{"id":374,"date":"2012-06-11T08:00:01","date_gmt":"2012-06-11T06:00:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.henle.de\/blog\/en\/?p=374"},"modified":"2015-06-18T15:49:56","modified_gmt":"2015-06-18T13:49:56","slug":"going-down-coming-up-or-on-the-up-and-up-%e2%80%93-stumbling-block-in-erik-satie%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%982eme-gymnopedie%e2%80%99","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/2012\/06\/11\/going-down-coming-up-or-on-the-up-and-up-%e2%80%93-stumbling-block-in-erik-satie%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%982eme-gymnopedie%e2%80%99\/","title":{"rendered":"Going down, coming up or on the up and up? \u2013 stumbling block in Erik Satie\u2019s \u20182\u00e8me Gymnop\u00e9die\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

At first sight Urtext editions of Satie\u2019s piano music do not seem to pose any great challenge. The primary sources are, as a rule, the first editions corrected by the composer himself, as we can see from the proofs existing for several works. What is more, since many of the autographs have been preserved, they can be consulted in cases of doubt. At any event, the relatively simple structure and the clear layout, especially in the early works, offer hardly any editing problems.\u00a0 Pianists, just readily as editors, can move along on level, well-constructed paths. But they ought not feel all too secure, for such paths are not always free of stumbling blocks, as we\u2019ll find out in the case of the \u20182\u00e8me<\/sup> Gymnop\u00e9die\u2019.<\/p>\n

Today, the three \u2018Gymnop\u00e9dies\u2019 composed in the spring of 1888 constitute Satie\u2019s best-known works. From their melodic resemblance \u2013 rising and falling scale motives on a foundation of static accompanying chords \u2013 they can be described as variants of the same basic idea, as if Satie were depicting an imaginary ancient dance from three different perspectives. The consistent course of the three pieces becomes apparent melodically as well as also formally: All three numbers are constructed in two parts, and indeed as A\u2013A’, where the second part is a reprise of the first part with minor variants (through shortening and lengthening sections and re-arranging and altering them harmonically).<\/p>\n

When we look at the \u20182\u00e8me<\/sup> Gymnop\u00e9die\u2019 more closely from this perspective, we notice that the melody\u2019s rise and fall (measures 6\/7 as well as 10\/11) is replaced in the repeat by two rising motives (measures 41\/42 as well as 45\/46) \u2013 and indeed not only in the first edition<\/a>, but also in all reprints and new publications right up to most recent times.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

This non-equivalence is all the more noticeable as the falling\/rising motion is an essential part of the melody and is not varied at the repeat in either the first or the third of the \u2018Gymnop\u00e9dies\u2019 \u2013 why then is it so just in the second? Glancing at the autograph<\/a> we see that actually Satie originally planned a variant of the basic idea, and in fact in both parts of the piece, so that at the beginning it was to sound exactly the same as in the repeat. He very clearly notated the rising sequence f\u2013g\u2013a<\/em> in measures 6 and 10 as well as 41 and 45. But then he decided on the change, presumably in order to re-enforce the similarity with the melodies of the other \u2018Gymnop\u00e9dies\u2019, and by doing so, to integrate the piece more closely within the cycle. He alters, though, only measures 6 and 10 to the falling sequence a\u2013g\u2013f<\/em> (the introductory measures 1\u20134 are still missing in the autograph):<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

A corresponding alteration in measures 41 and 45 has been left out \u2013 undoubtedly by accident, because the sections of mm. 5\u201319 and 40\u201354 are, aside from minor variants of dynamic marking, absolutely identical. Satie apparently avoided correcting the inconsistency even in the engraver\u2019s model and the galley proofs, neither of them still existing. Well, here we are in the first edition at the double rising motive in the reprise f\u2013g\u2013a | e\u2013f\u2013g<\/em> (instead of a\u2013g\u2013f | e\u2013f\u2013g<\/em>, as intended according to the correction).<\/p>\n

But yet, could it not also be that in this \u20182\u00e8me<\/sup> Gymnop\u00e9die\u2019, Satie deliberately gave up perfect equivalence entirely? Yes, wouldn\u2019t he have wanted to evade, tongue-in-cheek so to speak, conventional expectations? This cannot be ruled out, but yes, it contradicts the stasis that he has just arrived at in his newly created pseudo-antique style of the \u2018Gymnop\u00e9dies\u2019. Because the change of motive direction in the reprise would indicate a development that, yes, Satie wants to avoid at all costs.<\/p>\n

Why then he did not have the passage corrected in later editions? Satie shows an indifference that is also frequently found in other composers.\u00a0 If indeed they mention errors in letters or correct them in their specimen copies \u2013 as for example Satie did for Ogives<\/em>\u2013, then they do not insist, or at least not single-mindedly, that their publishers remove them.<\/p>\n

In any event, players who take up the \u20182\u00e8me<\/sup> Gymnop\u00e9die\u2019 for the first time will hesitate in measure 41 and ask themselves whether the reversed motive is a mistake or if it is meant to be. Many editions leave it up to them to decide. In the new Henle edition<\/a>, the editor Ulrich Kr\u00e4mer decided for reasons mentioned to align measures 41\/46 with measures 6\/10 and in a footnote drew attention to the difference in the sources.<\/p>\n

The case shows that \u2018Urtext\u2019 implies, on the one hand, knowledge of the sources \u2013 without the correction in the autograph we would not have any point of reference for getting rid of the stumbling block. \u00a0But on the other hand, \u2018Urtext\u2019 must also be open to intentions that go beyond the text handed down in the sources.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

At first sight Urtext editions of Satie\u2019s piano music do … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[86,312,335,3,322,286,349],"tags":[58,57,56],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/374"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=374"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/374\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=374"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=374"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=374"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}