Ravel Pavane rhythmical question

[NeeraWM]

This is perhaps bringing this off-topic but my knowledge and experience of Urtext vs Critical editions is different.
Urtext reproduce everything in the closest source up to and including the autograph, including every error, may add editorial slurs/hairpin/other bracketed items, and list all differences in the Critical apparatus.
Critical Editions, instead, start where Urtext ended, but perform meaningful changes to make the edition playable, perhaps still in "cautionary" style, and still add a robust critical apparatus.

The main difference being: Urtext are meant to be studied, not played from, while Critical editions can be used in performance.
After all, "Urtext" means "from the text" so, if those fingerings were not there, why add them and call it Urtext for little more than marketing purposes? In theory, even dotted quarter-notes crossing the barline with the dot on the other side should stay in an Urtext, while they may not in a Critical edition.

I'm aware I may have just thrown a gallon of petrol on a bonfire, but ... this has been my education even from the publishers I have been working with in the last 12 years.

[John Ruggero]

Wild. In my experience of mainly solo and chamber piano music, you gave a good description of the difference between the two, but in reverse. Critical editions are the library editions with the extensive critical apparatus like the NMA, and urtext editions are the practical ones that have the fingering and interpretive suggestions that are bought by performers. All my Henle and Wiener Urtext and other similar authentic editions say Urtext on the front cover and include fingering and other editorial suggestions. There is a simplified set of critical notes at the back in some cases, and in some cases not. Here is something I selected at random from their website:

Cover.png (654.87 KiB) Viewed 84825 times

Inside title page.png (218.69 KiB) Viewed 84825 times

[NeeraWM]

The supplementary cello part is in addition to the empty, untouched part which indeed is 100% Urtext. Henle was the first one to do this and many copied them, and for good reasons. Now, why they add fingerings to the piano part can only be explained by economical reasons: more pages, more retail cost, less buyers, less profit.
Barenreiter Urtext latest edition of Dvorak Cello concerto with piano reduction places the fingerings added in pencil by the first performer to the piano part's cello cue stave and leaves the cello part empty.

Do you have an edition that bears the label "Critical Edition" handy?
My reasoning is quite basic: based on etymology, urtext means "from the text" while a "critical" action requires a choice, an interaction, a conscientious choice from another being outside from the composer. In the end, they are similar, just the urtext should not correct any mistake, just perhaps mention them. The fact that there are fingerings should not influence this categorisation if the original had none, but if it had ... then that's another story.

[John Ruggero]

The main difference being: Urtext are meant to be studied, not played from..

But ALL of my Henle, Wiener Urtext editions have fingering and other performance directions, are called Urtext on the cover, are practical editions and intended to be played from, and contain no extensive critical apparatus that one finds in critical editions. Thousands of musicians use them in practice and performance.

As far as I recall I have no editions in my very extensive library of practical editions that are called "critical" on the cover. They are either called "urtext" or nothing. I just did a google search on "critical edition of music". The AI description is what I expected. There is no mention of practical performance suggestions.

"A critical edition of music is a scholarly edition that aims to be as close as possible to the composer's original intentions. Critical editions are created by experts in the field who review original manuscripts and all variations. They include critical commentary that explains the editorial process and the decisions made by the editors.
How are critical editions created?
Review original manuscripts: Critical editions are based on original manuscripts and all variations.
Analyze variant readings: Critical editions consider variant readings and performance practice.
Include critical commentary: Critical editions include critical commentary that explains the editorial process and the decisions made by the editors."

Other articles following the AI description mention that the term is used for the complete works editions that one finds in a library.

In any case, I recall a discussion of the term "urtext" and how it is inappropriate for music editing a while ago on this forum that you might want to find.

However, for me it is all semantics. I don't even use the term urtext for my editions. I call them "authentic editions". They are as close to the original as I can make them (and probably closer than most urtext or critical editions), contain fingering because they are practical editions, do not contain an extensive critical apparatus that lists every last inconsequential deviation, but do deal with the salient matters of importance for performance in extensive footnotes.

I just went to look at the Henle website and had some trouble getting in (?!) But eventually I found a list of the urtext editions at https://www.henle.de/us/Urtext-Editions ... 33019bed64
They have two categories "urtext edition" and "urtext without fingering". As far as I know this is the only publisher offering this choice. It is clear from this that they consider an "urtext edition" to include fingering, and the list of these editions is a very large one.

And the very edition of the Pavane that we have been concerned with is called urtext on the cover and is obviously a practical edition complete with fingering and footnotes!

[NeeraWM]

Your description of Critical Editions is just spot on, John, and I think I feel more at peace with myself for calling most of my editions "Critical Performance Edition"(s). I do indeed research all available sources, list everything in the critical apparatus BUT I also make performance-oriented choices (e.g., an obvious wrong fingering is corrected and mentioned in the appendix). Still, I do not add personal fingerings or bowings unless it helps making the piece playable (e.g.: current bowing gives an upside-down result, I make it right and mention it in the appendix).

At this point, though, the term Urtext becomes even more misleading: if those publishers write "Urtext" on their covers, what does that mean?
What "text" are they taking the material from? This Henle Ravel Pavane clearly is a Critical Edition (all sources mentioned, critical apparatus at the end), but adds fingerings that stain the original text. Something must be off here...
Every big publisher seems to have a different idea of it, and marketing did the rest. Perhaps I am too close to the linguistic roots of my mother tongue (Italian > Latin > Ancient Greek) to ignore the meaning of the term. I don't recall Urtext being such a "must-have" before Barenreiter flooded the market (and the advertising space) with their "Barenreiter Urtext" creed (30 years ago give or take?).

For example, one of my recent editions was on Donizetti's Largo for Cello and Piano. Three editions existed before mine and ALL of them—I'm not joking—swore to be based on the autograph. Turned out that... none of them was, they added, corrected, and ruined several spots, and they all called themselves Urtext. In the Critical Commentary I listed more than 100 differences between the four sources and finally restored justice to this piece. We are talking about more than 30 wrong notes assumptions, 10+ wrong rhythms... and yet... Urtext.

Here's the classification one of the publishers I work for gave me many years ago:
„Urtext“ editions reproduce the manuscript in every detail and especially its notation and inconsistencies or even „mistakes“ to our notation standards of today.
„Critical editions“ reproduce the details and mistakes, but have additions/changes (clearly visible eg with a different font or with dotted slurs etc) by an editor where they are obvious
„Modernized editions“: Musical inconsistencies stay, but the notation is totally modernised, obvious mistakes are corrected and notational inconsistencies (such as „rit.” versus „riten.”) are omitted, and obviously missing instructions are added.
„Practical performance editions“ are the most edited ones: Additionally to the above, all inconsistencies if they are not clearly musically intended are being edited, so that one can put it on the stand and immediately play. [...] For all „second-rate“ music this is the best way of giving it a chance to be played. „Editing“ means responsibly try to read the composer’s intentions and put them into markings.

What do you think of this?

[John Ruggero]

Well, to really understand the difference types of editions etc. one would have to go through the history of music publishing, because it is intimately connected with both the scholarly and commercial sides of publishing. But to be concise, I would say that critical editions are more easily defined than urtext editions.

Critical editions were the first type of edition based on original sources to appear. They began with the Bach Gesellshaft Edition and continue today with the NBA, NMA etc. Editions like this brings the whole battery of critical editing to bear and the commentaries are sometimes longer than the actual music itself, because the many deviations between the many sources are collated. There are no practical aids for musicians included and the aim is to present only the original text as corrected by comparing the sources etc. They are very expensive and reside mainly in libraries.

Urtext editions are much less easily pinned down and have as much to do with the commercial side of music publishing as the scholarly. They aim at authenticity but don't present the reader with the kind of critical apparatus present in critical editions; at most, only a pared down version of it or no version at all. They are for practical use and started out as a corrective to the many unauthentic "personal" editions (or practical performance editions as you mention above) of the 19th and early twentieth centuries. The urtext movement really began with the Bach editions of Hans Bischoff, and continued with Schenker's Beethoven sonata editions. Both editions aimed at great authenticity in conjunction with providing help for performers by means of fingering, as well as editorial additions clearly labeled as such in the music by means of brackets, small type etc. much like a critical edition. They may or may not have fingering and other aids for the performer.

So the Henle urtext editions are typical urtext editions. They are based on the original sources, often have an introduction that describes the music and the sources, at most a small set of critical notes at the back and fingering. They often do not have much help concerning performance issues, ornamentation etc. Wiener Urtext editions are similar, but there is often more help given regarding interpretation, and the fingering is by an exponent of the music. Every publisher can present whatever they want and call it an "urtext" edition, and the term has become a selling point, much as "all-natural" or "organic". has become for food.

Sometimes publishers convert a critical edition into an "urtext" edition, as has Barenreiter with the NMA. So you can buy the text of the Mozart piano sonatas from the critical edition, but without extensive critical apparatus, just a small selection of notes from it, and without fingering.

Since I think that the term urtext has become somewhat tainted, I avoid it for my own editions.

As far as the other categories you mentioned. Almost all editions are "modernized" to some extent, not matter what they are called. And the "practical" editions are in some disrepute these days and often reprints of old editions. Many musicians continue to use them, however, which can be dangerous if one doesn't know exactly what one is doing. They can be a valuable record of older traditions, however, and are evidence of the musicianship of the editor. For example, the Bartok edition of Mozarts piano sonatas is fascinating in that it shows what a fine sense of the style he had; the excellent fingering, what a fine pianist he was; and how musicality ruled his decision-making regarding matters of interpretation.something that we don't always find in today's editorial policy.

[NeeraWM]

A wonderful and inspiring read, John, thank you so much.
For what concerns my personal editorial journey, I will also be done with Urtext.
Will I use “authentic”? Well, a friend philosopher of mine poked me once saying “what is authenticity?”, knowing all too well that, whatever I answered, I would’ve been drawn down a very deep rabbit-hole.

[John Ruggero]

Thank you very much, Neera. Given the errors in the Henle edition, one does wonder about "authenticity." The complete description that I am planning to use for my editions is "authentic edition based on the original sources". My Bach Invention and Sinfonia edition is called an "annotated edition". They are really unlike urtext editions or critical editions in the idea behind them and way the editorial material is presented.

[NeeraWM]

A short PS: I've found that Brahms Op. 118 by Barenreiter (published in 2009) is called Urtext and has a full Critical Commentary at the end! :-D
Let's just call every edition how we feel like, shall we?

[John Ruggero]

As I mentioned previously, urtext editions often have critical notes at the back, but not the kind of complete critical apparatus (often called the Critical Report) found in critical editions that lists every deviation between the sources. For example, the critical report for Mozart's Fantasy and Sonata K 475 and 457 in the NMA is 45 pages long. The urtext edition of the same works that Barentreiter created out of the NMA has a little over 2 pages of critical notes. The complete Critical Report for the NMA Mozart Piano Sonatas is 207 pages long, and contained in a separate volume that is longer than either of the two volumes of Barenreiter's urtext editions of the sonatas.

In the case of later composers like Brahms, the Critical Report may be much shorter because Brahms published mainly with one publisher who had a superb editor, Robert Keller. However, Keller died before op. 118 was issued, so there may be more errors than usual. Several years ago, two of us attempted an edition of op. 119 no. 1 on this forum and discovered unreported errors.
viewtopic.php?t=148&hilit=Brahms+op.+119+no.+1

Here is my Critical Report for op. 119 no 1:

Brahms Intermezzo Op. 119 no. 1 Commentary 1B.pdf

(3.1 MiB) Downloaded 709 times