Conception of the Edition

The whole conception of the academic edition of Tchai­kovsky’s complete works, including the editorial principles and the scientific methodology, is founded on the comprehensive studies carried out by several generations of scholars who have explored the composer’s legacy and the methods of his creative work. Though the results of earlier scholarly works are taken into account, they are thoroughly revised and reconsidered with due regard for contemporary scientific achievements, including the studies in textual and source history carried out within the present project for any of Tchaikovsky’s works. Every text (both musical and literary) published in this edition is an outcome of the comprehensive analysis of extant sources realized by the scientific editor of respective volume. The scientific editor’s task is to provide the most accurate description of every source, especially of its parameters and its content, and to analyze all the available information on it in reference books, publishers’ lists and other publications.

Another problem pertaining to the compositional history of Tchaikovsky’s works and to their editions that appeared in his lifetime concerns the sources which presumably existed but as yet have not been discovered. This problem surely will be in the field of view of scientific editors.

The project’s basic methodological principle consists in the objectivity and documental validity with regard to such parameters as the dating of sources and their chronological order. The dating of different types of sources – be that the composer’s manuscripts, the manuscript copies (both authorized and unauthorized) made during his lifetime, or the extant printer’s proofs – presents various difficulties. In each case it is important not only to find out and to confirm the date of a given document, but also to trace the process of the composer’s work reflected in it. In other words, the scientific editor has to reveal all the layers of the composer’s editorial work with a given text, taking into account that changes in the main text were often made during several years and even decades.

Special attention will be paid to the dating of those editions of Tchaikovsky’s works that appeared during his lifetime, as well as to the attribution of extant copies.

As is known, in both Russia and Europe in the 19^th century the musical publications were, as a rule, undated. In Russia any musical work with verbal text had to receive censorship authorization for its publication; hence, theoretically a copy of published vocal piece can be dated on the basis of such authorization. It is known, however, that in a number of new editions of Tchaikovsky’s works the date of the first censorship authorization was given unchanged, though the published texts themselves had been edited and modified. The present project’s scientific editors will take notice of any such case.

The information from various reference books of the 19^th and 20^th centuries pertaining to the compositional history of Tchaikovsky’s works and to the origin of different versions and authorized editions will also be taken into account. All such information deserves close analytical scrutiny in order to reveal the objective basis of presented data and to separate unfounded assertions from real facts.

Such a study will result in a well-documented compositional history of any particular work by Tchaikovsky and a chronological ordering of the sources of its text. This will serve as a basis for scientific textual commentaries to each particular musical text.

The reproduction of a musical or literary text itself will proceed from the scientific conception elaborated by the volume’s scientific editor on the basis of comprehensive study of the positions mentioned above.

Since the project’s main idea is to present Tchaikovsky’s musical works in their authentic form, his manner of writing down musical texts will be followed as strictly as possible. For instance, the instrumental parts in scores will be arranged as in Tchaikovsky’s original texts. A special attention will be paid to the exact reproduction of all the details of Tchaikov­sky’s texture, of his specific groupings, of the disposition of chords, of the direction of ‘tails’ in beams, as well as of the position of dynamic markings, which in Tchaikovsky’s scores often apply to a separate part rather than to the whole vertical line. The faults, misprints and the composer’s own errors (slips of pen) revealed in the main sources of the published texts will be attributed; the amendments introduced by the scientific editors will be reasonably commented.

The academic edition of Tchaikovsky’s complete works takes into account the practical experience of publishers who issued Tchaikovsky’s music in the 19^th and 20^th centuries. The scientific editors will pay attention to the publications of his works that appeared during his lifetime in Russia and other European countries, as well as in the USA. It is important to establish the exact degree of Tchaikovsky’s own participation in each particular case; this will allow to demonstrate the ‘text’s progress in its author’s hands’ during the composer’s creative life, as well as to compile the authentic list of real authorized sources of Tchaikovsky’s musical works.

The earliest piece by Tchaikovsky published in Russia was, to all appearances, the romance 'Mezza notte' composed in 1861–62. It was issued in St Petersburg by A. Leibrock (Lejbrok); the history of the piece’s composition and publication is largely obscure. Later Tchaikovsky received commissions from publishers N. M. Bernard and V. V. Bessel’. The texts issued by them often differ from the author’s manuscripts; it is not always clear, whether the changes were introduced by the composer himself or by somebody from the publishing house’s staff. For instance, the poetic epigraphs to the piano pieces op. 37bis ‘The Seasons’ appeared already in their first edition in the magazine Nuvellist, while in the composer’s autograph they were inscribed, presumably, by the magazine’s editor A. I. Bernard (who was the brother of M. I. Bernard, the founder of the firm) only for the pieces No. 1 and No. 3.¹

The main body of Tchaikovsky’s musical works was published by Pëtr Ivanovič Jurgenson. Their collaboration began in 1868 and continued until the end of Tchaikovsky’s life. For some of Jurgenson’s editions, too, the origin of changes introduced to the composer’s text before its first publication or reissue cannot be ascertained by documents. This may apply even to some best known works by Tchaikovsky – for instance to the opera Eugene Onegin and the piano cycle ‘Children’s Album’, not to mention the ballets, the concertos, and the concert pieces.

Tchaikovsky’s foreign publishers include D. Rahter (Hamburg and Leipzig), E. Bote & G. Bock (Berlin), A. Fürstner, F. Ries & H. Erler, R. Forberg (Leipzig), F. Mackar, later F. Mackar & A. Noël (Paris), V. Urbánek (Prague), G. Schirmer (New York). To what extent the foreign editions of Tchaikovsky’s works, which appeared during his lifetime, were authorized by the composer himself, is still largely unclear. The questions related to Tchaikovsky’s foreign publications will also attract the attention of the scientific editors of all the volumes of this project.

When Tchaikovsky was still alive, Jurgenson undertook the first editions of his piano and vocal works in volumes. Of the seven-volume collection of piano works, the three last volumes appeared already after the composer’s death. Though Tchaikovsky had not reviewed and edited these volumes, the publisher advertised them as ‘corrected and revised by the composer’. In this form the volumes were more than once reissued up to 1917. Jurgenson published also the collection of Tchaikovsky’s romances both in original keys (in 6 volumes) and transposed for different kinds of voice. Here the degree of the composer’s participation in the editorial work is unclear as well.

The works that remained unpublished during Tchaikov­sky’s lifetime, as well as the pieces reconstructed from drafts by S. I. Taneev, were published through the latter’s mediation by M. P. Beljaev. In such cases, it is desirable to find out how important was the role of the editor in supplementing the extant drafts. The picture becomes clear when the available sources are compared with each other; this work will be done by the scientific editors. For the works completed by Tchaikovsky and unpublished in his lifetime, the principle of priority of Tchaikovsky’s text will be paramount, while posthumous editions will be described as sources for comparison, since they contain versions that have been used in concert practice. As regards the restorations of Tchaikovsky’s unfinished works, the restorer’s text in each case will be chosen as the main source; it will be minutely compared with the composer’s draft. The draft will be described in detail in the textual-critical commentary and, if necessary, reproduced in facsimile.

The general picture of the editions of Tchaikovsky’s works that appeared in Russia and abroad during his lifetime is largely blurred and not sufficiently documented. This is so because of the absence not only of a full collection of the copies of such editions, but also of the catalogues of Russian and foreign publishing houses of that time. For a number of Tchaikovsky’s works published under the labels of foreign firms it cannot be ascertained, whether the works in question were, indeed, published by these firms or they were simply received from Jurgenson for distribution, or else printed from Jurgenson’s plates. But the most important problem for the present project is to find out, whether the composer himself participated in the editorial process or he had nothing to do with it when the music was printed from Jurgenson’s plates or when Jurgenson’s editions, issued in Russia, were distributed abroad. In other words, it is absolutely necessary to detect all the discrepancies between the European editions and the editions issued by Jurgenson with the composer’s immediate participation.

Further, it is not always possible to date with exactitude the available copies of the editions of Tchaikovsky’s works, including even those issued in Russia by Jurgenson and other publishers. In a number of cases the same plate numbers fi­gure in the editions that seemingly appeared at different times (since their texts contain discrepancies). Often in the editions that appeared already after the composer’s death, the plate numbers are identical to those of the first editions, though the texts had been considerably edited by others. In many instances, the names of the editors and the time of their work on the texts of Tchaikovsky’s works are unknown.

The general picture of Tchaikovsky’s editions is additionally blurred because of a relative unreliability and incompleteness of the 19th century publishers’ catalogues. Such is, in particular, the situation with the catalogues of Jurgenson, Tchaikovsky’s main publisher, in Russian libraries. This can be explained by the realities of the Russian history: after 1917, the archives of Russian publishing houses and their music stocks were largely destroyed. The liquidation of the major part of Jurgenson’s business archives in the 1930s is an irreplaceable loss, whose consequences are still felt despite the availability of other documental sources.

The archives of the European publishing houses that had issued Tchaikovsky’s music in his lifetime, sometimes in collaboration with him, considerably suffered during World War II. Hence, the history of the editions and the degree of the composer’s participation in them is a serious problem for the scientific editors involved in the present project.

Though the editions of Tchaikovsky’s works that appeared in his lifetime often bear a mark that they had been revised and edited by the composer, this may be untrue. The agreements between Russian and foreign publishers pertaining to Tchaikovsky’s music are unavailable; the specific character of relations between the owners of publishing rights on Tchaikovsky’s works is not entirely clear. Such problems exist even for Jurgenson – an almost exclusive owner of rights on the most part of Tchaikovsky’s music, who was zealously protecting the composer’s interests and promoted his works not only in Russia, but also in the rest of Europe and in the USA.

According to M. I. Tchaikovsky, already in the early 20th century ‘some seventy thousand, if not more, of the two hundred thousand engraved plates kept in the fireproof storeroom of his [Jurgenson’s] big music typography in Russia, were devoted to the works by P. Tchaikov­sky’.²Jurgenson provided music material to virtually all the performances of Tchaikovsky’s symphonic works and operas both in Russia and abroad. On the occasion of the 25^th anniversary of Jurgenson’s firm, a catalogue was published mentioning all the editions that had been issued by that time. One of the copies was presented by the publisher to Tchaikovsky. The list of Tchaikovsky’s works figures on pp. 155–159: two columns from op. 1 (Two pieces for piano) to the opera The Fancy Slippers (‘Čerevički’), completed shortly before the publication of the catalogue³.

The contract of sale to Jurgenson of 37 works (dated February 9, 1881), kept in the composer’s archives, reads: ‘We, the undersigned, the Moscow merchant of the first guild Pëtr Ivanovič Jurgenson and the composer of music, court councellor Pyotr Il’ich Tchaikovsky, have concluded the following agreement: I, Tchaikovsky, have sold to Him, Jurgenson, the following [works] and arrangements of mine in his full and hereditary property […] for all countries and forever. In full his, Jurgenson’s and hereditary ownership for seven thousand roubles, so that he can publish them so many times as he wishes and sell to make a profit, on the only condition that neither he nor his heirs will impede a proper public performance of the works that I have sold to Him, Jurgenson. I, Tchaikovsky, and my heirs have the right to print the aforementioned works only as a part of the complete works by Tchaikovsky and only by His, Jurgenson’s consent. Only Jur­genson, as the legal owner of all the aforementioned works, has the right for their arrangements and transpositions for any instrument or voice. Retired court councellor, composer Pyotr Il’ich Tchaikovsky; Moscow merchant of the first guild Pëtr Ivanovič Jurgenson. In receipt of seven thousand roubles in silver P. Tchaikovsky’.⁴.

Remarkable in this respect is also Jurgenson’s letter to Modest Il’ič Tchaikovsky, written in a year after the composer’s death. In his letter Jurgenson explains the actual situation with the rights for the publication of Tchaikovsky’s music outside Russia, as well as with the chances to publish Tchaikov­sky’s last works completed or restored by S. I. Taneev (Piano Concerto No. 3, piano impromptu ‘Momento lirico’, duet of Romeo and Juliet for an unrealized opera after Shakespeare):

‘Moscow September 28 1894.

Dear Modest Il’ič!

I have to explain you the reasons why Pyotr Il’ich’s posthumous works cannot appear in print and be on sale before a certain term.

We can preserve the publisher’s right abroad only on condition that they appear there earlier or at least simultaneously.

For almost 9 months I have been corresponding with major German publishers and during that time I have received seven negative responses. Finally I had to ask Rahter to become the publisher for the sake of appearance and at my cost. Therefore I have to transfer to him the formal ownership for Germany. His conditions, however, are so unfavourable (10 pfennigs, i. e. 4 cop[ecks] per sheet) that I’ll get literally nothing. But I have no other way out. Today I’ll write to him proposing a delivery for 15 pfennigs per sheet.

Finally, several days ago a London firm agreed to buy from me for America and England the 4 works that are known to you; consequently, the publication of these pieces has to be postponed again until the moment of general term, when on a certain day all the [publishers] will be permitted to offer them on sale.– The fate of the Concerto is still unclear; I don’t want to bother the German publishers again and again and therefore I’ll ask Schäfer – Rahter to be my representative. The same is with Novello in London.

I’ll send the impromptu just today to Sergej Ivanovič for proofreading.– The Duet cannot be issued without translation; it is especially important to have the German text. When I receive the impression, I’ll send it to Mrs. Esber for translation. What about the French text?

It is rather not appropriate to offer on sale a single piano piece (impromptu); hence, it’s necessary to be patient. Even if the Concerto will be ready in piano score by the 22^nd, this will be useless – it’s unreasonable to issue it too early and to spoil the whole affair forever. Devoted to you, P. Jurgenson’. ⁵ .

According to the European copyright laws of the 19^th century, the publisher, buying a work from the composer, received an exclusive right to publish it during fifty years in his country, as well as in any other country with which his country had concluded an agreement about mutual protection of authors’ rights. Russia had no such agreements with any country; therefore the music published in Russia was often reprinted by foreign firms, while in Russia there was a practice to make reprints from foreign publications. Due to such practice the publishers could make profits saving on royalties.

Jurgenson tried to monitor and suppress the unlawful reprinting of Tchaikovsky’s music by European publishers and, hence, to regulate the process on legal grounds. Sometimes he even paid, for instance, to D. Rahter and F. Mackar, for putting their labels on title pages to confirm that a particular edition was issued by a European publisher; consequently, he was subject to the European copyright laws protecting a given work by Tchaikovsky against illegal reprinting. Therefore Jurgenson had to sale Tchaikovsky’s works to foreign publishers, though only fictitiously. In a letter of January 29, 1880 he informed the composer about one of such transactions with the German publisher D. Rahter: ‘…in Petersburg I was busy with Rahter. […] he will be the fictitious owner of your pieces and will publish them at my expense, though under his name. I’m paying him for this. At least the new pieces will be protected against Fürstners and Erlers’.⁶As it turned out, in a number of cases other European publishers had also printed Tchaikovsky’s works from Jurgenson’s plates and issued them under their own labels.

Thus, it is very important and indispensable for the present project to explore the history of those editions that appeared during Tchaikovsky’s lifetime and to determine, as far as possible, the degree of his involvement in the process of their preparation. Taking into account the lack of sufficient knowledge about the music publishing practices in Russia and the difficulties with the scientifically founded dating of the 19^th century editions of Tchaikovsky’s music, relevant studies will be carried out involving the analysis of all the data available at the International Inventory of Musical Sources (Répertoire International des Sources Musicales, RISM),⁷ ,in the leading music libraries of Russia and other countries, as well as in such reference periodicals as ‘Hofmeister XIX’⁸ .

The first edition of Tchaikovsky’s complete works was launched in 1940 in accordance with the resolution of the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR dated May 5, 1940 (two days before Tchaikovsky’s centenary) and completed in 1990. Two booklets were published: one at the start of the publication, another in 1946. In both booklets, the contents of each volume were announced, though the final version partly differs from the initial plans. For instance, in the series ‘Literary Works and Correspondence’, a volume of poems, texts for vocal works, and operatic libretti written by Tchaikovsky himself was planned, but ultimately was not published. His notebooks and diaries also remained unpublished. The musical works were issued in 63 volumes (1940–90).⁹ .

In 1993, the publishing houses ‘Muzyka’ (Moscow) and ‘Schott’ (Mainz) launched a new edition of Tchaikovsky’s complete works. As compared with the first edition, it had to be structured in a different way and to represent Tchaikov­sky’s legacy more fully. The volumes, though numbered continuously, had to be grouped by genres, with a chronological ordering within each genre. In all, twelve genre series were planned. From 1993 to 2008, eight volumes appeared; the project is as yet unfinished.¹⁰ .

The present project is based on a thorough study of the history of each work’s text from the earliest sketches to the author’s final version and its editions published during Tchaikovsky’s lifetime with his participation. For each particular work, the principal source and the sources serving for comparison are chosen in accordance with the result of the study; in some cases, the texts of alternative versions of the same work are published as independent items. If there are several author’s and/or authorized versions, each being an artistically valuable entity in its own right, they are reproduced in full.

All the sources used for comparison are mentioned in the commentaries to the published text of a given work. In each volume, such commentaries are assembled in a special section devoted to textual study. For some large-scale works, the commentaries can be brought together in a separate volume.

All the variant readings and discrepancies between the sources are described and commented in the textual study section. In the most important or complex cases, to which the scientific editors would like to draw the user’s attention, the relevant place in the music text is marked ‘*’, while at the foot of the page the reference is made to the commentaries in the textual study section.

The sign ‘*’ in the music text can also refer to Tchaikov­sky’s own remarks given in this edition at the foot of pages with annotation: ‘(author’s remark)’. In Tchaikovsky’s manuscripts, especially in his orchestral scores, they are, as a rule, placed within the music text. Because of the lack of space, such remarks often cannot be reproduced in printing just as in the manuscript original. They, however, are always reproduced either beside the music text or with a reference to the relevant place in the music text; in contrast to the most part of the editions of Tchaikovsky’s works that appeared in the 20^th century, they are never omitted, since their omission risks to misrepresent the composer’s idea.

The publications of Tchaikovsky’s stage works are accompanied with the texts of their scenarios and libretti, including the preliminary variant. If they differed from the verbal text already set to music or were modified in the staging pro­cess, the relevant alternatives are given and commented in the textual study section. The verbal text, fixed in the score, is regarded as the basic version in comparison with all the other variants.

The original texts of all the works, both musical and literary, as well as their original titles and dedications, are reinstated. If Tchaikovsky’s original title is in French or Italian, its Russian translation is given according to the version authorized by the composer (in his manuscripts and in the editions that appeared during his lifetime and were revised by him). The only exceptions are the titles pointing at the work’s genre (such as concerto, symphony, etc.). They are reproduced in their common Russian form. In the commentaries, however, Tchaikovsky’s own spellings are cited after his autograph manuscripts and authorized editions.

One of the objectives of the present project is to clear Tchaikovsky’s scores from earlier editorial interventions and to restore the cuts that have appeared in quantity since the time of the works’ creation due to different historical, social and political circumstances, including those related to censorship. A special problem, however, consists in the cuts made by Tchaikovsky himself or by others in his presence (sometimes even under his guidance) for various performances of his works. Every time such cuts were conditioned by specific circumstances of staging or concert performance; sometimes they were made forcedly, following the wishes of a soloist or conductor. In such cases the editors, mentioning the presence of the author’s cuts in a source, have retained the cut passages in the published text. Thus, a contemporary performer can compare the author’s complete version with the version with the author’s cuts and use any of them at his/her choice.

Another option is provided for dynamic, articulation and tempo indications added by the composer in the pro­cess of preparing the work’s performance. Such signs, with comments explaining the time and circumstances of their emergence, will be, as a rule, included in the published text, i. e. added to the main source. This was Tchaikovsky’s own practice, when he conducted his new symphonic works from the manuscripts and then included in the published versions all the changes he had made during the rehearsals. He used to made similar additions also to the already published scores of his works when he was preparing their next performance. Quite often these works had been composed and published long before their performance under the composer’s direction took place. Later Tchaikovsky would reproduce his additions and corrections in subsequent editions. He used to treat this process as a real editorial work on his own scores, though by that time they have already been published. Our position towards the composer’s amendments to his previously published scores is additionally justified by some markings made by the composer in his conductor’s copies of the 1890s and reproduced by him in the same works’ subsequent editions. Such cases are treated by this project’s editorial staff as a particular stage of creative process, whose traces are present in the copies of the published scores found in Tchaikovsky’s personal library, as well as in other libraries.

Another important task facing the scientific editors is to trace all the stages of the evolution of the text of a particular composition and to single out the versions that have an autonomous artistic value. In a number of cases such versions are related to the author’s own re-interpretations of his works composed earlier; as a result, at different times several variant readings of the same text emerged. Tchaikovsky would make amendments shortly after having completed a piece, in the process of its preparation for publication, while correcting the proofs, as well as during the rehearsals before the premiere (in the case of symphonic and stage works). Even if the proofs had been read by the composer himself, the published text often differed from the autograph manuscript: Tchaikovsky would frequently examine the engraved text from memory, without comparing it with the written original, and some details, naturally, could escape his attention. Thus, some of the engraver’s errors, unnoticed by the composer and therefore unwittingly authorized by him, turned into formally ‘legitimate’ variant readings. Besides, while reading the proofs, Tchaikovsky sometimes made in the text changes reflecting his new creative intentions, which could emerge spontaneously, under the spell of a temporary mood or state of mind, introducing new emotional colours. Similar things happened during the work on subsequent editions; as a result, the text moved away from the autograph version. A symptomatic example is the first edition of the famous ‘Children’s Album’, in which not only some elements of the text were changed, but also the order of the pieces in the cycle; this led to a considerable modification of the cycle’s initial idea.

The new versions of the First and Second Symphonies, the overture ‘Romeo and Juliet’ and some other works were called into being first of all because of the composer’s inner creative demands. As regards the opera Eugene Onegin, major changes in its score appeared in connection with its staging at the Imperial Theatres (Moscow, 1880; St Petersburg, 1885). New versions would appear also when Tchaikovsky would arrange for republication his works composed much earlier. Thus, in 1891 he obtained by chance the full proofs of the symphonic fantasy The Tempest, which had already been prepared for publication by A. I. Ziloti. Having read the proofs, the composer wrote to Ziloti: ‘In Moscow I received the two p[ages] of the score of “The Tempest” that you had sent to me. On these two pages, to my surprise, I have found a lot of gross errors. I cannot understand, why it was so. Meanwhile it turns out that you’ve ordered to send the thing to the press. Being afraid, I have demanded the whole score, which I’m examining now. Apart from the errors, which, as far as I can see, are not so numerous on the other pages, I’ll make corrections in the signs p, f, cresc., etc., put metronome marks and only then give the thing to the press’. A letter to Jurgenson written several days later reads: ‘When I was in Moscow, I found out by chance that a new edition of “The Tempest” was in preparation, i. e. that Ziloti had read all the proofs and allowed to print [the piece]. Just to make sure, I asked to send me the proofs. And I was right!!! How one can send the 2^nd edition to the press without showing it to the author and without notifying him? First, Ziloti obviously was tired of proofreading and examined “The Tempest” rather inattentively. Second, I just needed some minor changes and cuts. In short, though I had a hard time with this proofreading and felt very angry with it, now “The Tempest” will be published properly’.¹² .

Extant are the piano scores of the opera The Enchantress (‘Charodeyka’) with the composer’s marks¹³made during the preparation of the work’s premiere, which, as is known, was conducted by the composer himself.¹⁴Judging from these marks, it was supposed to make some cuts, to modify tempos, to edit vocal parts and rhythmic details. The score of The Enchantress was first published already after Tchaikov­sky’s death. The autograph of the score was used as the principal source, while the score’s manuscript copy, from which the composer conducted at the Mariinskij Theatre, has never been taken into account. In the present project of the academic edition of Tchaikovsky’s complete works all the currently available sources will be considered: the autograph of the opera’s score, the piano score with conductor’s marks made by Tchaikovsky, and the manuscript score used by the composer for the work’s premiere under his direction.

Tchaikovsky’s own piano reductions of his stage works, as well as of his concertos and concert pieces, present a textual problem of another kind. It consists in the discrepancies between the texts of full score and piano score as regards dynamic and articulation markings, sometimes also tempo indications. Such discrepancies could appear for different reasons – for example because immediately after having finished the work’s drafts, the composer had to write the piano reduction, which then was sent to the press. The piano score served for preparing the work’s premiere. The full score was being written later, often concurrently with the process of preparing the piano score for publication. On this stage of creative work the composer’s initial intentions could evolve and change. If the piano score was written down before the full score, it is regarded as an earlier version of the author’s text, which anticipates the definitive version (i. e. the full score) and its subsequent modifications.

The discrepancies between the texts of full score and piano score could have other causes as well. Playing symphonic works, as well as fragments from operas and ballets on the piano was an integral part of society music making of the 19^th century. The transcriptions of orchestral pieces for piano or two pianos, or else for violin, cello, or voice with piano, virtually became the pieces’ instrumental versions on their own right. Those details of writing – accents, slurs, dynamic nuances, etc.– that were quite natural in the context of orchestral score, had to be somewhat modified when the music was adapted for piano. In the author’s piano scores of concertos and concert pieces, the parts of solo instruments sometimes quite considerably differ from the same parts in the full scores as regards articulation, phrasing, dynamics and even tempo.

Some of the author’s piano scores written before the completion of full score contain hints at orchestration details that were not realized in the work’s definitive version. Tchaikovsky, however, did nothing to correct such minor departures from the full score in the publications and republications of his piano scores. In the course of time the difference between the full score and the reduction increased, since the published music lived its own independent life undergoing minor or major changes with every next republication. Only rarely, already in the 20^th century, the editors did mark some such places; in most cases, however, the discrepancies remained virtually unnoticed. For instance, in the edition of Tchaikovsky’s complete works of 1940–90 a number of such discrepancies can be easily found between the full score and the piano score of the opera The Queen of Spades. They were neither registered nor commented by the editors, though in some cases quite important differences in dynamics and accents can be observed even in the arias of the opera’s protagonists.

In the present edition, taking into account the requirements of performing practice and the principle of the priority of full score, the scientific editors have to adjust the texts of the author’s piano scores in accordance with the full scores. In the author’s or authorized reductions of stage works, concertos, and concert pieces published in the present project, the solo parts will be identical with those in full scores, while all the discrepancies will be registered in the textual study section. As a result, the performers, teachers and scholars, while using the texts published in the present project, will be provided with a chance to trace the evolution of the solo parts in all the available sources; on the other hand, they will not be faced with the problem of choosing between variant readings of the same part in full score and piano score.

An interesting and important group of sources consists of the editions of works composed by Tchaikovsky between 1865 (the year of his graduation) and 1877 (the year of the Fourth Symphony), i. e. during the period of development of his personal style. The works composed in those years were conducted and corrected by the composer already in the 1880–90s, i. e. in his last decade. While preparing the performances of his works, Tchaikovsky would not only add new performing instructions to the scores, emphasizing and adjusting some details, but sometimes also would change the texts themselves. In a number of cases Tchaikovsky entered these changes into the subsequent editions; sometimes, however, he had to confine himself to handwritten remarks made for those who would conduct these works from his personal copies of scores.

Symptomatic in this respect is the copy of the score of his early symphonic fantasy ‘The Tempest’, based on Shakespeare’s drama¹⁵The piece in question was composed in 1873, but the remarks in the score were added much later. It is known that Tchaikovsky conducted ‘The Tempest’ five times. The remarks in the conductor’s score were made in connection with his earliest performance; this becomes clear from the composer’s own dating: ‘All the marks in black pencil were made by me, the author, Dec. 17 1888. P. Tchaikovsky’.

Obviously, the composer was aware that the changes and amendments, which he had entered into the score, would be of great importance for his work’s future performers: he even put the date and made some additional inscriptions. On p. 65 of the score he wrote: ‘All this fff in all [parts] and very brightly, sharply, roughly, feroce Remarks for the fut[ure] conductors here in Moscow. Dec. 17 88’. Tchaikovsky ‘legalized’ most of the changes in the reissue of his score that appeared in 1891. In the course of time the musical text changed its meaning for the composer, and this was for him, to some extent, a sequel to the creative process. The present project’s important scientific objectives include the fixation and thoroughly verified reproduction of all the changes made by the composer during his creative life, so that the musicians of today could perceive and realize the author’s creative ideas in all their entirety.

_________________________

¹ ARMAMC, f. 88, No. 114.

² Tchaikovsky M. I. . The Life of Pyotr Il’ich Tchaikovsky. In 3 vols. Moscow and Leipzig, 1900—1902 / Vol. 1. 2^nd edn. Moscow and Leipzig, 1903. P. 215–216 (in Russian).

³ Catalogue of the Editions of P. Jurgenson, the Commission Agent of the Imperial Russian Musical Society and Conservatoire in Moscow. Moscow: P. Jurgenson Press, 1886. Censorship authorization: January 13, 1886 (in Russian). The copy owned by Tchaikovsky is in leather binding with impression (in Russian): ‘To Pyotr Il’ich Tchaikovsky’; it is kept in the P. I. Tchaikovsky State House-Museum, D¹, No. 423.

⁴ ČSMR, a¹², No. 13.

⁵ ČSMR, b¹⁰, No. 7276.

⁶ ČSMR, a⁴, No. 6124. First published in: Tchaikovsky — Jurgenson. Correspondence. Vol. 1. / compiled and edited by P. E. Vajdman. Moscow, 2011. P. 192 (in Russian).

⁷ http://opac.rism.info/index.php

⁸ http://www.hofmeister.rhul.ac.uk/2008/index.html

⁹ P. I. Tchaikovsky.Complete Works. Vols. 1–62. Moscow, 1940–71; Vol. 63. Moscow, 1990 (in Russian). P. I. Tchaikovsky. Complete Works: Literary Works and Correspondence. Vols. II, III, V–XVII. Moscow, 1953–1981 (in Russian).

¹⁰ P. I. Tchaikovsky. . Complete Works, New Edition. Vols. 39a, b, c. Vols. 69a, b. Moscow and Mainz. Muzyka – Schott. 1993–2008 (in Russian).

¹¹ P. I. Tchaikovsky.. Complete Works. Vol. XVI-A. P. 135.

¹² P. I. Tchaikovsky.Complete Works. Vol. XVI-A. P. 145.

¹³ ČSMR, a¹, Nos. 164, 165.

¹⁴ The premiere of the opera The Enchantress took place on October 20, 1887 at the Mariinskij Theatre.

¹⁵ ČSMR, a¹, No. 173.