Urtext editions

[keitokyun]

How essential is it to have Urtext books if you are studying classical compositions?

[adodd81802]

Now this obviously depends on the circumstance surely?

If it's for your own pleasure as a hobby-pianist at home. It doesn't matter.

If it's for a competition... well!

Ultimately, they're designed to give you the most true-to-original version of the composition.

I buy urtext, not only for this reason, but because I enjoy reading the backstory, the discrepancies, the alternative notations.

For example I just purchased the Urtext Chopin Nocturnes, of which it provides 2 versions of the Op.9 No.2, the published version, and the authentic hand written version with Chopins own post-publishing editions. It's dramatically different from the original and is like learning a whole new piece.

[mjames]

For example I just purchased the Urtext Chopin Nocturnes, of which it provides 2 versions of the Op.9 No.2, the published version, and the authentic hand written version with Chopins own post-publishing editions. It's dramatically different from the original and is like learning a whole new piece.

A testament to how unfounded the conservatism surrounding Chopin's music is. If the man never played a piece the same way twice, why should we? The various editions by Chopin's own students, they add in their own quirks. 19th century remnants like Godowsky, Cortot, and Hoffman added in their own quirks. So why don't we? Is it tasteless?

Nocturnes like op. 9 no. 2 and op. 27 no. 2 really benefit from spontaneous Chopinsque like passages, more people should take advantage of that. I honestly now believe that that is how the nocturnes should be played like, especially John Fields.

[tenk]

A testament to how unfounded the conservatism surrounding Chopin's music is. If the man never played a piece the same way twice, why should we? The various editions by Chopin's own students, they add in their own quirks. 19th century remnants like Godowsky, Cortot, and Hoffman added in their own quirks. So why don't we? Is it tasteless?

Nocturnes like op. 9 no. 2 and op. 27 no. 2 really benefit from spontaneous Chopinsque like passages, more people should take advantage of that. I honestly now believe that that is how the nocturnes should be played like, especially John Fields.

He was also a pedagogue, and understood that students would be studying his pieces, and performers would be performing them. I think an accurate score provides the basis for study, and when you reach the levels of the pianists you've cited (some of the top, ever...when are we getting there exactly?), knock yourself out adding your own Chopin-esque passages.

That being said, many competitions are far too rigorous in their demands of score accuracy. Considering how many times we hear the same pieces, I'd love for the competitors to have the freedom to add their own embellishments.

I should also mention that I usually buy the Henle not just because of the scholarship involved in the edition (though that does help), but also because it's the only book that actually stays open on my stand without the binding falling apart from repeated creases.

[dogperson]

He was also a pedagogue, and understood that students would be studying his pieces, and performers would be performing them. I think an accurate score provides the basis for study, and when you reach the levels of the pianists you've cited (some of the top, ever...when are we getting there exactly?), knock yourself out adding your own Chopin-esque passages.

That being said, many competitions are far too rigorous in their demands of score accuracy. Considering how many times we hear the same pieces, I'd love for the competitors to have the freedom to add their own embellishments.

I should also mention that I usually buy the Henle not just because of the scholarship involved in the edition (though that does help), but also because it's the only book that actually stays open on my stand without the binding falling apart from repeated creases.

Yes, Chopin was a pedagogue. .. but did not believe his students should laboriously copy his score note-for-note.  I believe the story was told in 'Chopin Through the Eyes of His Students'.....  but anyway, Chopin played for one of his students, the student meticulously practiced the score to sound like Chopin/  During the next lesson he played exactly as Chopin previously played it and was chided 'Don't you realize I never play the same way twice?'   But alas, I can recognize this as a philosophy, but Chopin would put me in the 'copiers'.

[quantum]

IMO one of the problems that urtext culture animates is that some people, professional scholars and performers included, stop thinking beyond the score.  They believe once they achieve the purity of performing exactly what is written, their job is now done.  If you ask me, playing exactly what is written is not music, it is playing the score.  The job of make music starts when one understands what the score is describing and does something with that knowledge.  

Relating to above posts, Chopin was also known for annotating student scores - this includes previously published music from his pen, to which he suggested changes.  The process of making music does not end with the published score.

One plus of many urtext editions is print and binding quality.  Books that were made to stay open on the piano desk and not fall apart when simply trying to lay a book flat.  

[adodd81802]

All of these are good points. And I agree with them, Improvisation has unfortunately died out in classical music in favour of strict score accuracy.

There really are only so many ways you can play the exact same piece of music.

The question is certainly up for debate we we ask generally how important urtext editions are in general, but as mentioned, in terms of studying for competitions, as they currently are, these editions are still the most accurate and most important.

One thing I wonder, on the basis of Chopin's argument of playing it differently, why did he feel the need to add so many dynamics and phrasing, when we could have left this up to the performer to decide for themselves? He remained very consistent with his style of notation, and when you see the scribbling out on the original manuscripts, it's clear he had a specific set of notes that were to be put on the page, not up for debate.

Possibly one statement isn't enough for us to know how he really felt.

[quantum]

One thing I wonder, on the basis of Chopin's argument of playing it differently, why did he feel the need to add so many dynamics and phrasing, when we could have left this up to the performer to decide for themselves? He remained very consistent with his style of notation, and when you see the scribbling out on the original manuscripts, it's clear he had a specific set of notes that were to be put on the page, not up for debate.

Possibly one statement isn't enough for us to know how he really felt.

I suspect he wanted to achieve a balance between detail and flexibility.  The act of writing things down for many people codifies ideas, to the point where a culture is built up against changing what is written.  In my experience working with living composers in preparing music for performance, many of them have been open to changing scores in order that the music better fit the particular performance circumstances. However, a very different scene may be encountered when playing one of those masterworks by the "greats."  A lot of art music culture assumes an air of perfection: what the composer has written is the law, it is pure, it is unchangeable, and it is what makes that music great.  It is in part a vehicle that is used to stratify composers and differentiate them from the average Joe. Unfortunately, is also a vehicle that is abused in order to suppress thinking, awareness and creativity.  There are still those that believe a score should rule over all things, and that no argument no matter how compelling should rule over it: regardless of performance venue, performer, acoustics or even blatant common sense.  

In short, there is nothing wrong with changing one's mind.

[dogperson]

There is not just one statement by Chopin of intent changing with the performance, but actual notation as well.  Chopin C sharp minor Nocturne Post has two urtext versions:  one Chopin wrote for his sister as a tool for learning his Concerto 2 and was in her possession, and one additional written by him.  There is a major difference in the last six measures of the nocturne:  the one written for his sister has the transition to major chord in the last measure, but the additional score has the transition to major written several measures earlier.

Which one is correct?   I am not a music historian, so I will draw my own conclusion. ..  Henle publishes both in one urtext edition.   I would be interested to know of a scholarly discussion of which version to select.