I would like to single out here only one example, since it best illustrates the “confusion” and is also quite prominent:Īlong with filiation, one must also consider musical factors in dealing with a composer like Chopin who was so indifferent to proofreading that he often didn’t bother to mark corrections of printed wrong notes and rhythms in his student’s copies. The only way out is to have a detailed footnoting apparatus that indicates differing readings and explains them to the player. This source evaluation has, of course, problems, for also “final” changes made by Chopin in F F have to be documented somehow. So, although C does not represent the final version, it is the “best” source and was consequently the main source for my edition. It nevertheless shows an earlier and “worse” text state than C. I must therefore draw the following conclusions: F F is in fact the final definitive edition, thus the source corrected last by Chopin. Chopin did very carefully correct the copy C, on the other hand. Much is incompletely notated (dynamics are often lacking), and everything suggests that Chopin wanted to add these things then in the galley proofs for F F (which was done only to a very limited extent). What can’t be seen from this schematic presentation are the following observations: Autograph A exhibits many signs that Chopin was still not entirely “finished” with the notation. This interrelationship amongst sources can best be captured in a stemma: Before the French edition appeared, however, Chopin read two sets of galley proofs the state of the text after the 1 st proofreading became the model for the English first edition (F E). The autograph was used as engraver’s model for the French first edition (F F), the copy, for the German first edition (F G). No autograph is extant for the b-minor Scherzo, whereas for the 2 nd Scherzo we have both an autograph (A) as well as also a copy (C), checked through by Chopin. The source material, or so at least it is my impression, gets a bit more complicated with every scherzo.
#CHOPIN SCHERZO 2 A MAJOR OR UPDATE#
So, it makes sense to update my report from the Chopin workshop and to highlight a few problems in these editions. 39, are just now appearing in my new edition. In the meantime, casually expressed, another 2 Scherzi later, 2 Scherzi more mature – and clearly even more confused, alas. The remaining bars (Bars 110-124) are based on diminished seventh broken chords.In my blog post of 21 March 2016, I lamented the existing “confusion” concerning the tied notes in Chopin’s 1 st Scherzo. Returns to B minor in Bars 1101-109, with a dominant pedal and some chromaticism, ending on a dominant ninth chord in Bar 109. B:īars 69-124: Agitato. Begins with a sequence based on the rhythm and figurations of the main theme, using the chord progression iv-V7-I in D major (Bars 69-72), F sharp minor (Bars 73-76), and A major (Bars 77-79).įollowed by another sequence, using a French augmented sixth and dominant chords of C sharp minor (Bars 80-81), C minor (Bars 82-83) and B minor (Bars 84-85).īars 86-101 are in F sharp major (dominant major) with a flattened sixth (D natural), with perfect cadences in Bars 92-93 and 100-101. E sharp in Bar 27, G sharp in Bar 29) but no modulation.īars 44-68: Interlude, softer, with occasional loud outbursts, all in B minor, ending with a perfect cadence in Bars 66-67. Bars 29-32, 37, 39, 41, 44), and some chromatic unessential notes (e.g. The passage which follows is all in B minor, with a dominant pedal in Bars 25-36, frequent diminished seventh chords (e.g. Bars 9-44: The main theme is heard in B minor with tonic pedal in the bass (Bars 9-16) then E minor with dominant pedal in the bass (Bars 17-24).
0 kommentar(er)
