{"id":7214,"date":"2023-07-10T07:00:50","date_gmt":"2023-07-10T05:00:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.henle.de\/blog\/en\/?p=7214"},"modified":"2024-08-27T12:44:14","modified_gmt":"2024-08-27T10:44:14","slug":"no-end-to-rachmaninoff-in-sight-several-annotations-to-opp-3-and-16","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/2023\/07\/10\/no-end-to-rachmaninoff-in-sight-several-annotations-to-opp-3-and-16\/","title":{"rendered":"No end to Rachmaninoff in sight: several annotations to opp. 3 and 16"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Perhaps \u2013 despite the anniversary year \u2013 I\u2019m rather overdoing it with my blog posts on the Rachmaninoff topic<\/a>???? However, the sales figures and almost daily email requests for further editions show us how enormously great the interest in Rachmaninoff\u2019s music is, worldwide. Our catalogue is at least well stocked: published recently were the two piano cycles Morceaux de fantaisie<\/em> op. 3 (HN 1491<\/a>) and Six Moments musicaux<\/em> op. 16 (HN 1492<\/a>). And although Rachmaninoff very thoroughly proofread his first editions, to be found again whilst preparing these editions were some interesting details and errors still remaining to date in reprints.<\/p>\n

On a problem with accidentals in the most famous single piece of the five Morceaux de fantaisie<\/em> op. 3, that is, the c-sharp minor Pr\u00e9lude<\/em>, I\u2019ve long since reported (see this blog post<\/a>). Here the first edition, published by the Moscow publishing house A. Gutheil, differs from the autograph; then again, later, the new Breitkopf & H\u00e4rtel edition (supervised by Rachmaninoff) follows the autograph version, undoubtedly also the correct one.<\/p>\n

I encountered a very similar case in the first piece of the Morceaux de fantaisie<\/em>, the nocturne-like \u00c9l\u00e9gie<\/em>. Here, too, the first-edition engraver had probably intervened without authority by placing a natural sign at the top right-hand note on beat 3 in measure 90:
\n\"\"<\/a>
\n\u00c9l\u00e9gie op. 3 no. 1, first edition, Gutheil, 1893<\/em><\/p>\n

And who could blame him, when concurrently heard is a g <\/em>natural in the left hand \u2013 isn\u2019t an E-flat major seventh chord absolutely meant in this measure\u2026? And yet Rachmaninoff intended something else: in the autograph he clearly wrote a flat sign before this note in the upper voice, which is not supposed to be harmonic, but to retain the g flat<\/em> of the main theme as a melody note, following the g flat-f flat-e flat-d flat<\/em> line:
\n\"\"<\/a>
\n\u00c9l\u00e9gie op. 3 no. 1, autograph, 1892 (Russian National Museum of Music, Moscow)<\/em><\/p>\n

When Breitkopf & H\u00e4rtel later re-edited the \u00c9l\u00e9gie<\/em>, restoring the g flat<\/em>2<\/sup> that he originally wanted can only have come from Rachmaninoff himself:
\n\"\"<\/a>
\n\u00c9l\u00e9gie op. 3 no. 1, Breitkopf & H\u00e4rtel edition, published after 1901<\/em><\/p>\n

Rachmaninoff\u2019s own 1928 recording on an Ampico player piano, heard here, documents how terrific this dissonance can sound and eliminates any lingering doubt about the accuracy of the g flat<\/em>2<\/sup>:
\n