Yes, Steven - what a perfect answer! Everything you say between 13'18" and 14'45" completely hits the nail on the head. Thank you!
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
These comments are under the name of my son Sasha because he is the one with the e-mail - but this is Jonathan writing! Yes, Steven, you are absolutely right. Sonata op.5 no.1, bar 1: in the first edition the slur goes *almost* to the third note (whereas in bar 4 it goes well past the third note), so indeed we might (better, perhaps) have decided to print it not to that third note, but n.1-2. I agree, n.1-2 is superior.
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
Yes... at 39'. My defence for printing editorial markings in the cello part without brackets is that if I did so, many cellists would "virtuously" leave them out! Many Urtext editions add markings in brackets that are frankly arbitrary, added merely because the editor thought they might be a good idea; but I only ever add a marking in brackets where I can rigorously justify it. That justification and explanation is always given in the critical commentary, supplied with the edition. Here you will read that the sforzandos in bars 81 and 82 are added on the (surely compelling) basis of the parallel bars 262 and 263. (No, I do not always add a marking on the basis of the parallel passage; were it the case that the first edition had sforzandos in both instruments in bars 81-82, but in neither instrument in 262-263, I would not add them in 262-263. But:) In bars 262-263, the first edition has sforzandos *only* in the cello part. So we have (if you want to be absolutely pure) sforzandos in 81-82 only in the piano, but 262-263 only in the cello. But both passages are identical, and both instruments are playing the same music in thirds! It must be obvious that this makes no conceivable sense; to sort out obvious errors and omissions of this kind is what an Urtext performing edition is for. Original sources are not Bibles that should be followed literally. They must be treated with great respect, but when any sensible musician has to judge that there is an omission in the source, it does the composer no favours to perpetuate - or even, to encourage the perpetuation of - that omission. So I would rather give the cellist the sensible text, with sforzandos, and hope that rather than get hung up over whether those sforzandos are in the first edition or not, the cellist will leave that to the editor to sort out, and concentrate on a beautiful interpretation of this wonderful music!
@stevenisserlis77423 жыл бұрын
I think you over-estimate cellists' absolute fidelity to the written instruction - and also the likelihood of their reading the critical notes... But that's your principle and I still use your editions with great pleasure! (I once chided Yo-Yo Ma for not using your Barenreiter Beethoven, and he replied that Barenreiter Schubert editions had put him off. I couldn't argue with that!)
@pierrefontenelle92713 жыл бұрын
I was planning on watching and then realised the US Inauguration was at the same time... Well, there's time for Beethoven now!
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
At 47' : for what it's worth, I would advise that a Nachschlag should always be slurred in with the trill. But dear Steven, of course you can do whatever you like in the interests of flamboyance and an exciting performance!
@stevenisserlis77423 жыл бұрын
For me, this is an exception; but I agree with the general rule.
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
Yes: this remains a big question, what did he mean by "arpeggio". To those who are convinced that Beethoven speaks and writes the same language as that of CPE Bach, I ask: in that case, why is it that in the op.8 string trio - where he writes an exactly similar chord marked "arpeggio" (this is 2nd movement, bar 34) - precisely the execution you are advocating, with arpeggiated sextuplets, is found, with every note written out, in bars 62-65? Does that not tell you that, clearly, by "arpeggio" he meant something different from that?
@stevenisserlis77423 жыл бұрын
Agh! I just can't let this pass. To anyone who bothers to read this reply, I should explain that Jonathan and I are great friends who love to argue! (And one of us rarely convinces the other.) We don't usually do it in public, however.. But this example - which I had to look up, op 8 being the only string trio of Beethoven's that I haven't played - is completely wrong, methinks. The second instance you quote - 62 et seq - is a pattern that changes over four bars, completely different from the simple 'arpeggio' passage at 34. In fact, if you look at 66, there is the usual sign for a mere arpeggiated chord - the wiggly line; which to me proves that the marking 'arpeggio' at 34 means something else - ie a repeated pattern of shorter notes to accompany the violin line.
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
@@stevenisserlis7742 Yes I know there is the usual arpeggiando sign in 66 - but that's only a crotchet, so you can spread it in the normal way (quickly) and it's finished. This one is different.
@stevenisserlis77423 жыл бұрын
@@sashadelmar7531 Yes, which is why you need the pattern at bar 34 to continue through the bar... as CPE Bach so clearly states, in a book which we know Beethoven used as a teaching tool...
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
1 hour 20: op.69 1st movt bar 23. The problem of the Nachschlag - as Bob Levin pointed out to me - is the problem of what notes that Nachschlag would be. There are no hard and fast rules about Nachschlage (sorry I can't do umlauts on this computer) in Beethoven, but one roughly 80% rule is this: that if a Nachschlag demands an accidental, Beethoven then notates the Nachschlag (i.e. if it doesn't, he won't notate the Nachschlag, but usually assumes it). So we can say here that you can't add a Nachschlag with A sharp, because had he wanted that, he would have written it. But then you have to play the Nachschlag with A natural - and don't you agree that sounds awful? So it's probably best to play this bar without Nachschlag.
@stevenisserlis77423 жыл бұрын
No, I don't think it sounds awful, by any means. But there's not much time and the danger is that it might sound garbled. It's up the performers, however...
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
1 hour 03, diminuendo versus decrescendo: yes that's right, in Schubert it seems that dimin. = decrescendo + a little slowing down. But in Beethoven, it's absolutely clear: up to op.56 he writes only decrescendo, from op.57 on he writes only dimin. So there is no problem. (The only exception to that is the op.31 sonatas which have some dimin.'s - but we have no manuscript, so that must remain doubtful.)
@stevenisserlis77423 жыл бұрын
Interesting - thanks.
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
@@minkyukim0204 Yes that is an extraordinary, and extremely rare (maybe unique?) exception. What was he thinking when he wrote that, when he hadn't written decresc. for more than ten years? I wonder whether it's something to do with the fact that it's over such a tiny stretch of music, only one beat - we'd have rather expected him to write a hairpin. But he didn't. Yes there are always puzzles and we will never know everything! (Compare 12 bars later, where a similarly brief dimin. goes to p - so, challenge: can you find an example of dimin. over a tiny stretch, that doesn't go to p or pp, but reverses direction like that bar 52 does? Try that, maybe?)
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
2 hours 04: I think it's a mistake to think of fp and sf as one stronger than the other. The difference between the two is simply: sf is an accent within the prevailing dynamic (which does not change); whereas fp returns to p after it. So if you're in forte, then there's an fp, everything that follows is p. But if you're in p, and there's an sf, you stay in p. (But you're right: especially in early Beethoven, a succession of sf sf sf sf does seem to indicate a crescendo.)
@stevenisserlis77423 жыл бұрын
Hmmm...Fp does NOT always imply forte then piano. There are so many instances of a forte passage with an fp, and then a couple of bard (or even notes) later, a piano - showing that the forte has remained (though I agree that a fp implies at least something of a release, and CAN imply piano). I do think there's a difference of nature between the two, but that it is different for different composers, and even, in Beethoven's case, in different periods of the same composer.
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
@@stevenisserlis7742 Well. I didn't quite say "forte then piano", but let that pass. No, in Beethoven, after fp the forte cannot possibly have remained - find me one and I'll explain it!
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
1 hour 22: yes I argue with Bob Levin about this (whether it's permissible to alter the cadenza in bar 12 ad lib.) and neither of us will ever convince the other. But I say my proof - if proof you want - is that same letter to Czerny, in which Beethoven says very firmly that you should play what exactly he wrote. Nothing else can ever be better!
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
Pity, you didn't mention that extraordinary game between A flat and A natural in bars 450-454 (G minor sonata, 1st movement).
@stevenisserlis77423 жыл бұрын
Yes, sorry - that is a wonderful musical altercation!
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
1 hour 44: this thing about Inter Lacrimas et Luctum: yes Steven, you're right, this is a myth, founded on an error. I ran this to ground with the help of my good friend at the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Clemens Brenneis. It's all a misunderstanding, the substitution of the word "auf" (as in "he wrote it *on* the sonata, i.e. on the manuscript) for the word originally written, which was "auch" (as in, he *also* wrote the sonata in this sad frame of mind). The original quote was written by Munch (+ umlaut, sorry) in 1834, and were probably a comment on Beethoven's state of mind when writing op.69, as reported by his erstwhle friend Julius Schneller. There is no question of Beethoven's ever having written these words.
@stevenisserlis77423 жыл бұрын
Interesting, thanks. Yes, I must have read your wise words on the subject, which made me wary of the legend.
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
57' : tenuto. We have enough manuscripts of Beethoven in which he does write tenuto over all the notes of a phrase, that I'm confident that's the case here. What does it mean? Often, when asking this question, it's worth turning it round. Had he not written "tenuto", how would you naturally play those notes? Answer: a bit more than half their length, with clear separation between them. And so there's your answer, because it's obvious that that's exactly what he did not want here. He wants those notes held longer than you would have held them, had he not written that word.
@stevenisserlis77423 жыл бұрын
Excellently put! (I'd say that a similar principle applies when B puts the word 'arpeggio'...)
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
Very interesting - thank you for much wisdom and much entertainment. By the way, please read these comments in reverse order (bottom to top)!
@stevenisserlis77423 жыл бұрын
Many thanks, Jonathan!
@fernandogentile233 жыл бұрын
01:30:00 Op. 69 Scherzo. Something that I would like to ask or at least clarify: Is there an example of this type of fingering in any other work by Beethoven, be it a work for piano or chamber music with piano? Because I haven't seen any. If it is an isolated case and there is no any other reference from the composer, some questions should be asked: Czerny's indication, to slightly repeat the note on the piano, is it to justify a whim of his or did he really hear it from his teacher? Czerny's metronome indications often differ from Beethoven's, so how much of Czerny's taste is there and how much historical data? This subject comes up every time I play this Sonata with my wife (pianist), the last time she had a very important point: Establishing priorities, since when (in any composer) a fingering is above an articulation mark? Another question, if the cello should react to this type of articulation, how should the "Große Fuge" Op.133 be played? As Steven said, there is a letter from Beethoven to his editor, clarifying that "Keile" and dots are not the same type of articulation. This might suggests that Beethoven was quite meticulous in his indications, having wanted a slight articulation in these two tied quarter notes, wouldn't the evidence suggests that he had written them?
@stevenisserlis77423 жыл бұрын
Yes! In the 3rd movement of op 110, for instance (shown clearly in the manuscript). And Czerny is merely explaining the execution, presumably as explained to him by his teacher, Beethoven. As I said, though, I myself am on shaky ground when doing the same thing on the cello; there's no evidence that he intended this (though there's no manuscript, either). Just that I find myself unable NOT to respond to the piano's execution of the figure, before the cello enters. I could easily be wrong, though - I have to admit it...
@stevenisserlis77423 жыл бұрын
PS: Leopold Mozart, writing about syncopated notes, advises that the second phalf of the note - ie the note on the main beat 'should be distinguished...by an after-pressure of the bow'. So there is SOME evidence...
@fernandogentile233 жыл бұрын
@@stevenisserlis7742 Well, there you have SOME evidence... In any case, I would try to avoid going to a concert where is an orchestra playing the syncopation in that way. If it happens that we are both in that concert, you stay and I go. 😏 P. S. : I wonder how the Große Fuge would sound played in that way. 🤔
@fernandogentile233 жыл бұрын
@@stevenisserlis7742 Yes, you're right. In the Adagio ma non troppo (Recitative - Adagio) of Op. 110 there is the same type of fingering. The next time I have to play Op. 69, I'll give it a try... If my wife lets me... 🙄 😏
@stevenisserlis77423 жыл бұрын
@@fernandogentile23 It ENTIRELY depends how it's done. Nothing to do with the ungainly swells that were an unfortunate feature of bad baroque performances some years ago - gone now, thankfully. And there are such markings (ie resounded notes, not swells) for strings in Beethoven...
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
Surely the reason why this is a 'soft' sforzando is not so much that this is early Beethoven, as that this is an Adagio.
@stevenisserlis77423 жыл бұрын
Well, it's a lyrical passage anyway; but later composers would never w=have written sf here, I'm sure.
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
Supplementary thought No.2 on 24.1.21: about the scherzo of op.69. I'm quite certain it's wrong to give an extra 'push' with the bow on the barline. It's unnatural (and you who are - rightly - so passionate about everything in the interpretation of music being natural!). No: the reason why Beethoven does his 3-4 trick in the piano is because, without that, on his fortepiano of the time, the sound would die. (So you could even argue, on the modern piano you can ignore 3-4 entirely. But let's not go there.) But you see the cello does not have that problem! The bow ensures that the sound sustains. So the cello plays exactly as written, and it is exactly what Beethoven wants. Only the piano needs this device in order to keep that note alive a bit longer.
@stevenisserlis77423 жыл бұрын
Well, as I said, it's unnatural for me not to respond to the piano; but I can certainly never prove that I'm right - the evidence is against me. But pianos can never hold long notes - why doesn't he write that fingering far more often? And Czerny does very definitely state that the note should be resounded - he was Beethoven's student, after all...
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
@@stevenisserlis7742 Czerny was not always to be trusted (there is a long list of his assertions that are manifestly wrong) but here he is basically sound. Only the word "resounded" is perhaps capable of much latitude in interpretation. But that's the piano - there we all broadly agree! It's the cello we're discussing, and Czerny doesn't say anything about the cello following suit.
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
In case the order of these comments again becomes garbled: all undated comments are from 23.1.21. Two further issues consumed my thoughts in the small hours, so here they are, the next day 24.1.21. No.1, the "arpeggio" in op.5 no.1. You asked me, Steven, on the telephone, "How would you do it, then?" - and I dodged the answer, because the fact is that I'm not certain of the solution. But my suggestion would be this: play exactly what he asks, one sonorous arpeggio (not half a dozen of them). So: at roughly semiquaver intervals (or a wee bit quicker than that), bottom C, C + G, G + E, and hold that for the rest of the bar. It's just a suggestion. The idea would be, that perhaps Beethoven does not write a long, held 3-note chord for a string instrument without such a "disclaimer" as this "arpeggio". Try that!
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
Sorry I still (to go back) have a conscience about that attack, regarding the "wrongly-placed" (is it?) mf in the G minor sonata, bar 18. Since there's no dynamic in the source, I had to add it, and the only question is where? I'm convinced the phrase starts at the first note (otherwise, there would be a quaver rest before the G, as there is in bar 19) - I'm sorry Steven doesn't agree, but of course he's welcome to think differently. The only thing I cannot allow, is that it's "absurd" to have the first note mf on the grounds that "you would never suddenly hit that note louder". Of course you wouldn't. Music is full of places where there is a sudden new louder dynamic, and you would naturally make a little crescendo into it. That's what I would recommend.
@stevenisserlis77423 жыл бұрын
That I cannot feel musically at all; the mf for me must start with the new phrase. But that's just instinct, not fact.
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
@@stevenisserlis7742Entirely agree: mf must start with the new phrase! And for me, the new phrase starts at the beginning of that bar - had it not been so (as I said), there would be a quaver rest before the G.
@stevenisserlis77423 жыл бұрын
@@sashadelmar7531 We must agree to differ there...
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
I'm not sure why the order of the comments below has somehow become garbled.
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
Please don't talk about Keile (or 'wedges') in Beethoven. The Strich was Beethoven's absolutely standard and ubiquitous sign for staccato, and in 99% of cases means nothing more or less than "staccato". Beethoven used no other sign for staccato than the Strich. There is no more meaningful or productive agonising or philosophising to be had here!
@stevenisserlis77423 жыл бұрын
(As I hope I explained, quoting you?)
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
@@stevenisserlis7742 Yes, as I replied before (but someone deleted my reply?): yes, quite perfect, thank you!
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
@@minkyukim0204 Yes but I'm sorry, Barry is wrong. I battled this out with him back in 2005. The only evidence he has to base his standpoint on is (are) the very early WoO 36, and op.31 no.1. WoO 36: Beethoven had not yet settled on his language of notation. Yes these very early works are different in many ways. Please see my new edition of the early WoO 47 sonatas - there, too, he uses Punkte as well as Striche. But in anything from op.1 on: No. Op.31 no.1: we have no autograph, so it's not evidence. Printed editions were totally arbitrary in their use of Punkte and Striche. As I said to Barry in my letter of 23 November 2005: "You say op.31 no.1 is a good example of consistency between Punkte and Striche, yet you and I both possess the facsimile of Beethoven's autograph of op.30 no.3 (because I gave it to you), and that's entirely Striche. I cannot bring myself to believe a printed edition (op.31) in preference to an autograph (op.30) of the same time. In case you think you find Punkte in op.30 no.3: folio 4v bar 1 violin n.4-6: he must mean Striche, cf. n.1-3 same page, bar 3 piano n.1-3 same, cf. n.4-6 folio 15v violin ditto ditto, cf. folio 14v, where the first note, at least, is clearly a Strich, and folio 17v bars 7-8, where the first 3 notes of the theme are clearly Striche. folio 18v bars 8-9, 11 violin, ditto ditto, cf. folio 19r, last 2 bars. These are all patently intended to be the same symbol, even if some are drawn shorter than others." If ever you are looking at staccato in Beethoven's handwriting, and you think you're seeing Punkte, please remember that he was human - he was temperamental and it is unreasonable to expect him to write all his Striche the same length! The most splendid example I know, which demonstrates conclusively that short Striche are not Punkte, but are just careless Striche (but hang on: not careless - why should he take more trouble to notate them more precisely long, when he assumed the copyist would understand, and the copyist *did* understand!), are in the slow movement of the Pastoral Symphony. Look at that autograph (it's page 15 of the slow movement), in bars 45-46. Bassoon and first violins are playing the identical music in octaves. Violins with enormous great long Striche, but in the bassoon they're so short that if you wanted to be really literal you could insist they're Punkte - but you see, they can't possibly be. And look at the variation in the length of the Striche in the violins! This is only reflecting his mood at the time he wrote those marks on the paper - there's nothing subtle to be deduced, concluded or argued here. Enjoy looking at that page - I love it!
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
@@minkyukim0204 Ach ach ach yes of course I have his "refutation", but then I have to give you also my refutation of his refutation, and so it continues. I have to type here all over again, a correspondence which lasted until, well, at least June 2006. OK: here goes: Barry to me, 15 December 2005: "I had a look at op.30 no.3 regarding the staccatos. On f.4v I think they're all dashes, though one or two look a bit like dots. The next batch (ff.15v and 17v) is less clear, however, and some could be interpreted as dots. [Hang on: I might be in trouble here - are his letters not protected by copyright? - am I permitted to publicise his letters here freely? I'm a bit worried about this.] I think I'd better skip his actual words for fear of maybe being sued - except only to say that his last sentence says "once one has found a single unmistakable dot, the whole edifice of the no-dot theory collapses". But you see this is fallacious, on two grounds: 1) any composer, writing quickly, can write a staccato which you can then pounce on, declaring "ah! here is an unmistakable dot!" to which he will reply "for goodness sake give me a break, I was writing quickly" - and 2) Barry says "and there are others in WoO 36..." to which I have already replied (WoO 36 is too early to be cited as the definitive notation of the mature Beethoven). My next reply (16 January 2006) says: "Sorry, I'm not convinced. If bars 180-3 (this is back to f.18v) is Punkte, then presumably you'd say 185 Violin is also Punkte, but it can't be - look at 188 LH, 189-90 violin. I still insist Beethoven meant Striche throughout, but sometimes when he's writing (and therefore thinking) in piano, he writes them small, resembling dots. Barry's reply to that (9 May 2006) says "do have a look at WoO 36 if you can", and repeats the point about "once one has found a single dot..." - and both of those points I have already answered. So (finally!) I replied on 16 June 2006: In Berlin I obviously looked at WoO 36. And yes, I see what you mean. It is almost possible to make an edition in which you make the distinction consistently. This letter goes on for half a page, but the point is (a) it's difficult to make an edition of WoO 36 because there are so many inconsistencies - but not impossible. But the main point is (b) that this piece is too early to base anything lasting on; by 1800 Beethoven has sorted himself out, and got rid of these "rogue" Punkte; already by 1801 he was beginning to insist on this being a Strich and *not* a Punkt (proofs of Symphony No.1). Hope that helps - have you managed to find that page of the Pastoral Symphony? It really is a good example, helping to clear the air of all the guff people talk about this really very minor issue. When is a Punkt not a Punkt? Let's get back to the music! Best wishes
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
55' : aarrggh, this canard of embellishments! Yes you are absolutely right, the music of CPE Bach is eminently embellishable. But the music of Beethoven is not. Please do not add embellishments in Beethoven. I have written this in the Preface of the new edition of the Beethoven piano sonatas: It is well known that spontaneous embellishment of melodic lines was a feature of music-making in the eighteenth century - though it is without doubt more appropriate in the music of workaday composers than of the greatest ones (arguably, the most sublime melodies of Mozart are cheapened by the relatively inane twiddles of almost any modern performer). But the ethic was changing; and it is doubtful how far this tradition can be claimed to apply still to Schubert, still less to Berlioz and Mendelssohn, even to Hummel and Chopin who notated their embellishments so meticulously. Where Beethoven is concerned, the composer has left us specific guidance. Following a performance of the Quintet op.16 for piano and wind in which Czerny had committed the sin of adding embellishments, extra octaves in the left hand, and other fancies designed to enhance his pianistic prowess, Beethoven wrote to him (letter of 12 February 1816) congratulating him on a fine performance, but with the reservation that he would rather have heard the music exactly as he had written it. In Beethoven, adding arbitrary embellishments is to disobey the composer, and do him a severe disservice.
@stevenisserlis77423 жыл бұрын
I'm waiting for Bob Levin to read this... I agree that the late sonatas are so very concentrated that any embellishments are superfluous; but in the early, virtuosic sonatas, to proclaim that Beethoven would never have added ornamentation of any sort is beyond any sort of certainty. I'm pretty sure that he would have - biut again, I wasn't there, so can't prove it. Funny that you should quote that op 16 story; I've often used the same example when pleading with Bob Levin to tone down his flights of fancy a bit - to which he invariably replies with the story of Beethoven embracing Bridgetower after the latter played a highly embellished version of the violin part of the Kreutzer sonata. It HAS to remain an open question - but I cannot believe that embellishments suddenly cease in 1770 or so...
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
@@stevenisserlis7742 No of course they didn't "suddenly cease in 1770 or so". But around that time they're only appropriate in the music of second-rate composers, and I suppose they must have gradually ceased between around 1800 and 1830.
@stevenisserlis77423 жыл бұрын
@@sashadelmar7531 Not sure about that. They feel (to me) thoroughly appropriate in much Haydn and Mozart - and they persist much later, Liszt being famous for his embellishments...
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
@@stevenisserlis7742 I'll obtain an authoritative answer about Liszt in due course. But I'd say that if you're Liszt you can do anything you like - but that doesn't mean composers in 1840/50/60 were in general happy for the notes they wrote to be embellished by random performers. Nor that they would have expected it. Liszt would surely have been very much the exception. Yes if you're very clever (as of course Bob Levin is, perhaps our supreme master in this field) you can get away with adding twiddles in some Haydn and occasionally in Mozart - but not in his most sublime works (such as, notably, the Clarinet Quintet).
@sashadelmar75313 жыл бұрын
Yes I now have the answer to the point about Liszt, from the foremost Liszt expert in the country. The question was this: yes of course Liszt was a virtuoso embellisher; but did he go so far as to embellish the printed music of the great composers? Answer: yes he did a little when he was young and foolish, drawing the ire of Mendelssohn who was present when Liszt added in the recap of a Beethoven (or Weber, perhaps) chamber piece 3rds, 6ths, 8ves, 10ths and so on (see letter from Liszt to the Comtesse d'Agoult). But he later changed his mind, and became an absolute stickler for the printed text, and never allowed his students any leeway. Even in those few places in his own music where in the original version he had allowed for ad lib cadenzas (especially the Hungarian Rhapsody No.2 and Un Sospiro), he instead wrote out specific cadenzas himself, and most editions since his lifetime carry these. The only cadenza by someone else that he ever sanctioned for his own music was d'Albert's for the Hungarian Rhapsody No.2.