Since 2016, A-R Editions has published a series of editions of lesser-known works through its imprint Greenway Music Press, aiming to make these compositions accessible to a broader audience. So far, the series has focused on works for smaller chamber ensembles and solo instruments by European composers from the seventeenth to the twentieth century. Two critical editions have recently been added by Alex Widstrand: The Ballade in E Minor for Bassoon and Piano, Op. 151 by Josef Vendelín Hájek, and Trio in F Major for Oboe, Bassoon, and Piano by Alexander Stadtfeld. Widstrand is a house editor for A-R Editions and a bassoon lecturer at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. Before these two editions, he published an edition of Lev Konstantinovich Knipper’s (1898–1974) Concerto for Bassoon and String Orchestra (his PhD dissertation) as well as several articles on lesser-known bassoon repertoire in the journal The Double Reed.Footnote ¹

With Hájek’s Ballade in E Minor op. 151 for bassoon and piano, Widstrand introduces us to a work that has only been preserved as an autograph and until now has never been printed (at least not in this version). As the editor himself notes in the preface, the repertoire for solo bassoon in the mid-nineteenth century was scarce; it is one of the few works for solo bassoon from the nineteenth century as well as one of the earlier examples of ballad compositions for wind instruments (Preface, i). Ballads for violin and piano, on the other hand, were more widespread – thus it is fitting that the work was printed in a version for this instrumentation in June 1879 in Vienna as a supplement to C. M. Ziehrer’s Deutsche Kunst- & Musik-Zeitung.Footnote ²

Little is known about Hájek – whether the composer is Josef Vendelín Hájek the Elder (active c. 1862–1884) or the Younger (1855–1893) is not even certain. As is often the case with members of lesser-known musical families, the biographical information bequeathed on both musicians, father and son, is partly contradictory. The title page provides some biographical information: first, the dedicatee is Vojtěch Gross (1823–1886), who is described as the composer’s former teacher (‘Mému bývalému učiteli pánu [sic]’). Gross taught bassoon at the Prague Conservatory, where Hájek the younger had studied, and Hájek the elder presumably did as well, as Widstrand writes (Preface, i). And second, the title page contains information on the dedicatee and the composer’s place and profession. It states that he is a music professor and composer (‘prof. hudby a skladatel v Temešváru’). Widstrand rather carefully suggests that the composer is the father. This seems plausible, as he opened a music school in Temešvár with Franjo Vilhar Kalski (1852–1928) at the beginning of the 1870s.Footnote ³ The autograph is held in the music department of the National Library of the Czech Republic.Footnote ⁴ Not only does the score indicate the time (January 1879) and place of completion (Timișoara, present-day Romania), but it also features Hájek’s signature artfully interwoven with the final line.

Widstrand describes the work’s character as ‘a relatively simple, melancholy solo instrumental work with accompaniment, with less technical virtuosity and “exotic” flair than the ballads of the solo piano tradition’, and states that the melody ‘achieves subtle poignancy through fleeting, unaccented dissonances within the beat and sweeping, arch-shaped gestures’ (Preface, i–ii). Widstrand compared the versions for violin and bassoon and believes that the violin version was written first – both carry the opus number 151. The two versions differ quite noticeably, particularly in the initial recitative, and each is tailored to its respective melody instrument. He draws a connection to another ballad for cello that was performed in 1878 and 1880, considering whether it is possibly the same work (Preface, ii). However, sheet music for this cello ballade does not seem to have survived, and, since the connection between these works cannot be proven, the performance dates cannot be used to determine the date of creation of the bassoon ballad.

Although Hájek’s autograph is, for the most part, quite unambiguous, it contains a few revisions that complicate the edition to some extent. Widstrand carefully adapted the editorial guidelines to the respective source material in both editions, balancing philological and practical demands. The performance indications in the autograph, partly in Czech and partly in Italian, have been translated into Italian but are given in the original language as notes. However, the title, which reads ‘Ballada’ in the Czech autograph, has been translated into English, and the key has been added. He has also translated the instrument names, which are written in Italian and German in the autograph, into English, thus reducing the number of languages used from four to two – a reasonable standardization. Through these editorial measures, he has successfully balanced retaining the historical characteristics of the source, such as the original metres, key signatures and dynamic markings, with adapting it to modern notational conventions, including clefs, repetitions of accidentals and the placement of hairpins. The edition is thus easy to read and play, while the editorial changes are transparent and comprehensible. The dynamic and articulation markings added in parentheses and square brackets seem sensible and are, at no point, unfounded. From a source-critical point of view, the crescendo and decrescendo in bars 52 and 54 do not seem necessary, although they make sense musically and might be a helpful addition for performers.

The list of readings is short, as the autograph is quite legible despite several revisions, and no other source of the bassoon version could be compared. The readings, therefore, contain remarks on discrepancies between the parts, ambiguous writings, and (in one case) a revision. Whether the work is an original composition or an arrangement of a piece originally written for the violin or cello is ultimately irrelevant. Widstrand’s edition is a valuable addition to the bassoon repertoire of the second half of the nineteenth century. It will be welcomed not only by bassoonists, but also by anyone interested in exploring the work of the little-known composer, Hájek.

By contrast, more is known about Alexander Stadtfeld (1826–1853). Magdalena Weber published a biography and study of his works in 1969, which Widstrand quotes.Footnote ⁵ Her PhD dissertation remains the only detailed study of Stadtfeld to date. Although the composer died young, he left behind a considerable oeuvre – including symphonies, concert overtures, a mass, a piano concerto, chamber music works and an opera based on Shakespeare’s Hamlet, which was not premiered until after his death – as well as several fragments.Footnote ⁶ The work Widstrand edited is one of the works Weber identified as fragments, and it is the only one featuring woodwind instruments: the Trio in F Major for Oboe, Bassoon, and Piano.Footnote ⁷ Stadtfeld only assigned opus numbers to his early works until 1846, so this work has none.Footnote ⁸ To make the title, which reads “Trio, Hautbois, Basson & Piano” on the manuscript, more descriptive, the editor added the indication of the key. The work consists of three movements: a variation movement, an Adagio sostenuto, and a finale in Allegro.

As with most of Stadtfeld’s works, the manuscript is preserved at the conservatory in Brussels, where Stadtfeld had studied with François-Joseph Fétis (1784–1871) from the age of nine.Footnote ⁹ Stadtfeld dated the trio’s composition to December 1846 on the last page, which places the work in the period of his studies with Fétis. Weber presumably classified the work as a fragment based on two pages (58 and 59) of the manuscript that contain no musical notation apart from bar lines and a ‘fine’ (she does not provide reasoning for this assessment in her catalogue). The two pages are in the finale’s coda, after bar 137. Widstrand contradicts Weber, stating that the music continues uninterrupted on the surrounding pages and seems to be a complete work (Preface, i). Musically, this seems coherent, even if no other sources confirm this.

Widstrand identifies the autograph as a working draft and notes that although Stadtfeld subsequently revised some passages, he does not appear to have systematically subjected the work to a final review. It contains a few simile marks that need resolving, and it is inconsistent (e.g. between parallel sections), imprecise (e.g. in the placement of noteheads) and incomplete (e.g. a missing clef change) in some places (Preface, ii). Consequently, considerably more editorial work is required on this piece than on Hájek’s work.

Widstrand preserves some notational elements to obtain the historical characteristics of the source (e.g. internal section labels and tempo markings), while adapting others to modern notational conventions (e.g. score order, redundant accidentals and beams). Stadtfeld had already labelled the movements with subheadings, but the manuscript lacks the respective end bar lines, which the editor has added. The editor retains the subheadings and translates them homogeneously into English. Any simile marks are resolved where necessary, with explanations in the critical notes. Other than that, the readings contain remarks on notes with ambiguous pitch that cannot be resolved through context or musical logic, discrepancies between the parts, unclear writing, and revisions.

The inconsistencies in the source mentioned necessitate some further additions, particularly slurs and dynamic markings. These are marked transparently. In a few instances, these additions may seem unnecessary, but are by no means unfounded (see the added crescendo in bar 109 of the first movement, the added decrescendos in bar 54 of the second movement, the added diminuendo in bar 60, and the added slurs in bars 142–148 of the finale).

These small details should not detract from the fact that, in both editions, Widstrand strikes a balance between faithfulness to the source and providing practical cues for musicians. Both editions come with a score and separate parts for bassoon (and oboe). For illustrative purposes, facsimiles of selected pages have been added to both editions, between the preface and the notes, to give an idea of the sources. This allows readers to understand the sources and follow the editing process. However, some of the finer details are difficult to discern due to the quality of the images. It would be desirable for more of Stadtfeld’s manuscripts, most of which are in Brussels, to be edited and made available in future, so that his work can be included in the repertoire and further research can be carried out.