This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
Some work needs to be done to figure out the early editions of this work. E.g. which is the "botched edition"? HWV258. 05:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simplicity itself. The "disgracefully botched" edition (not merely of this sonata, but of the entire "opus 1") was the pre-1730 "Roger" forgery by Walsh. Terence Best's article is perfectly plain about this. Do you think a more extended quotation from his article would help? How about this, or an excerpt therefrom: "As long as it was believed that the edition really was published by Jeanne Roger, it was assigned the date c1722 by modern scholars, which was reasonable, since Jeanne Roger died in December of that year. However, we now know that the collection cannot be a Roger edition of 1722 for several reasons. First, the autographs of the sonatas numbered in the edition 1, 3, 6 and 9—themselves composing scores—are from 1724 at the earliest. Second, the engraving style of the edition is not that of the Roger firm, but rather of John Walsh of London. Two engravers were employed … Third, the last plate used by Jeanne Roger was number 495, and her successor in the business—her brother-in-law Michel Charles Le Cene—used the no.534 for Vivaldi's La Cetra (1727). Lastly, the British Library copy of the edition (Lbm g.74.d) has an identical watermark to that of a copy of the Walsh edition of 1731-2 (Lbm g.74.c). It seems clear that the edition was issued by Walsh some time after 1726, and the copy held in the British Library would seem to suggest that it appeared around 1730 or later. The 'Roger' title-page must be simply a fake by Walsh, perhaps to cover himself against the legal consequences of an infringement of a Royal Privilege according Handel, a monopoly in the publication of his works (issued in June 1720), which was still in force. … Comparison of the 'Roger' edition with the manuscript sources shows how Walsh had prepared the edition. Having obtained copies of ten of Handel's solo sonatas—five written for recorder, three for violin and two for oboe—he published them in what can only be described as a disgracefully botched edition: not only are there gross errors of text and whole movements omitted or placed in the wrong sonata, but he perpetrated a more fundamental deception. The transverse, or German, flute was rapidly becoming the most popular domestic instrument in England replacing the older recorder, but the ten Handel sonatas that Walsh had acquired included none for the flute. This must have seemed to him a serious commercial defect and therefore three of the sonatas were transposed into (sharp) keys suitable for the flute, and printed in the edition as for 'Traversa Solo'. So the violin sonata in D minor (v) appeared as no. 1 in E minor; the oboe Sonata in F (xvi) as no.5 in G major; and the recorder Sonata in D minor (vii) as no.9 in B minor, all for the flute" (Best 1985, 481–82).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I'll try to find the time to do this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that the botched edition should (eventually) get its own (stubbish) article. It isn't quite appropriate to remain in the 1732 publication article (but could certainly sit there in a subsection for a while). I'm happy to give it a go if you are too busy. It if were to get its own article, what would you suggest for the title? HWV258. 02:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To start with, I'm not convinced that there is a need even for an article on the Handel solo sonata publications, separate from the one on Walsh. However, assuming that there is a need (and acknowledging that one currently exists), I observe that the actual title of the article to which you refer suggests something much more general than just the 1732 print. Because this print is substantially based on the forged Roger edition (itself actually by Walsh), I see no reason why the two publications should not be treated together in one article. This would require only a small change to the lede. Moreover, Walsh published other collections of solo sonatas by composers other than Handel, which equally could be incorporated into the present article (and once again I do not think it a good idea instead to start a proliferation of separate articles on all the Walsh publications, which must number in the hundreds).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
