NOTATIO

First of all, thank you John, for your all your insight! It is really great for a non-pianist like myself to be able too learn about this from a pianists perspective.

John Ruggero wrote:1. Strange stemming: the extra stems are for the English translation. Durand did the two-language version first and then just omitted the English text for the all-French version, leaving these vestigial remains behind. Very sloppy, Durand. Ravel had nothing to do with it.
http://petrucci.mus.auth.gr/imglnks/usi ... 5score.pdf

Should have guessed as much. Very sloppy indeed.

John Ruggero wrote:2. Measure 4: this is probably "experimental" impressionistic piano notation. They were trying a lot of "cool" things with notation, some good and some bad, just like composers today. Quarter rests are omitted for the upper parts as "obvious" given the meter and voice part that makes the rhythm absolutely clear. Simplifications like this are the bread and butter of keyboard notation in general, which tends to be creative given the desire of the best composers to keep the notation as simple as possible.

Even though it might by obvious, this still falls into the the 'bad' category for me. A simple quarter rest wouldn't really clutter up the notation, and, to me at least, it would be more instantly comprehensible.

John Ruggero wrote:3. measure 6: A 5:6 tuplet seems pretty tame to me, especially in this day and age! This certainly cannot be an error, since it took a lot of trouble to notate it this way. The quintuplet encourages a more free playing of the measure with a kind of folk-like hold on the D#.

The Russian version actually changes the meter from 3/4 to 2/4 to make the change from a 1/4 to an 1/8 note work! Unless the measure was revised this way by Ravel, it should be left as it stands.

I actually didn't think about the time signature change in the russian version, so thanks for pointing that out. An alternative would be to add a dot to the quarter note instead, but I agree that as long as Ravel wrote it that way, there needs to be a very good reason for changing it.

While I agree that a quintuplet in itself isn't very exotic, my reaction, like OCTO's, was that this one seemed out of place and overly complicated in it's context.

You are very welcome, Knut. And thank you for all of your insight into matters of font design!

The double stemming in the harp part of Ravel's Introduction and Allegro looks like right and left hand indications to me, but we are going to need a harpist's expertise for this one.

I agree with you about the omissions of rests in the song and the second Sonatine example. Really unnecessary and potentially confusing. I looked through a lot of Debussy piano music, and he rarely does this kind of thing. The one instance I did find seems to be a misprint. However, the first Sonatine example is something special, so I prefer Ravel's notation.

The quintuplet may be non-intuitive, but it breaks the previous pattern in musically reasonable way—so, as in all such cases, I guess we will need to trust Ravel's judgement.

...assuming the edition reflects the composer's intention

There are many errors in the first editions of Debussy and Ravel, but they are obvious oversights; this passage seems too intentional to me to be an error.

The most mistakes I have found in the French editions. I don't have any statistics, but for me it was always challenge to use French scores.

John Ruggero wrote:The double stemming in the harp part of Ravel's Introduction and Allegro looks like right and left hand indications to me, but we are going to need a harpist's expertise for this one.

One should think so, but if that is the case, some of the distribution between hands seems pretty impractical to me. However, I am not a harp expert by any means.

Knut wrote:

John Ruggero wrote:The double stemming in the harp part of Ravel's Introduction and Allegro looks like right and left hand indications to me … …

One should think so, but if that is the case, some of the distribution between hands seems pretty impractical to me … …

Bear in mind that a) although the little finger is not used in normal harp fingering, the stretch of a 10th from thumb to fourth finger on the harp is as easy as the stretch of an octave on the piano, and b) that because the hands are on opposite sides of the strings, they don't get in one another's way when they cross and/or overlap (makes a big difference, that).

I'm not an expert either, but I have included the harp in a lot of different pieces (although I still sometimes manage to get the directions for pedalling wrong).

David Ward wrote:Bear in mind that a) although the little finger is not used in normal harp fingering, the stretch of a 10th from thumb to fourth finger on the harp is as easy as the stretch of an octave on the piano.

Thanks, for chiming in, David!

Even with this in mind, there are some seemingly awkward measures, like this for instance (last few notes):
Would you play the C# and the Bb with the same finger? That's the only way I see this working.

David Ward wrote:(although I still sometimes manage to get the directions for pedalling wrong).

Do you always write those in?

I haven't written much for the harp, but one of the first times I did, the harpist of the Oslo Philharmonic (now retired) told me (I'm paraphrasing somewhat): 'Where in the world did composers and arrangers get the idea to write pedal indications in the harp part?! They are a nuisance and never work. Stay away!'

She also told me to never write enharmonics differently from any other instrument either, as she preferred to solve all the pedaling problems herself.

This undoubtedly made an impression on me. I can definitely see how pedaling indications would be appropriate for music with very little rehearsal time, but for a concert or chamber piece under normal circumstances, I would never indicate it after getting this 'lecture'. Maybe it's just one harpist's opinion, though?

My own experience with harpists has been along the lines that they are glad I thought the pedalling through, but would I mind if they made a few changes to my pedalling.

Yes, the high C# to B is played sliding the r.h. thumb - a standard technique on harp. But the last six notes are divided (depends how the passage continues), maybe 4+2 to right and left. In slower tempo those six notes could be played with one hand, like one uses in piano playing "finger over thumb".