John Ruggero wrote:Knut, I don't think that the Peters editor was inconsistent. His reasoning is clear: to clarify the beats without breaking things up too much in areas where he discerned that Liszt didn't want any interior emphasis. He was trying to find a compromise between "normal" and Liszt's original.
Sorry, I certainly didn't mean to misrepresent your view.
At least it's clear from from my post why I personally find the Peters edition to be inconsistent, and it's problems lie precisely in these attempts at compromise between different musical considerations. To me it is neither fish, nor fowl.
To comment on your, as usual, splendid analysis point by point:
John Ruggero wrote:1. The music starts on the lower staff, which emphasizes the darkness and sadness of the music. The music is growing out of darkness and seeking the light.
Since (to my understanding) the entire line is supposed to be played by the same hand, and the actual register, in my view, gives more than enough emphasis on this philosophical aspect, I think I would prefer the line on a single system. I don't really have a strong opinion on this, and adopted the Peter's distribution for my examples more out of convenience than anything else.
John Ruggero wrote:2. The 32nd's grow out of the opening note in a improvisatory way with very free rhythm and without any sense of organization as shown by the lack of secondary beam breaks. It sounds confused as if in emotional turmoil.
The original beaming makes a lot of sense to me with this in mind. The absence of a slur has to be a purely pianistic device that I'm not familiar with. I'm wondering though, if it would be entirely inappropriate to beam the first two groups together across the barline?
John Ruggero wrote:3. This continues through into the next measure, but the eight 32nd note motive begins to be discerned at little, as shown by the slur.
Probably yet another pianistic device, unfamiliar to me. It would be great if you could clarify the presence and absence of slurs a bit further.
John Ruggero wrote:4. This takes us to the second beat of measure 2 as an arrival point, which also represents a new beginning.
5. The new start begins with some effort as if already weary, because the motive must repeat to get started again. This defines the first four notes as independent and breaks the original larger motive into two discernible parts.
Makes sense.
John Ruggero wrote:6. These parts are emphasized in m. 3 by the secondary beam breaks and the rit., but Liszt also wants to show the enlargement of the motive from eight to twelve 32nd notes, so he doesn't break the 1/8 beam throughout the measure as a way to hold it all together. The enlargement costs a lot of emotional energy as shown by the dim. and rit. There is also a sense of resignation in this measure preparing for what happens next.
Very interesting. I'm not sure if this warrants breaking the first two groups, but I definitely see your point.
John Ruggero wrote:To me, every change to the original is bad because it negates what Liszt is showing in his notation. But the worst change is the breaking of the 1/8 beam in measure 3. This occurs in every edition except the first Liszt Complete Works, which keeps the original notation entirely intact throughout:
For a critical edition of this specific work, I most certainly agree. I might have misunderstood your intensions for this discussion as being more general in nature. Sorry about that!