{"id":7124,"date":"2023-03-13T07:00:32","date_gmt":"2023-03-13T06:00:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.henle.de\/blog\/en\/?p=7124"},"modified":"2023-04-28T11:33:28","modified_gmt":"2023-04-28T09:33:28","slug":"a-fresh-look-at-rachmaninoffs-preludes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/2023\/03\/13\/a-fresh-look-at-rachmaninoffs-preludes\/","title":{"rendered":"Happy birthday, Sergei! A fresh look at Rachmaninoff\u2019s Pr\u00e9ludes for his 150th birthday"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

In the Henle blog we have already published several posts on the Sergei Rachmaninoff topic (see here<\/a>), but posting on him should certainly not be lacking this year. The composer is, after all, celebrating his 150th<\/sup> birthday in 2023, which calls for our special attention. For the anniversary year we shall publish not only several brand-new Rachmaninoff Urtext editions (for example, you can look forward to his Paganini Rhapsody<\/a> and Third Piano Concerto<\/a>), but we have also planned an extra surprise\u2026
\n<\/p>\n

The \u201cRachmaninoff at Henle\u201d edition project will, incidentally, soon be marking a milestone birthday as well: Published nearly 10 years ago \u2013 in January 2014 \u2013 were our first Rachmaninoff Urtext editions, to be met immediately with great approval by pianists all over the world. Since then, owing to the great demand, especially the much-loved and often-played 24 Pr\u00e9ludes<\/em> (HN 1200<\/a>) and \u00c9tudes-Tableaux<\/em> (HN 1202<\/a>) have already had to be reprinted several times. This has encouraged us to prepare for all Rachmaninoff fans a little surprise in honour of the anniversary: Both the 24<\/em> Pr\u00e9ludes<\/em> and the \u00c9tudes-Tableaux<\/em> will additionally appear this summer in elegant, cloth-bound versions (HN 1520<\/a> and HN 1521<\/a>).<\/p>\n

As editors of an Urtext publishing house, we are particularly pleased when many musicians and purchasers of our editions contact us, wishing to point out questionable passages or discuss ambiguous readings. If, as very rarely, a genuine printing error is to be found, we do, of course, immediately correct it within the next edition issue. Just in Rachmaninoff\u2019s case, though, the matter of \u2018right\u2019 or \u2018wrong\u2019 is often difficult to determine, since his dazzling and complex harmonies allow for various solutions.<\/p>\n

Here, I would like to present two examples from the Rachmaninoff Pr\u00e9ludes<\/em>, pointed out to me by pianists after the edition\u2019s first issue was published. In both instances, I, as editor, have decided not to intervene in the original music text, but to add new footnotes, indicating the problems in each case and encouraging pianists to cogitate and come to their own decisions.<\/p>\n

In the first case, it was none other than Boris Giltburg<\/a> who signalled to us a possibly missing accidental in the E-flat minor Prelude<\/em>. In measure 23, the 1st<\/sup> chord is notated in the work\u2019s first edition as follows (see the yellow highlighting):
\n\"\"<\/a>
\nRachmaninoff, Pr\u00e9lude<\/em> in E-flat minor, op. 23, no. 9, first edition, A. Gutheil 1903\/04, mm. 21\u201323<\/p>\n

From the key signature the right-hand\u2019s lower note without any accidental is, hence, a d-flat<\/em>2<\/sup>, resulting in a pure B-flat minor chord. This is exactly what is written in the autograph and is also printed thus in our edition. Suspecting an oversight on the part of the composer \u2013 it seems, in fact, not uncommon for Rachmaninoff to forget accidentals because he is no longer considering the key signature, \u2013 Boris Giltburg argues strongly for d<\/em>2<\/sup> instead of d-flat<\/em>2<\/sup>, that is, for a B-flat major chord instead of the tonally unusual modal resolution to B-flat minor. Other valid reasons suggesting d<\/em>2 <\/sup>are the analogous passage in m. 9 (likewise with d<\/em>2<\/sup>), as well as the cautionary accidental before the 5th<\/sup> note of the right hand in m. 23 \u2013 why would Rachmaninoff notate an extra flat accidental here if he had not previously had a d <\/em>in mind?<\/p>\n

Several later editions have indeed therefore tacitly added a natural sign before the note, such as this Soviet edition by Pavel Lamm:
\n\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

There are, nevertheless, also good arguments against a change, such as, for example, a cautionary flat sign in m. 23 before the 4th note c-flat<\/em>2<\/sup>, without having had a c<\/em> directly before it (in m. 22 there is a c<\/em>2 <\/sup>on beat 3, but the left hand already has c-flat<\/em>1<\/sup> again on beat 4). Perhaps both cautionary signs are only brought about by the natural sign before the 2nd<\/sup> note in m. 23. Moreover, m. 9 is only roughly similar to m. 23, but not really a parallel passage; for example, the climax in m. 9 is on the 1st<\/sup> chord, whilst in m. 23 the phrase \u201covershoots the goal\u201d, so to speak, and only culminates on beat 2 (the d-flat<\/em>3<\/sup>!) \u2013 \u00a0see also the different dynamics and continuation of the respective passage.<\/p>\n

Therefore, I have chosen the \u201cSolomonic\u201d solution of a footnote, leaving the decision of a change up to pianists themselves:
\n\"\"<\/a>
\nRachmaninoff, Pr\u00e9lude<\/em> in E-flat minor, op. 23, no. 9, new edition, G. Henle, 2014, mm. 21\u201323<\/p>\n

I owe the second reference to the pianist Mark Sullivan from California. Some time ago he wrote me about a possible missing accidental in the G-sharp-minor Pr\u00e9lude<\/em>, op. 32, no. 12. When comparing sources during my editing work in 2013, I had already noticed that in m. 18 on the last, left-hand beat, a b<\/em> must surely be meant, even if the natural sign is missing in both the autograph and first edition (see the green highlighting in the music example):
\n\"\"<\/a>
\nRachmaninoff, Pr\u00e9lude<\/em> in G-sharp minor, op. 32, no. 12, first edition, A. Gutheil 1910\/11, mm. 16\u201319<\/p>\n

Apart from the fact that the b-sharp minor chord notated here would be tonally very dubious in the context, the B<\/em> in the immediately following sixteenth-note figure shows that it is surely just an oversight. For this reason, I have added a natural sign in m. 18, though putting it in parentheses as an editorial addition:
\n\"\"<\/a>
\nRachmaninoff, Pr\u00e9lude<\/em> in G-sharp minor, op. 32, no. 12, new edition, G. Henle, 2014, mm. 16\u201319<\/p>\n

Mark Sullivan\u2019s plausible assumption is now that an accidental is also to be added in the analogous place in m. 16 (see the yellow highlighting), namely a sharp sign before the f-sharp<\/em>1<\/sup> (instead of f-double sharp<\/em>1<\/sup> as before). This question can alas be answered less clearly by the musical context than that in the previous case. The clash of (harmonic) f-double sharp<\/em>1<\/sup> in the left hand and (melodic-motivic) f-sharp<\/em>2<\/sup>\/f-sharp<\/em>3<\/sup> in the right hand is in any event still no reason for suspicion, for this also happens in m. 18. The explicit cautionary accidentals before the last right-hand chord in m. 16 (these sharps are not actually necessary) could even be an indication of just this deliberately intended cross relation.<\/p>\n

A strong argument for Sullivan\u2019s hypothesis is, however, given by Rachmaninoff himself in his own recording of the G-sharp minor Pr\u00e9lude<\/em> \u2013 there, I hear f-sharp<\/em>1<\/sup>:
\n