{"id":7108,"date":"2023-02-13T08:00:45","date_gmt":"2023-02-13T07:00:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.henle.de\/blog\/en\/?p=7108"},"modified":"2023-02-20T10:51:00","modified_gmt":"2023-02-20T09:51:00","slug":"gaps-in-the-notation-liszts-mazeppa-etude","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/2023\/02\/13\/gaps-in-the-notation-liszts-mazeppa-etude\/","title":{"rendered":"Gaps in the notation: Liszt\u2019s \u201cMazeppa\u201d Etude"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Our attention was recently drawn to a passage in our edition of Franz Liszt\u2019s \u00c9tudes d’ex\u00e9cution transcendante<\/em> (HN 717<\/a>), which has not yet been annotated in any known critical edition. Ben Yin, a piano student of Prof. Claudius Tanski\u2019s at the Mozarteum University in Salzburg, noticed while studying the notorious \u201cMazeppa<\/em>\u201d Etude (No. 4 of the \u00c9tudes d’ex\u00e9cution transcendante<\/em>), that the outer voices at the first appearance of the theme (mm. 7 ff.) \u2013 unlike the middle voice played alternately by both hands \u2013 only incompletely fill in the 4\/4-time measures:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Henle edition HN 717: Etude No. 4, measures 7\u201310<\/p><\/div>\n

Now, in Liszt\u2019s autographs and the editions based on them, this phenomenon occurs not only in cadenzas and \u201crecitativo\u201d passages, where freely augmenting the measure are a matter of course, but often also in \u201cnormal\u201d passages, though whether this is a matter of negligence or error in their transmission can usually easily be clarified by comparing these spots with parallel or analogous spots. Here, however, a mere oversight is excluded since the incomplete filling out of beats 2 and 4 extends over many measures without any comparative parallel passage. Liszt\u2019s notation is therefore intentional. Our edition follows the main source, the first edition (1852) of the \u00c9tudes d’ex\u00e9cution transcendante<\/em>; comparison with the autograph engraver\u2019s model shows no differences in this respect:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Autograph (engraver\u2019s model) for Etude No. 4, measures 7\u201312 (Klassik Stiftung Weimar, Goethe- und Schiller-Archiv, siglum 60\/I 23)<\/p><\/div>\n

No doubt about it: the rendering of this passage is Urtext in both the first edition and Henle editions. But the original notation leaves open the question of how to deal with it. Do the gaps in the outer parts mean that they should be filled in with rests? Or should the duration of sustaining the chords (with the help of the pedal) be explicitly left up to the performer?<\/p>\n

Glancing at the genesis of the etude will perhaps be of help. As is well known, the 12 \u00c9tudes d’\u00e9x\u00e9cution transcendante<\/em> constitute the final version of compositions dating back to Liszt\u2019s youth. They were, in fact, first published in 1826 or 1827 under the title \u00c9tude pour le Pianoforte en quarante-huit Exercices<\/em> (by Boisselot in Marseille and on commission by Dufaut et Dubois in Paris). In 1837, Liszt undertook a radical revision that was published in 1839 as 24 Grandes \u00c9tudes<\/em> (by a total of four publishers, including Haslinger in Vienna). The numbers in the titles are misleading, incidentally, for all editions invariably contain only 12 pieces \u2013 all attempts at continuing the first series in order to arrive at 24 or even 48 individual works came to naught. In the case of No. 4, another version, composed as early as 1841 and inserted between the Grande \u00c9tude<\/em> and \u00c9tude d’ex\u00e9cution trancendante <\/em>versions, was published in 1847 (by Schlesinger in Paris and Haslinger in Vienna).<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s have a look at the relevant passage in the four versions.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Version I (1826\/27), measures 1\u20136<\/p><\/div>\n

The two-part Ur-etude is still far from the final version. Basic figures such as the thirds\u2019 progression in the first section form the composition\u2019s substance and are retained unchanged (resembling the basic figure in the second section). All measures are correctly filled out with rests.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Version II (1839), measures 1\u20134<\/p><\/div>\n

In comparison with the first version, the etude is now considerably extended (169 instead of 77 measures) and has a theme that is subsequently changed melodically, harmonically and compositionally in five variations. The opening, now in 6\/4 time, shows the idea of thirds retained as a voice in both hands, but receding before the new, full-fingered theme in the treble. The middle and bass voices complement each other to form triplet lines covering the entire measure, whilst the tempo changes from Allegretto to Allegro. The theme\u2019s shape is already very similar to the final version (cf. Fig. above<\/a>) with its three clearly distinguishable tonal registers and a strikingly prominent main idea. The measure is correctly filled out in all three lines; noticeable is only that the eighth-note triplets are not marked as such.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Version III (1847): measures 1\u20137<\/p><\/div>\n

Apart from changes in the transition between variations 3 to 4 and at the end, the third version\u2019s most striking innovations are, on the one hand, the five-measure introduction with diminished-seventh chords and, on the other, the title Mazeppa<\/em> with the dedication to Victor Hugo. Liszt is thus alluding to Hugo\u2019s eponymous poem of 1828, devoted to the tragic fate of the Cossack leader Ivan Masepa (1639-1709), who was glorified in literature around 1800. The piece\u2019s trajectory can thus be described as from a characteristically figured etude via an expanded variation form to an extended pianistic poem (the reworking into a symphonic poem undertaken immediately after the publication of the final version seems only logical). The theme\u2019s presentation is, however, unchanged from version II.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Version IV (1852), measures 7\u201310<\/p><\/div>\n

For the new revision at the beginning of 1851, Liszt took an exemplar of the 1839 Haslinger edition and entered the changes there. Where these were too far-reaching \u2013 as in the case of the theme from measure 7 onwards \u2013 he wrote the new version down on a leaf, so that the engraver\u2019s model is comprised of folios from the old edition and new autograph sections. He expanded the introduction with a \u201ccadenza ad libitum\u201d of fast unison runs, thus further heightening the expectation of the \u201cactual\u201d beginning. The presentation of the theme itself appears sharpened in several respects: the thirds, now notated on their own stave, are shortened to 16th<\/sup> notes, and the respective upbeat notes to beats 1 and 3 in the theme are shortened to 32nd<\/sup> notes. The technical demands of the leaps in both hands appear to have once again been increased, still posing a great challenge today.<\/p>\n

At first glance, the precursor versions II and III, managing without rests in the outer voices, suggest filling in the final versions\u2019 treble without rests (i.e., a quarter note with triple dotting before the 32nd<\/sup> note), but then the bass quarter notes would have to be changed to half notes, which would mean a very substantial intervention in the surviving music text. Moreover, other passages in the piece with \u201clacking\u201d dotting in the theme (such as mm. 31ff., 80ff., 114ff.), would then have to be changed, accordingly. In that sense, at second glance such interventions are proscribed. The question remaining, though, is what Liszt intended with such an \u201cincomplete\u201d notation. Are the quarter notes supposed to signify a minimum for sustaining the chords?<\/p>\n

What do you think? We would be very happy if you would let us know your interpretation!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Our attention was recently drawn to a passage in our … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7108"}],"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=7108"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7108\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7122,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7108\/revisions\/7122"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7108"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7108"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7108"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}