A very satisfying response to the "new" Chopin ms. I particularly admired the sort of scholarly spirit with which Prof. Rink proceeds, being less thesis-driven than Walker, more expansive in his contextual observations, more prepared to credit the scientific evidence in the case, and finally being more content to conclude, despite his own sense of if as very probably music by Chopin, that it is "at best an ambiguous source." He begins by saying the discovery was "intriguing and exciting"--which it likely was for many music-lovers but which Walker characterizes as a "brouhaha" over a composition "bereft of any musical significance," something "destined to end up in Chopin's wastepaper basket." Without that bias, Rink offers a great deal to consider in his even-handed and open-minded appraisal, and your exchange with him evokes some really interesting possibilities to ponder. Thanks for such an informative and stimulating video.
I don't understand why people treat the introduction's outburst as a reason to doubt that it's Chopin. That sense of building intensity in a repeating passage culminating in an almost temper tantrum of playing down the keys, and then a pause, like someone taking a breath, and the waltz beginning - that tells a story of where the composer might have been, mentally, when it was composed. And it's so compelling, that feeling of having to pull yourself together and present the composed face that the world expects of you when inside you just want to stop and scream until your throat is raw. I felt that way when my dad was dying. Exactly that way. A lot of Chopin's work seems to be that way, capturing poignant snapshots of emotional states so clearly. The outburst at the beginning makes it feel MORE like Chopin to me. Who else would have paired those two feelings back to back like that, with no real transition between?
Thank you for this series of videos, it's very interesting and informative. I think John Rink is right. Also, thank you for providing links to both the manuscript and the engraved score in the video description - it's a great resource.
@@ClassicalFilmMusic-vh2wg you’re welcome! One more (lengthy) interview coming from Jeffrey Kallberg, who was the main expert commissioned to examine the manuscript.
Yes, I think Mr. Rink was pretty spot on here in his review and analysis. I find his comments to be very informative and agreed with his stance on all counts. Thanks for posting!
For me, this found page sounds like the recapitulation of a theme in a more extended piece. And then the triple forte makes more sense. It's possible that the first pages of it are lost or destroyed.
It's possible. I'm guessing great composers sometimes began with ideas that might be more developmental, and then work their way backwards to composing the beginning. He did use a presentation manuscript to write this, suggesting it was meant to be a short gift, but maybe that's all the paper he had with him at the time (especially if he was traveling).
As I understand it, (if Chopin) this piece was written around the same time as the first Scherzo? Small wonder, then, that the intro should be - shall we say - agitated. I'm surprised why no-one has so commented (in my hearing, at least!!!). I'm delighted that Prof Rink also admits the possibility of a Mazurka, and I note that the 'V' of 'Valse' does not have the decoration as the V of the other autograph 'Valse' shown by Prof Rink - but I await the forensic video.....
Kallberg will answer the V question. And actually you can do it too: zoom all the way in on the V and you’ll see the cursive decoration is there, but the ink didn’t stick.
I had never heard of Presentation Manuscripts. What a delightful idea - does anyone know of a compilation? It is easy to imagine someone paying Chopin a bundle to write a Waltz that was also a sonic caricature of someone with a very loud laugh.
I'm not sure if they're all compiled in one place, but this whole thing has motivated me to start learning a few as a set (including this still-disputed and not-official A minor Waltz). A few notable ones (besides the F minor Waltz) are: the Presto con leggierezza "Prelude" in A-flat, the Cantabile in B-flat, and the Sostenuto "Waltz" in E-flat. Also, the published C-sharp minor Waltz started out as a gift that he gave multiple people. There's also a very unusual Largo in E-flat (patriotic hymn).
@@benlawdy Fancy that! So we thought at best we'd stumbled upon a new Chopin waltz (and that's quite the prize!). Turns out we also stumble on a completely new way to make collections of musical fragments/ oddities.
Some of you may already have seen the Music Professor channel's take on this. The Professor is a composer and a teacher primarily (at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama) and comes at the piece from a purely musical/compositional angle: th-cam.com/video/6ZYao34_QPU/w-d-xo.html
@@rogerg4916 I like this idea, but then why would the music itself be in Chopin’s hand? There’s also evidence of compositional revision in the manuscript, suggesting that Chopin was working this out and not simply copying down an homage piece by a friend.
@@benlawdy This was an idea I had as well; the Alan Walker video showed how similar Fontana's writing was to Chopin's. Maybe this was written by Fontana as an homage/tribute to his friend? I see in another comment you say Kallberg addresses this, so I'm looking forward to that!
Will add by end of the day, or tomorrow. Professor Kallberg's interview required a lot of work, and this episode has been a bit squeezed in by surrounding Etudes and Impromptus/Improvisation (the latter coming out this weekend).
In other words: if we try really hard, we can find the single, isolated examples of the oddities in one, two tops other Chopin compositions / manuscripts each, you know, searching most diligently through his whole, lifetime work. Well. Since the "newly discovered waltz" is basically consisting of them purely, for some reason it's not that convincing to me 🙂
Thanks for the comment. Here's my current thinking: First, we have to consider Rink's (and soon, more thoroughly, Kallberg's) musical arguments alongside the fact that the manuscript is verified to be in Chopin's hand, while also keeping in mind this is not a finished or published work (the manuscripts of which we are somewhat unfairly comparing this one to). The fact is, Chopin did repeat introductions, multiple times in Waltzes in fact and most famously in the Second Sonata (where it ends up not being an introduction, as Kallberg will argue is the case for this waltz); that there are an upwards of three dozen FFF in Chopin's work (as Kallberg will mention - including several in exactly this register with a similar emotional context; although none at the beginning of a work, but again see the point in my first paragraph about this itself being an unusual discarded presentation manuscript in Chopin's hand - and also my last point, about musical singularities in Chopin, below); that Chopin was on multiple occasions made numerical mistakes (just two presented here, among others, and we also should consider the relative haste this appears to have been written with, the diminutive size of the manuscript which could affect penmanship, plus this apparently being a relatively early document - age 20 or 21). I'm not arguing in favor of this being a masterpiece, but that's not at stake here. Regarding authorship alone, I do think we're beyond reasonable doubt (quite literally in the case of my video symposium here: all of Professor Walker's doubts were answered reasonably, so I feel that further doubt would be unreasonable until better reasons for skepticism are presented). Finally, one could draw the opposite conclusion than yours regarding the fact that in some cases only one or two comparisons can be brought in support of Chopin being capable of the compositional oddities in this new waltz. Chopin's music is filled with singular moments that cannot be found in any other composition. These unique moments are partly what defines his genius. So reliance on comparisons is itself not the most reliable form of skepticism, especially in the case of Chopin. Doubt will remain until/unless there exists physical evidence about the 100+ year gap in the chain of ownership, but regarding the music itself, I wonder what you think of these points. Considering all of the above, do you not gravitate towards Rink's conclusion that it's harder to explain if this is *not* Chopin's music than if it is. If not, what counts as reasonable doubt for you?
@@benlawdy Thanks for such a thoughtful summary. There is a fundamental problem with any individual work that is proposed for being added to a given corpus. If it is too similar to known examples, it can be argued that it is pastiche, because not original enough. If it strays too far for comfort, people wonder whether it is a new unique genius-defining moment, or just out of style. If this fragment is supposed to be early, it could also represent a stylistic path (more Schubertian than normal) that Chopin decided not to pursue. Following Professor Rink in taking the physical analysis as given, this one has quite a lot going for it stylistically, but enough that is off- beam to fall short of complete conviction. It is an odd little piece, and it is perhaps worth remembering that the "Valse" title is not even claimed to be in Chopin's hand, and could merely represent an inconclusive stab by someone through whose hands the manuscript passed at some point; so it is not really necessary to explain why it could be a waltz despite sounding at times more like a mazurka (and this is a place where Professor Rink perhaps proves too much).
@@benlawdy @benlawdy but the singular moments we both have in mind bringing the topic out - I agree that their existence is (paradoxically as it may sound) typical of Chopin - are the music ones, the ones that are giving us thrills, that are coherent inspite of their originality, not the hardly understandable fff out of nowhere at the beginning, some notational mistakes, or the repeat of the introduction that is harrowingly uninteresting, even crude, itself. Or did you have in mind some singular awful Chopin moments in his composititions that are marking his work? A propos: it's IMO semantics that it appears in the sonata too. And that's more or less what I was pointing out: we can find here and there some seemingly similar compositional elements because it appears here, it's repeated there. But are they really conveying similar significance or meaning? Not to mention that the example of the repeat in the video is derived from the waltz he didn't think of as good enough to be published... (Which is still - much better than the a minor anyway). Or from the negligible waltz supposedly depicting him chasing a woman around the piano. The sonata example is completely off the mark IMO. Yes, it's clear that it's partly about Chopin being a genius as his individual characteristic what I'm driving at. But that's basically what we are talking about here: if we assume it's his handwriting (I'd rather we wait for the Chopin Institute analysis btw) it's the question of how on Earth could he have written something like that. So: My point was that while Alan Walker raised some questions a propos a couple of very fishy elements of the new discovery, the sole fact that we can find an unlikely explanation, basing mostly on the superficial similarity of the elements ("error" here, "repeat" there, fff in some other place), to answer each, doesn't change the fact that pure probabilistically speaking 4 or 5 unlikely elements are even more unlikely when you assume they occur at the same time, combined. I mean, putting it more straightforwardly: doesn't it look like some kind of cherry-picking? Maybe the pastiche, joke theory is more plausible. But the harmony is so awful here at times, even for a minor dance piece. I don't know. Maybe the joke is more likely. But frankly after such long time I simply don't believe anything is going to convince me one way or the other. It's too peculiar. Neat, clean, tiny pretty manuscript that seems to be a sketch at the most. It will never make sense to me 🙃 at first I thought: it's just some idea of hist polished by his student or someone close who added some strange marks for their own use and simple harmony as they imagined, remembered it. But now I have no clue.
@ let me say first that I’ve been jumping between the minds of these disagreeing scholars, Walker, Rink/Kallberg, and my present thinking might be biased towards the latter whom I happen to be producing at the moment, so first and foremost I’m thankful for your reasoned engagement on the topic, and I’m also sending the Rink/Kallberg videos to Walker and awaiting his own replies (which I might be able to formally publish in pinned comments). I’ll continue to think about these things but will soon need to depart for the land of impromptus and improvisation and will leave behind this debate to the scholars and interested observers to work through. I’ll be happy to have my mind change (again) on the topic once I revisit it later. Turning to your argument, it seems to me that you are sliding back and forth between the weak claim of authorship and the strong claim of masterpiece. I don’t know anyone claiming the latter, and therefore (as I mentioned in my previous comment), we are somewhat unfairly comparing this already unusual/unique document in Chopin’s hand to Chopin’s finished compositions, both published and unpublished (yes, let’s assume it is his hand based on the existing expert analysis, while acknowledging it is possible that a second analysis might find otherwise). Let’s accept your value judgment that this music is “awful” (I wouldn’t go that far, and have some reasons below to challenge it, but let’s go with “awful”). That very judgement is consistent with the manuscript not bearing Chopin’s signature of authorial approval, and with the attendant possibility that he discarded the piece precisely because Chopin himself found the composition to be lacking (“awful”, even). Chopin’s tendency to compose unique moments in his compositions does not exclude the possibility that some of his attempts at uniqueness fail. In fact one would expect a certain amount of “failure” from a young genius engaged in trial and error, as he surely was in ~1831. As for the FFF “out of nowhere” that you find “harrowingly uninteresting”: I can only answer the first claim, which is objective analysis, but not the second, which again is a more subjective value judgement. In fact the FFF does not come “out of nowhere”; there are 6 bars before it that create an effect of swelling, boiling tension, rage even, that gives way to an anguished outcry. It’s not unlike moments found in the first scherzo and first ballade, which are often thought to have been begun right around this time. Yes, it’s unique - unprecedented - to find it so early in such a short piece, but again, we don’t have any other examples of presentation manuscripts where Chopin appears to be trying to achieve the same kind of musical goals as he is here, and it’s certainly plausible while Chopin was in Vienna for example, that he intended a unique gift such as this (keeping in mind the historical context) for a friend/compatriot. Or perhaps he used presentation manuscript paper just to write a sketch of a section of a possible future finished waltz, in which case this needn’t be regarded as the “beginning.” I’m not claiming any of those possibilities to be true, only plausible, and my point is that these are the considerations that arise from this particular document, ones that do not arise from the other pieces being cited for comparison. If we had more of Chopin’s discarded or unfinished sketches, don’t you think we would find many instances of “anomalies” clustering together in the same sheets of paper? Regarding the second sonata, again let’s forget about the comparison with respect to its masterpiece status. That is not at stake here. As Kallberg will point out, there is a similarity in that the opening bars of both pieces feature a motivic element that proves to be integral to the rest of the work: the falling 6th/repeated note in the Sonata, which plays a primary role in the development; and the E-D#-D motive in the waltz, which shows up again in multiple places in the “waltz proper.” As someone who has learned and performed this piece and lived with it for a month now, I can say I didn’t even notice this bit of motivic unity until Kallberg pointed it out. It’s the kind of thing - however rudimentary, unfinished, unrefined… “awful” even! - that is nonetheless the mark of a real craftsman at work. And it suggests that the opening 8 bars are not an introduction at all, but intended to be an integral part of the piece. It’s obvious that you don’t think highly of this music! But that didn’t mean Chopin didn’t write it down. Your question “how on earth could he…?” seems to reveal that you assume only gold could have dropped from his pen. (But, I don’t believe you think that; so I wonder why you’re so flabbergasted by the possibility here.) And maybe the reason he wanted his non-published works and sketches to be burned was precisely to give that illusion, to ensure his name was only associated with the highest artistry and not disappoint the admirers of his greatest compositions. But now that Chopin lives among the immortals (he didn’t yet in the 1840s), and his reputation is bulletproof, I find the reverse to be true: his discarded and unfinished work helps give us insight into what made him the very-human genius we all agree he is. And for me, right now anyway, I think the musical and scientific/historical evidence surrounding the new waltz is sufficient to regard this as one of those works, and it’s for that reason it’s worth spending time analyzing and discussing.
วันที่ผ่านมา +5
All these fabulous Classical piano people I'd never otherwise even hear about. Thank you again, Ben.
Being a Chopin Scholar, and sitting on the Jury in Chopin Competitions, what does "Rink" think about the metronome marks in Chopin's music? Which does he think is correct: Single Beat or Whole Beat interpretation? Thanks
@benlawdy I just a search on Perplexity AI, and got this interesting reply: "Charles Rink, a Chopin scholar, has expressed skepticism about the literal interpretation of Chopin's metronome marks. He suggests that these markings may be excessively fast and questions whether they accurately reflect Chopin's intended tempos. Rink considers the possibility that Chopin's metronome marks might have been misunderstood, potentially indicating a slower tempo than traditionally assumed."
@ Charles? Also, is the question about whether Chopin’s metronome markings are misinterpreted as faster than his intentions (which may have only been slightly slower), or about WBMP, which makes the much stronger claim that his metronome markings should be interpreted at half the tempo as they have been performed and recorded for at least the last century?
If not chopin, then who? To me it does not sound like any other romantic composer. if you were blindfolded and heard this piece and were asked to guess the composer...am i wrong in thinking chopin would be the first guess?
00:29 you show 3 books 'by John Rink'. But here's the mystery - none of them is convincing. The Blue one 'Chopin Studies' is simply co-edited by Rink and another person. The second (red) one is only a 'handbook' and not a proper book (whilst a very small number of so-called handbooks are far from small - we are not told how many pages this one is, nor how small the ink is). The third (beige) one is again, at best, a co-authored or (even worse) a co-edited book.
if you spent as much time looking into Professor Rink's work as you did inspecting the 3-second long graphic I chose to represent it, you would find an impressive and extensive list of books, chapters, and articles on a wide array of topics related to chopin, as well as the most comprehensive and useful catalogue of first editions and digitized source material for all of chopin's music: www.mus.cam.ac.uk/directory/john-rink
Seems like Chopin was doing the Für Elise move with certain pieces like that F minor waltz. Giving manuscripts to his lady friends for "reasons" and probably claiming they were written for them specifically. Not a bad move lol
If this is Chopin, it's the strangest piece he ever put together, and is by far my least favorite. So, that leaves me not caring whether or not Chopin wrote it, because I find it artistically hollow, with distinct notes of banality.
@@peter5.056 stranger than the A minor Prelude? This piece has grown on me and there’s more to it than first occurred to me (I also found it uneven and simplistic at first). Some of these artistic points are discussed in my interview with Kallberg (coming out soon). But artistic elements or not, assuming Chopin came up with it, I think it’s interesting for precisely that reason. Chopin wrote more than enough masterpieces to fill multiple lifetimes of wonder and exploration. It’s led us to a point where we might wonder more about how he actually carried out his craft, and the times he maybe even came up short. In that way a seemingly trivial little waltz like this can end up shedding even more light on the finished compositions that continue to reward us with their depth.
@ what do you think of the idea that it was intended as a gift piece? If you listen to some of the other musical gifts he wrote, they’re similarly brief/ undeveloped.
Stranger than the finale of the 2nd Sonata? Chopin wrote a lot of "strange" music. As Harold Bloom observed: "Strangeness is one of the prime requirements for entrance into the canon.
This question has been raised before, but I'll repeat it: Measure 7 contains that strong chord at the beginning and some have speculated, that the chord in question is actually a triad. Sheet music found digitally writes a triad in a minority of cases.
@@justdoitsolutions269 Jeffrey Kallberg (forthcoming interview) says it can’t be. Among other differences between the two that handwriting experts have identified, Chopin almost always wrote his stems on the right side of the note head, as seen in this manuscript, whereas Fontana followed the convention of left-side-down, right-side-up.
Yes, but by that logic, in the grand course of time no one is gonna care about anything happening today. So if anything is going to matter to us while we’re alive, let this be one of them.
![สาวเมืองเพชร - ธีเดช ทองอภิชาติ [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kEt7F9PvO3I/mqdefault.jpg)
A very satisfying response to the "new" Chopin ms. I particularly admired the sort of scholarly spirit with which Prof. Rink proceeds, being less thesis-driven than Walker, more expansive in his contextual observations, more prepared to credit the scientific evidence in the case, and finally being more content to conclude, despite his own sense of if as very probably music by Chopin, that it is "at best an ambiguous source." He begins by saying the discovery was "intriguing and exciting"--which it likely was for many music-lovers but which Walker characterizes as a "brouhaha" over a composition "bereft of any musical significance," something "destined to end up in Chopin's wastepaper basket." Without that bias, Rink offers a great deal to consider in his even-handed and open-minded appraisal, and your exchange with him evokes some really interesting possibilities to ponder. Thanks for such an informative and stimulating video.
I don't understand why people treat the introduction's outburst as a reason to doubt that it's Chopin. That sense of building intensity in a repeating passage culminating in an almost temper tantrum of playing down the keys, and then a pause, like someone taking a breath, and the waltz beginning - that tells a story of where the composer might have been, mentally, when it was composed. And it's so compelling, that feeling of having to pull yourself together and present the composed face that the world expects of you when inside you just want to stop and scream until your throat is raw. I felt that way when my dad was dying. Exactly that way. A lot of Chopin's work seems to be that way, capturing poignant snapshots of emotional states so clearly. The outburst at the beginning makes it feel MORE like Chopin to me. Who else would have paired those two feelings back to back like that, with no real transition between?
I agree,the unconventional ideas make it more likely, in comparison to a purely eclectic piece, that it is indeed written by chopin.
That hits the nail on the head for me -- it's the transition between sections more than the outburst itself.
Thank you for this series of videos, it's very interesting and informative. I think John Rink is right. Also, thank you for providing links to both the manuscript and the engraved score in the video description - it's a great resource.
@@ClassicalFilmMusic-vh2wg you’re welcome! One more (lengthy) interview coming from Jeffrey Kallberg, who was the main expert commissioned to examine the manuscript.
Yes, I think Mr. Rink was pretty spot on here in his review and analysis. I find his comments to be very informative and agreed with his stance on all counts. Thanks for posting!
For me, this found page sounds like the recapitulation of a theme in a more extended piece. And then the triple forte makes more sense. It's possible that the first pages of it are lost or destroyed.
It's possible. I'm guessing great composers sometimes began with ideas that might be more developmental, and then work their way backwards to composing the beginning. He did use a presentation manuscript to write this, suggesting it was meant to be a short gift, but maybe that's all the paper he had with him at the time (especially if he was traveling).
@@benlawdy what if the waltz is supposed to be in A major and this a minor part is the development 😂
The handwriting in this score is so ... "chopinesque"!
Interesting discussion
As I understand it, (if Chopin) this piece was written around the same time as the first Scherzo? Small wonder, then, that the intro should be - shall we say - agitated. I'm surprised why no-one has so commented (in my hearing, at least!!!). I'm delighted that Prof Rink also admits the possibility of a Mazurka, and I note that the 'V' of 'Valse' does not have the decoration as the V of the other autograph 'Valse' shown by Prof Rink - but I await the forensic video.....
Kallberg will answer the V question. And actually you can do it too: zoom all the way in on the V and you’ll see the cursive decoration is there, but the ink didn’t stick.
I had never heard of Presentation Manuscripts. What a delightful idea - does anyone know of a compilation?
It is easy to imagine someone paying Chopin a bundle to write a Waltz that was also a sonic caricature of someone with a very loud laugh.
I'm not sure if they're all compiled in one place, but this whole thing has motivated me to start learning a few as a set (including this still-disputed and not-official A minor Waltz). A few notable ones (besides the F minor Waltz) are: the Presto con leggierezza "Prelude" in A-flat, the Cantabile in B-flat, and the Sostenuto "Waltz" in E-flat. Also, the published C-sharp minor Waltz started out as a gift that he gave multiple people. There's also a very unusual Largo in E-flat (patriotic hymn).
@@benlawdy Fancy that! So we thought at best we'd stumbled upon a new Chopin waltz (and that's quite the prize!). Turns out we also stumble on a completely new way to make collections of musical fragments/ oddities.
@ yes! These little gems make for a nice box of chocolates, for sure.
Convincing arguments. I'm about 85% persuaded that it is Chopin.
Relief after nitpicking by Dr. Walker! Thank you for the video.
Some of you may already have seen the Music Professor channel's take on this. The Professor is a composer and a teacher primarily (at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama) and comes at the piece from a purely musical/compositional angle: th-cam.com/video/6ZYao34_QPU/w-d-xo.html
great channel
Can’t wait until AI can copy Chopin’s handwriting and perfectly produce C14 aged paper, it can’t be that far off 😂
Maybe the new Chopin waltz was the friends we made along the way?
please turn on closed captions!
When's this episode coming out as a podcast?
Later today. Thanks for your patience
What if this fragment was written as a potential section of a set of variations with a variety of composers submitting--a la the Liszt Hexameron?
Since Chopin is written at the top and there is no signature below, could it be that the waltz is named Chopin rather than by Chopin?
@@rogerg4916 I like this idea, but then why would the music itself be in Chopin’s hand? There’s also evidence of compositional revision in the manuscript, suggesting that Chopin was working this out and not simply copying down an homage piece by a friend.
@@benlawdy I wonder how reliable the analysis of handwritten text really is.
@@biffii5568 I wonder to, and I ask Kallberg about that in his segment. Very worth watching, so I need to stop replying to comments and go finish it!
@@benlawdy This was an idea I had as well; the Alan Walker video showed how similar Fontana's writing was to Chopin's. Maybe this was written by Fontana as an homage/tribute to his friend? I see in another comment you say Kallberg addresses this, so I'm looking forward to that!
Is this episode not going on Spotify?
Will add by end of the day, or tomorrow. Professor Kallberg's interview required a lot of work, and this episode has been a bit squeezed in by surrounding Etudes and Impromptus/Improvisation (the latter coming out this weekend).
@benlawdy Thanks a lot! Big fan of your work and this podcast!
Would love to see the Music
Can’t find is in MISLP yet
Here's the manuscript: www.themorgan.org/sites/default/files/pdf/music/452191.pdf
And here's an engraved score: www.pianostreet.com/blog/files/chopin_waltz_ny_2024_pse.pdf
It's there - go to category:Chopin and it's listed as Waltz in A minor with no catalogue number
I would love to know Cyprien Katsaris' opinion on this.
Interesting...
It sounds like Chopin to me. | Siopẹ |
What if it were an improvisation that his copyist witnessed and wrote?
Who decided it was a waltz?
In other words: if we try really hard, we can find the single, isolated examples of the oddities in one, two tops other Chopin compositions / manuscripts each, you know, searching most diligently through his whole, lifetime work. Well. Since the "newly discovered waltz" is basically consisting of them purely, for some reason it's not that convincing to me 🙂
Chopin had plenty of sketches he wanted burnt, his sister disobeyed.
Thanks for the comment. Here's my current thinking:
First, we have to consider Rink's (and soon, more thoroughly, Kallberg's) musical arguments alongside the fact that the manuscript is verified to be in Chopin's hand, while also keeping in mind this is not a finished or published work (the manuscripts of which we are somewhat unfairly comparing this one to).
The fact is, Chopin did repeat introductions, multiple times in Waltzes in fact and most famously in the Second Sonata (where it ends up not being an introduction, as Kallberg will argue is the case for this waltz); that there are an upwards of three dozen FFF in Chopin's work (as Kallberg will mention - including several in exactly this register with a similar emotional context; although none at the beginning of a work, but again see the point in my first paragraph about this itself being an unusual discarded presentation manuscript in Chopin's hand - and also my last point, about musical singularities in Chopin, below); that Chopin was on multiple occasions made numerical mistakes (just two presented here, among others, and we also should consider the relative haste this appears to have been written with, the diminutive size of the manuscript which could affect penmanship, plus this apparently being a relatively early document - age 20 or 21).
I'm not arguing in favor of this being a masterpiece, but that's not at stake here. Regarding authorship alone, I do think we're beyond reasonable doubt (quite literally in the case of my video symposium here: all of Professor Walker's doubts were answered reasonably, so I feel that further doubt would be unreasonable until better reasons for skepticism are presented).
Finally, one could draw the opposite conclusion than yours regarding the fact that in some cases only one or two comparisons can be brought in support of Chopin being capable of the compositional oddities in this new waltz. Chopin's music is filled with singular moments that cannot be found in any other composition. These unique moments are partly what defines his genius. So reliance on comparisons is itself not the most reliable form of skepticism, especially in the case of Chopin.
Doubt will remain until/unless there exists physical evidence about the 100+ year gap in the chain of ownership, but regarding the music itself, I wonder what you think of these points. Considering all of the above, do you not gravitate towards Rink's conclusion that it's harder to explain if this is *not* Chopin's music than if it is. If not, what counts as reasonable doubt for you?
@@benlawdy Thanks for such a thoughtful summary. There is a fundamental problem with any individual work that is proposed for being added to a given corpus. If it is too similar to known examples, it can be argued that it is pastiche, because not original enough. If it strays too far for comfort, people wonder whether it is a new unique genius-defining moment, or just out of style. If this fragment is supposed to be early, it could also represent a stylistic path (more Schubertian than normal) that Chopin decided not to pursue. Following Professor Rink in taking the physical analysis as given, this one has quite a lot going for it stylistically, but enough that is off- beam to fall short of complete conviction. It is an odd little piece, and it is perhaps worth remembering that the "Valse" title is not even claimed to be in Chopin's hand, and could merely represent an inconclusive stab by someone through whose hands the manuscript passed at some point; so it is not really necessary to explain why it could be a waltz despite sounding at times more like a mazurka (and this is a place where Professor Rink perhaps proves too much).
@@benlawdy @benlawdy but the singular moments we both have in mind bringing the topic out - I agree that their existence is (paradoxically as it may sound) typical of Chopin - are the music ones, the ones that are giving us thrills, that are coherent inspite of their originality, not the hardly understandable fff out of nowhere at the beginning, some notational mistakes, or the repeat of the introduction that is harrowingly uninteresting, even crude, itself. Or did you have in mind some singular awful Chopin moments in his composititions that are marking his work?
A propos: it's IMO semantics that it appears in the sonata too. And that's more or less what I was pointing out: we can find here and there some seemingly similar compositional elements because it appears here, it's repeated there. But are they really conveying similar significance or meaning? Not to mention that the example of the repeat in the video is derived from the waltz he didn't think of as good enough to be published... (Which is still - much better than the a minor anyway). Or from the negligible waltz supposedly depicting him chasing a woman around the piano. The sonata example is completely off the mark IMO.
Yes, it's clear that it's partly about Chopin being a genius as his individual characteristic what I'm driving at. But that's basically what we are talking about here: if we assume it's his handwriting (I'd rather we wait for the Chopin Institute analysis btw) it's the question of how on Earth could he have written something like that. So:
My point was that while Alan Walker raised some questions a propos a couple of very fishy elements of the new discovery, the sole fact that we can find an unlikely explanation, basing mostly on the superficial similarity of the elements ("error" here, "repeat" there, fff in some other place), to answer each, doesn't change the fact that pure probabilistically speaking 4 or 5 unlikely elements are even more unlikely when you assume they occur at the same time, combined.
I mean, putting it more straightforwardly: doesn't it look like some kind of cherry-picking?
Maybe the pastiche, joke theory is more plausible. But the harmony is so awful here at times, even for a minor dance piece. I don't know. Maybe the joke is more likely. But frankly after such long time I simply don't believe anything is going to convince me one way or the other. It's too peculiar. Neat, clean, tiny pretty manuscript that seems to be a sketch at the most. It will never make sense to me 🙃 at first I thought: it's just some idea of hist polished by his student or someone close who added some strange marks for their own use and simple harmony as they imagined, remembered it. But now I have no clue.
@ let me say first that I’ve been jumping between the minds of these disagreeing scholars, Walker, Rink/Kallberg, and my present thinking might be biased towards the latter whom I happen to be producing at the moment, so first and foremost I’m thankful for your reasoned engagement on the topic, and I’m also sending the Rink/Kallberg videos to Walker and awaiting his own replies (which I might be able to formally publish in pinned comments). I’ll continue to think about these things but will soon need to depart for the land of impromptus and improvisation and will leave behind this debate to the scholars and interested observers to work through. I’ll be happy to have my mind change (again) on the topic once I revisit it later.
Turning to your argument, it seems to me that you are sliding back and forth between the weak claim of authorship and the strong claim of masterpiece. I don’t know anyone claiming the latter, and therefore (as I mentioned in my previous comment), we are somewhat unfairly comparing this already unusual/unique document in Chopin’s hand to Chopin’s finished compositions, both published and unpublished (yes, let’s assume it is his hand based on the existing expert analysis, while acknowledging it is possible that a second analysis might find otherwise).
Let’s accept your value judgment that this music is “awful” (I wouldn’t go that far, and have some reasons below to challenge it, but let’s go with “awful”). That very judgement is consistent with the manuscript not bearing Chopin’s signature of authorial approval, and with the attendant possibility that he discarded the piece precisely because Chopin himself found the composition to be lacking (“awful”, even). Chopin’s tendency to compose unique moments in his compositions does not exclude the possibility that some of his attempts at uniqueness fail. In fact one would expect a certain amount of “failure” from a young genius engaged in trial and error, as he surely was in ~1831.
As for the FFF “out of nowhere” that you find “harrowingly uninteresting”: I can only answer the first claim, which is objective analysis, but not the second, which again is a more subjective value judgement. In fact the FFF does not come “out of nowhere”; there are 6 bars before it that create an effect of swelling, boiling tension, rage even, that gives way to an anguished outcry. It’s not unlike moments found in the first scherzo and first ballade, which are often thought to have been begun right around this time. Yes, it’s unique - unprecedented - to find it so early in such a short piece, but again, we don’t have any other examples of presentation manuscripts where Chopin appears to be trying to achieve the same kind of musical goals as he is here, and it’s certainly plausible while Chopin was in Vienna for example, that he intended a unique gift such as this (keeping in mind the historical context) for a friend/compatriot. Or perhaps he used presentation manuscript paper just to write a sketch of a section of a possible future finished waltz, in which case this needn’t be regarded as the “beginning.”
I’m not claiming any of those possibilities to be true, only plausible, and my point is that these are the considerations that arise from this particular document, ones that do not arise from the other pieces being cited for comparison. If we had more of Chopin’s discarded or unfinished sketches, don’t you think we would find many instances of “anomalies” clustering together in the same sheets of paper?
Regarding the second sonata, again let’s forget about the comparison with respect to its masterpiece status. That is not at stake here. As Kallberg will point out, there is a similarity in that the opening bars of both pieces feature a motivic element that proves to be integral to the rest of the work: the falling 6th/repeated note in the Sonata, which plays a primary role in the development; and the E-D#-D motive in the waltz, which shows up again in multiple places in the “waltz proper.” As someone who has learned and performed this piece and lived with it for a month now, I can say I didn’t even notice this bit of motivic unity until Kallberg pointed it out. It’s the kind of thing - however rudimentary, unfinished, unrefined… “awful” even! - that is nonetheless the mark of a real craftsman at work. And it suggests that the opening 8 bars are not an introduction at all, but intended to be an integral part of the piece.
It’s obvious that you don’t think highly of this music! But that didn’t mean Chopin didn’t write it down. Your question “how on earth could he…?” seems to reveal that you assume only gold could have dropped from his pen. (But, I don’t believe you think that; so I wonder why you’re so flabbergasted by the possibility here.) And maybe the reason he wanted his non-published works and sketches to be burned was precisely to give that illusion, to ensure his name was only associated with the highest artistry and not disappoint the admirers of his greatest compositions. But now that Chopin lives among the immortals (he didn’t yet in the 1840s), and his reputation is bulletproof, I find the reverse to be true: his discarded and unfinished work helps give us insight into what made him the very-human genius we all agree he is. And for me, right now anyway, I think the musical and scientific/historical evidence surrounding the new waltz is sufficient to regard this as one of those works, and it’s for that reason it’s worth spending time analyzing and discussing.
All these fabulous Classical piano people I'd never otherwise even hear about. Thank you again, Ben.
Being a Chopin Scholar, and sitting on the Jury in Chopin Competitions, what does "Rink" think about the metronome marks in Chopin's music? Which does he think is correct: Single Beat or Whole Beat interpretation? Thanks
I'm not sure, but I'm wondering: why did you put scare quotes around his name?
@benlawdy I put the quotes around his name just to help emphasize it. I hadn't heard of "scare quotes" before. 😆
Ah, I see. I'm told I use too many scare quotes/air quotes when I talk - it implies unwarranted suspicion - "Rink...if that really is your name..." ;)
@benlawdy I just a search on Perplexity AI, and got this interesting reply: "Charles Rink, a Chopin scholar, has expressed skepticism about the literal interpretation of Chopin's metronome marks. He suggests that these markings may be excessively fast and questions whether they accurately reflect Chopin's intended tempos. Rink considers the possibility that Chopin's metronome marks might have been misunderstood, potentially indicating a slower tempo than traditionally assumed."
@ Charles?
Also, is the question about whether Chopin’s metronome markings are misinterpreted as faster than his intentions (which may have only been slightly slower), or about WBMP, which makes the much stronger claim that his metronome markings should be interpreted at half the tempo as they have been performed and recorded for at least the last century?
If not chopin, then who? To me it does not sound like any other romantic composer. if you were blindfolded and heard this piece and were asked to guess the composer...am i wrong in thinking chopin would be the first guess?
00:29 you show 3 books 'by John Rink'. But here's the mystery - none of them is convincing. The Blue one 'Chopin Studies' is simply co-edited by Rink and another person. The second (red) one is only a 'handbook' and not a proper book (whilst a very small number of so-called handbooks are far from small - we are not told how many pages this one is, nor how small the ink is). The third (beige) one is again, at best, a co-authored or (even worse) a co-edited book.
if you spent as much time looking into Professor Rink's work as you did inspecting the 3-second long graphic I chose to represent it, you would find an impressive and extensive list of books, chapters, and articles on a wide array of topics related to chopin, as well as the most comprehensive and useful catalogue of first editions and digitized source material for all of chopin's music: www.mus.cam.ac.uk/directory/john-rink
Seems like Chopin was doing the Für Elise move with certain pieces like that F minor waltz. Giving manuscripts to his lady friends for "reasons" and probably claiming they were written for them specifically. Not a bad move lol
"You probably tell all the girls that" / "You probably give this Waltz to all the girls"
If this is Chopin, it's the strangest piece he ever put together, and is by far my least favorite. So, that leaves me not caring whether or not Chopin wrote it, because I find it artistically hollow, with distinct notes of banality.
@@peter5.056 stranger than the A minor Prelude?
This piece has grown on me and there’s more to it than first occurred to me (I also found it uneven and simplistic at first). Some of these artistic points are discussed in my interview with Kallberg (coming out soon).
But artistic elements or not, assuming Chopin came up with it, I think it’s interesting for precisely that reason. Chopin wrote more than enough masterpieces to fill multiple lifetimes of wonder and exploration. It’s led us to a point where we might wonder more about how he actually carried out his craft, and the times he maybe even came up short. In that way a seemingly trivial little waltz like this can end up shedding even more light on the finished compositions that continue to reward us with their depth.
@@benlawdy I'm thinking that this is a page of something else that Chopin wrote. It doesn't make musical sense as a complete piece.
@ what do you think of the idea that it was intended as a gift piece? If you listen to some of the other musical gifts he wrote, they’re similarly brief/ undeveloped.
Stranger than the finale of the 2nd Sonata?
Chopin wrote a lot of "strange" music. As Harold Bloom observed: "Strangeness is one of the prime requirements for entrance into the canon.
First
This question has been raised before, but I'll repeat it:
Measure 7 contains that strong chord at the beginning and some have speculated, that the chord in question is actually a triad.
Sheet music found digitally writes a triad in a minority of cases.
You mean some re-notate the A# as a Bb?
It’s certainly an A#, a chromatic lower neighbor resolving to B.
Chopin had a penchant for mimicry and satirization; maybe this is just an example of that, atypical of his usual compositional processes.
I believe that this new fragment is actually in the hand of Julius Fontana ( friend and copyist for Chopin)
@@justdoitsolutions269 Jeffrey Kallberg (forthcoming interview) says it can’t be. Among other differences between the two that handwriting experts have identified, Chopin almost always wrote his stems on the right side of the note head, as seen in this manuscript, whereas Fontana followed the convention of left-side-down, right-side-up.
These two stuffed shirts, Walker and Rink, need to have a debate over this scrap of a piece of piano music.
I Just had a gut feeling that It wasn't a true Chopin 's... Time Will answer but then no one Is gonna care about
Yes, but by that logic, in the grand course of time no one is gonna care about anything happening today. So if anything is going to matter to us while we’re alive, let this be one of them.