Since completing his highly influential critical edition of the Beethoven symphonies, Jonathan Del Mar has turned his attention to the concertos, which, like the symphonies, are appearing in the Bärenreiter Urtext series. All but the last two piano concertos and the early concerto in E-flat major, WoO4, are now available. As with the edition of the symphonies, Del Mar's goal has been to examine all the available sources and to make informed decisions in cases where they conflict. This is, of course, standard procedure for modern editors of historical editions, and much of the controversy around Del Mar's work has centred on the problematic use of the word Urtext, which is attached not just to the editions but to the series in which they appear. In an earlier review in this journal [9/1: 161-163] I questioned the application of the term to an edition of the piano version of the violin concerto, op. 61: a work that does not survive as such in any extant sources from Beethoven's lifetime and for which the possibility that the piano part is the work of an arranger has never been ruled out. In a broader sense, the term is of course problematized by changing cultural understandings of what it means.

Compared to this edition, the 1984 Henle edition of op. 15 seems in certain ways like a relic of a different era. Many pianists were weaned on the Henle editions of the Beethoven sonatas, which have been widely available commercially for decades. The austere blue covers, emblazoned with the word ‘Urtext’, conveyed the idea that these were serious historical editions designed for those who wished to take this music seriously. Apart from a few footnotes, the critical apparatus was largely invisible. Extensive fingerings were provided, though, making it clear that this was an edition intended for performers. On the title page, the editor and the author of the fingerings received equal billing.

The Henle edition of the full concerto score comes in a ‘Studien-Edition’, which, while clearly not intended for performance, is even more bare than the edition of the piano sonatas, containing no fingerings and only a couple of footnotes and a brief preface. Of course the missing critical apparatus can be found in the critical report to the Neue Gesamtausgabe from which it is taken, and a conducting score, piano reduction, and orchestral parts are also available from Henle. Bärenreiter offers the same package, but there is no separate critical edition, so the materials offered to the public, including the volume of Critical Commentary, are not extracted from anything else. They are the edition.

As such, they are unquestionably the most authoritative rendering of op. 15 available. Although Del Mar provides an elaborate stemma of previous editions, there are essentially only two important surviving sources: the autograph (A) and the first edition (P), published by Mollo in parts in 1801. The original performing parts, which served as Stichvorlage for P and presumably included revisions by Beethoven, have not survived. All later editions are derived from these two, and whatever variants they contain are not considered authentic. However, the Breitkopf und Härtel edition, which appeared in the first Beethoven Gesamtausgabe in 1862, has subsequently been treated as having considerable authority, even though it retains some of the distortions introduced by intervening editions. As Del Mar explains, it was the model for the Neue Gesamuausgabe version published by Henle, in which most, but not all, of those distortions were removed.

Del Mar's greatest accomplishment in making this new edition has been to bypass the Breitkopf und Härtel bottleneck and use A and P as his first sources, returning with a fresh eye to the issue of resolving the many conflicts between them. The publisher's website suggests that the great revelation here is the discovery of ‘no less than 17 corrections in Beethoven's autograph which were made after the work was published’,Footnote ¹ and which this new edition brings to light. Appendix 4 of Del Mar's Critical Commentary, however, shows that in every one of these cases his reading is identical to that in the Henle edition. The truly significant discoveries are those enumerated in Appendix 3; these are instances in which Del Mar has judged A to have been superseded by P because the text of P constitutes a revision by Beethoven, and in numerous cases this has led to readings that differ from those found in any previous edition. Del Mar has also eliminated a host of extra staccato markings that were added in early editions and survived in the Henle, and the use of Striche has been standardized according to Beethoven's practice; Punkte appear only for staccato notes joined by slurs. The result naturally differs from other modern performing editions, including the Henle, in which Punkte are often used indiscriminately.

From the point of view of current custom, the most surprising thing to appear in this edition will be the bass line and figurations in the solo part during the tutti sections. These were omitted from the Henle edition, as from other modern editions, because they do not derive from Beethoven (as numerous errors and inconsistencies demonstrate) and because they were probably not intended for performance. Appearing only in the solo part of P, their purpose was to allow the pianist to participate in the direction of the performance in the absence of a full score. Del Mar has made important corrections, and has also clarified the use of terminology; he goes to some pains to establish that unis. means tasto solo and that all'ottava means doubling at the higher octave, although it is unclear what difference this makes if the continuo was never played.

That question perhaps resolves itself if one understands this to be an Urtext edition dedicated to careful source scholarship and authentic presentation but not intended for performance. As we know, though, Del Mar himself does not accept the distinction between an Urtext and a performing edition that David Levy tried to make in his controversial review of the Del Mar edition of Beethoven's 9th symphony.Footnote ² In at least one sense – the inclusion of the three surviving cadenzas (one fragmentary) for the first movement that were relegated to a separate volume of the Henle Gesamuausgabe – he has made this edition more performer-friendly than its predecessor. He assumes, though, that those using it will take the time to inform themselves about the unfamiliar-looking staccato marks and the figured bass. He has designed it, in other words, for performers who wish to be critically informed.

Nevertheless, one may legitimately ask whether ‘Urtext’ is the most appropriate designation. Del Mar acknowledges that the figured bass, while not by Beethoven, ‘is, at least, “within the composer's sphere of influence,”‘ (Critical Report, p. 18) and can thus be considered authentic. The Henle edition excluded it because it did not stem from Beethoven, and therefore was not sufficiently ‘Ur’. Times and attitudes have changed, but both editions still claim the privilege of being Urtexts. Perhaps it is time to acknowledge that this venerable German signifier has become more confusing than useful.