Restored
I recreated this article. Liszt's transcriptions are oevres on their own and they should have a page. --Funper 02:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Doubt that it's a first edition
I doubt the scores being the first edition, since the first edition was published by 1865 and since I remember reading a article from jstor where it was said that the dover-reprints were made from a 1871 edition. Maybe the 1871 edition is a reprint of the first edition from 1865? :/ --Funper 18:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Vol.2 not first edition, not a Dover reprint
It appears that these scores might not be Dover reprints at all. The edition of the scores in the alleged volume 2 doesn't even correspond to the one in the actual Dover volume. I had doubts about it long ago, but thanks to the recently submitted scores, my doubts don't seem to have been out of place. The edition of the alleged volume 2 does actually correspond to the Breitkopf "complete" edition of Liszt's works - It's not the first edition. --Funper 04:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Did Dover actually reprint the Breitkopf "complete" edition for volume 2? It's sort of rare for them to make that level of a mistake, but since Breitkopf was the publisher for both the original scores issued in the 1860s and for the volumes edited by Motta, et al, it would be an easy thing to get confused. I can see the difference in the engraving between the two volumes posted here. Obviously, these were taken from the CDSM collection, who naturally makes no mention whatsoever about what they have scanned. The 1860s engraving has a heavier look about it. Carolus 05:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Google books shows that the scores of the Dover volume 2 are first editions, thus the choice of using two different editions was not made by Dover, but by CDSM. It's appears that they used the first edition for scanning nos. 1-5, while they used the Breitkopf "complete" edition for scanning nos. 6-9. --Funper 07:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
