Additions: Since this was second of the viola concerto videos, due to my mistake - this edition is the most recent version! P. Bartok/Neubauer edition was published in 1995, and this was released in 2004! My bad for messing that up. I don't know if there was a connection between those two editions (i.e., whether Erdelyi looked at Bartok/Neubauer edition for reference). Therefore, I have assumed that the two editions are two separate and distinct editions. And I might have mis-worded some of my sentences: both editions are not re-creation of the Serly edition, but editions that build up on that one, seeking to correct the errors (either by Mr. Serly or the publisher) to make it more "authentic". So, both editions should be considered as "revised" editions of the Serly completion. The orchestration and melodic materials don't diverge that much from Serly's, which was why I was able to list almost all of the revisions without going over the character limit for either of those videos. Thank you to Remo Mazzetti for letting me realize of this mistake. I should have been clearer with my words, as it seems that I have suggested that Mr. Erdelyi "recreated" the score, instead of "revising" the Serly edition. If there is an error somewhere, please don't hesitate to contact me, so that I can correct my errors or add extra explanations.
@@remomazzetti8757 While both of them stems from Serly edition, the primary aim of both editions was to thoroughly re-examine Bartok's manuscript, to identify typographical errors to revise the 1949 edition, into a more definitive form. Based on the prefaces of both editions, both editors acknowledge Serly's effort to bring life to the unfinished sketch. In the Delmaggiore/Bartok/Neubauer, the editors state: "The Revised Version, while including all the bars of music sketched, dispenses with certain bars that had been added by Mr. Serly; it [the revised version] contains a viola solo part which reproduces exactly that found in Bela Bartok's sketch...the few typographical errors...have also been corrected.", and also "Much of Tibor Serly's orchestration has been retained. Some of the changes in this revised score apply to the tutti passages where a fuller orchestration is used, and in a few instances, where the solo is playing, fewer instruments accompany." And from Erdelyi: "We owe them [Serly, Primrose] a debt of gratitude for their faith in the importance of this masterpiece". "Some of the sections...left blank in the manuscript and filled by Serly have been retained but thoroughly revised." So, I don't think I can agree with your statement of "But neither editors gave credit to Serly or admitted their indebtedness to Serly." I am fine with you considering Serly version as the best out of 3 (I mean, I like Erdelyi edition best, but each of us have different tastes, don't we?), but I want you to know that both editions did acknowledge Serly's efforts, as well as to explicitly state "examined and 'corrected' to produce a more definitive edition closer to Bartok's original manuscript." Could you let me know where you found the information that both editors considered their editions separate and superior to Serly's edition? - since it is quite contrary to the information I saw on the prefaces of both versions.
18:47 really love the violist's harmonics, it sounds like someone singing
Additions: Since this was second of the viola concerto videos, due to my mistake - this edition is the most recent version! P. Bartok/Neubauer edition was published in 1995, and this was released in 2004! My bad for messing that up.
I don't know if there was a connection between those two editions (i.e., whether Erdelyi looked at Bartok/Neubauer edition for reference). Therefore, I have assumed that the two editions are two separate and distinct editions. And I might have mis-worded some of my sentences: both editions are not re-creation of the Serly edition, but editions that build up on that one, seeking to correct the errors (either by Mr. Serly or the publisher) to make it more "authentic". So, both editions should be considered as "revised" editions of the Serly completion. The orchestration and melodic materials don't diverge that much from Serly's, which was why I was able to list almost all of the revisions without going over the character limit for either of those videos.
Thank you to Remo Mazzetti for letting me realize of this mistake. I should have been clearer with my words, as it seems that I have suggested that Mr. Erdelyi "recreated" the score, instead of "revising" the Serly edition. If there is an error somewhere, please don't hesitate to contact me, so that I can correct my errors or add extra explanations.
@@remomazzetti8757 While both of them stems from Serly edition, the primary aim of both editions was to thoroughly re-examine Bartok's manuscript, to identify typographical errors to revise the 1949 edition, into a more definitive form.
Based on the prefaces of both editions, both editors acknowledge Serly's effort to bring life to the unfinished sketch.
In the Delmaggiore/Bartok/Neubauer, the editors state: "The Revised Version, while including all the bars of music sketched, dispenses with certain bars that had been added by Mr. Serly; it [the revised version] contains a viola solo part which reproduces exactly that found in Bela Bartok's sketch...the few typographical errors...have also been corrected.", and also "Much of Tibor Serly's orchestration has been retained. Some of the changes in this revised score apply to the tutti passages where a fuller orchestration is used, and in a few instances, where the solo is playing, fewer instruments accompany."
And from Erdelyi: "We owe them [Serly, Primrose] a debt of gratitude for their faith in the importance of this masterpiece". "Some of the sections...left blank in the manuscript and filled by Serly have been retained but thoroughly revised."
So, I don't think I can agree with your statement of "But neither editors gave credit to Serly or admitted their indebtedness to Serly." I am fine with you considering Serly version as the best out of 3 (I mean, I like Erdelyi edition best, but each of us have different tastes, don't we?), but I want you to know that both editions did acknowledge Serly's efforts, as well as to explicitly state "examined and 'corrected' to produce a more definitive edition closer to Bartok's original manuscript."
Could you let me know where you found the information that both editors considered their editions separate and superior to Serly's edition? - since it is quite contrary to the information I saw on the prefaces of both versions.
Thank you so much!! Could I contact you privately?
Send me an email to iyseo211217@gmail.com, please.