Engraver vs Engraver; Editor vs Editor
Posted: 25 Feb 2016, 03:40
Inspired by the recent discussion of a decline in music engraving standards in the thread "Re: Posting non-PD music", even with publishers like Henle, I decided to compare the original edition of Rachmaninoff's Prelude in C# minor at:
http://ks.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usim ... 0piano.pdf
with the same piece in the recent Henle edition of the Complete Preludes, which may be viewed by clicking on "Look Inside" at:
http://www.henleusa.com/us/detail/index ... ludes_1200
Anyone who wishes to follow my observations in greater detail may open both scores from these sites. I have also compared these two editions with the composer's autograph.
Page 1. Despite his promise to preserve unconventional stem direction when of interpretative importance, the Henle editor has changed the LH stem direction throughout the first page. The original edition, following the MS, gives the lower LH octave melody with up stems, and the off-beat chords with down stems, as seen in this example. This very intelligent notation avoids placing the stems and beams of the very high and low ledger line notes facing outward on the staff:
The Henle Edition reverses the stem direction, so that the high stems, beams, and articulations push the two staves apart. This would be counterintuitive for many pianists, because the two hands are interlocked throughout these chordal sequences. Many would wish for the staves to be closer together rather than farther apart.
Someone might say (and this was possibly the editor's reasoning) that Rachmaninoff was forced into this stemming by the pre-printed staves of his music paper, which do not allow enough room for high beams between the staves. While this is true, it does not mean that he would have stemmed it differently if he had had the ability to move the staves apart. This is born out by his use of an up stem for the tied eighth note in measure 7 which actually creates a crowding issue. [For this reason, the first edition changes it to a down stem (see the red arrow).] This is further supported by the original down-stemmed LH off-beats in the last two measures of the middle part where there is no crowding issue at all. This is also changed in the first edition as shown in the following example at the X's, as well as in the Henle edition.
Pages 2-3 Rachmaninoff writes in every triplet number with a slur until the alternating hands passage at the end where there are numbers only. This could be a vestige of his student days; he had only just graduated when this work was published. While the triplets are preserved exactly as in the MS in the first edition, the Henle editor rightfully eliminates the needless clutter of the triplet numbers, but considers the slurs to be real legato markings and includes them all. Internal evidence suggests that this is correct.
Henle places the turn on page 3 immediately after the last two measures of the middle section, after system 1 in the example below, exactly as in the MS and as in most recent editions. It is a far better choice than in the first edition where the decision to put the turn after system 2 in the example below seems dictated solely by the effort to engrave the piece on four pages.
Pages 4-5 In the final part of the piece, Rachmaninoff draws the barlines through all four staves. However, he uses two sets of braces: a pair on the inside to show the RH vs LH and a large one on the outside to group them. The first edition wisely did away with this complication, and shows the RH vs LH with the two “inside” braces only and by breaking the barlines, allowing the left barline to show the unity of the system, as seen on the 2nd system of the following example:
The Henle edition draws the barline through the all four staves but uses only the one large brace, omiting the two inner braces. With this selective authenticity, the editor gives us the worst of all worlds: no visual distinction between RH and LH at all except the m. d. and m. g.
Because there are only two systems on each of the last two pages, Henle spreads the staves to fill up the pages. This creates vast, unattractive, and visually confusing spaces between the staves.
Henle provides a critical report that comments on a few errors in positioning dynamic markings in the first edition and a few inconsequential divergencies in the notes between the different sources. It mentions that Rachmaninoff’s autographs are quite clean and correct and that he was an excellent proofreader as seen by extant proofs of the op. 32 Preludes. This born out by the remarkably few corrections listed in the critical reports for the op. 23 and 32 Preludes.
The Henle engraving lacks the austere beauty that I associate with this publisher. Many of the longer slurs are strangely shaped and some are too bowed for my taste. The first notes in many of the measures are much closer to the bar lines than in the first edition. This creates an issue on the last 2 pages where sFFFF symbols appear on downbeats and the long four-stave bar line must be broken to fit them in.
The original edition is much warmer in appearance than the Henle and appears guided by human rather than machine intelligence. The engraver of the this edition seems more aware of the musical and engraving issues involved.
Neither edition is perfect, however. The Henle has the advantage of hindsight and scholarship; the original edition is closer to the source and speaks of a time when warmth and soulfullness were a required ingredient in musical works, both played and engraved.
All things being equal, however, I would rather play from the old Schirmer edition. I prefer it to both of these editions.
http://ks.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usim ... 0piano.pdf
with the same piece in the recent Henle edition of the Complete Preludes, which may be viewed by clicking on "Look Inside" at:
http://www.henleusa.com/us/detail/index ... ludes_1200
Anyone who wishes to follow my observations in greater detail may open both scores from these sites. I have also compared these two editions with the composer's autograph.
Page 1. Despite his promise to preserve unconventional stem direction when of interpretative importance, the Henle editor has changed the LH stem direction throughout the first page. The original edition, following the MS, gives the lower LH octave melody with up stems, and the off-beat chords with down stems, as seen in this example. This very intelligent notation avoids placing the stems and beams of the very high and low ledger line notes facing outward on the staff:
The Henle Edition reverses the stem direction, so that the high stems, beams, and articulations push the two staves apart. This would be counterintuitive for many pianists, because the two hands are interlocked throughout these chordal sequences. Many would wish for the staves to be closer together rather than farther apart.
Someone might say (and this was possibly the editor's reasoning) that Rachmaninoff was forced into this stemming by the pre-printed staves of his music paper, which do not allow enough room for high beams between the staves. While this is true, it does not mean that he would have stemmed it differently if he had had the ability to move the staves apart. This is born out by his use of an up stem for the tied eighth note in measure 7 which actually creates a crowding issue. [For this reason, the first edition changes it to a down stem (see the red arrow).] This is further supported by the original down-stemmed LH off-beats in the last two measures of the middle part where there is no crowding issue at all. This is also changed in the first edition as shown in the following example at the X's, as well as in the Henle edition.
Pages 2-3 Rachmaninoff writes in every triplet number with a slur until the alternating hands passage at the end where there are numbers only. This could be a vestige of his student days; he had only just graduated when this work was published. While the triplets are preserved exactly as in the MS in the first edition, the Henle editor rightfully eliminates the needless clutter of the triplet numbers, but considers the slurs to be real legato markings and includes them all. Internal evidence suggests that this is correct.
Henle places the turn on page 3 immediately after the last two measures of the middle section, after system 1 in the example below, exactly as in the MS and as in most recent editions. It is a far better choice than in the first edition where the decision to put the turn after system 2 in the example below seems dictated solely by the effort to engrave the piece on four pages.
Pages 4-5 In the final part of the piece, Rachmaninoff draws the barlines through all four staves. However, he uses two sets of braces: a pair on the inside to show the RH vs LH and a large one on the outside to group them. The first edition wisely did away with this complication, and shows the RH vs LH with the two “inside” braces only and by breaking the barlines, allowing the left barline to show the unity of the system, as seen on the 2nd system of the following example:
The Henle edition draws the barline through the all four staves but uses only the one large brace, omiting the two inner braces. With this selective authenticity, the editor gives us the worst of all worlds: no visual distinction between RH and LH at all except the m. d. and m. g.
Because there are only two systems on each of the last two pages, Henle spreads the staves to fill up the pages. This creates vast, unattractive, and visually confusing spaces between the staves.
Henle provides a critical report that comments on a few errors in positioning dynamic markings in the first edition and a few inconsequential divergencies in the notes between the different sources. It mentions that Rachmaninoff’s autographs are quite clean and correct and that he was an excellent proofreader as seen by extant proofs of the op. 32 Preludes. This born out by the remarkably few corrections listed in the critical reports for the op. 23 and 32 Preludes.
The Henle engraving lacks the austere beauty that I associate with this publisher. Many of the longer slurs are strangely shaped and some are too bowed for my taste. The first notes in many of the measures are much closer to the bar lines than in the first edition. This creates an issue on the last 2 pages where sFFFF symbols appear on downbeats and the long four-stave bar line must be broken to fit them in.
The original edition is much warmer in appearance than the Henle and appears guided by human rather than machine intelligence. The engraver of the this edition seems more aware of the musical and engraving issues involved.
Neither edition is perfect, however. The Henle has the advantage of hindsight and scholarship; the original edition is closer to the source and speaks of a time when warmth and soulfullness were a required ingredient in musical works, both played and engraved.
All things being equal, however, I would rather play from the old Schirmer edition. I prefer it to both of these editions.