Blog 5

Starting with the definitions, the most significant thing I learned was the difference between holograph and autograph. I suppose I never really knew the definition of autograph, but I always assumed it was what a holograph actually is. Aside from that, I was rather confused by the definitions: urtext especially. It says it's the earliest version of a certain text, but then brings up the case of revisions made by the composers, themselves making several urtexts for one source? Then there is facsimile that seeks to reproduce an autograph. So, it is original, but not the original. Perhaps I'm in the wrong mindset for reading these, or perhaps it is because there are so many similarities between all of them that they all seem to join in my head and confuse me.

The first two documents both dealt with the same area in Brahms's Hungarian Dance No. 5. It's quite interesting to discover something that has been a topic of debate among so many performers for so long, that so specifically solves the issue. I also think it's funny that part of the reason why it was so open to interpretation was because Brahms had terrible handwriting. That makes me feel kind of powerful, as a person with terrible handwriting. What horrible problems could I cause simply because nobody knows what I'm trying to say? But, I suppose I'm not important enough for that. Anyway, it makes me think of what other important things we're missing because of similar issues.

The last article started to disperse the fog around urtext for me, but still left me a bit confused on the subject. It makes sense that the "original" source can be revised when one finds newly discovered information on it, and thus more accurately presents the author's vision. With the Schumann piece they discussed how an earlier version of the same work is sort of looked upon as a different work, but both as urtext? And the fog came creeping back in. 

I thought the video sources were both quite beautiful. Books, just as compilations of information and thoughts and creations are amazing. The power of words and knowledge is truly humbling. But, I imagine a book made by these methods is surely more valuable. The amount of equipment, time, energy, skill, and dedication needed to make a single book is incredible. Truly, the text made on a press and a binding in that old style are far more beautiful than today's mass produced methods. It also makes me think about a binder or a printer in the seventeenth century talking about work:

"How was work?"

"It was terrific! I must have made in excess of four books!"

It can also be said, that while a book might have meant more, or been more treasured in the times when they were made with such techniques, that the true wonder of a book is the knowledge it holds. Today, we can print books so much faster and give so many more people all of the knowledge they contain, which is perhaps more wondrous and beautiful than the most beautiful of books.