Composers vs Engravers: Stems and Slurs part 1
Posted: 07 Nov 2016, 17:40
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:
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:
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:
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.
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:
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:
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.