I had the same doubt as you and I have been investigating, I leave you a paragraph of an article that explains it: "One of the most fascinating accounts of this work was made by Raoul Koczalski, who had lessons with Chopin’s pupil Karol Mikuli. In 1938 Koczalski produced a record whose label says “with authentic Chopin variants” in which we can hear quite a few extrapolations that are not in the printed score. Apparently, Mikuli had once heard Chopin play the work this way and took note of these additions, passing them along to Koczalski, who left them for posterity in this remarkable recording. While we cannot expect that Chopin would have played the work this way every time - and we do not need to imitate this, not having been trained in the same way - it is fascinating to hear an account that comes directly from Chopin’s lineage and that more clearly demonstrates that the printed text was not necessarily the composer’s final statement about a composition".
Yes, a great chunk (probably more than half?) of the variants you see are discovered to have been written in Chopin's hand. The score used in the video is actually an older edition (1995). The most recent edition has variants numbered up to 25. To list the 12 sources that they used in the most recent edition... Sources with Chopin's autograph: Copies of the French first edition belonging to 1. Camille Dubois (pupil) 2. Zofia Rosengardt (pupil) 3. Jane Stirling (pupil) 4. Ludwika Jędrzejewicz (sister) 5. unidentified pupil 6. Copy of German first edition belonging to unidentified pupil 7. Autograph variants by Chopin for Wilhelm von Lenz (pupil) 8. Autograph, first 2 bars of right hand ...and sources not in Chopin's hand, but have been included due to their connection with the composer: 9. Copy of French first edition belonging to August Franchomme (friend), the variants are written on the score by him 10. Edition by Karol Mikuli (pupil) 11. Article by Wilhelm von Lenz (pupil) in a music newspaper, contents different from [7] 12. 1886 book about Chopin, containing a variant given by Thomas Tellefsen (pupil)
He wrote every note. These are Chopin’s variants and his alone. He is a genius, isn't he? Another lens to see Chopin more clearly. I would recommend getting the Polish National Edition by Jan Ekier from now on. He is so very thorough
People hype so much about jazz improv, the lost art of classical improv needs to be revived. And it's lost because it's hard and pianists are often an unimaginative literal lot these days
Thank you so much for posting this, great stuff! The richness of the variants in this nocturne alone is a testament to the art of improv that was so common in Chopin's playing (and many other classical composers). It's also no surprise that this is the Ekier urtext edition, widely regarded to be the most faithful to the original manuscripts, kinda like the Henle of Chopin. If you take a look at any of the other Ekier scores, you will find a similar pattern - many interesting variants and ossias dotted all over the pages, with robust scholarship to back up their validity.
Thank you so much for providing this to TH-cam. People often act like what Chopin printed in manuscripts was the *only* way that his works should be performed. These cadenzas are much more exciting and refreshing than playing the same sequence in repeated sections!!
Fabulous recordings! See also Ewa Poblocka, whose recording (although weirdly engineered or perhaps overdubbed) introduced me to this variation of the piece.
It's interesting to hear these variants, which I had not ever heard of or seen before, so thanks for posting it. This nocturne seems to be hte favourite of many people. It is not one of my very favourite nocturnes by Chopin, although I like all his nocturnes - but not a favourite perhaps due to over-exposure over the years - I have noticed that, in general, the best-known pieces by any composer are rarely my favourite pieces by them. However, the first of the two performances here struck me as so beautiful that it did prompt me to hear this with fresh ears. Quite apart from the interesting variants, I thought he used the pedal very well to bring out the resonance - and how nice to hear Chopin played without lots of excessive rubato all over the place. I'm afraid, however, that I cannot say the same about the second performance, either about the pedal usage, which I found a bit erratic and insufficient, or about the rubato, which was far too much for my liking. In particular, I found quite puzzling and rather unsatisfactory, the way the second pianist (Koczalski) started the final arpeggio with the pedal down, and then lifted it about 5 notes in and did the rest without it. I suppose it could be argued that it was a different interpretation from the usual practice would follow with a passage like this, where one would normal keep the pedal down throughout. But in this case, it is not an alternative interpeation I like, and I prefer the usual practice of doing arpeggios like this with the pedal down throughout. As a general comment about Chopin's Nocturnes, I find that Ivan Moravec's performance is probably my favourte performance overall, and he forms my model of how I think these pieces should ideally be played. There is a video on TH-cam with Moravec playing all 19 of the canonical Nocturnes (omitting the later-admitted C# minor and C minor Nocturnes, which sound to me like very early works, despite being given the numbers later on of 20 and 21 - and I tihink there is even a 22 in C# minor again, whose authenticity is doubted). The video displays the music, line by line, as the music plays, and can be found here: th-cam.com/video/kHXxWfSAxik/w-d-xo.html .
Sure. It's the IV chord... nothing unusual other than most printed editions being a minor IV chord (borrowed chord from the parallel key of Eb minor). Minor IV's are something that romantic composers started to overuse, and Chopin probably had second thoughts of going to the minor IV twice in back to back measures (m.17 and m18). I deal with the same second guessing in my compositions... trying not to overuse unique chord alterations within progressions, or they cease to be unique when the ear starts to expect them all of the time. That's the problem with Neopolitan, various Augmented Sixth Chords, and Diminished/Half Diminished chord substitutions when overused as well. They no longer fool the ear if overdone.
Sure. It's the IV chord... nothing unusual other than most printed editions being a minor IV chord (borrowed chord from the parallel key of Eb minor). Minor IV's are something that romantic composers started to overuse, and Chopin probably had second thoughts of going to the minor IV twice in back to back measures (m.17 and m18). I deal with the same second guessing in my compositions... trying not to overuse unique chord alterations within progressions, or they cease to be unique when the ear starts to expect them all of the time. That's the problem with Neopolitan, various Augmented Sixth Chords, and Diminished/Half Diminished chord substitutions when overused as well. They no longer fool the ear if overdone.
@@stalkerstomper3304 Thanks for the details! Although when you say ’nothing unusual’, well my ear is relatively untrained (only a few years of highly amateurish piano) and I immediately picked that up as ’off’... It really stands out of all the rest of the piece.
@@houmous942 That's actually a good thing that you immediately noticed it if you were already familiar with this Nocturne, as it demonstrates your memory retention with the usual chord progression. Nice!
Chopin would certainly approve improvisations on his works in performance. He would even find today’s accepted approach of following the score to a tee uncreative and boring. I think the first version would be fully approved by Chopin. The second version’s embellishments drag out the rhythm and the flow a bit too much, so I’m not sure whether Chopin would like it as much.
Just an observation ... the first version seems pretty much on pitch, while the second one is definitely flat, so recording probably is slow. Unless piano was deliberately mistuned, which I doubt.
Did Chopin really write this or is it just an imitation? 🤔 I know that Chopin often edited already published manuscripts.
I had the same doubt as you and I have been investigating, I leave you a paragraph of an article that explains it:
"One of the most fascinating accounts of this work was made by Raoul Koczalski, who had lessons with Chopin’s pupil Karol Mikuli. In 1938 Koczalski produced a record whose label says “with authentic Chopin variants” in which we can hear quite a few extrapolations that are not in the printed score. Apparently, Mikuli had once heard Chopin play the work this way and took note of these additions, passing them along to Koczalski, who left them for posterity in this remarkable recording. While we cannot expect that Chopin would have played the work this way every time - and we do not need to imitate this, not having been trained in the same way - it is fascinating to hear an account that comes directly from Chopin’s lineage and that more clearly demonstrates that the printed text was not necessarily the composer’s final statement about a composition".
Yes, a great chunk (probably more than half?) of the variants you see are discovered to have been written in Chopin's hand. The score used in the video is actually an older edition (1995). The most recent edition has variants numbered up to 25. To list the 12 sources that they used in the most recent edition...
Sources with Chopin's autograph:
Copies of the French first edition belonging to
1. Camille Dubois (pupil)
2. Zofia Rosengardt (pupil)
3. Jane Stirling (pupil)
4. Ludwika Jędrzejewicz (sister)
5. unidentified pupil
6. Copy of German first edition belonging to unidentified pupil
7. Autograph variants by Chopin for Wilhelm von Lenz (pupil)
8. Autograph, first 2 bars of right hand
...and sources not in Chopin's hand, but have been included due to their connection with the composer:
9. Copy of French first edition belonging to August Franchomme (friend), the variants are written on the score by him
10. Edition by Karol Mikuli (pupil)
11. Article by Wilhelm von Lenz (pupil) in a music newspaper, contents different from [7]
12. 1886 book about Chopin, containing a variant given by Thomas Tellefsen (pupil)
He wrote every note. These are Chopin’s variants and his alone. He is a genius, isn't he? Another lens to see Chopin more clearly. I would recommend getting the Polish National Edition by Jan Ekier from now on. He is so very thorough
2:12 I'm in heaven
People hype so much about jazz improv, the lost art of classical improv needs to be revived. And it's lost because it's hard and pianists are often an unimaginative literal lot these days
As opposed to you whose out-of-this-world imagination and creativity is revered all over the world?
A lot of classical pianists nowadays play exactly as written on the score
@@ValkyRiver And that is a good thing. Most people aren’t nearly creative enough to come up with good improvisations that will fit composer’s style.
@vkoracx I actually do improvise. I had a discussion about this with Robert Levin. In college I was even part of a classical improvisation group. :)
@@Archiekunst That’s cool, if you have talent and have practiced, go for it
Thank you so much for posting this, great stuff! The richness of the variants in this nocturne alone is a testament to the art of improv that was so common in Chopin's playing (and many other classical composers). It's also no surprise that this is the Ekier urtext edition, widely regarded to be the most faithful to the original manuscripts, kinda like the Henle of Chopin. If you take a look at any of the other Ekier scores, you will find a similar pattern - many interesting variants and ossias dotted all over the pages, with robust scholarship to back up their validity.
Thank you so much for providing this to TH-cam. People often act like what Chopin printed in manuscripts was the *only* way that his works should be performed. These cadenzas are much more exciting and refreshing than playing the same sequence in repeated sections!!
Loved this, this has been my favorite classical piece my whole life, you do it justice.
I know that a lot of classical pianists nowadays play exactly as written on the score
Yooooo valky wasguud my man
Nooo really?
I feel like this sentence is missing a but
Fabulous recordings! See also Ewa Poblocka, whose recording (although weirdly engineered or perhaps overdubbed) introduced me to this variation of the piece.
It's interesting to hear these variants, which I had not ever heard of or seen before, so thanks for posting it.
This nocturne seems to be hte favourite of many people. It is not one of my very favourite nocturnes by Chopin, although I like all his nocturnes - but not a favourite perhaps due to over-exposure over the years - I have noticed that, in general, the best-known pieces by any composer are rarely my favourite pieces by them.
However, the first of the two performances here struck me as so beautiful that it did prompt me to hear this with fresh ears. Quite apart from the interesting variants, I thought he used the pedal very well to bring out the resonance - and how nice to hear Chopin played without lots of excessive rubato all over the place.
I'm afraid, however, that I cannot say the same about the second performance, either about the pedal usage, which I found a bit erratic and insufficient, or about the rubato, which was far too much for my liking.
In particular, I found quite puzzling and rather unsatisfactory, the way the second pianist (Koczalski) started the final arpeggio with the pedal down, and then lifted it about 5 notes in and did the rest without it. I suppose it could be argued that it was a different interpretation from the usual practice would follow with a passage like this, where one would normal keep the pedal down throughout. But in this case, it is not an alternative interpeation I like, and I prefer the usual practice of doing arpeggios like this with the pedal down throughout.
As a general comment about Chopin's Nocturnes, I find that Ivan Moravec's performance is probably my favourte performance overall, and he forms my model of how I think these pieces should ideally be played. There is a video on TH-cam with Moravec playing all 19 of the canonical Nocturnes (omitting the later-admitted C# minor and C minor Nocturnes, which sound to me like very early works, despite being given the numbers later on of 20 and 21 - and I tihink there is even a 22 in C# minor again, whose authenticity is doubted). The video displays the music, line by line, as the music plays, and can be found here: th-cam.com/video/kHXxWfSAxik/w-d-xo.html .
Playing an a flat major chord there in 7:11.
Sure. It's the IV chord... nothing unusual other than most printed editions being a minor IV chord (borrowed chord from the parallel key of Eb minor). Minor IV's are something that romantic composers started to overuse, and Chopin probably had second thoughts of going to the minor IV twice in back to back measures (m.17 and m18).
I deal with the same second guessing in my compositions... trying not to overuse unique chord alterations within progressions, or they cease to be unique when the ear starts to expect them all of the time. That's the problem with Neopolitan, various Augmented Sixth Chords, and Diminished/Half Diminished chord substitutions when overused as well. They no longer fool the ear if overdone.
× Yugo Kawai
〇 Yuko Kawai
Ah, sorry. It has been fixed. Thank you!
7:03
where did you find the score?
They are on IMSLP
@@mezzzzzzzzo thank you
@@mezzzzzzzzo link pls?
At 7:11 is it just me hearing a major cord out of nowhere?
Sure. It's the IV chord... nothing unusual other than most printed editions being a minor IV chord (borrowed chord from the parallel key of Eb minor). Minor IV's are something that romantic composers started to overuse, and Chopin probably had second thoughts of going to the minor IV twice in back to back measures (m.17 and m18).
I deal with the same second guessing in my compositions... trying not to overuse unique chord alterations within progressions, or they cease to be unique when the ear starts to expect them all of the time. That's the problem with Neopolitan, various Augmented Sixth Chords, and Diminished/Half Diminished chord substitutions when overused as well. They no longer fool the ear if overdone.
@@stalkerstomper3304 Thanks for the details! Although when you say ’nothing unusual’, well my ear is relatively untrained (only a few years of highly amateurish piano) and I immediately picked that up as ’off’... It really stands out of all the rest of the piece.
@@houmous942 That's actually a good thing that you immediately noticed it if you were already familiar with this Nocturne, as it demonstrates your memory retention with the usual chord progression. Nice!
Chopin would certainly approve improvisations on his works in performance. He would even find today’s accepted approach of following the score to a tee uncreative and boring.
I think the first version would be fully approved by Chopin. The second version’s embellishments drag out the rhythm and the flow a bit too much, so I’m not sure whether Chopin would like it as much.
Just an observation ... the first version seems pretty much on pitch, while the second one is definitely flat, so recording probably is slow. Unless piano was deliberately mistuned, which I doubt.
Вэрсья з пужьнэйшЫми аутэнтычнЫми варьянтАми (о мой бог!)
3 notes:
1. This edition is illegal to screenshot and use no? It's obvious which one it is (Ekier).
2. Kawai sucks.
3. Koczalski based.
The. End.
okay
A bit like Franz Liszt.