Composers vs Engravers: Stems and Slurs part 1

[John Ruggero]

An interesting case of stem direction in Chopin's etude op 10 no 4. Here is the composer's MS, which appears to be a rough draft:

Chopin Stems MS.jpeg (113.85 KiB) Viewed 11288 times

The stems go the wrong way in the pickup bar because the 16ths are leading to the lower C# 16th in the following measure, not the higher one. Because of this voice-leading, the standard engraved version as shown here in the first edition has always looked very strange to me:

Chopin Stems 1st ed.jpeg (101.6 KiB) Viewed 11288 times

Past posters on this subject have maintained that unusual stem direction was simply the result of ease in handwriting. In this case, Chopin added to the difficulty, because the 16th beam of the pickup measure conflicts with the lower voice on that staff. In spite of this, Chopin could not bring himself to write the notes stems up. It was too unmusical.

Anyone who would counter that the lower G# was an afterthought and that this explains the stem-direction should play the passage without the low G#. It is completely non-Chopinesque: the texture is too thin, and the initial musical gesture clearly derives from OCTAVES in both hands moving in contrary notion. This octave motion is also brought out more clearly by the downward stem direction for both octaves in the RH.

Even though this was "corrected" in all engraved versions of this piece, and Chopin had probably given up trying to fight engraving standardization, I would now engrave this beautiful notation exactly as it stands in the MS:

Chopin Stems engraved.jpg (77.05 KiB) Viewed 11198 times

Also of interest is the long slur which appears to begin on D# in measure 1 in the first edition, and most since. This is completely changes the meaning of this passage in an unconvincing way because the rest of the piece initiates the four-note patterns on downbeats not off-beats. Even the French engraver seems to be unconvinced and fudges the beginning of the slur so that it is slightly ambiguous. Later editions are more definite. The autograph is indefinite and no help.

Very few editions have corrected this apparent error because they try to be "authentic". But what good is authenticity, if it leads to such a musically suspicious result? I have heard performances that actually try to begin that slur as written! It creates a hiccup exactly where one would like an unbroken line.

[MJCube]

Fascinating, John. At first look it doesn’t seem to make sense to begin a slur on a staccato note. But then I see the slur points to the melody note, the lower octave! Then I could understand that the top octave can be short while the bottom is legato. I suppose to make this really clear one would have to give them separate stems. But Chopin was all about efficiency as well as subtlety.

I’m glad the old French practice of capitalizing all the expression markings did not catch on.

[John Ruggero]

I am glad you are enjoying this one, MJCube!

At first look it doesn’t seem to make sense to begin a slur on a staccato note. But then I see the slur points to the melody note, the lower octave! Then I could understand that the top octave can be short while the bottom is legato. I suppose to make this really clear one would have to give them separate stems. But Chopin was all about efficiency as well as subtlety.

Chopin is writing in an orchestral way here. The bottom RH C# actually represents two notes, one staccato and one legato:

Chopin Slur.jpg (21.71 KiB) Viewed 11268 times

As you said so well, Chopin (and the other greats) always used the simplest notation, and he never would have written it as in my example.

I agree with you about the French style. I prefer the more modern non-capitalized italics for reasons that I have mentioned previously: the markings obtrude less.

[OCTO]

Past posters on this subject have maintained that unusual stem direction was simply the result of ease in handwriting. In this case, Chopin added to the difficulty, because the 16th beam of the pickup measure conflicts with the lower voice on that staff. In spite of this, Chopin could not bring himself to write the notes stems up. It was too unmusical.

My opinion is that Chopin first wrote without the , and later on he decided to add the octave for the more efficient attack.
BTW, do I see a slur between the first 4 notes and the short C#? That was omitted in the first edition.

Chopin (and the other greats) always used the simplest notation, and he never would have written it as in my example.

Yes, he is really a true master in both playing and accurate compositional writing. He is unfortunately completely neglected when we speak about the notational accuracy. It is just perfect, similar to Ravel; but nobody study him so closely.

[John Ruggero]

My opinion is that Chopin first wrote without the , and later on he decided to add the octave for the more efficient attack.

If Chopin added the G# later, it was lucky that he didn't draw the stems and beams as long as some of those in the next measure, because it would have been impossible!

Actually, it is awkward to play this without the low G#, and we know that Chopin improvised first and committed it to paper later. Every bone in my right hand says that it is unlikely that Chopin would have played or written this without the low G#. His music derives from the act of playing and his profound understanding of the mechanics of piano playing. The low G# is essential to the balance of the arm on the keyboard in playing this gesture.

And from the musical point of view, the passage is all about octaves in both hands moving in contrary motion.

But of course we will never know for sure. This does not change the fact that the music as engraved in the first edition is deceptive and can lead a player to the wrong interpretation. The opening four 16ths do not lead to the high C#, as it is generally performed. The first 16th leads in two directions: to the high C# and the 2nd 16th, F#— and the fourth 16th D# leads to the low C#. And if Chopin normalized the notation in a later MS, I think that unfortunate. His first notation is better.

BTW, do I see a slur between the first 4 notes and the short C#? That was omitted in the first edition.

For this reason, I inserted the dashed slurs in my engraving. It is debatable which way the upper slur should lead and I am still considering it. Perhaps there should be two slurs, but that would be unsightly.

Chopin was young when he wrote the opus 10 Etudes and the MS of several, like this one, are not as carefully done as his later ones, which are sometimes as beautiful as works of art. It is also likely that there is a lost carefully notated MS of this etude that was used by the engravers. For these reasons there are many differences between this MS and 1st edition. The Wiener Urtext edition shows all of these divergencies in the text. These slurs are just one example of essential markings that didn't make it into the 1st ed. I think that it is the responsibility of the editor to make musical decisions about the text that are based on more than simply documenting differences between the sources.

Yes, he is really a true master in both playing and accurate compositional writing. He is unfortunately completely neglected when we speak about the notational accuracy. It is just perfect, similar to Ravel; but nobody study him so closely.

Heinrich Schenker, who shared your opinion, considered Chopin to be one of the greatest of the great, studied the notation and the musical structure of his music and wrote about it.

Here is another example of his unusual stemming from the Etude op. 10 no. 1. The MS is a copy by Chopin's sister, who copied her brother's music accurately. On beat 2 up-stems suddenly switch to down-stems so the stem direction does change later in the measure, which would disrupt the visual impression of a very fast and unbroken cascade of notes. Chopin then continues this style of stemming for the rest of this 78 measure piece.

Chopin Etude 1 MS (sister).jpeg (68.27 KiB) Viewed 11234 times

Here is the 1st edition, which follows the ordinary rules of stem direction on beat 2 of measure 1 and beat 3 of measure 2. I find it less satisfactory than the original.

Chopin Etude 1 1st ed.jpeg (120.93 KiB) Viewed 11234 times

Here is the way I would engrave it:

Chopin Etude 1 engraved.jpeg (69.65 KiB) Viewed 11234 times

[jrethorst]

Chopin sample.jpg (72.06 KiB) Viewed 11217 times

What font is this?

[tisimst]

What font is this?

One of our very own John Ruggero's creations!

[John Ruggero]

What font is this?

I fooled the font-meister!

One of our very own John Ruggero's creations!

You are such a nice guy. I wish I could take credit for it, (or would it be blame?)

Actually, it's Maestro with Engraver accents, the famous Ruggero G clef, italic expressions are Vortragsbezchnung by our own Wess, tempo markings are TNR, done in Finale with line settings as suggested by various members of this forum and seen on the thread on this subject. The slur settings in the first example are from a Notat.io thread on slur shape that had substantial input by Knut.

[tisimst]

... the famous Ruggero G clef ...

Sorry, that's what I was referring to. I must say that all those settings together do look very nice, John!

[John Ruggero]

I knew exactly what you meant, tisimst. Thank you so much; that compliment means a lot to me. And it is reassuring that you think that it looks good all together.

I forgot to say that the brace settings are by Wess.