Mastering Rachmaninoff

RMK · Post by **RMK** » 02 Apr 2016, 15:39

Since this is an international discussion board, I would be careful discussing copyright issues. In some countries (like Canada, where IMSLP is based) it is a simple life + 50 years.

The US has a labyrinthine and complicated law, brought to you by the Disney Company (in the form of pay-offs to members of the US Congress).

Knut · Post by **Knut** » 02 Apr 2016, 15:40

John Ruggero wrote:Knut wrote:
The potential for streamlining the notation according to modern standards is substantial, however,
I don't understand how your version "streamlines" the original by adding extra notes. There is nothing archaic about the original notation. This style of notation has been used in keyboard music up until to the present day to avoid the exact complication that you have introduced into the music.

Huh, I'm not adding any extra notes, just clarifying which one of them is dotted by pushing it to the side. I don't think 'It's always been like that' is by itself a good enough argument to keep from improving upon clarity, and how my edit complicates matters, I don't understand at all. It could represent a problem in the context of extremely tight spacing, but not here.

Of course this piece is far to simple rhythmically for even that particular edit to be absolutely necessary, but this is the kind of thing that I would think is possible without compromising the authenticity of the original notation, but then again maybe I'm wrong.

tisimst · Post by **tisimst** » 02 Apr 2016, 15:41

OP stands for "Original Post" or "Original Post-er" (meaning, the person who posted)

John Ruggero · Post by **John Ruggero** » 02 Apr 2016, 16:21

Knut, You haven't added clarity; you have subtracted it! Would you do the same thing to the middle section of the Rachmaninoff C# minor prelude?

I was in the middle of writing the following and wondering whether I should post it. Now I think I will.

Writing piano music is a specialized field, often considered limited to expert pianists.

The same is true of notating piano music, because there are so many traditions and idiosyncrasies that have never, to my knowledge, been studied adequately and can only be picked up through years of exposure. This is yet another reason that tampering with the notation of an expert pianist is a very treacherous undertaking, even for another experienced pianist.

I have heard that Rachmaninoff was considered by his fellow concert pianists, which included the greats of his time, to be their superior as a pianist. He was also considered the greatest conductor in Russia.

Of course, he was also a human being and made mistakes; but I don't think that I would have the guts to go up to such a man and say "I believe that you have notated this incorrectly; it would be better like this." unless I knew him very well and was eager for a lesson from a great musician!

John Ruggero · Post by **John Ruggero** » 02 Apr 2016, 16:38

OCTO, I do want to answer your question, but even with tisimst's kind help, I am not quite sure what you meant by "inconsistency" between the original posting and the first edition (which I will substitute for the B & H.) I gave several examples the concerned the first measure in my first post in this thread.

Knut · Post by **Knut** » 02 Apr 2016, 16:56

John Ruggero wrote:Knut, would you do the same thing to the middle section of the Rachmaninonff C# minor prelude? You haven't added clarity; you have subtracted it.

The original notation of the C# minor prelude is fine, since the simplification is firmly established throughout an entire section. Adding dots and offsetting notes here would be like displaying every single tuplet number in long passage exciting entirely of tuplets; totally unnecessary and cluttered.

I guess what you are saying is that my edit is unnecessary because the original is just as well understood by any pianist, and offsetting the dotted note would present unnecessary clutter in the same way?

Seeing as I'm no (expert) pianist, I won't argue with one, but I would very much like to hear what other forum members have to say on the subject. After all, this kind of situation is pretty common and will most certainly come up again in a context where tampering with an established score isn't an issue.

John Ruggero · Post by **John Ruggero** » 02 Apr 2016, 17:04

Yes, it represents clutter in the same way. Advice for anyone notating piano music: simplify, simplify, simplify. Leave out every symbol you can that is not necessary. Piano music notation is thus quite different from music for many other instruments.

tisimst · Post by **tisimst** » 02 Apr 2016, 17:17

I'm no expert pianist, either. Personally, I'm in favor of combining the dotted/non-dotted notes when the rhythm is obvious between the voices. In this case, I would say this is true. It also improves the layout and spacing when this is possible.

OCTO · Post by **OCTO** » 02 Apr 2016, 17:31

John Ruggero wrote:Yes, it represents clutter in the same way. Advice for anyone notating piano music: simplify, simplify, simplify. Leave out every symbol you can that is not necessary. Piano music notation is thus quite different from music for many other instruments.

Would you like me to post an example of my piano music for review?
I am a violinist. :-D

John Ruggero · Post by **John Ruggero** » 02 Apr 2016, 18:16

That would be an excellent exercise, OCTO.

NOTATIO