Angela Lear M.Mus ARAM LRAM ~ Chopin

The music of Chopin has always posed a challenge to pianists. His compositions have retained a universal popularity and continue to be performed in virtually all corners of the world. They have also been recorded and re-recorded in their thousands, so he is apparently 'well-represented' - but has the challenge to his interpreter even been successfully met? To gain further insight into his unique musical language and stylistic practices it is essential to comprehend as far as possible his expressed intentions.

Our knowledge and appreciation can be considerably enriched by the combined study of not only his original manuscripts and related material, but also the many statements made by his associates, friends and pupils who knew his playing and teaching principles.

Reviews and reports of his concerts (though not always laudatory!), supplemented by the very considerable amount of general correspondence, are additionally revealing. To this list I feel it essential to include studies of Polish folk-music - songs and dances - and a knowledge of the historical development of the Polonaise, Rondo, Krakowiak and Mazur.  

When comparing the original manuscripts with various edited publications, many discrepancies are noticeable, which is surprising in view of the meticulous care and attention to detail that Chopin applied to his scores. Examples of the differences that exist between Chopin's scores and accepted editions are too numerous to list, but I will cite just one example here relating to his Study Op.10 No.5 in G flat major ('Black Keys'). This composition is commonly executed in brilliant style, Presto/Allegro con fuoco with 'highly charged' dynamics - forte and heavily accented to suit the 'virtuosic' display. This approach is, however, in direct opposition to Chopin's original score markings, which he clearly gave as leggierissimo e legatissimo - extremely light and delicate with a very smooth effect! There is no mention of the brillante, forte, fortissimo, Presto, Vivace or other markings that we find sprinkled on the scores of many editions, even those that profess faithfulness to the composer. In the closing Coda bars Chopin writes a series of double-octaves to be played a tempo, but when this Study is taken at an excessively fast tempo an inevitable slowing down of pace (rallentando/piu lento) is erroneously introduced. The beautiful lightness of touch he demanded is, of course, easier to ignore than to achieve technically. This example alone confirms the wide disparity that exists between interpreter and composer. A few pianists have appreciated the importance of referring to original sources, but many more have not. Although a celebrated interpreter of Liszt, Louis Kentner introduced me to these areas of study in my first lessons with him in 1972.

The disparity between the interpreter and Chopin is not exclusively confined to differences between original sources and editions. Where score markings are correctly stated in editions his compositions still fall prey to all manner of alteration in performance. Such 'revisions' from those who seek to remould his music into something that suits their purposes better generally remain unchallenged. There are those in the music 'business' who defend (and applaud) what is loosely described as a 'flexibility of expression', or 'personalised interpretation', on the misguided premise that Chopin was forever changing his mind about score details or that his compositions actually benefit from an approach that is given a large helping of Romantic sentimentalise. Chopin would occasionally pencil into the scores of selected pupils an altered dynamic or variant to suit their individuality, but it was only his prerogative as the composer-pianist to make any such revisions. On the subject of the sentimentalise/Romantic approach, we know that Chopin had an ardent dislike of all forms of excess or exaggeration and was never a Romantic composer in the Lisztian or Byronic sense. Rather his music essentially belongs to the earlier forms of art-music and Classicism.

Where this most elusive and poetic of composers is concerned it should surely be absolutely vital, from an artistic and aesthetic point of view, to give his specified intentions the highest priority. All interpretations of Chopin must remain within the 'guidelines' specifically marked on his texts, as these are our most fundamental link with his expressed intentions. To clarify these 'guidelines', albeit simplistically, I refer to the composer's specific score indications that are (or should be) the basis of an interpretation. It is important to adhere to these indications, e.g. that a piano marking is not substituted for a preferred forte, or a broad Largo tempo not exchanged for the faster pace of an Allegretto, etc.. Additionally, there is infinite scope in the wide variety of musical terminology that form the interpretative performance instructions. Chopin would revise his compositions endlessly before arriving at his final decisions on these matters. From his autograph copies it is clearly evident that he would endeavour to leave nothing to doubt when correcting his scores, crossing out changes with webs of thickly drawn diagonal lines that rendered it impossible to read what he had previously written. To further avoid any misunderstandings about his scores he would often write messages on them for engravers when he wanted to clarify notational details.

Several elements are fundamental to the performance of Chopin's compositions, and far transcend the basic mechanics of technique. Of the many aspects to Chopin's art one that must be mentioned is his love of singing, bel canto (from the vocal school of the 1830's) and opera especially. Pupils were strongly advised by him to take singing lessons: "...sing if you wish to play". Instinctively he expressed vocal art through the 'voice' of the piano and stylised the vocal techniques of declamation, the arc-shaped fioriture and portamento. His passion for the art of singing reflects his musical aesthetic. Finely contoured phrases require careful shaping and must be counter-balanced against accompanying background textures. Beauty of sound and a tonvolle (full-bodied) legato are at the very heart of his compositions. Chopin was insistent on correct 'sound production' and the art of touch - the cornerstones of his pianistic credo; "All technique originates in the art of touch and returns to it".

Technique as an end in itself is worthless and should only be the means to a musical end. Too much of pure music is sacrificed in favour of meaningless dexterity, the flashiness of excessively fast tempos and exaggerated dynamics that demean the music in a bid for self-aggrandisement. "A well formed technique, it seems to me, is one that can control and vary a beautiful sound quality" (Chopin). Wayward performances and an ambivalent attitude towards his score markings must be challenged. Textual adherence is often claimed, but the evidence to support it does not generally manifest itself in performance. Extolling praise on interpretations that are, at best, diluted shadows of an original masterpiece - even if deemed to be 'definitive versions' is seriously misleading to the public and untruthful in all aspects.

In a commercial age where artistic considerations are not always given due regard - and certainly not prime importance - there is a regrettable tendency to accept/praise a performance which simply panders to popular tastes at the expense of artistic integrity. No valid argument can be put forward to exonerate those who dismiss the importance of a composer's texts, even when such performances are masked under the dubious guise of an 'imaginative approach' or 'great interpretation', no matter how 'virtuosic' the execution might appear on the surface to the less discriminating listener. Such distancing from the composer, more apparent perhaps in Chopin than in other composers, renders any interpretation invalid.

Even if some members of the public are temporarily dazzled and impressed by displays of virtuosity for the sake of it, the ear-jarring monotony of relentless fortissimo and attendant mannerisms, does this truly speak to the heart? Measuring comparative performances by duration or decibel level is a saddening sign of the times. Music should surely ennoble the spirit, create a moving experience and provide a lasting impression to reflect upon after the final notes have been played. To allow the composer to be revealed through the recreation of his music must be the ultimate and continued aim of an interpreter and 'personalised' versions must finally be regarded as the grave disservice they are to the composer and to the public.