Rossini:IlbarbierediSiviglia(WorksofGioachinoRossini,Vol.2),Editor:PatriciaB.Brauner;GeneralEditor:PhilipGossett.Bärenreiter,2008.2vols.(ScoreplusCriticalCommentary) Producingacriticaleditionofawell‐lovedmasterpiececanbemuchmoredifficultthanresurrectingahithertoscarcelyknownwork,evenifbothcomefromthesamecomposer.IlbarbierediSivigliahasenjoyedacontinuousperformancehistoryfromthedateofitspremieronFebruary20,1816,rightthroughtothepresent.Inthecaseofanunfamiliarorunsuccessfulwork,whetherornotinourviewitdeservesitsobscurity(suchasTorvaldoeDorliska,recentlypublishedbytheRossiniFoundationofPesaro)sourcestendtobemorelimited,makingthejobofeditinglessburdensome.Ifthecomposer’sautographmanuscripthassurvived,somuchthebetter;ifnot,fewpeopleoutsidethescholarlycommunityhavethequalificationstoquestioneditorialprocedures,andevenfewermusicloverswillcare. Takingonaniconicworklike“TheBarber”isanothermatterentirely.NotonlydowehaveRossini’soriginalmanuscriptscore,therearealsonumerouscontemporarycopies,additionalarias(somenotevenbyRossini),variantsforspecificsingers‐‐someofwhichcomefromthecomposer’spenandsomeofwhichdonot‐‐earlyprintededitions,andingeneralthewholetraditionofperformancethatgrewuparoundthework.Allofthesefactorshavebeennoted,studied,evaluated,described,sampled,andgivendueweightbyDr.PatriciaBraunerincreatingthismagnificentnewedition.Thesheeramountofmaterialthatshehasworkedthroughisstaggering:fiveRossiniautographs,twentymanuscriptscoresfortheoperaitself,andfifteenjustfortheoverturealone.It’sanamazingfeatofscholarship,particularlyastheendresult,presentedwithexemplaryclarityandorganizationalelegance,betraysnoneoftheeffortthatmusthavegoneintoitspreparation. Thisnewedition,thesecondinBärenreiter’songoingRossiniproject(nextupwillbethePetiteMesseSolennelle),offersanoptimalmixofidealismandpracticality.Atitsheart,wefindthemostfaithfulandaccuratetranscriptionyettoappearofthecomposer’sbasictextofthework,beautifullyprintedandspaciouslylaidoutonthepage.Then,likeasortofmusicalsolarsystem,theeditionoffersafascinatingorbitalconstellationofplanets,including:ahistoricalprefacetracingthegenesisofthework(withlotsofsplendidoriginalcorrespondence);thecompletelibretto,printedwithitsoriginalpoeticmetersrespectedastheyshouldbe;andthreeappendicesconsistingofvocalvariantsbyRossiniaswellasadditionalmusiccomposedforsubsequentrevivals.BraunerevenretainsBartolo’saria“Mancaunfoglio,”whichisactuallybyPietroRomani,becauseitbecamesomuchapartofthesubsequentperformancehistoryofthework. Supplementingtheprimaryvolume,Bärenreiterhasalsopublisheda400+pagecriticalcommentarythatgoeswellbeyondtheusualjobofdetailingthe

editorialchoicesmadeinpreparingtheindividualnumbers.ItalsocontainsanextensiveessaybyWillCrutchfieldoncontemporaryvocalornamentation,withnumerousexamplesdrawnfromthenotebooksandscoresoffamoussingersassociatedwiththeopera’sprincipalroles,especially(andnotsurprisingly)thatofRosina.Inshort,thisneweditionpresentsmusicianswithallofthematerialtheymightneedinordertoprepareperformancesofIlbarbierethatarebothfaithfultothecomposer’sevidentintentions,andresponsivetotherequirementsofreal‐lifetheatricalproductions. Itwouldbeamistake,however,tosuggestthatthesetwingoalsofirreproachablescholarshipandpracticalutilitynecessarilystandatodds,forBraunerachievesthelatterthroughthemediumoftheformer.Considertheissueoftheoverture.Afterdebunkingthemythofa“lost”originalBarbieresinfonia,astoryapparentlyoriginatingwithRossinihimselfduringhislaterParisyears,BraunerestablishesthatthecorrectovertureistheversionfirstwrittenforhisearlieroperaAurelianoinPalmira.Butthereisaproblem:theRomeorchestraforwhichIlbarbierewascomposedhadnotimpani,andonlytwoplayersspreadamong2flutes,2piccolos,andasingleoboe.Thisdispositionofforces,andRossini’sconsequentheavyrelianceonflutesandclarinets,givesthemusicmuchofitsMozartiangraceandmellifluousness.

Theoverture,however,includespartsfortwoflutes,twooboes,andtimpani,andRossinimadenoefforttoadaptittoitsnewcontext.Thisleavesopenthequestionofwheretheextraplayerscamefrom,andwhattheydidduringtheremainderoftheopera.Inordertobringtheovertureinlinewiththescoringoftherest,BraunerincludesboththeoriginalpartsasRossiniwrotethem,plusaconjecturalbutsensitivelymadearrangementofthefluteandoboelines(omittingthetimpani)fortheforcesheactuallyhadathisdisposal.Hereisfidelitytothespiritofthework,ratherthanjusttheletterofthetextthathascomedowntous.Operacompaniesusingthiseditioncanthuschoosebetweenthetwooptions,asbestsuitstheperformancecircumstances.

It’salsoworthmentioninginthisregardthatthetraditional,later19th

centuryeditionofthescorepublishedbyRicordi(andstillavailablefromDover)choosesasitssourcefortheovertureRossini’sstillmoreheavilyorchestratedversion,withthreetrombones,usedinElisabetta,reginad’Inghilterra.ThismakesevenlesssensethankeepingmattersasRossinileftthem.Ricordidid,however,issueacriticaleditionofBarbierein1969,underthestewardshipofAlbertoZedda.ThisscorerepresentedawatershedinRossinischolarship.Ittakesasitsprincipalsourcethecomposer’sautograph,whichiscurrentlyhousedinBologna,asdoesthisnewBärenreiteredition.Andyet,therearesignificantdifferencesbetweenZedda’sworkandBrauner’sthatweighdecisivelyinfavorofthelatter,andit’sinterestingtoconsidersomeexamples.

StartwithBasilio’sfamous“Lacalunnia”aria.Therearesmalldetailsthat

simplymakebettermusicalsenseasBraunerhasthem,suchasherlogical(given

thechangeintexture)directivetotheviolinstostopplaying“sulponticello”fourbarsearlierthanZeddaindicates.Anotherinstanceconcernsthecannon‐shotinthepercussionattheappropriatemomentinthetext:Brauner’ssforzandodynamicrunslessofariskofblottingoutthevoicethanZedda’splainfortissimo.Moresignificantly,though,considerthefollowingpassage:

Zeddahastheviolasplayingstaccato,whileBrauner’sslurs,above,requireportatoarticulation—inotherwords,anaccentedlegatopulsationwithonlyahintofspacebetweenthenotes.Asanaccompanimenttothemelodythissmoothertexturedoesindeedchangethecomplexionofthemusic,andsurelyframesthewordsmoreeffectivelythanwouldtheusual,bouncystaccato.Fortherecord,Basiliosings:“Andthepatheticvictimofslander,beatenandhumiliated,whippedbythepublic,dies‐‐ifhe’sluckyenough.”Itwouldbedifficulttoimagineabetterjustificationforamorelugubriousaccompaniment,andthatisjustwhatRossinievidentlywanted. IssuesofproperarticulationalsofigureprominentlyinBartolo’sfirstactaria“Aundottordellamiasorte,”thepieceformerlysooftenreplacedbyRomani’s“Mancaunfoglio.”Inthiscase,asystematicglancebackwardsintimeoffersafascinatingopportunitytoconsiderbothchangingperformancepracticeaswellasthewaythatRossini’slaterinterpreterscorruptedhisscores.TheDover(Ricordi)Editionhasthefollowing:

Notethestringpartsinthethirdbar,allmarkedwithstaccatodots.Agreatdealofambiguitysurroundsthosedots—theyonlyacquiredtheirexclusivestaccatomeaningmuchlaterinthe19thcentury.Priortothen,theyhadacontextualsignificancedependingontheemotionaltenorofthemusic,thedifferentkindsofaccentsusedinthesamework,andanyotherexpressiveindicationsthecomposercaredtosupply.Rossini,forexample,oftenindicatesstaccatowithsharptriangularwedges,asforexampleatthefortissimooutburstsinthesecondactstorm.HereandelsewhereZeddaretainsthedots,acuriousdecisiongivenhiswillingnesstoadoptother,moredistinctivelyRossiniannotationalsigns(suchastheclosedcrescendo,whichindicatesadynamicincreaseordecrease,startingorendingwithasforzandoaccent).

Zeddain1969,supposedlyreturningtothecomposer’sautographmanuscript,tookalookatthispassageandcameupwith:

Marcato,andnotstaccato:infact,quiteadifferenttypeofaccentthanthelater19thcenturyscoresuggests.ButthisisstillnotwhatRossiniwrote,andIamgratefultoWorksofRossiniGeneralEditor,ProfessorPhilipGossett,fortakingthetimetodouble‐checkandconfirmtheneweditionagainstthecomposer’smanuscript.WhatRossininotated,andwhatBraunerreproduces,isthis:

Inotherwords,Rossiniimaginedtwodistincttypesofarticulation,staccatoandmarcato,playedsimultaneously,andbothareindicatedbyacombinationofverbaldescriptionandnotationalsigns(dots).Also,considerthegroupingofthenotesinthefirstviolinsandviolas,whichnaturallysuggestsaslightlydifferentpatternofaccentuationthandoestheusual“ruleoffour”ashomogenizedbylater19thcenturyeditors,andacceptedbyZedda.SobothofthesepreviouseditionsmisrepresentRossini’sintentions.

Whydoesthismatter,andwhatdoesittellus?Quiteabit,actually.First,theabovepassagefeaturestheorchestraplayingalone,betweenvocalentries,andeveninthisbriefhalf‐barofmusicRossinievidentlywantedtheinstrumentalpartstosustainadegreeofcolorandinterest.Hisdesiredarticulationgivesthismotive,whichappearsthreemoretimes,alwaysindialoguewiththevocalline,anindependentlifeandarhythmiccounterpointwhichwouldberenderedfarlessaudibleifeveryoneplayedtheirmusicwiththesamekindofaccent,whetherstaccatoormarcato. Second,detailssuchasthisarenotgratuitouslyfussy.Theyexplainhowacomposerworkingathighspeed,writingforplayersforwhomrehearsalwasasometimething,couldcreatetexturalinterestusingsimplenotationalconventionsthatanymusicianofthedaycouldbeexpectedtounderstand.Remember,Rossiniwasworkingbeforetheriseofthemodernconductor.Theleaderoftheperformance,seatedatthepiano,oftenhadlittlemoretoguidehimthanamoreelaboratefirstviolinpartwithsomecueswrittenin.Itwasuptotheplayers,whethersoloorinsections,toplaywhateverwasputinfrontoftheminconditions(noorchestrapit,nodarkenedauditorium)thatallowedforadegreeofdirectinteractionwiththesingersonstagethatisunthinkabletoday. Inshort,Rossini’soriginalintentionsaren’tjustpractical,theyoughttobefoolproof,providedofcoursethatthepartsaccuratelyreflectthem.Latereditionsof

thescore,includingZedda’s,betrayanoverridingconcernfortheconductor’sabilitytoensureensembledisciplinewithinalarge,modernorchestra,andthenotationishomogenizedaccordingly.Rossini’sconceptiondemonstrateshisdesiretocharacterizeinstrumentallinesevenashedoesthepartsforhisvocalsoloists.Theverysimplicityofhisaccompanimentsoftenmeansthatheplacesapremiumoninstrumentalcolorandavividuseofaccentandarticulationtobringtheorchestra’scontributiontolife.Andallofthishappensabsentthepresenceofasingle,guidinginterpretivevisionemanatingfromtheconductor’spodium.

Rossini’sorchestralwritingiscolorful,flexible,andaboveallfullofpersonality.Restoringtheindividualitythathebuiltintohisinstrumentallinesultimatelymakesthemmoreinterestingtoplay,andmorecaptivatingtohear.Itaffirmsthefundamentallyvocalbasisofhiswholetechnique,andgivesthesingersanadditionalsourceofmusicallyfruitfulinteractionandcollaboration.TheseobservationsremainequallyvalidwhetherfutureperformersofIlbarbiereapproachtheworkthroughthemediumoftraditionalinstrumentsandvocalisminmajoroperahouses,oradoptamorescholarlyapproachtohistoricalperformancepractice.

ByreproducingRossini’stextwithsuchfidelitytothedetailsofhisnotation,

wecanseenotjustwhatRossiniwrote,butalsocometounderstandwhy.Andhere’sanewsflash:Itturnsoutthatheknewwhathewasdoing,andwasinfactalotsmarterthansubsequentgenerationsofpublishersandperformersfeltinclinedtoconcede.Appreciatingthisfactwillencouragemusicianstocreateinterpretationstruertoboththeletterandthespirit‐‐notjustofthisperenniallyrefreshingmasterpiece‐‐butalsooflesser‐knownworksbyRossiniandhiscontemporaries,onwhichthisscoreshinesabrightnewlight.TheimportanceofBrauner’sachievementinthislastrespect,especially,cannotbeoverestimated.DavidHurwitz