![\"Etude](\"\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/08\/chopin-studyop10-no5.jpg\" "\\"chopin-studyop10-no5\\"")
Etude in Gb major, Op.10 No.5: Opening bars from Chopin\u2019s autograph manuscript. Reproduced by kind permission of The Chopin Society, Warsaw<\/p><\/div>\n
Where score markings are correctly stated in publications his compositions still continue to fall prey to all manner of facilitating alterations in performance – perpetuated by generations of pianistic ‘tradition’ and stylisation. Unfortunately the variety of erroneous ‘revisions’ imposed on Chopin’s scores from pianists who arrogantly seek to remould his music into something that suits their purposes better are often praised. Interpretatively the easier performance options of ‘personalised interpretation’ with ‘flexibility of expression’- to the extent that originally written score directions are all but eclipsed – are too often defended. The idea of a carte blanche or ‘free for all’ when interpreting Chopin is often actively encouraged on the misguided premise that pretentious sentimentality and histrionic (mis)interpretations actually ‘improve’ Chopin’s compositions. To perceive Chopin as the archetypal Romantic languishing in a violet-scented mist of indecision about his scores is a misconception borne of spurious legend.<\/p>\n
Chopin had very clear and definite views on adherence to his score details: <\/em><\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n “Chopin could not bear anyone to interfere with the text of his works. The slightest modification was a gross error for which he would not pardon even his closest friends, not even his fervent admirer Liszt. The composer considered these alterations as a veritable act of sacrilege”. <\/em>(Reported by Marmontel) [Chopin: ‘Pianist and Teacher’ by Jean-Jacques Eigeldinger]<\/em><\/p>\n Chopin occasionally pencilled an altered dynamic or variant into the scores of selected pupils during lessons but it was only his prerogative as the composer-pianist to make any such alterations. On the subject of the sentimentalis<\/em>e\/<\/em>Romantic approach, we know that he shunned all forms of excess or exaggeration and was never a Romantic composer in the Lisztian or Byronic sense. Rather his unique musical language and aesthetic belongs to earlier forms of art-music and Classicism. He revered the music of Bach and Mozart above all other composers – the significance of which should not be underestimated when playing Chopin.<\/p>\n It is vital from an artistic and aesthetic standpoint that the interpreter allows absolute priority to score directions and remains within the ‘guidelines’ marked on the texts by the composer. These provide our most fundamental link with his intentions. To clarify these ‘guidelines’, albeit simplistically, I refer to score indications that form the basis of an interpretation: e.g. that given sotto voce\/pianissimo\/piano<\/em> markings are not substituted for a ‘preferred’ mezzo piano\/mezzo forte\/forte<\/em>, or broad largo\/lento tempos<\/em> exchanged for the faster pace of an Allegretto etc<\/em>.. Chopin was also strict about the observance of his precise phrase\/slur markings and agogic signs, whilst pedalling ‘remains a study for life’, as he said, and requires constant consideration.<\/p>\n There are many instances where Chopin indicates extended pedal markings, often to create a veiled and almost impressionistic effect (e.g. in the introductory measures of the Polonaise-Fantaisie in Ab<\/em> major, Op.61).\u00a0 Occasionally he would also indicate the pedal to be sustained through a change of harmony. These pedal indications need to be approached with some caution on the resonant and full-toned modern concert grand pianos, where the intended magical effects can become muddy and too thickly textured. It is a known fact that Chopin’s preference in pianos was for the ‘silvery thin-toned’ Pleyel piano, which he also strongly recommended to his pupils. Unlike stringed instruments pianos do not stand the test of time, but having played two of Chopin’s Pleyel pianos it is evident that the sustaining pedal could be depressed through harmonic changes without any excessive blurring to the clarity of the writing.<\/p>\n It has also been remarked upon that Chopin rarely indicated use of the ‘soft’ pedal una corda<\/em>, although he often requires sotto voce <\/em>and pianissimo\/leggiero<\/em> in his compositions. Apart from the important refinement of touch these quieter levels of tone require, the una corda<\/em> pedal should be applied with discretion on the full-toned instruments.<\/p>\n Within the wide variety of musical terminology and signs that form our score instructions the expressive scope is comprehensive. It is evident from his manuscripts at least that Chopin left nothing to doubt for his copyists and editors, crossing out his rejected score details with thick webs of diagonal lines that render it impossible to decipher previously written details. In the words of Arthur Hedley, \u201cHe hesitated long before attaching a final indication of tempo or expression, so that no pianist has the right to treat these things as a simple matter of personal preference\u201d. To further avoid misunderstanding Chopin would write a message on his score for the engraver to clarify his precise intentions. All of which proved no guarantee against errors from copyists and editors.\u00a0 An example of these errors can be found in the first C major Study from Op.10 where the original ms<\/em> shows only two bars<\/strong> to be played forte<\/em> – but most editions indicate forte <\/em>throughout<\/span> with accents added to each quadruplet in the r.h.. Chopin also wrote diminuendos<\/em> for the re-entry of the main ‘theme’ and at the closing measures. These diminuendos<\/em> are often correctly shown in editions, but are replaced with crescendos<\/em> by most interpreters. The immense technical difficulties of playing the widely extended arpeggios in this Study are certainly facilitated if played relentlessly forte<\/em> with unwritten sforzando<\/em> bass octaves on a concert grand piano. But the question arises – is it what Chopin would have wanted\u2026.? For those who consider that the composer knew best how his music should be performed, the answer is clear.<\/p>\n There exists the ever-present predilection to sacrifice the ultimate realisation of Chopin’s art to personal whim. Wayward performances displaying an obvious ambivalence towards the text are often claimed as ‘great’ or even ‘definitive interpretations’ either for commercial purposes or from obvious misunderstandings of Chopin’s music. ‘Virtuosic’ displays of meaningless digital dexterity and the flashiness of excessively fast tempos, hard-hitting aggressively exaggerated dynamics and uncontrolled tempo deviations that debase and trivialise his music have become the facile recipes for accepted Chopin interpretations. This is not only seriously misleading to the public and untruthful but commits a grave disservice to the composer. The true art of Chopin playing presents a challenge that needs to be thoroughly reviewed and reassessed.<\/p>\n “Simplicity is everything.. After having played immense quantities of notes, and more notes, then simplicity emerges with all its charm, like art’s final seal. It is no easy matter.” Chopin.<\/em><\/p>\n (From a statement made by Chopin to his pupil Friedrike Streicher-Muller, who studied with the composer from October 1839-March 1841 and was the dedicatee of his Allegro de Concert,Op.46).<\/p>\n Great music should surely ennoble the spirit, create a moving experience and provide a lasting impression to reflect upon after the final notes have been played. To allow the composer to be revealed through the re-creation of his music must be the ultimate aim of an interpreter.<\/p>\n