Uccelli [née Pazzini], Carolina Uccellini, Marco
Yüklə 3,09 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Urteaga, Irma (Graciela)
- WORKS
- Urtext
Ursuleac, Viorica(b Czernowitz [Cernăuţi, now Chernovtsy], 26 March 1894; d Ehrwald, Tyrol, 23 Oct 1985). Romanian soprano. She studied in Vienna and made her début at Agram in 1922 as Charlotte. She sang at Cernăuţi, the Vienna Volksoper and the Frankfurt Opera, whose conductor, Clemens Krauss, she later married. In 1930 she moved to Vienna, in 1935 to the Berlin Staatsoper and finally with Krauss to the Staatsoper in Munich (1937–44). She created the leading soprano roles in Strauss’s Arabella (1933, Dresden), Friedenstag (1938, Munich) and Capriccio (1942, Munich) and sang the title role in the public dress rehearsal of Die Liebe der Danae (1944, Salzburg). She also appeared in Elektra, Der Rosenkavalier, Die Frau ohne Schatten, Ariadne auf Naxos and Die ägyptische Helena. Strauss dedicated Friedenstag jointly to Krauss and Ursuleac, and some of his songs to Ursuleac; in all she sang 506 performances of 12 Strauss roles during her career. Ursuleac also created the leading soprano roles in Sekles’s Die zehn Küsse (1926, Frankfurt), Krenek’s Der Diktator (1928, Wiesbaden) and d’Albert’s Mister Wu (1932, Dresden). She appeared regularly at Salzburg, 1930–34 and 1942–3. She made her only Covent Garden appearance in 1934, when she sang in the English premières of Arabella and Švanda the Bagpiper and as Desdemona. Her repertory of 83 roles also included Senta, Sieglinde, Tosca, Turandot and Elisabeth de Valois. Her recordings of the Marschallin, Ariadne, Arabella and, above all, Maria (from a live performance of Friedenstag by the original cast) confirm her lasting reputation as a Strauss interpreter. BIBLIOGRAPHYO. von Pandor: Clemens Krauss in München (Munich, 1955) S. von Scanzoni: Richard Strauss und seine Sänger (Munich, 1961) L. Rasponi: The Last Prima Donnas (New York, 1982), 130–39 I. Cook and A. Frankenstein: ‘Remembering Viorica Ursuleac’, Opera, xxxvii (1986), 22–8 HAROLD ROSENTHAL/ALAN BLYTH Urteaga, Irma (Graciela)(b San Nicolás, Argentina, 7 March 1929). Argentine composer and pianist. She studied in Buenos Aires at the National Conservatory and at the Instituto del Teatro Colón, where she studied choral and orchestral conducting. She later taught at both institutions. Between 1974 and 1978 she was director of the opera studio and house répétiteur at the Teatro Colón, where she later directed an opera workshop (1984–93); she did similar work for Ecuador Opera during the 1986–8 seasons. Urteaga’s compositions, mainly vocal works, have won several prizes. She acknowledges the influence of Prokofiev and Bartók and then of Berg and Penderecki in her early works, and later developed her own style, which is essentially neo-romantic, with occasional use of avant-garde techniques. This combination is particularly apparent in La maldolida (1987), a humorous and affectionate operatic parody. WORKS
BIBLIOGRAPHYL. Kurucz: Vademecum de la música argentina (Buenos Aires, 1983) P. Adkins Chiti: Donne in musica (Rome, 1982) B. Luccheli: Guía de la música argentina (Buenos Aires, 1985) D. Grela: Catálogo de obras musicales argentinas 1950–92 (Santa Fe, 1993) M. Ficher, M.F. Schleifer and J.M. Furman: Latin American Composers: a Biographical Dictionary (Lanham, MD, and London, 1996) W.A. Roldán: Diccionario de música y músicas (Buenos Aires, 1996) RAQUEL C. DE ARIAS Urtext(Ger.: ‘original text’). A term used in studying and editing musical sources to signify the earliest version of the text of any composition, musical or otherwise, a version that is usually no longer extant; it is also used to signify a modern edition of earlier music which purports to present the original text, without editorial addition or emendation. (See Editing.) The concept was developed in the study of biblical and medieval texts, where no autograph or (in most cases) other contemporary source survives. Since the act of copying always introduces changes in the text, deliberately or otherwise, the absence of a Holograph means that many details are subject to question. The value of the search for a musical Urtext is debatable. On one hand, it would of course be interesting to know exactly what a composer wrote. But, on the other, there is no evidence that any composer before, at the earliest, the late 18th century was concerned that the holograph should be followed exactly. If a composer saw the notated version as one among a number of equally possible alternatives, then any other versions in the extant sources may have equal validity. Nevertheless, the processes of stemmatics remain of great value, for they help to validate the surviving versions, to indicate what they represent – as regional versions, as evidence for performing practices, or as records of special occasions – and occasionally to reveal actual decisions on the composer’s part. This touches on a second difficult area in the search for any ‘original’ version: that of changes made by the composer during and (particularly) after the act of composition. The doctrine of the ‘Fassung letzter Hand’ – that the last version, carrying the composer’s final thoughts, is deemed to be the only one worth recovering – raises serious questions about when a composer believed a work was complete and finished. Some composers (Liszt, Bruckner and Boulez are obvious examples) clearly go through continuing rethinkings of works: there are then apparently several Urtexts, representing different versions. Other composers make smaller changes, sometimes affecting little more than the mode of notation, so that it cannot be said which version is the only possible and its source the single provider of an Urtext. This claim that a modern edition is an ‘Urtext’ is difficult to support. As the foregoing makes clear, any original text rarely exists for music composed before the 18th century, and any attempt at its reconstruction is not only impossible but also of questionable value. Even for music from 1700 on, few sources can be transcribed into a modern edition without editorial intervention. With manuscripts as difficult to read as those of Beethoven, many of the scratches and splotches require interpretation, and many of these even involve pitches. For other composers, there are similar problems with the placing of dynamic marks, the duration of slurs, a confusion between accents and crescendo signs or between staccato and marcato marks, and so on. Finally, again, many composers revise both details and large-scale elements, and it is not always possible to establish which version was the later. Any of these requires editorial intervention and renders suspect the claims of any modern Urtext edition. Because of these elements, an Urtext edition is no less a reflection of its times than one with an avowed editorial intervention, as has been recognized for the various editions of Bach’s music. BIBLIOGRAPHYP. Bleier: ‘Urtextausgaben – erwünscht und unerwünscht’, NZM, cxix (1958), 744–6 G. Feder: ‘Urtext und Urtextausgaben’, Mf, xii (1959), 432–54 G. von Dadelsen: ‘Die “Fassung letzter Hand” in der Musik’, AcM, xxxiii (1961), 1–14 K.H. Füssl: ‘Urtext-Ausgaben: Probleme und Lösungen’, ÖMz, xxviii (1973), 510–14 C.-H. Mahling: ‘Urtextausgabe – Kritische Ausgabe: Voraussetzung für “richtige” Interpretation?’, Vom Notenbild zur Interpretation, ed. E. Thom and R. Bormann (Magdeburg, 1978), 26–30 L. Finscher: ‘Gesamtausgabe – Urtext – Musikalischer Praxis: zum Verhältnis von Musikwissenschaft und Musikleben’, Musik, Edition, Interpretation: Gedenkschrift Günter Henle, ed. M. Bente (Munich, 1980), 193–8 H. Meister: ‘Die Praxis der “gelenkten Improvisation” und der “Urtexte”: ein editorisches Problem?’, Musik, Edition, Interpretation: Gedenkschrift Günter Henle, ed. M. Bente (Munich, 1980), 355–68 K. Rönnau: ‘Bemerkungen zum “Urtext” der Violinsoli J.S. Bachs’, Musik, Edition, Interpretation: Gedenkschrift Günter Henle, ed. M. Bente (Munich, 1980), 417–22 W. Boetticher: ‘Zum Problem eines Urtextes bei Robert Schumann und Anton Bruckner’, GfMKB: Bayreuth 1981, 404–7 L. Somfai: ‘Manuscript versus Urtext: The Primary Sources of Bartók’s Works’, SM, xxiii (1981), 17–66 R. Pascall: ‘Brahms and the Definitive Text’, Brahms: Biographical, Documentary and Analytical Studies, ed. R. Pascall (Cambridge, 1983), 59–75 S. Boorman: ‘The Uses of Filiation in Early Music’, Text: Transactions of the Society for Textual Scholarship, i (1984), 167–84 P. Badura-Skoda: ‘Das Problem “Urtext”: ein fiktives Interview zwischen dem Musikkritiker Joachim Császár und Paul Badura-Skoda’, Musica, xl (1986), 222–8 P. Brett: ‘Text, Context, and the Early Music Editor’, Authenticity and Early Music, ed. N. Kenyon (London, 1988), 83–114 K. Levy: ‘Charlemagne’s Archetype of Gregorian Chant’, JAMS, xl (1987), 1–30 L. Somfai: ‘Arbitary or Historic Reading of the Urtext?’, MJb 1987–8, 277–84 M. Betz: ‘Bearbeitung, Rekonstruktion, Ergänzung: Der erste Satz der Sonate A-Dur bwv1032 für Flöte und obligates Cembalo von J.S. Bach’, Tibia, xiii (1988), 158–63 G. von Dadelsen: ‘Über Quellenausfall und Hypothesenbildung’, Das musikalische Kunstwerk … Festschrift Carl Dahlhaus, ed. H. Danuser and others (Laaber, 1988), 127–30 M. Querbach: ‘Der konstruierte Ursprung: zur Problematik musikalischer Urtext-Ausgaben’, NZM, cxlix (1988), 15–21 C. Cai: ‘Was Brahms a Reliable Editor? Changes made in Opuses 116, 117, 118 and 119’, AcM, lxi (1989), 83–101 G. Feder: ‘Das Autograph als Quelle wissenschaftlicher Edition’, Musikerautographe: Vienna 1989, 115–44 D. Franklin: ‘Reconstructing the “Urpartitur” for WTC II: a Study of the London Autograph (BL, Add. Ms.35021)’, Bach Studies, ed. D. Franklin (Cambridge, 1989), 240–79 E. Hettrich: ‘Autograph – Edition – Interpretation’, Musikerautographe: Vienna 1989, 165–84 J. Kallberg: ‘Are Variants a Problem? “Composer’s Intentions” in editing Chopin’, Chopin Studies, iii (1990), 257–67 G. Feder and H. Unverricht: ‘Urtext ed edizione Urtext’, La critica del testo musicale: metodi e problemi della filologia musicale, ed. M. Caraci Vela (Lucca, 1995), 75–96 A.M. Grassi: ‘Varianti d’autore e varianti di trasmissione nel Trio op.114 di Johannes Brahms: osservazioni sui testimoni manoscritti e a stampa’, La critica del testo musicale, ed. M. Caraci Vela (Lucca, 1995), 325–57 S. Boorman: ‘The Musical Text’, Redefining Music, ed. N. Cook and M. Everist (London, 1997), 695–725 STANLEY BOORMAN Yüklə 3,09 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|