Chopin Nocturne in C# Min (posthumous)

[kyliec]

Hi all,
I've been lurking in the background for a few weeks now and am enjoying the forum.
Thought I'd post this Nocturne - have been working on it for a couple of months now. There are a couple of stumbles in it and is definitely a work in progress. I would value any constructive criticisms or comments.
Cheers, Kylie

[rachfan]

Hi Kyliec,

Could you please give the opus and number of this Nocturne?  Most editions print 19 nocturnes, the 19th (Op. 72, No. 1) in Em as being the posthumous one.  Thanks.   

[mike_lang]

Dear rachfan,

An opus number was not assigned to this nocturne, but it is dated 1830.  In my edition, it follows the em nocturne, Op. 72 no. 1.

Best,
Michael Langlois

[rachfan]

Thanks, Michael,

The sound of this nocturne is certainly familiar to me, although I don't believe it's played as often as many of the others in the set.  I have two editions here, the Paderewski and also Kalmus, and both end at Op. 72, No. 1.  It appears in neither, so it was a bit confusing.  You perhaps have the Henle edition there? 

My sense is that, right or wrong, there is sometimes a prejudice concerning posthumous works, i.e., "If the composer had wanted a certain piece published, he would have submitted it in his lifetime!"  For example, some artists will play the first seven Chopin Polonaises, but omit all the posthumous ones.  The same, believe it or not, with the Fantasy Impromptu when the Impromptus are recorded.  Often there must surely have been extenuating circumstances as to why a composer might have been enthusiastic about his intention to publish a work--but for whatever reasons it just never happened.  Likewise, some composers doubtlessly hid scores away having qualms about quality.  I doubt that the posthumous publishing of Ravel's "Seranade grotesque" does him much credit.  Similarly, there is Rachmaninoff's Etude Tableau, Op. 33 No. 3 as we now know it.  He had integrated that music into the 4th Concerto, so kept the etude under wraps, not wishing to publish it and thus repeat himself in his scores.  In one way, it's nice to have that etude now; but somehow, I don't think he'd be pleased knowing that it was published in 1950 causing that dreaded duplication in his ouvre.  So I guess each posthumous work has its own story to tell, good or bad.

I don't want to digress more, as this is Kylie's posting.  I like to help by commenting, but where I am not too familiar with this nocturne and don't have a score here, I'd best let others give feedback.

[mike_lang]

Dear Kylie,

Overall, I think that you have done some good things thus far.  Your rhythm is precise, your phrases move, and your reading in general is accurate.  This said, I have a few constructive criticisms:

1) My edition bears Lento as the tempo marking, rather than the Andante at which your render it.  I grant you that it is in two, but I believe that it is a bit more resigned than you perform it - particularly with a dolce and piano marking in the beginning.

2) On the whole, I believe that your trills are a bit aggressive for the character of the nocturne - perhaps they could either be a bit slower, or begin slowly and accelerate.

3) When you arrive in the A Major section (phrase), page 2 (in my edition), I believe that there has to be a new sort of tone, something more intimate.  For me, you do not differentiate enough between the preceding forte cadence and this new direction.

4) Make your Adagio before A' a true adagio.  An italian friend of mine described to me that whereas Lento is slow, Adagio is slow, taking pleasure in the slowness. 

5) For me, the reemergence of the primary melody at Tempo I (A') is a bit jarring.  Take your time to negotiate that octave leap, especially at the beginning of this section.

6) With practice, it will be possible to speed up the scales - it is necessary, obviously, to take them out of time, but I believe now that they are too slow.

7) Finally, I have e# in the left hand in the fourth measure from the end - but perhaps it is a misprint.  I like your e natural better...

Thank you for posting this - it is a nocturne not often heard and often enjoyed when heard!

Best,

Michael Langlois

[kyliec]

Hi all,
Michael thanks so much for your suggestions - I will take them on board, will perhaps post a made over recording in the future.
This nocturne doesn't have an opus no.  In my book (Allens) it is listed as Nocturne No. 20a. It is after op.72 no. 1.
Kylie

[albertf1]

Am I mistaken, or are there two notes missing in the treble clef in line 36 of this sheet music. I've listened to several YouTube clips and they all seem to have additional right hand notes in measure 36. 

[iroveashe]

Am I mistaken, or are there two notes missing in the treble clef in line 36 of this sheet music. I've listened to several YouTube clips and they all seem to have additional right hand notes in measure 36. 

You mean on the sheet music here at Pianostreet or with the recording?
I've always had trouble with this score because the one I have and every score I've found in the internet lacks those 2 notes you mentioned (and 2 more in the next bar I think), and the change from C# minor to C# major happens in the very last bar, in opposed to recordings where it happens one or two bars before.

[albertf1]

I'm talking about the sheet music in Piano Street. When I listen to this nocturne on Utube, two notes, C# and D# seem to be played twice in these bars. Frank

[nilsjohan]

You mean on the sheet music here at Pianostreet or with the recording?
I've always had trouble with this score because the one I have and every score I've found in the internet lacks those 2 notes you mentioned (and 2 more in the next bar I think), and the change from C# minor to C# major happens in the very last bar, in opposed to recordings where it happens one or two bars before.

These extra notes in the treble clef in bars 36-39 are originating from a copy of Chopin's manuscipt made by Oskar Kolberg while the E-sharp in bar 62-63 (causing the change to major to come two bars too early) is coming from a copy made by Chopin's sister Ludwika Jedrzejevicz.
However, that autograph manuscript is now lost and the only available source from Chopin's hand is an earlier version of the Nocturne where none of these variants appear. The E-sharp in bar 62-63 is most likely a missprinting by Ludwika, but the added notes in 36-39 in Oskar’s copy is somewhat more mysterious since they do not exist in Ludwika’s copy, which is assumedly made from the same autograph manuscript.

The Nocturne was published posthumously in 1875 by Aschenberg (London) in an edition based on Kolberg's copy, containing the extra notes.
Both Wiener Urtext and Piano Street are pubishing versions without these variants but Henle has two versions in their publication of the complete Nocturnes of which the first version is based on the two copies and contains both the extra notes and the e-sharp while the second version (Chopin's early version) does not have them.

I hope this explains the situation and also shed some light on how difficult it is to publish urtext sheet music which is supposed to be "authentic versions". But well, it's just music...

[albertf1]

Thank you for your comments. They are most helpful.