Ignaz Friedman: Romantic Master Pianist

Appendix D: Friedman’s Edition of Chopin’s Piano Works

355 Jose Vianna da Motta, review of Chopin’s Piano Works, edited by Ignaz Friedman and published by Breitkopf and Härtel, in Die Musik 13, no. 19 (July 1914). Translated by Justin Urcis. The excellent Chopin player and wellknown pianist Friedman offers a new edition of Chopin’s works. Once again the author’s manuscripts and original editions have been compared. Thus the text, which fluctuates in the many existing editions, should establish the highest possible level of authenticity to the original and also bring better pedal markings, fingerings, and phrasings. Mikuli has explained most clearly the confusion that reigns in Chopin’s manuscripts and original editions. Accordingly, in many places it seems almost impossible to recognize only one text as the will of the author, for the author himself felt differently at different times and was always changing. This changing of the imagination , which allows this harmony just as easily as that harmony, this interval or that interval, hangs closely together with Chopin’s nature, which, like that of Schumann, prefers the chiaroscuro, the estompé [toned-down effect]. Here we are far away from the engraved clarity of Mozart or the iron resolution of Beethoven, where only one version is possible and the intention of the author is irrevocable. Perhaps outside of Chopin one can find such a possibility of different harmonies only in Bach; one thinks of the many variants in the Well-Tempered Clavier or in the Chromatic Fantasy. With respect to this question, Friedman ’s point of view is: choose one ver­ sion among the different versions and stick by it. Surely this is the correct point of view for an edition that is aimed at the music-loving masses, and with a sensitive and subtle artist such as the editor, one can expect that his decision is guided by reliable taste. However, a collection of all the variants should be put together for musicians, which would not only be of great interest for research into Chopin’s psychology, but also would have practical value, as then everyone could choose the variant most agreeable to them. There are even passages which the same performer will not always want to perform the same way. Such a collection could produce the individual passages and be independent from the edition of the works. As Friedman has already worked through the entire corpus, he could undertake such a publication himself. Naturally, there Appendix D Friedman’s Edition of Chopin’s Piano Works must be an indication by each variant of the choice that is closest to the definitive will of the author. In some places, Friedman, like Mikuli, already mentions several versions. Friedman’s preface suffers from some stylistic uncertainties. For example he says that in the early editions, “legato marks” (ties) were only too often confused with phrasing marks and changed around. But it is not clear to me how phrasing marks and legato marks (ties) could be confused, as they are both iden-­ tical in the general common orthography, in which a slur always indicated at the same time a legato; only Hugo Rie­ mann has used another system. It is certainly correct that legato marks didn’t always follow the introduction of phrases, only they do not correspond to the earlier Cho-­ pin editions, for example, Klindworth’s, which provides excellent phrasing. I see another uncertainty, or at least a continuing subtlety: Friedman distinguishes between older, oldest, and Urtext editions. One should think that the Urtext editions would be the oldest. Additions by the editor are not distinguished in the text. Only a small number of nuances are set in parentheses. If it was not possible for the editor to indicate his additions in the text of the sheet music without infringing on its clarity, it should at least be indicated when the editor adds in markings such as pomposo, l’istesso tempo, and so forth. In many passages he writes quasi trombi, which unfortunately contains a grammatical mistake, as tromba in Italian is of female gender, and would therefore be trombe in the plural form. In passages with different variants, Friedman’s edition does not fundamentally distinguish itself from Mikuli’s, who really already did most of the work with this and left little for his successor to do. The phrasing given is very subtle, without falling into “overcrowded” detail. The careful pedal markings are wonderful, as the half pedal is often given, which is so important in practice and is so seldom fixed in...