{"id":1058,"date":"2013-07-22T07:00:16","date_gmt":"2013-07-22T05:00:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.henle.de\/blog\/en\/?p=1058"},"modified":"2015-06-15T09:27:36","modified_gmt":"2015-06-15T07:27:36","slug":"schubert-deletes-brahms-restores-on-the-first-of-the-three-posthumous-piano-pieces-impromptus-d-946-by-franz-schubert","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/2013\/07\/22\/schubert-deletes-brahms-restores-on-the-first-of-the-three-posthumous-piano-pieces-impromptus-d-946-by-franz-schubert\/","title":{"rendered":"Schubert deletes, Brahms restores. On the first of the three posthumous piano pieces (Impromptus) D 946 by Franz Schubert"},"content":{"rendered":"

Schubert did not live to see the publication of his three impromptus composed in May 1828. They were not printed until 40 years later (!), and it was no less a person than Johannes Brahms who edited these piano pieces beloved by pianists and audiences down to the present day.
\nThere is a problem in the first piece in e-flat minor. And, to my mind, anyone who practices and performs the piece should here come to a personal decision based on the facts. This concerns the \u2018C part\u2019 of the rondo-like piece, A \u2013 B \u2013 A \u2013 C \u2013 A. Only a few are aware of the fact or take it seriously that in his autograph Schubert unmistakeably crossed out this \u2018C part\u2019, thus cancelling it:<\/p>\n

\"D<\/a>
\nFig. 1: D 946, autograph, p. 4. Vienna, Wienbibliothek im Rathaus, shelfmark MH 143 (visit library website<\/a>)<\/p>\n

We can indeed speculate as to the reasons for this autograph deletion: Was it on formal grounds? Hardly likely, because just such a rondo form is known through many other Schubert pieces. Did Schubert perhaps feel the piece was too long, which is why he crossed out around at least 165 measures (not counting the repeats)? That could have been a reason since both of the other piano pieces of D 946 are only about half as long. Or, did he possibly consider that on musical grounds it was compositionally too slight? Here I personally would quietly nod in the affirmative: The C part in A-flat major seems too innocuous to me, and it does not in any way counterbalance the stirring e-flat minor (which the B part did indeed do lyrically).<\/p>\n

But the problem is that Johannes Brahms, editor of the first edition, reversed Schubert\u2019s cancellation and had all the notes reprinted. He, who of all people was so scrupulous, who knew the struggle of a composer for the optimal solution, he ignored Schubert\u2019s express wishes! Why oh why? Again, we can only speculate concerning this\u2026 at any rate, Brahms identified the original deletion by adding a footnote:<\/p>\n

\"D<\/a>
\nFig. 2: D 946, posthumous first edition, J. Rieter-Biedermann, Leipzig\/Winterthur 1868<\/p>\n

This, to date, has not kept all subsequent printed editions from repeatedly reprinting Schubert\u2019s e-flat-minor Impromptu in the wrong, long version. \u2018Wrong\u2019? But, of course, \u2018wrong\u2019!, because Schubert so demonstrably did not want it. And yet we have to offset this \u2018wrong\u2019 with another phenomenon, that is, with an absolutely serious tradition: For nearly 150 years the piece has been played in the long Brahms version. Many would miss something they\u2019ve grown fond of, yes, they would even consider performances to be \u2018wrong\u2019 if performers were to leave out the \u2018C part\u2019. We can compare this phenomenon perhaps with a chapter in a book or a scene in a theatre piece: a chapter well known to its readers, a scene to theatre goers \u2013 now what if this part should suddenly be left out, \u2018merely\u2019 because the author purportedly wanted it so?<\/p>\n

Selected (very different) recordings with the \u2018C part\u2019:<\/h2>\n

Sviatoslav Richter<\/h3>\n