{"id":6234,"date":"2021-03-15T07:00:02","date_gmt":"2021-03-15T06:00:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.henle.de\/blog\/en\/?p=6234"},"modified":"2021-06-10T09:14:57","modified_gmt":"2021-06-10T07:14:57","slug":"new-finds-in-dvoraks-piano-quintet-op-81","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/2021\/03\/15\/new-finds-in-dvoraks-piano-quintet-op-81\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Finished in Vysok\u00e1 at a nice little hour\u2019\u2013 new finds in Dvo\u0159\u00e1k\u2019s A-major piano quintet op. 81"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"The piano quintet is, so to speak, in the \u201csuper heavyweight class\u201d amongst chamber-music ensembles: the piano\u2019s powerful sonority encounters an equal partner in the string quartet itself, already constituting an independent ensemble in its own right. This combination offers a wide palette of timbres that allows an enormous dynamic range, progressing from intimate duets to nearly symphonic scope.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s no wonder that Romantic composers, in particular, felt attracted by this expressive scoring and composed between 1842 and 1887 four of the most important works for piano quintet: Robert Schumann\u2019s op. 44 in E-flat major<\/a>, Johannes Brahms\u2019s op. 34 in f minor<\/a>, C\u00e9sar Franck\u2019s in f minor<\/a>, and, finally, Anton\u00edn Dvo\u0159\u00e1k\u2019s op. 81 in A major<\/a>. Schubert\u2019s \u201cTrout Quintet\u201d<\/a> should also be mentioned as a distant relative, though with its lighter tone, five movements and divergent scoring with double bass instead of second violin, it is to be seen as falling rather more within the tradition of Viennese serenade music.<\/p>\n

Dvo\u0159\u00e1k\u2019s contribution to the genre is especially loved by listeners and musicians alike, combining, as it does, melodic riches and immediately appealing ideas with musical depth and masterly formal design. Since Anton\u00edn \u010cubr\u2019s commendable contribution to the Dvo\u0159\u00e1k Complete Edition<\/em> in 1955, no critical edition of the op. 81 quintet had nevertheless appeared to this day. So, after 66 years it was high time for us to take a fresh look at the sources, the more so as sensationally showing up in Italy just a few years ago was an unknown source:\u00a0 a complete autograph continuity sketch in short-score form, \"\"<\/a>begun, according to the manuscript dates, on 16 August and finished on 3 October 1887, \u201cat a nice little hour\u201d in Dvo\u0159\u00e1k\u2019s rural summer residence Vysok\u00e1.<\/p>\n

This manuscript is owned today by Matthew Malerich, Bakersfield, California, who kindly allowed us to examine the source. We are very grateful to him for also permitting us to display two pages of this source here in this blog post:
\n\"\"<\/a> \"\"<\/a>
\nAutograph short score, first and last pages. Private collection of Matthew Malerich. Reproduced with kind permission.
\n(Click to enlarge images)<\/p>\n

So what\u2019s new now in our edition (HN 1233<\/a>)? I\u2019d like to introduce the following selected finds.<\/p>\n

In the first movement, m. 25 of the 2nd<\/sup> violin, there is a noteworthy pitch difference between the first edition authorised by Dvo\u0159\u00e1k (published in 1888 by Simrock in Berlin) and the autograph (which, however, did not directly serve as engraver\u2019s model for the first edition). Whereas the last note in the autograph is a<\/em>2<\/sup>, it is changed to g<\/em>2<\/sup> in the printed edition, though interestingly enough, not <\/em>in the identical, repeated phrase in m.\u00a027:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
\nAutograph score, 1st<\/sup> movement, mm. 25\u201327, violin 2
\nWith kind permission of the National Museum \u2013 Anton\u00edn Dvo\u0159\u00e1k Museum, Prague<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"
\nFirst edition, Simrock, 1888, piano score, 1st<\/sup> movement, mm. 25\u201327
\n(Copy consulted: Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, shelf mark Mus. 1523<\/a>)<\/p>\n

The g<\/em>2<\/sup> admittedly fits better in the C-major harmony, and since a natural sign has also been added, it rules out here merely an engraver\u2019s mistake. But if Dvo\u0159\u00e1k intended the correction, why didn\u2019t he change the pitch in m. 27?\u00a0 And, incidentally, why not also in the parallel passage, mm. 235\u2013237, faithfully repeated to the very note (simply transposed here a semitone lower):<\/p>\n

\"\"
\nFirst edition, Simrock, 1888, piano score, 1st<\/sup> movement, mm. 235\u2013237<\/p>\n

Was Dvo\u0159\u00e1k really supposed to have overlooked all three analogous passages? It is conceivable, alternatively, that the g<\/em>2<\/sup> is based on an oversight: the autograph shows that the notehead was redrawn by Dvo\u0159\u00e1k in red ink \u2013 in my opinion, only to make a<\/em>2<\/sup> more precise, not to correct it to g<\/em>2<\/sup> (lacking the natural sign). The copyist of the engraver\u2019s model could nevertheless have interpreted it as g<\/em>2<\/sup> and added the absolutely harmonically requisite accidental himself. Since today the engraver\u2019s model is lost, this remains pure speculation.<\/p>\n

Owing to the uncertain situation, we have not attempted to standardise it there in our edition: we leave the solitary g<\/em>2<\/sup> in m. 25 as in the first edition and suggest the circumstances with a footnote so that musicians can decide for themselves whether to play it as printed or reconcile it in one direction or the other. Anton\u00edn \u010cubr chose a Solomonic compromise in his edition: measure 27 was tacitly adjusted to measure 25, but the parallel passage at mm. 235\u2013237 was left unaltered\u2026.<\/p>\n

In the second movement, the elegiac Dumka<\/em>, reference is to be made to a violin 1 measure that clearly contains an incorrect rhythm in all sources and previous editions. In the Vivace<\/em> middle section, violins 1 and 2 consistently play a longer passage from mm. 152\u2013167 unisono<\/em> (at the interval of an octave) \u2013 only in m. 160 does violin 1 unexpectedly go its own way:<\/p>\n

\"\"
\nFirst edition, Simrock, 1888, piano score, 2nd<\/sup> movement, mm. 160\u2013163<\/p>\n

This of course makes little musical sense, and a glance at the autographs shows that it is certainly just Dvo\u0159\u00e1k\u2019s writing error; the violin 1 & 2 notes are exactly below each other (see the red lines) and the same rhythm is meant:<\/p>\n

\"\"
\nAutograph score, 2nd<\/sup> movement, mm. 160\u2013163, violins 1&2
\nWith kind permission of the National Museum \u2013 Anton\u00edn Dvo\u0159\u00e1k Museum, Prague<\/a><\/p>\n

The composer may still have had the shifted (right hand) piano rhythm in his head? Two measures later, incidentally, the same mistake almost occurred again: there he had already set the prolongation dot after the 1st<\/sup> note (see arrow), but then notated the beaming correctly. In our edition we have therefore decided to adjust the measure rhythmically, with a relevant footnote:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

By precisely comparing the first edition with the autograph, we were on the whole able to track down a number of greater and lesser engraving errors and to correct them in our edition, mentioning as an example just this wrong c sharp<\/em>1<\/sup> in m. 272 of the final movement:<\/p>\n

\"\"
\nFirst edition, Simrock, 1888, piano score, 4th<\/sup> movement, mm. 270\u2013272<\/p>\n

\"\"
\nAutograph score, 4th<\/sup> movement, m. 272, piano
\nWith kind permission of the National Museum \u2013 Anton\u00edn Dvo\u0159\u00e1k Museum, Prague<\/a><\/p>\n

Surprisingly enough, though, it was in the cross-comparison<\/em> of different issues <\/em>of the Simrock edition where we made perhaps the most important discovery. All reprints published after Dvo\u0159\u00e1k\u2019s death, from ca. 1909 (when the so-called \u201cVolksausgabe\u201d appeared in a smaller format), do in fact contain a dozen additional tempo and performance indications as well as fingerings in the piano and even small interventions in the music text itself. \u00a0So, for instance, even the aforementioned erroneous note in the 4th<\/sup> movement has been \u201ccorrected\u201d, though in the reverse direction owing to ignorance of the autograph, so that now the wrong c sharp <\/em>was in both<\/em> hands:<\/p>\n

\"\"
\n\u201cVolksausgabe\u201d, Simrock, 1909, piano score, 4th<\/sup> movement, mm. 270\u2013272<\/p>\n

In the first movement, furthermore, in m. 175 of the piano, freely added is a flat sign before the 3rd<\/sup> note, which cannot be found in either the autograph or the early editions \u2013 also an \u201cimprovement\u201d for the worse, because the characteristic semitone step between the 3rd<\/sup> and 4th<\/sup> notes is correct and occurs in all analogous figures in mm. 173\u2013178:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
\n\u201cVolksausgabe\u201d, Simrock, 1909, piano score, 1st<\/sup> movement, mm. 173\u2013178<\/p>\n

The interventions most disturbing to a faithful interpretation, however, are the additional tempo indications amidst the movements, mostly in the form of such as stringendo \u2013 a tempo<\/em>, etc. Here is an example from the 4th<\/sup> movement with an added tempo protraction (and additional fingering in the piano part):<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
\nFirst edition, Simrock, 1888, piano score, 4th<\/sup> movement, mm. 260\u2013272<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
\n\u201cVolksausgabe\u201d, Simrock, 1909, piano score, 4th<\/sup> movement, mm. 260\u2013272<\/p>\n

Where did these changes come from? Certainly not from the composer, who had died in 1904 and for whom such an approach would not have been at all typical. I personally suspect the pianist and arranger A[ugust?] Schultz, who arranged the op. 81 quintet as a version for two pianos and had it published by Simrock in 1905, ironically exactly a year after Dvo\u0159\u00e1k\u2019s death \u2013 perhaps because the composer could no longer protest\u2026? To be found in Schultz\u2019s arrangement are already precisely the same piano fingerings, note changes and tempo additions that were then adopted, probably as well-intentioned \u201cimprovements\u201d, in the popular 1909 edition and the reprints of the original edition:<\/p>\n

\"\"
\nArrangement for two pianos, Simrock, 1905, 4th<\/sup> movement, mm. 270\u2013272<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
\nArrangement for two pianos, Simrock, 1905, 1st<\/sup> movement, mm. 174\u2013178<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
\nArrangement for two pianos, Simrock, 1905, 4th<\/sup> movement, mm. 260\u2013272<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, the edition in the 1955 Complete Edition<\/em> is also based on a posthumous issue of the Simrock edition, so the unauthorised tempo additions can still be found in all editions available today on the market \u2013 except, of course, for our new edition, going back to the original 1888 text and offering musicians an optimal basis in the future, we hope, for interpreting this immortal masterpiece!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The piano quintet is, so to speak, in the \u201csuper … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[86,491,312,3,318,764,601,314,486,320],"tags":[653,480,78,755,15],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6234"}],"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\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6234"}],"version-history":[{"count":18,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6234\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6254,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6234\/revisions\/6254"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6234"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6234"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6234"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}