Mastering Rachmaninoff

[DatOrganistTho]

John, your thoughts are very important and reasoning is valid. I also believe if there is an "amen" given by composer for a particular engraved piece it should be followed.
The only doubt I have is sincerity of B&H: by 1992 they owned the full copyright of R and I also believe they wanted to keep their position of "the only one possible edition". But this is just a calculation.

Also, despite the "amen", this doesn't prevent anyone to freely engrave and publish his music in the way the editor thinks is the best.
The future musicians will always decide what is good or not.

I clearly remember the long always-ongoing discussions with my violin colleagues about what edition of Sonatas and Partitas by Bach is the best. It never ends.

I was thinking the same.

[John Ruggero]

John Ruggero wrote:

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.

DatOrganistTho wrote

Many thought the same of the Gutenberg Bible. Those slavish monks and scribes; who dare upset what they have so perfectly done?

Let me clarify what Trelfall said for anyone who didn't understand my summary.

Boosey and Hawkes had on its hands an edition that had been overseen carefully by the composer, had been produced by some of the world's finest engravers and now had been proofread again against the MS and the composer's proofs by an esteemed Rachmaninoff scholar so that it was flawless. Should they now re-engrave this edition to introduce all kinds of new errors of the type that we have seen in the Muzgiz and Henle?

No, Boosey and Hawkes did the intelligent thing.

And any responsible editor who does NOT have access to the MS and the original proofs would immediately get themselves a copy of the Boosey and Hawkes edition (or another edition with even greater authenticity if such exists), and make THAT the basis for their own edition, because they have no other authentic source upon which to base their work. And since they cannot actually compare the Boosey and Hawkes edition to the MS etc. they have better be VERY careful about the changes they make in their own edition, because they have no idea whether they have any authenticity or not.

Or would it be better to go off on one's own and make editorial decisions in Rachmaninoff's prelude based on nothing more than personal opinion and preference? That would be to set oneself up above Rachmaninoff concerning his own music, and who would do that?

[John Ruggero]

Knut wrote:

However, I agree with OCTO that we all should feel free to edit as we see fit. After all, we're not talking about a truly authoritative edition as long as we're unable to access the composer's MS ourselves.

I agree. Those who wish to produce non-authentic editions should edit just as they see fit without regard to anything but personal opinion. Of course, I would not go near such an edition, because I would have no idea whether I was looking at Rachmaninoff or John Smith in forming my interpretation.

But I don't agree that if we can't have access to the MS ourselves, we should give up on the idea of authenticity when an unusually accurate first edition is staring us right in the face. If this were the case, there would be no authentic complete works of any composer, since MS are much rarer than first editions.

Knut also wrote:

While I think your points are very important to remember for anyone looking to reengrave music by composers of the past with any kind of authority, I don't think a discussion about engraving benefits from a dismissal of anything other than photographic reproduction of manuscripts and 1st editions.

Only a person without access to primary materials and/or limited engraving experience is reduced to slavish reproduction of the text of first editions, because they have nothing else to base their work on. However, a person of limited engraving experience could learn a lot from the experience, particularly in the area of standard engraving practices. Simply looking with respect and comprehension at a fine edition like the first edition of the Rachmaninonff's prelude would take such a person very close to their goal, even without the help of others.

[Knut]

I totally agree that studying quality engravings like the 1st edition in question can be quite the learning experience, but with such an edition freely available, and even a similar one available from a major publisher, I don't see the need to produce and issue an alternative, if not to suggest certain alterations simply as a matter of taste. Such an 'edition' might mostly be valid as a personal exercise, and it's value in the public domain could be limited, but as a performance edition, there is a chance that some people might prefer it to an authorized text.

After studying the 1st edition engraving of Prelude No. 10, and with some extra time on my hands, I did a reengraving in Finale of the first page, just to get a feel for the original. Keeping in mind your views about the position of the hairpins, there really isn't much potential for alterations without compromising authenticity. The spacing is more or less perfect, especially considering the piece only takes up two pages, and there is no positioning errors to speak of. The print could be sharper, but I imagine this has been improved in the B&H edition. The slur not present in the melody at the first mf (mm. 11–12) could be seen as an inconsistency, since it appears at the second mf a few measures later. This has, however, been carried over to all the later editions mentioned in this thread, so It's doubtful that this is not intentional. Other than that, there is a rest and a tie missing in the first measure of the last system, and that's about it. Not exactly the type or number of mistakes or imperfections which warrants a new publication. There could of course be a larger potential for improvement in the 9 preceding preludes of this edition, but considering the quality of No. 10, I highly doubt it.

[OCTO]

Amazing review Knut! I just wanted to ask John what inconsistency the OP has made in comparison with the BH version?

[Knut]

Amazing review Knut! I just wanted to ask John what inconsistency the OP has made in comparison with the BH version?

Thanks!

I should point out that there is a couple of additional minor errors on the second page that I didn't mention above, but nothing that can't be clearly understood from the context.

The potential for streamlining the notation according to modern standards is substantial, however, and most of this has been realized accordingly in the Henle edition. Whether or not these changes are appropriate or not from the standpoint of authenticity is an entirely different matter. Keeping in mind whats been discussed in other threads on the subject, the only change I'm entirely confident with, apart from correcting the very few blatant errors, is this minor spacing issue in m. 11 of p. 2:

Skjermbilde 2016-04-02 kl. 12.20.49.png (47.42 KiB) Viewed 7736 times

which by modern standards is better notated:

Skjermbilde 2016-04-02 kl. 12.19.15.png (34.22 KiB) Viewed 7736 times

It's worth noting, however, that neither the Henle nor the Muzgiz edition has corrected this.

[Peter West]

Hi all

I've been exceptionally busy recently so not been on here much, but am browsing through. If what I say here duplicates others, I apologise. however, i was a little worried by the OP's © caption: "This version released into the public domain"

Rachmaninoff died in March 1943, so by my calculation this will infringe Boosey & Hawkes copyright for another 2 years

(1943 + 75 years = 2018)

[OCTO]

I am almost sure it is 70 years. So Rachmaninov, Bartok, Webern... are in the public domain.

[John Ruggero]

Peter West wrote:

Rachmaninoff died in March 1943, so by my calculation this will infringe Boosey & Hawkes copyright for another 2 years

IMSLP says that Rachmaninonff's music up until op. 39 is in public domain, apparently worldwide, because their usual warning announcement does not appear on attempting to download this music. Is this an error?

Knut wrote:

Not exactly the type or number of mistakes or imperfections which warrants a new publication.

Thank you for the in-depth analysis which moves the discussion far forward.

OCTO wrote:

I just wanted to ask John what inconsistency the OP has made in comparison with the BH version

Sorry, I do not own the B and H and I don't know what OP stands for. I am only reporting what the editor says in his article. You can purchase 24-hour viewing rights to the article for a small fee.

Knut wrote:

The potential for streamlining the notation according to modern standards is substantial, however,

I don't understand how your version "streamlines" the original by adding extra notes. There is nothing archaic about the original notation. This style of notation has been used in keyboard music up until to the present day to avoid the exact complication that you have introduced into the music.

[OCTO]

To clarify, some Russian composers had their first scores published by Russian publishers, who don't exist anymore as well the former USSR had not accepted the WW copyright rules. The Soviet authorities had released numerous works to the PD. Therefore many early works (for instance Le Sacre) are in the public domain. Once a work enters the public domain it is unrecoverable.

Beside that, the rule of +70 years is worldwide accepted after negotiations after World War II, and is still valid.
So yes, the complete Rachmaninov is in the PD now.

Some countries have different PD rules. 50, 70, 99, 100 years.