Making matters worse, the tied passage is notated in all the prints five times (with minor differences), owing to the scherzo’s structural repeats. The prints mentioned reproduce the above-cited spot in all conceivable variants.
The Leipzig and London editions were based on the French first edition – they did not pass through Chopin’s hands. The Paris edition littered with errors must rule out here a proofreading by Chopin yet it presumably goes directly back to the lost autograph. An autograph has not come down to us, merely three first editions (Paris: Schlesinger Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel London: Wessel), of which the German and English were repeatedly corrected and reprinted. This is not surprising since his acquaintance with Chopin went back, after all, more than 40 years.īut where does the uncertainty of Hiller’s and Mikuli’s – as well as, incidentally, that of most pianists of our day for it is a famous “Chopin spot” – come from? The root of the problem lies, as so often, in the sources. The wrong and/or corrected entries in the music example indicate, however, that Hiller was not at all certain in the matter. In order to avoid any misunderstandings, he adds to Mikuli’s question standing below the sentence, so that it now reads: “A tie between both b’s belongs to spots A, B | none at C.”
Hiller recorded his ideas in the example, setting at A, however, ties at the wrong place and correcting himself at C. Mikuli wanted to know whether or not there ought to be a tie at the spots marked A, B, and C. Reproduced with the library’s kind permission. Original lost, copy in Warsaw, the Library of the Fryderyk Chopin Institute, shelfmark F. One of the most interesting spots there is a section from the Scherzo in b minor, measures 43–57:Įxcerpt from the Mikuli-Hiller letter. Mikuli appended music examples with specific questions for Hiller to annotate and return to him. A few strokes on the enclosed leaf will suffice, and we shall be happy to owe the important task’s solution to you.”
Esteemed Lord and Master, let us hear your ultimate, correct word in the matter. The only hope remaining for us: To call on his loyal old friend who so often heard the things by him, who indeed saw them being composed.
#Chopin scherzo 2 form full#
To Hiller he writes on 22 August 1879: “The old original editions are full of divergent readings, in which the autographs that we have cannot shed enough light since they obviously contain writing errors (and that really often). These kinds of inquiries to Auguste Franchomme and Ferdinand Hiller are in any case documented. In his indecision he evidently turned to contemporary witnesses who had themselves heard Chopin’s playing and could perhaps recall the correct versions. Mikuli, despite this closeness, obviously could not decide at many spots what the correct reading should then be. Mikuli was “close” to the Master, and hence many corrections and pointers presumably influenced his edition at firsthand. Towards the end of the 1870s Mikuli prepared his Chopin edition, still widespread today, for the Kistner publishing house. I came across a document by the famous Chopin pupil and editor Karol Mikuli that shows considerable perplexity. This in any case happened to me when I began to prepare a revised edition ( HN 1334) of the 1 st Scherzo in b minor. The idea that we are not alone in our exasperation can, however, be comforting. That Chopin variants can be exasperating to an editor – who has to do everything possible to provide the musician with one valid text – is well enough known.