{"id":4747,"date":"2018-01-15T08:00:09","date_gmt":"2018-01-15T07:00:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.henle.de\/blog\/en\/?p=4747"},"modified":"2018-01-12T09:17:26","modified_gmt":"2018-01-12T08:17:26","slug":"confusion-surrounding-chopin%e2%80%99s-scherzi-%e2%80%93-episodes-2-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/2018\/01\/15\/confusion-surrounding-chopin%e2%80%99s-scherzi-%e2%80%93-episodes-2-3\/","title":{"rendered":"Confusion surrounding Chopin\u2019s Scherzi \u2013 episodes 2 & 3"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Chopin (1810\u20131849)<\/p><\/div>\n

In my blog post of 21 March 2016<\/a>, I lamented the existing \u201cconfusion\u201d concerning the tied notes in Chopin\u2019s 1st<\/sup> Scherzo. In the meantime, casually expressed, another 2 Scherzi later, 2 Scherzi more mature \u2013 and clearly even more confused, alas. The 2nd<\/sup> Scherzo, op. 31, and the 3rd<\/sup> Scherzo, op. 39, are just now appearing in my new edition. So, it makes sense to update my report from the Chopin workshop and to highlight a few problems in these editions. Therefore: \u201cConfusion \u2013 episodes 2 & 3\u201d!<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The source material, or so at least it is my impression, gets a bit more complicated with every scherzo. No autograph is extant for the b-minor Scherzo, whereas for the 2nd<\/sup> Scherzo we have both an autograph (A) as well as also a copy (C), checked through by Chopin. The autograph was used as engraver\u2019s model for the French first edition (FF<\/sub>), the copy, for the German first edition (FG<\/sub>). Before the French edition appeared, however, Chopin read two sets of galley proofs; the state of the text after the 1st<\/sup> proofreading became the model for the English first edition (FE<\/sub>). Chopin did not proofread FE<\/sub> and FG<\/sub>. This interrelationship amongst sources can best be captured in a stemma:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Stemma for op. 31<\/p><\/div>\n

What can\u2019t be seen from this schematic presentation are the following observations: Autograph A exhibits many signs that Chopin was still not entirely \u201cfinished\u201d with the notation. Much is incompletely notated (dynamics are often lacking), and everything suggests that Chopin wanted to add these things then in the galley proofs for FF<\/sub> (which was done only to a very limited extent). Chopin did very carefully correct the copy C, on the other hand. I must therefore draw the following conclusions: FF<\/sub> is in fact the final definitive edition, thus the source corrected last by Chopin. It nevertheless shows an earlier and \u201cworse\u201d text state than C. So, although C does not represent the final version, it is the \u201cbest\u201d source and was consequently the main source for my edition. This source evaluation has, of course, problems, for also \u201cfinal\u201d changes made by Chopin in FF<\/sub> have to be documented somehow.<\/p>\n

The only way out is to have a detailed footnoting apparatus that indicates differing readings and explains them to the player. I would like to single out here only one example, since it best illustrates the \u201cconfusion\u201d and is also quite prominent:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Snippet from op. 31<\/p><\/div>\n

There are two aspects of this passage in the trio section that repeatedly make Chopin players frown: the question of ties (boxed in red) and the question of dotted rhythms (circled in red). The parallel passages differ from each other, leading to the question of whether that was Chopin\u2019s intention or a mishap in transmission. The footnotes in my edition inform the player that here there is some room for interpretation, and the remarks in the Critical Report<\/a> for mm. 265\/266 and 268, etc., explain this in detail.<\/p>\n

The confusion of source readings is to some extent increased by the fact that later editions introduce additional variants and alternatives still haunting the Chopin world to this day (for instance, editions identified in the critical reports as by Mikuli, Scholtz, Paderewski).<\/p>\n

In the 3rd<\/sup> Scherzo, the point of departure is even more confusing. Here is the stemma for this work:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Stemma for op. 39<\/p><\/div>\n

There are again three first editions (FF<\/sub>, FG<\/sub> FE<\/sub>), though now existing in various issues. There is a copy checked by Chopin, C, and finally three autograph sources, enclosed in square brackets here. As these sources are missing, whether they are really given in the places exactly as shown in the stemma \u2013 is speculation. It is, however, necessary to assume such intermediate sources, since otherwise the variants in the first editions can hardly be explained. A truly \u201chard nut to crack\u201d. The main source in my edition is the French first edition, since in the case of the 3rd<\/sup> Scherzo, the copy C was unfortunately checked only selectively by Chopin \u2013 FF<\/sub> proved to be not only the latest, but also the most reliable source despite all engraving errors. The extant and presumably authorised variants from the rest of the sources are, though, numerous, likewise the footnotes in my edition. Two examples:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Snippet from op. 39<\/p><\/div>\n

Many pianists will perhaps be disappointed, because I picked the dotted version in m. 31 and parallel places. But there are good reasons for editing mm. 31 and 47 differently:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Critical report op. 39; Sources Je and St are pupil\u2019s copies<\/p><\/div>\n

A passage existing in three variants is m. 460. All three chord variants are probably authorised by Chopin \u2013 which fits with contemporaries\u2019 reports that he never played his own works the same way twice.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Snippet from op. 39<\/p><\/div>\n

Chopin might well have smiled at the needs of today\u2019s editor. Nevertheless, it is our task to document the tradition, to separate authorised variants from later \u201cinventions\u201d, to edit a music text based on a main text and to resist the temptation to mix sources and select the \u201cmost beautiful\u201d readings. A difficult, but exciting endeavour! And at the end, to \u201cclarify\u201d the \u201cconfusion\u201d, to inform the interpreter and then let him have the freedom to reach his own decisions.<\/p>\n

You\u2019ve certainly guessed it by now \u2013 the \u201cconfusion surrounding Chopin\u2019s Scherzi, episode 4\u201d, will not be long in coming\u2026.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In my blog post of 21 March 2016, I lamented … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[278,3,322,625,626,272],"tags":[4,627,624],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4747"}],"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\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4747"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4747\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4747"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4747"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4747"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}