| dc.description.abstract | This document suggests a solution to the problem posed by the existence of three competing urtext editions of Beethoven’s Symphony No. 5, op. 67, by Clive Brown, Jonathan Del Mar, and Jens Dufner. The fact that a final authorized text of the work has not been produced despite the scholarly effort of at least three leading Beethoven scholars over the span of 30 years might be the best indication that a new approach is necessary. In contrast to the urtext, then, I argue for historical and social approaches to understanding the work and its text. Understanding a specific performing tradition based upon location, time, or performer opens up visions of the work not accessible to the urtext.
The document surveys and evaluates the urtext editions and their commentaries, which combined represent the state of the most recent research on the work. As a resource for conductors, it combines this with a measure-by-measure concordance to the variants to reconstruct four historical states of the text from the early performance history.
Behind this mostly empirical enterprise is an examination of the philosophical ramifications of the urtext and fassung letzter hand. Using recent critiques from the field of textual studies, concepts of work, text, and authorship are examined in relationship to authenticity. Drawing on recent research on the historical sources, this document finds that the urtext concept cannot apply to Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony. | en_US |
