The Line of Argument in Chopin's E Minor Prelude

Author(s): John Rink

Source: Early Music , Aug., 2001, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Aug., 2001), pp. 434-444
Published by: Oxford University Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3519187

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Early Music

This content downloaded from

193.136.113.73 on Sun, 14 Mar 2021 22:44:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 *. CHOPIN AS EARLY MUSIC .

John Rink

The line of argument in Chopin's E minor Prelu

edition in 1839, a revised impression of which fol-

SCHOLARS in recent
turned to musical recordings years have
as a resource for increasingly
studying performance practices. This article adds to
the momentum by undertaking a comparative sur-
vey of 14 recordings of Chopin's Prelude in E minor,
op.28 no.4. Its primary purpose, however, is not to
gauge fidelity to an ostensibly original performance
aesthetic' or to trace an evolution in the performance
styles of the individual performers-the goals of
many comparative investigations-but to identify
the ways in which these pianists meet the expressive
and technical challenges inherent in the score and
overcome the various conceptual problems that
surround the performance of any work by Chopin.
In particular, I shall try to discover the unique logic,
or line of argument, that lies at the heart of each
interpretation. I shall also assess the role of historical
evidence (among other things) in shaping a given
performance, all the while claiming that what gener-
ally determines the latter's success is not its scholarly
probity but the extent to which it coheres and is
coherent, and the extent to which it convinces, or
moves, the listener. That contention is the basis on
which the 14 recordings are evaluated in the second
part of the article.
The background to performance
Chopin completed the Twenty-Four Preludes,
op.28, during his sojourn in Majorca, and on 22 Jan-
uary 1839 he sent the autograph manuscript to Julian
Fontana in Paris to serve as a Stichvorlage for the
French first edition. That manuscript survives, as
does a sketch from late 1838 or early 1839 (see
illus.2, 3). Adolphe Catelin published the French first
lowed almost immediately (illus.1). Breitkopf &
Hirtel issued the German first edition, based on a
copy by Fontana, and Wessel brought out the
English first edition, prepared from Catelin's revised
print. Chopin taught op.28 to various students, as
shown by autograph glosses in the copies of Jane
Stirling and Camille Dubois; glosses also appear in
the score of his sister, Ludwika Jqdrzejewicz. He
played some of the Preludes at concerts in Paris in
1841 and 1842, but never, it seems, the whole set
in public.
The two manuscripts reveal notational idiosyn-
crasies on Chopin's part, as well as a dialectic
between linear continuity and individual attack
which is the focus of much of the ensuing discussion.
In both the Stichvorlage and especially the sketch, the
right-hand melody is predominant, as it were subju-
gating the left-hand accompaniment;2 furthermore,
the generally downward stem directions in both
manuscripts could be read semiotically as to how the
melodic line might be played-namely, as a long
continuity.3 Other notational features of interest
include the long appoggiaturas in bars 11 and 19, and
the 'long accents' in bar 8 and (possibly) bars 12 and
16 of the Stichvorlage. The appoggiaturas appear as
conventional grace notes in Fontana's copy and,
thus, the German first edition (along with many that
followed), whereas the French first edition preserves
the Stichvorlage's notation, the intended realization
of which might be implied by paired quavers in the
sketch-that is, played as equal rhythms, in line with
Chopin's bel canto-inspired performance approach
in general.

John Rink is Professor of Music at Royal Holloway, University of London. He has produced three
books for Cambridge University Press and is Project Director and one of three Series Editors of The
Complete Chopin-A New Critical Edition.

EARLY MUSIC AUGUST 2001 435

This content downloaded from

193.136.113.73 on Sun, 14 Mar 2021 22:44:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Lai'go.

{A Ii I fw_

- , - .. . . ..1. . . .
-f - - dii: /
P ,,

Z' '---. I I PI AV' I w

Pod:

A-- 4
? ' _ I IV I I ? f-d I +V _ - -
? i ,p. 6v T'-

t'. Liv: A1ilC.(560) C"

i Chopin, Prelude in E minor, op.28 no.4, French first edition, second revised impression (Paris: Adolphe

434 EARLY MUSIC AUGUST 2001

This content downloaded from

193.136.113.73 on Sun, 14 Mar 2021 22:44:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
O*N

.:== . .... :. .-..,-.T-......

7/ `S'~~~K, 1' I _

1A

. ..-.............. I.....
0
0

7 77?.- 7 .77

2 Chopin's sketch of the Prelude

Daniel Drachman, Stevenson, M

This content downloaded from

193.136.113.73 on Sun, 14 Mar 2021 22:44:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 .... . .+ ...... ....... .. .......... .... .. . .-' "+ ......+ ,]-".:+++..+. .... ++i++
...................... .-..,.....,, .,,. .... . .. .......

... . ......" . ,. . . ... . . . . .. . . . . .. . . ......

....... . ..... . 7+ ,+'?-............ ...... ...................... . . . . . " . . . . . .. . . . . . ...,. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ..............................................

.... ......... ... . .... .... ... ....... .............. .. ........ ...... ...... ... . . . ..... .. . ........... . ...... .. . .. ....
.. ..... . .... .. ...... .. ..........,+ + - + ..... ... . . . ..... ..... ....
i+[ + , ++-..... . - . . ... " ++ + " . .. . .' . ........ .... ........-.......+

3i+ . . .. . . ... . .....++..-.......-

+ + +++ . . ..-"'---...--.
. .. ++ , + ++ + ......7 .+ ......
+ . +..... ..... ... .:+ -
........... ..... .... . . .. ...."..... . + + '. .. . . . .. ++ + + . . .+ . . .' + ; " +: " ' .. . . + + +L : + ++ +
., ............. "" , . . ............... ... .. .. ... .... .... . +......".. .? ....+ .... " +'
. ...0 ... .+
" " -..-... .- - --.. .... . .. . . .. . ................. ... - ... -:.. ... ._. .. . ..-... .-....,,.,-.,....,...+ +
+, ' " '''+| ++ ,'' ++' "++ +S "-- +" + '"++"++..., +". ..................

,.. . . . .. . . ...
r .. .. .... ...... ...... .. . ............ ... ..
. ... + ., .+ .+ . . . .. ... .... .. .. .......... + ".......
........ . ... .. .... . . . . , - .......: + ... .......+ ....+++ .

i.++ +. ,o++ -7-

------ -- 01

~ it ~
,+................ . .... ...., . .......... . ,, ,+
1*-, ut 1a 1'z
~ Aoa.
C*1

.r... . .
now.,

(41
3 Chopin, Prelude in E minor, op.2
Stichvorlage for French first edition

This content downloaded from

193.136.113.73 on Sun, 14 Mar 2021 22:44:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 As for his long accents, these appear to have well invite disparate performance strategies. For
several different functions in his music:4 to indicate instance, Clarke and Davidson note three 'critical
dynamic reinforcement, expressive stress and pro-structural issues for a performer': how much empha-
portional prolongation for notes of long rhythmicsis to give the melodic return and potential 're-start'
value; to convey a sense of 'leaning', that is, direc- at bar 13; 'the extent to which the first 12 bars are
tional impulse, to appoggiaturas, suspensions andtreated as a relatively closed, self-contained unit';
syncopations; to emphasize groups of two, three orand whether the final cadence should be regarded as
four notes; and to prolong a stress over tied notes.an overall goal or an 'almost parenthetical, though
Bar 8's long accent belongs to the last category, whileconventionally necessary, framing device'.9 Another
bar 12's confers not a sharp attack on the thirdmoment of decision surrounds the emphatic bar 17,
quaver but a weighted resolution from C to B. (Thewhich reaches dynamic and registral peaks over a
C, incidentally, should be played with a fingerdominant pedal. Although climactic, this bar should
change from thumb to index finger according to not-in Carl Schachter's opinion-be allowed to
glosses in Stirling's, Dubois's and Jqdrzejewicz's disrupt the flow, as it is transient within a prolonged
copies, thus reinforcing its weight.) In bar 16, wheresubdominant, the true 'structural dominant' being
Chopin's notation is ambiguous, a long accent might reached only in bar 19:
be intendedfor the last two right-hand notes, stress-
Performers who wish to project the sense of a prolonged sub-
ing the dissonance that culminates in bar 17's out- dominant in bars 16-18 need not at all minimise the climac-
burst and heightening the stretto, by which Chopintic octave B of bar 17 or the intense melodic line that goes
literally means 'intensified' or 'tightened', notwith it. Giving the B extra time, however, would make it
accelerando.5 sound like a goal of motion, and thus a structural V; this
should be avoided. In other words, Chopin's stretto marking
Throughout the Prelude the pulsing chords in theshould be followed to the letter.10
bass lend momentum to the long-breathed line in
the treble. Rhythmic activity grows more intense in Other performance issues relate to tempo, ped-
the right hand in three places: bar 9, where the har-alling, sonority and the relationship between the two
mony becomes unambiguously diatonic for the firsthands. Although Chopin provided no metronome
time since bar 2; bar 12, a point of structural articula-marking (he stopped adding these after 1835), his
tion echoing the initial anacrusis; and especially bars'Largo' operates within a 2/2 time signature-which,
16-18, the climax of the work. The left hand's virtu-astonishingly, some editions (including the Wiener
ally constant quaver motion ceases in bar 23, and theUrtext!) change to 4/4. In contrast, a true alla breve
three chords after the pause denote a turning allows the right-hand melody to sing, the long
point-indeed, a complete change of voice, amount- phrases floating as if in a single breath; moreover,
ing to a retrospective commentary on the haunting Chopin's distinctive rubato comes into its own
melody's demise. within a fluid tempo, the right hand thus being freed
Kofi Agawu describes the pause in different terms, from the pulsing left-hand quavers." As for ped-
as 'a palpable sign that announces closure', whichalling, Chopin's intentions are elusive. Contempo-
occurs by means of'a stock cadential figure' creatingrary accounts suggest that he made 'constant use of
'a gestural discontinuity on the surface of the piece the pedal',12 and the near absence of pedal markings
while maintaining a syntactic continuity in thehere may mean the required pedalling is simple and
background'.6 More generally, Jim Samson sees theself-evident; or that it is too subtle to be notated;13 or
work as a 'continuous' form 'expressed through athat the piece should be played without pedal save in
simple bipartite design, a statement with conflatedbars 17 and 18. Sonority will of course be affected by
response',7 while Eric Clarke and Jane Davidsonthe pedalling, as by the instrument itself. Pianists
identify two conflicting views of the Prelude-asthese days often luxuriate in the harmonic embarras
'a binary A A' structure' (bars 1-12 and 13-25) or asde richesses of the modern piano, on which it is
'a more singular and unified' entity.8 admittedly far from easy to play the left-hand chords
These different interpretations of structure might seamlessly and without an audible attack-at any

438 EARLY MUSIC AUGUST 2001

This content downloaded from

193.136.113.73 on Sun, 14 Mar 2021 22:44:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
tempo. (This is in fact one of the principal technical even be said that the treatment of the left hand is the
challenges of the E minor Prelude.) My own basis of the principal expressive strategy in many of
approach reflects the capabilities of period pianos, these recordings, although strategic decisions are
especially the Pleyel that Chopin favoured: namely, also taken with regard to dynamics, tempo fluctua-
to use shallow left-hand attacks that produce a tion and articulation (staccato versus legato, depth
singing sound but only just,14 while striving for a of attack, amount of pedal and so on). All of these
seamless colour achieved in part by judicious ped- expressive parameters are addressed in the ensuing
alling throughout. Tempo, articulation and ped- study.
alling thus work symbiotically-as indeed do other
factors, like dynamics and Affekt. Survey of recordings
Jean-Jacques Eigeldinger notes that 'in writing The 14 performances under consideration were
this elegy in E minor, Chopin had recourse to the key recorded between 1926 and 1992 by 11 pianists: Lili
traditionally associated with lamentation in the Kraus, Vladimir Ashkenazy, Alexander Brailowsky,
Baroque catalogue of affects'; furthermore, that the Stefan Askenase, Benno Moiseiwitsch, Cyprien Kat-
left-hand chords, 'in close position', cloak 'the saris, Billy Mayerl, Shura Cherkassky, Alfred Cortot,
descending, chromatic movement of three indepen- Raoul Koczalski and Martha Argerich. Table 1 lists
dent lines; superimposed lines which represent the recording dates and issue numbers for each ren-
Chopin's response to the harmonic polyphony of the dition. These recordings are of course no more than
"Crucifixus" from [Bach's] B minor Mass'.15 The a fraction of those released over the past century;
tension within the accompaniment between har- drawn from a much larger sample heard at the
monic and contrapuntal implications, and the National Sound Archive in London, they were cho-
nature of its interaction with the melody above, sen because they either typify a given interpretative
invite careful consideration by the pianist. In some approach or, in contrast, are distinctive in some
of the performances to be discussed, harmony takes respect. Their presentation here is not chronological,
precedence over counterpoint within the left hand, for the reason indicated earlier; instead, they are dis-
which tends to assume a somewhat neutral role as a cussed according to their principal expressive strat-
result; in others, contrapuntal relations come to theegy as I perceive it.16 Six performance types are iden-
fore so that the left hand participates more fully-tified in this review: two interpretations come across
more 'vocally'-in the musical argument. It couldas instrumentally conceived, featuring a neutral left

Table 1 Recordings of the E minor Prelude (in order of discussion)

Pianist Recording Issue no. Duration

date

1 Lili Kraus 1937 Parlophone R20451 2' o8"

2 Vladimir Ashkenazy 1992 Decca 436 821-2 1' 52"
3 Vladimir Ashkenazy c.1976-8 Decca 417 476-2 2' 00oo"
4 Alexander Brailowsky 1952 RCA GL85268 1' 50"
5 Stefan Askenase 1953 DGM 19002 1' 55"
6 Benno Moiseiwitsch 1949 Gramophone c3905 2' oo"
7 Cyprien Katsaris 1992 Sony SK53355 2' 06"
8 Billy Mayerl 1937 Columbia Dxo82 1' 21"
9 Shura Cherkassky 1975 Decca 433 653-2 1' 47"
lo Alfred Cortot 1926 EMI CDZ 767360 2 1' 58"
11 Alfred Cortot 1934 EMI CDH 761050 2 1' 48"
12 Alfred Cortot 1942 EMI CDZ 7673642 1' 36"
13 Raoul Koczalski c.1938 Archiphon ARC-119/20 1' 18"
14 Martha Argerich 1973 BBC Radio 3 (4 September) 2' 06"

EARLY MUSIC AUGUST 2001 439

This content downloaded from

193.136.113.73 on Sun, 14 Mar 2021 22:44:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
hand and a steadiness of attack and articulation; Ashkenazy's recording from c.1976-8 is more
effective than the one from 1992, possibly because
in three recordings, the left hand is shaped by means
of contrapuntal layering, dynamics, tempo and/orthe right and left hands engage in dialogue to a much
asynchronization of the two hands; three perfor- greater extent. There is more temporal shaping than
mances are undermined by illogicalities of design; in the performances just considered (starting with
an exaggerated upbeat far slower than the rest of the
one interpretation initially sounds illogical but turns
out to use rubato 'motivically'; three performancesinterpretation), and the left hand in particular-ini-
by the same pianist and one by another reveal the tially subdued but gradually gaining in promi-
critical influence of small- and large-scale tempo onnence-is more richly modelled in its actualization
overall coherence; and the last recording is particu-of latent contrapuntal connections. For example,
larly rich in semantic implication largely thanks toAshkenazy brings out the descent through c#' in bars
the left-hand voicing. 4-5 and the resolutions from d# to d4 in bars 6-7 and
Lili Kraus's 1937 recording-the slowest of all at from c4' to b in bar 8. His dynamic swell in bars 14-15
2' o08"-is dominated by the right hand, which pre- (rather earlier than the notated crescendo in bar 16)17
also attests to the left hand's central role in the inter-
vails over a modest left hand very much in the back-
ground and at more or less one dynamic level pretation, just before a big climax which sounds
somewhat out of place, in part because the right
throughout. A regularity of attack and sense of
restraint characterize the accompaniment, althoughhand all of a sudden obliterates the left. Neverthe-
less, the voicing of the left-hand part is both more
there is some temporal stretching in bars 4 and 7 and
brief dynamic swells in bars ii and 15-but still in subtle than in the 1992 recording and more fully
subservience to the right hand, which has a full, engaged in defining the character of the perfor-
singing tone foregrounding the melody at all times.mance.

Kraus's technical control is consummate: extremely Alexander Brailowsky (1952) similarly

subtle dynamic nuances can be heard within the leftshaped left hand, having set the scene by
hand, without however creating the contrapuntal first three preludes very rapidly but th
variegation heard in certain other interpretations. back the tempo in no.4 (begun attacca) f
For this reason, the performance seems more pianis-of large-scale contrast. Here he maintain
tic than vocal in conception, at least as far as the leftattack until bar 7, despite a bit of left-han
hand is concerned: harmony takes precedence over to accommodate right-hand melody n
line within the accompaniment, although in no waysomewhat urgent quality within the acco
to the detriment of the whole. early on, even though the treble domin
Vladimir Ashkenazy's 1992 recording constitutes arally as in Ashkenazy's recording from the
modern performance norm in several respects, espe-second half begins hesitantly but builds
cially the characterization and interrelation of thethrough Brailowsky's use of articulation
two hands. The left hand is initially quite loud,rolled chords-to foreground the left ha
rather overpowering the right, but its neutrality-hasten the sense of acceleration towards the climax
that is, consistency-of attack and the lack of linearin bars 16-17, after which the left hand loses urgency
connection within the pulsing chords result in an while nevertheless retaining a full sound to the end.
instrumental accompaniment underneath a no less Articulation and temporal manipulation thus act as
instrumentally conceived melody. Linear relations the principal expressive agents in driving a musical
within the left hand become more prominent in bar argument largely conceived in terms of the interplay
between bass and treble.
14: the fifth chord is carefully placed, as is the first in
bar 15, while in bar 22, the tenor line within the left Stefan Askenase's recording from the following
hand is brought out slightly. Overall, however, the
year sounds faster but at 1' 55" is in fact slightly slower
steadiness of attack determines the fundamental than Brailowsky's, this 'aural illusion' perhaps being
caused by a lavish rubato prone to occasional surges
character of this interpretation, which thus resem-
bles Kraus's reading. as well as counterbalancing moments of recession.

440 EARLY MUSIC AUGUST 2001

This content downloaded from

193.136.113.73 on Sun, 14 Mar 2021 22:44:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
His interpretation is extremely shaped (some would at moments of change within the right-hand melody
say mannered) in both dynamic and temporal terms, and at the climax (played secco, despite the peda
above all in the first 12 bars. The left hand corre-
indication in bar 17), where Mayerl dramatically bu
spondingly zooms in and out of focus, gaining quirkily speeds up (perhaps responding to the strett
inabar 16, although not quite in accordance with its
prominence in bars 5 to 6 but receding in bar 12 for
quiet reprise in bar 13, after which it soon becomes
original meaning). The rolled chords in the penulti-
active once again. Linear relationships within mate
the bar are just as capricious-or so it seems in
accompaniment are brought to the fore here this and spell-binding but fundamentally peculiar ren-
there, as in bars 3-4 and 21-2, where Askenase dition.

employs accents on some of the left hand's upper-At first Shura Cherkassky's live performance
most notes. The performance certainly hangs from 1975 also sounds capricious, but a subtly com-
together, but the excessive expressivity threatens
pelling logic reveals itself upon repeated listenings
both its cogency and the delicate counterpoise Intermittent left-hand interjections, some of them
between the two hands that characterizes both disconcertingly urgent, shadow the right hand'
Kraus's recording and, especially, Ashkenazy's melodic motion by means of a consistent rubato
interpretation from c.1976-8. pattern-accelerando, then decelerando-which act
motivically in concert with analogous dynamic
Three recordings come across as logically flawed,
at least in part. Benno Moiseiwitsch's from 1949 is This pattern appears at numerous strategic
swells.
even more 'expressive' than Askenase's, with apoints:
grand in bar 4, just before the right hand descends
upbeat, stentorian tone, and abundant dynamic andb'; in bar 8, where the accompaniment retains
from
temporal shading. The left hand is nevertheless
a full dynamic to heighten the impulse thus created;
in bar
mechanical, driving the performance in bars 1-6 and 14, where, despite playing the wrong notes
again towards the end (occasionally with (the addedchromatic descent starts too soon), Cherkassky
pitches, as in bar 21, where Moisefwitsch inserts an again
once e generates momentum while emphasiz
within the left hand's open 5th). For me, theing argu-
melodic change; and finally in bar 21, where the
ment breaks down when the lower parts unexpect- rubato motive returns as the melodic goal is
edly and inexplicably veer into focus on the reached.
third Interestingly, he underplays the climax at
beat of bar 18; the ensuing pitch reinforcement bar 17 and thereby lends greater weight to the dom-
in bar
21 and rolled articulation in bar 23 seem equally con-
inant harmony in bar 18,19 then brings out the tenor
trived.'" Still, this performance is less quirky line
thanin bars 18-22 in counterpoint to the right
that of Cyprien Katsaris (1992), in which gratuitous
hand's oscillations around f#' and e'. Cherkassky's
asynchronies between the right and left handsslowlyinter- rolled chords at the end hardly seem com-
rupt the flow and distort the articulation. By patible
delay- with the initially fast tempo, but once again
ing the top notes in the seventh left-hand chord in
his logic is inspired, in that the ending stands apart
from the rest as if to offer the retrospective com-
bar 4 and the first in bar 5, Katsaris picks out contra-
mentary described above. To talk in terms of a
puntal connections in parallel with melodic changes
above, as again in bars 8, 14-15 and 15-16. None of
compelling logic is however to sell the performance
short: for all its blemishes and apparent distanc
these really works, nor do his excessively reticent
from an original performance aesthetic, this is one
approach to bar 12 (featuring a big decrescendo rather
than the notated crescendo) and the climax at bar 17. most moving and convincing interpretations
of the
Although no more convincing overall, Billy in May-
our survey, at least to my ears.
Alfred Cortot produced no fewer than four
erl's rollicking rendition from 1937 is at least briefly
recordings
gripping (at 1' 21", it is the second fastest of the case- of the E minor Prelude, and it i
instructive to compare several of them.20 The first
study recordings). Lacking any conventional expres-
sion, this matter-of-fact performance is led by afrom
right1926, sounds ponderously slow at times, and it
is hard to
hand with sharp, almost double-dotted quaver- discern the rationale behind Cortot's

rubato. A tendency to roll the left-hand chord

semiquaver rhythms. Pedalling is sparse, especially

EARLY MUSIC AUGUST 2001 441

This content downloaded from

193.136.113.73 on Sun, 14 Mar 2021 22:44:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
accompanying right-hand melody notes paradoxi- recorded live, and this might partly explain its com-
cally foregrounds the melody even though it lags municative potency (likewise that of Cherkassky's
behind the rolled chords. Despite its anticipatory performance). Although very slow at 2' o6", it reveals
quality, the left hand lacks direction in the first half a huge range of emotion, considerable subtlety of
of the piece, partly because of a 'stop-start' rubato touch, and a narrative aspect as if recounting a life
that grows more intrusive towards bar 12, after story in microcosm. The left-hand voicing is
which the left hand unexpectedly begins to drive the extremely refined, especially at the beginning, where
music, the logic behind this remaining somewhat the several lines implicit in the homophonic accom-
elusive. By the historically informed standards paniment recede or intercede according to their
prevalent these days, Cortot's rendition seems expressive exigency at any moment, creating an
indulgent, with its out-of-sync parts, rolled chords, almost choral effect in dialogue with the vocally
textual alterations and secco harmonies at the end, inspired melody. Argerich's use of the pedal is no
but the most problematic feature is the handling of less captivating than that of Koczalski: for instance,
small- and large-scale tempo, which inhibits the she deliberately prolongs dissonances in bars 9, 12
sense of process and thus overall coherence. Cortot's and 17, and boldly holds the pedal from bar 1 to bar
recordings from 1934 and 1942 are more successful.2' 3. By the end, the listener feels utterly spent as the
Although the earlier of the two retains the music plays itself out: by separating the last two bars
'stop-start' rubato (for instance, the melody notes from the main body of the piece, Argerich conveys a
are much delayed in bar 12), it has both temporal sense of finality-of death after life-poignantly
and dynamic shape, the left hand adopting the capturing the affect of lamentation referred to
character of the right hand in the build-up towards earlier.
climax. The 1942 reading is even better, thanks to a I find Argerich's interpretation particularly mov-
fluency of pace (1' 36", versus 1'58" in 1926 and i' 48" ing, as I do Kraus's, Cherkassky's, Cortot's (from
in 1934) and a less mannered articulation which 1942) and Koczalski's. Each demonstrates the qual-
serve rather than thwart the performance concep- ities of coherence and cogency defined earlier as one
tion. After a quiet, murmuring start, the left hand of the benchmarks of 'success' in performance. That
takes on an even more prominent role as the agent of is not to say that the other renditions do not have
build-up, leading to almost uncontrolled release in their fine points; nor would I claim that the charac-
bar 17 at the peak of intensity, which is all the more ter of each recording as I have encapsulated it-
effective thanks to the absence of the distracting whether instrumental, shaped, logically flawed,
'stop-start' rubato in the preceding bars, as also in motivically or temporally conceived, or narrative-
bar 12 in the treble. That these three recordings uti- is a matter of fact as opposed to personal judgement.
lize such different temporal strategies is remarkable Nevertheless, it goes without saying that the score of
in itself, but the effect of tempo on the coherence this prelude is infinitely susceptible to fresh interpre-
and cogency of the various readings is particularly tation, and while the historical evidence, structural
noteworthy. properties and performance practice considerations
Raoul Koczalski's interpretation from c.1938- outlined in the first part of the article might well
the fastest at 1'18"-also demonstrates the critical impinge on the reading that emerges, what ulti-
importance of tempo to the success of the
mately counts is the coalescence of these into some-
performance. A pupil of Carl Mikuli, who himself
thing greater than the sum of its parts-an interpre-
tation that transcends them all. Whether or not we
studied with Chopin, Koczalski maintains a true
2/2, keeping the pace through bar 17's climax while are hearing the E minor Prelude as Chopin con-
shading the melody with dynamic swells and a pedal ceived and played it, one can hope in encountering
recordings such as these to find a new and different
intriguingly reserved for points of melodic activity--
expressive message, and to be uniquely touched
sometimes prolonging dissonances to intensify
expression (as in the reprise).23 in ways that Chopin himself might never have
Martha Argerich's interpretation from 1973 was
imagined.

442 EARLY MUSIC AUGUST 2001

This content downloaded from

193.136.113.73 on Sun, 14 Mar 2021 22:44:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 This article is the latest in a series that has additional material placed at the Early music
website:
http://www.em.oupjournals.org
On this site you will find editions of music, facsimiles of sources, and soundclips that
may be downloaded as MP3 files.
An earlier version of this article was
presented in ]anuary 200oo1 in the
National Sound Archive's Saul Seminar
series (British Library, London). Iam
very grateful to the NSA's Curator of
Western Art Music, Timothy Day, and
to Jonathan Summers and other NSA
stafffor the generous assistance provided
in the preparation of my seminar and
thus of the current article.
1 For discussion of Chopin's perfor-
mance aesthetic, see J.-J. Eigeldinger,
Chopin: pianist and teacher as seen by
his pupils, trans. N. Shohet with
K. Osostowicz and R. Howat, ed.
R. Howat (Cambridge, 1986); J.-J.
Eigeldinger, Freddric Chopin: esquisses
pour une mdthode de piano (Paris,
1993); and J. Rink, 'Authentic Chopin:
history, analysis and intuition in
performance', Chopin Studies 2, ed. J.
Rink and J. Samson (Cambridge, 1994),
pp.214-44.
2 The fragmentary nature of the left-
hand part and the 'subjugation' to
which I refer can be attributed to
Chopin's notational habits in prepar-
ing sketches, which of course were
private documents containing idio-
syncratic forms of musical shorthand.
For discussion, see J. Kallberg, Chopin
at the boundaries: sex, history, and
musical genre (Cambridge, MA, 1996),
pp.99-1oo; see also Kallberg's article in
this issue.
3 Note also the extended right-hand
slurs in the later manuscript. Carl
Schachter states that 'Chopin's calli-
graphy conveys the continuity of the
long melodic line far better than any
of the printed editions with their alter-
nating up and down stems', and that
'pianists would do well to project that
visual continuity in a long, legato,
espressivo line' ('The Prelude in E
minor op.28 no.4: autograph sources
and interpretation', Chopin Studies 2,
193.136.113.73 on Sun, 14 Mar 2021 22:44:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ed. Rink and Samson, p.180).
4 See J. Rink, 'Les concertos de
Chopin: notation et ex6cution',
Friddric Chopin: texte, interpretation,
rdception, ed. J.-J. Eigeldinger (Geneva,
forthcoming); compare the much
briefer discussion in J. Ekier, Wstfp do
wydania narodowego dzie Fryderyka
Chopina (Krak6w, 1974), pp-149-50.
5 See J. Rink, Chopin: the piano
concertos (Cambridge, 1997), P.49.
6 V. Kofi Agawu, 'Concepts of closure
and Chopin's opus 28', Music theory
spectrum, ix (1987), p.14.
7 J. Samson, Chopin, The Master
Musicians (Oxford, 1996), p.183; this
description relates to the preludes
in general but applies to no.4 by
implication.
8 E. Clarke and J. Davidson, 'The
body in performance', Composition,
performance, reception: studies in the
creative process of music, ed. W.
Thomas (Aldershot, 1998), p.80.
9 Clarke and Davidson, 'The body
in performance', p.8o.
lo Schachter, 'The Prelude in E
minor', p.178.
11 Alternatively, the slow right-hand
melody might be played in time above
more freely articulated left-hand
chords, in a reversal of Chopin's
usual rubato pattern (that is, steady
accompaniment supporting a
rhythmically flexible melody).
12 A.-F. Marmontel, quoted from
Eigeldinger, Chopin: pianist and
teacher, p.128.
13 Such options are detailed in
Fryderyk Chopin, Complete Works:
Preludes, ed. I. J. Paderewski,
L. Bronarski, and J. Turczyniski
(Warsaw, 1949), p.61. This edition
EARLY MUSIC AUGUST 2001 443
This content downloaded from
corrupts Chopin's text to disastrous
effect by changing phrasing and
orthography: for instance, eV' becomes
d#' and B6 is changed to A# in bars 2
and 23 respectively.
14 The springy heaviness of the Pleyel's
single-escapement action paradoxically
facilitates this understated lyricism,
but only if a modern playing technique
is abandoned in favour of one using
less arm weight and a more 'tactile'
depression of the key.
15 J.-J. Eigeldinger, 'Twenty-four
Preludes op.28: genre, structure,
significance', Chopin studies, ed.
J. Samson (Cambridge, 1988), p.176.
16 One problem with studying
recordings is that qualitative judge-
ments, such as those on which my
discussion is based, suffer from the
limitations of any subjective evaluation
of musical performance; yet quantita-
tive methods of analysing recordings
by no means address all of the interest-
ing and essential features that charac-
terize a given interpretation and which
inevitably condition the listener's
response. Determining the principal
expressive strategy in each of these
14 recordings virtually requires a
qualitative approach (while not
denying the potential utility of more
quantitative studies). Readers are of
course encouraged to listen to as many
of the recordings as possible, in order
to gauge the validity or otherwise of
my comments here.
17 It is very difficult not to crescendo
in bars 14-15, given the chromatic
intensity of the left hand's harmonic
changes (earlier and 'crunchier' than
before) and one's almost ineluctable
desire to shade the recapitulation
differently from the opening and in
response to the cadential build-up
in bars 9-12.
18 Jonathan Dunsby has suggested
to me privately that the left hand's
sudden prominence in bar 21 might
reflect Moiseiwitsch's desire to bring
out the upper G, a pitch with only
limited melodic presence thus far.
Whether or not that was his conscious
strategy, I find the result less than
convincing.
19 Compare Schachter's comments
quoted earlier.
20 The fourth recording that I heard at
the National Sound Archive, dating
from 1955, strikes me as much inferior
to the moving rendition from 1942.
21 Cortot writes as follows about the
Prelude in his Cours d'interprdtation
from 1934, the same year as the second
recording under consideration here:
One must play the piece wearing a
mourning veil over the face, with tears
behind it. The listener should not be
aware that you have started, as the
beginning must be murmured, hardly
,robert
Early keyboard instruments,
commissions and restorations.
Colour brochure on request.
Full concert hire service.
www.deeganharpsichords.com
harpsichords@hotmail.com
Tel/fax +44 (0) 1524 60186
Tonnage Warehouse,
St. Georges Quay,
9Lancaster. UK. LAI .RB
444 EARLY MUSIC AUGUST 2001
193.136.113.73 on Sun, 14 Mar 2021 22:44:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
perceptible. In the left hand, alone, the
finger that causes the harmony to change
can emerge a bit from the pianissimo.
The right hand is nothing but a lament,
the lament of one who lacks the strength
to raise his voice.
In bar 12 the mood changes from
sadness to fright. It is not a matter here
of steadiness [mesure], of correctness,
but of a superhuman sadness. Make the
left hand's chords resound by sinking the
fingers deep into the keyboard, so that
the right hand's clamour becomes a sort
of dementia. Then, the lament dies out.
A pedal point ... long; and, in the final
chords, an expression of fatality. The
upper note of these chords, alone, will be
held for its full value. The others will be
released before it, along with the pedal.
(Paris, 1934, PP.44-5; my translation)
22 See S. Dybowski, Raul Koczalski:
chopinista i kompozytor (Warsaw,
1998); see also R. Koczalski, Frdddric
Chopin: conseils d'interprdtation
[Quatre confirences analytiques ...],
with introduction by J.-J. Eigeldinger
(Paris, [1910] 1998).
THE
UNIVERSITY
OF
SOUTH
DAKOTA
offers the Master of Music
degree with a concentration in Catalog and information at:
the history of musical http://www.daniellarson.com
instruments, utilizing the staff,
collections, and facilities of The
Shrine to Music Museum &
Phone/Fax: 218-724-8011
Center for Study of the History of
Musical Instruments. Enrollment e-mail: dan@daniellarson.com
limited to 6 students a year; tuition
assistance available; fully
accredited.
For information, write:
Dr. Andre P. Larson, Director
The Shrine to Music Museum
414 East Clark Street
Vermillion, SD 57069-2390 USA
This content downloaded from
23 It is interesting to compare
Koczalski's recording to the perfor-
mance strategy he published in 1909 in
an analytical vignette on the E minor
Prelude, to mark the looth anniversary
of Chopin's birth:
the melody is melancholy, like a lament,
rising to a powerful climax and then
dying away completely, with three
sustained chords after a pause serving as
the end. Largo: espressivo and piano are
indicated. However, each bar should be
played with a different sonority: bar 2
stronger, bar 3 subdued, bar 4 very
gentle, then stronger again with a brief
rallentando in bar 12; bar 13 a tempo,
crescendo in bars 14 and 15, stretto and
forte from bar 16 to bar 18, where the
music starts growing calmer; from bars
19 to 25, rallentando and diminuendo.
The pause should be long, the last three
chords pianissimo, wilh both pedals
being used.
R. Koczalski, Chopin-Zyklus: Zum
hundertsten Geburtstag Freddric
Chopins (Leipzig, 1909), p.167; my
translation.
Gamut
Musical Strings
Finest Quality Gut Strings
-for -
Violins, Lutes, and Viols
In the USA:
Daniel Larson, Historical Instruments
Toll free: 888-724-8099
In Europe:
A.C.P.B.
Phone: 33 3 26 774350
Fax: 33 3 26 774351
e-mail: richard.walz@wanadoo.fr
In England:
Bridgewood and Neitzert
Phone: 44 171 249 9398
Fax: 44 171 275 9330