{"id":6897,"date":"2022-10-03T08:00:14","date_gmt":"2022-10-03T06:00:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.henle.de\/blog\/en\/?p=6897"},"modified":"2022-10-04T12:58:30","modified_gmt":"2022-10-04T10:58:30","slug":"the-unexpected-showing-up-often-discoveries-in-liszts-revisions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/2022\/10\/03\/the-unexpected-showing-up-often-discoveries-in-liszts-revisions\/","title":{"rendered":"The Unexpected, showing up often! Discoveries in Liszt\u2019s revisions"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

Franz Liszt<\/p><\/div>\n

The chances of sources being rediscovered or becoming newly accessible seem rather slim for composers served by modern thematic-bibliographical works\u2019 catalogues \u2013 rather confirming the rule are such exceptions as the autograph sections of Mozart\u2019s Piano Sonata in A major K. 331 discovered a few years ago (see Henle blog: The music world will sit up and take notice! On the new Urtext edition of Mozart\u2019s Piano Sonata in A Major KV 331 | Henle Blog<\/a>). The situation in the case of a composer like Liszt is, however, quite different. Here, where existing is neither such a catalogue of the works nor even a comprehensive and reliable complete edition of the letters, an editor must personally go to great lengths in searching out information on the genesis and publication of a specific work.<\/p>\n

So, when I began revising earlier Henle editions of Liszt piano works a few years ago, I had certainly expected to gain new insights, at least here and there in small details. But to come across still unknown engraver\u2019s models for important compositions \u2013 no, I didn\u2019t dare hope for that….<\/p>\n

First things first, however. Revising the three volumes of Ann\u00e9es de p\u00e8lerinage<\/em> first published by Henle in 1978-80 was more than overdue. Known in terms of the sources was that volume III, at least, was no longer up to date with current research. The original publisher of all three Ann\u00e9es de p\u00e8lerinage<\/em> volumes had been B. Schott\u2019s S\u00f6hne in Mainz. The first Henle edition of volume III had not taken into account the sources still located at the time in the Schott Archives and presumably inaccessible \u2013 including engraver\u2019s models, written by different copyists, for all seven individual pieces, together with a complete galley proof. Meantime, the majority of these sources has come into the public domain; the remainder was kindly made accessible to me via photocopies in the New Liszt Edition<\/em> archives in Budapest.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Excerpt from Liszt’s corrected galley proof of No. 1 Angelus!<\/em> from Ann\u00e9es de p\u00e8lerinage III<\/em>, mm. 55-67 (Washington, The Library of Congress, Music Division, ML96.L58 Case)<\/p><\/div>\n

Not known, though, was the whereabouts of the engraver\u2019s models for the nine pieces in the first volume Premiere Ann\u00e9e \u2219 Suisse<\/em>. Originally, they must also have been stored at Schott. To be on the safe side, I enquired at the music department of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (Bavarian State Library) in Munich, where preserved and gradually catalogued since 2014 has been the Schott publishing house\u2019s complete production archives. And, in fact, the engraver\u2019s models, written by an unknown hand with additions by Liszt, turned out to be available there, organised by plate numbers!<\/p>\n

The situation was somewhat different for the second volume Deuxi\u00e8me Ann\u00e9e \u2219 Italie<\/em>, for long known here had been that the engraver\u2019s models, except for No. 2, were to be found in the Liszt estate in Weimar. Apparently, Liszt had expressly requested the return of these originals when correcting the galley proof (around the middle of the 19th<\/sup> century it was by no means a matter of course that along with galley proofs, composers were also given the original engraver\u2019s models back again for checking); No. 2\u2019s removal can be explained by the enclosure of the engraver\u2019s model for Il penseroso<\/em> when the corrected galley proofs were returned, as Liszt explicitly noted in one of his extant letters to Schott. Later, however, the engraver\u2019s model was incorrectly filed at Schott, that is, not with the material of plate number 13378 (= Ann\u00e9es de p\u00e8lerinage II<\/em>), but with number 8315 (= Liszt\u2019s transcription of Hector Berlioz\u2019s overture Les Francs-Juges, <\/em>1845). Without the attentive sorting of that material by the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek\u2019s responsible staff member, this engraver\u2019s model would probably have remained forever lost!<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Start of the engraver\u2019<\/em>s model for No. 2 Il penseroso<\/em> from Ann\u00e9es de p\u00e8lerinage II<\/em>, with autograph entries (Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Musikabteilung, Mus.Schott.Ha 14533-2)<\/p><\/div>\n

But how does examining such newly available sources affect the revised music text? At first glance, the result may seem disappointing, for in terms of differences between autograph and first edition, even the earlier Henle editions generally followed the first edition, the results of which could now be confirmed in the vast majority of cases by autograph changes in the engraver\u2019s models. It is therefore rather minor additions or corrections to dynamics, articulation or pedal markings in these sources that now turn out to be intended. To give an example: In the old edition of Les Jeux d\u2019eaux \u00e0 la Villa d\u2019Este<\/em> (= No. 4 of the Ann\u00e9es de p\u00e8lerinage<\/em> III<\/em>), the dynamics marking for measure 220 is ff <\/em><\/strong>according to the first edition, but in the engraver\u2019s model Liszt added another f <\/em><\/strong>alongside brioso <\/em>and Ped<\/em>, which is, however, easy to overlook:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Engraver’s model with autograph entries for Les Jeux d\u2019eaux \u00e0 la Villa d\u2019Este<\/em>, mm. 220 f. (New York, The Juilliard School Library, Manuscript Collection, 2L699an A.3je)<\/p><\/div>\n

In the revised edition, the passage has accordingly now been changed to fff<\/em><\/strong>. As insignificant on their own as such details may seem to be, they add up to a music text that is clearly closer to the Urtext than the earlier editions.<\/p>\n

This also applies to the autographs of Rhapsodie espagnole<\/em> and the Ungarische Rhapsodie<\/em>\u00a0Nr. 2 <\/em>[Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2] . Though these manuscripts were known to be extant, they long remained inaccessible. For some years now, the private collection containing these autographs has been on deposit at the Paul Sacher Stiftung in Basel and can thus be viewed there. Here, too, though no sensations are to be reported, details are now and then to be changed. Clearly recognisable, for example, is that in measure 377 of his autograph of Ungarische Rhapsodie Nr. 2<\/em>, Liszt noted sfogato<\/em> in addition to the dynamic sempre ff<\/strong><\/em> that was, however, inadvertently omitted in Joachim Raff\u2019s exemplar serving as the engraver\u2019s model for the first edition, and is therefore also missing in the edition:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Autograph of the Ungarische Rhapsodie Nr. 2<\/em>, mm. 377-380 (Basel, Paul Sacher Stiftung, Sammlung Arthur Wilhelm)<\/p><\/div>\n

Besides the music text, the Henle Urtext editions also revised the verbal texts that often no longer did justice to the sometimes very complex genesis of individual piano works. Pertaining to the history of collections and cycles, Liszt research has accomplished a great deal in recent years, notably in the well-grounded introductions by Adrienne Kaczmarczyk within the New Liszt Edition\u2019s<\/em> supplementary volumes. And yet our own research has not been in vain. The Schott publishing house\u2019s extant production log books (also in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek since 2014) now make it possible to give precise publication dates of the original editions and reissues for the Ann\u00e9es de p\u00e8lerinage<\/em>, amongst others; and Liszt\u2019s letters that are still unpublished or have not yet been analysed, make it possible to refine many a detail in the works\u2019 genesis or publication histories. For example, a review of Liszt\u2019s extant letters to his agent and secretary Gaetano Belloni in Paris suggests that the mysterious titles Il lamento<\/em>, La leggierezza<\/em> and Un sospiro<\/em> were probably not added to the French edition of his Trois \u00c9tudes de concert<\/em> without the composer\u2019s knowledge or even against his will, as has sometimes been asserted in other publishers\u2019 editions.<\/p>\n

For me, in any case, the work on the revision sources has shown how exciting searching for new findings in Liszt\u2019s works can be\u2026.<\/p>\n

In closing, a short overview of the so far published revision sources:
\n(in parentheses, important, newly-considered sources as compared to the early editions)<\/p>\n

HN 1333<\/a>: Rhapsodie espagnole<\/em> (autograph)
\nHN 1490<\/a>: Ann\u00e9es de p\u00e8lerinage, Premi\u00e8re Ann\u00e9e <\/em>\u2219 Suisse<\/em> (engraver\u2019s model, autograph of an alternative closing for No. 4)
\nHN 1389<\/a>: Ann\u00e9es de p\u00e8lerinage, Deuxi\u00e8me Ann\u00e9e <\/em>\u2219<\/em> Italie<\/em> (engraver\u2019s model for No. 2)
\nHN 1494<\/a>: Ann\u00e9es de p\u00e8lerinage, Troisi\u00e8me Ann\u00e9e<\/em> (engraver\u2019s models, galley proof)
\nHN 1573<\/a>: Trois \u00c9tudes de concert<\/em> (autograph, five cadenzas and alternative closing for No. 3)
\nHN 1586<\/a>: Ungarische Rhapsodie Nr. 2 <\/i>(autograph)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The chances of sources being rediscovered or becoming newly accessible … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[44,651],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6897"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6897"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6897\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6920,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6897\/revisions\/6920"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6897"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6897"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6897"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}