Also perhaps of interest to the original poster (and perhaps to others interested in Pictures), the Lamm edition (as available at IMSLP) though claimed to be based "solely upon the original autographs" also drew from the earlier Rimsky-Korsakov edition (which Ravel used for the basis of his orchestration). Lamm also made other changes.
There is more to this list, but a few quick points; Lamm - returned the fortissimo opening to Bydlo - returned the attacca indications - added key signatures to the promenade movements - retained the triplet in the opening of Samuel Goldenberg and Schmuyle, which was taken from Rimsky's edition... which leaves the bar a semi-quaver short. Musorgksy's manuscript indicates semiquavers. (We've now heard the triplet version so often that ironically the original version sounds wrong). - the title of Samuel Goldenberg and Schmuyle was discarded in favour of the title "Two Jews, One Rich, other Poor" - Catacombae; tie removed from b.20-21 and therefore the chord is replayed - Con mortuis notation is re-written from b.11 to end - Tuileries b.8, the G naturals introduced by Rimsky are restored to Musorgsky's G#s (familiarly heard as G naturals in Ravel's) Not wanting to get into a textual/validity debate over correctness and editorial behaviour; just posting for potential interest. From 2001-03, I made a study of all the editions (and other aspects of Musorgsky historiography / performance practice). A very interesting area indeed... at least, I think so! The diversity within editions (and performances) of this work is astounding. Lamm's edition was certainly a landmark in returning many crucial moments from the previous editions, but its greatest claim - to be based "solely on the autograph" would have been knowingly fraudulent... but for the publishers, a wonderful selling point. Best wishes, Angela Angela Turner FinePrint, Music Printing and Typesetting Website: www.fine-print.com.au Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Stiller Sent: Sunday, 25 March 2007 9:38 AM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] OT: International Music Score Library Project I'm surprised that this degenerated into yet another copyright rant. If *Pictures at an Exhibition* isn't PD, then nothing is or ever will be. Of far more potential interest to the original poster is that there are a number of prominent errors in all PD editions of the piece. Recent (copyrighted) editions correct these errors, and it is useful for anyone working with this piece to know about them. They are: Il Vecchio Castello, 15: last RH note 4 not 8 (Ravel corrects this in his arrangement). The dotted 4 in the parallel passage at 47 is correct (Ravel makes the two the same). Samuel Goldenberg and Schmuyle, 15: RH octave Gs, fifth entry from the end of the m., should be Gb, not Gn. Simile at 17 and 19. 24: last note of this bar should be Bb, not C, in all 4 octaves. The errors in Goldenberg/Schmuyle are so very prominent that some conductors "correct" them in the Ravel. IMO however that is a mistake: the notes are wrong for 19th-c. Russian piano, but not necessarily wrong for a 20th-c. French orchestra. There are, after all, numerous places where Ravel deliberately overrules Mussorgsky, and no one (or no one w. taste) would dream of "restoring" these. Critical editions of the piece correct numerous other errors in the old publications, but these are the usual minor stuff that makes little difference in the actual sound of the piece. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://www.kallistimusic.com/kallisti.html _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
