Ballade Op. 23 à Monsieur le Baron de Stockhausen
Largo
1
3
pesante
Moderato
3
5
3
dim.
3
*
[
10
]
[
[
]
14
] ]
[
[
18
]
[
[
Edition Peters No. 7531 © Copyright 2006 by Hinrichsen Edition, Peters Edition Ltd, London
]
2 22
]
26 (
31
)
riten.
18
*
*
34
(
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
agitato 38
(
)
*
*
)
*
*
*
*
3 41
(
)
(
*
*
*
*
)
*
sempre pi첫 mosso 44 [ ] ( [
]
)
)
(
8
47 [ ]
)
(
* (8)
50
*
*
*
53
(dim.)
*
*
*
*
*
4 8
56
*
*
8
59
)
(
*
* calando
smorz.
8
62
*
*
(8)
Meno mosso sotto voce
65
riten.
*
*
*
*
70
*
*
*
*
*
*
5 A:
74
3
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
78
3
3
*
*
82
*
*
*
3
3
* 3
*
*
3
3
3
3
*
88
*
( )
sempre
3
85
*
*
3
* 3
*
( )
3
3
sempre
*
*
*
*
6 91 91 ]
dim. dim.
rall. rall.
]
[
[
94 94
* *
a tempo a tempo
* * [
]
[
]
[
]
m.s. [ m.s.
m.s. ] m.s.
* *
97 97
* * [
[
]
[
]
* *
* *
* *
m.s. [ m.s.
* *
* * ]
m.s. ] m.s.
* *
(
[
]
[
]
* *
* *
[
[
)
101
(
[
)
(
)
]
[
cresc.
]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
A:
105
]
*
*
*
*
*
7 109
3
*
3
*
*
*
*
112
4
*
*
*
*
*
8
115
* 119
*
[ ]
* 122
*
*
(
*
* )
*
*
*
*
8 pi첫 animato 125
dim.
* 128
cresc.
* 8
131
(8)
134
[]
[]
A:
(pi첫 vivo) (8)
(8)
(scherzando)
137
*
*
*
*
9 140
(
*
*
)
*
*
*
*
143
( )
*
*
*
*
* A:
146
149
cresc.
152
10 155
(
*
)
(
*
)
*
leggieramente
158
(
)
8
161
* 164
() *
*
167
*
*
*
*
11 A, F 1, G, E:
170
5
5
5
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
173 A:
*
176
)
(
*
* (
179
3
)
con forza
* ten.
ten.
3
3
4
182
*
*
* 3
3
* 3
*
3
sempre
3
3
[
*
]
3
*
*
*
12 185
3
3
3
3
3
3 )
(
*
*
(
*
)
*
188
*
*
*
191
riten.
* 194
rall.
dim.
*
Meno mosso (
) (
sempre sotto voce
(
)
(
)
[
]
[
*
]
*
*
*
[
*
]
198 )
cresc.
[
]
[
] (
)
*
*
[
*
*
*
]
*
[
*
*
13 202
cresc.
[
]
[
]
8
appassionato
poco riten.
206
]
il pi첫
3
possibile
*
5
*
Presto con fuoco 8
208
*
*
*
*
8
211
*
*
*
214
( )
*
*
14 217
*
*
*
*
*
*
220
*
*
[
*
]
223
]
*
[ A:
226
229
cresc.
*
15 8
232
*
*
*
*
(8)
235
(
*
*
)
*
*
(8)
238
* 242
6
6
6
6
245
6
cresc.
8
6
6
29
*
16 248
39
*
riten.
250
accel.
6 21 6
[
]
21 8
*
254
28 28
(8)
riten.
8
accel.
*
6
256
3
poco riten.
accel.
3
6 [
]
* 8
260
8
*
A:
accel.
NOTES ON EDITORIAL METHOD AND PRACTICE Editorial concept The Complete Chopin is based on two key premises. First, there can be no definitive version of Chopin’s works: variants form an integral part of the music. Second, a permissive conflation of readings from several sources – in effect producing a version of the music that never really existed – should be avoided. Accordingly, our procedure is to identify a single principal source for each work and to prepare an edition of that source (which we regard as ‘best’, even if it cannot be definitive). At the same time, we reproduce important variants from other authorized sources either adjacent to or, in certain instances, within the main music text, in footnotes or in the Critical Commentary, thus enabling scholarly comparison and facilitating choice in performance. (Conflation may be inadmissible for the editor, but it remains an option and right for the performer.) Multiple versions of whole works are presented when differences between the sources are so abundant or fundamental that they go beyond the category of ‘variant’. Sources The complexity of the Chopin sources could hardly be greater, given the varying ways in which each work was drafted, prepared for publication (usually in three different countries) and subsequently revised in successive impressions. Our edition takes account of the following sources as relevant: • autograph manuscripts, many of which were used by engravers (i.e. Stichvorlagen, or engraver’s manuscripts); • proofs, whether uncorrected or corrected by Chopin; • first editions, including subsequent impressions released during Chopin’s lifetime if relevant; • autograph glosses in the scores of his students and associates; and • editions of pieces for which no other source material survives. In determining a single principal source for each piece, we have been guided by several factors of variable relevance from work to work. For the music published during Chopin’s lifetime, these include the following: • Chopin’s presence in Paris, which allowed him to correct proofsheets and successive impressions of the French first edition, whereas he had no control over the publication process in Germany and England. We therefore tend to privilege the French first edition and later printings thereof; • the existence of an autograph or authoritative copy related to a particular first edition; and • the quality of the source with respect to errors and clarity of presentation. For the posthumously published works, a more ad hoc methodology must be adopted, taking into account extant autograph manuscripts or approved copies or early editions when no other source material survives. The rationale for the selection of each work’s principal source is given in the Critical Commentary. Editorial principles Our central aim is fidelity to the designated principal source except when errors and omissions occur therein.When such errors and omissions are indisputable, corrections are made tacitly in the music text, without distinguishing marks, but are discussed in the Critical Commentary (except for certain types of accidental; see below). When they are open to debate, any changes made editorially are distinguished in the music text by the use of square brackets; the Critical Commentary will discuss and justify these changes as necessary. When other authorized sources offer significant alternatives, we present these as variants in one of the following ways:
• alternative music text is positioned on the page, either next to the main text or in footnotes; the provenance of each variant is identified according to the system of abbreviations defined in the Critical Commentary; • alternative dynamics, articulation and other small-scale variants are incorporated within the music text but are distinguished by round brackets; • alternative fingerings are printed in italics; and • alternative pedallings appear below the staff in smaller type and enclosed within round brackets, their provenance being identified according to the system of abbreviations defined in the Critical Commentary. Minor alternatives in other authorized sources are discussed and reproduced in the Critical Commentary as necessary, but do not appear in the body of the edition proper. The principle of fidelity to an early nineteenth-century source raises important questions about the appearance of our Edition, given the differences in notational conventions between Chopin’s age and our own. Our general practice is to conserve relevant features of early to mid nineteenth-century notation while modernizing details which otherwise would not be comprehensible to today’s performers. The criterion is whether or not a given feature has any bearing on the music’s meaning. For instance, we generally follow the original notation with regard to the position of slurs before or after tied notes; the chains of small-scale slurs in Chopin’s original texts; superimposed (multiple) slurs; unbroken beamings across multiple groups of quavers, semiquavers etc.; and the disposition of the hands across the staves. We also respect the expressive idiosyncrasies of parallel passages. Select characteristics of the Edition • Square brackets distinguish all editorial interventions except precautionary accidentals (which are added only when reading accuracy is jeopardised). Round brackets (parentheses) designate additions and variants from other authorized sources. • Accidentals missing from the original source are tacitly replaced in this Edition when these are found within the same bar at a higher or lower register, and when they clearly apply to other uses of the same pitch class in that bar (this sort of omission being extremely typical of Chopin). • No editorial fingerings have been added. When Chopin’s own fingerings appear in the principal source, they are presented in roman type in our Edition. Any significant fingerings from other authorized sources appear in italics; their provenance is identified in the Critical Commentary. • Right- and left-hand parts may be divided between the two staves when such a disposition is vital to the original sense or better conforms to hand positions. This is how Chopin tended to notate his music, and it may be significant with regard to articulation and sonority. • Accents pose a major problem in Chopin editing. Accents of various sizes are found throughout Chopin’s manuscripts (as well as many scribal copies) and apparently have different meanings according to context; nevertheless, such meanings can be difficult to ascertain, not least because of notational inconsistencies on Chopin’s part which make the editor’s job all the more vexed. This Edition preserves the two principal types of accent in Chopin’s autographs: ). The latter seem conventional accents (>) and ‘long accents’ ( to have various functions: to indicate dynamic reinforcement, expressive stress and proportional prolongation for notes of long rhythmic value (i.e. minims and semibreves); to convey a sense of
•
•
•
• •
•
‘leaning’ to appoggiaturas, suspensions and syncopations; to emphasize groups of two, three or four notes, as well as rolled chords; and to prolong a stress over tied notes. Long accents are best thought of as a ‘surge’, versus the dynamic retraction implied by a visually similar diminuendo sign (with which many early and modern Chopin editions alike replace the long accents intended by Chopin). Marcato accents ( :, as opposed to >) are retained from the original. This Edition presents both grace notes (with stroke) and ‘long appoggiaturas’ (without stroke), thus preserving a distinction clearly intended by Chopin. A flexible approach to stem directions on a single staff has been taken. Standard modern practice is not observed when the original stem directions convey a meaning that modernized notation would lack. Liaisons (i.e. diagonal lines) between the hands are reproduced where relevant; taken from the copies of Chopin’s students (especially those of Camille Dubois), these indicate a simultaneous attack on the beat with both hands. Rests are added only when the original sense is unclear or in cases of error or omission. Pedalling. Where a $ marking or pedal release (*) is either erroneous or absent, and when its placement is unambiguous, such an indication is inserted without square brackets but is discussed in the Critical Commentary; when its placement is open to debate, any editorial correction or addition will be designated by square brackets, with justification provided in the Critical Commentary as necessary. In general, pedal releases are not added at the ends of pieces: the pedalling remains ‘open’ in keeping with Chopin’s practice. Triplets and similar rhythmic groupings are indicated with small numbers. Such groupings and similar ornamental shapes are not slurred as a matter of policy, as such slurs in Chopin’s music often designate legato articulation, not rhythmic grouping. We therefore follow his notational practice. Critical Commentary
The Critical Commentary identifies the particular strategy for the choice of primary and secondary sources, provides information on sources (including dates and library sigla as necessary) and justifies individual decisions regarding the text. It also reports on relevant variants and corrections of errors and omissions in the principal source. The identification of obvious mistakes and faulty notation in the sources is avoided; so too is the description of secondary musical details in subsidiary sources. Standard library sigla are given as relevant for manuscript material. The following abbreviations are used when necessary: RH = right hand LH = left hand Br. = brass Str. = strings Ww. = woodwind; plus standard abbreviations for other orchestral instruments. To specify pitches, the Helmholtz system is used as follows:
An oblique (/) is used for comments applying to more than one part (e.g. ‘RH / LH’ refers to both RH and LH). Commas are used in succession when a given feature occurs in a number of bars or sources (e.g. ‘Bars 6, 7, 8. > to RH note 2 from F’) or when a given element has multiple features (e.g. ‘Bar 19. p, > to LH chord 1 from S ’). This Edition employs a precise and unambiguous means of identifying individual notes and chords within a bar. In general, these are referred to in the Critical Commentary with regard to their position as an event within a given bar. For instance, in the following music example (the first bar from the E minor Concerto Op. 11): ‘w’ = bar 1 RH note 3, as it is a single note and the third righthand event in the bar; ‘x’ = bar 1 RH chord 4, as it is a chord (i.e. two or more notes) and the fourth right-hand event in the bar; ‘y’ = bar 1 LH note 2, as it is a single note and the second lefthand event in the bar; and ‘z’ = bar 1 LH chord 3, as it is a chord (i.e. two or more notes) and the third left-hand event in the bar.
Acknowledgements Financial support for The Complete Chopin has been generously provided by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, the British Academy, the British Council, the Swiss National Science Foundation, and the Department of Music, Royal Holloway, University of London. John Rink Jim Samson Jean-Jacques Eigeldinger
CRITICAL COMMENTARY BALLADE OP. 23 Sources Autograph, c.1834–35. Stichvorlage for F1, 16pp. [Private collection, U.S.A.: photograph, PL-Wtfc: F.1468]. F1 French first edition, first impression, July 1836. Maurice Schlesinger, Paris, plate No. M.S. 1928. F2 Later impression of the French first edition, registered August 1836. Schlesinger, Paris, plate No. M.S. 1928. F = F1 + F 2 G German first edition, June 1836. Breitkopf & Härtel, Leipzig, plate No. 5706. E English first edition, August 1836. Wessel, London, plate No. 1644. D Dubois score of F2 [F-Pn: Rés. F.980 (II, 10)]. Principal source: F 2
Bar 34. Fifth beat (RH c2): = missing in A and first editions Bars 37–43. LH slurring from A. F slurs in groups of three:
A
Suggested filiation A served as Stichvorlage for F 1, with proofs corrected by Chopin. It is possible that Chopin was also involved in the preparation of F2. In a letter to Chopin’s sister Izabella Barcińska of 1 February 1878 [PL-
Wtfc: M/450] the German publisher Breitkopf & Härtel claimed to be in possession of a manuscript of Op. 23, without specifying if this was an autograph or a scribal copy. No such manuscript is extant. In any case, textual commonalities between F and G, and in particular common discrepancies from A, would seem to indicate decisively that the Schlesinger proofs were used for the preparation of G. E was also based on the Schlesinger proofs, and Chopin had no hand in its preparation. Bar 1.
G: Largo replaced by Lento. All other sources, including A,
have Largo Bar 6. Placing of from A. In F it begins in bar 7 G : LH has d 1 in place of e - 1. This change was certainly Bar 7. made by a house editor Bars 9, 10. LH slurs: here, and in similar passages throughout the Ballade, Chopin’s convention is to use a single slur to encompass both RH and LH. LH slurring has been added to conform to modern practice Bar 10. D: LH slur over the whole bar, presumably a performance indication particular to this pupil Bars 14–16. The elided slurs (non-standard in modern notation) are present in both A and F , and make good musical sense. Chopin’s initial slurring (amended on the autograph) conformed to the model established bars 8–10, thus:
Bar 18.
The long accent parallels that in bar 10. The case for adding it in bar 20 is arguably less strong Bars 21–24. RH slurring from A. In all first editions slur ends first beat bar 24, probably a misreading of Chopin’s autograph Bars 26–27. Tie (d2) from A. First editions omit this, i.e. they repeat d2 first beat of bar 27 Bars 32, 34. Long accents (RH) from A. First editions have short accents (E has ^ on d2 in bar 34)
Bars 37–39. Bar 42. Bar 43. Bar 44. Bars 44, 46. Bars 45–48.
Bars 45, 47. Bar 46. Bar 50. Bar 53. Bars 54–56.
Bars 60–62.
Bar 63. Bar 66. Bars 68, 72. Bar 69. Bar 77. Bar 78. Bar 82.
except for bar 40 LH crotchets 1–3, bar 41 (slur to LH crotchets 5–6, not 4–6), and bar 43 crotchets 4–6 (no slur) Editorial slurs from G, E. They are omitted in A , F RH è from G LH note 4, staccato dot from A Slur to LH beat 5 by analogy to bar 46 The sources are unclear as to accents here. A has no accents in bar 44 and longer diminuendos in bar 46 Phrasing, including elided slurs, from A. In all first editions LH slur ends last notes of bars 45 and 47. In F, RH slur ends last notes of bars 46 and 47 G: first note in RH is f +1, f +2 Slur to LH beat 5 from A Editorial staccato dot by analogy with bar 49 dim. from A RH phrasing from A. Chopin’s slur is carelessly drawn and was misread by the French editor. In F, the slur begins first note of bar 54, and ends bar 56 note 6; a new slur begins on note 7. This error reproduced in G, E RH phrasing from G. All other sources extend slur to bar 62 beat 1. Again Chopin’s slur in A is carelessly drawn G: last RH quaver is d A: no ritenuto In F, second $ is on 4th crotchet beat RH tie and augmentation dot from A RH note values are inaccurate here, an obvious error Augmentation dot on RH a1 from E; missing in A, F, G A: the note values are illogical at this point:
3
Bars 85–86, 89–90. Editorial accents added for consistency of pattern Bar 87. * from G, E Bar 89. The stem on RH d - 1 found only in A, E Bar 93. In all first editions the LH slur ends on note 6 (f 1). A omits the slur A: LH accent or hairpin appears in all three first editions, Bar 97. but not in A. RH accent by analogy with LH A: the RH chord on beats 5 and 6 is e1-a1-c2. The e1 Bar 99. was removed, probably by Chopin, in F1 Bars 99–100. RH slurring from A. F elides the slurs on bar 99 note 1 Bars 102–103.In F, RH slurring covers entire bar F: erroneous notation of upper voice note in RH Bar 103. chord 6 (crotchet instead of quaver) Bar 102. LH from A. The relevant LH notes are notated on the RH staff Bar 104. LH and RH from A. The relevant LH notes are notated on the RH staff Bars 106–107. F has an extra slur in the RH from bar 106 note 3 to bar 107 note 1
Bars 106–109. A: phrasing is:
Bar 108. LH chord 1: staccato dot from A A, F, RH chord 2: = missing from RH b2 Bar 108. Bars 112–113.A: phrasing was originally at the half bar for bar 112 and first half of bar 113 (i.e. 3 2-beat slurs). Chopin corrected it on the manuscript A: RH has: Bar 113.
Bar 119. The editorial = presumes a parallel with bar 121 Bars 120, 124, 130. RH chord 1: staccato dot from A Bar 123. The + on the mordent was introduced in F1. It is present in E but missing from G Bar 124. The accent from A . F has a RH on notes 4 and 5 (d + 2 and b2), a misreading of A Bars 124–125.RH slurring breaks end of bar 124 in all printed sources Bar 125. Upstem from A A: sempre più animato Bar 126. Bar 136. più vivo from A Bars 137–138.Slurring from A. There is no break in the phrasing in the first editions Bar 138. scherzando from A Bars 138, 139. The second * in both bars from A. All first editions have the * at beat 6 in these bars, but at beat 5 in bars 142 and 143 Bars 140, 143.LH note 1: staccato dot from A, E Bar 141. RH long accent from A Bars 142, 143, 144. LH note 4: staccato dot from E Bar 155. LH accent from A. F has Bars 156, 157. LH accents from A Bars 158–159. LH slur from A (also in G ) Bar 164. from A A: fz on LH note 1. This was replaced by an accent in Bar 165. Bar 170.
F1 G, E : RH is
5
Bars 170–172. Chopin’s hairpins are carelessly drawn in A, leading to an inconsistent placement in F2 (beginning note 1 in bars 170 and 171, note 5 in bar 172) Bar 171. Variant from all sources (including A) except F2, which has:
5
This is certainly intended as a parallel with bar 170, and the d2 in RH chord 4 was presumably a publisher’s error, corrected in the present edition
Bar 178. LH slurs from A Bar 179. Accent from A (see bar 81) Bar 182. Editorial pedalling by analogy with surrounding bars Bars 182–183. LH slurring from A. F continues slur to end of first beat of bar 183, a misreading of A Bar 184. Position of * from A. In F , G, E it is located at the end of the bar A: accent on RH c - 1 Bar 187. A: no ritenuto Bar 191. F (and other first editions) misreads the performance Bar 194. indications here as pp sempre and sotto voce, rather than pp and sempre sotto voce Bars 194, 196, 198. D has short RH accent in pencil (cf. bars 8, 10, and 12) Bars 194–195. RH slur from G Bar 195. LH notes 2, 3: slur and staccato dots from A, E Bars 196–197. RH slur from A . In F, slur ends last note of bar 196 Bars 197–198. RH slur from A Bars 198–201. Pedalling from A Bar 198. LH notes 1, 2: staccato dots from E Bars 200–201. In F, E , RH slur closes end of bar 200. Here as in G Bars 208, 210. In F 2, * on beats 4 and 2 respectively. They have been changed to conform to the parallel passage, bars 212, 214 Bar 214. LH e-1 in first chord from A . First editions have
; see bar 210
Short accent from G , E . A , F have long accents. See bar 226 Bar 219. Accent to RH note 1 as in bar 217 Bar 220. = s from G , E Bar 221. Editorial pedal indications by analogy with bars 119, 220 Bars 224–225. First editions have LH slur from a - (last chord of bar 224) to d (bar 225 note 1). A more coherent placing would be C (bar 224) to d (bar 225). There is no slur in A Bar 227. LH note 1: staccato dot by analogy with bar 225 Bar 226. RH upstem (note 7) from A Bars 226–227. A: no LH slur Bars 233–234.RH slur breaks end of bar 233 in all printed editions Bars 234, 235, 236. LH chords 1, 3: staccato dots omitted in all printed editions. Here by analogy with bar 237 Bars 246–247.RH note 28: - from G Bars 252–253.RH staccato dots from A Bars 252, 254.LH note 1: editorial staccato wedges by analogy with RH Bar 256. LH note 1: staccato wedge from E
Bar 218.