best sheet music editions

[gert]

I'm in my third year as an amateur piano student, and I was wondering what are considered the best editions of sheet music in general. I understand Henle Verlag's blue Urtexts are among the best, but I'd like to know whether they indicate fingering?

Thanks everyone

[stevebob]

"Best" is hard to define; different people may have varying preferences among editions depending on the composer as well as differing priorities based on their personal needs.

I believe most musicians would say that the Henle urtext editions are "among the best," though, based on criteria like authoritativeness, accuracy, readability and quality of paper and bindings.  Elements like dynamics, phrasing, articulation and fingerings will be included if they're attributable to the composer based on original sources like manuscripts or the first published editions; the fingering suggestions of an editor might be offered as well, in which case they can be expected to be printed in a different typeface to differentiate them from the composers' own.

[prongated]

It depends on who the composer is. For French music, Durand is usually considered to be the best, especially for more contemporary composers like Dutilleux. For Brahms, Schubert, Schumann, Beethoven, even Mozart (i.e. classical and romantic except Liszt and Chopin, and other less-known composers)...I think many musicians use Barenreiter and/or Breitkopf & Hartel...except for Beethoven's Concertis, for which Schirmer is actually the best (and the orchestration the most orchestrally satisfying by far). Barenreiters and Breitkopf & Hartels are rare in some markets (e.g. I barely see them in stock in Sydney, Australia), and Henle is thought of as the ubiquitous choice.

For Bach, some teachers do recommend that one look at more than one edition. Henle, while I think quite safe for students, is considered to be arrogant by many artists. For Chopin, it again depends on the teacher - there are some that purports the Paderewski edition absolutely, some that think it unreliable since edited by a pianist and not a musicologist (usually resorting to Henle), and even some that reverts to Mikuli's (which, to my personal taste, has some rather weird notes within chords)

[gert]

Thank you both for your extensive replies: this is very helpful.

[john11inc]

I've never had a complaint about Boosey and Hawkes' typesetting.

[indianajo]

Wow, I've always lived out in the middle, and none of these editions ever made it out here.  The closest I ever got was a Boosey & Hawkes version of Gilbert & Sullivan (who else?).  Thanks for asking and answering. 

[Bob]

I'm still interested in this.

If you post ideas, can you also include or source or the level of your source?  And why?  I'd be interested in knowing if a university professor said they liked a certain edition.  And it's because that edition has x and y.  Or doesn't have z type of mistakes that another edition has.

And if anyone knows the edition histories, I'm interested in that.  I heard about Mozart editions that were editted for standard performance practice at that time -- phrase marks added that aren't Mozart.  More editted editions followed, based on that.  On and on with it becoming less Mozart, but along the way some ok performer editions. 

The other angle is that when things have gone out of copyright, a publisher looking for some quick profit would take one of those old edited editions and repackage and sell it -- It's cheaper, so someone will buy it.  That's still going on today.  But with the internet and databases of music, I think it's more likely I might run into some crappy overedited edition.  Not something I want to do.

I know there are some other threads on this site.  I'm still interested in what's really good and why -- Who said it's good and what makes it better than others.

[scottmcc]

while I certainly do not consider myself an "edition snob," I have been universally happy with my Henle editions of the Beethoven Sonatas, Debussy's Suite Bergamasque, and the Beethoven Bagatelles, and I've looked through various other Henle scores and lusted after them.  I agree with the qualities listed a few posts up, especially the paper quality and the legibility of the typesetting.

I have a number of Dover editions of things that I'm in the process of replacing.  I bought them because they were cheap and readily available, but they're hard to read, the paper is thin, and the bindings fall apart.

For the Well-Tempered Clavier, I bought the Alfred edition because it had copious fingerings and explanatory notes, including notes on differences between various sources.  It's also far larger print than many other Bach editions which is nice for me because I get easily lost in the tangle of voices otherwise.

But take my advice lightly, as I am but a simple amateur.

[prongated]

If you post ideas, can you also include or source or the level of your source?  And why?  I'd be interested in knowing if a university professor said they liked a certain edition.  And it's because that edition has x and y.  Or doesn't have z type of mistakes that another edition has.

For Bach, John Perry regards the Henle edition as arrogant and recommends reading more than 1 edition - for the differences in notes and ornamentation, and also fingering. His personal preference for bach varies from piece to piece I believe - the Steingraber, edited by Hans Bischoff, is his for the Chromatic Fantasia and Fugue for instance.

For Chopin, Prof. Elza Kolodin prefers the Paderewski. I suspect Marc Durand kind of "shops around" for Chopin, as at least in the Barcarolle he recommends certain notes that appear in the Mikuli edition. I think it's pretty much personal preference when it comes to Chopin though.

Also, for Beethoven sonatas, John Perry (I think) likes the Schnabel edition, whereas John O'Conor doesn't (he happens to regard highly the Alfred edition edited by Stewart Gordon, because it shows all, or many, of the differences between the sources). As for the concerti, again, John Perry's recommendation, and I suspect Marc Durand's preference too.

[perfect_pitch]

I've never had a complaint about Boosey and Hawkes' typesetting.

Here's one - there's no *** fingering markings in the whole bloody score of Stravinsky's 3 Movements from Petrouchka!

I had to literally work out the fingering for the whole bloody piece... Took me a while and I learnt a lot, but god it was a right pain in the arse doing corrections and finding other ways of fingering months after I'd started learning the bloody thin...

[thalbergmad]

Personally, i do not give a crap which editions i have, since i consider the written notes to be an idea and not an order.

Thal

[Bob]

I want pure.  With ideas from performer.  And having it easily clear which is which.

I don't like when the composer can't make up their mind or makes a dumb typo.

[tsaij]

Here's one - there's no *** fingering markings in the whole bloody score of Stravinsky's 3 Movements from Petrouchka!

"cherchons nos doigtés!" fingerings can be a help for learning things quickly, but generally not so much for learning things well -- every hand is different, every technique is different, and there's no way to create a universal fingering for anything. personally i get frustrated when the editors scribble in too many (a problem i have sometimes with henle).

i generally don't have the strongest preferences on editions, but always refer to a critical edition (or several) if you're engaging in serious study of a piece. it's okay to play from a cheap peters or dover score, just make sure you've checked it for errors.

visually i think the original durand/eschig/salabert editions are vastly superior to any other for french music. i can't stand looking at the debussy preludes in anything else. there are a few errors here and there, but they are easily fixed with a bit of research. the dover editions of debussy use the original durand plates for several, but not all, of the pieces in their collections. dover editions are wildly variable -- some are excellent and some are just awful. be advised.

[richard black]

There are all sorts of reasons for preferring one edition over another. For most standard works, if I've a choice, I will buy Henle Urtext simply because the typesetting is very good, they take care to put page-turns at sensible places (if possible), they print on good quality paper and use a good binding. But sometimes it's interesting to have a heavily-edited edition, if the editor is someone significant, so it's good to have Chopin in the Paderewski, or Cortot, or even Casella edition - maybe as well as an Urtext. And sometimes it's useful to know that, for instance, the Schirmer or Dover edition is a facsimile reprint of something more expensive from Breitkopf or whoever - then you simply save money.

[prongated]

"cherchons nos doigtés!" fingerings can be a help for learning things quickly, but generally not so much for learning things well -- every hand is different, every technique is different, and there's no way to create a universal fingering for anything. personally i get frustrated when the editors scribble in too many (a problem i have sometimes with henle).

Yeah, but having to work it all out on your own for something like Petrushka is absolutely BRUTAL! perfect_pitch, great job...!

[gert]

Thanks everyone for contributing to the discussion. Since I'm also "just a simple amateur" I think I'll go for those beautiful Henle editions. I'm also a book lover, so it's hard to resist those classy blue covers, the clear layout, and that heavy cream paper.

[vviola]

Any suggestions for Mozart's sonatas? Preferably in one book.

[richard black]

Not one book, but you can get the complete Mozart solo piano works, including sonatas of course, in a nice slip case in the Bärenreiter 'Neue Mozart Ausgabe', beautifully done and not outrageously expensive. Not the cheapest, but affordable.