question, different publisher, different motes?

[lostinmusic]

hi,
i was looking which i'm going to print but there is a bigger difference here: http://bayimg.com/OajhcaaCK
which is the correct one?

the right is downloaded from:
http://imslp.org/wiki/Transcendental_Et ... ,_Franz%29 ("Complete score of 10-12 pieces")
the left from: http://www.sheetmusicfox.com/Liszt/ ("12 Transcendental Etudes no. 10")

[Generoso]

If you look closely the D-flat is in the key signature in both. They are both correct!

[sbeckmesser]

Since you are in Germany and have access to it I'd actually urge you use instead the version from the Neue Liszt Ausgabe critical edition. Second choice would be the IMSLP file of the first edition.

--Sixtus

[lostinmusic]

If you look closely the D-flat is in the key signature in both. They are both correct!

i thought it might be so but then the two flats in the left sheet music are unnecessary, but not wrong(?)

Since you are in Germany and have access to it I'd actually urge you use instead the version from the Neue Liszt Ausgabe critical edition. Second choice would be the IMSLP file of the first edition.

ok, i'll think about it..in the end what really matters for me here is how beautiful the sheet music is

[sbeckmesser]

in the end what really matters for me here is how beautiful the sheet music is

To me, accurate sheet music is inherently beautiful. I am in ecstasy when I crack open an Urtext edition. (I exaggerate . . . but only a little!)

If it is only the attractiveness of the printed page you're after, you might want to check out the original Durand editions of Debussy and Ravel piano music. Gorgeous, despite the inaccuracies. And there is no more beautiful file at IMSLP than Bach's manuscript for his Sonatas and Partitas for solo violin.

--Sixtus

http://imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/2 ... 4eT8Ab.pdf

[lostinmusic]

indeed bach's manuscripts are nice
--
so the two flats in the left sheet music are unnecessary, but not wrong(?)

[sbeckmesser]

It used to be that accidentals applied only to the note they preceded, rather than the whole bar. This practice was revived, in effect, by the 2nd Viennese School -- Schoenberg, Berg and Webern -- because nearly every note of their atonal and serial music requires an accidental. There also used to be, and sometimes still are, deliberately redundant accidentals, designed to remind the performer not to play the wrong note. There are also misprints, into which your conflicting Liszt editions might fall. But both notations mean the same thing and neither is incorrect -- the one with the accidentals is merely redundant like much of music notation. Redundancy is not a bad thing: time signatures are easier to read than adding up note values in a bar, which gives the same result.

--Sixtus

[lostinmusic]

thx for the info
i don't remember a case where i had unnecessarily redundant accidentals because the key signature says it all and such stuff like here may rather confuses i think so this is why i was wondered