Reger obviously proofread the text meticulously, for there are only a few problems in the first edition. Then, the C. F. Peters publishing house took over the engraving plates unchanged, incidentally, for its reprint (only fingerings were added later \u2013 but by whom?). A few fine corrections were still clearly necessary. I had to adjust many slurs or dynamics placed differently at parallel spots (always, of course, with footnoted reference); I left unchanged differing notes at unambiguous parallel spots (for instance, recapitulations), but referred to these in my edition.<\/p>\n
Well, a few weeks ago we received an email from the cellist and music pedagogue Christoph Otto Beyer in Aurich containing excellent suggestions for improving the second suite. I am taking Mr Beyer\u2019s letter as the occasion for appropriately improving my edition and for disclosing these revisions in the following (since it will be another 2 years at the earliest before the revised printed edition will appear as a reprint).
\nSo, listed here are the detail corrections to the Henle edition of Reger\u2019s Cello Suite, Op. 131c, presently on the market:<\/p>\n
1. In the Gavotte, measure 48 (p. 11), the p<\/em><\/strong> probably should better be shifted a quarter note to the right (thus at the 4th<\/sup> quarter note), as can be gathered from all parallel spots, rather than at the 3rd<\/sup> quarter note as in the first edition.<\/p>\n 2. In the Gavotte, measure 50 (p. 11), there is no<\/span> wavy arpeggio line for the chord printed in the first edition, unlike all (!) other spots. I think that this chord should also be arpeggiated, although a \u201csimultaneous pizzicato\u201d (Beyer) would, of course, also definitely be possible. So, I put the wavy line in parentheses in order to identify it as my editorial addition.<\/p>\n 3. In the Gavotte, measure 68 (p. 11), there is no<\/span> staccato dot on the final quarter in the first edition. Perhaps, it is intentionally lacking? I think that it is an engraving error, which is why the dot is in parentheses.<\/p>\n 4. In the Largo, measures 28\u201329 (p. 12), the dashed ritardando<\/em> extends a half measure too far (it must end already with d<\/em>1<\/sup>, the 2nd<\/sup> quarter note of m. 29).<\/p>\n And now for two interesting, more general aspects addressed by Mr Beyer:<\/p>\n 5. Reger\u2019s \u201calmost obsessively used indications for harmonics,\u201d as Mr Beyer rightly observes, are, properly understood, not fingerings, but an \u201caesthetic and timbre dictum\u201d of Reger\u2019s (Beyer). But we reproduce these Reger \u201c0\u201d designations in italics<\/em> (= slanted), just as we customarily do with original fingerings (i.e., those by the composer); see also the footnote commentary on p. 1 of my Reger edition. What do you readers think? <\/strong>As of the next issue, should we reproduce this sign in normal (non-italic) type instead of italics<\/em>, because it deals with the \u201c0\u201d harmonics rather than with the fingering?<\/p>\n 6. Reger\u2019s metronome markings are in parentheses in the first edition:<\/p>\n Such use of parentheses is, incidentally, encountered in very many early printed editions by publishers of various composers\u2019 works. We reproduce metronome markings on principle without these ( ), for, first of all, with us marking in \u201c( )\u201d always means editorial additions over and above the sources; and second, we don\u2019t attach any deeper significance to the use of parentheses.<\/p>\n Now, cellist Beyer writes that he misses these parentheses. He interprets them \u2013 if I rightly understand him \u2013 as indicating an intended easy retraction of mandatory significance. What are our readers likely to think? <\/strong>Is adding parentheses significant, and if so, of what? Then, we must adopt them in the Urtext.<\/p>\n Again, I warmly thank our sharp-sighted customers who, we hope, will still not discover very many more such little errors \u263a. And when they do: Never hesitate to let us know <\/strong>\u2013 we can only do better with the help of \u201cour\u201d musicians who use our editions and pose questions in return. I am standing by my promise: Any perceived error that you bring to our attention shall be very conscientiously checked out in the sources and according to musical criteria by our scholarly editors, personally responded to, and the correction made where applicable in the next issue. The Reger cello suites demonstrate this once again.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Today, a brief but we hope all the more valuable … Continue reading ![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/files\/2016\/06\/Blog_Reger-Op131c1.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n