Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Adding a note to Chopin op.27 #1

I am very tempted to make the first note of the second line an octave (by including the C# below the note written in the score).

I do not generally add notes to scores! And the octave is not in Henle, Paderewski or Mikuli. However:

1. It does appear in some editions (e.g. Kullak and Klindworth).
2. Paderewski writes "We have followed... Mikuli's version. The use of this octave is, however, very advisable."
3. This is Chopin (not, say, Debussy), and my sense is that more of these kinds of liberties are allowed.
4. It sounds really good.

I'm interested to hear what folks think, especially any of you who have played this nocturne!


-Jason

In the French first edition (teaching copy) an appoggiatura C# is added an octave below, so you are quite authentic.
Incidentally, do you play the con forza octaves with the LH alone?

If you like the sound of it then do it. Chopin is dead.

I'm just starting the piece, so I don't really have established practices yet. But I'm planning on playing the octaves with the LH alone, yes. It will be less nuanced than a two-handed approach, but will be appropriate to the despair and devastation evoked for me by the passage.

-Jason

According to Jan Ekier's National Edition, an appogiatura C# is added in the Jane Stirling copy. They decided to put it also in the main text, with the source commentary saying it is a natural and fitting continuation of the octaves before.

Are you talking about adding a C# below where Tempo I begins, at the fz legato?

What do you base your third point on? Why, because it's Chopin, do you believe something like this is ok?

-1000000000

I save time by evoking despair and devastation in everything I play.

Chopin frequently made exactly this kind of change. It is arguable (I don't say it with any great conviction myself, but it is certainly a legitimate point of view) that any pianist who refuses to consider making minor changes to Chopin's scores is taking an unsuitably rigid approach to something that was never intended to be rigid.

I've performed this Nocturne many times, and I've actually tried it both ways - with the octave c# and as written.

On one hand, I think it's entirely possible that an octave c# could be appropriate. Our pianos are different, there's plenty of evidence that composers of that period (including Chopin) weren't 100% married to the score, and "because that's what it says in the score" is a terrible reason to do something.

But having played it over the years, I've decided that the octave c# is a bad idea for one simple reason:

It's too loud.

What I found is that when I played the octave c#, I had to flutter pedal the sound away over the next two measures in order to achieve a true piano (dynamic and tone) to support the entrance of the melody. And since the low strings tend to resonate with a lot of overtones, the sound wasn't able to become clear or clean enough.

Playing the single c# makes it so much easier to clean up the sound for the return of the A section melody, and the lower c# isn't missed if you actually voice the octaves correctly. (I fear many people, including myself at a time, simply bang through the octaves with a great sense of drama, giving little thought to how the line can be shaped.

Why wouldn't it be okay?

I've never understood why people feel the goal of classical performance is simply to reproduce at the keyboard the exact details of the written score. At the very least, pianists should experiment a bit, trying different things here and there to see if they can gain some insight into the composer's thinking.

Whenever I have played and performed this Nocturne, I have always played the LH octaves with the LH rather than split them between the two hands, and I have always played the low C-sharp as an octave. I agree that I have had to do some flutter pedaling to reduce the volume of that doubled C-sharp for the return of the theme.

That said, Kreisler's point is a good argument for not adding the octave to the C-sharp; I'll give it a try bearing his reasoning in mind.

Regards,

Thanks, guys. Nice feedback!

stores: I do think one's fidelity to the score is a function of the composer, his historical context, and what assumptions the score carried with it at the time. The relative freedom one has with Bach (e.g. in ornamentation) is in stark contrast to the awesome responsibility one has (IMO) to faithfully carry out a score of Debussy or Schoenberg to the last eighth-rest. I've heard it suggested that Chopin's attitude to his scores was more on the "free and exploratory" side of the spectrum.

That's all I meant; in particular my argument is not along the lines of "Chopin is so emotional, so if it feels good, do it."


Kreisler: When I work this up, I'm sure I'll try it both ways too. Being too loud is a good argument against. I wonder if it's possible to not have it so loud though-- play the octave, but not loud, or maybe play it loud, but emphasize the top note much more. That way, maybe you'll still have the lightening bolt-like shock of that low C#, but without the consequences. Something I'll experiment with when the time comes.

-Jason

I would be tempted to add it too -- and when I read through the piece (I've never worked on it), I usually do.

BTW....it's my impression (although I might be imagining it) that Horowitz played the octave.

Hey Kreisler!!! Are you becoming a radical on us?

I agree completely with the statement but not even I would have put it quite so boldly.

I love it though!

I'm not saying that it WOULDN'T be OK, but, if you're going to do something then have a concrete reason for doing what you do and not because somewhere along the way you HEARD that a composer felt, or thought a certain way...i.e. do the homework.
That said, I've never understood why there's such a backlash AGAINST adhering to what's already written out for you. Personally (and I'm not point any fingers) I feel it's because it's next to impossible to realise every single jot and tittle and also because we're all simply too lazy to do the work. What's needed to breathe life into ALMOST any work is contained right there in the score. Experimentation is fine, but too often many take it too far and it's no longer Chopin (or whomever), but the pianist's work. I'd love to have a dime for every time I've asked a student why they're doing something which is contrary to what the score calls for and the answer is (9 times out of 10) "I like it this/that way", or, "it sounds better". My answer..."Oh, so you don't really care for Chopin?" "Oh I LOVE Chopin!" "Ah, but you're the better composer, yes?" My point...KNOW WHY you're doing what you're doing and WHAT allows you the freedom to roam. I don't want answers like "Chopin is dead", or "I heard Horowitz play it this way", etc.

And I DISagree completely.

dup.

So what would you consider to be a good reason to deviate from the score. Let us say, specifically in the case of Chopin. And even more specifically, the particular measure being discussed here?

I don't think it's a backlash. I think the idea of very precisely and exclusively following the score is an (often inappropriate) ultra-modern anomaly.

There's not. Unless you're able to scour a manuscript or have access to a first edition in the case of a lost manuscript and you find something differing from what you've got in say your Henle then there is no reason. That said, I do believe there's more room to explore with Chopin specifically. He didn't ever seem to be entirely sure just how exactly he wanted some things represented and seemed to be forever altering things himself.

How, exactly, would you define "ultra-modern"?

This is mostly to the OP - I've never played this nocturne, but I listened to it on Youtube, printed out the exerpt you gave, and played it, and I completely agree with you. Not only is it mechanically intuitive to play the low C# where you specified, but it sounds better to my ear than not adding that octave - it makes the bass line sound more smoothly melodic, which adds to this passage. Screw what the purists say.

I had a hunch that's what you thought, and on that we're in complete agreement. I think far too many people (including some very accomplished pianists) skip the homework.

I also agree that "I like it this way" is usually a terrible excuse, and it's usually code for "I can't" or "I am too lazy to play it as indicated."

And of course, the real issue here isn't that Chopin said so, the real issue is that Chopin probably said so for a reason. Once someone has explored those possible reasons, then they can start to decide if those reasons fit them, their audience, their capabilities, their instrument, and whatever artistic idea they may be aiming for.

Exactly. Agreed.

hmm.. That sounds far less mutinous than your previous "why not" response!!!!

Would one's decision about playing the C# as an octave depend in part on whether one considered that note the end of the long octave phrase or the beginning of the eighth note accompaniment?

I would refrain from defining it exactly. I would hazard a guess that composers and performers all the way from the first example of a written score to approximately the middle of the nineteenth century, later in some cases, would have found slavish adherence to every last detail of a printed score, along with scrupulous avoidance of adding any other details, a foreign concept that had not even crossed their minds. There is ample evidence that performers in the nineteenth century changed what was in the score - sometimes conservatively, other times freely - as a matter of course.

Taken to its logical conclusion, adherence to the score forbids making subtle dynamic variations where they are not printed, eliminates the possibility of agogic accents, erases tempo fluctuations, removes any hint of dynamic contrast between melody and accompaniment, flattens all distinctive articulations of a musical line, and so on. If one admits that performers must be free to add those things, while also following dynamic markings and other items that are printed, where does the sanctity of the notes in particular (as opposed to all the other markings in the score) come from?

It's kind of both, isn't it? I agree with your question.

I don't think adhrence to the score means this. It would be imposssile for a composer to write down every subtle variation that you mention. Nor do I think they'd want to. I think composers assume a skilled performer will make these subtle variations you mention as part of their interpretation. For example, I heard a great master class giver say "If the score is marked mf, this means play the melody f and the accompaniment mp".

My edition: Salabert (Cortot) also has the appogiature. To me there's no question at all. I'd played the lower c# because GOD said to do it that way.

He talks to you, does he? I've never labored under that convenience.

-J

'I like it this way' is a perfectly legitimate reason to deviate from a score.

Is it? On what foundation do you base this (other than one that deems YOU the authority)?

100% agree. 'I like it this way' is never a good reason just by itself.
All the masterclasses I've been to when the artist gets this answer there's always a rebuke and the advise to always look for the artistic reason why 'you like it' this way.

I am the authority over my own playing. Of course its best to know exactly why you like certain things and why you don't but the simple fact that you like something is for me reason enough to play it that way, at least sometimes. I am passionately against unquestioning authenticity.

On what foundation do you base the opposite view?

Neither you nor he has a "foundation" that the other would accept.

And then there's people like me (and actually I'd guess him too), who feel that asking for a "foundation" on this doesn't make too much sense -- unless you consider 'musical knowledge, taste, and judgment' to be a foundation.

Exactly. These are entirely subjective opinions so to demand an objective foundation on which they're based is ridiculous. My problem with the opposing point of view is that it's so often preached dogmatically. I'm not trying to dictate how anyone else should behave, I'm just saying how I view things.

Blech. My intention in starting this thread wasn't to drudge up another round of the "faithful to the score" vs. "play it how I want to" argument in the abstract. I was just interested in what decisions folks have made about this piece specifically. Which I got some idea (thanks).

On the other hand, this argument might be a little more interesting with specific examples. For example:

1. In Schiff's recording of the Goldberg Variations, in one of the variations, he takes the repeats an octave higher, and in another variation, he takes the repeats an octave lower. What do you think of this change? Is this a valid thing to do?

2. When I heard Barenboim play and conduct the Brahms concerti, he added final piano chords at the very end of the last movement of the first concerto. (In the score the piano is silent for the last 10 seconds.) Is this valid, or disrespectful to the score?

What other kinds of changes have you guys made, debrucey for instance? I think this might be more interesting, and more illuminating, than making and challenging each other over absolute statements.

-Jason

Only if you're playing for yourself. Audiences, especially educated ones, will invariably have an opinion, too. And if you play with others, you need to take into account their opinions as well. You may like the end of the Franck sonata fortissimo, but if you're playing with a flutist, the audience will (correctly) fault you for burying the poor soloist.

As a teacher, I expect students to be somewhat flexible. I'm happy when my students come up with interesting ideas of their own because they "like it that way," but I also want them to have some flexibility in terms of technique and musicianship.

Put another way:

i can punctuate and spel like this "becuz i like it; but i run the risk of peoples not taking me serious adn misunderstanding what i say. nor am i growing as a writer and a communicater (unles im doing this on purpose like at the end of flwrs 4 algernon or some of cory doctorow's writings

I find the phrase itself 'disrespectful to the score' utterly bizarre. In what way are scores or even works for that matter things that demand 'respect'?

Anyway, hehe. I've made a lot of changes to early Beethoven pieces where I think its pretty obvious that he was limited by the smaller range of contemporary pianos. There are many places in the first movement of Op.10 No.3 for example. I am always fiddling about with my ornamentation in Bach pieces, this can occasionally even include adding appoggiaturas or passing notes. Some weeks I will prefer something a little faster, some a little slower. Especially with something like Bach which works so well in many different speeds. In more romantic things I from time to time experiment with altering the dynamics or the speed. I occasionally flesh out chords (or de-flesh them out, whatever the word for that is), this can depend on the piano I'm playing on, whether I think it sounds better or even just to make it more comfortable. I can't think off hand of any really drastic changes that I've made. The point is that my interpretations are always in flux. Also 99% of my playing is for myself. I play for audiences occasionally but its not my career and if they don't like what I've done with a piece that's their problem. I probably wouldn't take such a risky approach with an exam recital though. And I would certainly never be stupid enough to bury a flautist under fortissimo when that is not the desired effect.

Why not? It was written for a keyboard with multiple manuals. Pianos don't have multiple manuals, but they have (among other things) different octaves.
As do keyboards with multiple manuals, but that's beside the point.


I thought you were complaining about going beyond the one piece you had mentioned.

But seriously folks.... .....do you not realize that in the Classical period, it was customary for the piano to often play together with the orchestra for the final tutti?

I did exactly the same thing for the end of the last mvt of the Emperor Concerto when I performed it. Nobody thought it was enough of an issue to even mention it, including a number of pretty persnickety people including the conductor, my teacher, and numerous piano colleagues, none of whom ever hesitate to kick my musical butt over all manner of whatever.

Do you go ahead and play those high notes that Beethoven avoided (with wonderfully contrived variants) mainly (presumably) because pianos at the time didn't have those notes?

i.e. 1:28 on here (not to mention the high F# at 0:19):



BTW: I would play the high F#, as does Horowitz here, but wouldn't go further up at 1:28, as Horowitz doesn't either.

Because my "taste and judgment" tell me that there are other reasons to play it as written, besides Beethoven's piano not having those notes.

P.S. Please someone tell me if I'm wrong that his piano of that time lacked those high notes.....

They did lack them, and Op.10 No.3 is a good example of somewhere beethoven's creativity was particularly restricted by the fact. I also don't go up further at 1:28 though.

The main reason I wouldn't is that it lets it be more dramatic when it does go all the way up in the recap.

But not much because "that's what the score says."
Although if the score didn't say that, it never would have occurred to me to do this other thing.

In the way that they represent an enormous amount of time and devotion by the composers, editors, and engravers who have made this amazing music available to us.

LMAO at your comment above, Jason!

Just putting in my two cents about your original question to underscore what some have said about basing your decision partly on what your particular instrument would have you do (probably an obvious point to pianists who listen carefully to what they are doing when they play, but each instrument is so different that sometimes changes are needed to suit the interpretation you are after given the piano's peculiarities) PLUS agreeing with your intuition about the soft touch with which you would play the lower note in question! You've already done the scholarship. Time to play!

I appreciate the deliberation and concern regarding adding one note which is an octave, or a duplicate note, to the score if it is done with taste. But does playing the repeat on 8 higher, for example, do anything to improve the scope or aesthetic value to the score?

antony: It did. I can't generally recommend transposing pieces at the octave, even Bach. But when Schiff plays Goldberg Variation #7 an octave higher on the repeats (for both the A and B sections, so it goes A normal-- A 8va-- B normal-- B 8va)-- it just works beautifully. It wouldn't have worked for any variation. But it works for #7. And that's the only variation he transposes up. (He transposes another of the variations down an octave, and leaves the rest of them alone.)

If I ever meet Andras Schiff, I'm going to ask him about how he made this decision, not just for a concert, but for his recording.

-Jason

Of course. That is quite clear to any experienced player. But it's not printed - the player supplies it.

I believe that nearly any composer from before (roughly) 1900 would have said the same thing, but he would have meant "interpretation" to include "subtle variations" on the notes he wrote as well as supplying dynamic and ruythmic modifications. Of course that is not provable because those old fellows don't talk much nowadays.

I doubt there's much mystery about it. Transposing up an octave is a not-uncommon way of dealing with material that was written for instruments with multiple manuals -- like, in this case, when playing a repeat, or in other cases, where the execution as-written is extremely difficult on a single keyboard. (For example, a common score of Couperin's Le Tic Toc Choc suggests an octave-transposition for the latter reason.)

It's also common (as you probably know) for playing repeats in ragtime; I imagine this arose from this practice with earlier music.

I have heard it pointed out (more than once) that we as performers often give more time and more study to a score than the composer does. SOME performers believe that gives them the right to correct the composer's mistakes, or to improve the piece by adding or subtracting. Yet we must draw the line somewhere. I don't know where the line is, but I am convinced that "never change anything, ever" goes against the way a lot of music is written - that the line of performer freedom should be drawn somewhere above zero.

My ABRSM score does not show the octave ... however ...

The octave would appear to be a perfectly logical close to the growly downward flow of the 83rd measure.

Having just played through this passage to the 9-1 Chopin Nocturne ... what came out in the wash by including the octave was ...

The RH quite naturally takes up the first rhythmic pulse to m84 bass clef ... which gives the LH an easy entry to second pulse to m84 ... and continuing from m 85 onward ...
bringing in the winsome RH Theme at m86.

What a pity ... that Chopin is dead.

OK, here's another one.

Schubert, "little" Sonata in A major (D. 664), last mvt.
I so much want to broaden to a rest/fermata at 1:52 (none is indicated in the score):



Interestingly, Richter does that on the immediately-prior appearance of the similar phrase (1:42), although just slightly; but not at all in the latter place, where I feel that the music screams for it. (He does it all similarly in the recap.)

I almost always do it when 'just playing' and in recitals, but probably wouldn't at auditions or competitions. Hypocrisy, chicken, or realism?

Mark--

That video is the first movement. If you don't give us bar numbers you've got to get the video right!

-J

I respect scores for what they are. But that is a separate issue from how I make music (or rather, I would make music if I had the technique to do the things that cross my mind). For example, I might want to improvise all sorts of extra notes when playing a Chopin nocturne, and, guess what, if I did, the score has not been harmed in any way. It is still there, just as it was. And everyone else's copy of it is still in whatever condition it was before I did my "disrespecting".

Are you sure??
When I click it, it is indeed what I said.....

Why don't you compose your own music and leave Chopin's alone, were you to do that...

Mark-

[sorry for the video confusion-- my fault-- I know what happened]

I sympathize with your feeling the pause there; I've always put a slight one in whenever I've read through the movement. I hear it the way Richter plays it at 1:42, which is much slighter than what would have been called for if Schubert had written a fermata. So I like the slight pause, but I'm glad the score is the way it is.

In my Hierarchy of Score Violence, changing notes and adding notes is at the very top; leaving out notes is a little lower; changing dynamics is much lower. Adding pauses is pretty close to the bottom.... and adding very slight pauses isn't even in the Hierarchy.

-Jason

He did it, therefore it is valid. For him, the performer. And for any listener that finds it okay.

On the other hand, it could be argued that playing that work on the piano is already so far from any sonic reality that Bach could possibly have imagined that it hardly matters what he does to it.

I imagine that Schiff was thinking of alluding to the effect of using the octave doubling stops that are available on some harpsichords.



Just like the Schiff example, it's valid for the performer who does it, and anyone listening who agrees with it, and it isn't for those who object. I personally don't care a whole lot either way. It is kind of tautological, I think. A person who is literal-minded that a performance is supposed to exactly "represent" the contents of a score aurally would hate it, and a person who thinks a performance should follow its own truth as the performer sees it, while still being based on the score, would probably find no issue with it.

Since Halloween is still kind of in the air, I'll say that to my way of thinking, the more restrictive view sees the performer as some sort of dead-composer-controlled-from-the-grave zombie, and the looser, living-performer-driven concept seems much more life-affirming. But that's just me...

Because collaborating with Chopin's score is an interesting thing to do in its own right.

Not a bad hierarchy.
I'll keep it all in mind on the Schubert.

BTW.....you didn't necessarily say where adding 'grand' pauses would fit in.
I think I know.

Yes -- that's an additional aspect besides what you can get from additional manuals, and maybe more relevant to the current example.

Because Chopin's has already been composed ;-). Wr has it spot on. I could play a piece double speed and with a swing rhythm, all forte and whatever someone might think of what I've done musically, the score is still intact and will always be. I haven't ruined or 'disrespected' the piece because the piece doesn't exist in my interpretation.

It's pretty easy to poke holes in the hierarchy though - for example, compare adding the octave C sharp with leaving out the first note of the piece. Or, for that matter, keeping every note as printed but choosing to play all the B's fortissimo throughout.

You make the mistake in assuming that the changes people make are arbitrary.

david a: which is precisely why the teaching copy has the appoggiatura C#. It completes the con forza passage and leads up to the accompaniment.
I'm amazed at how much heat is generated by "stick to the score, no, use your own musical intelligence" discussion on this subject as Chopin clearly thought of and published different notations for this passage.
It's more a question of "which Chopin variant do I prefer" rather than "how do I wnat to notate this passage".

Chicken. Maybe some hypocrisy. Yes, a healthy dose of realism, situationally. But on my Hierarchy of Musical Convictional Integrity, it's "chicken."



Sorry, Mark. I had to.

On the "faithful to the score" vs. "do what I like" argument, I realized this morning I feel the following way:

Rather than phrase the question in terms of fidelity to the score (which is an inanimate object), instead we should ask: Would the composer, if he were alive today, approve of the changes I'm proposing? Would Bach approve of playing his work on a modern piano? (Yes.) Would Debussy approve of my adding an extra octave to a low note? (Probably not.) Would Chopin approve my adding the octave in the C# nocturne? (I think so.)

In other words, it's not fidelity to the score; it's fidelity to the composer.

Of course, this isn't resolving the argument; it's just shifting it to a different question. But I think that at least it's the right question to be arguing about.

-Jason

It probably makes more sense than fidelity to the score, but I still find it baffling. The composers are usually dead, so they couldn't give a damn if they wanted to. And even when they're not dead they're usually not watching over your shoulder either, so why shouldn't you do what you want?

It sounds like we're just going to disagree on this, and that's fine. Whether the composers are around to care what I do (and I agree that they're generally not) has nothing to do with my desire to honor their intent. I'm at a loss to explain where this desire really comes from. This gets very quickly into "what is art for", and god forbid we try to hash that out here. But I do know that if any of the paltry scraps I've written survive 200 years, and are subsequently played (as historical oddities), I hope that the players honor my original intent, however they divine and interpret it.

-Jason

I truly believe that Mendelssohn is waiting in the afterlife for everybody who dared touching one of the big composer's masterpieces, and is going to kick their ass. Just a heads up!

In this case, yes.....but more generally, for some of us at least, it's whether we'd do [whatever] even if there's no "Chopin variant."

This case, for various reasons, is obviously a very mild 'deviation' (if at all).

And I don't disagree one iota.

I must restate that I'm not saying its necessarily a good thing to do whatever you want to a score. Only that one shouldn't feel afraid to treat it liberally if for whatever reason one wants to. Authenticity is an incredibly interesting field, but its not a dogma.

In Chopin's case, we have an easier way to put it: Would he have approved of it in his time?
And I think we know (although some people could come up with quotes that they feel refute this) that the answer is: Yes, he would, provided that what we did was good.
(What is "good"? That's where knowledge, taste, and judgment come in -- and I don't think any of us would say it should be done without at least one or two of those things).


I don't see how you're resolving anything by giving an answer that many people would disagree with -- not to mention that many people would even disagree with the sense or value of asking that question.
(Don't get me wrong -- I agree with the question, and with your answer.)


Where do you get that? I'd bet he would -- provided (again) that it makes sense.
Maybe you're saying you don't think he'd ever think anything like that makes sense -- and I don't agree.


Again, it seems you're trying to make it simple but you aren't. My answer would be similar to yours, except (as per some other posts) that IMO it would depend on the piano and acoustics.
Plus, I would add, it would depend on what you do leading up to it and following it.


Another opinion.
IMO it's of some interest to wonder what the composer would think, but if his feeling would be "no, you can't do that," I wouldn't feel it means we can't. To me, the ultimate arbiter is our own knowledge, taste, and judgment.


+1


That is no less subjective than anything else here.

Now you're getting somewhere! How more fully are we able to be faithful to the composer than through what he/she has left us?

Why? It's not your composition(s) and the composer isn't around to ask how such and such should/shouldn't be. Do you know more about the composer's music than the composer? I absolutely hate that statement that, "oh well, the composer is dead...I'll do what I want." If that's how you feel then why do you bother to play dead composer's music?

although Chopin had the low C-sharp on his instrument, he deliberately didn't write it down, but he emphasized the single, not so low, C-sharp with the accent Fz, so it must have been his intention to do exactly what he wrote, it's not for us to improve on his notes, just to play them as beautifully as we can. No octave then, maybe the impression of one..