgar Bainton Society
(U.K.) and describe this work (and this performance) as "a glimpse of heaven",
although he was actually referring to a passage in the last movement of
Bainton's Symphony in D minor.
I heard about a year ago that another performance recorded in England was
due to be released, although I have not heard whether this has actually taken
place yet.
I learned from Michael Jones that the score was obtainable from the music
publishing house Stainer & Bell, and I obtained it from them, feeling I just had
to study the score of one of my favourite compositions, just to see how Bainton
obtained the magical effects this score is full of. I was supplied with an
authorized photocopy of the score (which is not currently published in the
normal way), which is very clear and readable, and bound with spiral
binding.
As I read the score I found a number of what I feel sure to be misprints
that have never been corrected. Although I realize publication of a new edition
of this work is unlikely, and that corrections are unlikely ever to be
incorporated in the score, I thought I would compile a list of them, just in
case future scholars or editors want to prepare a new edition, and just in case
by some fluke this list comes into their hands. (Once the list is complete, I
can always try contacting people who might know what to do with it.)
That is what this page is here for: it is a list of the errors I believe
I've found in this score, together with my reasons for feeling sure that they
are indeed mistakes.
I think most of the items are quite clear; however, the list is designed to
be read in conjunction with the score itself, and will be meaningless to anyone
who doesn't have a copy of the score.
In the following list, I've marked each item with either an asterisk or a
question mark: the asterisk marks items I feel fairly sure are mistakes; the
question mark denotes items where I do not feel sure, but it seems uncertain
enough that it should at least be looked at more closely by an expert to decide.
In referring to musical notes, I do not have musical symbols available for
use in this list. (Possibly they do exist in a form that is usable in H.T.M.L.
code (the "language" web pages are written in) - but until the ridiculous lack
of standards in H.T.M.L. is sorted out, I am determined to keep my web-site
files as simple and standard as possible, as I don't want to render my web pages
unreadable to some readers because I've used techniques their browsers can't
interpret correctly.) Therefore I use the symbol "#" for sharps (as in F#), the
letter "b" for flats (as in Bb), "x" for double-sharps (as in Fx), and "bb" for
double-flats (as in Bbb). A note-name without these symbols is always to be
taken as natural (as in D - that is, D natural). If I need to emphasize that a
note is natural, as against sharp or flat, I will say something like "D-nat.",
since I cannot even approximate a natural sign with any characters available to
me.
Please note that the score does not come with bar-numbers indicated. For
ease of referring to particular bars, I identify them by counting bars
separately for each system on a page, and where necessary systems are counted
for each page. So I will refer, for example, to page 3, system 2, bar 4 - and
so on.
Throughout the score, the Timpani part is notated without key signatures,
and when sharp or flat notes are included in the part, they are not given
accidentals, but the inflected tuning is indicated where the Timpanist is
instructed to retune drums. Although this would seem to constitute errors, it
appears instead merely to be conforming to a style of notation that was once
common, where Timpani notes were not given accidentals, but these were merely
assumed from the tuning indications given in the part. Although I personally
regard this practice as confusing, and even wrong by current-day standards, I
have to accept that Bainton chose to use this convention; so accordingly I will
not indicate instances of missing accidentals in the Timpani part as errors in
this list.
Michael Edwards,
Victoria, Australia.
E-mail me about this music.
NOTE:
Click here if you need an
explanation for the strange appearance of the e-mail address which will appear
when you click on the e-mail link, or if you don't know what you need to do to
make the e-mail address work properly.
I.
Quasi Cadenza. (piano, unaccompanied)
* p. 4, system 3, bar 2 - first group of demisemiquavers in r.h.:
Error: The secondary beams should probably be continuous across
the entire group, like the primary beam is.
Reason: The score notates all other similar groups of notes thus.
* p. 4, system 3, bar 2 - last note in r.h.:
Error: The note should be a quaver, not a crotchet, and a
semiquaver rest needs to be inserted after it.
Reason: While the note and rest values do add up properly as
notated, this change would make the passage uniform with other similar bars in
this cadenza.
? p. 4, system 5, bar 1:
Note: I don't think there's an error in this bar, but there is a
discrepancy with an identical passage which occurs later, which I think contains
an error. But conceivably it is this passage on p. 4 that is in error. See the
second entry for p. 30, system 5, bar
1, for a discussion of this. (The first entry details another error which
is definitely only in that later passage, not here on p. 4.)
* p. 4, system 6, bar 1 - 7th chord in r.h.:
Error: The Bb in the chord should be B-nat.
Reason: Bb makes no sense enharmonically; if this note had been
intended, it would have been written as A#, as an examination of this score
shows Bainton to have been very careful in the choice of enharmonic notation he
made. B-nat. is obviously intended, since it fits in with the overall pattern
of parallel maj. 3rds in the r.h.
* p. 5, system 3, bar 1 - 8 notes in the third crotchet beat:
Error: These notes, which are hemidemisemiquavers, should only be
demisemiquavers.
Reason: Only thus do they add up to one crotchet. It might be
said that in this cadenza the style is rather free and fanciful, and that the
notation, in order to reflect this, need not be so strict as usual. But if you
look at this cadenza carefully, you see that the notation is usually very
precise and correct, and follows the usual rules (the only exception being
tuplets such as 11 notes in the time of 8, which are not marked with an "11" -
but the note-values chosen to notate them are usually the correct ones).
* p. 5, system 5, bar 1 - last two chords in l.h.:
Error: The two Bb's in the chords should be tied together.
Reason: In each of several other places nearby where these two
chords appear, the Bb's are tied.
* p. 5, system 6, bar 1 - first chord in r.h.:
Error: The natural sign should be in front of the F, not the E.
Reason: The natural sign is not needed for the E, which is natural
anyway; but it is needed for the F, which would be sharp otherwise, but here the
harmony is D minor.
? p. 5, system 7, bar 2 - last group of demisemiquavers in r.h. and the
following crotchet chord:
Error: Possibly the A which begins the group of demisemiquavers
should be tied to the lowest A of the crotchet chord.
Reason: I don't feel completely sure of this: maybe the A crotchet
is meant to sound again; but my feeling is that the tie is intended, considering
that the other notes in the crotchet chord are tied except for the top one.
* p. 5, system 7, bar 2 - l.h., end of bar:
Error: A bass clef should be inserted just before the double bar-
line.
Reason: The piano stave in the next section has the l.h. in the
bass clef.
Adagio, molto espressivo.
? p. 7, Horns I/II, bar 1 - 3rd note:
Error: The note is C# (F# concert), and possibly should be C-nat.
(F-nat.).
Reason: C# (F#) does not fit in with D-min. harmony in the rest of
the orchestra, but C (F) would. But possibly the conflict of harmony here is
intended.
* p. 12, Piano, bar 3 - 1st crotchet in r.h.:
Error: There should be a trill sign and wavy line over the note.
Reason: This agrees with the trill in the previous bar; the
recording by Ffrangcon Davies referred to above includes a trill here.
* p. 14, Piano, bar 3 - last chord in r.h.:
Error: The lowest note in the chord, D, should be Db.
Reason: Clearly required by the harmony, in which all other D's
are flat.
* p. 18, Piano, bar 5 - first chord in r.h.:
Error: The Fb should be F-nat.
Reason: Fb doesn't agree with the F-nat. in the l.h.
What about the possibility that Fb is correct, and it's the F-naturals in
the l.h. that are incorrect? I considered this possibility: but the passage is
parallel with a version of this passage played by the strings 5 bars earlier.
In that passage, the Fs are unambiguously natural, so we can safely assume it is
intended here also.
* p. 19, 2nd Violins, bar 1 - group of 4 beamed notes:
Error: The secondary beam needs to be extended one note to make
the third note a semiquaver, not the quaver shown.
Reason: Only thus do the note-values add up properly. This is
clearly wrong, and the part in 1st Violins gives it correctly. (The notes are
different, but the rhythms identical, and the 1st and 2nd Violins are clearly
intended to be playing the same figure in parallel 3rds with each other.)
* p. 20, Piano, bar 4 - first chord in l.h.:
Error: The chord is Ab-Db-Ab (in ascending order); probably it
should be Db-Ab-Db (the lowest note being the same Db as the one printed in the
middle of the chord).
Reason: This would preserve the melodic shape of the l.h. part
much better. The entire passage has both hands playing octaves with notes in
the middle of the octaves, and the octaves in the l.h. paralleling the ones in
the r.h. a 3rd lower - the whole very clearly following a recognizable and
important motif. Making this correction would preserve the shape of that motif
in the l.h. - the chord as printed obscures it. That this motif appearing
essentially in parallel 3rds in the piano is playing in canon with the strings
playing similarly half a bar behind the piano makes clarity in melodic shape
doubly important.
* p. 20, Piano, bar 4 - 2nd-last chord in l.h.:
Error: The chord is written as Db-F-Db, but it should probably be
Eb-F-Eb.
Reason: The reasons are similar to those in the previous entry.
* p. 22, Piano, bar 3 - 3rd-last semiquaver in r.h.:
Note: This is referring to the third bar in the piano part; but it
occurs in the second bar of the orchestral parts, because the piano is playing
in 4/4 against the orchestra's 3/2, with three bars in the piano parts for every
two bars of the orchestral parts, so that some of the bar-lines don't occur
simultaneously in the piano and orchestral parts.
Error: The 3rd-last chord in the r.h. should probably include a
G-nat.
Reason: The two hands are playing identical parts 2 octaves apart,
and the l.h. part includes the G-nat. Including it in the r.h. too seems to
agree better with the overall style and texture of the piano part in this
section of music.
* p. 30, system 1, Piano, bar 1 - last 12 notes:
Error: All these notes should be demisemiquavers, not just the two
l.h. notes.
Reason: Clearly all the notes in this group (marked with a "12")
are meant to be equal in duration. But to fit into the 4th beat, they have to
be half the duration of the previous notes, which are sextuplet semiquavers.
Therefore the notes in the last beat must be demisemiquavers. (There is a very
similar bar 7 bars later which is also printed with wrong note-values - but
differently wrong. See the following entry. Also see p. 76,
system 2, bar 1.)
* p. 30, system 4, Piano, bar 1 - 3rd sextuplet:
Error: All 6 notes should be semiquavers - but only the first note
(in the l.h.) is so printed, the rest being demisemiquavers.
Reason: Only thus do the note-values add up properly. Clearly the
first three beats are intended to contain sextuplets, one per crotchet, and the
fourth beat is intended to contain 12 demisemiquavers. (It is parallel to the
passage 7 bars earlier, although the note-values were printed wrongly there also
(differently). See the previous entry. Also see p. 76,
system 2, bar 1.)
* p. 30, system 5, Piano, bar 1 - 2nd group of demisemiquavers, 3rd-last
chord:
Error: The notes alternate between the two hands, although both
are notated on the upper stave with stems in opposite directions, and the chord
in question is in the r.h. It is notated as E-G#-E - but the upper E needs a
natural sign to cancel an earlier Eb.
Reason: The lower E is natural (and doesn't need a natural sign),
and octaves are obviously intended; it is exactly parallel with the first
crotchet beat of the bar. It is obvious that a natural sign was omitted by
oversight.
? p. 30, system 5, Piano, bar 1 - 3rd group of demisemiquavers, first chord:
Error: It is written as E-G-C. The G is clearly notated with a
natural sign to cancel an earlier G# - but I would suggest consideration be
given to whether the natural should be removed, so that G# continues to have
effect.
Reason: When I considered this passage, a twinge of intuition told
me that G# would be better here, and seemed to make better sense harmonically,
although I couldn't quite say why. (The inflection, whether natural or
(continuing) sharp, continues to affect all G's to the end of the bar, through a
couple of harmonic changes.)
Baseless hunches of this sort are not sufficient by themselves to assume
that a misprint has occurred; however, I still felt persuaded to look further
into it; and I found possible support for my hunch.
The cadenza which this work opens with recurs at intervals later in the
piece, usually much altered, but with certain brief passages almost the same.
This possible error occurs in one of these recurring cadenzas, and it is in a
passage which is identical to a passage in the initial cadenza; and when I went
back to look at the initial cadenza (p. 4, system 5, bar
1), I found that, in the place where this passage first occurred, the note
in question (and its several repetitions) is a G#.
(I might flatter myself that my intuition was musically sensitive enough to
sense that this was likely to be correct; but it is probably nothing to do with
this, and is more likely a half-forgotten memory of the fact that the earlier
passage included the G# - and sensitivity need not play a role in this, but
merely remembering what I had seen earlier.)
* p. 31, systems 1 and 2, bar 1 in each system, Contrabasses:
Error: The dotted minim in the first system shouldn't have a tie
leading into it, but the crotchet in the second system should have one.
Reason: It would seem likely that the tie got mistakenly moved
from the second system to the first: the note in the first system shouldn't have
a tie leading into it, because the previous system doesn't even have a stave for
the Contrabasses, which therefore must be silent in that system, and therefore
there's no note to tie into the following bar; but the note in the second system
does need a tie, to complete the tie which occurs in the Contrabass
part at the end of the first system.
* p. 31, system 4, Piano, bar 2 - 4th note in l.h.:
Error: The C should probably be E (the single-leger-line E below
the bass stave).
Reason: If you regard the figuration as a spreading-out of chords,
and construe notes within those chords as parts moving to specific notes in the
next chord, changing the C to E makes much better sense.
It makes sense even if you consider only the shape of the figuration. In
the second group of 4 notes in the l.h. (5th to 8th notes in the bar), the 2nd
and 4th notes are the same; it seems to fit better to apply this to the first
group of 4 notes, and make the 2nd and 4th notes the same, also. Whichever way
you look at it, having the E repeat makes sense, and repeating the upper C does
not.
Also (this should really clinch the matter), the passage occurs on p. 5,
system 6, bar 2 (although near the end of the bar, not the beginning, as it is
here), and is notated thus.
* p. 31, system 5, Piano, bar 3 - end of l.h. stave:
Error: A bass clef should be inserted in the l.h. of the Piano
part, just before the double bar-line.
Reason: The piano part begins on the next page with the l.h. in
bass clef.
* p. 39, Piano, last bar - 6th grace note (B):
Error: The B should be A.
Reason: Although Bainton often uses added-6th type chords, there
is no reason here to suppose that one is intended. It would seem to be most
unlikely for one to occur on the last chord of this movement, and would
definitely sound out of place.
It is true that the following movement (Scherzo) does end on an added-6th
chord, but that situation is rather different. Firstly, those final added-6th
chords are preceded by extended octave figuration featuring the four notes Eb,
G, Bb, and C with about equal prominence, so the whole closing passage is imbued
with added-6th harmony, and it's not a case of the added 6th note itself
intruding on pure triadic harmony with a single occurrence. Secondly, although
Bainton usually ends his movements with a plain triad, this situation is
different in that the Scherzo movement leads without a break into the third
movement, so the end of the Scherzo is not a pure example of a full close
anyway. In such a situation, ending with added-6th harmony would not seem so
anomalous as it would in a pure full close.
For these reasons, one cannot reason from the ending of the Scherzo to the
ending of the first movement and apply parallels, and thus it seems better to
assume that the single occurrence of a B in the D major harmony at the end of
the first movement is nothing more than a misprint.
II. SCHERZO. (Molto vivace.)
* p. 64, bar 2, Timpani:
Error: The metre is 3/8, and an F# occurs on the 2nd quaver beat.
The 1st and 3rd beats, however, contain neither notes nor rests.
Reason: Clearly the missing beats need to be filled with something
to add up to three quavers. It appears certain that additional notes are not
intended, so a quaver rest should be inserted before the F#, and another one
after.
* p. 66, Clarinets - beginning of system:
Error:
1. In front of the stave, "Clts. in Bb." should read "Clts. in A.".
2. The 2-flat key signature in the stave should be 1 flat only.
Reason:
1. The Clarinet players have not yet changed to Clarinets in Bb. (This
occurs a couple of pages further on.)
2. Because the Clarinets are in A and the key signature is D major, the
Clarinet parts should have an F-major key signature, not the Bb-major one they
have. (In transposing scores, parts for Clarinets in A are always notated a
min. 3rd higher than their actual pitch. A min. 3rd up from D major takes you
to F major, not Bb major.) It is clearly an error on this page only, since the
key signatures are correct on all other pages.
* pp. 72 - 75, Clarinets - beginning of system on all four pages:
Error: "Clts in A." should be changed to "Clts in Bb.".
Reason: The change to Bb Clarinets has taken place now.
* p. 75, bars 5-6, Horns I, II, III, IV - two quavers, one on each side of
the bar-line:
Error: In Horn I, the notes should be tied; in Horn III, the
curved line looks like a slur rather than a tie (it's on the opposite site of
the beam to the noteheads), but it is clearly intended to be a tie.
Reason: Other parts where the two quavers are the same note are
tied, such as the Violas and Double Basses.
* p. 75, bars 7-8, various parts - two quavers, one on each side of the bar-
line:
Error: These errors are similar to those mentioned in the
preceding entry. The details follow:
Trombone II: The two notes should be tied.
2nd Violins: The part is marked divisi, and the lower part has two
notes which are the same in this location, and they should be tied.
Cellos: The part is also divided, and the lower part's slur should be
changed to a tie (located closer to the noteheads, not on the other side of the
beam).
Reason: The parts not just detailed are notated correctly (tied if
the notes are the same, slurred if they are not), and it seems reasonable to
assume all parts should be consistent in articulation.
* p. 76, system 1, bars 2-5 - various places in Piano part:
Error: Several ties are missing, all in the r.h. part (which is
syncopated and in octaves), and all of them over bar-lines, thus:
Bars 2-3: Lower octave needs a tie.
Bars 3-4: Lower octave needs a tie.
Bars 4-5: Upper octave needs a tie.
Reason: All the r.h. octaves clearly mimic the l.h. notes, which
are not syncopated and therefore don't have ties. Therefore the repetitions of
notes which would occur without the ties are out of place.
* p. 76, system 1, bar 6, Piano - end of bar:
Error: Just before the double bar-line, a bass clef should appear
in the l.h. part, and the new key-signature changed to fit this.
Reason: At the beginning of the next system (and movement), the
l.h. of the Piano part is in bass clef.
III. IMPROVISATION. (Quasi cadenza. Lento.)
* p. 76, system 2, bar 1 - Last two l.h. notes (on r.h. stave):
Error: The last two l.h. notes should be demisemiquavers, not
semiquavers.
Reason: Each of them is the first note of a sextuplet, so all six
notes in each sextuplet should be equal in duration. When you consider the
duration they have to fit into (a quaver each), it is clear that the notes have
to be demisemiquavers, not semiquavers.
This is the fifth time this bar appears in the piece: the first two
appearances (bars 1 and 8 on the first page of the score) are correct; but the
note-values are notated wrongly each time after that - and wrong
differently each time, too. (See p. 30, system 1,
bar 1 and p. 30, system 4, bar 1 - then use the
"backspace" button on your browser to return here.)
* p. 77, system 1, bar 1, Piano - various places:
Error: There are several missing accidentals in this entire bar,
all of them natural signs which are needed to cancel earlier flat signs.
Details follow:
1st group of notes:
6th chord: F needs a natural sign.
2nd group of notes:
3rd chord: G needs a natural sign.
5th chord: C needs a natural sign.
3rd group of notes:
4th chord: C needs a natural sign.
6th chord: F needs a natural sign.
Reason: My assertion that these are errors is based on the
reasonable assumption that the entire passage (other than the first chord) is
intended to consist of parallel minor triads coming down the scale by semitones.
* p. 77, system 1, bar 1, Piano - 1st note in 2nd group of semiquavers, in r.h.:
Error: The B-nat. should be A-nat.
Reason: This is needed to preserve the pattern of parallel minor
triads coming down a semitone at a time.
* p. 77, system 2, bar 1, Piano - Dotted-crotchet double note in r.h.:
Error: The double note needs two trill signs and two wavy lines -
one for each note. Only one is given.
Reason: Presumably all three notes of the Ab-major triad (two in
the r.h., one in the l.h.) are intended to be trilled, and are so treated in the
recording by Ffrangcon Davies. Trilling all three notes is consistent with the
pattern suggested by the following notes, which suggest that all three parts
move together, preserving a pattern of parallel triads.
* p. 77, system 3, bar 1, Piano - 2nd group of notes in l.h.:
Error: The last note should be C# (no sharp sign needed), not E.
Reason: The surrounding pattern of figuration suggests that this
note is always the same note as the second note of the preceding group of notes.
E also doesn't fit the harmony in this location.
* p. 77, system 3, bar 1, Piano - 4th group of notes in l.h.:
Error: Probably this group of 7 notes should be made into a group
of 8 notes (and changed to demisemiquavers) by the addition of one more note: a
low A on the second leger line below the treble stave.
Reason: In most other places where the harmony changes, the
earlier harmony ends with an extra note giving the actual bass of the chord.
But this never happens when the harmony doesn't change, presumably because this
would cause a repetition of the bass-note which would be awkward to play and
probably sound poorly too.
* p. 77, system 3, bar 2, Piano - 2nd group of notes in l.h.:
Error: Probably the last note of the group should be removed,
reducing the group from 8 notes to 7 (which would also change to a septuplet of
semiquavers).
Reason: Leaving the note in means it is repeated, because the 3rd
group of notes begins with the same note. This does not seem likely to be
intended, as nowhere else in the entire passage is such a note repeated. Such a
pattern of 8 notes appears elsewhere only where a repetition of a note would not
occur at the beginning of the following group of notes. (This is where the
harmony shifts up or down a semitone, so two low notes a semitone apart occur -
but not when the pattern would cause these two notes to be the same.)
* p. 77, system 3, bar 2, Piano - 3rd and 4th groups of notes in l.h.:
Error: The notes themselves are right, but grouped wrongly. The
3rd group is printed with 8 semiquavers, and the 4th group with 7
demisemiquavers. The groups should consist of 7 and 8 notes respectively; the
note durations given are correct if this change is made, but incorrect as shown
in the score.
Reason: In the surrounding passages, the figuration undulates up
and down so that it periodically peaks and troughs with high and low notes.
Each rhythmic group of notes begins with either the highest note of a peak or
the lowest note of a trough; this change must be made to keep that pattern.
(There is nothing about the passage to suggest that a brief departure from this
pattern is intended.) The note durations printed (semiquavers for the 3rd group
and demisemiquavers for the 4th) are incorrect for the grouping printed, but are
right for the correction I'm proposing.
* p. 77, system 4, bar 1, Piano - 3rd note in r.h. :
Error: The note should be A, not C.
Reason: C would not quite be incorrect, although it would be
notated as B# if intended, in uniformity with the l.h. (Bainton appears to take
care over consistency of enharmonic notation.) But A fits the melodic pattern
of the l.h. better, as can be clearly seen by the preceding and following bars,
where the r.h. always moves by per. 4ths, 5ths, and octaves. C would break this
pattern.
* p. 77, system 4, bar 2, Piano - end of bar in l.h.:
Error: A bass clef should be inserted just before the double bar-
line, and the change of key-signature altered to suit the bass clef.
Reason: The following bar, in the next system, begins with the
l.h. in the bass clef.
* p. 79, bar 3, Piano - second quaver:
Error: The quaver should be tied to the following note.
Reason: Having the notes repeat does not seem to fit the nature of
the figuration. The first quaver in this same bar is marked
as tied, as one would expect; in other bars containing this figuration, both
quavers are given ties. Ffrangcon Davies plays all such notes (in this and in
other bars) as tied in his recording of this work.
* p. 79, bar 3, Piano - rhythmic distribution of arpeggios:
Error: Probably the first group of 4 fast notes should be
demisemiquavers, not hemidemisemiquavers; and the third group of 4 notes should
be hemidemisemiquavers, not demisemiquavers.
Reason: In this bar and a few others featuring similar figuration,
the arpeggios are in a combination of demisemiquavers and hemidemisemiquavers -
but the arrangement of these two types of notes is sometimes different, and
sometimes the note-values don't add up properly to a full bar's duration. There
is no reason to think that this arpeggiated figure is to be given different
rhythmic treatment each time it occurs, and no reason to think that the
different arrangements of note values are anything more than a misprint, even in
cases where the values do add up. (This score has other examples of
note-values getting confused in figuration, as detailed elsewhere in this
document.)
The arpeggios do not seem to have any special subtlety to them, and do not
appear to be intended as anything more than fairly ordinary arpeggios with
decorative intent, so any unusual complexities of rhythm that appear in one
instance only would seem to be the result of misprints. In the present case (p.
79, bar 3), the notes do add up, but disagree in their arrangement with several
other occurrences of this figuration. I have therefore made the assumption that
the figure is to be given the same rhythmic treatment each time it occurs, and
that any instances that are unusual rhythmically or whose notes don't properly
add up to a full bar's worth of notes are the result of a misprint. Of the
versions that remain, which do add up properly, and which do
follow a natural-sounding rhythm (which means simple in this context), I have
eliminated any that occur only once, and given preference to the one version
that occurs more than once.
In this instance only (p. 79, bar 3), there are rests in the lower stave
simultaneous with the arpeggios in the upper stave. Their positioning lends
support to the suppositions I have just explained; in other words, if we assume
any other rhythmic distribution is intended other than the one I have assumed,
the rests and notes will not properly line up vertically with one another. No
other appearances of similar arpeggios have rests appearing simultanously with
them, so no further corroboration can be obtained in that way.
I have kept the above considerations in mind in my comments about other
occurrences of mistakes in this type of figuration. See also p. 80, bar 1, p. 82, bar 3, and
p. 83, bar 1.
* p. 80, bar 1, Piano - first two quavers (with other notes in
between):
Error: Both quavers should be tied to the following notes.
Reason: The same as at p. 79, bar 3 (first item).
* p. 80, bar 1, Piano - rhythmic distribution of arpeggios:
Error: There is no error here; this bar and bar 1 on p. 83 are the
only bars that are given the correct rhythmic distribution, out of the four that
contain this particular arpeggio figure.
Reason: See p. 79, bar 3 for a
discussion of the problem with the four bars containing the arpeggio figure.
Also, compare p. 82, bar 3 and p. 83, bar 1.
* p. 81, bar 3, Timpani:
Error: The bar is missing its contents.
Reason: The bar needs to be filled in, presumably with a semibreve
rest. (There is nothing to suggest that the Timpani might have something to
play here.)
* p. 81, bar 3, 2nd Violins - beginning of bar:
Error: "a 2" should be replaced with "unis.".
Reason: "a 2" would tend to suggest "divisi" or "div. a 2",
although it is usual to leave out the number when the division is into 2 parts.
But in fact, the 2nd Violins do not divide here - rather, a previous division
comes together into unison playing at this point, and "unis." is the usual
direction to indicate this.
* p. 82, bar 3, Piano - rhythmic distribution of arpeggios:
Error: The 5th and 6th groups of four fast notes should both be
hemidemisemiquavers, not demisemiquavers.
Reason: The bar as notated adds up to more than a bar's duration,
rhythmically. See p. 79, bar 3 for a discussion
of the problem with the four bars containing the arpeggio figure. Also, compare
p. 80, bar 1 and p. 83, bar 1.
* p. 83, bar 1, Piano - rhythmic distribution of arpeggios:
Error: There is no error here; this bar and bar 1 on p. 80 are the
only bars that are given the correct rhythmic distribution, out of the four that
contain this particular arpeggio figure.
Reason: See p. 79, bar 3 for a
discussion of the problem with the four bars containing the arpeggio figure.
Also, compare p. 80, bar 1 and
p. 82, bar 3.
* p. 85, bar 3, Piano - 2nd last note:
Error: The octave is given as G#-G-nat. Since there is nothing in
the passage (entirely in octaves) to suggest that a cross-relation is correct,
one of the notes has to be changed to match the other. Either G-nat. or G#
could be correct (as far as you can tell from listening to the passage), but
Ffrangcon Davies plays G-nat. in his recording of this work. (I would agree
that this is preferable.)
Reason:
* p. 87, bar 4, Piano - second-last chord in l.h.:
Error: The chord is printed as F-C#-F. A fourth note, Bb, needs
to be inserted, together with a tie from the Bb in the preceding chord. Also, a
tie needs to be inserted connecting the lower F with the F in the preceding
chord.
Reason: The chord is tied from the previous l.h. chord. There is
nothing about the passage to suggest that some notes in it are intended to be
struck again, but not others - nor anything to suggest that most of the notes
should continue or repeated, but the Bb dropped.
* p. 90, bar 3, Horn II - first note of bar:
Error: The note is notated as A (concert D); it should be changed
to G# (C#).
Reason: The chord is the last one in the movement, and it is A
major, and no notes other than A, C#, or E fit. The Horn note as printed
therefore doesn't fit, but the corrected note would. Also, the note is tied to
a previous note which is G# (concert C#), which correct; so it would seem to
point to a misprint.
IV. FINALE. (Allegro, molto ritmico e risoluto.)
* p. 91, bar 5, Contrabass - 3rd note:
Error: The B# should be A#.
Reason: This would agree with the Viola and Cello parts. It would
also agree with the melodic shape of the motif which appears several times on
this page, which rules out B# as being the correct note. (The third note of the
motif is always a min. 3rd below the 2nd note.)
* p. 93, system 2, bar 2, Piano - first chord:
Error: All three notes of this chord have accidentals. They are
rather crowded and unclear, but the D looks like it is natural. This note
should be Db.
Reason: The entire figure is one that occurs in various places, at
different pitches. A few of the notes in this figure change, but this
particular note always seems to be the same, and comparison with these other
passages makes it plain that the note should be Db here, as does the fact of the
strings playing a Db-major chord immediately before the chord in question.
* p. 96, bar 2, 1st Violins - second note:
Error: Cb should be C-nat.
Reason: C-nat. agrees with other parts (Oboe I, Horn I, Violas),
and with a similar passage in the previous bar, and seems to fit the overall
style of harmony at this point better.
* p. 99, bars 5-6, Clarinet II, Contrabass (2nd divided part) - two notes,
one on either side of the bar-line:
Error: These pairs of notes should be tied.
Reason: Other instruments doubling these notes have ties. The
parts in question are only accompanying harmonic parts, and there is nothing
that seems to call for repeated notes, as against sustained notes.
* p. 100, bar 3, Piano - F# near the beginning of the bar:
Error: This note should be a quaver, not a semiquaver.
Reason: This change is necessary to make the notes add up
properly; this would also give a rhythm that matches other occurrences of this
figure.
* p. 102, bar 2, Piano - first chord:
Error: The F# should be E.
Reason: Comparison with the similar previous bar supports this
alteration. The fact of the 2nd F# having a sharp sign in front of it
suggests that the 1st F# is not meant to be an F#: if it were, the accidental
for the second F# would be superfluous.
* p. 107, bar 2, Flutes I, II - grace-note upward run:
Error: Taking the context into account, it is not clear whether
the inflections of the notes in the upward scale are correct or not.
Reason: The underlying harmony, sustained in the brass, consists
of F-C-Eb-Ab-C-Eb (reading upwards from the bass). The key signature is 2
sharps, which could influence the way some notes are read. The run played by
the two flutes is given just below (including the immediately preceding and
following full-size notes). In this, a note name is followed by "n" when a
natural sign is unambiguously in force (given before the note, or clearly still
in force from a previous note); but not when the note is natural simply by
default, without any actual sign being present in the bar.
(2# key Fl. 1: Eb Fn G A B Cn D Eb Fn G
signature) Fl. 2: Cn D Eb Fn G A B Cn D Eb
This appears quite unambiguous, taken by itself. Where the ambiguity comes
in is that some of the notes disagree with the sustained notes in the brass. In
particular, the A's conflict with the Ab in the brass. The overall context also
suggests the possibility that the B's should be flat. This might be felt to fit
the context better, especially the sustained harmony, which contains an Ab, with
which Bb might be felt to fit better. If one accepts that the A's in the scale
should be flat to agree with the sustained notes, Bb's would also avoid
augmented 2nds in the scale, which might be felt as less natural in a passage of
this sort.
I'm not suggesting that I think any of these suppositions are more likely -
I'm quite prepared to consider that Bainton intended the A-naturals to simply
conflict with the Ab's in the bass, and that the scale should include B's,
exactly as notated; in fact, I think the passage precisely as notated works
well. I'm just suggesting that there is enough doubt that one might consider
whether an alternative reading was intended, and that a few accidentals were
omitted by oversight. This is not as unlikely a supposition as it might seem: I
have quite commonly seen accidentals omitted by mistake in various scores, in
passages very like this. If a new edition is ever prepared of this work, I
would certainly think this passage should be checked with the manuscript; and
even if the manuscript agrees with the printed score, I would want experts to
carefully consider whether accidentals might have been mistakenly omitted from
the passage, before a version of this passage is set in stone in a new edition.
If I had written the passage, and intended it exactly as written, I would have
definitely considered it necessary to insert cautionary naturals for all A's and
B's in the upward scale, even though they are not technically necessary.
A point in favour of the interpretation as printed is that it agrees
exactly with a similar passage one bar earlier in the Clarinets (agrees in terms
of the relative intervals between the notes, that is - the pitch is different).
But that earlier occurrence of the passage was accompanied by different harmony,
which agrees with it anyway, so that none of these ambiguities arise there.
* p. 114, bar 3, Violas - second chord:
Error: The top note of the double-stop should be Eb, not E-nat.
Reason: The harmony is Eb major, not Eb major plus a minor 9th or
augmented octave. Its position as part of a series of parallel triads, all in
first inversion, strengthens the idea that it should just be a plain triad, not
a triad plus an extra note.
EPILOGUE. (Adagio, molto espressivo.)
* p. 120, bar 4, Piano - last two chords in lower stave:
Error: The second-last chord in the lower stave should have a flat
sign in front of the G (affecting the G in the last chord also).
Reason: Gb appears in the upper stave, and fits in with the
overall Eb-minor feel at this point.
* p. 121, bar 4, Piano - second-last chord in l.h.:
Error: The chord reads Eb-B-Eb, but probably the middle note
should be A.
Reason: The immediately preceding chord, forming the bass region
of the overall harmony, consists of Eb-A-Eb an octave lower, rather than Eb-B-
Eb. Probably these two chords are meant to be the same. Also, A's appear
elsewhere in the texture at this point, but no other B's do. B instead of A
might possibly fit the harmony, but A outweighs B by sheer number of
occurrences.
* p. 122, bar 1, Piano - 3rd chord in r.h.:
Error: The sharp sign should be in front of the G, not the B.
Reason: The chord is clearly intended to be a dom. 9th on E.
Parallel movement from the dom. 9th on F immediately beforehand supports this,
as does the clearly-notated dom. 9th on E immediately aftewards on the lower
stave.
? p. 122, bar 1, Piano - 2nd-last chord, both hands:
Error: Possibly the C#'s in both hands should be C-nats., with C#
in the final quaver in the bar.
Reason: The passage is not ambiguous or obviously wrong in itself.
But a consideration of the composer's idiom suggests to me the possibility that
the C's in both hands should be C-nats., resolving onto C# in the last quaver in
the bar. My memory (admittedly a bit dim now) also seems to tell me that
Ffrangcon Davies plays the passage thus in his performance of the work.
I also feel the penultimate chord as notated (A-G-A-C#-D#-F#-B-C#-D#-G-B)
is not quite characteristic of Bainton (although not far removed from his
style), whereas, if the C#'s were changed to C-nats., I would find it
very characteristic. The difference would be sufficient to make me
want to check the manuscript, and to seek other opinions.
However, there is an argument against this: the final quaver in the r.h.
does not include any C at all, so this would leave the C-nat. in the r.h.
unresolved. While I do not think this would have any real effect on the passage
in actual performance, I do think Bainton was fastidious enough a composer that
I feel he wouldn't have written the passage thus. If one wants to persist with
this supposition, one has to assume that a C# was omitted from the last r.h.
quaver, and one would then need to insert it. Also, another weak point about
this interpretation of things is the fact that the C# in the l.h. is explicitly
furnished with a sharp sign, as if to cancel the earlier C-nat. (even though
that occurred in the r.h.).
Afterword:
I hope this list, by some good fortune, comes one day to the notice of
Bainton scholars or editors who might prepare a new edition of the Concerto-
Fantasia (hopefully as part of a project to bring Bainton's music into
currency once again - it occasionally happens to obscure composers). If any
such people read this, please e-mail me if you think the above list will be of
assistance in preparing the edition, or if you think, on the above showing, I
have the capacity to be of assistance in any other way - perhaps doing more
error-hunting, or perhaps even proof-reading of a new engraving of this work.
If any Bainton experts who read this really feel I have nothing useful to
contribute, and that I am merely duplicating discoveries others have already
made, I would appreciate being told this so that I do not waste time searching
the score for mistakes.
But I would very much appreciate feedback or suggestions from anyone who
reads this who is expert in Bainton, or who might one day be involved in
producing editions of his music.
Michael Edwards,
Victoria, Australia.
Wednesday, 19 July, 2000.
E-mail me about this music.
NOTE:
Click here if you need an
explanation for the strange appearance of the e-mail address which will appear
when you click on the e-mail link, or if you don't know what you need to do to
make the e-mail address work properly.
Introduction - Front page, which leads to Contents
Web Site of Michael Edwards - Contents
Site Map
Composer Listings
( Edgar Bainton )
Errors in Concerto-Fantasia by Edgar Bainton (this page)
This page created on Wednesday, 19 July, 2000;
last modified on Tuesday, 1 August, 2000.