Volume 12, Number 3, October 2006
Copyright � 2006 Society for Music Theory

Maureen A. Carr*

"Who's on First?": Response to David H. Smyth's review of Stravinsky's Histoire du soldat: A Facsimile of the Sketches, edited by Maureen A. Carr
(Middleton, Wisconsin: A-R Editions, 2005)

 

Received October 2006



[1] David H. Smyth's review of my Facsimile Edition of the Sketches for Stravinsky's Histoire du soldat is written in such a way that it is often difficult for the reader to determine what Carr said and what Smyth said about the identification and description of specific sketch pages pertaining to Histoire--hence the title "Who's on First?"(1) 

[2] Many of the points raised by Smyth could benefit from further discussion, but I will save that for another occasion. In this brief response I wish to express some clear and distinct ideas that should clarify and correct some of the larger issues having to do with Smyth's review: the Chester edition of 1987, the fragment in Ramuz's hand at the Stravinsky Archive of the Paul Sacher Stiftung, the manuscript of the Conductor's Score at the Rychenberg Stiftung of the Stadtbibliothek Winterthur, the nature of the copyist's score that is lost in the publisher's warehouse, the Croquis, the Sketchbook, the ordering of sketches within certain Groups, and the incipit for Fig. 3.7 that is likely to be the earliest sketch for the Grand Choral:

[3] Until the copyist's manuscript surfaces with annotations by Stravinsky and others, many questions will remain unanswered. In the meantime, at least one page of the copyist's score is reprinted on page ii of the 1987 edition, published by Chester Music (CH 55726).
 

 

Dr. Maureen A. Carr
Professor of Music Theory
School of Music
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA
(On sabbatical in Basel, Switzerland)

References

1. Here I am not referring to points in the Commentary that were cited by Smyth but to the identification and description of some sketch pages pertaining to Histoire that were not always clearly referenced by Smyth as to what Carr said. For example, please see Smyth's [par. 14] discussion of Group 8 and compare it to Carr [Table One: p. 88--comparison between Fig. 8.1 and Fig. 5.7 in Table One (p. 88) and repeated in Table Two (p. 327)]
Return to text

Prepared by Brent Yorgason, Managing Editor
Updated 15 October 2006