Fauré's two piano quartets rank among the most beloved works of the genre, along with the two by Mozart, the one by Schumann, and the three by Brahms. Fauré's first quartet, in particular, in spite of being the product of an early phase in his long compositional career, has enjoyed an unmatched popularity almost since its first performance in 1880. The composer himself took part in at least 31 performances, from the 1880 premiere to a performance in 1916 at the Odéon attended by Marcel Proust, who was so taken by the work that he invited the musicians to repeat the performance at his home. The second quartet was first heard in 1887, and while not as immediately engaging as the first, it is, if anything, an even more original work, and has held its own in chamber music circles.

Until recently, all available editions of both quartets were essentially reprints of the first editions, which were published for Fauré by J. Hamelle in 1884 and 1887 respectively. Both were reissued numerous times and are still in print, now distributed by Alphonse Leduc. Although their title pages were modified repeatedly, their musical texts were never altered. They are now in public domain, and can be downloaded from the Petrucci website (http://imslp.org/wiki/Category:Fauré,_Gabriel). In 1956, the American publisher International Music Company issued a doctored reprint of the Hamelle edition, which is widely used, at least in the US. It was prepared by Isidore Phillipe, and incorporated a number of accommodations to the performer, including the occasional redistribution of notes between the two hands and the addition of fingerings in the piano parts.

Now a German publisher brings us the first newly engraved printings of these works. Best known as publisher of the Gesamtausgaben of German masters, such as Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, Bärenreiter has embarked upon a critical edition of the works of Fauré, and among the first fruits of this undertaking are several volumes devoted to his chamber music. The two publications under review are offprints from Vol. 2 of Série V, Musique de chambre, with the addition of instrumental parts, and with the omission of the Critical Reports. The editions were entrusted to the distinguished French scholar, Denis Herlin, editor-in-chief of the new complete Debussy edition published by Durand, and equally renowned for his work on eighteenth-century French masters, in particular on Rameau.

In view of the continuing easy availability of Fauré's original Hamelle and the ICM editions, what do the new Bärenreiter publications have to offer to make them a preferable choice? Quite a lot, it turns out, although perhaps not all one might have wished. I shall argue that they cannot entirely be regarded either as critical editions, as Urtexts (depending on how that slippery term is defined), or as ‘performing editions’.

Although the two editions include generous introductions, setting forth the circumstances of composition and early reception of the two works, one must turn to the Critical Report in the corresponding volume of the Œuvres complètes if one wants information about the primary sources, alternate readings and editorial emendations. For both works, the only primary sources are in fact the scores and parts published by Hamelle and the autograph manuscripts of the finale of the first quartet and for all four movements of the second quartet that Fauré prepared for the printer; the manuscript for the first three movements of the first quartet appears to have been lost. The autographs correspond closely to the printed editions, although the manuscripts show occasional traces of earlier readings that were subsequently revised, and there is in general similar agreement between the string parts and the piano scores.

On the whole, the sources appear to provide a reliable text; pitches and note values rarely require editorial correction. Nevertheless, the Critical Report lists numerous small discrepancies between the autographs and the printed editions, mostly of missing ties and slurs, and occasionally of missing accidentals and interpretive markings. When such markings are present in the autograph but not in the edition, it is presumed that the printer accidentally omitted them, and that Fauré failed to notice their omission when checking the proofs; they have therefore been added in the Bärenreiter edition. Conversely, when markings are present in the print but missing in the autograph, it is presumed that Fauré supplied them when he corrected the proofs, and they have therefore been retained in the new edition. (The composer's corrected proofs are missing, although they have been preserved for some of his other works.) Discrepancies between the original printed parts and the score are less common, but tend to involve similar omitted markings in one or the other, and thus they were inserted into the Bärenreiter edition. For example, a number of down-bow markings that originally appeared only in the individual string parts, now are included the score.

While all the foregoing emendations may seem reasonable and uncontroversial, another category might give pause in certain quarters: the addition of markings on the basis of their presence in the repetition of a passage or similar passage elsewhere in a movement or in another part. This policy, applied with unflagging consistency throughout these editions, accounts for hundreds of the emendations listed in the Critical Report. Are such emendations to be regarded as corrections, or merely as editorial suggestions? The former would imply that Fauré always desired consistency in these matters, but did not think it necessary (or did not take the trouble) to mark his music accordingly. For example: in the piano part of the third movement of the first quartet the identical rhythmic accompaniment figure of alternating duplet and triple semiquavers is repeated in 21 successive bars (bars 27–47). In the first seven bars both the right hand and the left hand are each marked with a slur spanning the entire bar, but after that no further slurs are provided, presumably because Fauré expected that the player by then would know what to do. However, in the new edition they are punctiliously added to each bar, and are inserted again when further on the pattern reappears.

To detect all these editorial markings does not generally require consultation of the Critical Report, since they are identified either by square brackets, smaller font size, or, in the case of slurs, ties, and ‘hairpins’, by vertical slashes placed midway through the signs. (I find this last practice, confusing and annoying, however, since those slashes, which appear with great frequency, are easily mistaken for the digit ‘1’, thus suggesting a fingering.) On the other hand, there are a few cases in which markings found in the source were deliberately omitted in the new edition, and one can only find out about their absence by consultation of the Œuvres complètes. For example, on the third crotchet beat of bar 22 of the first movement of the first quartet, the right hand of the piano plays a four-part chord as a dotted quaver followed by a semiquaver. In all four parts the two notes are tied except for the second part, in which the voice descends by a semitone. In the original edition that descent was marked by a slur, but in the Bärenreiter edition the slur has been suppressed. According to the Critical report, this was done in order to avoid confusion with the ties between the notes of the other voices. The same emendation was made in the analogous passages in bars 24, 179, and 181. Another example is the suppression of what looks like two ties in bar 72 in the piano part of this quartet's third movement, since those apparently signify that the notes from which the marks emanate should be sustained beyond their written values rather than tied to the following notes. In either example one can debate whether the omission of the slurs will have a significant impact on the performance, or for that matter, whether their omission was indeed necessary to avoid confusion. Nevertheless, in view of such editorial suppressions, along with the numerous editorial additions noted earlier, I would not consider this edition an Urtext. In fact, the original Hamelle edition can make the best claim for being the Urtext.

If these editions were intended primarily for performers, which is suggested by the inclusion of the string parts and, I suppose, by the omission of the Critical Report, the editor could have been more forthcoming in several areas. Unlike the IMC edition, no fingering suggestions are provided for coping with the many challenging passages in the piano part. However, that is fairly typical of chamber-music editions (with the exception of those published by Henle Verlag), and, to be sure, not everyone welcomes seeing their scores marked up by someone else's fingerings. But there is another area, perhaps more essential, in which the editor could have applied his expertise: informing the users of appropriate performance practices. Editions of pre-1800 music often provide help on this subject, but those of later music rarely do, as if for that repertory performance issues no longer exist. A range of questions could nevertheless be raised: Did the type of piano Fauré would have used or envisioned differ from the types in common use today, and if so, what difference might that have made to the performance? What do we know regarding Fauré's use of the pedal, particularly with regard to the middle or ‘sostenuto’ pedal? Would he have expected it to be used when a pedal note cannot be sustained without blurring the harmonies, as in bars 26–32 and 83–89 of the first movement of the first quartet, or bars 134–145 of its last movement? Would he have used the una corda pedal (for instance, when all three string players are asked to apply their mutes, as in bar 22 of the second movement of the first quartet)? Do recordings exist of the composer or his pupils playing these works that might shed light on some of these issues? The answer to this last question is: yes, they do. For example, recordings of both quartets with his long-time student and assistant Germaine Thyssen-Valentin are easily available.

With regard to performer-friendliness, one final quibble: The earlier editions do not offer bar numbers but rely on strategically placed rehearsal letters. For rehearsal purposes both systems have their advocates (for scholarly and analytical studies bar numbers are of course mandatory), but it would require little extra expense to provide the best of both worlds and include rehearsal letters along with bar numbers – ideally, those of the widely used IMC editions. The Œuvres complètes editions of the op. 120 Trio and the op. 121 Quatuor in fact include the rehearsal numbers of the Durand editions.

None of the foregoing reservations seriously detracts from the usefulness of these new Bärenreiter volumes, and much can be said in their favour. Compared to the crowded appearance of the original editions, the layout is spacious and easy on the eye. It is facilitated by an oversize page format of approximately 24 × 32 cm (10 × 12.2 in), allowing for plentiful space between the staves and the systems, which in the original edition often come close to colliding, as well as less horizontal crowding of Fauré's often busy textures. Readability of the piano part is further improved by less frequent splitting of figurations between the two staves. The ‘production values’ of paper, covers, and binding of the new edition are unquestionably superior, and indeed promise improved durability under heavy use.

The text itself, based as it is on the intensive critical scrutiny that underlies the preparation of the Œuvres complètes volume, is of course to be preferred by those who care about this aspect of their editions. As noted earlier, the many textual inconsistencies of the original editions have been removed, which ought to lead to more cohesive performances. In sum, both the package and the content of these volumes offer enough to make me recommend them without hesitation as the editions of choice.