Mastering Rachmaninoff

[DatOrganistTho]

I agree with OCTO to some degree about the balance and choice of fonts, but this is not the thing I would primarily focus on. Here's what I'd start with:

1. The opening right-hand figure and similar figures in the following measures should have consistent stem direction (stem up) and consistent slur placement (below).

2. The <> is not correctly placed horizontally according to the 1st edition. Unless the manuscript gives different information, I'd refer to that. It's not completely clear by the vertical placement that it applies only to the upper staff. I'd place the <> above the staff to remove all doubt, and move the staves closer together as a result. Also, I would reduce the openings and increase the line width of the hairpins throughout, like OCTO suggested.

3. Dynamics applying only to the left hand are generally placed too far from the notes/staff. In other places dynamics applying to both staves are not centered properly between the staves. Also, there's a mf indication missing below the staff in measure 18 of p. 2.

4. Some of your slur edits are overdone (e.g. p. 3, mm. 6–7, left hand). A small rightward shift in the shape might be appropriate here, but this is way too much.

5. Your arpeggio lines are generally slightly too short. They should reach the outer edges of the notehead above and below, and a slight overshoot is better than the opposite.

6. Tie placement/direction in mm. 11–12 and mm. 15–16 should be consistent. It's best too keep ties on the seconds opposite, but be sure to place them in a way so they don't collide with notes in the upper layer.

7. I'd retain the indication poco a poco cresc. e accel. used in the 1st edition, unless the manuscript says otherwise. I think you have a stylistic choice of putting it in bold face above the staves, or in italic, centered between the staves. Either way, I'd use a dotted line to clarify it's length.

8. On p. 3, 1st system, the staves are too far apart, and the dynamics misplaced. Move the initial mf to the left to make room and move p to the 2nd beat of m. 2. Move the staves closer together and center dynamics between the staves.

This is all very helpful. I will try to put this to the test.

[OCTO]

Dear DatOrganistTho, sorry for not being so clear. Here I will try to describe what I mean more precisely.

Could you explain what you are meaning by BW-balance? Are you saying the glyphs themselves are too contrasting?

Yes. If you look at any score, you can notice if the complete outlook of that score is balanced, so that symbols are not jumping out neither disappearing.
In your case, I have strong sense for it, tenutos are to fat, they jump out, and in comparison with hairpins they tend to take to much black force. The hairpins are in a way disappearing, to much white. This is just an example, but perhaps other settings could be changed.
In my understanding of BW-balance I include also the following:
- If you have already thin hairpins, which are unbalanced with tenutos in your case above, you have additional "wide opening". It makes the hairpin itself BW-unbalanced, since the wide opening forces to much white space, and that symbol looses the energy: lines are to thin an the white space in the middle "eats up" it.
- If you have slurs that are curved to much on the end, (I feel a bit like that in your case, but here I will continue explaining it in general), and if that curving is without purpose (for instance by avoiding an accidental, but there is no accidental), than the curving takes to much force on the tips of the slur, making it weak, unbalanced.

Also, are you saying that the hairpins are this way and need to change, or that they need to change to this standard?

I think they need to be changed somehow, so that they don't disappear, or in general, other symbols/lines have to be changed as well, so that they became more "harmonic" alltogether.

I can try. Are you saying that the entire font system needs to be different or just individual elements?

I think that Minion is not good here. In my opinion this is why:

shot.png (52.22 KiB) Viewed 7772 times

As you can see, Minion has very "sharp" edges, very calligraphic, while your music symbols and lines have extremely soft shapes. You can check this thread: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=82

Part of this is a learning curve I'm going through with LilyPond. If I could know more detail on what you are describing that would help me understand what I need to learn to tweak.

For instance:

Inconsistent slur distances:

Screen Shot 2016-03-30 at 08.09.27.png (16.94 KiB) Viewed 7772 times

Inconsistent slur distances, tenutos too close, slur too far away:

Screen Shot 2016-03-30 at 08.08.44.png (16.49 KiB) Viewed 7772 times

Tenutos too close, slur very 'empty' in the middle (reason is the slur's shape and the tenutos distances):

Screen Shot 2016-03-30 at 08.07.02.png (12.89 KiB) Viewed 7772 times

mf too far away:

Screen Shot 2016-03-30 at 08.06.44.png (10.49 KiB) Viewed 7772 times

tenuto too close, slur far away, almost 'going away':

Screen Shot 2016-03-30 at 08.06.29.png (10.31 KiB) Viewed 7772 times

But if this is your one of the first attempts to use LilyPond - congratulations!
Also, the general BW-balance of the sheet (texture of the staff/page) and spacing is very well done!

[Knut]

First edition:
Including them within the slurs to place them very close to the lowest RH voice shows that the swell is mainly for this voice.

I've seen swells within slurs in many scores, but have never heard that they point to any particular voice in a chord. The fact that the bottom right-hand voice is the melodic one is what tells me that this is the one that is supposed to be pronounced, and as a consequence, the voice for which the swell is most important. Writing the swell between the chords and the slurs seems to me to simply indicate that it applies to the upper staff only, without having to take up real-estate above the staff. The thinning of the texture from four to three voices does not tell me anything about the dynamic level, since this is simply a consequence of voice leading and the direction of the bottom melodic line.

Regardless of whether my understanding is correct or not, I agree that the Muzgiz edition fails in making the intensions clear, hence my recommendation to refer to the 1st edition as a source in my first post. If I am correct in my understanding, however, I would prefer to have the swells above the upper staff, like so:

Skjermbilde 2016-03-30 kl. 02.00.41.png (142.93 KiB) Viewed 7765 times

[OCTO]

Very nice idea, Knut!
p.s. I am used to see your fonts often now and think they are getting more attractive in my eyes every time!

[Knut]

Very nice idea, Knut!
p.s. I am used to see your fonts often now and think they are getting more attractive in my eyes every time!

Thank you very much, OCTO!
I'm very glad to hear it's growing on you.

[OCTO]

Here is my idea for the start:

shot.png (66.13 KiB) Viewed 7759 times

[Knut]

Here is my idea for the start:

shot.png

That is very nice engraving, OCTO. The only question is whether you agree with the assessments of John or myself, in which case the vertical and horizontal placement of the hairpins will have to be adjusted.

Perhaps I have misled some with what edition I have been consulting. It began with the 1975/6 Muz. edition, and eventually branched over to Henle. Not sure how some feel about that.

I have to say, this is one of the worst Henle engravings I think I've ever seen. Hopefully it has been reissued.

[OCTO]

Knut, I am just exercising what the OP wants to do, not editing but engraving just.
However, your solution is very interesting and clever: with a great space savings this solution makes the score well balanced.

[Knut]

Knut, I am just exercising what the OP wants to do, not editing but engraving just.
However, your solution is very interesting and clever: with a great space savings this solution makes the score well balanced.

Sure, and for that purpose, your example is very well done!

[John Ruggero]

I wish that the forum members who are treating Rachmaninoff's text with such freedom could read the following article by Robert Threlfall, the editor of the Boosey and Hawkes edition of the Complete Preludes, which is now highly regarded because Threlfall was given access to the manuscripts of the Preludes.

"Rachmaninoff's 24 Preludes, and some thoughts on editing his piano music" (Tempo—A Quarterly Review of Music—March 1992—Cambridge University Press)

I will summarize what Trelfall says:

The Boosey and Hawkes edition of the Complete Preludes is a PHOTOGRAPH of the FIRST EDITION which was checked against the original manuscripts and the proofs which have corrections in R.'s own hand. NO significant changes were needed between the first edition and the other sources.

Threlfall recommends that any future editions of R.'s piano music follow the same course, that is, they should be PHOTOGRAPHS of the FIRST EDITIONS checked against other primary sources.

Trelfall also comments on the precision of Rachmaninoff's MS, which contain very few corrections, the fact that very few changes were made between the MS and FIRST EDITION, the deficiencies of the Muzgiz edition, the exceptional care that Breitkopf used in engraving the first editions for Gutheil and recommends that the only work of Rachmaninonff that should be reingraved is the two piano arrangement of the 4th Concerto, which appeared posthumously.

I therefore stand by my feeling that any reingraving of Rachmaninoff's Prelude should follow the FIRST EDITION slavishly in every respect except minor spacing changes. Wholesale reworking of the text as is being advocated by some, is to me, unthinkable.