Chopin- Nocturne in C minor (48:1)

[thorn]

I've been memorising this over the summer and i have a rhythmical question to ask about the 'doppio movimento' section.

there are triplets against quavers, but the 2nd quaver is notated over the final triplet suggesting that they aren't meant to be played as straight quavers. but at the same time they arent marked as triplets- here is an example to clarify what i mean:



so my question is should i play them as straight quavers or as if they are a crotchet and a quaver with a '3' bracket over them?

[faulty_damper]

This is actually quite controversial.  If you notice, there is actually a crotchet and a quaver in the starting bar of the second system which suggests the rhythm is different from the quavers.  If the quavers are interpreted as quavers and not triplets, it would match the melody as before.  However, as written in the score, the triplet pulse distorts the melody to sound like dance music, and not reflect the seriousnous of the music at this point of the piece.

This issue is quite problematic when the difference in opinions speak out.  Do you play them as triplets or do you play them as quavers agaisnt triplets?

After listening to them both ways, I prefer the latter as this just sounds right.  Playing them as triplets sounds like a dance and this isn't a dance!  The more I listen to it, the more wrong the music printed becomes as it just can't be right.  The seriousness of the mood suddenly become a two-step... in a nocturne?

You are probably going to have to make up your own mind about this issue but the way it is printed is easier to play unless you are skilled at 2 against 3 in a single hand.

[faulty_damper]

I'd actually be very interested to see the autograph score for this nocturne because I really want to know if Chopin placed the quaver over the last triplet beat or was it just the engravers fault.

[thorn]

I would also be very interested to see the autograph score. I'm also considering getting hold of the Cortot edition of the piece to see what he has to say on this- his insight is usually very helpful.

Personally I play them as straight quavers, with the exception of the 3rd bar of the example ive given where both the final quaver and triplet are a D; i play the D as a quaver, but miss out the D in the triplet because repeating it sounds out of place.

I've also noticed how in the 2nd beat of the 6th bar of the example, the melody is written as the last 2 notes of a sextuplet rather than the semiquavers they were before- in the edition i study from they aren't written like this...

It irritates me how engravers have a habit of making the score look 'cleaner' at the expense of what the composer actually notated. If they just copied what the composer gave them, we wouldnt have these doubts.

[dnephi]

There's no such thing as on authoritative autograph for CHopin. He sold differently written pieces to 3 different publishers at the same time.

He could never write a melody the same way twice- 

[faulty_damper]

There's no such thing as on authoritative autograph for CHopin. He sold differently written pieces to 3 different publishers at the same time.

He could never write a melody the same way twice- 

You are exagerating his indecision.  One reason why his music is subjected to so many different changes is because his style is essentially improvisatory.  But that's beside the point of this topic of this nocturne.

[dnephi]

It wasn't so much indecision as  carelessness, I'd say.  It's a funny tidbit, and no, I've heard the expression "Chopin never wrote a melody the same way twice" in both ways, first as a discussion of his ornamentation and then later as a discussion of his differing editions.  The first is a trait of his music, the second is a trait of his lifestyle.  That's just a problem you run into with Chopin scholarship.

I thought you might like to know that little fact.  You usually run into 3 "urtexts," which will often differ.

[faulty_damper]

Urtext is a hoax.  I don't believe in Chopin scholarship because Chopin often played his music differently than was published as also altered the scores of his students to his liking, not just correct misprints.  It is essentially improvised music written down for publication.  It's not music with a rigid structure but allows much room for changes, hence so many changes.

Anyway, what's printed in Paderewski, Henle, et al must all be wrong.  It sounds terrible the way it's printed, much like the repeat at bar 5 in the 1st movement of the Bb minor sonata - no idiot would ever write something so terrible; it's the engravers fault, and then more engravers' faults for copying that fault.   But then, no decent musician would ever take the repeat at bar 5, they'd skip it because it sounds like poo on silk linens.