# Manuscript questions



## Aurelian (Sep 9, 2011)

Which composers' manuscripts were generally neat (enough) and which were terrible? I recall an image of a few pages of a Scriabin MS; they were so neat they were as good as published pages. I think Bartok's MS's were very neat. JS Bach's were generally nicer than Mozart's. If you have links showing various composers' MS's, please share them. This is not a question of whose music you like more than another. 

Do state archives, particularly those in Vienna and Berlin, ever temporarily lend museums MS's for public display?


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

I'd venture to say Beethoven had the worst of any of the "greats", I don't have a clue about neat manuscripts though... As far as I remember Bach's weren't necessarily neat and Mozart wrote so fast I'm sure it's not the most readable but still both's were more decipherable that LvB.


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

Beethoven's manuscripts run the gamut, really. If he was in a hurry they're well nigh illegible; you can't tell except from context whether a note is supposed to be an F, a G, an A or maybe something else, or a quarter note or a half note or perhaps just a ink drip. He could also (especially in his younger days) produce a lovely manuscript that one could easily sight-read from.

Here's a fine example of the latter (with another piece and some sketch fragments later crammed into the margins) of a part intended for performance:
http://www.beethoven-haus-bonn.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=15300&template=dokseite_digitales_archiv_en&_eid=1509&_ug=until%201792&_dokid=wm363&_mid=Works&suchparameter=&_seite=1


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Fugue Meister said:


> I'd venture to say Beethoven had the worst of any of the "greats", I don't have a clue about neat manuscripts though... As far as I remember Bach's weren't necessarily neat and Mozart wrote so fast I'm sure it's not the most readable but still both's were more decipherable that LvB.


Actually Bach's manuscripts were one of the neatest - he had beautiful calligraphy note writing. So did his second wife who helped out with copying.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Stravinsky's were notably tidy. I gather he even used different colors of ink for different staves. Fitting for such a dapper fellow:

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs...-004&fr2=piv-web&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-004


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Show me something cleaner...


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

gardibolt said:


> Beethoven's manuscripts run the gamut, really. If he was in a hurry they're well nigh illegible; you can't tell except from context whether a note is supposed to be an F, a G, an A or maybe something else, or a quarter note or a half note or perhaps just a ink drip. He could also (especially in his younger days) produce a lovely manuscript that one could easily sight-read from.
> 
> Here's a fine example of the latter (with another piece and some sketch fragments later crammed into the margins) of a part intended for performance:
> http://www.beethoven-haus-bonn.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=15300&template=dokseite_digitales_archiv_en&_eid=1509&_ug=until%201792&_dokid=wm363&_mid=Works&suchparameter=&_seite=1


Maybe _you_ could sight read from that. To me it's still quite a mess. But then I could never really sight read much anyway.


----------

