Mastering Rachmaninoff

[OCTO]

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.

[Knut]

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.

I did. Interesting and enlightening. Thanks for that!

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. 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.

As engravers, editors, and even composers, our vocabulary of possible solutions to any engraving problem is a prerequisite for making sound, critical decisions on the matter. As most of us use this forum to exchange ideas and develop our ability to make such decisions, I think it is important to retain a certain 'playing ground' environment. And while I certainly respect great composers of the past, I'm not of the opinion that they're in any way infallible when it comes to good or even appropriate notation, and neither are the editors or engravers of their published works. Not taking their decisions or opinions for granted, but rather, challenging them can be very fruitful, as your excellent 'Engravers vs. Composers' thread series have shown, at least in my own case.

[John Ruggero]

Thank you, OCTO and Knut. I appreciate your graciousness in considering my position. Just a couple of other points:

1. Most of Rachmaninoff's music was published before 1923, and the Preludes appeared without a copyright notice in 1904 and 1911, so Boosey and Hawkes could not have owned a "full copyright" of his work. And while reissuing the original edition would have some marketing appeal, so would a brand-new version. Robert Threfall doesn't sound like the kind of person who would write a puff article for a publisher or agree to a publishing plan that would be contrary to his own views:

http://www.classicalsource.com/db_contr ... hp?id=3031

Also see the quote from Wikipedia below*

2. It is clear that anyone can now make an edition of anything in the PD. My hope is that this forum will point out the responsibility that comes with this freedom. Music notation is language that has tremendous power and meaning when used by a great musician. Those who wish to produce facsimiles of old editions can rely on engraving skills alone, but someone making a revised edition of a great piece of music needs more, and it starts with a deep understanding of the music and research.

Of course, this doesn't mean that we can't experiment as we wish on this forum: looking at various alternative ways to notate anything can be very productive. In this case, it has caused me to understand and value Rachmaninoff's notational skills even more than before.

*From Wikipedia:

Music editions
Most editions of the Op. 23 Preludes contain significant editorial distortions in dynamics and phrasing. In 1986, Ruth Laredo set out to produce the first authentic version, but was unable to obtain the original manuscripts. The Piano Quarterly praised Laredo's editorial practices, remarking that, "this seems to be the edition to own."

However, in 1992, Boosey & Hawkes published an edition edited by Robert Threlfall, who had managed to obtain access to the original manuscripts. This edition is widely regarded as the first truly authentic version.

[OCTO]

Exactly so. They own c of the only one authentic edition.

[John Ruggero]

I would like to point out a Rachmaninoff speciality that appears in this prelude and throughout his work:

the mF marking here means molto espressivo e cantabile and thus with a full tone.

[Knut]

I would like to point out a Rachmaninoff speciality that appears in this prelude and throughout his work:

the mF marking here means molto espressivo e cantabile and thus with a full tone.

Intersesting. Do you know if this has been notated with different typography from the common dynamic in any of his 1st editions? It would be nice to make the distinction clear somehow.

[John Ruggero]

Knut wrote:

Do you know if this has been notated with different typography from the common dynamic in any of his 1st editions?

Nothing special, just the standard mF, but used in situations and in a way that suggests that the music should be projected in a very singing and bolder way than one usually associates with mF. One can see it many pieces like this prelude where there is an opening singing melody (see op. 3 no. 1 beginning and beginning of middle part, op. 3 no. 2 beginning of middle part, op. 3 no. 3, op. 23 no. 1, op. 23 no. 4, op. 32 no. 7 , no. 9 etc.) or there is a resumption of a healthy singing tone after something very different, as 9 before the end of op. 23 no. 1, the end of op. 23 no. 9.

Of course, not every mF means this. But after noticing the usage in so many pieces, when one doesn't see it in similar situations, one feels that one should play in a much quieter way than usual, as in op. 23 no. 6 or op. 32 no. 5.

The Prelude in B minor op. 32 no. 10 was R.'s favorite and according to a famous story represents alienation. The mF's in this piece are amazing and might be called a piece de resistance of a dynamic marking!

The piece starts P but suddenly jumps to mF at the end of bar 6. Most students ignore this (and not just students) or are completely puzzled by it because there appears to be no musical reason since the melody line is just continuing downward as before. The happens again in 8, similarly strangely. It represents someone who has been lost in sadness suddenly regaining enough energy to express themselves in a more forceful way; but only for moments at a time. The mF = normality, healthiness etc.

At the end of the piece, the opening theme comes back mF, but now followed by a new and incredibly poignant continuation which is again marked mF to indicate yet another expressive beginning. It is someone now resigned to their fate. After the music sinks to the end, there is a final mF that is like a cry of pain moving between major and minor.

For me, the mF markings are not the standard ones, but something symbolic. But symbolism is ruined when pointed out too explicitly in the work itself.

http://conquest.imslp.info/files/imglnk ... theil_.pdf

[DatOrganistTho]

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2016-03-30 at 08.08.44.png

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

mf too far away:

Screen Shot 2016-03-30 at 08.06.44.png

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

Screen Shot 2016-03-30 at 08.06.29.png

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!

Thank you very much. I see what you are saying now. I'm going to fiddle around, and try some of the things you've mentioned.

[DatOrganistTho]

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

I like this approach. I think it makes a bit more sense, and perhaps I need to adjust here.

[DatOrganistTho]

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.

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.

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