Liszt's transcendental etude urtext

[54545]

Which of the following editions are the most accurate and reliable editions for the transcendental etudes?

I have found varous discrepincies between these two editions and I want to know which edition is closer to Liszt's intentions

1. Liszt-stiftung edition edited by Busoni

2. New-Liszt-Ausgabe (EMB) edited by Zoltán Gárdonyi

[mistermoe]

I don't know those editions of the transcendentals but i guess that the busoni will have a lot of busoni in it 
I got the paganinis by emb (edited by Gárdonyi too) and i think those are ok. not a lot of editorial junk (or even none).
But why don't you go for the henle urtext? henle's always a good choice if you don't want an over edited music. They normally never add anything that is not in the manuscripts or first editions. I have always been satisfied by henle.

[stevebob]

Which of the following editions are the most accurate and reliable editions for the transcendental etudes?

I have found varous discrepincies between these two editions and I want to know which edition is closer to Liszt's intentions

1. Liszt-stiftung edition edited by Busoni

2. New-Liszt-Ausgabe (EMB) edited by Zoltán Gárdonyi

Have you processed the responses you received to your two previous posts?  As you didn't return to those threads to offer any comment or or acknowledgment, I was just wondering.

More broadly, I wonder why it's become the norm on this forum for people to ask for information or technical help in a hit-and-run manner.  More often than not, one never knows if the answers provided were found useful or not.

[mistermoe]

More often than not, one never knows if the answers provided were found useful or not.

That's true, even if it's a bit selfish, you would like to know if you could help when giving advices.
After all, even in a forum, it's always some kind of communication between at least 2 people. Otherwise we could install a FAQ and shut down the forum...

So thank you, stevebob, for making me feel useful for a little moment   

[pianist1976]

I own both editions and I find them very similar. The Busoni ed., now published by Dover (which comprises also the previous versions of the etudes such as the 12 grandes etudes) I think that was carefully edited (almost as an Urtext) and (as I know) has no Busoni Add-ons, except for some (very) few aditional digitations which are in parenthesis to not to be confused with Liszt's originals. Anyway I find the EMB easier to read. I think that the printed text has a higher quality and the notes are bigger. EMB has only the few digitations Liszt originally wrote plus another even fewer from the editor but unfortunately not on the most problematic places (also not Busoni)

I also have some etude copied from the Peters (Von Sauer) edition. This one I think it's interesting because of some extra Sauer digitations but with a problem: it does not distinct between Sauer and original Liszt digitations.

Regarding modern editions, I don't own them but I took a look to them. I was a bit disappointed with Henle because the text quality is excellent (as usual) but only publishes the Liszt original digitations, I miss the revisors that usually have (Hans Martin Leopold and others).

Recently, Wiener Urtext published an edition of these etudes. This one has additional digitations. I think that I will buy it in a short matter of time.

[54545]

These are some good insights and thanks for them.  The reason I asked about the transcendental etudes is because I'm trying to make my own edition of them and in the process of editing the entire work. I already completed no 1-3. Another reason I asked about the composition was I found discrepencies between the busoni edition, which is based on the first edition, and the EMB. When I went to henle's website to download the preface to the transcendental etudes, I have noticed that the source EMB used may not be realiable since it was published without Liszt's consent, though in his life time, and I have no idea if some of the variants are authentic or not. Henle seems to prefer the first edition over the later editon (also known as the popular edition).

This research has forced me to give presedents to the busoni/first edition rather than the later reading that EMB used since Liszt autherized the release of the first edition but not the popular edition which has variants that I'm not sure are errors or really are revisions.

Any insight to this dilema would be much appreciated.

[ramseytheii]

I'm confused by some of the terminology here, for instance what do you mean by the "first edition?"  My understanding is that Liszt published these etudes several times over the course of his life, and there are at least 3 versions of each one that are radically different (ie almost unrecognizable from editions that we play today).

So do you mean the first edition of the final version?  I'm not even sure if these pieces have a "final version."  Surely not the first edition of the first version, because nobody plays the first version, as they are really not worth playing.  The history of these pieces is much more complicated than published "editions."

more information, please!

Walter Ramsey

[54545]

I am specifically refering to the transcendental etudes only (the first edition of the final version published in 1851), not the grand etudes (version 2) or the douze etudes (version 1). In fact I consider the prevous versions to be musically inferior. I own a copy of the first edition of the final version (transcendental etudes). I have not come across any evidence that Liszt revised the final version even further, but I have found some descrepncies between the first edition of the transcendental etudes and the new Liszt edition. Here is what I have found that makes it diffcult to asses the accuracy between editions:

no 1. Preludio:
in bar 1 and 3, lower staff, the number 8 appears below the single eighth note in the first edition, which in Liszt's language means C1/C0 but the new Liszt edition and the Busoni edition have 8va instead, which means it is played C1.

no 2:
bars 42, 44, 46, 48 the first edition and the Busoni edition have a tie while the new liszt edition does not. (I have concluded the staccato over the first eighth note overides the tie and my source comes from the henle preface to the transcendental etudes).

no 5: Feux Follets
bar 116 of the upper staff the last 16th note reads B-flat in the first edition and the Busoni edition while the new liszt edition it is B-natural. (I have concluded B-natural is infact the correct reading based on the 1837 version (Version 2 or the grand etudes since the measures of that etude is identical for that bar and it served as the autograph copy for Liszt)

no 6: Vision
bar 31 the first edition and the Busoni edition sdon't have C-naturals while the new liszt edition does. (I'm not sure whether the new Liszt edition is correct, but I suspect it may be)

bar 38 lower staff, the final eighth note chord lacks a1 in the new liszt edition but it is present in the first edition and the busoni edition)

no9: Ricordanza
bar 44 of the lower staff there is B-flat and g1 on the 4th eighth note in the New Liszt edition while the first edition and busoni have D-flat/g1 (I'm not sure which is the correct reading or are both readings correct?)

Bar 63 upper staff: the second trill contains "sharp" in the new Liszt edition while the first edition lacks the accidental and Busoni's edition places "natural" (not really sure which is the correct reading but I suspect the New Liszt edition has it right since the prevous bar is a parallel bar).

bar 64 upper staff the second trill contains "natural" in the new liszt edition while the first edition and the Busoni edition lack the accidental. (I suspect the same issue as bar 63)

no11: Harmonies du soir
bar 32 of the lower staff there is "sharp" on e1 on the third beamed eighth note found in the first edition and the Busoni edition while the new liszt edition gives "natural" (not really sure which is the accurate)

There are other findings but these are the toughest questions to anwer. Sorry if I made this post a bit longer than expected. I take my research serously.

[pianoden]

You really should check out the Wiener Urtext edition by Ubber and Kraus.  They have extended detailed notes going over most of what you have written in the above post. They also make a few more interesting corrections which I know I have always bothered me (like low Eb's instead of the correct low C's in m.3 of Vision, as well as removing the Ossias in m.38).  It also includes critical versions of two of the grandes etudes (2 and 7). It's certainly worth the money.

[54545]

Sadly I can't buy the edition you recommended but I plan on it in a few years once I graduate. I guess I'll have to make the most with what I have.

[danhuyle]

G. Henle Verlag I've got that urtext edition of the Liszt transcendental etudes.

[54545]

It does have one major error that the editor overlooks in the 6th etude where their is a doubled
B-flat in bar 51, upper staff. However, parallel bar 43 gives doubled D-flat. The readings from the Liszt-Stiftung and New Liszt edition are correct.

Also some of the readings the editor takes are not explained like why they deviate from the primary source. Finally the edition is not totally comprehensive. They should have used pupil's edition as a secondary source since it may have some merit but that's my opinion.

Henle does the best job with German composers like bach, mozart, beethoven, etc... but they are not up to my standards with those outside the german world.

[pianisten1989]

I'd either go with Musica Budapest or Edition Peters with von Sauer as editor. Since he was a student of Liszt, he should do a good job editing.

[54545]

Sadly Saur's edition is mixed in terms of accuracy. He either makes changes to the musical and it is unclear whether these changes originated from Liszt or if they are Saur's interpretation. Also his editions are known to be plagued with errors.

EMB is the most comprehensive but I disagree in them giving priority to the last edition published in the composer's lifetime, especially if you look at bar 44 lower staff the 4th eight note group is given as B-flat/g in the new Liszt edition, but parallel bar 17 gives the D-flat/g. This is probably the biggest error in the new Liszt edition. Even if Liszt wrote this down and truly wanted the incorect B-flat in bar 44, it contradicts the first edition (1851) and the muscal text.

I guess there is no perfect edition. Each one has its flaws either from editorial policies or misunderstandings of the musical text.