alternate readings of Liszt edition

[pianogod]

I am currently trying to typeset Liszt's 12 transcendental etudes and have used the following sources:

1. Liszt Stiftung edition edited by F. Bussoni
2. New Liszt edition edited by Zoltan Gardonyi
3. First edition
4. Henle critical commentary

I have found the following differences and am wondering if anyone can help me figure out the correct readings?

no 1. Preludio:
in bar 1 and 3, lower staff, the number 8 appears below the single eighth note in the first edition, which in Liszt's language means C1/C0 but the new Liszt edition and the Busoni edition have 8va instead, which means it is played C1.

no 2:
bars 42, 44, 46, 48 the first edition and the Busoni edition have a tie while the new liszt edition does not. (I have concluded the staccato over the first eighth note overides the tie and my source comes from the henle preface to the transcendental etudes).

no 4: Mazeppa
bar 125 upper staff: a-f-a in first chord appears in the Busoni edition and first edition ; The new Liszt edition give omits the (f)

no 5: Feux Follets
bar 116 of the upper staff the last 16th note reads B-flat in the first edition and the Busoni edition while the new liszt edition it is B-natural. (I have concluded B-natural is infact the correct reading based on the 1837 version (Version 2 or the grand etudes since the measures of that etude is identical for that bar and it served as the autograph copy for Liszt)

no 6: Vision
bar 31 the first edition and the Busoni edition don't have C-naturals while the new liszt edition does. (I'm not sure whether the new Liszt edition is correct, but I suspect it may be since adding the natural makes the chord D major 7th)

bar 38 lower staff, the final eighth note chord lacks a1 in the new liszt edition but it is present in the first edition and the busoni edition)

no9: Ricordanza
bar 44 of the lower staff: there is B-flat and g1 on the 4th eighth note in the New Liszt edition while the first edition and busoni have D-flat/g1 (I'm not sure which is the correct reading or are both readings correct?)

Bar 63 upper staff: the second trill contains "sharp" in the new Liszt edition while the first edition lacks the accidental and Busoni's edition places "natural" (not really sure which is the correct reading but I suspect the New Liszt edition has it right since the prevous bar is a parallel bar).

bar 64 upper staff the second trill contains "natural" in the new liszt edition while the first edition and the Busoni edition lack the accidental. (I suspect the same issue as bar 63)

no11: Harmonies du soir
bar 32 of the lower staff there is "sharp" on e1 on the third beamed eighth note found in the first edition and the Busoni edition while the new liszt edition gives "natural" (not really sure which is the accurate)

There are other findings but these are the toughest questions to anwer. Sorry if I made this post a bit longer than expected. I take my research serously.

[Funper]

hi there,

if u want to typeset the score, u should try to follow the new liszt edition since it compares with most of the available sources, in the case with the trans. etudes: case any existing manuscripts and the first edition.

the best way is to make a footnote explaining the differences on every issue. there is no "correct" reading as such.

[sbeckmesser]

The above response begs the question: why typeset something that has been adequately typeset by somebody else, especially if the earlier edition is a critical edition equipped with the necessary scholarly apparatus. And if one is trying to create a new critical edition, you'd better have all your sources in order, be familiar with the composer's penmanship, be aware of the printing and notation conventions of the time and to able evaluate and defend your choices in relation to the composer's other works for the same and other instruments. For example, I believe Liszt composed several earlier versions of at least some of the Transcendental etudes and these might be of assistance here.

I've mentioned this in other threads, but I think a home-music-engraver's time is best spent not redoing or, in some cases here already at IMSLP, re-redoing pieces for which there are perfectly adequate editions here or available commercially for reasonable prices, often in editions easier on the eye than a typical digital typeset. There is TONS of music on IMSLP that is CRYING OUT for editions usable by modern performers. To start there are the vocal masterworks by Monteverdi (such as the madrigals) and others of his era (Gesualdo) that are here only in partbooks in early 17th century notation. And there has just recently been a vast upload of Graupner in MSS posted here that can use modern editions. In the keyboard realm, there are HUNDREDS of sonatas of Domenico Scarlatti that aren't fully covered by adequate (i.e. non-Longo) modern editions at IMSLP.

As an outstanding example of truly useful home re-engraving I need only point out Steve Wiberg's settings of French Baroque music for harpsichord, where, working accurately from facsimiles of early editions, he has modernized the use of clefs. They aren't critical editions, but they make this music far more accessible to modern performers.


--Sixtus

http://imslp.org/index.php?title=Specia ... eve+wiberg

[pianogod]

There are a few reasons why I am typesetting a new edition.

1. The new Liszt edition (NLE) seems like a perfect edition and I agree except for the transcendental etudes. This is the only edition that I find wrong for several reasons. Some the readings that this edition makes do not appear in the original autograph or the first edition or the Liszt-Stiftung edition. However, these readings do appear in a reprinted edition that Henle calls the popular edition. This edition was not authorized by Liszt for publication (according to Henle).

I have also read that the editors of the NLE only excepted the last edition published in the composers life time as the primary source and did not give the same weight as earlier editions of the same work.

I generally consider the Liszt-Stiftung as the best edition to use but it does not correct all of the errors that appeared in first edition. I am taking this endevour to perfect the Liszt-stiftung edition. I plan to use the same slurs and phrases as the first edition without altering anything. I will add more dynamic marks and other articulations though to help the performer but I plan to enclose these additions in parenthesis. I will include a critical commentary to my edition and provide justification for my readings (mainly the notational reading).

If anybody knows of any other editions that I can consult let me know

[sbeckmesser]

The first project, and by far the simplest, should be to "correct" the first edition, which is already available at IMSLP. This would entail a complete detailed listing of corrections that the concerned scholar or performer could enter on a personal copy of the first edition. Included in this list would be the reasons the corrections are being called for (alterations in later editions, printing errors in the 1st edition etc.). There should be no "obvious printing errors were corrected without listing" or other cop-outs many critical editions take. Every change should be noted and justified in works that have already been seen through the press by the composer himself, as Liszt did with the first 1852 edition of the Transcendental Etudes. Indeed, the very first page of that edition proclaims "seule edition authentique revue par l'auteur." Note that the list of corrections I'm calling for would NOT entail a complete resetting of the works, which nearly always will result in additional errors being introduced, especially if not done in the context of a for-profit publishing house or of musicological research with scholarly rectitude at risk. Besides, if a reset is undertaken, looking for added errors would be simplified if the original list of corrections is available.

--Sixtus