{"id":7736,"date":"2024-08-12T08:00:13","date_gmt":"2024-08-12T06:00:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/?p=7736"},"modified":"2024-08-12T09:19:20","modified_gmt":"2024-08-12T07:19:20","slug":"the-rediscovery-of-a-new-prokofiev-source","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/2024\/08\/12\/the-rediscovery-of-a-new-prokofiev-source\/","title":{"rendered":"If we hadn\u2019t had the chance\u2026 the rediscovery of a new Prokofiev source"},"content":{"rendered":"

Fans of so-called \u2018true crime\u2019 \"\"<\/a>formats, reporting, that is, about real criminal cases, know only too well what a major role chance plays in solving crimes. Clues leading nowhere are followed for weeks or months \u2013 but then a cross-connection emerges that becomes a hot lead. Or when witnesses are re-questioned, a previously unknown or unnoticed detail turns up, shedding new light on the course of events. In any case, there is often talk of \u2018Inspector Fortuity\u2019 when it comes to the breakthrough in solving a criminal case. Although the Henle editorial team\u2019s source research cannot be compared with detective investigations, there are contact points in that sometimes a detective instinct is needed to make the decisive query. Or even \u2013 and this is what we\u2019ll be discussing below \u2013 Inspector Fortuity is deployed.<\/p>\n

In 1920, Sergei Prokofiev composed five \u2018Songs without Words\u2019, that is, vocalises, for the singer Nina Koshetz, a close friend at the time. These were published in 1922 as F\u00fcnf Melodien f\u00fcr Singstimme und Klavier <\/em>[Five Melodies for Voice and Piano] Op. 35 and are still performed, though very rarely. The situation is different with their arrangement for violin and piano that Prokofiev undertook in 1925 at the suggestion of violinists Joseph Szigeti, Cecilia Hansen and, above all, Paul Kocha\u0144ski. In this version, the F\u00fcnf Melodien<\/em> are amongst Prokofiev\u2019s most popular chamber music works, having captured a permanent place in the concert repertoire.<\/p>\n

For the Henle Urtext edition of the violin-and-piano version, two groups of sources had therefore to be considered: the sources for both the original Opus 35 version, on the one hand, and on the other, for the Opus 35a arrangement. Although the location of the Opus 35 autograph is not known, photocopies preserved in a place well known for Prokofiev research, namely, the Serge Prokofiev Foundation Archive at New York City\u2019s Columbia University, show that the autograph manuscript also served as the engraver\u2019s copy for the first edition. Things were otherwise for a long time with the autograph and engraver\u2019s copy for the violin arrangement \u2013 all research into this situation, undertaken by both Fabian Czolbe, editor of the new edition, and also me, as responsible editor, initially came to nothing.<\/p>\n

An enquiry to the British Library in London, with reference to the Boosey & Hawkes archive housed there, then brought the breakthrough \u2013 and this is where chance comes into play. When Chris Scobie, Lead Curator, Music Manuscripts and Archives, heard that we were planning a new edition of Prokofiev\u2019s F\u00fcnf Melodien<\/em>, he remembered that the British Library possessed an exemplar of the Opus 35 first edition with autograph entries. This, as it soon turned out, was the long-sought source. Without this enquiry and Scobie\u2019s specific tip-off, we would never have known its location. But why did this prominent source location remain unknown in the Prokofiev literature (see Opus 35a<\/a>)? The answer has to do with the source\u2019s hybrid nature \u2013 simultaneously, both print and manuscript. The original 1922 printed version is categorically fundamental, and thus, according to Chris Scobie, the document was catalogued in the British Library until 2017 as a print with a typical shelfmark (K.11.e.23). Only then, in acknowledgement, so to speak, of the manuscript entries, which are not private annotations but compositional notations for an arrangement, was the source assigned to the music manuscripts (with the new shelfmark MS Mus. 1822). Even today, this ostensible engraver\u2019s copy for Opus 35a is easy to overlook, as it appears at first glance in the British Library catalogue as a \u2018normal\u2019 first edition of the Opus 35 original version:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Only when clicking on the title do you discover the reference to the arrangement Opus 35a and the type of source as a manuscript:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Prokofiev obviously did not rewrite the entire music text for the arrangement: aside from a four-measure cut in No. 3, the piano part is only slightly altered, and the vocal part also remains essentially unchanged in its transformation into a violin part. In this respect, it made sense to use an original-edition exemplar as a model for all the changes. Two different hands can be clearly distinguished in the entries: a fine, easily legible transcription, which, as shown from comparisons with other manuscripts, can be attributed to Prokofiev himself, and a rather clumsy, rough hand, coming presumably from the violinist Kocha\u0144ski. Prokofiev made all the inked entries (piano) and part of the pencilled changes (piano, but also violin), the rest were probably made by Kocha\u0144ski (violin only). However, it is not always possible to decide with certainty who wrote one or other of the markings.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Engraver\u2019s copy, Opus 35a, No. 3, mm. 25\u201327, Pasteover for changes to the piano music and presumably also to the violin music, autograph; ottava and presumably also violin bowings in another hand (Kocha\u0144ski?).<\/p><\/div>\n

Since documented is that Kocha\u0144ski took over large sections of the vocal part for the violin arrangement, it could well be that Prokofiev drew on Kocha\u0144ski\u2019s drafts for his entries, whereupon, in return, he then notated further changes (including ottava markings, octave markings, double stops, etc.).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Paul Kocha\u0144ski (1887\u20131934)<\/p><\/div>\n

But is it even possible to speak of an engraver\u2019s copy? The function of the manuscript entries as a device for publication is not in doubt, though the source lacks the usual publishing-house and engraver\u2019s entries such as plate number or line and page breaks. At least for the latter aspect, however, entries for page breaks were not necessary insofar as the Opus 35 layout could be adopted in editing 14 of the 16 pages (only the cut mentioned in No. 3 led to differing page breaks on pages 10 and 11). Not to be ruled out is that Prokofiev had the source re-copied for an engraver\u2019s copy, especially since comparison with the Opus 35a first edition still shows numerous changes, but this effort seems rather unlikely. Seemingly more plausible is that the London source actually did serve as an engraver\u2019s copy and that the changes mentioned were made in the lost galley proofs. These changes \u2013 often refinements to bowing and articulation \u2013 reduce this source\u2019s value, but there are still enough dubious passages that can be clarified with its help as an intermediate link between the original version\u2019s first edition and the arrangement\u2019s newly-set first edition. Here is an example:<\/p>\n

In the original version\u2019s vocal part, in No. 4, measure 11 (and in the parallel measure 21), the half note g<\/em>#1<\/sup> is followed by the quarter note b<\/em>#:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

First edition, Opus 35, vocal part, No. 4, mm. 10\u201312<\/p><\/div>\n

In the violin arrangement\u2019s first edition, Opus 35a, the sequence in measure 11 is, on the other hand, g<\/em>#2<\/sup> \u2013 g#<\/em>1<\/sup>:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

First edition, Opus 35a, violin part, No. 4, mm. 10\u201312<\/p><\/div>\n

The quarter note b# <\/em>as the leading tone to the following c#<\/em>1<\/sup> seems so plausible that the g#<\/em>1<\/sup> in m. 11 could be considered a printing error, especially as the leading tone is preserved in the parallel passage (merely shifted an octave higher than the sequence b#<\/em>1<\/sup>–c#<\/em>2<\/sup>). However, the corresponding passage in the London source shows that b#<\/em> was deliberately changed to g#<\/em>1<\/sup> and that the first edition is therefore correct:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Engraver\u2019s copy, Opus 35a, violin part, No. 4, mm. 10\u201311<\/p><\/div>\n

The ownership of the source can, alas, be only incompletely traced. Prokofiev himself may even have given it away to Kocha\u0144ski after the arrangement had appeared in print. According to Chris Scobie\u2019s research, it was offered for sale at Sotheby\u2019s in 1990 at the latest, with explicit reference to the document\u2019s rarity:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>The British Library acquired the source five years later from the Lisa Cox Music Ltd. catalogue \u2013 determining who previously possessed it is no longer possible, though it is reassuring that the source is now in the public domain, and that chance has ensured that the new Urtext edition (HN 1539<\/a>) soon to be published will be based on all available sources.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Fans of so-called \u2018true crime\u2019 formats, reporting, that is, about … 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":[825,3,318,323,823],"tags":[827,828,826],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7736"}],"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=7736"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7736\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7753,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7736\/revisions\/7753"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7736"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7736"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7736"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}