Variations and Variation Technique in the Music of Chopin [1 ed.] 0367141361, 9780367141363

Citation preview

Variations and Variation Technique in the Music of Chopin

Whilst Chopin composed only a few works in variation form, he employed variations and variation technique in the majority of his works. Multiple modified repetitions of musical units on different levels of a work are so typical of Chopin’s works that this may be considered one of the chief determinants of his style. Focusing on a broad range of Chopin’s works, this book explores the extent to which Chopin’s oeuvre is suffused with variations, the role that variation technique plays in his work, to what extent it interacts with other techniques for developing and modifying musical material, and how the variation technique itself evolved. Beginning with a comprehensively documented investigation of the concept of variation in its own right, Zofia Chechlińska employs Riemannian and Schenkerian theory to ­consider, in turn, the ways in which Chopin constructs variations on the level of microstructure (motif and phrase) and macrostructure (thematic areas, sections, movements and form). This is the first English translation of one of the classics of musicological literature in Poland and is essential reading for scholars of Chopin and nineteenth-century music and music analysts. Zofia Chechlińska is Emeritus Professor of Musicology and has worked at the Institute of Art of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw and the ­Institute of Musicology of the Jagiellonian University, Cracow. Her scholarly interests are focused on Chopin’s works and Polish musical culture of the nineteenth century. Besides a large number of articles, she has published books on variations and variation technique in Chopin (Wariacje i technika wariacyjna w twórczości Chopina, 1995) and on Polish musical culture in the nineteenth century (2013). She has also prepared several volumes of source editions of Henryk Wieniawski’s works. She is currently editor-in-chief of the series Works by Chopin, Facsimile Edition, published by the Fryderyk Chopin Institute in Warsaw. She is a member of the FCI’s Programme Committee.

Variations and Variation Technique in the Music of Chopin Zofia Chechlińska Translated by John Comber

Fryderyk Chopin Institute Warsaw 2019

First published in English 2019 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2019 Zofia Chechlińska Translated by John Comber. Licenced by the Fryderyk Chopin Institute The right of Zofia Chechlińska to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Published in Polish by Musica Iagellonica 1995 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Chechlińska, Zofia, author. | Comber, John, translator. Title: Variations and variation technique in the music of Chopin / Zofia Chechlińska; translated by John Comber. Other titles: Wariacje i technika wariacyjna w twâorczoâsci Chopina. English Description: Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge, 2019. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018052282 (print) | LCCN 2018052693 (ebook) | ISBN 9780429030475 (ebook) | ISBN 9780367141363 (hardback: alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Chopin, Fryderyka, 1810–1849—Criticism and interpretation. | Variations—19th century—History and criticism Classification: LCC ML410.C54 (ebook) | LCC ML410.C54 C3913 2019 (print) | DDC 786.2092—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018052282 ISBN: 978-0-367-14136-3 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-03047-5 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by codeMantra

In memory of my father

Contents

Introduction

1

1 The notion of variation 1.1 The notion of variation in literature of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries 5 1.2 An attempt to formulate the notion of variation in the work of Chopin 21

5

2 The morphology of Chopin’s variations 2.1  Modifications of melody 30 2.2  Harmony as a variable element 51 2.3  Changes in texture as an element of variation 59 2.4  Differences in articulation 67 2.5  The joint action of different means of variation 69 2.6 Variation technique in relation to sequences and thematic work  80

28

3 Variations of microstructures 3.1  Variations of motifs and phrases 88 3.2  Variation technique and periodic design 98 3.3 Variation technique and the construction of the sections in one-movement works 104

88

4 Variations of macrostructures 4.1  Transformations of themes 114 4.2 Reprise as variation 122 4.3 The dominance of variation technique in the shaping of a work 130 4.4  Variation forms 137

114

viii Contents 5 The evolution of Chopin’s variation technique Bibliography Musical examples Index of Chopin’s works Index of names

148 163 173 175 178

Introduction

Chopin composed just a few works in variation form. Most of them were written in Warsaw, one (the Variations, Op. 12) shortly after the composer left Poland, after which he abandoned this form. Only once did he subsequently return to variation form, composing the Berceuse, in the 1840s. Nonetheless, he employed a variation technique to a greater or lesser extent in the clear majority of his works. Some of them are so replete with variations that some authors have regarded them as variation forms (e.g. the Ballade in A flat major, Ballade in F minor, Impromptu in F sharp major). Multiple modified repetitions of musical units on different levels of a work are so typical of Chopin’s works that they may be considered one of the chief determinants of his style. Chopin’s predilection for continuously altering details of his works is widely known. Such procedures were unquestionably motivated by a desire to obtain the most perfect form possible for a work, down to the minutest details. Yet, an aspiration to perfection does not account for all the changes introduced by Chopin. It often occurs that different manuscripts of the same work, prepared at the same time for different publishers, differ from one another in details. We also know that while proofreading his works, Chopin was more interested in making further alterations to details of the composition than in correcting engraver’s mistakes.1 The process of revising details did not end even after a work’s publication. We know of revisions of various kinds that Chopin made on copies of his works belonging to his pupils. This tendency to continuously alter and revise the text of his works is visible also in the performances given by Chopin. We learn from numerous accounts by his contemporaries that he never performed his works in the same way twice, which means he was forever making ‘variational’2 changes while performing them.3 The multitude of variants of one and the same 1 Cf. Ekier, Wstęp, 68 ff. 2 Throughout the text, I use the term ‘variational’ or ‘variationally’ (as in ‘variational repeat’, ‘variational sequence’ or ‘variationally modified’) to signify modifications that are in conformity with the concept of variation defined in the second part of Chapter 1. 3 Cf. e.g. Mathias, Preface; Mikuli, Foreword; also Methuen-Campbell, ‘Chopin Playing’, 15.

2  Introduction musical idea seems to be an inseparable part of Chopin’s creative process. Jeffrey Kallberg even asserts that variants ‘are pervasive in Chopin’s music; indeed, it is tempting to assert that they are essential to its aesthetic mode of existence, as understood both by Chopin and by his audiences’.4 According to Jan Ekier, one of the reasons for all these variants and continual alterations might have been simply the composer’s inability to settle on a final version.5 Yet even if that were the case, then the necessity of choosing would attest to the existence of many versions of a particular musical idea from the beginning. It seems crucial that for Chopin the musical idea was from its very inception a polymorphous entity, inherently admitting of various realisations. That is because musical units had different versions not just in different sources or performances of the composer but also in their successive appearances in the same work and in the same source. Repeating musical ideas in a modified, usually ornamented, form was typical of improvisation, and also of the so-called style brillant, which indeed was closely related to improvisation and derived genetically from the output of Mozart, in which modified repetitions of smaller or larger musical units were almost the norm. Improvisation and the style brillant formed a starting point for Chopin’s compositional output. Hence, the composer’s individual predilection for continuously altering, modifying and transforming his musical material was reinforced by the tradition from which his work arose. Although variation technique was widely used by Chopin, it has not previously been examined in an exhaustive way. The only work devoted to this issue is an article written by Bronisława Wójcik-Keuprulian more than eighty years ago, in which the author discusses variational changes in Chopin’s melody, focussing mainly on ornamentation as a means of variation.6 Both in that work and in her book on Chopin’s melodic writing published earlier, Wójcik-Keuprulian first and foremost classifies the various types of ornaments employed by Chopin to form his variations.7 Although undoubtedly valuable at the time they were written, advancing our knowledge of the composer’s work, neither of those works exhausts the subject, and today they are insufficient. The issue of variations in Chopin has also been addressed in studies devoted to particular genres or works, especially those in which variation technique occupied a prominent place, such as the Impromptu in F sharp major, the Ballade in F minor and the Berceuse.8 Selected aspects of this subject have also appeared in publications devoted to other issues relating to Chopin’s work, but generally in the margins of the main exposition: passing observations that of their nature are unable to 4 Kallberg, ‘Are variants a problem?’, 257. 5 Cf. Ekier, ‘The final text’, 150. 6 Wójcik-Keuprulian, ‘Wariacje’. 7 Wójcik-Keuprulian, Melodyka. 8 See. e.g. Wilkowska, ‘Impromptus’; Wikowska, ‘Środki’; Lissa, ‘Inspiracje’; Rink, ‘The Barcarolle’; Samson, Chopin: The Four Ballades; Witten, ‘The Chopin Ballades’.

Introduction  3 penetrate Chopin’s variation technique to any great depth, let alone analyse it in an integral way.9 Chopin’s variation forms have also lacked a separate study, although almost every monograph devoted to his music includes more or less extensive comments on that group of works. Despite this, the technique employed by the composer in those works too has not been previously discussed in depth. Besides the Chopin literature, the question of variation technique in Chopin has not generally been addressed in literature devoted to variations in nineteenth-century music or including that period within its scope. Works of that type usually focus on variation forms, even when the title specifies variation technique.10 In those studies, Chopin is mentioned at most as the composer of the Berceuse, one of the few examples of an ostinato-based variation form from that period. The same situation occurs in encyclopaedias, where there is not even any mention of Chopin’s variation technique, whereas the analogous technique of such composers as Schubert, ­Schumann and Brahms is discussed – considering the restrictions of encyclopaedia ­entries – in quite a detailed way.11 In this situation, it appears justified and necessary to address the question of variations in Chopin’s work. The present work sets out to present Chopin’s variations and variation technique not only in variation forms but also throughout the composer’s oeuvre. All the works of secure authorship are covered, with only dubious works and those merely ascribed to the composer, such as the Flute Variations, overlooked. The task of this work is to attempt to show the extent to which Chopin’s work is suffused with variations, the role that variation technique plays in his work, to what extent, if at all, it interacts with other techniques for developing and modifying the musical material, to what extent, if at all, the variation technique itself evolved, how its function in a work altered and to what degree variations are a specific property of Chopin’s works. Answers to these questions require discussion of a number of more detailed issues, which, in turn, determines the arrangement of the work. The starting point for our considerations will be an attempt to define the notion of variations in relation to Chopin’s works. This notion both delineates the scope of the phenomenon and also serves as a research tool. Next, the morphology of variations will be presented, irrespective of the level of a work on which they appear, the musical units they concern and the functions they discharge. The object here is to show the ways in which Chopin constructs 9 See e.g. Samson, The Music of Chopin; Parakilas, Ballads. 10 See e.g. Friedland, Zeitstil; Puchelt, Variationen; Nelson, The Technique. 11 Fischer, ‘Variation’, published in both MGG and New Grove; in both those publications, Chopin is mentioned solely as the composer of the Berceuse. In The New Harvard Dictionary of Music (ed. D. M. Randel, Cambridge, MA, 1986), Chopin’s name is not even mentioned among composers of variations.

4  Introduction variations, the links to traditional compositional praxes and the changes that gradually occur. I will then consider variations of microstructures, that is, small particles such as motifs and phrases, as well as simple periods, this time including the functions they fulfil in a work. The next chapter is devoted to variations of macrostructures: thematic areas, sections and movements of works, and variation forms. These two chapters are designed to show the degree to which works are suffused with variations on different levels and the functions variations perform in shaping a work. The book will close with a chapter on the evolution of Chopin’s variations, which at the same time represents a kind of summary and comparison of changes in variation technique with changes relating to other aspects of composition. The present study of variations focusses on the works of Chopin. There are no comparisons with works by other composers, due to the lack of analogous research into the variation technique in the work of Chopin’s immediate predecessors and his contemporaries, and also due to the different set of cultivated genres. In each genre, the variation technique is somewhat different, even in the work of one and the same composer, so such comparisons could not give satisfactory results. Only in a few instances are similarities or differences indicated in relation to Chopin’s immediate predecessors and his peers. This concerns situations where a similarity is evident, as with the morphology of variations in early works and the variations of composers working in the style brillant, and when the variation technique, and the extent of its employment, differs markedly from that observed in other ­composers of those times. A comparative method is employed, meanwhile, in relation to the works of Chopin himself, and also in relation to the understanding of variation I adopt. Chopin’s variations are compared within genres and between genres, which makes it possible to show generic differences in this area. Comparing sections ­ hapter 1, makes of a work with a working model of variations, as defined in C it possible, in turn, to study variation technique and to establish its links with other kinds of composition technique employed by Chopin. In this work, I have employed traditional terminology derived from or consolidated with in the theory of Riemann, which in relation to the music of the period under discussion represents a relatively cohesive system. However, I adopt Schenker’s concept of the hierarchic nature of the musical work, although without using his analytical method, since variations, as a specific type of modification of musical material, manifest themselves primarily on a surface level. Schenker’s method is employed in Anglo-­A merican works devoted to variation form; there, however, authors are interested not so much in examining the technique of variation, the way in which the material is modified or the function of variations in a work, as in demonstrating the organic nature of the form. In our case, it is necessary to concentrate on the surface level, and Schenker’s method is less helpful, relatively speaking, in studying that level.

1 The notion of variation

1.1  The notion of variation in literature of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries The notion of ‘variation’ has appeared in writings on music for a very long time, its range of meaning differing significantly both across historical periods and in the work of particular authors. For the present work, it is important above all to know how the concept was perceived during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This is determined by two key factors: first, the understanding of variations in Chopin’s day grew out of current or slightly earlier musical practice, so it was better suited to it than earlier understandings of the concept; second, the scope of meaning ascribed to the notion of variation, both then and later, exerted a crucial influence over its meaning in musicology today. Either the earlier understanding of the concept of ‘variation’ was not appropriate to nineteenth-century music or else some elements of it were absorbed by the literature of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Hence, considerations of this notion are confined here to the literature of those two centuries. During the nineteenth century, the ‘variation’ was used in two principal meanings: to define a specific kind of musical form and to define a compositional procedure that could be applied in various forms. Although at the beginning of the century, authors concentrated mainly on aspects of variation form, their arguments concerned not just form as a whole but also the variation itself and its relation to the theme.1 Thus, on the basis of nineteenth-century literature, we can deduce what relations must have arisen between a theme and another segment of music in order for the latter to be deemed a variation. Heinrich Christoph Koch writes in his L ­ exikon: ­‘Variations – by this is understood multiple, immediate repetitions of a short piece, where the melody is altered each time by means of various subdivisions of its principal notes and consequently through the use of various

1 According to Elaine R. Sisman (‘Haydn’s Variations’, 54), the first theorist to use the name ‘theme with variations’ was Heinrich Christoph Koch (Versuch).

6  The notion of variation passing or changing notes’.2 So Koch emphasises repetition as an inherent feature of variations and the way in which that repeated ‘short piece’ is changed. According to him, it is the melody that is subjected to modification, and that modification is quite specific, involving the subdivision, and not the alteration, of the melody’s principal notes, so the contour of the melody should also be retained. This way of understanding variation influenced compositional practice at that time, when composers widely used ornamental variations. ­ ineteenthRepetition as a feature of variation is also highlighted by other n century theorists. Ferdinand Hand writes that in variations ‘everything derives from the theme, not as progressive development, but as closed repetition [emphasis Z. C.]’.3 Adolf Bernhard Marx, in turn, states that ‘a variation is essentially nothing other than a modified repeat’.4 According to the encyclopaedia of Gustav Schilling, in a strict variation ‘the theme is altered in such a way that each modified repeat […] creates just such a self-contained work […] with a wholly similar area […] as the theme’.5 These theorists no longer restrict variational changes to modifications of the melodic line; indeed, they often do not even address the issue of the kind of changes that might be introduced in variations. Repetition is regarded as an inherent feature of variations by most ­nineteenth-century theorists. It is also accepted as a feature conditioning variations in some contemporary definitions of the notion.6 Another feature essential to the determination of a variation, one that is emphasised by all theorists, not just at the beginning of the ­n ineteenth century but throughout the whole of that century, and partly in the ­twentieth century as well, is the recognisability of the theme in the variation. Koch, when defining variations, states clearly that the subdivision of the p ­ rincipal notes of the theme’s melody in a variation cannot blur the similarity of the new melody to the principal melody, that is, to the melody of the theme, and that this similarity must be maintained to such an extent

2 ‘Variationen, Variazioni. Man versteht darunter eine mehrmalige unmittelbare Wiederholung eines Kurzen Tonstückes, wobey die Melodie jedesmal durch Verschiedenheit der Zergliederungen ihrer Hauptnoten und der damit in Verbindung gebrachten durchgehenden und Nebennoten verändert wird’, Koch, Musikalisches Lexikon, 1630. 3 ‘[in variations] geht Alles von der Grundlage aus, und nicht als fortschreitende Entwicklung, wie bei anderen Compositionen, sondern als abgeschlossene Wiederholung’, Hand, Aesthetik, 359. 4 ‘jede Variation ist im Grunde nichts als eine modificirte Wiederholung des Liedes’, Marx, Die Lehre, pt 3, 94. 5 ‘Nun wird ein Thema […] so variirt, da jede auf obige Art modificirte Wiederholung desselben einen für sich bestehenden, ohne Beziehung auf die übrigen Veränderungen, in sich abgeschlossenen Satz, von durchaus gleichem […] Umfange wie das Thema, bildet […] nennt man den Satz streng variirt’. Schilling, Encyclopädie, 741. 6 Cf., e.g., Sisman’s ‘Variation’ and Wolf’s ‘Development’, in The New Harvard Dictionary of Music, ed. D. M. Randel (Cambridge, MA, 1986), 902–907 and 225.

The notion of variation  7 7

that listeners are capable of perceiving it. Hand likewise emphasises that a composer should never lose sight of the theme, and he defines a variation as a ‘sequence of different shapings of the melody through the use of such means as figuration, harmonic combination, the art of counterpoint  […] the theme is shown in various forms, but always in such a way that it is recognisable as the foundation’.8 He goes on to warn that if the theme ceases to be recognisable or disappears entirely, the variation also ceases to exist.9 This is worded somewhat more mildly by Johann Christian Lobe, who asserts only that variations display a general similarity to the theme; yet, he does not indicate what that similarity is to involve or to what extent it should be maintained.10 Vincent d’Indy, discussing the differences that arise between the variation and the processing of thematic material, also stresses that the former is characterised by the recognisability of the means used in the theme, and Hugo Riemann even states that the necessity for the theme to be recognisable in variations is self-evident.11 The general acceptance of this requirement during the nineteenth century is confirmed by Horst Weber, author of an article on variations in the Handbuch der musikalischen Terminologie, defining the recognisability of the theme as the ‘official norm’.12 So, the variation was considered to be, at least during the nineteenth century, and also by some twentieth-century authors, a recognisable, modified repeat of the theme, in which some elements of the latter remained constant. According to Elaine R. Sisman, in variation theory of the late eighteenth century, it was accepted that none of the structural elements, that is, neither the melodic contour nor the harmonic scheme and the periodic structure, should be changed.13 In 1793, Georg Joseph Vogler complained about the limitations imposed on composers of variations since the caesurae, rhythm, sequence of notes, and harmonic and melodic analogies were strictly determined in a variation by the theme.14 Slightly earlier, however, in 1774, Johann Abraham Peter Schulz mentions – alongside variations in which the

7 ‘muss die Aenlichkeit mit der Hauptmelodie in jeder Veränderung in so weit beybehalten werden, da die Aufmerksamkeit des Zuhörers dadurch gefasselt wird’, Koch, Musikalisches Lexikon, 1630; see also Koch, Versuch, 52. 8 ‘eine Reihe von verschiedenen Gestaltungen eines melodischen Satzes durch ­Verwendung der Mittel, welche Figuration, Harmonische Combination, contrapunktische Kunst darbieten; ein Thema erscheint in verschiedenen Formen […] doch so, dass es immer als Grundlage erkannt […] wird’, Hand, Aesthetik, 355. 9 ‘darf er [thecomposer] das Thema nie Außer Augen verlieren; denn wo dasselbe sich bis zum Unkenntlichen birgt oder unter Passagen und Sprüngen gänzlich verschwindet, hebt sich die Variation von selbst auf’, ibid., 360. 10 Lobe, Lehrbuch, 198. 11 D’Indy, Cours, 435; Riemann, Grosse Kompositionslehre, i: 146. 12 Weber, ‘Varietas’. 13 Sisman, ‘Tradition’, 155. 14 Vogler, Verbesserung; quoted in Sisman, ‘Tradition’, 155.

8  The notion of variation melody is a modification of the melodic line of the theme – variations in which the sequence of the theme’s chords is preserved, but the melody can be different, new each time.15 So, a variation did not have to preserve the melodic contour of the theme. Both these theorists, meanwhile, shared the conviction that variations involved the interaction of fixed elements, which appear in the same form both in the theme and in the variations, and variable elements, which are subjected to modification or even replaced by new elements. At the same time, around the turn of the nineteenth century, an element of the theme which was repeated in its entirety in a variation was held to be constant: either the harmonic sequence of the whole theme or else its melodic outline, the bass line, etc. As changes occurred in musical output, the way in which variations were perceived also altered, including the relations between fixed and ­variable elements. By the 1820s, Anton Reicha, probably influenced by the work of Beethoven, regarded chord sequences, the accompaniment model and the melody itself as elements that could be subjected to change.16 In discussing various possibilities for making changes in variations, he even admits the change of all these elements in a single variation; consequently, the only constant element that was common to both the theme and the variations was the periodic structure.17 The extent to which particular ­elements could  – ­a ccording to him – distance the latter from the prototype remained an open question. Yet, in order for the theme to be recognisable in a variation, it was not enough to retain the structure. Altered elements that were not preserved in their entirety had to be represented in a ­variation by some of its features, such as characteristic motifs or ­harmonic connections. Preserving the structure of the theme was considered to be a crucial feature of variations mainly in nineteenth-century writings; yet, a number of twentieth-century authors also regarded this feature as a characteristic determinant of a variation. The New Harvard Dictionary of Music adopts 15 Schulz, ‘Veränderung’; Sisman, ‘Tradition’, 153. 16 Reicha, Traité. 17 Sisman (‘Tradition’, 156) presents the following table of the various possible changes to elements in variations admitted by Reicha: 1  Melody     — — 2  —   accompaniment — 3  —     —    harmony 4   —   accompaniment harmony 5  Melody   accompaniment — 6  Melody   accompaniment harmony (A dash signifies that the particular element of the theme is retained in the variation as a constant; written out are the elements subje­cted to change.) At the same time, Sisman notes that both the mode and the key could be altered in given variations.

The notion of variation  9 the retention of the theme’s structure as a factor distinguishing variation from thematic working. The former is defined as ‘a technique of modifying a given musical idea, usually after its first appearance’ or as a musical form based on a series of such modifications.18 This definition was elaborated upon in the entry devoted to development, which – according to that dictionary – is a structural change to the musical material in relation to the exposition or the presentation of the material. ‘Development may also usefully be distinguished from variation, the former involving a true structural transformation, the latter merely an ornamental change such as a melodic elaboration or a shift in dynamics or orchestration’; ‘variation […] merely restates a theme in different harmonic, timbral, dynamic, registral, and expressive contexts rather than altering its structure [emphasis Z. C.]’.19 This definition is appropriate for nineteenth-century variations, in which – as we know – the structure of the theme was preserved almost as a rule.20 Yet, not all contemporary dictionaries and encyclopaedias regard the preservation of the structure of the theme as an essential feature of a vari­ ation. Kurt von Fischer, discussing the elements of a theme that can ­remain ­constant in a variation, mentions the characteristic motif of the theme from which an entity of a new structure is created, and he also regards such a new entity as a variation.21 Variations in which the structure of the theme is not retained are often defined as ‘free’ or ‘fantasy’ variations. But not all authors have regarded variations of this type as proper variations. Brahms, who took a very dim view of variations involving nothing other than melodic changes, did not count this type as variations at all, although he himself sometimes composed works of that kind.22 Robert ­Nelson, in turn, regarded variations preserving the original structure as ‘the truest’ ­because retaining the structure of the original idea was the factor that distinguished variations from other ways of modifying material.23 Free ­variations were lacking that element, and consequently – according to him – for the first time in the history of the variation the processing of motifs became similar to how it is employed in fugue and in sonata form.24 Theorists of the early nineteenth century generally dealt with variation form, although quite broadly understood. Among the forms ascribed to variation form, alongside works built from successive variations, are rondos in which the refrain or the refrain and the couplets are repeated in

18 19 20 21

The New Harvard Dictionary. Ibid., 225. Cf. Nelson, The Technique, 9. At the same time, however, Kurt von Fischer clearly emphasises that in Classical ­variations the overall formal proportions remain constant (‘Variation’, in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. Stanley Sadie (London, 1980), xix, 537 and 546). 22 Sisman, ‘Brahms’, 132, 135, 134. 2 3 Nelson, The Technique, 126. 2 4 Ibid., 115.

10  The notion of variation modified form, and also sonatas with variation-form reprises.25 From this, one may conclude that ‘variation’ was understood at that time to mean a modified repetition of a musical idea, regardless of whether it occurred immediately after that idea or else represented one of a number of such repeats or was a return of that musical idea, separated from its model by other musical material. During the 1840s, the notion of variation increasingly encompassed not only forms but also compositional technique, which could be employed in various musical forms. In relation to compositional technique, ‘variation’ begins to appear with two meanings: one broad and the other narrower. The former often approaches the concept of thematic working or is understood as any modification of a musical idea. Johann Christian Lobe states that ‘every modification of motifs is a change, and thereby a variation’.26 So, he employs the term ‘variation’ in accordance with the etymology of the word, as a synonym of change. At the same time, however, he distinguishes a narrower meaning of the term, when ‘the whole [emphasis Z. C.] of a motif develops mainly into richer figures, but is sometimes confined to simpler forms’.27 This implies the retention of the whole, and thus a modified repetition of the original structure. Hence, the narrower meaning of the term ‘variation’ coincides with its earlier understanding, the sole discrepancy being that it is expanded to include minor musical units. Arrey von ­Dommer similarly distinguishes two kinds of variation: the first, which contains ‘only simple changes, mainly to the melody, and also to the harmony and the rhythm […]; yet they represent nothing more than the describing, ­varying and embellishing of the theme, […] there is no independent p ­ eriodic design here or the elaboration, expansion and modification of the idea according to their own inner content’, and the second, in which ‘variations are […] the more freely treated […] actual modification and elaboration of the theme in a deeper sense […]; in these, the basic idea is substantially developed’.28 The notion of ‘variation’ as a synonym of all change is also used by Wilhelm Dyckerhoff, who asserts that ‘almost every more complex

25 Heinrich Christoph Koch describes the finales of symphonies and concertos in which the theme and its variations can be separated by episodes in accordance with the rondo principle (Versuch, iii: 314). Johann Abraham Peter Schulz (Veränderung), meanwhile, includes sonatas with variation reprises among variation forms. 26 ‘Jede Umbildung eines Motivs ist eine Veränderung, eine Variation desselben’, Lobe, Compositionslehre, 19. 27 ‘ein ganzes Motiv meist in reichere Figuren auflös‘t, zuweilen auch in einfachere zurückführt […] Diese Art von Umbildung wollen wir Variirung im engem Sinne nennen’, ibid. 28 ‘nur einfache Veränderungen vorzugsweise der Melodie, auch der Harmonie und Rhytmik […] ohne selbständige Periodenbildung und Entwicklung, keine fortschreitende Durchbildung und Ausgestaltung des Gedankens seinem vollen innern Gehalte nach. Oder die Variationen sind — b) freier behaltet, […] wirkliche Um- und Ausgestaltung in denen der Grundgedanke eine wirkliche Entwickelung erlebt’, Dommer, Musikalisches Lexikon, quoted in Weber, ‘Varietas’, 36.

The notion of variation  11 and more elaborate work can be regarded to a greater or lesser degree as a variation, the theme of which the composer kept to himself’.29 Identifying variations with all modifications of the musical material, Dyckerhoff treats them as a general principle of all composing; he warns, however, that in the case of variation form only one particular kind of composing is used, and it involves above all figurational changes.30 So, he understands variation technique in both a broader and a narrower sense, with the latter close to the idea expressed by Koch. At the end of the nineteenth century, Alfred Richter clearly states that ‘variation, or change [Veränderung], is characteristic of every altered presentation of an original idea, so it includes also thematic work’.31 However, he then immediately separates the terms ‘variation’ and ‘Veränderung’: ‘yet one must separate these notions and understand under the name variation a specific artistic form based on a theme, that is, a work of the character of a song’.32 It might seem, therefore, that Richter reserves the notion of ‘­variation’ for formal description. It emerges from his further considerations, however, that it also signifies for him a kind of compositional t­ echnique. ‘All musical work involves […] variable presentation. If it concerns solely motifs, […] we call it thematic working; if it concerns the whole of a musical work or a section or movement thereof […] or a self-contained entity in ­general, we define it as a variation’.33 Most theorists, particularly during the second half of the nineteenth century, do not distinguish variation so distinctly as a specific composition technique, although there are attempts to distinguish between variation and thematic working. The basis for that differentiation varies from one author to another. For Richter, it is a kind of musical material subjected to change – a self-contained entity, larger than a motif. Although Richter does not speak of the means used to produce a variation and does not formulate the conditions relating to the retention of the fixed elements of an altered theme or model, one can deduce from his arguments that the element or elements determining the whole of the theme had to be retained in a variation in order for the latter to form an entity analogous to the theme. Preserving the integrity of a modified musical idea is a criterion for distinguishing variation 29 ‘man ja fast jedes zusammengesetztere und künstlichere Tonstück mehr oder minder als Variation ansehen kann, zu der derComponist das Thema für sich behalten und verschwiegen hat’, Dyckerhoff, Composition Schule, quoted in Weber, ‘Varietas’, 40. 30 Weber, ‘Varietas’, 40. 31 ‘Variation, d.h. eben Veränderung, ist eigentlich jede veränderte Darstellung ursprünglicher Gedanken, mithin gehört auch die thematische Arbeit dazu’, Richter, Die Lehre, 84. 32 ‘Man hat aber die Begriffe abgegrenzt und versteht unter Variation vornehmlich eine bestimmte Kunstform, der ein Thema, d.h. ein liedartige Satz […] zu Grunde liegt’, ibid. 33 ‘Alle musikalische Arbeit beruht […] auf veränderte Darstellung. Betrifft diese lediglich die Motive, […] so nennen wir das thematische Arbeit, betrifft sie das Ganze, d.h. ein Tonstück oder einen Teil eines solchen […] überhaupt jede einigermassen […] in sich abgegrenzte Bildung, so bezeichnen wir das als Variation’, ibid.

12  The notion of variation from thematic working in Dommer as well. ‘Variations […] modifications or changes to a more or less elaborate musical idea […] They employ essentially the same means as thematic working. With variations, however, the melody is always altered as a whole, and not (as in proper thematic modification) broken down into single motifs with the purpose of creating new periods’.34 The utterances quoted above, as well as those cited earlier, show clearly that during the nineteenth century the notion of variation, at least in its narrower meaning, was generally identified with the kind of change in which the structure of the model was retained in its entirety, although not all ­authors emphasise the difference between variation and thematic working on the basis of the relationship of the modified part to the whole of the original idea.35 Some see the criterion differentiating these two concepts in relation to the pitches of the theme. According to Lobe and Dyckerhoff, in a v­ ariation, the rhythm alters but the pitches remain constant, whereas in thematic working the opposite applies: the rhythm is constant, whilst the pitches are subjected to change.36 Yet, these authors also attempt to distinguish the specific character of variations in the narrower sense of the term, emphasising as a feature of variations either the inclusion of the whole of the musical idea in the changes (Lobe) or else the particular kind of changes employed ­(Dyckerhoff), which also implies retaining the structure of the whole.37 From around the mid-nineteenth century, the notions of ‘variation’ and ‘thematic working’ converge, and despite numerous attempts at separating them, they are often understood in a similar way. At the start of the twentieth century, August Halm states clearly that ‘a variation heads not just to change, but also, increasingly often, to development’.38 He understands a variation as a part of a composition in which an initial musical idea is developed, elaborated in ever new forms, not confined to its original structure. The notions of variation and thematic working come close to one another also in some later twentieth-century theoretical concepts, although the actual term ‘thematic working’ is not always used. Vincent d’Indy, for instance, speaks of the ‘variation amplificatrice’, by which he understands a modification of the original musical idea that gives rise to further

34 ‘Variationen […] Umbildungen oder Veränderungen eines Tongedankens von grösserer oder geringerer Ausdehnung […] Die Mittel dazu sind im allgemeinen die der thematischen Arbeit, doch wird bei der Variation die Melodie stets ihrer ganzen Ausdehnung nach verändert, nicht (wie bei der eigentlichen thematischen Ausgestaltung) in ihre einzelnen Motives zum Zwecke der Bildung neuer Perioden zerlegt’, Dommer, Musikalisches Lexikon, 905, quoted in Weber, ‘Varietas’, 40. 35 The theorists’ utterances concerning variations that are quoted in the present chapter represent merely a selection; they are examples of particular views. A fuller and ampler survey of utterances on this subject and a broader interpretation of them can be found in Weber’s article, ibid. 36 See Weber, 40. 37 See above, n. 27, 28 and 30. 38 Halm, ‘Über die Variationen’, quoted in Weber, ‘Varietas’, 41.

The notion of variation  13 39

themes of a cyclic work. Similar in meaning is the Schoenbergian concept of ‘developing variation’ (‘entwickelnde Variation’), by which Schoenberg understood ‘the changes to a musical idea which give rise to a new one without a break in the connection’.40 Both d’Indy and Schoenberg, by adding attributes to the term ‘variation’ (‘amplificatrice’, ‘entwickelnde), create what is essentially a new notion, defining a different phenomenon than the variation as traditionally understood. Yet alongside ‘entwickelnde Variation’, Schoenberg also employs the term ‘variation’ tout court, albeit rather ambiguously. He contrasts ‘actual’ variations with variants; the former create new, diverse motivic forms and exert a crucial influence on the development of a composition, leading to the creation of something new; the latter have no real effect on development and are close to the concept of variation as the modified repetition of certain entities.41 However, Schoenberg goes on to say that ‘thematic elaboration and modulatory “working out” (Durchführung) produce some variation [emphasis Z. C.], and place the musical elements in different contexts, but seldom lead to the “development” of anything new’.42 So, on the one hand, he emphasises variations as segments representing something new in relation to the original idea; on the other hand, he holds them up as segments which – although differently formed – are not essentially anything new, so in a sense they repeat previous musical ideas. In more recent literature, the boundary between variation technique and thematic working becomes even more blurred. Henry Cope Colles, in his entry ‘Variation’ in the fifth edition of Grove, defines variations in a general way as a form based on the principle of diversity in unity, involving the reproduction of limited musical material with variable elements.43 However, among his several examples of sections with the character of a variation, he includes the development section of a Classical sonata form, which features the segmentation and recomposition of thematic material.44 From this, it may be concluded that the notion of the variation is for him so broad that it covers thematic working. Andrzej Chodkowski, too, considers that the two terms overlap and are impossible to separate, at least during the Romantic era.45 That standpoint is based on two assumptions: that variation technique is employed by composers in sections of a variation form, and that development technique occurs in the development sections of a sonata form. Demonstrating that since Beethoven’s times thematic working has been used

39 40 41 42 43

Cf. Weber, 41. Dahlhaus, ‘Fragments’, 15. Schoenberg, Fundamentals, 9. Ibid., 200, n. 1. Colles, ‘Variation’, in Grove’s Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. E. Blom, 8th edn, v (London, 1954), 672. 4 4 Ibid., 670. 45 Chodkowski, ‘Die Variationstechnik’, 187–189.

14  The notion of variation in variations and variation technique in development sections, he arrives at the conclusion that the two notions overlap. However, C ­ hodkowski also tacitly admits of a narrower meaning of the term ‘variation technique’ since he speaks of its growing use in development sections during the nineteenth century.46 Recent utterances, as well as the distinction between thematic working and variation quoted earlier from The New Harvard Dictionary, show that still today there is no unanimity with regard to the mutual relations of the two concepts.47 The range of ways in which observers understand the term ‘variation’ is illustrated by a round-table discussion devoted to its meaning held at the International Musicological Congress in 1958.48 The way ‘variation’ is ­understood by those taking part in the discussion varies from identifying it solely with a form involving multiple, consecutive repetitions of a ‘­variandum’ (Walter Wiora), through treating a variation as a modified repeat, not necessarily immediate, but different to the sequence and the ­variant, which need not be an element of variation form (Ernst T. Ferand), to understanding variation in the sense of a composition technique involving a variety of changes, which include a kaleidoscopic switching of motifs (Paul Collaer).49 Whilst Wiora excludes modified reprises in sonata or aria da capo form from the category ‘variation’, Ernst T. Ferand regarded these to be ­variations. Yet, none of the participants in that discussion extended the notion to include any kind of modifications of musical ideas; nor did they equate variation with thematic working. A narrow understanding of the term ‘variation’ is also represented by Karl H. Wörner, who – like Wiora – reserves it solely for a cyclic succession of modified repeats; that is, for a set of variations, which constitutes a separate genre.50 Wörner defines modifications of musical ideas incorporated into a different type of form as variants.51 Within that category, he distinguishes two basic types: variants of a model and variants of a motif (Modellvarianten and Motivvvarianten), of which one is characteristic of the technique employed by Wagner and the other of Brahms. The semantic scope of neither type fully coincides with earlier meanings of the term ‘variation’ or ‘variant’, and it does not fully apply to the work of Chopin.52 However, neither ‘variation’ nor ‘variant’ in Wörner’s understanding equates to any specific kind of modification of a musical idea. 46 47 48 49

Ibid., 189. Cf. pp. 8–9 and n. 6 above. ‘Der Terminus’. Taking part in that discussion were Marius Schneider, Paul Collaer, Ernst T. Ferand, Kurt von Fischer, Hans H. Eggebrecht, Wilhelm Mohr, Kurt P. Wachsmann and Walter Wiora. 0 Wörner, ‘Das Zeitalter’, 141. 5 51 Ibid. 52 Wörner was interested in thematic process in music, and not modification through variation. Hence, he introduces notions that are essential to his argumentation, without addressing general terminological issues relating to variation.

The notion of variation  15 The term ‘variant’ appeared during the second half of the nineteenth century to define minor alterations to the rhythm of the same sequence of pitches, relating solely to segments, as opposed to ‘variation’, which concerned larger musical entities and was in principle understood as change in relation to a model.53 August Halm cites similarity to a model and partial departure from it within a larger context as features of the variant. Analysing the first movement of Mozart’s Quartet in D minor, he writes, ‘A melody in F major, which forms the singing theme […] is followed by a variation or, as tends to be said in such cases, variant [emphasis Z. C.), a melody based on the same harmonies as the prototype’.54 Among variant products, Herbert Viecenz numbered changes obtained through the subdivision of the notes of a melodic line, so the kind which Koch defined as variation.55 According to Viecenz, ‘only variant formations leave the core of the tension-filled line wholly intact’.56 It would seem as if Chopin shared the understanding of the notion ‘variant’ expressed by Halm and Viecenz. Although the composer never spoke on terminological issues, in accordance with the then current understanding of the notion ‘variation’, referring primarily to form, ­variations were for Chopin probably synonymous with variation form, and variation form of a particular kind: a theme with variations. Only such forms among his works were given the title ‘variations’. The Berceuse, meanwhile, was originally called ‘variants’ by the composer, only receiving the generic name ‘lullaby’ shortly before publication.57 With time, once the term ‘variation’ was in general use to denote a specific compositional technique occurring also outside variation form, and ­variations were departing ever farther from the structure of a model, when only a fragment of it, such as a motif or a characteristic harmonic connection, was retained as a fixed element, the term ‘variant’ began to be used to denote variations (in the sense of a technique, not a form) of the previous type.58 Besides a narrow understanding of the notion of ‘variation’, we also find in the literature a very broad understanding, one that not only coincides 53 Cf. Weber, ‘Varietas’, 45. 54 ‘Ebenso folgt auf die F-dur Melodie, welche das Gesangsthema des ersten Satzes des d-moll Quartetts von Mozart bildet, eine Variation, oder wie man in solchen Fällen eher sagt: eine Variante der Melodie, auf denselben Harmonien wie das Urbild’, August Halm, ‘Über die Variationen’, quoted in Weber, ‘Varietas’, 45. 55 Viecenz, ‘Über die allgemeinen Grundlagen’. 56 ‘die bloßen “Varianten”-Bildungen lassen den Kern der punktweise gegeben und spannungerfüllten Linie völlig unangetastet’, ibid., 189. 57 The extant sketch and handwritten copy of the Berceuse do not contain any title. In a letter to his publisher, M. Schlesinger, Chopin wrote, ‘My Sonata as well as the variants are at your disposition’ (Korespondencja Fryderyka Chopina, ed. B. E. Sydow (Warsaw, 1955), ii: 123). A few months later, in July 1845, in a letter to his family, we find confirmation that the term ‘variants’ concerned the Berceuse: ‘My Sonata [Op. 58] and Berceuse [Op. 57] have already appeared.’ Cf. also Nowik, ‘Fryderyk Chopin’s Op. 57’. 58 The term ‘variant’ is also used today to define musical segments or versions of works that are intentionally identical, unlike variations, which are intentionally non-identical.

16  The notion of variation with the notion of thematic working but actually denotes all modifications of musical material. In such instances, the word ‘variation’ loses the status of a term and is used as a common noun, simply – in accordance with its etymology – a synonym for the word ‘change’. It is used in such a meaning by Ian Bent, for example, when he lists the three basic processes in the creation of a form: repetition, contrast and variation.59 At times, however, the word ‘variation’ is used by the same author both as an equivalent of ‘change’ or ‘modification’ and also as a musical term, not infrequently with varying semantic scope. That compounds its muddiness and ambiguity further still. The term ‘variation’ has a broad and ambiguous scope for Rudolph Reti.60 Although he does not give a definition of this notion, just as he does not define other notions used in his work, we may infer its meaning from the context in which it is used.61 According to Reti’s concept, a work’s ­u niformity – a characteristic of the works of great composers – resides in the fact that all its themes, irrespective of whether the work is in one movement or cyclic, are based on a common musical idea, various elaborations of which on the surface level form contrasts. In other words, all the themes of a work have a common contour, so – as the author states – they are ‘­variations [emphasis Z. C.] of one identical thought’.62 Regardless of the doubts that may arise with regard to Reti’s conception, his use of the term ‘variation’ conforms to the word’s etymology and means simply any kind of modification.63 Thus, it is deprived of two features which in the nineteenth-­ century literature, and also in the thought of many ­t wentieth-century authors, were regarded as basic determinants of the variation: recognisability and the element of a model, retained unaltered in the variation, that is, a fixed element. As Reti writes, ‘[the composer] strives toward homogeneity

59 Bent, ‘Analysis’, 342. 60 Reti, The Thematic Process. 61 Rudolph Reti consciously avoids all definitions; he writes that he ‘does not believe in the possibility or even desirability of enforcing strict musical definitions. Musical phenomena come to existence in the constant fluency and motion of compositional creation. Therefore any descriptions of them must finally prove but approximations’ (ibid., 12). Although one cannot deny the existence of some justified elements in this assertion, the author goes too far in eliminating on principle any attempt to describe the scope of the notions he employs. As a result, he often employs one and the same notion in different meanings. 62 Reti, The Thematic Process, 4. 63 Reti’s conception was criticised by some authors (Meyer, Explaining, 62–63; Frisch, Brahms Sonata Structures, 35), mainly because the author does not specify any criteria according to which he isolates common notes in the analysed themes. When indicating common notes, Reti does not take account of their place in the bar, their structural status or their harmonic significance. He simply overlooks the notes that do not fit the shape he is trying to construct. Such a method can easily be used to show a common shape to themes that are utterly alien to one another. Despite this, in some instances, the melodic contour of particular themes of a work is indeed identical and is formed by notes of a similar status, although – it would appear – this is not a general principle applicable to all works.

The notion of variation  17 in the inner essence but at the same time toward variety in the outer appearance. Therefore he changes the surface but maintains the substance of his shapes’.64 The point here is not to highlight the similarity between themes, but on the contrary to conceal it, to obtain the effect of a contrast between themes, the common kernel of which should not remind the listener of previous themes, but merely create the impression of the work’s organic unity. Yet, the concept of ‘variation’ has different meanings in Reti’s writings, sometimes a narrow meaning, suggesting a specific compositional technique. In summarising his arguments concerning the transformation to which the substance of themes is subjected, he writes, A second theme, or the theme of a new movement, will, in a work of convincing structure, never be a mere repetition or even variation [emphasis Z. C.] of a former theme, but will be a new utterance, a transformation, the identity of which is “hidden” beneath a new surface.65 So in a sense the author contradicts himself, asserting first that a new theme is a variation of a previous theme and then that it is not. The source of that contradiction lies precisely in the fact that he employs a single notion in two different meanings. Some Anglo-American works of a Schenkerian orientation also abstract from the auditory recognisability of the model in a variation. Allen Forte and Steven E. Gilbert speak of a common deep layer in a theme and successive variations, with changing elements occurring – according to them – on the middle ground and foreground levels.66 Elaine R. Sisman and Esther Cavett-Dunsby, meanwhile, define a variation as a ‘work’ in which the proportions and structure of the middle layer of a theme are preserved.67 So, among authors of a similar methodological orientation, there is also a lack of complete agreement about how far the variation is 64 65 66 67

Reti, The Thematic Process, 13. Ibid., 352. Forte and Gilbert, Introduction, 320. Sisman, Haydn’s Variations; Cavett-Dunsby, Mozart’s Variations, 62. The term ‘middle ground’ itself does not stipulate the degree to which the structure is preserved since there are several such layers in a work according to Schenker’s conception. Hence, an ostensibly strict definition of the dependence of a variation on a theme is no more precise than in traditional writings. Moreover, terminological issues – like the means of variation employed by composers – are not the focus of attention for these authors (except for Sisman). The principal aim of the works mentioned here is to show the integrity of a set of variations; it is an issue not addressed by Schenker himself. A number of works are devoted to this task, including Salzer, ‘The Variation Movement’, and Marston, ‘Analysing Variations’. Marston defines variation form in a traditional way as a form of an additive and repetitive nature in which a theme forms a closed structure and the modified repeats that follow it are closed in a similar way (303). So, he emphasises the constancy of the structure. However, he also states that the form of an analysed work, regardless of the repeated common

18  The notion of variation linked to the theme, and consequently about the scope of the concept of variation. The notion of variation is ascribed different scopes and meanings not just in theoretical literature, which relates it generally to the music of different styles and epochs, but also in literature devoted to the work of a single composer, including Chopin. It has the broadest scope, relatively speaking, in the works by Alan Walker and Anatole Leikin, who base their analyses on Schoenberg’s concept of ‘developing variation’ and on Reti’s related concept, as well as on the concept of the hierarchic structure of a musical work derived from Schenker.68 Walker even asserts that ‘all great music is ­variations’, applying the term, on the basis of a deep-lying similarity, to successive themes of specific works: the Impromptu in C sharp minor, ­Nocturne in B major, Op. 32 No. 1, Waltz in A flat major, Op. 42, Ballade in A flat major, Op. 47 and Sonata in B flat minor, Op. 35.69 Leikin employs the term ‘variation’ in a similar meaning, although he goes even further. From the fact that successive themes are variations of a first theme or of a first musical idea, presented in embryonic form, he concludes – in relation to the Sonata, Op. 35 – that it represents ­variation form.70 He writes that in this work, Chopin ‘blends together the sonata and variation principles. At times, the idea of variations all but supersedes the traditional sonata structure. The difficulty is that the ­variational interrelationships are so subtle […] that they are not immediately audible’.71 He goes on to write that ‘the principal and secondary themes are like two variations [emphasis Z. C.] of the same introductory material’, and ‘the closing section (bars 81–106) forms the next variation. All thematic ingredients are easily recognisable’, ‘the development becomes yet another variation’.72 One notes here a certain lack of consistency. In the closing section, Leikin accentuates the similarity to the earlier themes – links that are typical of this part of a sonata allegro. Between the introduction and the first and second themes, meanwhile, he sees a connection on a deeper level, and the lack of that similarity or recognisability does not prevent him from defining these components as variations. The development section, meanwhile, combines – according to Leikin’s analysis – elements of the ­i ntroduction and the first and second themes. He derives the first three bars

68 69 70

71 72

structure of the theme and the variations, possesses as a whole its own deep structure, which differs from its constituent elements. Walker, ‘Chopin and Musical Structure’; Leikin, ‘The Sonatas’. Walker, ‘Chopin and Musical Structure’, 236, 232–248. Leikin (‘The Sonatas’) employs Reti’s method (although without invoking it) to analyse the sonatas of Chopin, including the Sonata in B flat minor, Op. 35 – the same work that was analysed by Reti himself (The Thematic Process, 298–310). Leikin does not really bring any new elements to Reti’s analysis, apart from a rather controversial concept of the form of the work. See also Leikin, ‘The Sonatas’, 164. Ibid., 161. Ibid., 168, 169.

The notion of variation  19 (106–108) from the first theme, the next bar (109) from the second theme and subsequent bars from the introduction. In bars 138–153, elements of these three components are combined at the same time: elements of the introduction appear in the bass; the triplet rhythm of the second theme in the middle voice and the ‘gasping’ motifs of the principal theme in the top voice.73 So here again he invokes a similarity on a superficial level. In reality, what Leikin describes as another variation is nothing other than a typical development, based on thematic work. In accordance with Schoenberg’s conception of ‘developing variation’ or – as Mitschka defines it – ‘variation development’, and also according to Reti, successive themes of a work and other components of it – bridges, development, etc. – derive from the original musical idea or share a common melodic contour with it (Reti).74 That contour, although not identical to Schenker’s background level, is treated as such by Leikin, which is why, probably based on the definition given by Forte and Gilbert, he defines the Sonata in question as variations.75 However, this triggers serious misgivings. Even accepting the theoretical concepts cited here, it is difficult to concur with the assertion that particular sections of the work are simply variations in the sense of components of a variation form. If that were the case, there would not be any other musical forms besides variation form or else every work (at least every work by a great composer) would be a combination of variation form and some other musical form. Such a far-reaching expansion of the notion to express almost everything means that it loses its sense and ceases to communicate anything. Bronisława Wójcik-Keuprulian, meanwhile, gives a very narrow definition for the notion of variation and variation technique in C ­ hopin.76 Her definition of variation technique does not suggest such a narrow understanding of it: ‘Speaking of variation technique, I have in mind all those ways and means that unleash from the musical idea the forces concealed within it and lead to the creation of forms in which the original idea takes on a new, different, but always recognisable, form’.77 In practice, however, in her work devoted to variations and variation technique in Chopin, the author discusses essentially a single type of variation, namely ornamental variations. She gives a number of examples taken from different Chopin genres in which phrases and sentences repeated with variation differ from the model solely with regard to the kind of

73 Ibid. 74 Mitschka introduced the notion of ‘variierenden Entwicklung’ in the work Der Sonatensatz in den Werken von Johannes Brahms. In terms of nomenclature, this is an inversion of ‘entwickelnde Variation’, and it has an analogous meaning: the basic elements of the theme continuously appear in an altered form and have different expressive content (97–98). 75 See above, n. 66. 76 Wójcik-Keuprulian, ‘Wariacje’, 49–70. 77 Ibid., 62.

20  The notion of variation ornamentation to the melodic line, with the harmony and structure preserved, as well as the melodic contour. As a result, Wójcik-Keuprulian’s description of Chopin’s variation technique almost boils down to a description of different ways of embellishing a melody, from which one may conclude that the notion of variation is here synonymous with ornamental variation. Despite the attempts at separating variation from other compositional techniques, attempts at defining more closely the narrower meaning of this concept and at indicating the essential preconditions for a variation, the word ‘variation’ is generally used in musical literature with different meanings, not infrequently in the work of one and the same author. It is employed both to define a musical form and also for a compositional technique occurring in different forms. In the latter case, the notion of ‘variation’ covers a very wide range of phenomena: from the modified repeat in which both the means of modification and the elements common to the repetition and the model are defined, to all varieties of musical material. There is also no agreement over the notion of variation form, which is understood both as a work in which successive alterations (variations) of a theme succeed one another immediately and also as a work in which a modified repeat of a segment of a work is separated from its prototype by other musical material (e.g. a sonata with varied reprise); so, the notion is referred both to a form in which a number of modified repeats of a theme occur and also to a form where that repeat is a one-off. During the twentieth century, the notion of variation became even more widely differentiated. This was related, among other things, to changes in musical output itself, in which the term ‘variations’ was given to works based on different principles than Classical or Romantic variation sets. Music theory expanded the notion to encompass these new phenomena as well. That expanded meaning then became generalised and was also used in reference to musical works of earlier periods. Changes in compositional technique also meant that scholars, generally employing the old terminology, sought to change its meaning, so that it could describe the new phenomena. The increased ambiguity of the term ‘variation’ was also favoured – although this sounds paradoxical – by the development of musicology as an academic discipline and the subsequent development of new analytical methods. This notion is sometimes given a specific meaning so that it can be useful for a particular method. In musical literature, the term ‘variation’ acts both as a term denoting different – according to different authors – specific phenomena and also as a common noun, the meaning of which accords with the etymology of the word, signifying all change, and thereby almost identical to compositional technique, since the altering, modifying and transforming of musical material is a fundamental principle of all music in general. Consequently, to describe the subject of the present work, we must first give a strict definition of the scope of the notion as it is employed here.

The notion of variation  21

1.2  An attempt to formulate the notion of variation in the work of Chopin It is very difficult, if not impossible, to define variation as a compositional technique differing from others and at the same time covering phenomena labelled as such in different historical periods. In each period and style, ­variations are not only shaped using different means but also have a different character and exercise different functions. Hence, initial definitions of the notion of ‘variation’ in music dictionaries and encyclopaedias are inevitably of such a general character that they may be applied also to other compositional techniques. Consequently, in Eggebrecht’s terminological dictionary, no initial general definition is given at all; it is replaced by an explanation of the word’s etymology and a historical overview of the different ways in which it has been understood.78 The impossibility of giving a strict definition of the notion of ‘variation’ in relation to the whole of music led Richard Gress to introduce the notion of variational phenomena in a given style.79 This is actually very useful, as it enables us to distinguish classes of such phenomena, governed by similar principles. The attempt at defining variation given in the present work concerns variational phenomena confined not just to a single style, but to the work of a single composer: Chopin. The range of meanings of the term ‘variation’ that appear in the literature results not just from changes in musical practice and from the dual use of the word as a musical term and a common noun, but also from the way in which that notion was created. It involved the more or less direct transferral of the term ‘variation’ from music practices to theory. The scope of the concept was essentially determined more by composers than by theorists. When works ­titled ‘variations’ by composers altered their shape in relation to e­ arlier works of analogous name, music theory also expanded the notion of ­variation form. What is more, when the territory of variation form was ‘invaded’ by different compositional techniques not previously present in that form, such as thematic working, all those techniques began to be subsumed under the term ‘variation technique’ since they were means of forging variation. Thus, the boundaries between different understandings of the term became blurred, as did the boundaries between different compositional techniques. The latter phenomenon led Chodkowski to posit the thesis that the notions of variation technique and thematic working overlapped.80 He justified this thesis by noting that the two techniques had been appearing and merging in the areas of both variation form and sonata development since Beethoven’s time. However, the assertion that the two techniques merged shows that the author regarded them not as identical, but as two different compositional techniques, although he did not define them. The broad understanding of 78 Weber, ‘Varietas’. 79 Gress, Die Entwicklung. 80 Chodkowski, ‘Die Variationstechnik’.

22  The notion of variation the notion of variation arouses a distinct sense of dissatisfaction among many authors, as evidenced, for example, by the quite widespread distinction between narrow and broad meanings of the term. The nineteenth century was a period of the merging not just of compositional techniques but also of forms and genres. Suffice it to mention here the sonatas of Chopin, in which we find elements of the nocturne, or the ballades, where waltz elements appear. A huge number of examples of this kind are provided not just by the output of Chopin, but by that of virtually all composers of that period. However, the fact that genres merged does not mean that particular genres as such did not exist or that their separate determining criteria should be expanded to such an extent that in effect they could be replaced by a single common concept. It is precisely so that this merging can be studied that we need an apparatus that clearly defines the individual phenomena that merge with one another. For this reason, a narrow meaning of variation has been adopted in the present work. It signifies a modified, recognisable repetition of a given musical entity (the model), in which some of its elements are retained. So, the starting point for the notion of ‘variation’ adopted here is its understanding in the first half of the nineteenth century. The kind of concepts that should be employed in studying the music of past eras has long since been a subject of lively discussion in the literature. There has been a polemic between those who advocate using concepts that functioned during the epoch from which a work dates and those who prefer present-day terminology.81 In reality, the kind of terminology used depends on the object and the purpose of the research. In our case, an understanding of variations and of the compositional techniques that shaped them belong to systematic musicology; hence, it would be justified to employ concepts in the sense imparted to them by modern-day musicology. On the other hand, those Chopin ‘variations’ arose from the means and methods of composing inherited by Chopin, mainly from the virtuosic style of the day, in which both self-contained variation form and variations subordinated to other forms and genres were very widespread and appeared on different levels in musical works.82 In Chopin, they conformed – at least at first – to the way in which variations were perceived by theory, which constituted a generalisation of compositional practice. Hence, given the lack of an unequivocal concept of variation in current musicology, as the starting point for delineating its scope here, I have adopted features which were regarded as fundamental to variations in the theory of the first half of the nineteenth century. So, the 81 Examples of works on variations that employ period terminology are the above-cited works by Elaine R. Sisman (Haydn’s Variations, Brahms and the Canon of Variations). One work on variation technique to employ present-day terminology is Robert U. Nelson’s The Technique. 82 The popularity of variations and their significance in the style brillant are discussed by Irena Poniatowska, in Muzyka fortepianowa; see also Ritterman, ‘Piano Music’.

The notion of variation  23 essence of variations consists in a combination of changes and fixed elements. However, this initial description needs explanation and clarification. What does retaining elements of the model in a variation mean? For a variation to come into being, is it enough for it to retain any element, including, for example, dynamics or agogics? Must the element be preserved in its entirety, or only in some part? Answers to these questions are essential to define the scope of the concept. A variation is a repeat of a musical unit, and therefore elements that enable us to identify that unit as a whole upon its reappearance must be preserved. They must be elements that are capable of creating a whole, closed entity. Leonard B. Meyer divides the elements of a musical work into those that can fashion a closure, calling them syntactic elements, and those that do not form a closure and whose differentiation is of a quantitative character; hence, he calls the latter statistical elements.83 The author emphasises that particular elements could belong to one group or the other in different historical periods and styles. He states, however, that in nineteenth-century music only melody, harmony or (periodic) structure can create closure, in other words essentially those elements that were considered fixed, constitutive and foreground in the theory of the turn of the nineteenth century.84 So, in the case of Chopin’s music, we can speak of variations when at least one of those syntactic elements is retained. Yet, what does the retention of melody, harmony or periodic structure signify? Does the fixed element have to be identical in the variation in its entirety and in all its details to the form in which it appears in the model? According to Kurt von Fischer, a fixed element might also be the theme’s motif that is repeated in the variation, for example.85 Variations of this type frequently appeared as a component of variation form around the turn of the twentieth century. In Chopin, there are no such instances in variation form. Meanwhile, regarding segments occurring in other forms and genres as variations solely on the basis of a motif shared with the model would reduce the range of modifications of musical ideas to the status of variations. Esther Cavett-Dunsby, meanwhile, defines a variation as a segment in which the middle ground level – in the Schenkerian sense – is identical to the middle ground of the model or the theme.86 Thus emphasised here is the 83 Meyer, Style and Music, 14–15 and 209 ff. 84 On the basis of literature from the turn of the nineteenth century, Elaine R. Sisman intro­duced the name ‘constitutive’ for the elements described above and ‘characteristic’ for those which, according to the theory of that time, introduced changes in the ­character of a variation (tempo, rhythm, dynamics, figuration, accompaniment) (Haydn’s ­Variations). The distinction between foreground and background elements of a musical work was ­i ntroduced by Hans Mersmann (Angewandte Musikasthetik, 250); his division differs slightly from those mentioned earlier; he defines melody, harmony and rhythm as ­foreground elements, and dynamics, agogics and colouring as secondary. 85 Fischer, ‘Variation’. 86 Cavett-Dunsby, Mozart’s Variations, 62.

24  The notion of variation preservation of the whole of the harmonic-melodic element, although with the omission of details of its foreground. In other words, variation would concern changes on the foreground level, with the middle ground remaining unchanged. The problem is that according to Schenker’s concept, there can be several middle grounds, so this definition is also not entirely unambiguous. There is no doubt, however, that in relation to Chopin’s music, the retention of at least one syntactical element of the model in its entirety is a sine qua non for the existence of a variation since only the whole of that element defines a given unit and determines closure. At the same time – as Schenker demonstrated – both melody and harmony are of a hierarchical character.87 That is to say, not all their component parts are equally important: some discharge a structural function, whilst others are merely superficial projections of the former – interpolations, ornament-like, so to speak. The present work does not employ Schenkerian methods, yet it does adopt from Schenker the concept of the hierarchical character of the musical work. Variational changes are effected on the foreground level, or more properly foreground levels, of which only one is identical to the actual sound of a work. Hence, instead of the Schenkerian notion of levels, adopted here is the notion of melodic contour and harmonic plan, which consist of the melodic notes and harmonic functions that form the main points distinguishing a particular element, so emphasising openings, closures, points of climax and inner formal divisions, and thereby enabling the given element to be recognised. So, in a variation, at least one syntactic element must be retained in the form of the contour or plan of the whole. Yet, in cases where the only such element is structure, that is the configuration of phrases and sentences, it must also contain a characteristic melodic or harmonic motif or motifs making the model recognisable in order for a variation to be constituted. The situation is somewhat different with regard to changes that are essential for a variation to arise. Here, two main questions occur: (a) what degree of change is needed for a variation to arise? and (b) is a change in any element, either syntactic or statistic, sufficient for a variation to arise? In the humanities, it is rather a hazardous, if not impossible, challenge to create definitions that meet the requirements of completeness and exclusiveness.88 Definitions tend to arise through the enumeration of features determining sets of phenomena. However, those features display varying intensity, and there are always borderline cases that are difficult to assign unequivocally to a particular set. Such a situation occurs, for instance, in the case of all minimal deviations from a model, since it is impossible to unequivocally fix a dividing line between an ordinary repeat and a variational repeat, a point delineating the sufficient quantity of changes for a variation to arise. 87 Schenker’s concept of the layered character of the musical form took shape gradually. Its fullest form appeared in his last work, published after his death: Der Freie Satz; cf. Forte and Gilbert, Introduction. 88 Cf., e.g., Pawłowski, Pojęcia; Pawłowski, Tworzenie.

The notion of variation  25 Borderline phenomena are dealt with in this work, albeit with the utmost awareness of their character. In the musicological literature concerning nineteenth-century music, a variational change is usually considered to be a modification in the area of pitch and rhythm, as broadly understood. Carl Dahlhaus even defines a ­variation as ‘changing the motivic elaboration of a fixed melodic outline, bass pattern, or harmonic-metric schema’.89 Changes confined to the category of statistical elements do not disturb pitches and their mutual rhythmic relations. Repetitions of a given musical idea on a different level of dynamics or at a different tempo are not identical to the given idea, yet neither do they represent variational repeats, since they are lacking that ‘changing of motivic elaboration’. Some changes in the area of statistical elements, ­however, can bring a different ‘motivic elaboration’. This most often concerns the differentiation of articulation and dynamics – especially accents – which is often caused by different groupings of notes into motifs. Changes of this sort should be regarded as sufficient for a variation to arise, even though the temporal relations between the notes have not been disturbed, and neither have their pitch or their quantity. At the same time, modifications in the area of any statistical element, in joint action with other changes, enhance the differences between a variation and its model. Essential to the existence of a variation is the presence – actual or ideal – of a musical idea (a theme or some other entity) that is repeated and s­ ubjected to changes. That idea will be called here the model. Adolf Chybiński, considering the question of reminiscence in the works of Chopin, compares, for example, phrases in the Waltzes, Op. 34 No. 1 and Op. 42 and demonstrates their melodic convergence.90 He even states that the latter is ‘like an ornamental variation’ of the former. The word ‘like’ here attests that the author is not speaking here of an actual variation. Indeed, the earlier Waltz does not represent a model as the basis for modifications in the latter, so there can be no question here of variation, since the latter is an intentional modification of the template. In the present work, the concept of variation refers to all musical units, from movements or sections of a work forming its macrostructure down to the smallest components: sentences, phrases and even motifs. And it concerns both immediate repeats, single or multiple, and also returns of those units.91 To sum up, a ‘variation’ in the work of Chopin will be understood as a recognisable repeat or return of any unit of a musical work in which at least one of the elements of that unit is modified or changed, resulting in some 89 Dahlhaus, Nineteenth-Century Music, 404. 90 Chybiński, ‘Do kwestii’. 91 The notion of the return was introduced by Leonard B. Meyer to define an iteration of a musical idea that is separated from its original statement by other musical material (Meyer, Explaining Music, 49–52 and 90 ff.).

26  The notion of variation deviation in the motivic elaboration of any component of the sound fabric, whilst at the same time at least one of the syntactic elements of the model is preserved in the form of its overall contour. Here, the notion of variation refers both to form and to compositional technique. Variation form is understood as form characterised by the consecutive occurrence of segments based on the modified or transformed material of a model or theme. Variation technique, meanwhile, is considered to be a kind of compositional technique involving a modification of a model that causes a variation of that model to arise. The notions of variation form and variation technique are not synonymous. Variations in Chopin’s variation forms are designed, almost as a rule, with the use of variation technique. In Beethoven, however, thematic working encroaches on the territory of variation. In particular variations, the theme undergoes segmentation and recomposition. In this way, whilst the overall harmonic plan of the theme is retained, the variations or their segments form new entities. In ­variation form, besides variation technique, other composition techniques can be used. Yet, variation technique is not associated exclusively with ­variation form. It also occurs in other forms and genres, creating variations of motifs, phrases, sentences and larger units, subordinated to another general formal principle. The concepts of variation and variation technique adopted here enable us to distinguish the latter from other techniques for modifying musical material. Whilst thematic working, for example, involves segmenting a theme and then regrouping, refashioning and recombining the separated particles in such a way that the resultant segment of a composition constitutes the development of the theme, variation technique does not violate the integrity of the altered model and does not alter the order of things that obtains within it. Important for developmental working is continuity, a link to what went before, to a specific starting point, and the aspiration to a particular goal. This kind of technique does not repeat, but modifies, creating a new entity, which does not have a previously given model. As the name suggests, at its heart is a process of development. So, these are two different techniques, characterised by a different relationship to a model. Variation technique in the meaning adopted here differs also from sequential technique, which involves shifting a musical unit to a different transpositional level, whilst the unit itself and the elements comprising it remain essentially unaltered.92 In musical practice, of course, these two techniques can be combined, creating variational sequences. This attempt to establish the clearest possible definition of the notion of variation serves not only to designate the principal objective of this book. It

92 Ernst T. Ferand also postulates distinguishing between variation and sequence as ­d ifferent ways of repeating material; ‘Der Terminus Variation’, in Abraham, et al. (eds.), Bericht, 365.

The notion of variation  27 also constitutes a tool for wider study. In the musical work, different compositional techniques often merge, creating intermediate types, which cannot be unequivocally assigned to any one category. Although variations in a pure form, that is, variations that fully conform to the meaning of the notion adopted here, do occur throughout the Chopin oeuvre, we also find in Chopin structures that cannot be unequivocally assigned to that group. Analysing the character of those structures requires a clear methodological apparatus, enabling us to separate phenomena that in compositional practice are often combined. The definition of variation adopted here represents an ideal type. It is a kind of touchstone, which will allow us to determine whether or not, and if so to what degree, variations occur in pure form, to what extent they are linked with structures of other kinds and to what extent, if at all, they undergo modification and pass over into different ways of developing the musical material.

2 The morphology of Chopin’s variations

The diversity of fixed and changeable elements and the varying relations between them form different types of variation, even in music from the same historical period. Efforts have long been made to classify variations according to the technical means employed in them.1 Different authors classify variations according to type in different ways, either according to the fixed elements preserved in the variation or according to the changeable elements. This has resulted in a rich and highly ambiguous terminology. For example, the frequently encountered term ‘melodic variation’ can mean both a variation in which the melody of the model has been preserved integrally or merely in outline, embellished with ornaments, and also one in which the model’s melody is omitted altogether. Then again, one of the most widespread types of variation at the beginning of the nineteenth century, in which the periodic structure, harmony and melodic contour are retained, with the change in relation to the model involving the ornamentation of that fixed contour, has been defined as an ornamental variation, a m ­ elodic-harmonic variation, a figural variation or a melodic variation.2 So, the same term means different kinds of variation or else one kind of variation is defined 1 Variations are divided in a somewhat different way by Adolf Bernhard Marx (Die Lehre, 59 ff., 75 ff.), who distinguishes between formal and character variations. The former arise through melodic modifications, modulations, and changes of mode and accompaniment; the latter through a change in the form of a theme in a character piece, such as a march or a dance, as well as a rondo, a sonata and so on (cf. Sisman, ‘Tradition and Transformation’, 154). Later authors understood Marx’s ‘character variation’ as a variation that alters the character and expression of the theme, irrespective of the form it adopts. That is how ­Robert U. Nelson, for example (The Technique, 103), understands this notion. At the same time, Nelson considers that a crucial feature of variations of this type is motivic work, with the theme’s overall harmonic plan retained (96). This understanding of a c­ haracter ­variation was questioned by many authors, including by Nelson himself (104), since changes of character are not confined solely to segments based on motivic work. Arnold Schoenberg, declaring himself against this notion, wrote that ‘there is no reason to suppose that a variation can be so formal as not to possess character’ (Fundamentals, 174). The notion of the character variation, even in the meaning imparted to it by Marx, is actually of little use for the study of Chopin’s variations since it says nothing about the means that he employed. 2 Cf. Berry, Form in Music, 296.

The morphology of Chopin’s variations  29 with different terms. As Wallace Berry rightly noted, ‘in no area of music theory is confusion of terminology more persistent and widespread’ than in the study of variations.3 That explains why, in considerations of the structure of Chopin’s variations, we have abandoned the terminology employed hitherto, retaining solely the term ‘ornamental variation’, which is the only one to point consistently to a changeable element in a variation: an ornament introduced into a melody. In more recent literature, the division into different types of variation is usually based on the ‘fixed’ element common to the variation and the model. The New Harvard Dictionary of Music lists five main types of variation: ­ostinato, with constant melody, with fixed harmony, variation of melodic outline and variation of formal outline.4 However, some of these types overlap; for example, a melodic outline variation very often also retains the harmony and formal outline of the model, so it is actually a variation of fixed harmony and a variation of formal outline. Although the author of this entry does explain what is meant under each of the terms, the terms themselves are confusing. Wallace Berry makes what is, relatively speaking, the most consistent division of variations of the Classical-Romantic period, distinguishing four types: (1) variations with fixed structure and with altered or abandoned theme melody and harmony, (2) variations with fixed structure and melody and with altered or abandoned theme harmony, (3) variations with fixed structure and harmony and with altered or abandoned theme melody and (4) variations with fixed structure, harmony and melody and with slight alterations to one of these elements or with a change to other elements of the theme.5 However, this division, based on fixed elements in the model and the variation, overlooks the gamut of variations formed by the interaction of variable elements. In the output of Chopin, we find all the enumerated types, yet decidedly the most numerous are variations of the last group, created through smaller or greater modifications to different musical elements. Of course, the fixed elements (or element) are important for our knowledge of the composer’s variation technique, yet determining their specificity requires, above all, analysis of the changes that make the given musical section become a ­variation. Hence, the morphology of Chopin’s variations is considered from the point of view of those variable elements; consequently, it is they, and not – as in the divisions cited above – the fixed elements that form the basis for distinguishing different categories of variation. Subjected to change are both ‘musical elements’ and also the texture that depends on the way in which those ‘elements’ are used.6 So, we are dealing here with elements of a work which from the point of view of norms of classification belong to different levels and classes of phenomena, and the categories of variation 3 Ibid. 4 Sisman, ‘Variation’. 5 Berry, Form in Music, 303. 6 Cf. Chapter 1, pp. 23–25.

30  The morphology of Chopin’s variations that are distinguished on the basis of the changes made within them – as in the division (noted above) from The New Harvard Dictionary of Music – overlap to some extent. Nevertheless, I decided to adopt that grouping of variations because it enables us to grasp the categories that are most typical in ­Chopin’s music. The number of variable elements can differ. In outstanding composers, we rarely find structures that belong unequivocally to simple types. That is why, when discussing the morphology of variations according to specific variable elements, also included in the relevant groups are variations in which several variables are at play, but of which one fulfils the main or at least one of the principal roles. In Chopin, such variables are melody, harmony, texture and articulation. Variations in which rhythmic changes occur have not been distinguished in a separate group because rhythm as such is not a principal factor of modification in Chopin. Changes in this respect either concern the melody, in which case they are assigned to the group of melodic variations, or else entail changes of texture, and are numbered among variations of variable texture. Distinguished in a separate group, meanwhile, are those cases in which a number of variables of equal weight are at work and also borderline cases, combining elements of variation and of other principles behind the shaping of the material.

2.1  Modifications of melody The largest group among Chopin’s variations comprises those in which the melody of the model undergoes change. In this respect, Chopin’s variations adhere entirely to the norms of their epoch, in which this type of variation was clearly dominant.7 Here, melody is understood both as the pitch structure itself and also the rhythmic relations that occur within it. The changes made to melody by Chopin are highly varied in terms of both type and quantity. They concern pitches and rhythm, and they involve such things as the embellishment of the melody and the expanding or shortening of its sections. Hence, among variations of variable melody, several subtypes can be distinguished, although the boundaries between them are not always clearly defined. Appearing quite frequently in Chopin are the so-called ornamental ­variations, which arise through the embellishment of the original melodic line. These occur already in the composer’s early works, and they attest to his output’s genetic links with the style brillant.8 Composers working in that

7 Cf. Fischer, ‘Variation’, in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. Stanley Sadie (London, 1980), xix: 549. Fischer defines variations of this type as melodic variations. 8 Most authors of works devoted to Chopin point to the style brillant as the source from which Chopin’s output grew. A number of them also point to style brillant compositions as a source of specific textural means developed by Chopin (including Chomiński, ‘Z zagadnień’; Samson, The Music of Chopin). Samson even suggests that this genetic link

The morphology of Chopin’s variations  31 style employed ornaments as a virtuosic device, and at the same time as a way of imparting variety to repetitions of musical sections. Mozart also used that technique, yet in style brillant composers the suffusion with ornaments was decidedly greater. Here, we find both conventional embellishments and elaborate, individual ornaments in which the motion is of regular or irregular density. Concertos by Hummel, Dusík, Field and other composers of the so-called ‘London piano school’ (especially their slow movements) are full of variation sections built through the introduction of ornamentation.9 Restatements of a simple melodic line, decorated ever more intensively, were also typical of works of a nocturne character composed before Chopin.10 Variation form was also particularly popular at that time. As Irena Poniatowska writes, ‘during the first half of the [nineteenth] century, the most important genres and forms to appear in the pianistic concert repertoire were variations and fantasies on popular themes, alongside romances, cavatinas, dramatic scenes, adagios, Classical sonatas and Romantic rondos’.11 These were variations in which the principal means of variation were also rhythmic subdivisions of the melodic line, ornamenting the retained outline in various ways. Chopin adopted the principle of creating variations by means of ornaments and brought it to the pinnacle of its development. His individual, highly expansive ornamental groups are marked by their remarkable ingenuity and diversity, which gave – despite his use of similar means – an incomparable and unique artistic effect.12 The simplest form of Chopin’s ornamental variations is that in which the ornament is the only device distinguishing them from the prototype, whilst all the other elements, including the texture, remain constant. In such ­variations, the melodic outline is generally very clearly exposed; at times, all the notes of the melodic line and their places within the bar are preserved, subjected solely to rhythmic subdivision, often through the introduction of changing notes. could have influenced the whole of the composer’s output. The style brillant, later surpassed by Chopin, was transformed into a new, individual quality (Samson, contribution to a round-table discussion on the subject of Chopin’s musical poetics, Chopin Studies, 4 (1994), 179–182). 9 The notion of the ‘London piano school’ was introduced by Alexander Ringer (‘Beethoven and the London Pianoforte School’) to denote a group of composers active in London around the turn of the nineteenth century. Nicholas Temperley delineated a more exact temporal framework for that ‘school’ at 1790–1830 (Music in Britain, 401). See also Poniatowska, Muzyka fortepianowa; Milligan, The Concerto. Heinrich Dessauer (John Field, 83–93), although not using the term ‘variations’ in this instance, clearly speaks of ornamentation as a means of varying, enlivening and modifying the principal musical ideas in works by Field. 10 Cf. Rowland, ‘The Nocturne’. 11 Poniatowska, Muzyka fortepianowa, 254. 12 The interval structure of individual Chopin ornaments was studied by Bronisława ­Wójcik-Keuprulian, who published the results of her research in Melodyka and ‘Wariacje i technika’. The author produced a typology of Chopin ornaments, indicating the special significance of turns. Cf. also Ottich, Chopins Klavierornamentik.

32  The morphology of Chopin’s variations

Example 1  Nocturne in A flat major, Op. 32 No. 2 (a) bars 7–8, (b) bars 71–72.

As a result, the variation involves an intensification of movement, exchanging a cantilena melody for an ostensibly figurational melody based on an almost uniform rhythmic motion. The ostensible character of this figuration resides in the fact that the original melodic line is not actually altered in any way; it is clearly marked out, and its notes – as in the model – fall on the main beats in the bar, only embellished by ornamental neighbour notes. The melodic line becomes two layered. The basic layer, formed by the melody of the model, is overlaid with a secondary ornamental layer. This is a typical diversification of a repeat, not significantly altering the expressive character of the model. However, variational changes of this kind are not too frequent in Chopin. If they do appear, they generally concern short sections: motifs or phrases. Chopin makes much more frequent use of individual, irregular ornamental groupings as a way of diversifying musical ideas. One example of this type of variation is provided by Chopin’s first nocturne (in E minor).13

13 In the present study, Chopin’s works are dated after Chomiński and Turło, Katalog, unless otherwise indicated. The Nocturne in E minor is dated there at 1827, as it is in most other publications. Jan Ekier (Wstęp, 62) expands the dating – ­u nfortunately, without giving his grounds for doing so – to the years 1827(?)–1830, although this does not have any great bearing on the fact that the E minor Nocturne is an early work. Only Tadeusz Zieliński (Chopin) shifts the dating of this work to the years 1847–1848 (643), maintaining that it ‘was certainly […] not written during the composer’s youth, as the publisher later erroneously stated. In its style and the character of its expression, it belongs to the late period in Chopin’s oeuvre’ (608–609). This assertion is entirely arbitrary. ­Unfortunately, the author, apart from invoking the character of expression, the reception of which can be subjective, does not cite any musical devices that might point to the Nocturne being a late work. The devices employed in this work are clearly typical of early works. This is confirmed by such things as the way in which the variations are designed solely through the ornamentation of the melodic line, in a manner that is typical also of the concertos, the Fantasy, Op. 13 and the first nocturnes

The morphology of Chopin’s variations  33 The ornamental groups usually fall at points where the melodic line of the model is rhythmically subdivided to a greater extent. Thus, the motion merely ‘signalled’ by the model is intensified. All the structural notes on which the melodic line rests, meanwhile, are usually retained in variations of this type, as are most of the interval steps that lead to them. The latter are often woven into ornaments which, preceding the structural notes, create the impression, by intensifying the motion, that the structural notes are slightly delayed, even though they fall exactly at the same points as in the model.14

Example 2  Nocturne in E minor, Op. 72 No. 1 (a) bars 2–9, (b) bars 31–38.

with opus number (Op. 9 and Op. 15 No. 2), with not just the model’s harmony retained but also the outline of the accompaniment figures, which together with other means used in this work, such as the limited range of harmonic references, their unambiguous character, the regularity to the design of phrases and sentences and the distinctness and unequivocal character of the inner segmentation, speaks clearly against such a dating. Like Zieliński, Lennox Berkeley (‘Nocturnes’, 172) also considers that this Nocturne could be regarded as a late work, on account of its simple, direct and clear character. However, that author does not move the dating, on the grounds that the technical means employed are typical of the early nocturnes. 14 Attention is drawn to such a function of ornaments by Leonard B. Meyer, Emotion and Meaning, 207.

34  The morphology of Chopin’s variations

Example 2  (Continued).

This phenomenon is more common in Chopin’s later works, although here we can see the shoots from which procedures characteristic of the composer will grow. In successive compositions, variations of this type are characterised by an even greater suffusion with ornaments with a much more varied quantity of notes and intervallic structure. The beginning of a variation is always clearly emphasised through the retention of the first notes or at least the first, characteristic, interval step (e.g. Nocturnes, Op. 9). Occasionally, it is highlighted through the repetition or description of the initial note (see Example 3b). At the same time, however, besides ornaments falling at points corresponding to greater rhythmic mobility in the model, the motion is very often increased at the beginning of a repeat by means of a more or less elaborate ornamental device (see Example 3). Variations of this kind occur primarily in early Chopin, more or less up to 1833, in works or sections of works of a lyrical character, for example in the nocturnes, Op. 9 and Op. 15, the concertos, the Fantasy, Op. 13, the Rondo à la krakowiak, Op. 14, etc. They are wholly atypical, however, of mazurkas; in this respect, the Mazurka in A minor, Op. 17 is an exception.15 15 Jeffrey Kallberg has rightly noted that this mazurka is closer in this regard to Chopin’s nocturnes of this period than to the mazurkas (Kallberg, ‘The Problem’, 16).

Example 3  ( a) Concerto in F minor, Op. 21 (piano part), movt I, bars 82–86, 90–94; (b) Mazurka in A minor, Op. 17 No. 4, bars 5–8, 13–16, 29–32, 53–56.

36  The morphology of Chopin’s variations Irena Poniatowska has drawn attention to an observation made by Johann Schucht, author of one of the first monographs devoted to Chopin, that in the area of rhythm Chopin tends to move from ‘livelier’ to ‘calmer’.16 Schucht numbers this feature among the Polish characteristics of Chopin’s music. According to Schucht – as Poniatowska writes – ‘in variant arrangements, it [rhythm] always begins with rhythmic subdivision and moves to a calm rhythm’.17 The type of variation under discussion confirms this observation, although Schucht’s generalisation goes too far because the consistent enlivening of motion at the start of repeats is frequent only in the early ornamental variations in question here. During the second half of the nineteenth century, this simplest type of ornamental variation was associated among a wider audience with the idiom of Chopin’s music. Works ‘à la Chopin’ written by minor professional composers and numerous amateurs, widespread across Europe at that time, were based on this type of repetition, obviously of a conventionalised and trivialised sort.18 It could be that Schucht saw this type of variation as dominant in Chopin’s music as well. In later works – after the Nocturnes, Op. 15 and the Mazurka, Op. 17 No. 4 – variations in which the ornamentation of the melodic line is the sole or main variable element are substantially reduced, although they never disappear entirely. Yet, they usually occur over short sections (e.g. the Impromptu in A flat major, Op. 29, middle section), generally incidentally (e.g. the Sonata in G minor, Op. 65, movt IV, bars 13–16), and very rarely form the basis for the variation of the principal thematic ideas of a work. Yet even when they do so, the enlivening of the motion at the start of a variation is no longer the rule; at times, it falls at the end of a repeated segment; according to Mazel, this is a principle in Chopin (Example 4).19 In actual fact, this generalisation is also too far reaching. In the nocturnes, where variations are most often built through the rhythmic subdivision of the melodic line, including its ornamentation, from opus 27 onwards, out of the total of thirty such varied repeats of principal thematic ideas, eleven do indeed see the enlivening of the motion come at the end of a variation; in twelve,

16 Poniatowska, ‘Frühe Monographien’; Schucht, Friedrich Chopin. 17 Poniatowska, ‘Frühe Monographien’, 101. 18 Associated with Chopin’s style were above all the ornaments themselves, but they were employed as a way of lending variety to repeats, most often as the sole means of ­variation. Numerous examples of works of this kind are given by Öhrström, Borgerliga; cf. also ­P istone, ‘Chopin i Paryż’; the fashion for Chopin in popular output is discussed at greater length by Derek Carew in ‘Attitudes to Chopin’; cf. also Chechlińska, ‘Chopin Reception’; also Chechlińska, ‘Chopin in the context’. 19 Lev Mazel, ‘O melodyce’, 229. Mazel’s opinion tallies with the later assertion of Leonard B. Meyer (Emotion and Meaning) that ‘deviations will be most effective where the pattern is most complete […] we should expect to find them where the pattern is most complete’ (50), so – as the author goes on to write – embellishments usually appear towards the end of phrases, when anticipation of a particular phrase shape has already been established.

Example 4  Nocturne in D flat major, Op. 27 No. 2 (a) bars 2–9, (b) bars 25–32, (c) bars 46–53.

38  The morphology of Chopin’s variations

Example 4  (Continued).

it is more or less evenly spread throughout the variation; in seven, it appears at the beginning. The situation is similar in other genres cultivated by Chopin, although they are much less intensely suffused with variations involving such things as rhythmic subdivisions of the melody. This leads to the conclusion that this particular type of motion in varied repeats (for Schucht, from lively to calm; for Mazel, from calm to lively) is not a specific, characteristic feature of Chopin’s style. The rhythmic subdivision of a melody, and consequently the invigoration of the motion, falls in various places in variations. Those ­variations in which the tension gradually increases or which are segments of such sections in a work are indeed generally characterised by an increase in the motion, which culminates at the end (e.g. Ballade in G minor, Op. 23, Var. II of the theme, bar 106 ff.). So, the place where the motion is enlivened depends on the context in which a given variation occurs and on its function. It should be surmised that variations are incorporated more often into sections of increasing rather than diminishing tension, which may explain the impression that the enlivening of motion at the end is typical of Chopin’s variations. However, in cases where variations do not lead to sections of a different character, where they themselves do not differ essentially in terms of expression from the

The morphology of Chopin’s variations  39 model, the enlivening of the motion falls in different places, as attested by the statistics given above for variation repeats in the nocturnes. In Chopin’s later works, ornamental variations not only occur less often, but they also acquire a different character. The ornamentation of a melody ceases to be the sole means of variation; it is usually – particularly with regard to longer sections – combined with changes in other elements of a work (Examples 4c, 5).

Example 5  B  allade in F minor, Op. 52 (a) bars 8–12, (b) bars 152–155.

At times, ornaments lengthen a repeated segment in relation to the model; they do not replace segments of the model, but are like an additional element of it (Example 6).

Example 6  I mpromptu in F sharp major, Op. 36, bars 15–18.

40  The morphology of Chopin’s variations In the above example, the repeat doubles the length of the model, as is visible also in the accompaniment layer. This procedure leads to a disturbance of the regular design; it is one of the means by which the succession of regular segments is broken. With time, ornaments typical of the ‘brillant’ style, composed of irregular groupings where the motion is considerably thickened, begin to disappear in Chopin, and by the same stroke ornamental variations change.20 The degree to which the motion is varied is reduced, and ornaments are kept within a strict rhythmic framework (e.g. Waltz in A minor, Op. 34 No. 2) or even form a uniform rhythmic motion. Although in early works, mainly in variation forms, the ornamentation of the melodic line of the model also assumed the form of a rhythmically uniform figuration, the notes of the model’s melody were always highlighted, for example through their ornamental neighbour notes or an intervallic leap (e.g. Var. I in the Variations, Op. 12) or their placement as the top notes of figuration (e.g. Var. IV in the Variations, Op. 2), thanks to which the model’s melodic line was always clearly audible in its entirety, albeit occasionally with minor deviations. At the same time, in a variation, its notes usually fell on a strong beat, or at least the time lapses between them were the same as or close to those occurring in the model. This type of ornamental variation was used in Classical music, including Mozart, and also by composers of the style brillant.21 During his Warsaw period, C ­ hopin conformed to that tradition, yet already after the Variations, Op. 12 he almost entirely abandoned variations in which ornamentation as a variable element assumes the form of figuration. It is only in later works, from the Impromptu in F sharp major (1839) onwards, that we can see a tendency for a return to ornamental variation of a uniform rhythmic motion. However, it takes on a wholly different character and completely loses its similarity to the style brillant. In its simplest form, ornamentation also involves the ‘dressing’ of the model’s melodic notes, yet they are no longer so distinctly highlighted, and the distances between them differ clearly from those that occur in the model (Example 7b). Frequently, however, the link to the melody of the model is confined to the beginning and the end (Example 7c); points of convergence can also occur within phrases or longer passages, but – unlike in the early variations – here they tend to be blurred, chiefly by means of an interval structure particular to the figuration. At times, as the melody departs from the model, there are accompanying analogous changes to the harmony, leaving solely its main chords (Example 7c). 20 Danuta Jasińska (‘Problem stylu’) states that from the Nocturne in G minor, Op. 15 onwards, ornamentation typical of the style brillant begins to disappear in Chopin. Indeed, although particular ornamental devices derived from that style can be found throughout Chopin’s oeuvre, their frequency, function and usage change. 21 Cf. Mies, ‘W. M. Mozarts Variationswerke’.

The morphology of Chopin’s variations  41

Example 7  Nocturne in F minor, Op. 55 No. 1 (a) bars 1–4, (b) bars 73–76, (c) bars 77–80.

Variations in which the melody is altered are frequent in Chopin, whilst a complete break with the model’s melody is rare. Variations with a melody that departs considerably from that of the model or loses all connection with it usually do not appear directly after the model, but are preceded by a number of others, in which the links with the model are gradually loosened. This sequence of variations fulfils a dual function. On one hand, it reinforces the basic features of the model to such an extent that in the final variation, where the melody is loosely, if at all, connected with the model and only the contour of other syntactic elements of the model is preserved, the model is recognisable. On the other hand, the sequence of variations loosening the connection with the model gradually introduces new elements, which ultimately replace the model’s melody. So, the break with that melody is prepared. Such variations, although derived from ornamental variations, do not belong to them; they form a separate type since the melody of the model is replaced by a new melodic line. One example of a variation where the melody is devoid of any connection with the theme, an example that is repeatedly cited in the literature, is the last variation of the Impromptu in F sharp major (from bar 82). According to Leichtentritt, this variation is designed in such a way that its constituent figuration in the top voice and the

42  The morphology of Chopin’s variations bass line are like counterpoints to the melody of the theme, which does not actually appear.22 It only lies there – as Bronisława Wójcik-Keuprulian puts it – potentially.23 In reality, this ‘potential presence’ of the model’s melody results from the fact that the harmony is retained (Example 8).

Example 8  I mpromptu in F sharp major, Op. 36 (a) beginning of the theme, bars 7–8, (b) beginning of the variation, bars 82–83.

The melodic line of the model and the new melodic line of the variation support one another on the same harmonic foundation, although the shaping of the accompaniment is different. That foundation marks out the points of support for the melodic line, which – although they are not notes of the same pitch – belong to the same harmonic functions; hence, it is possible for the outer voices of the variation to ‘counterpoint’ the model’s melody in this way. Yet, none of the authors studying the Impromptu in F sharp major has drawn attention to the shared harmonic foundation of the model and the last variation in this work. Sensing intuitively that this section of the Impromptu is a variation of the principal theme of the work, authors have attempted to justify this either through the concept of the ‘potential presence’ of the melodic line of the theme in the variation (Leichtentritt, Wójcik-Keuprulian) or

22 Leichtentritt, Analyse, 190. 23 Cf. Wójcik-Keuprulian, Melodyka, 197; Wójcik-Keuprulian, Wariacje, 69.

The morphology of Chopin’s variations  43 through the appearance of motifs of the ostinato formula in the bass line,24 at the same time emphasising the athematic character of the figuration,25 which does not really explain the essence of the variation. What we really have here is a variation that is linked to the model not just by shared motifs but also by the contour of the whole of one of the syntactic elements of the model, namely the harmony; in this variation, the harmony is as if ‘ornamented’ with added or alternative passing functions, only later veering off in a different direction. In instances where Chopin considerably loosens or even breaks the audible connection between the melody of the variation and the melody of the model, he usually retains in the variation not just the harmony of the model but also selected motifs. These appear in the accompaniment or in the ornamental line itself. Woven into a rapid, uniform rhythmic motion, they are repeated, modified in various ways, identifiable rather through analysis than by listening alone. Despite this, they represent an element connecting the figuration with the melodic line of the model (e.g. Berceuse, Op. 57, variations in the middle section of the work). In addition, variations of this type often feature other, additional devices that augment their links with the model. One special device of this sort comprises ostinato bass figures, although ostinato does not always go hand in hand with the extensive transformation of the melody. At times, it also appears in ornamental variations in which the notes or the contour of the model’s melody are distinctly retained (e.g. Berceuse, Op. 57, Vars. 1–4) or in variations where other ­elements are changed, such as the texture (Barcarolle, Op. 60). Ostinato variations are characteristic of Chopin’s late works, from the end of the thirties and the forties (Impromptu, Op. 36, Berceuse, Op. 57, Barcarolle, Op. 60). However, although there are other factors linking a variation with the model, including ostinato bass figures, it is very rare that Chopin entirely abandons the contour of the model’s melody in a variation. A separate case is that of sections in which the only common element is the harmonic plan, with a new melody appearing each time. In such instances, that plan is always based on the sequence dominant-tonic, which is stereotypical of the functional system of harmony. Theoretically speaking, such sections fall within the notion of variation adopted here, since the harmonic plan as a syntactic element determines certain musical units, however small they may be. In reality, however, dominant-tonic connections, like the cadential plan, are such fundamental properties of the major-minor system and are so commonplace in the music of the period in question that they do not form a distinctive, characteristic model. It is only a specific quantity of such stereotypical connections that form a certain model, which, appearing several times in a work, may be discerned as repetition. Such phenomena occur in

24 The presence of these motifs as a factor linking the variation to the model is pointed out by Krystyna Wilkowska, in ‘Impromptus Chopin’, 161. 25 Samson, ‘Chopin’s F sharp Impromptu’.

44  The morphology of Chopin’s variations dances, mainly in the waltzes, characterised by much simpler harmonic writing than other Chopin genres. Alan Walker draws attention to one of them.26 Walker speaks of a common idea underpinning both the sections discussed here (see Example 9). In support of his thesis, he employs a procedure similar to that through which Leichtentritt sought to demonstrate the link between the last variation of the Impromptu in F sharp major and its principal thematic idea: he superimposes the first section onto the second, indicating that their melodic lines form a mutual counterpoint.27 In actual fact, the ‘common idea’ boils down to a common harmonic plan. It is this that, as in the Impromptu in F sharp major, makes it possible to ‘superimpose’ the two melodic lines. The harmonic differences that occur between the two sections, of the character of subtle changes, are of no consequence in this respect. However, unlike in the Impromptu in F sharp major, it would be difficult to speak here at all of a specific model and variation; the model is rather of an ideal character, and the sections based on the model are various concretisations of it, regardless of whether – as Walker states – they are intentional or not. It should be remembered, however, that sections based on a repeated exchange of dominant and tonic are not rare in the waltzes (e.g. Waltz in A flat major, Op. 64 No. 3, bars 49–57), and a change of function coincides – in accordance with the properties of this genre – with a change of bar. The sentences usually form regular four- and eight-bar units. Hence, the same number of dominant-tonic sequences that appears in some of them should be treated not so much as a deliberate basis for variation as a feature resulting from the character of that dance.

Example 9  W  altz in A flat major, Op. 42 (a) bars 41–48, (b) bars 229–236.

26 Walker, ‘Chopin and Musical Structure’, 233–234. 27 Cf. n. 22 in the present chapter.

The morphology of Chopin’s variations  45

Example 9  (Continued).

This is also supported by the fact that Chopin’s oeuvre is entirely devoid of i­ nstances in which a more complex harmonic plan is the only element shared by different sections of a work. In other words, never do we find ­variations with a new melody connected with the model solely through a more ­elaborate, individual harmonic plan. It is a separate matter that the sections described here with a specific number and rhythm of dominant-tonic sequences undoubtedly help to integrate a work.28 Rhythmic subdivisions of the model’s melody do not always take the form of irregular ornamental groupings or a rhythmically uniform line in a ­variation. At times, they are held within a strict rhythmic framework. ­Although a melodic line created in this way does not contain distinct ornamental groupings, these subdivisions are actually a kind of embellishment of the original melodic contour, ‘dressing’ its notes with ornamental neighbour notes or filling the intervals between them (Example 10).

Example 10  Impromptu in G flat major, Op. 51 (a) bars 49–52, (b) bars 65–68.

28 Many more integrative connections can be found here. They include intervallic relations between different motifs of the work, among them the opening motif of this ‘varied’ repeat (bars 229–230) with the opening motif of the waltz. However, that is an issue which goes beyond the scope of the present work.

46  The morphology of Chopin’s variations

Example 10  (Continued).

Modifications of this kind sometimes entail shifts in the pitch of the initial or climactic notes of the model; yet, this does not violate the identity of its melodic line since its other elements are very precisely retained ­(Examples 11, 12).

Example 11  M  azurka in C major, Op. 24 No. 2 (a) bars 21–24, (b) bars 25–28.

Example 12  Mazurka in C sharp minor, Op. 30 No. 4, bars 21–28.

The morphology of Chopin’s variations  47 The degree to which rhythmic values are subdivided and the number of melodic notes subjected to this procedure both differ in Chopin. Sometimes, this concerns nearly all the notes of the model’s melody, which – although its notes are retained in the repeat – becomes dynamised by the increased mobility and the suffusion with semitones (Example 13).

Example 13  Sonata in B minor, Op. 58, movt I (a) bars 61–62, (b) bars 63–64.

Such procedures appear throughout Chopin’s oeuvre, including in the early works, although there the changes are usually confined solely to the melodic line and are mainly of a decorative significance, whereas in the late works they are combined with similarly orientated changes in the accompaniment, which lead to the dynamisation of the model. A separate subtype of variation with altered melody is formed by repetitions that differ to only a slight extent from the model. At just a few selected points in the melodic line, there appear short, conventional embellishments, rhythmic subdivisions or other minor changes to the rhythm, held melodic notes, rests and so on. These additions do not generally have any structural significance, do not alter the original expression and do not develop the melodic line; despite their introduction, the repeat is almost exact, and yet somewhat different. Such variations might be termed incidental since deviations from the model appear in them only incidentally. This type of variation occurs not only in melody but also in other elements of a work. In early works, it usually concerns a single element (see Example 12); in later works, Chopin generally combines minor modifications of different elements.

48  The morphology of Chopin’s variations Not infrequently, changes of this type appear at the beginning of a repeated section (Example 14), which thereafter shows no difference from the model, as if the composer wished to highlight the modification, whilst the repeat is actually almost identical. Incidental variations represent typical borderline cases, straddling literal and varied repeats; yet, they cannot be overlooked since they are highly characteristic of all Chopin’s work, appearing particularly often in the mazurkas, where they are linked to the repetition typical of that dance and resemble the variant character of traditional folk music. It should be remembered, however, that this kind of variant character also occurred not infrequently in Mozart, who endeavoured, at least to a minimal extent, to differentiate repeats of musical material.

Example 14  M  azurka in G minor, Op. 24 No. 1 (a) bars 1–4, (b) bars 9–12.

Example 15  Mazurka in B major, Op. 63 No. 1 (a) bars 1–4, (b) bars 9–12.

The morphology of Chopin’s variations  49

Example 16  W  altz in D flat major, Op. 64 No. 1 (a) bars 37–40, (b) bars 54–57.

Barely noticeable deviations from the model are among the sources of those ‘nuanced fluctuations’ of the sound that almost from the outset were noted as an individual, distinctive feature of Chopin’s work.29 Colouristic significance is acquired in variations by graces notes added to the melodic line of the model, often of uniform pitch, and usually as the top notes, clearly highlighted, which form a specific kind of repeated fixed note. Here, the embellishment is employed in a completely different way than in composers of the style brillant; although added to the melody, it discharges a colouristic, rather than melodic, function. This way of differentiating repeats appears in the Nocturne in D flat major, Op. 27 No. 2 (bars 62–70), but it is more frequent in works from the last years (e.g. Berceuse, Op. 57, bars 15–18). Also during that period, we find repeats in which the melodic line is presented in a trilled form, which alters its timbre even more distinctly (e.g. Nocturne in B major, Op. 62 – see Example 37c); however, changes of this type in Chopin’s last opuses are never the sole means of variation. The subtypes of variations with modified melody have been distinguished here on the basis of the techniques that caused the melody to differ from its form in the model. Yet, this is just one of the possibilities. From the point of view of relations to the melodic line of the model, variations of this type might be divided into those in which the model’s melodic line is preserved in its entirety and also contains added elements of varying intensity (cf. ­Examples 1, 3b, 10) and those in which portions of it are altered, and

29 See, e.g., report from a concert given by Chopin in Paris in 1842, published in France musicale, in which the reviewer also draws attention to nuances of sound specific to Chopin’s performance. Cited after Niecks, Frederick Chopin, ii: 94.

50  The morphology of Chopin’s variations only its main structural points and a more or less detailed melodic contour are preserved (cf. Examples 2, 7c). From the point of view of melody, the ­variations discussed here also fall into at least two main groups: those in which changes are of melodic significance (cf. Examples 2, 11) and those which, irrespective of the way in which the melody is modified, are of colouristic, and not melodic, significance, as they actually bring about a different colouring of the same melodic line (see Example 16). This last case may be defined as colouristic variation since the differences in relation to the model involve merely a different colouring. It goes without saying that some changes of melodic significance can simultaneously serve a colouristic function (see Example 5). Yet, regardless of the character and function of the changes or deviations from the version of the model, modifications rarely led to a complete departure from the original melody or to the abandonment of the contour of the whole of the model’s melody. Variations built through a change to other elements of a work retain the model’s melody in its entirety, unless the composer combined them with melodic changes, and even here the changes do not usually disturb the melodic contour. Only in the variations from the last years in Chopin’s oeuvre, do we find a deeper interference in the contour of the melody. Together with the modification of other elements, the melody is segmented, but these are cases where the variation technique merely helps to form a new section, acting together with thematic working and sequential technique, and the result is not a variation in the strict sense.30 So, the melodic contour is nearly always present in Chopin’s ­variations. It was clearly a very important element in the identification of a musical idea. In the variations of Beethoven or Schumann, the link with the ­model’s melody often involved the use of selected motifs from the ­model.31 In ­Schumann – ­according to Lippmann – variation technique involved not so much the alteration of a given melodic form as the development of a number of melodic characters from the underlying abstract model.32 This is a completely different procedure than in Chopin. The melodic contour, meanwhile, was retained consistently in variations by style brillant ­composers. Chopin ­perpetuated that tradition even during a later period, when the means he employed are fundamentally different from those used  by ­composer-virtuosi. Also possibly not without significance here is the fact that 30 See Chapter 1, 26–27. 31 See, e.g., Beethoven’s 33 Variations on a Waltz by Anton Diabelli, Op. 120, where the melodic line of particular variations is based on a selected fragment of the melody of the theme, or Schumann’s Etudes symphoniques, in which the melody of successive variations exposes above all the head motif of the theme, developing it differently each time; see also Schwarz, Robert Schumann; Nelson, The Technique, 19–20; Fischer, ‘Bemerkungen’, 112–113; Geiringer, ‘Bemerkungen’; the question of the various ways in which variations are built in variation form during the period under consideration is discussed at greater length in Friedland, Zeitstil, and Puchelt, Variationen. 32 Lippmann, ‘Schumann Robert’, 300–301.

The morphology of Chopin’s variations  51 Chopin was an outstanding ‘melodist’. As Chomiński writes, in Chopin’s music melody was an extremely important means of expression, an element that stands out even in a superficial perception of works and allows everyone, including laymen, to recognise the composer easily.33 Chopin, the most outstanding melodist, as Mazel calls him, had an almost unlimited capacity for creating variants of a given melodic line; each melodic idea occurred to him in a multitude of different distinctive forms, introduced in its successive repeats.34 Finding so many different forms of a melody, he may not have felt such a need as others to divide a melody and develop particular motifs.

2.2  Harmony as a variable element Harmony is subjected to variation by Chopin less frequently than melody. That does not mean, however, that such cases are isolated. In nineteenth-­ century variations, the melodic material and harmonic-structural framework are of a complementary character. Changes to the melodic material are usually counterbalanced by a relatively strict observance of the h ­ armonic-structural framework and vice versa, that is, the preservation of the melodic material in a faithful, identical form to how it appears in the model is combined with changes to the harmony and the introduction of complementary voices, ­often of a contrapuntal character.35 At the beginning of the nineteenth century, changes to harmony in variations did not generally disturb its overall plan. Nelson mentions – besides a change of mode – only the occasional re-­ harmonisation of thematic material in variation form, and Carmen Debryn refers to three kinds of modification to the harmony in variation sections in songs of that period: minor alterations to the sound of chords, involving the addition of a new component (e.g. a seventh), a change of mode and deviations of function, which concern only individual chords.36 In Chopin, harmonic modifications of this sort when repeating melodic sections are frequent; they dominate above all in early works, which are still strongly linked to tradition. Numerous examples of changes of mode, the ‘colouring’ of chords through the addition of extra components or the emphasising of their dominant function through the addition of sevenths and ninths are provided by works from the Warsaw period: the concertos, Rondo à la krakowiak, Fantasy on Polish Airs, Sonata in C minor and ­others. Changes of this type are present also in later works (Mazurkas, Op. 24 No. 4 – middle ­ elong to the harsection; Op. 30 Nos. 3 and 4; and many others) since they b monic language of the time. Also appearing alongside them, however, are other ways of differentiating harmony whilst retaining the melodic line in an unaltered form or with only minor modification. 33 34 35 36

Chomiński, ‘Die Evolution’, 49. Mazel, ‘O melodyce’, 221; see above, Introduction, n. 2. Nelson, The Technique, 124. Ibid., 83; Debryn, Vom Lied zum Kunstlied, 160.

52  The morphology of Chopin’s variations One of the more frequently used is a sort of harmonic ‘ornamentation’. In such instances, the repeat preserves the overall harmonic plan of the model, but alongside the functions present in the model it also contains others that appear in passing, as if inserted, or that develop the overall cadential plan, for example, with the consequence that particular chords in the repeat are in a different place. In this way, a repeat becomes harmonically richer, but not fundamentally different. The extent and scope of these internal changes is not uniform and varies from single functional insertions at a selected point in the repeat, which is otherwise identical (e.g. Nocturne in C sharp minor, Op. 27 No. 1, bars 11–18) through to changes not just to chords but also to the type of functional relations occurring between them within a passage in which only the starting point and the ending, or one of the two, is left unaltered.

Example 17  Mazurka in A minor, Op. 67 No. 4 (a) bars 33–36, (b) bars 41–44.

Example 18  Nocturne in F major, Op. 15 No. 1 (a) bars 13–14, (b) bars 17–18.

The morphology of Chopin’s variations  53 In the former case, a very delicate, subtle change occurs, one that acts in a similar way to incidental variation in the melody; in the latter, the harmonic shading is much more distinct. In both cases, however, the direction of the harmony, delineated by the chords at the beginning and the end of the section, accords with the model. Sometimes, that direction is altered, since the chords at the beginning or ending of the repeated section are not always identical to those that appear in the model. In early works from the Warsaw period, and also from the early Paris years, repeated sections usually have the same harmony. Chopin varies them through melodic, most often ornamental, changes and tonal-harmonic alterations are confined to changes of mode or to colouring through the addition of sustained notes or chords without a change of function. In later works, the composer employs a greater palette of variation techniques. He often introduced harmonic changes at the start of a repeat, leaving the rest of the harmony unaltered.

Example 19  Waltz in A flat major, Op. 42 (a) bars 9–12, (b) bars 17–20.

As with variational changes to the melody, this is again like an attempt to highlight change at the beginning of a section which is essentially all but identical to its model, or perhaps rather like an attempt at disguising that identical character. At times, however, changes of this type have a deeper cause and are linked to more general changes in the composer’s output, concerning the conception of a work and its syntax. The beginning of a repeated section can be the continuation of harmonic functions or can create connections with the end of the previous section. As a result, a caesura that arises in a natural way due to the repetition is weakened by the continuity of the same harmonic function (e.g. the middle section of the Mazurka in B flat minor,

54  The morphology of Chopin’s variations Op. 24 No. 4). The repetition of a melodic section can also be largely harmonised in a new way. In weakening the segmentation, at the same time the harmony creates another plan, which only converges with the model in the closing phase.

Example 20  M  azurka in D flat major, Op. 30 No. 3 (a) bars 41–48, (b) bars 49–56.

A harmonically different ending to a repeat is usually linked to the functioning of such sections within a broader musical context. This is the norm in periodic structures, in which the consequent is a variational repeat of the antecedent; however, the harmonic change in the former is usually accompanied also by a deviation from the melodic line of the ­a ntecedent. There are also sections, especially shorter segments, covering motifs or phrases, in a repeat of which the melodic line of the original is retained intact, whilst the harmony deviates, taking a different direction from the model.

The morphology of Chopin’s variations  55

Example 21  Mazurka in A minor, Op. 7 No. 2, bars 17–24.

In such instances, the change results not so much from the need to vary a repeat as from the requirements of the further harmonic development of the section of which the variational repeat forms a part. The subtle differentiation of repeats also arises when notes are shifted without the harmonic and melodic structure of the model being disturbed. This occurs primarily in sections where the principal melodic line is accompanied by a different, often figurational, line, the significance of which goes beyond the function of a traditional accompaniment. Charles Rosen calls figurations of this type ‘heterophonic accompaniments’ and he regards them as one of the most characteristic innovations in the music of the 1830s.37 The term ‘accompaniment’, regardless of the adjective that is attached to it, does not seem all that apt here, however, as it suggests a relationship of subordination. In actual fact, these figurational lines fulfil an equal role with the parallel non-figurational melody. For Chopin, figurational lines of this kind, replacing a traditional accompaniment, are also highly typical. The differentiation of repetitions of musical units built in this way often involves shifting the notes of this figuration or even shifting a whole figurational segment to another pitch. This does not alter the functional relations; sometimes, it does not even alter the timbre in any crucial way, merely offering a subtle, minor deviation from the model: different chords are created, different chord members are highlighted and the degree to which a passage is suffused with dissonances is varied; the change of pitch itself also plays a role here. However, the expression is determined to a greater extent by the kinetic properties of the figuration than by its melodic properties, so it usually remains unchanged. Variational repeats constructed in this way, standing on the borderline 37 Rosen, Sonata Forms, 388–390.

56  The morphology of Chopin’s variations

Example 22  E  tude in A minor, Op. 25 No. 11 (a) bars 23–24, (b) bars 31–32.

between harmonic and melodic changes, usually occur, besides etudes and preludes, in more elaborate works (e.g. the Sonata in B minor, Op. 58, movt I, episodic idea of theme I, bars 23–28). With time, harmony as a source of variational changes gained increasing ­ armony significance in Chopin. In late works, from the forties, changes of h in variations are used most intensively. At the same time, however, the ­variational changes in these works are created not through changes in the area of a single element, as earlier, but usually through modifications to various elements. Hence, harmonic changes are generally accompanied by changes in melody, texture and articulation. In Chopin’s last works, the harmonic changes also become the basis for differentiating repeats of a work’s principal musical ideas, which did not occur earlier. This is splendidly illustrated by the middle section of the Nocturne in B major, Op. 62. Analysis of extant manuscript sources of this work shows that already on the first documented level of composition, harmonic changes were regarded by the composer as the principal means of modifying the return of musical material.38 In the sketch of the middle section, the return of the principal idea was not notated, but merely marked by the writing-out of the melody of its first bar. Chopin usually omitted identical segments in his sketches,

38 The extant manuscript sources of the Nocturne in B major, Op. 62 comprise a sketch autograph of the middle section, an autograph Stichvorlage for the firm of Brandus in Paris and an autograph Stichvorlage for the firm of Breitkopf & Härtel in Leipzig (see C ­ homiński and Turło, Katalog, 149). The composition by degrees of Chopin’s works is discussed at greater length by Jeffrey Kallberg, in ‘The Chopin Sources’; Kallberg, ‘O klasyfikacji’; cf. Nowik, ‘Proces twórczy’; Nowik, ‘Preludium a-moll op. 28 nr 2’, 101–110.

The morphology of Chopin’s variations  57

Example 23  Nocturne in B major, Op. 62 No. 1 (a) bars 37–43, (b) bars 53–59.

from which we may conclude that the return was to be an exact replica of the opening of the section. Yet, this is contradicted by the accompaniment marked by the composer with the word ‘second’ on an extra system beneath the opening section of the work. The convergence of this accompaniment with the final version of the return, and at the same time its otherness in relation to both the version notated in the sketch and also the later version of the harmony of the opening section suggests that this was an accompaniment intended for the return of the principal idea. So, Chopin left out from the sketch the melodic line of the return, instead notating an a­ ccompaniment – a bearer of the harmony; he notated a variable element, the form of which differed from that which appeared in the model. Of course, it is difficult to give an entirely secure answer to the question as to whether the change

58  The morphology of Chopin’s variations of harmony was originally intended to be the only variable element, with the changes of melody that appear in the final version introduced later as additional modifications, or whether the changes of melody omitted in the sketch (appearing much more often in variational repeats) were ‘normal’ in those repeats and so did not need to be notated at this early stage. The way in which Chopin sketched other works tends to suggest the former possibility. Yet, regardless of the answers to these questions, it should be stated that the harmony here is an element that introduces stronger differentiation than the melody. The frequent changes of function create a greater harmonic mobility; at the same time, the sound becomes sharper, and the tension increases, thanks to the thickening of dominant relations and the suffusion with dissonant chords. However, in this instance as well, the harmony of the variation does not break entirely with the model, retaining the same functions at distinctive points. Chopin presented a different way of modifying repeats in the Fantasy in F minor/A flat major. Here, the first theme appears three times. Its opening part was originally in F minor (bars 68–7639), the relative major (A flat) appears incidentally (bar 71) and then a few bars based on the dominant in F minor, deceptively resolved onto the relative (A flat) – the key of the second part of the theme. The second statement of the theme (bar 155 ff.) exactly retains its melody, texture and functional relations; it might be described as a sequential repeat (it begins in C minor), were it not for one crucial change. At the point corresponding to the incidental appearance of the relative A flat major in the first statement, the analogous E flat minor is introduced, but in the form not of the relative major, but of a minor chord. More importantly, this E flat minor stabilises itself, and the subsequent passage refers to this key. The subsequent sequence of dominant functions is (V7) and V7 in E flat minor, resolving deceptively – as in the model – onto the relative (G flat major), in which key it is repeated as the second part of the theme. So, here, the variational element is not a change of relationship between successive harmonic functions of the theme, but the shifting of the tonal centre, which means that the variation differs from the theme in its lesser tonal stability.40

39 Zofia Lissa (‘Jedność’, 118) distinguishes two different themes in the two-part theme that I distinguish here (bars 68–84): one in bars 68–76, and the other in bars 77–84. 40 Lev Mazel (‘Fantazja’, 49, 141) explains the weakening of the tonal stability in terms of the placement of the repeat of the theme, which – according to him – belongs to the development section of the Fantasy. As the author argues, in the development sections written by Romantic composers, themes are repeated in a different tonal guise, often in their entirety, and the lack of tonal stability that characterises a development is expressed in the Fantasy in the change of the tonal centre of the repeated theme. Without exploring here the issue of the Fantasy’s design or the question of the relations between the development and the ­variations, it should be emphasised that the way in which Chopin builds developments in his sonatas is fundamentally different to the modification of the thematic material both in the Fantasy and in the ballades. The themes in the developments of the sonatas are indeed not subject to such far-reaching segmentation as in Beethoven, yet they are never repeated in

The morphology of Chopin’s variations  59 Thus, we are dealing here with a variational sequence. Sequences of this type, in which an harmonic change occurred, specifically a change in the point of reference, appeared in works from the turn of the forties (e.g. the Mazurkas, Op. 41, Ballade in F major, Op. 38), but they usually concerned shorter non-thematic segments, as a result of which the stabilisation of the new centre was never so decisive. A comparison of the variation techniques described above with procedures characteristic of early works shows how far Chopin’s variation technique changed. The style brillant ornamentation that was the chief means of differentiating analogous sections in the early works was replaced by nonornamental changes to the melody, and above all to the harmony, which now involve not the ‘passing insertion’ of a chord into a constant harmonic plan, as in works of the thirties, but a more profound interference in that plan. However, just as Chopin did not generally relinquish the ­model’s melodic contour in variations with modifications to the melody, so the ­model’s harmony shows at least some points of contact with the harmony of the model in variations where the harmony is altered.

2.3 Changes in texture as an element of variation Changes in the area of piano texture are particularly frequent when Chopin repeats both short motifs and also larger segments of a work, in thematic sections and bridges. The variational changes described previously, especially the considerable suffusion of repeats with ornaments, had already produced some modifications to the piano texture. However, those modifications were of a secondary character, resulting from changes to the melody. Now, it was about making such changes to the shaping of the musical material and its distribution within the range of the instrument that did not result from intervallic-rhythmic changes to the melodic line, but were an independent element, as it were, not necessarily linked to changes in the melodic or harmonic structure. They could, however, concern the mutual relations between vertical and horizontal phenomena; that is, they could refer to homophonic and polyphonic texture.41 We will consider these p ­ henomena their entirety; in the ballades and the Fantasy, meanwhile, the modifications of the themes are based on their variational reiteration. It remains an open question as to whether – and if so, to what extent – these variational reiterations can be treated as development sections like those in sonata form. However, the increased tonal lability does not seem to be a sufficient criterion in itself. 41 The definitions of piano texture functioning in the literature differ from one another. Irena Poniatowska (Faktura fortepianowa, 18–19) adopts a definition that accords with the French term ‘l’écriture’, as a way of writing for a particular instrument, ensemble or voice. This term, although rather general, aptly conveys the essence of the phenomenon. That said, the way in which a composer writes for a given instrument is inseparably linked in nineteenth-century music with the shape of ‘musical elements’, including harmony and melody. In this sense, of course, texture can never be wholly independent of them.

60  The morphology of Chopin’s variations here because they are determined to a considerable extent by the capacities of the instrument, and the quantity of simultaneously sounding lines and their level of density, linked to polyphony or to a greater melodic activeness, belong to aspects of piano texture.42 Changes to piano texture were already used to vary repeats in the music of the Classical composers, including Mozart. Doubling the melodic line at an octave, less often at a sixth or a third, changing the shape of the accompaniment, swapping the melodic line and the accompaniment between the parts of the two hands, shifting a passage from one voice to another and also changing the register were among the procedures widely used by Mozart not just in variation form but also in other forms when modifying repeats.43 These procedures entered the current repertoire of piano texture. They were also employed by Chopin in his work, in both early and late compositions, and in both elaborate works and miniature character pieces (e.g. Sonata in C minor, Op. 4, concertos, Sonata in G minor, Op. 65, Allegro de concert, Op. 46, Nocturnes, Op. 27 No. 2 and Op. 55 No. 2, mazurkas, including Op. 41 No. 1, Op. 67 No. 3 and many others) as a way of modifying repeats. However, as he developed the piano texture in his works, the means C ­ hopin adopted from his immediate predecessors and from Mozart underwent modification, their range expanded considerably, and the role of texture in variational repeats increased significantly, reaching a peak in the works of the forties.44 The swapping of the melodic line and the accompaniment between the parts of the two hands, which Paul Mies calls ‘mirroring’, is never a simple exchange of voices, even in the works of the Warsaw period.45 It is usually linked to changes, however minor, mainly to the accompaniment (e.g. ­Sonata in C minor, Op. 4, movt IV). In Chopin, the accompaniment assumes a much more diversified form, so variations based on its changes differ distinctly from one another, as they do from the model. At times, these changes assume the character of subtle nuances of sound resulting from slight fluctuations in the density of chord members or in the motion (e.g. Etude in E minor, Op. 25 No. 5, middle section), through the omission or addition of a chord member or a non-chordal note, through the doubling of a previously existing chord member, or through a change to the position 42 The connection between polyphony and homophony, on one side, and instrumental texture, on the other, is discussed by Irena Poniatowska, Faktura fortepianowa, 14. 43 See Mies, ‘Mozarts Variationswerke’; Mies applies the term ‘Spiegelung’ to the swapping of the accompaniment and the melodic line between the parts of the two hands (478) and regards this procedure as typical of Mozart’s variation technique, frequently employed also to merge two variations which, retaining the same melodic line and accompaniment, differ solely in their distribution, that is, their mutual registral relations. 4 4 I discuss the development of piano texture in Chopin’s work and the new means which he introduced in this area at greater length in the work ‘Faktura fortepianowa’ and the article ‘The Nocturnes and Studies’. 45 See above, n. 43.

The morphology of Chopin’s variations  61 of a chord or a change to the accompaniment figure.46 These are phenomena that are poised on the edge of variation, incidental variations of a sort, which produce those ‘nuanced fluctuations’ so strongly emphasised in the literature as particularly characteristic of Chopin’s music. Sometimes, however, changes to the shape of an accompaniment are very extensive and lead to the fundamental transformation of the expression of the model (e.g. the outer sections of the Nocturne in C minor, Op. 48 No. 1). Octave doublings of the melodic line, meanwhile, generally discharge a similar dynamic function as in Chopin’s predecessors, increasing the volume of the sound of repeats; in a simple form, however, as merely a means of differentiation, they are usually employed when short segments are repeated. Repeats are more often modified through the doubling of a melody at a third or a sixth, or else at changing intervals (e.g. Mazurka in A flat major, Op. 59 No. 2), which does not so much increase the dynamics as affect the colouring of the sound. Such doublings usually leave the melodic line of the model as the top part, yet Chopin sometimes adds thirds or sixth above. In such cases, the variation differs from the model not only in its fuller sound but also in the melodic line, which is as if moved upwards, since the top voice is foregrounded, and the ‘added’ notes thereby assume the function of the principal melody.

Example 24  M  azurka in A flat major, Op. 41 No. 3, bars 5–8.

The expression, however, remains the same as in the model, and the difference between it and the variational repeat involves subtle nuances of sound. Repeats usually have a somewhat fuller sound than the model, and in successive variational returns this fuller sound is gradually suffused. Thus, the differences between the model and the variations are in the direction of greater expansiveness. This applies not only to the filling-out of the sound but also to all the means in which a repeat is distinguished from the original, even those that introduce the minutest deviations. The filling-out of the sound is achieved not only through the doubling or even trebling of the melodic line but also through the introduction, between 46 These changes are often so small that a number of publishers of Chopin’s works, particularly during the nineteenth century, considered them simply to be errors on the composer’s part and – in accordance with the principle of unifying analogous places – ‘corrected’ Chopin, reducing passages with such subtle deviations to a single model (cf. Chechlińska, ‘Ze studiów’).

62  The morphology of Chopin’s variations the main melodic line and the accompaniment, of a middle layer of varying melodic independence. This layer is sometimes nothing more than a counter melody. From the Nocturne in C sharp minor, Op. 27 (1835) onwards, the counter melody increasingly often becomes a means of variation, replacing the ornamental changes to the principal melodic line that dominated earlier.

Example 25  Nocturne in C sharp minor, Op. 27 No. 1 (a) bars 3–6, (b) bars 19–22.

In further variations in the same work, it is sometimes the counter melody that is subjected to such alteration (e.g. Nocturne in E flat major, Op. 55). It is usually placed in the middle layer, but can also appear in the bottom or top voice, which necessitates shifting the main melody to a different voice (e.g. Mazurka in A flat major, Op. 41, bars 41–48); thus, an additional ­variation element is now the switching of the register of the melodic line. Counterpoint is used particularly intensively as a means of differentiating between returns of a musical idea in the late works, from the forties ­onwards (e.g. Impromptu in G flat major, Op. 51, Ballade in F minor, Op. 52, ­Nocturne in E flat major, Op. 55, most of the mazurkas from Op. 41 onwards, Berceuse, Op. 57, Sonata in B minor, Op. 58, Barcarolle, Op. 60), which is linked to the composer’s growing interest in polyphony.47 47 A turn in the direction of polyphony is almost unanimously regarded in the literature as one of the principal features of the last decade in the work of Chopin (cf., e.g., Abraham, ­Chopin’s Musical Style; Chomiński, ‘Z zagadnień’; Tomaszewski, ‘Uwagi’, 414; ­Tomaszewski, ‘­Chopin’, 176; Samson, The Music). Rothstein (‘Phrase rhythm’, 129) considers the increased use of polyphony, and particularly of counterpoints, during this period to be one of the causes of the erosion of caesurae. However, a ‘turn in the direction of polyphony’ signifies merely a heightening of interests that were manifest in Chopin’s works from the very beginning; cf. Eigeldinger, ‘Placing Chopin’; also Wiora, ‘Chopins Preludes’.

The morphology of Chopin’s variations  63 That interest is expressed also in Chopin’s use of imitation, which in works from the last period becomes an important means of variation, although not as widely used as non-imitative counterpoint (e.g. Mazurka in F sharp minor, Op. 59, Ballade in F minor, Op. 52, Barcarolle, Op. 60). Imitations had appeared in this function in Beethoven, indeed to a much greater extent and interfering more deeply in the structure of successive variations.48 In Chopin, variational repeats of an imitative character do not essentially disturb the proportions of the model; the imitation is subordinated to the regular periodic structure, analogous to that of the model. If it is sometimes disturbed, it is rather through the blurring of the caesura between varied repeats with different means and not through the lengthening or shortening of an imitative variation. Imitations usually proceed at the octave or the fifth, and they are occasionally accompanied by an additional counter melody or by chords supplementing the harmony. The latter, towards the end of an imitative variation, sometimes prefigure the form of accompaniment characteristic of the next variational segment, which helps to blur the caesurae between successive variations.

Example 26  M  azurka in F sharp minor, Op. 59 No. 3, bars 97–106.

It is always just a single variational repeat of a theme in a given work that is built by means of imitation. It stands in distinct contrast to both the ­homophonic model and also to surrounding variations. Yet in this instance, too, the overall expression of the model is preserved. The way in which the musical material is shaped, its condensation on both the vertical and horizontal planes, is of considerable expressive significance. Hence, wherever an essential transformation of the model’s expression is concerned, the variations are built by textural means involving a change in 48 For example, the thirty-three variations on a Waltz by Anton Diabelli; see also Kinderman, Beethoven’s Diabelli Variations.

64  The morphology of Chopin’s variations density, register and movement. This is linked to a change in the design of the accompaniment, which at times takes on a highly elaborate form. In such instances, both the melodic line and the harmonic plan are fixed elements, common to both the model and the variation; any minor modifications concerning those elements involve not their enrichment, but – on the contrary – their reduction to a basic contour, since the function of differentiation, and above all of building up the tension, is entirely taken over by texture.

Example 27  B  allade in G minor, Op. 23, theme II (a) bars 68–71, (b) bars 106–109, (c) bars 166–169.

It is primarily the themes in ballades (G minor, A flat major) and in some other late works of Chopin (e.g. Nocturne in C minor, Op. 48, Sonata in B flat minor, Op. 35, movt I, theme II, Barcarolle, Op. 60) that are transformed in this way. Expressive changes are characteristically achieved through ornamental devices. Józef Chomiński points to two kinds of ornamentation in Chopin: one linked to pitch design and the other to an increase in the fullness of the sound through the use of such textural means as harmonic figuration and octave doublings.49 The former is usually of a decorative, light character

49 Chomiński, Chopin, 92.

The morphology of Chopin’s variations  65 and occasionally acts as a colouristic procedure; the latter serves a dynamic function.50 Also among the latter are rapid runs over a considerable compass, which, although introduced between principal melodic notes, do not discharge any melodic function (apart from imparting a virtuosic lustre), but render the music more dynamic.

Example 28  W  altz in A flat major, Op. 34 No. 1 (a) bars 50–53, (b) bars 66–69.

Sometimes, expressive changes in variations are made gradually. This is achieved through various means. Occasionally, all the elements of the model remain unaltered, but the melodic line is ‘broken’ into individual notes, between which kinetic interpolations appear. In the Nocturne in C minor, Op. 48 No. 1, the variational processes in the repeat that follows the lyrical model are expanded gradually. The first phrase appears here in an unaltered form, but it is separated from the second phrase by a segment in a rapid octave motion. As the music unfolds, the octave interpolations separate increasingly small particles of the model, until ultimately they are introduced between successive notes of its melodic line. In the variations discussed earlier, the ornaments constituted an integral part of the melodic line, at times replacing some of its notes from the model, and the variations were of uniform expression. Here, the ornaments break up the melodic line, although it is repeated in its entirety. These ornaments do not embellish, but energise. The increasing motion and volume of sound gradually transform the expression of the variation itself from a lyrical character into one full of dynamism and tension. The variation not only transforms the expression of the model, but it is also internally diversified. 50 Poniatowska, Muzyka fortepianowa, 84.

Example 29  Nocturne in C minor, Op. 48 No. 1 (a) bars 29–36, (b) bars 37–44.

The morphology of Chopin’s variations  67 The specific means employed here do not appear in any other work by Chopin, but variations of changing expression built by other textural means do occur in compositions dating from the same period as the Nocturne in C minor (1841); for example, the Ballade in A flat major. However, whilst in the Nocturne the procedures employed are not altered, but condensed, in the A flat major ­Ballade changes of texture appear during the variation of the second theme (bars ­146–180). Segments of the variation differ from one another in texture, gradually building up the tension, which climaxes at the end of the whole repeat. The first segment is identical to the first segment of the model, though tonally altered (A flat major instead of C major/F ­minor51); the second segment (bars 157–164) differs from the model primarily in the kind of accompaniment, which replaces quavers divided by rests with a uniform semiquaver motion, suffused with intervals of a second, which further increases the tension; the third segment (from bar 167) is different both from the analogous segment of the theme and from the variation as it has unfolded thus far; the melodic line of the theme is shifted to the left hand, and the figuration placed above it forms a specific kind of pedal point by means of the rapid repetition of the note g sharp (nota bene the dominant of the local key).52 Instead of a line with a limited compass and in a low register, we have a figuration of large compass, in a high register, which is not so much tension-building as climactic (i.e. the point of culmination). In this Ballade, as in other works from the forties, considerable differentiation of texture is not the only means of variation. It is usually combined with changes to other elements: structure (lengthening or shortening of sections), melody and harmony, although with the contour of the latter two elements retained. Thus, in the last years of Chopin’s work, the design of variations takes on a much more elaborate form. However, a change to the type of texture within a single variation is not common. Of course, fluctuations in this area do occur, but they do not generally go beyond the specific type of texture. Its modification, leading to the expressive transformation of the variation itself, concerns only variational repeats of longer thematic areas.

2.4  Differences in articulation Another means of variation in Chopin consists of changes in articulation. Chopin adopted all the ways of producing sounds employed in piano music by composers of previous generations, but it is a smooth legato that clearly 51 The tonal ambiguity of the first section of theme II in the Ballade in A flat major, its fluctuation between C major and F minor, is emphasised also by Edward T. Cone (­ ‘Ambiguity and Reinterpretation’, 142), who points out that this is a characteristic feature of all ­Chopin’s mature output. 52 Irena Poniatowska (Muzyka fortepianowa, 175) draws attention to the similarity between the type of figuration employed by Chopin here and the figuration introduced by Liszt in his transcription of Schubert’s song ‘Die Forelle’.

68  The morphology of Chopin’s variations dominates in his work.53 Changes in the area of the joining of notes (legato) and the contrasting of legato with different kinds of staccato form another source of differentiation between a model and its repeats, often of a ­subtle character. This is either the sole or one of the few means of variation. Changes in articulation modify timbre, yet they can also lead to subtle shifts in the metre and pitch of the principal melody through the foregrounding of different notes. As a result, despite the identical number, pitch, order and rhythmic value of notes, and thus the identical arrangement of the so-called constitutive elements, the motivic design can differ between variations.

Example 30  Etude in A flat major, Op. 10 No. 10 (a) bars 1–2, (b) bars 9–10, (c) bars 13–14, (d) bars 55–56. 53 The differentiation of articulation played an important role in the piano music of Chopin’s predecessors. However, he altered the ways in which that differentiation was achieved and the function that it played; cf. Georgii, Klaviermusik, 201, 231, 297. For more on the significance of articulation in the piano music of the first half of the nineteenth century, see Poniatowska, ‘Artykulacja’.

The morphology of Chopin’s variations  69 The etude cited here is the only example in Chopin of a work built according to the principle of repeats of the model that are differentiated solely by means of articulation.54 Such a design and accumulation of changes in articulation result from the demands of the genre since an etude is devoted to a specific problem of performance; in this instance, different ways of producing a note. Nonetheless, the means presented here appear also in other works by Chopin, where they are used in an equally skilful and individual way, yet without ever forming the sole basis for the shaping of ­variations of longer sections.

2.5  The joint action of different means of variation The construction of the variations discussed hitherto was based on changes to a single element, which was either the sole or the principal means of variation. As Chopin’s work evolved, the morphology of ­variations became increasingly complex; the number of variations built through the introduction of changes to different elements increased. Already in early works, we find repeats in which several elements are subjected to modification (e.g. concertos, Sonata in C minor, Variations, Op. 2, Fantasy, Op. 13). However, they appear there much more seldom than in later works; there are fewer variables, which usually act in the same direction. The melodic contour and harmonic plan are usually retained, and the modifications concern ‘ornamentation’, the insertion of decorative devices, rhythmic subdivisions or passing chords, or else changes to the form of the accompaniment, although this does not disturb the basic design of the model or its inner punctuation and does not alter the expression (see Example 31). In later works, the number of variables in a variation gradually increases, and variations of this type clearly dominate. Changes are introduced either simultaneously in the whole of a variation or else only at some of its points, forming – despite the use of different means – only incidental variation. In such instances, they serve a function analogous to the changes to single elements; among other things, they emphasise the otherness of the beginning, the climax and so on (Example 32). Sometimes, different means of variation are introduced successively (see Example 4). The accumulation of different means of variation generally increases the deviation from the model. Even if the expressive character of the latter is not altered in any crucial way, the modification becomes more elaborate, and it highlights the differences in relation both to the model and to the

54 The wealth of articulation in this work and the consequent differentiation of the sound are emphasised by other authors. Cf. Georgii, Klaviermusik, 324; Hławiczka, ‘L’échange’, 46; Hławiczka, ‘Chopin. Meister’, 64–67; Hławiczka, ‘Eigentümliche Merkmale’, 188–189. However, they have not pointed out that the outer sections of this etude are almost a sequence of variations, subordinated to a construction featuring elements of periodic design and evolution.

70  The morphology of Chopin’s variations

Example 31  Concerto in F minor, Op. 21, movt I (a) bars 125–128,55 (b) bars 133–136.

Example 32  Mazurka in G major, Op. 67 No. 1, (a) bars 5–8, (b) 9–12.

other variations in a stronger way than in earlier works. For example, in the Nocturne in E flat major, Op. 55, the principal theme appears three times. On its first statement, the melodic phrase is based on a single line; on its second statement, a counterpoint is added, filling out the sound and increasing the melodic mobility, whilst at the same time the principal melodic line 55

55 The version of the piano part of the theme given here is an ornamental variation of the form that appears originally in the orchestral exposition.

The morphology of Chopin’s variations  71

Example 33  Nocturne in E flat major, Op. 55 No. 2 (a) bars 1–4, (b) bars 9–12, (c) bars 35–38.

is reduced in places to its contour, which reverses the procedure found in earlier works. Whilst the same type of figures and harmonies are retained, the arrangement of the notes in the accompaniment is altered, resulting in a slightly different distribution of the chords, including dissonances. The third iteration of the theme is closer to the second than to the first, also typical of later variations. It also contains a counter melody, but a different one than in the second statement; this counter melody is more mobile and ornamented, with different articulation (staccato), contrasting with the legato of the principal melody; the remaining means of variation are the ornamentation of the principal melody and changes in the accompaniment. Its compass remains the same as in the model, but the direction and the shape of particular figures are different. The harmonic functions also remain unaltered here, although the accompaniment figures in every statement are suffused with passing and changing notes in a different way, which changes the colouring of the harmony. In the Ballade in F minor, a work written around the same time as the Nocturne discussed above, Chopin builds one of the variations (model bars 8–22, variation bars 58–71) using similar means56.Here, too, the principal melody remains unaltered, whilst a countermelody with a uniform, ­s emiquaver rhythmic motion is added and the volume of the sound is greatly increased by the introduction of octave doublings and the ­expansion 56 The Ballade in F minor is dated by Jan Ekier (Wstęp, 46) to 1842 and by Chomiński and Turło (Katalog, 74) to 1842–1843; the Nocturne in E flat major, Op. 55 is dated by Ekier (Wstęp, 46) to 1843 and by Chomiński and Turło (Katalog, 147) to 1842–1844.

72  The morphology of Chopin’s variations of the chords of the accompaniment. This all lends greater dynamism to this variation compared to the model. In addition, Chopin introduces here a shift of the repeated section in relation to the bar line. Such shifts are an important and under-appreciated element in the transformation of musical material in works of the second half of the nineteenth century.57 In ­Chopin, however, the change of accents that occurs in this way is very subtle since the repeated phrase also begins on an unaccented part of the bar. So, non-accented sections are not swapped for accented ones here; only the strength of the accents is reversed. This is another means of obtaining nuances of sound. Shifting a phrase in relation to the bar line was a device employed quite frequently in the variations of late works. In the above-mentioned Nocturne in E flat major, Op. 55, the beginning of the variation was also shifted in the bar in relation to the model. There, however, the change concerned only the initial notes. Metric shifts over longer sections were employed in works from the mid-1930s (e.g. Nocturne in D flat major, Op. 27, bars 62–69), but generally as the only element modifying a repeat. Now the composer combines different means, synthesising them. A different kind of variation occurs when all the elements of the model are subjected to modifications or changes, and the fixed element is its internal structure (see Example 34).

Example 34  Scherzo in C sharp minor, Op. 39, bars 155–171.

In such instances, similarity is ensured by a common rhythmic-kinetic model, although to exercise that function it has to be marked by distinguishing features. Consequently, it is usually based on a clear inner contrast. 57 Meyer, Emotion and Meaning, 146 ff. The significance of metric shifts of motifs and chords in music of the second half of the nineteenth century is also pointed out by Carl Dahlhaus, Between Romanticism and Modernism, 62–63.

The morphology of Chopin’s variations  73 Longer sections of works are often built on repetition of this type (see, e.g., Nocturne in F sharp minor, Op. 48 No. 2, middle section, Scherzo in B flat minor, beginning of first theme). Extensive modifications of all elements give rise to sections bordering on variation. At times, the only element retained in outline continues to be expanded, such that the new entity that arises from these procedures falls outside the notion of variation adopted at the beginning of this study, but has nonetheless numerous points of contact with structures of that type.

Example 35  Scherzo in E major, Op. 54 (a) bars 1–9, (b) bars 17–25.

In the above example, the replication of the melodic line of section (a) in section (b) is obvious. Here, it is retained almost literally. However, whereas it originally forms a closed motif, in the repeat it is further developed into a wide-arching phrase, the inner division of which does not reflect the similarity to the prototype, but blurs it. Also bordering on variation are sections in which, although neither the melody nor the harmony is based on a shared contour, their similarity is clear, as a result of a convergence of phrase design and rhythmic structure. Jeffrey Kallberg notes that in Chopin’s later works, the significance of pitch relations in the shaping of analogous segments is reduced in comparison with early works in favour of a similarity of expression and of the means of shaping.58 The sections in question display just this type of similarity: a

58 See Kallberg, ‘Chopin’s last style’, 91. The close similarity between the segments of the Polonaise-Fantasy cited in Example 36 is identified by Paul Hamburger (‘Mazurkas, Waltzes, Polonaises’, 109–110), who points out the similar treatment of these segments and their similar function in the form. Despite his own thesis of the reduction in the

74  The morphology of Chopin’s variations similar phrase design, rhythmic contour of the melodic line and shaping of the accompaniment (Example 36).

Example 36  P  olonaise-Fantasy, Op. 61 (a) bars 116–117, (b) 182–183.

This concerns segments of differing form, including improvisational-­ figurational segments; these appear in works from the forties (e.g. Sonata in B minor, movt I, theme II, bars 41 ff., 56 ff., Fantasy in F minor, bars 43–60, 85–92, 143–153, 172–187, 223–233).

significance of pitch relations in the shaping of analogous segments, Jeffrey Kallberg declares himself against the similarity of these two particular segments (‘Chopin’s last style’, 269, n. 36), offering the following argumentation: ‘Except for similarities in rhythmic patterning, however, the themes differ sharply. The harmonic progressions are practically opposites, and all motivic similarities seem forced. Chopin cannot have conceived of the later theme as a transformation of the earlier; when he transforms a theme (as in the nocturne-like or agitato version of the principal theme discussed above, he maintains its intervallic shape while altering its function or character’. It goes without saying that the second segment is not a variation of the first in the sense in which the first theme or the middle theme of the Polonaise is subjected to variational changes, but the analogy of these themes is beyond doubt and is very clearly audible. They also both ‘frame’ the middle section, and so they fulfil – despite the harmonic differences – a similar function in the work. Whether or not the composer himself treated the second segment as a new one or as a modification of the first is of secondary importance; crucial here is their similarity, which is undoubtedly what the composer had in mind. Similarly, analogous segments are formed also by theme II of the Sonata in B minor, a work written just two years before the Polonaise.

The morphology of Chopin’s variations  75 An even more complicated variation technique appears in the last works. Besides the means discussed above, new procedures are introduced, interfering differently in the structure of the model. Variations are not only shortened or expanded (e.g. Barcarolle in F sharp major, Op.  60, theme I – see Example 38), but the internal punctuation of the model is also altered in them, and the functions of its individual components ­b ecome less clear-cut.

Example 37  Nocturne in B major, Op. 62 No. 1 (a) bars 1–10, (b) bars 29–36, (c) bars 68–80.

Example 37  (Continued).

The morphology of Chopin’s variations  77 The Nocturne in B major begins with two dominant chords leading to the tonic. At first glance, they seem like an introduction, yet they constitute material used in the variation. The sentence that follows them (Example  37a) consists of a phrase and its varied repeats. Within this sentence (bar 6), we find the same sequence of ‘introductory’ chords with identical top notes. So, the similarity to the ‘introduction’ is clearly underscored. At the same time, the material is in modified form. It rests on the accompaniment that characterises the whole of the phrase into which it is woven, and the melodic line contains passing notes that fill out the original interval of a third. This forms a closure to the first phrase and at the same time a lead-in to its repeat, analogous to the opening of the work. The ‘introduction’, initially separated from the principal theme of the Nocturne, is incorporated into it, and the caesura is eliminated. Thanks to this, the phrases are not separated – as normally occurred in early works – but dovetail with one another. Such a weakening of distinguishing points, and consequently the blurring of the distinct segmentation of a piece, characterises Chopin’s late works. It is one of the ­manifestations of the changes in style of the last period in Chopin’s oeuvre and concerns, of course, not only variational repeats and returns. William Rothstein considers that the changes leading in the direction of the re-­conception of the syntax of a work occurred in Chopin gradually and were often effectuated using traditional means.59 Ultimately, around 1845, they led to a crucial qualitative change.60 This is also confirmed by analysis of variations which in the last works, especially in the Nocturnes, Op. 62, not only merge smoothly with the musical material that surrounds them but also display a number of other features that are new in Chopin’s work.61 The principal means of variation in the repeated phrase of the Nocturne in B major, Op. 62 is again its shifting in relation to the bar line. In addition, Chopin employs devices by means of which he constructed variations in earlier works, such as changes to the shape of accompaniment figures and the different placement and suffusion of passing and changing notes, which also affects the timbre. At the same time, in contrast to early variations, here too the melodic line remains almost unaltered. The segment in question is repeated at the end of the first section of the Nocturne (Example 37b). This time, the phrases appear in reverse order, and the melodic line is subjected to light ornamentation. The main means of modification, however, is a change to the inner structure of the segment: an added chord, extended by a pause (bar 34), causes the suspension of the phrase, which is then continued in the same metric pattern as

59 Rothstein, ‘Phrase rhythm’, 115–141. 60 Ibid., 141. 61 Changes of syntax in Chopin’s works are also analysed, on the basis of the mazurkas, by Elżbieta Witkowska-Zaremba (‘Wersyfikacja’). That scholar’s research confirms that, in general, the later the Chopin works the more the regularity of the phrases is disturbed, and inner caesurae are increasingly blurred, to such an extent that it is sometimes impossible to unequivocally assign a given phrase to its antecedent or consequent.

78  The morphology of Chopin’s variations at the beginning of the work. In connection with this, the entire segment is extended to eight full bars, whilst the phrases that comprise it receive different lengths, which creates a certain irregularity and so confounds our expectations.62 Another variation appears at the start of the third section of the Nocturne (Example 37c). Here, the variational changes are created primarily by the rich ornamentation of the melodic line, involving its presentation in the form of a chain of trills; this no longer has anything to do with the ornamentation typical of the style brillant of virtuosic character; it discharges a purely colouristic function. This procedure would be developed by composers of the turn of the twentieth century, in particular Skriabin.63 So, the variation is defined above all by a change in timbre. At the same time, however, the structure’s modification continues. The phrase suspended in the second variation is interrupted here (Example 37c, bars 75–76), as is further emphasised by a change of harmony. Although the following bars are to some extent a development of the ending of the model and its first variation, they are not clearly separated from the phrase in question and function as the beginning of a new unit, expanded to five bars, leading to the concluding part of the work. So the uniform model, not containing clear points of distinction, is ultimately not only enlarged in the variation but is also broken into two different segments. In the last works, there also appear variations in which the elements shared with the model are very limited, and none of them is repeated literally. In the Barcarolle in F sharp major, where the first theme is built in alternation according to the principle of sequential variation and variation, the former (Example 38b), shifted up by a fourth in relation to the model (Example 38a), develops not on the perfect subdominant, which would correspond to the model built on the tonic, but on the subdominant above the tonic, onto which it ultimately resolves at the end of the phrase. In harmonic terms, therefore, the sequence is not a simple shift by a particular interval. At the same time, there occur modifications of the melodic line, which – despite the sequence – ends like the model on the third of the tonic, a sharp. So, the melody too is not simply moved to a different pitch. Most importantly, however, the melody is expanded at the end of the phrase, thanks to which – despite apparently occupying the same space as in the model (two bars) – in reality this segment is enlarged. So, we find here features of the late variations, described above, crossed with sequential technique. The next segment (Example 38c), in turn, is a variational repeat of that sequence, closer to it than the first phrase (a). This is attested above all by the melodic line, which preserves the melodic contour of the sequence (b), albeit confined solely to the starting and ending points. This is essentially the only element common to both these segments, apart from the ostinato figure that links all the phrases discussed here. Yet, the ostinato is also 62 Leonard B. Meyer emphasises the importance in music of the surprise caused by a change to the structure anticipated by the listener. According to him, this is one of the most important elements creating interest in a musical work; see Meyer, Style and Music. 63 See Samson, The Music of Chopin, 93.

The morphology of Chopin’s variations  79 not entirely constant; although identical in the shape and direction of its motion, it differs harmonically. From the point of view of harmony, the variation under consideration is again closer to the model than to segment (b) since it is also built on a single harmonic function, but one that is different to the model. In terms of its size, this variation departs both from the beginning of the theme (a) and from its sequence (b). This time, the phrase is clearly shortened.

Example 38  Barcarolle in F sharp major, Op. 60 (a) bars 6–7, (b) bars 8–9, (c) bars 10–11.

So, late variations are built through a combination of changes in different elements of a work, and the degree of connection with the model is considerably loosened. In these variations, we observe stronger changes to the sound and stronger interference in the structure of the model. On the one hand, variation segments are interlocked, with the absorption of elements that were previously separated (e.g. introduction to the Nocturne in B ­major, Example 37a); on the other hand, the model’s structure is loosened or even broken and its inner punctuation altered. This often entails changes to the direction of the melody and harmony, with the consequence that none of the syntactic elements of the model is fully preserved intact. Ultimately, variations cease to be variations in the strict sense of the term; they are combined with other means of modifying material. As a result, entities of a new, different character are created.

80  The morphology of Chopin’s variations

2.6  Variation technique in relation to sequences and thematic work Variation and sequential technique are combined not only in the late works. The simplest form of this combination can be found in the work of most of Chopin’s immediate predecessors and also in his own early works, as well as in compositions from the last years in his oeuvre. This involves repeating a musical unit of unaltered structure at a different pitch, with the same shift of harmony and melody, which are merely ‘ornamented’ with inserted functions or melodic notes. In such instances, the variational changes ‘overlap’ with the model repeated entirely sequentially, as in the Nocturne in C minor, Op. 48 (1841).

Example 39  Nocturne in C minor, Op. 48 No. 1 (a) bars 9–10, (b) bars 11–12.

Here, both the harmony and the melody are shifted downwards by a minor second. In the repeat, the melodic line is merely subdivided in a different way, and the accompaniment – despite identical inner functional relations and shaping – is based on a different chord arrangement. The character of such sections is clear, however, and the relations between variation and sequence do not arouse any doubts. Yet, already in the ­variational sequence from the Barcarolle in F sharp major described earlier, the interaction between variation and sequential technique is more complex, as a result of which the form of neither the sequence nor the variation is pure. These relations become even more complex in the case of interference in the structure of the expanded model, characteristic of later variations,

The morphology of Chopin’s variations  81 involving the elimination or expansion of some of its segments. In such cases, there often occur tonal changes or sequential shifts constituting an additional element differentiating a repeat from its prototype. The overall principle of the model’s design is then retained, whereas not all the segments of the repeat coincide with the analogous segments of the model. As a result, repeats differ in size from the model; also different are the internal proportions between their component parts. In such instances, we sometimes witness changes in functional relations with only a certain similarity preserved, local shifts of melodic motifs to different pitches, which already during the nineteenth century was regarded as a feature of thematic working.64 The model in its entirety is replicated in the repeat, but its individual segments are transformed using a range of methods, although they sometimes also form a strict variation. This all means that the relations to corresponding segments of the model in particular parts of the repeat also differ.

Example 40  Ballade in A flat major, Op. 47, bars 54–88.

64 See Chapter 1, p. 12. A number of later authors (e.g. Klauwell, ‘Ludwik van Beethoven’, 77 ff.; Nelson, The Technique, 101) also regard the preservation of the rhythmic outline of a motif whilst its pitch is altered to be a feature of thematic work in distinction from variation technique, which is characterised by changes of rhythm against the retention of the same pitch.

82  The morphology of Chopin’s variations

Example 40  (Continued).

The question arises as to whether – and if so, to what extent – repeats of this type still belong to the category of variation. An answer to this question requires closer analysis. Let us take as an example, theme II of the Ballade in A flat major. It consists of two sections, each of which falls, in turn, into two segments. The first segment, marked A on Example 40, is tonally unstable, fluctuating between C major and F minor, although a C major centre is somewhat more strongly marked. The second segment, B, tonally stable, adheres to the key of F minor. In the variation (A′ and B′), the situation is repeated, although in A′ the F minor centre is somewhat more distinctly marked. In terms of functional relations as well, the segments A and B are not identical, although there are some similarities. The melodic lines of the two segments differ in terms of details, but they do display common features. The first is a stepwise descending motion, within the framework of a fifth and a fourth, respectively; the second is the repetitive nature of descending phrases. So, the relationship between the segments is not a

The morphology of Chopin’s variations  83 strict variation relationship, but it does show a certain analogy to it. In the variation (A′, B′), the second segment strictly replicates the corresponding segment of the model, whereas segment A′ departs from it much further. The melodic line of the motif (a) is shifted down by a second in the repeat (a′), as a result of which the arrangement of major and minor seconds alters within it. More importantly, the relationship with the harmonic functions that underpin the melodic line also changes. At the same time, there exist a number of analogies between A1 and A. The motif a′ appears twice, as does motif a. Although motif a 0 is eliminated here, the actual principle of the twofold statement of the musical unit is retained. Next, motif b appears, this time expanded to a full four-bar phrase (b′). So, despite certain differences, the plan of ‘events’ from the model is replicated. The analogous phrases, beginning and ending, underscore the similarity between the two component parts as a whole, irrespective of the differences in their inner proportions. The structure of this segment of the theme is subjected to modification, yet its fundamental component elements are retained, and in the same sequence as in the model; they are also clearly recognisable. So, the inner changes do not lead to a new form, but to a modified form of the same entity. The loosening of the links with the model is most extensive in the last works of Chopin, where variation technique, sequential technique and thematic working are synthesised, with the fusion of variation and sequential technique being much more profound than in the composer’s ­e arlier works. This is no longer the ‘superimposition’ of variation technique onto a sequentially repeated model, but the construction of a new section through the alternating use of different techniques. The internal design of repeated sections is based largely on the sequential repetition of the motifs of the model; this results in the segmentation of the model, characteristic of thematic working. The repetition does not replicate ­either the whole of the melodic line or the harmonic writing of the model, but uses only a segment of it, which is processed in different ways. This is illustrated by the changes made to the principle thematic idea in the Nocturne in E major, Op. 62. These are indeed completely different not only from the variations occurring in earlier nocturnes but also from those in earlier works generally.65 Jim Samson describes the first section of this Nocturne as ‘an eight-bar melody followed by three “variations”’.66 These are not really ‘pure’ v­ ariations because no element is retained in its entirety on the surface layer. They are all modified, with only the opening two bars of the model remaining 65 Lennox Berkeley (‘Nocturnes’, 183) states that this Nocturne ‘reverts to an earlier type of theme’, and the whole first section, as in earlier works, is divided into eight-bar units. In reality, this regularity of eight-bar units is only ostensible, and their structure is without precedence in the composer’s earlier nocturnes. 66 Samson, The Music of Chopin, 94.

Example 41  Nocturne in E major, Op. 62 No. 2 (a) bars 1–8, (b) bars 9–16, (c) bars 17–24, (d) bars 25–32, (e) bars 58–70.

The morphology of Chopin’s variations  85

Example 41  (Continued).

­ naltered each time or merely ornamented. The exception is the second u ‘variation’ (Example 41c), the beginning of which has an altered harmony. The development of the melodic line in the successive variations is based not only on its ornamenting but also on sequential repeats, leading to changes in the harmony. In most of the repeats, however, the harmony retains the sequence of functions that bring the section to a close and – here

86  The morphology of Chopin’s variations and there – similar functional relations to those occurring in the model or in the preceding ‘variations’. At the same stroke, the global similarity is ­underscored by the ­harmony, generally concordant with the beginning and the ending of the model, or else by two different elements at the beginning and the end, respectively, so in a different way than in ‘strict’ variations. Other shared features are an increased mobility at the end of each unit and also the ­dimensions – all the repeats in the first section of the Nocturne form more or less eight-bar units, differing at most in one beat of the bar. This is again a substantial similarity, but not identity. The structure of the model is not retained exactly in all the variations. In the reprise (Example 41e), the sequence expands the last segment of the unit up to twelve bars, and the two-bar motifs from which the sentence is built are expanded or shortened. Also, the inner division of the eight-bar unit is not always preserved. On the other hand, no syntactic element is entirely altered. Each of them has some connections with the model and retains some of its features. The ‘variations’ represent stages in the work’s development; each of them, in turn, elaborates somewhat on its predecessor. There is a gradual departure from the model. The increase in the number and differentiation of the means of variation, and also their fusion with the sequential repetition of motifs, consequently leads to structures bordering on ‘actual variations’, to what Jim Samson describes as ‘a skilful balance between repetition and development’.67 *  *  * So, the morphology of Chopin’s variations is extremely diversified. One sees here a distinct development from variations based on changes to a ­single element, which still lie clearly within the tradition of the style ­brillant, through variations with several variables, although also treated in accordance with tradition, and variations in which a single element or set of ­elements is altered in a different way to that employed earlier, to variations created by a whole complex of variables, in which there is a clear interference in the structure of the model. Some of them stand on the borderline between variation, sequence and development and represent a new quality in Chopin’s work. From the point of view of relations to the model, four types of variations can be distinguished: 1 Incidental variations, in which small changes appear solely at certain points, and the whole variation otherwise accords with the model. This is almost an identical repeat of the same musical idea; the minor deviations from the model do not alter its identity, and they are primarily a source of subtle differences in sound. Variations of this type are

67 Ibid.

The morphology of Chopin’s variations  87 characteristic of Chopin and hold their own throughout the composer’s oeuvre, especially in character pieces, and mainly in the dances and in shorter sections of larger works; 2 Variations that represent a clear differentiation in relation to the model, although without altering either its overall expressive character or its structure. Variations of this type also occur throughout the Chopin oeuvre, but most often in works from the late Warsaw years and from the thirties; 3 Variations that transform the expression of the model. Although usually retaining the same melodic-harmonic material, they transform the model into a new quality. They are characteristic above all of late works, from the turn of the forties onwards; 4 Variations that constitute a development of the model. These generally interfere in its structure; although the expressive character of the model is not normally altered, it is enhanced, clarified, as it were, or slightly modified. The number of variable elements or even the number of actual changes is not always directly proportional to the degree to which they depart from the model. Of crucial significance here is the character of these changes. Yet, the role and weight of variational repeats depends not only on their structure, but above all on their place in a work and the function that they discharge in the form as a whole.

3 Variations of microstructures

Analysing the place and role of variation technique in Chopin’s works entails following its manifestations in relation to all the elements of a work, both ­micro- and macrostructures. Included among the former are small particles of a work, from the motif to the simple period, that is, those that do not form major sections of a work or elaborate themes; hence, their variations have no direct effect on the architecture of a work as a whole. They can only carry local significance, as well as helping to form larger portions or themes of a work.1

3.1  Variations of motifs and phrases Bronisława Wójcik-Keuprulian, discussing Chopin’s melodic writing, lists the variational repeat, the variational sequence and contrast as occurring particularly often among the various relations arising between melodic motifs.2 Similar relations are also prominent between phrases. Wójcik-­ Keuprulian speaks solely about melody, yet analogous connections relate to whole motifs and phrases, although it is essentially melodic modifications that dominate on this level of microstructure. Yet, more important than the frequency of their occurrence is the function which these variationally repeated motifs and phrases fulfil.3 At times, they constitute basic building blocks for structurally important sections of a work. These are primarily introductions, mainly in the mazurkas and polonaises, non-thematic segments within a work, often at the end of larger sections, and more expansive segments, also within a work, contrasting with the surrounding thematic sections, as well as the beginnings of themes.4

1 I have in mind here above all the themes of miniature works and other non-miniature dances. 2 Wójcik-Keuprulian, Melodyka, 223–226. 3 ‘Repetition’ is understood here as immediate succession; the later appearance of a given musical unit, separated from its prototype by other material, is termed a ‘return’, in accordance with the terminology proposed by Leonard B. Meyer (see above, Chapter 1, n. 91). 4 Introductions can also be found in the waltzes, but they are based on the faithful repetition of a musical cell. According to Andrzej Koszewski, the introductions in the waltzes

Variations of microstructures  89 Introductions can be found in a number of mazurkas. They are very often built according to the principle of the variation of a single short motif.

Example 42  Mazurka in F minor, Op. 7 No. 3, bars 1–9.

This variation generally involves a gradual acceleration and at the same time intensification of the music, with the distinct avoidance of rhythmic patterns. Consequently, we are dealing here with two opposing forces. On one hand, relentless repetition lends the whole section a static character. It extends the effect of the same motif over and over again, and with none of the repeats particularly hinting at closure. This all heightens the anticipation of change, which, when it ultimately appears, acts with increased power. On the other hand, the gradual intensification of the forward movement lends to an introduction a progressive character. The combination of procedures acting in two opposite directions is a characteristic feature of Chopin’s music in general5; it imparts the unequivocal character that is so typical of many of his works, especially later works.6 The relation between a static and a progressive element takes various forms in Chopin. In the example given above, it is the former that clearly dominates. This is brought about by the unchanging harmony and by the limited, unchanging compass of the melodic motif. Another type of ­i ntroduction appears in the Mazurka in D flat major, Op. 30 No. 3; a single note a flat, representing the dominant, is gradually developed here into a variationally modified motif. Strictly speaking, this note is ‘composed

attest to the influence of models of Polish folk music on this Chopin genre (Koszewski, ­‘Melodyka’, 337). 5 See, e.g., a ‘square’ design underpinning a structure and devices blurring divisions that are superimposed upon it; an increase in volume against a simultaneous curbing of loudness; cf. Witkowska-Zaremba, ‘Wersyfikacja’. 6 See, e.g., Cone, ‘Ambiguity and reinterpretation’.

90  Variations of microstructures out’, to use Schenkerian terminology.7 Yet, despite the different way of transforming the original material, the repetition and the nature of the changes introduced mean that here too it is the static element that dominates. Introductions appear in a dozen or so mazurkas, dating mainly from the thirties; only two of them belong to the last period in the Chopin oeuvre (Op. 50 No. 2 and Op. 56 No. 2); the introductions are based both on literal and varied repeats, with the two principles sometimes used in alternation. In the introductions to polonaises, much more elaborate than in the mazurkas with regard to the dimensions of the form, a third means of reiterating material is added to the two mentioned above: sequential repetition. All these procedures act together, although here too the dominant role is played by variation technique. The introductions in the polonaises are of a more progressive character than in the mazurkas, but that results not so much from the introduction of sequence and the consequent shifting of the pitches of repeated motifs as from the use of richer means of variation. In the mazurkas, the motion is intensified to a rather limited degree, and the volume of the sound increases only slightly, if at all (see, e.g., Mazurka in C sharp minor and Mazurka in E major from Op. 6, Mazurka in C sharp minor, Op. 30); sometimes, variational changes involve harmonic shading, with the elimination of dominant relations and all the other elements preserved unaltered (e.g. Mazurka in A flat major, Op. 50), which also lends a static character to the whole section. In the polonaises, variational changes lead to an intensification of the motion and an increase in the volume of the sound (see, e.g., Polonaise in F sharp minor, Op. 44). So, Chopin uses variation technique to build sections of a work in which the static character resulting from the principle of repetition acts to varying extent, but is never entirely eliminated. Besides introductions, longer sections built on the principle of the repetition of motifs or phrases can be found in Chopin’s works. These are sometimes literal repeats (e.g. Mazurka in B minor, Op. 33, bars 113–128), but much more often the repeats are varied. The repeated units (motifs or phrases) do not represent a sequence of independent variations, but are subordinated to a periodic design, although there is generally a lack of any distinct cadential differentiation.8 Changes are of varying scope: they are 7 See Schenker, Der freie Satz; also Gołąb, ‘Leksykon’, 60–61; also Federhofer, ‘Heinrich Schenker’, 8. 8 Among periodic structures, Józef Michał Chomiński and Krystyna Wilkowska-­ Chomińska (Formy muzyczne, 208–210) also include sentences not differing harmonically, but the second of which is distinctly closed, thanks to melodic changes. The notion of the period is also used in such a meaning in the present work. Rose Rosengart-Subotnik terms sentences of this kind ‘analogous’. According to her, ‘analogous’ sentences are particularly characteristic of Chopin (‘On grounding Chopin’, 124).

Variations of microstructures  91 applied to motifs, which as a result of repetition form phrases; they affect phrases, from which sentences are built in an analogous way; or they are made to motifs, phrases and sentences. Thus arises a lengthier section of a hierarchic variational structure, in which variations are applied first to the primary particles and then to the entities produced from them.

Example 43  Nocturne in B flat minor, Op. 9 No. 1, bars 51–66.

Such sections are usually modified in their entirety by means of one and the same procedure, generally either rhythmic subdivisions or some other rhythmisation of the melodic line or harmonic modifications not disturbing the inner functional relations of the model. This brings about

92  Variations of microstructures harmonic or melodic shading. The segments thus produced might be defined as variational areas. They are of a decidedly static character. The changes made there are generally minor and concern details within the model, which means that the principle of repetition is very clearly exposed. Variational areas represent, in a way, the suspension of the sense of goal-directedness in a work. Here, the tendency to move forward, for further development, that is visible to a greater or lesser extent in thematic sections is reined in, and it is the segment currently heard, not requiring any specific continuation, that comes to the fore. Such areas appear in works of the Paris period, above all in the nocturnes up to the mid-1930s (e.g. ­Nocturnes in E flat major and in B major from Op. 9, Nocturne in D flat major, Op.  27), mazurkas (e.g. C sharp minor, Op. 6, B flat major, A minor and A flat major from Op. 7, B flat major, E minor and A minor from Op. 17, C major, Op. 24, B minor and D flat major, Op. 30, D major, Op. 33, E minor and B major, Op. 41, A flat major and C sharp minor, Op. 50, B major, Op. 63) and polonaises (e.g. E flat minor, Op. 26, C minor, Op. 40, F sharp minor, Op. 44, A flat major, Op. 53), although they also occur sporadically in waltzes (e.g. Waltz in A flat major, Op. posth. 69 No. 1) and in other works (e.g. Etude in F minor, Op. 10 No. 9, bars 29–36). In the nocturnes and dances, however, they discharge somewhat different functions. In the nocturnes, variation areas appear towards the end of a section or of a whole work, anticipating closure by bringing the motion to a halt whilst at the same time delaying that closure. In the dances, meanwhile, variation areas are a means of contrast. They appear within a work, between thematic sections, forming a kind of intermezzo separating their repeats from one another or preceding a return of the principal musical idea. The contrast results either from the halting of the motion – despite the distinct pulsation of the dance rhythm (e.g. Polonaise in F sharp minor) – or from a change in the character of the motion from ongoing to rotational (mainly in the mazurkas). The thematic sections that surround them also generally contain variations, but they never concern such small particles and are not subjected to so many repetitions. Hence, the periods of the thematic ideas form greater arcs, in which, alongside phrases repeated with variation, there also appear contrasting phrases or phrases referring in some other way to the foregoing material. Variational areas, meanwhile, employ a small, constantly repeated unit, a motif or a phrase, and that insistent repetition determines their otherness. However, both in nocturnes and in dances, as well as in other genres, variation areas occur at distinctive points in a work, which are structurally important. Other structurally important places in which the smallest particles are subjected to variational changes are the main thematic ideas of a work. These often open with variationally repeated phrases, which, in turn, make up structures of a higher order. Built in this way are the themes of many

Variations of microstructures  93 nocturnes (e.g. Op. 9 Nos. 1 and 2, Op. 15 No. 2, Op. 32 No. 1, Op. 48 No. 2, Op. 55 No. 1), but the themes of a number of other works are also shaped in a similar way (e.g. Concerto in F minor, movt I, theme I of piano part, Concerto in E minor, middle movt, Impromptu in A flat major, middle section, Sonata in B flat minor, movt I, theme II, Polonaise in A flat major, Op. 53, Polonaise-Fantasy, Op. 61, theme from bar 182, Ballade in A flat major, second section of theme I, Barcarolle in F sharp major, Mazurka in A flat major, Op. 24 No. 3). This concerns most often, though not exclusively, themes of a lyrical character, close in expression to the nocturnes. This way of building the opening sentences of themes appears throughout Chopin’s oeuvre, except for early works from the Warsaw period (mazurkas and waltzes without opus number, Polonaises, Op. 71, Rondo in C minor, Op. 1, Nocturne in E minor). In the latter group of works, if sentences are at all built according to the principle of the repetition of phrases, they are based mainly on literal repetition. In the concertos, meanwhile, a variationally repeated phrase opens the themes of the solo part (Concerto in F minor, movt I, theme I, Concerto in E minor, movt II). There, the means of variation is the ornamentation of the opening phrase (see Example 3a), which will become characteristic of ­variations of phrases in the nocturnes of the early thirties (e.g. Op. 9 Nos. 1 and 2, Op. 15 No. 2). In such cases, the sentences consist of two separated phrases, the second of which – besides being more intensively embellished – retains all the elements of the first.9 In later works, the means of building variations change, diversify and multiply, although a repeated phrase essentially displays greater mobility than the prototype.10 Chopin couples phrases together according to the principle of variational repetition elsewhere besides the beginning of principal musical ideas. In such cases, the means of variation is often also harmony, and harmonic shading becomes a primary means of shaping a particular segment (e.g. ­Nocturne in F minor, Op. 55 No. 1, middle section, bars 57–64). So, variational changes, on the one hand, serve to lend variety, differentiating the sound of the phrases, and on the other hand provide energy, increasing the tendency to further development and helping to build the melodic line, which in a variation sometimes departs considerably from the model (e.g. middle section of the Polonaise in C sharp minor, Op. 26). Sometimes – particularly in later works – they also lead to a smooth transition to the rest of the work (see Examples 7b, c).11 At times, v­ ariationally

9 See Chapter 2, n. 13. 10 See Chapter 2.1. 11 The energising function of ornamentation as a means of variation in Chopin was pointed out by Bronisława Wójcik-Keuprulian (‘Wariacje’, 64), who emphasised that ornaments strengthen the link between the repeated segment and that which is to follow; they express a ‘forward impetus’. Other variational changes also carry a similar significance, particularly intensifying motion and increasing the volume of the sound.

94  Variations of microstructures repeated motifs and phrases gradually impart greater dynamism to a theme. Such an instance occurs, for example, in the Polonaise in A flat major, Op. 53. The first motif of the principal theme becomes increasingly mobile in successive repeats, to the point where it gives way to an unbroken rapid succession of notes. The limited compass and singular form of this motif, which in variation is based on rotational motion, further increases the need for change, which – at the point when it occurs – becomes the climax of the whole sentence.

Example 44  P  olonaise in A flat major, Op. 53, bars 17–20.

In more expansive thematic areas, a gradual increase in tension is usually built up through modifications to larger segments, but there are also instances where that purpose is served by variations of smaller particles, as in the first theme of the Ballade in A flat major. The second part of that theme is based initially on the varied repetition of a four-bar phrase, with each ­variation increasing the tension by intensifying the motion and increasing the volume of sound (see Example 45).12 The rhythmic subdivisions ­employed here no longer have anything in common with embellishment. They are a means of dynamising the music, and the variational changes serve not so much to add variety as to gradually alter the expression; they are stages in its transformation. Also in lyrical miniature works, especially in the nocturnes, the ­variational repetition of phrases at times discharges a dynamising function, ­intensifying the expression and even imparting to symmetrical sections an evolutionary character (e.g. Nocturne in D flat major, Op. 27 No. 2, bars 10–21). The linking of a musical unit with the variation that immediately follows also helps mask the regular pulsation of phrases. Subtle fluctuations in the onward movement, achieved through changes in density, accents and points of support and climax, cause the symmetry of sections of uniform proportions to become blurred (e.g. Nocturnes Op. 27 No. 2, bars 62–70,

12 This theme falls into three sections (bars 1–8, 9–36, 37–49), the second, most elaborate, of which differs from the outer sections in the character of its expression, involving the gradual heightening of the tension, which reaches a peak towards the end.

Variations of microstructures  95 Op. 32 No. 1, bars 21–22, Op. 48 No. 1, bars 9–12, Op. 62 No. 1, bars 11–12). This produces a subtle variety, constantly present in Chopin’s music, and at the same time a smooth and integrated flow, which is ensured by the shared foundation.

Example 45  B  allade in A flat major, Op. 47, bars 9–16.

Coupling together phrases and their variations is a characteristic feature of Chopin’s compositional technique, distinguishing him from his peers, and especially from fellow German composers. This kind of procedure became popular in Russian music of the second half of the nineteenth century, and also in the work of Debussy and Ravel. It is one of the features that bring those creative circles close to the music of Chopin.13 The frequency of the variations of microstructures and their placement within a work, as well as the means employed in them, depends largely on the genre. In some genres, such as the mazurkas, the sentences of thematic ideas opening a work are rarely built according to the same principle, whereas pairs of phrases very often appear further into a work, particularly in the mazurkas from the thirties (e.g. Mazurkas, Op. 6 No. 2, Op. 24 No. 1,

13 The links between the music of Chopin, on the one hand, and Debussy and Ravel, as well as Russian composers, on the other hand, have been pointed out by such authors as Hollander, ‘Chopin als Vorlaufer’, Palmer, Impressionism, 51–60, Murray, ‘The Romantic Piano’, Chechlińska, ‘Chopin a impresjonizm’, and Lissa, ‘O wpływie’. Lissa mentions the harmonic shading of repeated phrases typical of Lyadov (393), which is actually the variational repetition of phrases, characteristic of Chopin. Jim Samson (The Music of Chopin, 85) draws attention to the way in which both Chopin and the above-mentioned composers link a musical cell to its variational repeat. Eigeldinger, in turn, notes a similarity of aesthetics between Chopin and Debussy, reflected in many common features in the output of those two composers (Eigeldinger, ‘Placing Chopin’).

96  Variations of microstructures Op. 24 No. 3, Op. 30 No. 2, Op. 33 No. 1, Op. 33 No. 3).14 This concerns, of course, variations in the strict sense of the term – the sense adopted in the present work. In the mazurkas, a sequence of phrases, and even of one-bar motifs, based on the same rhythmic model and an analogous direction to the motion, shifted to different pitches and harmonically different, is very common, including in principal thematic ideas; it appears in the clear majority of works in this genre. This also concerns, albeit perhaps to a somewhat lesser degree, other works, not just dances. Many authors also call a sequence of this kind a variation,15 but that is a broader understanding of the term, encompassing a range of compositional techniques, including sequential and motivic working.16 It is certainly difficult to fix sharp boundaries between these notions in relation to the smallest musical units since such units contain too few distinguishing elements. For this reason, in order not to blur the explicitness of the subject of our considerations, we will regard only such reappearances of microstructures that contain a distinctive element shared with the model, enabling its identification, to be variations of those structures; in other words, either harmonic sequences in their entirety (not just in outline) or at least a contour of the melodic line at the same pitch level as in the model or – where there is a change of key – situated in an analogous place. In the mazurkas, variational changes on the level of phrases are most often of an incidental character; they involve slight deviations of rhythm or texture (e.g. Mazurka in A flat major, Op. 24) or harmonic shading (e.g.  ­Mazurka in A minor, Op. 59 No. 1, bar 37 ff.). Inevitably, therefore, they do not generally serve to develop the original phrase, but are a typical example of modification aimed at lending variety to repeats and returns occurring multiple times in a work. Themes that open with a phrase and its variational repeat recur in ­Chopin’s works up to the last years of his output. In late works, these repeats assume a more elaborate form, combined with sequential technique, as in the first theme of the Barcarolle in F sharp major.17 This gives a sequence of phrases of different length, which nevertheless retain their fluidity thanks to the shared model on which they are based (see Example 38). The same work also provides an example of a theme built from the ­material of a single phrase, variationally modified in different ways.

14 This concerns the variational repetition of short, most often two-bar, phrases forming the first sentence of a simple period. This opens only three mazurkas: Op. 6 No. 2, Op. 24 No.  1 and Op. 24 No. 3. Mazurkas more often begin with the sequential repetition of the opening phrase; for more on the significance of sequence in Chopin’s mazurkas, see Morawski, ‘Technika sekwencyjna’. 15 This concerns, above all, authors regarding all sections with the same theme as variations, including Leikin, ‘The sonatas’, and Walker, ‘Chopin and musical structure’. 16 See Chapter 1.2. 17 See Chapter 2.5.

Variations of microstructures  97

Example 46  Barcarolle in F sharp major, Op. 60, bars 62–70.

The first sentence of the theme consists of a phrase a and its simple variational repeat a′, which essentially differs from the model solely in its greater mobility. The next phrase, b, constituting a consequent, is again a variation of a, expanded in relation to the model. An element shared by b and a is the melodic line of the latter, the component parts of which are preserved in the variation largely at the same pitch, but the distances between them are filled with passing notes, which makes it larger, eliminates the intervallic differentiation characteristic of the start of the theme, relocates the shared notes and alters their mutual temporal relations. As a result, the melody of b becomes ostensibly a new melody. The contrasting character of phrase b is further highlighted by fundamental changes to other elements, above all harmony. The antecedent is harmonically stable, based on the tonic (A ­major) with temporarily inserted functions of its immediate dominant; the consequent, meanwhile, is characterised by a rapid rhythm to the harmonic changes, involving distant dominant deviations. In connection with this, the harmonic sense of the melodic line also changes. The theme ends with a variation of the first sentence

98  Variations of microstructures (a + a′)′, but incomplete, interrupted half-way through the second phrase; this variation dovetails with b, as its beginning is also the ending of the latter, so in reality there is no caesura between them at all. Thus, we are dealing here with a rather complex sequence of variations. As a result, the dimensional symmetry is vanquished: the theme theoretically consists of three segments of different length, the maximum integrity of which is ensured by the shared melodic model; however, the ear distinguishes only two sections: (a + a′) and [b + (a + a ′)′], which are also of different size.18 So, variations of microstructures serve a range of functions and are of different character. Generally speaking, they are a crucial feature of Chopin’s compositional technique. Small units constitute the building blocks from which, by means of numerous repeats and returns, the composer ‘pieces together’ larger entities. This is even more clearly visible on a higher level of musical structures.

3.2  Variation technique and periodic design Relations of variation occurring between phrases in a sentence also occur between the component parts of a period. Such periods are termed ­variational. Similar relations also occur between repeats of simple periods. The means by which variations are created, as in the case of phrases, also depend on the genre of a work and the time it was written, yet the diversity of the variational relations within a period is greater than it is between phrases, and this is linked to the dimensions of the repeated units. Variational relations between musical sections, although frequent, constitute just one of the possibilities. In Chopin, they occur – besides variational areas – generally in alternation with a contrastive connection or some other type of repetition (literal, sequential). In cases where one of the sentences of a period (most often the antecedent) is of a variational design, the other stands in a different relationship, and vice versa – sentences in which phrases are linked non-variationally usually form a period based on variational repetition. So already within a simple period, variations are present on a lower or higher level of the structure; in particular genres they dominate on different levels. One is inclined towards such a conclusion by analysis of those genres which are represented by a relatively large number of works, such

18 Karl H. Wörner (Das Zeitalter) emphasises the need to distinguish between the notions of symmetry and balance, reserving for the former a meaning analogous to symmetry in visual objects, the elements of which appear as if in a mirror image (261 ff.). The incorrect use of this term is also noted by Hermann Erpf (Form und Struktur), who proposes replacing the term ‘symmetry’ with ‘correspondence’. This proposition is undoubtedly justified, and the word ‘symmetry’ is to some extent ambiguous. Nevertheless, it is used so universally in musical letters concerning the nineteenth century to define sections of the same size with analogous syntax that I will retain it in the present work in that very meaning.

Variations of microstructures  99 as the mazurkas, polonaises, waltzes and nocturnes. It is only such genres that constitute a sufficiently large set for generalisations of this type. The remaining genres, for all the diversity of shaping that characterises more elaborate forms and the merging of periodic and evolutionary structure, do not provide sufficient evidence for drawing conclusions of this kind. In mazurkas, the components of a simple period often stand in a ­variational relationship (e.g. Op. 6 No. 4, bars 9–16, Op. 17 Nos. 1 and 2, bar 17 ff., No. 4, Op. 24 No. 2, Op. 33, Nos. 2 and 4, Op. 41 No. 2, Op. 50 No. 1, Op. 56 No. 3, bar 57 ff., Op. 59 No. 2), but in such cases they rarely comprise variationally repeated phrases. In the Mazurka in A flat major, Op. 17 No. 3, for example, the second phrase of the consequent veers off in a different direction. Even more typical is the connection of simple periods according to the principle of variational repetition in periods of a higher order (e.g. Mazurkas in A flat major and in A minor, Op. 17, in G minor and in B flat minor, Op. 24, in C major, Op. 67 No. 3, in C sharp minor, Op. 30 No. 4, in G sharp minor and in C major, Op. 33, in C sharp minor and in E minor, Op. 41, in A flat major, Op. 50, in C minor, Op. 56, in A flat major and in F sharp minor, Op. 59, and in B major, in F minor and in C sharp minor, Op. 63), although at least as often periods of this type arise through literal repeats. In polonaises, the principal themes, particularly in the ‘heroic’ polon­ aises (Op. 40 No. 1, Op. 44, Op. 53), open with the variational repetition of phrases, and even motifs, lending considerable dynamism to the opening of the theme. The consequent dissipates the tension accumulated in the antecedent, and it is consequently built from different material. Yet, this does not concern all the polonaises. The youthful works in this genre have themes based on the literal repetition of sections. In some later polonaises (e.g. ­Polonaise-Fantasy, Op. 61, Polonaise in C minor, Op. 40), the principal theme also does not contain variations, but progressions of sentences or simple periods; only exceptionally is it a parallel variational period (e.g. ­Polonaise in C sharp minor, Op. 26). Sometimes, a simple period is repeated variationally, creating a larger thematic area, but this is not the rule. In such instances, a variation serves to heighten the dynamics, but it is never a repeat of the whole of a period, but only of a significant segment, which thereafter deviates in a different direction (e.g. Polonaise in F sharp minor, Op. 44, Polonaise in A flat major, Op. 53). Also in nocturnes, in the principal thematic ideas it is a variational design of the antecedent that dominates. Only three works in this genre (Op. 37 No. 1, Op. 48 No. 1, Op. 62 No. 1) open with a period, the parts of which stand in a variational relationship, but never in such an instance does the antecedent consist of variations of phrases. In waltzes, meanwhile, phrases are only exceptionally subjected to variational repetition (e.g. Waltz in A flat major, Op. posth. 69). Also within a simple period, the consequent is rarely a variation of the antecedent (e.g. Waltz in A flat major, Op. 42, Waltz in E m ­ inor without opus number from 1830), whereas those simple non-variational periods are very often repeated variationally, forming extensive semiquaver

100  Variations of microstructures and demisemiquaver periods of a higher order, constituting further sections in a work.19 Simple or complex periods designed according to the principle of ­variation represent something like a shifting of the compositional principle concerning phrases onto a higher level of musical structure. The reiteration of the material of the antecedent in the consequent was a very common way of shaping a period during the first half of the nineteenth century. Thus was created a so-called ‘parallel’ period. That is how sections in character pieces by Schumann and Mendelssohn, for example, are constructed. In Mendelssohn’s Songs without Words, works of a lyrical character in which a periodic construction clearly dominates, as many as thirty-eight of the forty-eight pieces are based on such parallel periods. Yet among them, in as many as twenty-seven the antecedent is literally repeated in the consequent, and in eleven the changes are of an incidental character and concern not the melody, but details of the harmony, the accompaniment scheme or the number of notes sounding together. A similar thing occurs in other works (e.g. the Fantasy, Op. 28). In Schumann, as well, it is literal repetition that clearly reigns. If he introduces any changes whatsoever in the consequent in relation to the antecedent – besides a harmonically different ending to sentences – they also do not usually concern the melody, but rather the register (e.g. ‘Chiarina’ from Carnaval) or the accompaniment scheme, and they are of an incidental character. In Carnaval, the sole exception in this respect is the piece entitled ‘Chopin’, where, although there is not strictly speaking variational repetition of sentences or phrases, a sequence with variational changes occurs in the melodic line. This work is intended as a musical portrait of Chopin, so one may assume that Schumann also identified variational or variational-sequential modifications, especially concerning melody, with Chopin’s idiom. In Chopin himself, meanwhile, it is difficult to find a work based on periodic design devoid of variational repeats or returns of smaller or larger units. Their number, degree of variational changes and function fluctuate between genres, and even between works, but they are always present to some extent. This applies not only to miniature works, already discussed above, but also to some more elaborate compositions. Numerous examples of variational parallel periods are provided by the

19 The term ‘period of a higher order’ was introduced by Józef Michał Chomiński to define a structure in which a simple period becomes the antecedent of a more complex structure; see Chomiński and Wilkowska-Chomińska, Formy, 219. The quantitative predominance in the waltzes of variational repeats of eight- and sixteen-bar sections over faithful repeats was pointed out by Andrzej Koszewski (‘Melodyka walców’, 313). Koszewski rightly links the repetition of just such sections, and not smaller particles, with the avoidance of a distinct punctuation within a period (‘Melodyka walców’, 286), which underscores the fluid character of this dance. A meticulous analysis of the structure of Chopin’s waltzes was carried out by Sylvain Guignard in Frédéric Chopins Walzer.

Variations of microstructures  101 two concertos, the impromptus and even some themes of the ballades (e.g. first section of the opening theme of the Ballade in A flat major). In Chopin too, of course, literal repeats do occur. Passing over the early mazurkas, waltzes and polonaises from the Warsaw period, in which there are no variational modifications of microstructures, as in variations of longer sections, also in later works, some of their cells or segments are repeated literally or return in a version identical to the original.20 Generally speaking, repeats and returns are characteristic of every musical composition since they constitute an essential condition of form. They assume various guises, and the way in which the composer returns to earlier material attests, among other things, to the style of the epoch or also to his individual style. In the whole history of music, however, there is perhaps no composer to have written not a single work containing no repetition of an earlier idea in an identical form. During the first half of the nineteenth century, repeats and returns both of larger sections of a work and of smaller particles were a characteristic feature of composing. In Chopin, as well, some of them do not differ from the original. The difference between Chopin and his contemporaries lies in the fact that in a considerable proportion of his works they appear alongside variational repeats (e.g. in mazurkas, polonaises and waltzes) or are altogether replaced by the latter (e.g. in larger nocturnes, the Barcarolle in F sharp major, the Ballades in G minor, A flat major and F minor), and above all in the specific technique of linking a cell with its variation, as already discussed, and the function discharged by variations in his works. A variational structure giving greater differentiation than the literal repetition of sentences also guarantees the integration of a whole period. Variations are applied either to a whole antecedent or else to a part of it, such as the first phrase, as in the Nocturne in C minor, Op. 48 (bars 1–8), where both the harmony and the melody subsequently veer off in a different direction than in the antecedent; throughout the consequent, however, the structure of the first sentence is preserved, with the result that the period is of a symmetrical construction. At times, albeit relatively rarely, the consequent comprises a variation of a single motif drawn from the antecedent. This occurs primarily in the mazurkas. In the Mazurka in B minor, the motivic concentration – despite the fundamental change of register – ensures the period of integrity. At the same time, the motif, harmonically altered, is expanded in the consequent and receives a new closure, as a result of which its ending moves from the strong first beat to the weak last beat in the bar. This again disturbs the symmetry between the two component parts of the period. 20 However, even in works from the Warsaw period, when thematic ideas are repeated, there do occur minor modifications involving the thickening of ornamental devices, the shifting of bass notes and so on; see, e.g., Polonaise in B flat major, without opus number, bars 9–12 and 17–20.

102  Variations of microstructures

Example 47  M  azurka in B minor, Op. 33 No. 4, bars 13–20.

Variation technique also serves to extend sentences; through modified repeats of the last motif or phrase, the closure is moved, delayed, and by the same token the members of the period receive different dimensions. This kind of breaking-up of the symmetry appears in Chopin’s works relatively early, at the beginning of the thirties (e.g. Nocturne in B flat minor, Op. 9, bars 8–18, Nocturne in B major, Op. 9, bars 9–20); it is very frequent in the mazurkas, where the variational repetition of the whole of the consequent, its last phrase or its last motif results in the whole sentence doubling in size (see, e.g., Mazurkas in E minor, Op. 17 No. 2, in A flat major, Op. 24 No. 3, in B minor, Op. 33 No. 4, in B major, Op. 63 No. 1), as a result of which the length of the period members remains in the ratio 1:2. We are dealing here with a lack of symmetry within the period, and also with the disturbance of the succession of regular-sized sections in a work because such extensions are usually to be found in some periods only. In later works, the use of variation technique in the shaping of a period leads to much more extensive structural changes. In the Impromptu in F sharp major, the variation is based on an ostinato bass figure, which fuses the two members of the period together. The consequent reiterates only the very beginning of the first sentence, and it is subsequently built on variational modifications of a four-note fragment ‘cut out’ from an analogous place in the continuous melodic line of the antecedent, in which this fragment does not even form a motif; it is only formed into a motif in the consequent. So, we cannot speak here of motivic affinity, but merely of substantial unity.21 The two members of the period are also not identical harmonically. The place of the continuously repeated

21 The notion of substantial unity was introduced by Hans Mersmann (Angewandte Musikästhetik).

Variations of microstructures  103

Example 48  I mpromptu in F sharp major, Op. 36, bars 7–18.

exchange between the tonic of F sharp major and the dominant is taken in the consequent by the exchange of the mediant of A sharp minor and its dominant; however, this sequence of functions does not encompass the whole of the sentence since its beginning accords with the antecedent.22 This is – besides the melody – the element that determines the different inner structure to the variation compared to the model. The first, four-bar, sentence, suspended on the last note and extended to a six-bar unit through the repetition of the closure, is of a continuous character; it does not display any inner segmentation. The second sentence, meanwhile, clearly falls into sections: a two-bar phrase a, a selected motif b and its twofold repeat, linked by an elaborate ornament c. In contrast to the antecedent, in the closure of which the melodic motion is halted, here – in an analogous place – thanks to the ornament the melody gains its greatest mobility. This all renders the period irregular, even though it is built from two equal-sized sentences. In this instance, the variation technique no longer serves the subtle blurring of the distinctness of the symmetry, but rather highlights irregularity. However, because the entire period is set upon a strong structural foundation, formed by six-bar ostinato segments, this irregularity does not disturb the smoothness and integrity of the flow. So, variation technique holds different functions already on the level of microstructures. It is a means of diversifying the sound, of subtle or more

22 Krystyna Wilkowska (‘Impromptus Chopina’) maintains that the key of F sharp major is not entirely clear here, due to the hexachordal character of the melodic line. She emphasises the superimposition of a melodic line of a modal character onto a functional harmonic foundation (145–147). Despite this, the harmonic differentiation of that foundation is very clear in both sections.

104  Variations of microstructures distinct shading, of developing a melodic phrase, of a smooth transition between differently shaped sections; it serves to build tension, to render a passage more dynamic, and also to break up symmetry.

3.3  Variation technique and the construction of sections in one-movement works Variations of microstructures affect the shape of larger segments, especially in miniature works, in which simple periods and even smaller units constitute the basis on which the sections of a work are built. The function of variation technique in this area differs from genre to genre. In the waltzes, the segments of works are built according to the principle of the repetition of eight- or – more often – sixteen-bar periods.23 Here, it is the repetition itself that underpins the construction, regardless of the form it assumes, whereas larger segments are based on contrasts and returns of earlier musical ideas. Thus, repetition creates the conditions for the use of variation technique. Literal and varied repeats generally appear in successive sections in alternation.24 This is – besides melodic, rhythmic or harmonic contrasts – a means of differentiating sections that are either uniform, internally unaltered, or else display modifications. In the latter case, the modifications are sometimes of a subtle character and concern ­timbre (e.g. Waltzes, Op. 18, bars 119–135, Op. 34 No. 3, bars 81–112, Op. 42, bars 121–136, Op. 64 No. 1, bars 38–69, Op. 69 No. 2, bars 66–97), harmony (e.g. Waltzes, Op. 34 No. 2, bars 53–84, Op. 34 No. 3, bars 49–80, Op. 42, bars 9–24) or melody, which is developed in the variation, and its expression intensified (e.g. Op. 18, bars 169–184, Op. 34 No. 2, bars 17–36, Op. 69 No. 1, bars 1–32, Op. 64 No. 2, bars 65–96). Variational repeats of periods also contribute to the smooth passage between periods based on different types of motion. Rhythmic subdivisions in a variation gradually accelerate the motion, thereby preparing the way for 23 Sylvain Guignard stresses that a sixteen-bar period is typical in Chopin’s waltzes; this is one factor differentiating them from the waltzes of Schubert, which are dominated by eight-bar periods; sixteen-bar periods often combine to form thirty-two-bar sections in Chopin (Frédéric Chopins Walzer, 90–92). 24 See above, n. 19. In the Waltzes in E flat major, Op. 18, A flat major, Op. 34 No. 1 and A minor, Op. 34 No. 2, sections repeated with variation and literally appear in alternation. In the Waltz in F major, Op. 34 No. 3, the alternation of the two types of repetition is not so regular. However, variational repeats, if they do appear in successive sections, concern segments on different structural levels; for example, bars 49–80 are built according to the principle of the variational repetition of eight-bar units forming a sixteen-bar period, which, in turn, is repeated literally, whereas the section that immediately follows (bars 81–128) consists of four-bar phrases repeated variationally, which form a sixteen-bar unit repeated partly literally and partly sequentially. In later waltzes (Op. 42, Op. 64 Nos. 1 and 2), the number of variational repeats is reduced, and the Waltz, Op. 64 No. 3 contains only a few variations of phrases whilst the variational repetition of periods is replaced by progression.

Variations of microstructures  105 the entrance of the next section, with a rapid succession of notes (see, e.g., Waltz in E flat major, Op. 18, bars 5–20 and the subsequent section, Waltz in A flat major, Op. 34 No. 1, bars 17–32 and the subsequent section). The variations in the waltzes also serve to build towards a climax, not only of a given segment but also of a larger section of a work. In the Waltz in A flat major, Op. 34 No. 1, the variational repetition of the period (bars 50–81), thanks to the expansion of the sound area, the dotted rhythms and the rapid runs up two octaves (see Example 28), lend added dynamism to the model, building the climax of the whole of the work thus far. At the same time, the underlying shared model ensures continuity. So, variation technique guarantees the smooth flow of the waltzes, despite the different shaping of the segments of the work and the changes of expression.25 In the mazurkas, it fulfils a somewhat different role than in the waltzes. Modifications of repeated units do not serve to the same extent the smooth flow of the music and the weakening of the punctuation between different sections of a work.26 Even if the type of motion or texture of a subsequent segment is prepared in the previous one, this occurs rather between the model and its variation, and not between different segments.27 The ­variation technique in the mazurkas is first and foremost a means of bringing variety to multiple repeats and returns of musical ideas, and of stylising folk-style variant structures, and not of building a specific structure in a work or altering the character of themes (see Examples 14, 15, 17, 24, 32). Although it does play a crucial role in shaping introductions and variational areas, as already discussed, over lengthier sections it does not perform the chief role in shaping the form.28 However, successive segments of such sections are based on the literal or variational repetition of different units, from a one-bar motif to a simple eight-bar period. The variability of a repeated unit itself encourages a slight lability in the entire segment, despite the ­regular pulsation of the dance rhythm (see, e.g., Mazurkas in E minor, Op. 17 No. 2, A flat major, Op. 17 No. 3, bars 1–40, A minor, Op. 17 No. 4, B minor, Op. 30 No. 2, G sharp minor, Op. 33 No. 1, B minor, Op. 33 No. 4, A flat major, Op. 41 No. 3, A flat major, Op. 50 No. 2, bars 1–59, F sharp minor,

25 Besides variation technique, in each of Chopin’s waltzes, the integration of the work – ­b eyond the overall concept of the form, involving returns of the principal theme – is guaranteed by substantial connections between segments; that is, repeated intervallic phrases or rhythmic motifs, not only lying in the deeper layers of the structure, discernible only on close analysis, but also present on the surface of a work. However, this is a separate issue. 26 The punctuation in the mazurkas is blurred by different, non-variational, means, including disjuncture between melodic, rhythmic and harmonic caesurae; see Witkowska-­ Zaremba, ‘Wersyfikacja’; also Rothstein, ‘Phrase rhythm’. 27 For example, in the Mazurka in C major, Op. 33 No. 2, the middle section (bars 17–32) consists of an eight-bar period and its variations. Towards the end of the model, the melodic line is doubled at a sixth, as it is throughout the variation; however, such a form to the melodic line ends with the variation. 28 See Chapter 3.1, pp. 88–93.

106  Variations of microstructures Op. 59 No. 3, B major, Op. 63 No. 1, bars 1–68), whilst the form of the repeat, identical or modified, plays a lesser role in the whole or part of a work, due to the character of those modifications, which appear incidentally and generally concern details that do not essentially alter the model. The opening sections of mazurkas, often built from a simple period and its variational repetition, are simply variants of a shaping involving the literal repetition of the opening period, equally frequent in the mazurkas.29 Only in later mazurkas do variations entail greater changes and play a more significant role in the actual building of a section or even a whole work (e.g. Mazurka in B flat minor, Op. 24 No. 4, Mazurka in A flat major, Op. 59 No. 2). In such instances, the theme does not return further into the work in a literal form, and each of its successive variations is closer to its predecessor than to the model, so they gradually depart from the original. However, these are isolated cases in this genre. Usually introduced between successive variations is a contrasting segment, based on different musical material. The internal structure of larger segments, meanwhile, is affected by ­variational repeats of motifs and phrases, leading to the lengthening of sentences and periods. These usually appear at the point where the pulsation of even-sized units has become stabilised as the norm. The lengthening disrupts that norm, not only altering the length of a given unit, but at the same time disturbing the regular pulsation within the entire section (e.g. Mazurka in A flat major, Op. 50 No. 2, where such a procedure leads to the first section of the work (39 bars) breaking up into segments: 8 + 8 + 12 + 11 bars). In the mazurkas, the variation technique is subordinated primarily to the properties of the genre; its use and the means employed result from the needs of the genre. The mazurka – as we know – represents three types of mazur dances, kujawiak, oberek and mazur, which are sometimes combined in a single work. Variations of microstructures facilitate the smooth switch in the character of a dance. In the Mazurka in E minor, Op. 41 No. 1, the first period is a stylisation of a kujawiak (bars 1–16); in the second, the rotational character of the melody suggests change, but the oberek character of the dance only becomes distinct in its variation (bars 25–32), as a result of the intensification of the rotational motion and its considerable acceleration. Variations of microstructures play a much greater and more diversified part in forming sections of nocturnes and lyrical passages of more elaborate works, such as the impromptus. In this area, several types can be distinguished. The first is one in which a section of a work takes the form of variations: it comprises a theme, followed by successive variations of that theme. This type is represented solely by the middle section of the Nocturne in C minor,

29 The first segment of the following mazurkas is based on variational repeats of a period: Op. 17 Nos. 3 and 4, Op. 24 Nos. 1 and 4, Op. 30 No. 1, Op. 41 No. 2, Op. 59 No. 3, Op. 63 Nos. 1–3, Op. 67 Nos. 2–4.

Variations of microstructures  107 Op. 48. The theme, which forms a simple period, is immediately followed by two variations of that theme, the second of which is a variation only of the first half of the theme. This is a shaping which might essentially be regarded as a reference to tradition, were it not for the character of the variational changes (cf. Chapter 2.3 and Example 29). They transform the expression of the theme, ultimately leading to its opposite. The variation technique employed here, and even the variation form of the section, serves the realisation of the overall concept of the form of the entire work, involving the gradual build-up of tension.30 It is also – as in many other works – a means of concealing the succession of regular-sized segments since the considerable thickening of the motion blurs the sense of symmetry. The variation, despite being of the same dimensions as the theme, appears to be longer, more expansive. The second type is represented by the opening sections of the Impromptu in F sharp major, Op. 36 and of the Nocturne in E major, Op. 62. They also consist of a succession of variations (see Examples 41, 48), but the relations between them are different from those in the Nocturne in C minor. In the Impromptu in F sharp major, the first section consists of five six-bar units, the first of which presents an ostinato figure, whilst the others are ­subordinated to a periodic design.31 Consequently, the six-bar sentence, subjected to change within the period (cf. pp. 102–103 and Example 48), forms, ­together with its variation, a model for further variational actions. In this way, a hierarchic arrangement of variations arises, in which the fourth segment corresponds to the second and the fifth to the third. So, the variations do not form another sequence, but an arrangement of pairs, subordinated to another, overriding, ordering principle. In the Nocturne in E major (see Chapter 2, pp. 83–86 and Example 41), only the second segment (bars 9–16) is a simple variation of the first (bars 1–8) with an altered ending, resulting from the requirements of the periodic structure. The third and fourth eight-bar units are not variational repeats of the first period, as occurred in the Impromptu in F sharp major. In these units, one might discern a new consequent to the higher-order period, which would then be formed by the whole of the section of the work in question (bars 1–32), but the effect of the periodic structure here is greatly weakened, despite the cadential relations and proportional symmetry that are typical of such a structure. Overlying the periodic structure are the principles of development, thematic working

30 This is discussed in more depth in my article ‘The variation technique’, 89; the question of the expressive transformation that occurs in this Nocturne is also addressed by Józef Michał Chomiński, in ‘Mistrzostwo’. 31 The design of this work is analysed in detail by Krystyna Wilkowska, in ‘Impromptus Chopin’, 164–177; the nine-bar chordal segment found in the ending of this section represents its closure, at the same time leading to the contrasting middle section. This section was introduced into the work by the composer at a late stage in the creative process (see Samson, ‘Chopin’s F sharp Impromptu’, 304).

108  Variations of microstructures and sequential repetition, as a result of which the inner structure of each of these segments differs both from the opening eight-bar unit and also from the other segments, although generally, throughout this section of the work, one can observe the process of a gradual departure from the model. As a result, the first variation is joined with the model in a single period, whilst the second and third variations form an independent component of the ­variational ‘sequence’. The different shaping of successive variations in each of the works discussed here means that – despite the succession of equal-sized segments – the internal structure of entire sections displays a disturbance of the symmetry. However, whilst in the Impromptu the irregularity appears periodically, in the Nocturne, which is one of Chopin’s last works (1846), even that ‘regularity in irregularity’ disappears. Two formal ­models distinguished by Dahlhaus are at work here simultaneously, albeit to a ­different extent: the poetic and the prosodic.32 The former is characterised by symmetry and closure, analogous to poetry; the latter is marked by a lack of regularity, as in literary prose. The latter type is characteristic of the music of the second half, and even the end of, the nineteenth century. In Chopin, in accordance with the style of his epoch, it is the former model that clearly dominates, as is manifest in the regular pulsation of even-sized segments, forming the basis of the structure. However, we see here also some elements of the gradually forming second model, manifest in irregularities superimposed onto the symmetrical, poetical, construct. The third type, much more frequent, is represented by sections in which different musical material appears between variations of shorter or longer segments. There are a number of different detailed solutions within the scope of this type. In the Nocturne in B flat minor, Op. 9, the opening section (bars 1–18) consists of two periods. The antecedent of the first period, comprising a phrase and its variational repeat, appears in the form of a variation as the antecedent of the second. Its return is separated from the model by the consequent, which is different in each of the periods, although there are motivic connections between them. Additionally, a variational element occurs in the consequent of the second period, extended through the modified repetition of one motif. So, the variation technique here – as in the works discussed above – also serves to break up the symmetry, but it does so in a much simpler way. Here, the similarity is ensured by the shared material. The two periods are built the same up to a point, but the closure of the second is moved. Based on a similar principle is the first section of the Nocturne in B major from the same opus, which is nonetheless more elaborate. The opening segment (bars 1–20), close in its construction to the section of the Nocturne in B flat minor discussed here,

32 Dahlhaus, Romanticism and Modernism, 44 ff. Dahlhaus took the notion of musical prose from Schoenberg (‘Brahms the Progressive’, 415 ff.).

Variations of microstructures  109 contains variations solely on the level of sentences. A variational process on a higher structural level only occurs with its repeat (bars 21–40). Then, a new idea appears, also with its variation, from which it is separated by the material of the second part of the preceding period (from bars 13 to 20). As a result, the number of musically different segments subjected to modification increases. Also belonging to this type is the middle section of the Impromptu in G flat major, but that represents a much simpler version, exceptional at the time when this work was written (1842). The framework of the section is formed by a simple, variational, eight-bar parallel period and its variation, and the middle of it is filled out by another regular period, the consequent of which is a progression of the consequent of the opening period, whilst the antecedent constitutes the development of earlier melodic material. So, this section is the result of the use of sequence and variation technique in succession, although – unlike in the two nocturnes – this does not lead to the break-up of the symmetry. This type is also represented by the second segment of the middle section of the Impromptu in A flat major (bars 50–82), in which, in turn, the number of ‘tiers’ of variation increases. Thus, sections in the construction of which variation technique participates in a similar way receive an ultimate form that in each case differs in terms of detail.33 The fourth type is similar to the third. It also involves single or multiple variational returns of the opening period, which itself may, but need not, contain variations; the returns are separated from each other by another segment, also built from a model and variation, but they concern smaller units. In the Nocturne in A flat major, Op. 32, a symmetrical eight-bar parallel period is followed by another eight-bar period which receives a new ante­ cedent, composed of a two-bar phrase and its varied repetition (bars 10–13). In the first period, therefore, the repeated unit is a four-bar entity; in the second period, it consists of two bars, which are followed by a variation of the relevant component of the opening period. Subjecting segments of different size to variation, together with procedures connected with the changing of the material, means that the internal structure of successive particles of the work is continually changing. Those particles are usually motivically related to the first period, yet sometimes they are built on the principle of the variation of its motifs or phrases. One example here is the Nocturne in F major, Op. 15. 33 This contradicts an opinion that was widespread in older Chopin literature (see, e.g., Niecks, Frederick Chopin), according to which a single type of shaping, representing a simple ternary form, is generally replicated in Chopin’s works. In actual fact, that ternary form is not even as widespread as once thought in the miniature works, and the shaping of particular sections displays such considerable differentiation that no two works have an identical form to the sections.

Example 49  Nocturne in F major, Op. 15 No. 1, bars 1–24.

Variations of microstructures  111 The first section of this work consists of an eight-bar non-variational period, the antecedent of which, A, subjected to slight variation, opens a second period with a consequent extended to nine bars. This is a different consequent than in the first period, but it does not introduce new material. Its first segment, C, is formed by a variational sequence of the melodic line of the first phrase of the work, b, and a variational repeat of the opening motif, a, with a new closure; the second, C′, is a variation of the first, with an added ending. At the same time, the means of variation change here. Melodic changes are replaced by harmonic shading, which underscores the otherness of this period. The section ends with a literal repeat of a segment of the opening section of the work. The result is a diverse and multi-layered network of variational connections. We are dealing here with the ­variational modification of different components of the first sentences and with the ­variation of a segment which itself was created by means of such modifications. Subsequent segments are not variations of a single model, but of a model and fragments of that model. Periods of different size and their different internal structure break up the symmetry of the whole section, but its cohesion is ensured by the extreme concentration of the material. Built in a similar way are sections of a number of nocturnes or entire works (Op. 9 No. 2, Op. 15 Nos. 1 and 2, Op. 27 Nos. 1 and 2, Op. 32 Nos. 1 and 2, Op. 37 No. 1, Op. 48 No. 1, Op. 55 No. 1, middle section, Op. 62 No. 1), as well as some sections of a lyrical character in more elaborate works (e.g. sections of the third movement of the Sonata in B minor). They differ in the number of variational repeats, their placement, the way in which ­variational segments are juxtaposed with non-variational segments and – at the end – the means by which the variations are shaped. In its details, therefore, the construction of each nocturne is different, but the general p ­ rinciple, involving the succession of segments in which units on different levels and of different size are subjected to variational procedures, is retained, with few exceptions. This is a design that is typical of Chopin’s lyrical miniatures, one that produces his characteristic lability on the surface of a work that is at the same time set upon strong, unequivocal foundations. In nocturnes and in sections of larger works of such a character, the opening musical idea returns several times, usually in the form of variations. Those variations are built either through the growth of changes of a particular kind within the area of a single element, for example through the increasingly extensive ornamentation of the melody or some other rhythmic subdivisions of the melody (Impromptu in A flat major, middle section, Nocturnes, Op. 9, Op. 15 Nos. 1 and 2, and other works), or – in later works, where the variations are formed by a set of different means – through the addition of changes of a new type to those applied earlier (e.g. Nocturne in E flat major, Op. 55, Nocturne in B major, Op. 62), whilst there is never a switch to different variational means. A change of variational means in the same work is usually linked to a change in the model of the variations. This means that the variations form a kind of progressive sequence, the

112  Variations of microstructures successive components of which are closer to the preceding component than to the model. The modifications gradually heighten, intensify the expression, but – except for the middle section of the Nocturne in C minor – do not change it. In figurational works, variation technique is used to a lesser extent, but it is not entirely eliminated.34 The evolutionary character that characterises works of that type is not conducive to the repeats that constitute the essence of variation. If variations do appear, they generally cover short segments, each woven into a different context, and they are either repeats immediately following a model segment or else returns that open up a new phase in the work’s development. The former instance is analogous to the technique, typical of Chopin, of building sentences by linking a phrase with its variation (see, e.g., Etude in A minor, Op. 25 No. 11, bars 9–10, 17–18, 27–28, 35–36), a technique which the composer did not entirely forgo even in evolutionary works. In the latter instance, variation replaces a faithful reference to the beginning, characteristic of a structure based on distinct phases (see ­Example 22), which subsequently veers off in a different direction. Here again, we see the composer’s predilection for presenting musical material in a slightly different form every time. In Chopin, however, one notes the influence of periodic structure also in evolutionary structures.35 So even such works as the etudes are not entirely devoid of variational repeats of regular, eight-bar segments. Those repeats do not generally form the basis for building a work or a section of a work. They are simply doubling the first phase in the work, raising the principle behind the creation of a whole work from a model and its variation to a higher structural level (see, e.g., Etude in F major, Op. 25 No. 3, bars 1–16, Etude in A minor, Op. 25 No. 4, bars 1–16). Only in the Etude in A flat major, Op. 10 No. 10 does a sequence of fourbar variations of the model shape the first sixteen-bar section of the work (see Example 30), and in the Etude in E minor, Op. 25 No. 5, a model with variation and their modified return form the framework for the whole first section of the work. The use of variation technique is again connected, as in the works discussed earlier, with the needs of the genre, since successive

34 Antoni Prosnak (‘Niektóre zagadnienia’) sees a strong influence of variation technique in etudes built along evolutionary lines. However, he regards the retention of such elements as texture, metre-rhythm, agogics and dynamics as sufficient for a new segment to be considered a variation of the preceding one (220–222). Hence, this is a much broader understanding of the notion of variation and variation technique than the one adopted in the present work. 35 Maciej Gołąb links ‘the erosion of the opposition of periodic and evolutionary design in formal melodic categories and the interpenetration of the two ways of shaping material’ with ‘the emancipation of essential chromaticism after 1838’ (‘Chromatyka i tonalność’, 195); the same author goes on to assert that ‘after 1838, the division in Chopin’s melodic writing into periodic and evolutionary in the years 1825–1837, which forms a contrast between phrasal segmentation and free motivic development, ceases to constitute a sharp categorical opposition’ (ibid., 205).

Variations of microstructures  113 variations represent different ways of realising the specific pianistic problem to which a given etude is devoted. Yet, the variational repetition of segments also appears in other works of an evolutionary character. In the first section of the Impromptu in G flat major, an eight-bar segment (bars 3–10) is twice repeated with minor ­variational changes (bars 11–18 and 27–34). Due to the figurational character of the melody, those repeats involve not rhythmic subdivision, but doubling, filling-in and sharpening the sound with dissonances. The design of this section of the work is based on the repeating, returning and contrasting of even-sized segments – a phenomenon that is wholly atypical in figurational works; with regard to structure, the variations are of secondary importance, but they determine the nuanced fluctuation of the sound, and more specifically its gradual intensification. A similar function is discharged by the modifications introduced into the repeat of a sixteen-bar segment of the first theme of the Sonata in B flat minor (bars 9–40). The considerations made thus far enable us to draw certain conclusions regarding the place and role of variations of microstructures in larger sections of works by Chopin. 1 Works of a periodic structure are highly suffused with variations. Within one and the same section, segments of different sizes are subjected to variation, from one-bar or even shorter motifs (e.g. Nocturne in B major, Op. 62, bars 11–12) to entire periods, and also – as is usually the case – segments with different musical content. 2 Variation-type changes also occur in works of an evolutionary structure, although much more seldom; their task is often to differentiate or intensify the sound – a function they also discharge in other types of works. 3 Variational changes are subordinated to the needs of the genre, and they serve to enhance its features (e.g. smoothness in the waltzes, the combining of types of mazur dances in the mazurkas, the underscoring of folk-style variant structure and dynamisation in the polonaises, highlighting a technique problem in the etudes). 4 Variations constitute a means of breaking up or loosening the internal symmetry of larger sections of a work, at the same time forming the basis for their continuity and integrity. 5 In exceptional cases, variations undergird the construction of an entire section of a work. They are usually combined with other ways of transforming material.

4 Variations of macrostructures

Macrostructures are understood here as larger sections, the modifications of which have a direct effect on the shape of a work as a whole. They are primarily thematic areas in large-scale works and the main sections of one-movement works. Also covered in this chapter are all variation forms, including the Berceuse, the theme of which, although merely a short, fourbar period, constitutes the sole basis for the whole of the work.

4.1  Transformations of themes Besides the miniature compositions, the themes of many other Chopin works are also built and modified by means of variational repeats. In the cyclic works of the Warsaw period, the themes are essentially of uniform expression, apart from the first themes of the allegro in the Trio in G minor, Op. 8 and above all the concertos. In the case of the latter, the themes consist of two parts, a fanfare first part and a lyrical second component. This juxtaposition, typical of the brillant concerto, derived not so much from a need for contrast as from a specific function: the desire to present the soloist’s virtuosic capabilities at the very start of his part. The soloist’s entrance was to dazzle the listener at once.1 In both concertos, however, both the subsequent component of that theme and also the second theme are lyrical, of uniform expression, independent of the variational repeats, of a similar design and function as in other style brillant concertos. In other words, in the early works, thematic areas were expanded by such means as the variational repetition of segments, but that did not alter their expression. In the Sonata in C minor, the composer repeats the opening segment of the theme only with minor modifications (in bars 31–43), slightly increasing the volume of the sound. A somewhat greater role is played by variational changes in the last movement of that work. Here, the two themes comprise a segment and its variational repeat, yet that repeat is not complete, but veers off in a different direction to the

1 See Milligan, The Concerto, 77–83.

Variations of macrostructures  115 model. The modifications involve the intensification of the motion, leading directly to the figurational segments that follow the themes. So, they are a way of passing smoothly between different components of a work, but they do not essentially alter the expressive character of the model. In the concertos, the themes are built by means of variational repeats of phrases and periods, mainly through the ornamentation of the melody, the expression of which is thereby intensified, but remains within the bounds of the same category. Also as the works progress, both in the development sections and in the reprise, the themes remain – in accordance with the Classical ­tradition – bearers of the same expression. In the Polonaises in F sharp minor, Op. 44 and in A flat major, Op. 53 as well, the thematic areas consist of variationally repeated segments, of eight and sixteen bars, respectively. In both cases, although the repeats do not fundamentally alter the expression of the theme, they decidedly enhance its dynamism, through suitable changes of texture; it is as if they reveal and underscore the original character.

Example 50  Polonaise in F sharp minor, Op. 44 (a) bars 9–11, (b) bars 17–19, (c) bars 35–37, (d) bars 61–63.

116  Variations of macrostructures

Example 50  (Continued).

In the Polonaise in F sharp minor, the whole area of the theme appears three times in the first section of the work (bars 9–26, 35–52 and 61–78). Thus, a sequence of variations is formed, with each successive variation more strongly dynamised. In the reprise, however, this process is discontinued; the first variation (the version from bars 35–52) returns in an unaltered form. In the Polonaise in A flat major, the process of dynamisation is confined to the theme and its immediate reiteration, yet it begins from the very start of the theme (see Example 44 and p. 94) and is very stormy. In both cases, the heroic expression, full of pathos, does not appear from the start, but emerges and grows, taking shape gradually through the variational transformation of the theme and reaching its zenith in the first section of the work. In the later sonatas, in B flat minor, B minor and G minor, the second themes of the Allegro are shaped through variation. Although the area of the first theme of the B flat minor Sonata is expanded by the repetition of a sixteen-bar segment with slight changes, the essence of the theme is not variation, but evolution. As Zofia Helman writes, ‘Chopin establishes […] in the sonata allegro a kind of balance between the expansive, progressive first theme and the lyrical, cantilena second theme, periodically designed and variationally shaped’.2 It should be added, however, that despite the unquestionable differences in character between the two themes, variationally shaped cantilena themes are not always characterised by a constant, unchanging expression. Such a situation occurs in the Sonatas in B minor and G minor, whilst the second theme of the Sonata in B flat minor is expressively transformed from elegiac and singing into increasingly dynamic and expansive. This is achieved through variation technique. The repeat of the theme is not only more mobile from the outset, but that motion continues to increase; the soundspace also grows. The variation, of greater proportions compared to the model, gradually leads to an expansive epilogue, which is like the crowning of this whole process of growth. In the reprise, however, the modifications of the theme are discontinued, and instead the material of the exposition is simply repeated in a different tonal context. Of course, the effect of the theme here is different from the beginning of the work; this results above all from its different placement in the form as a 2 Helman, ‘Norma’, 58.

Variations of macrostructures  117 whole and is also related to the different pitch on which the theme appears in relation to the change of key. Generally speaking, however, the theme in the reprise is not expressively transformed compared to the reprise. In the sonatas, only in the finale of the third, in B minor, does each of the three statements of the first theme represent a further stage in its dynamisation (see Example 51). However, this is not a sonata allegro in the strict sense, but a rondo.3 Chomiński notes that the process of continuous dynamic gradation constitutes the axis of development of this movement of the Sonata.4 The gradation is achieved by means of variation. The theme consists of two segments, the second of which is a variation of the first, differing dynamically from the model thanks to the expansion of the soundspace and the replacement of the single melodic line with doublings, which increases not only the volume of the sound but also the tension that results from newly appearing dissonances. This pattern is repeated in successive returns of the theme, each of which is marked by a further enhancement of the motion.

Example 51  Sonata in B minor, Op. 58, movt IV (a) bars 9–12 and 28–31, (b) bars 100–103 and 119–122, (c) bars 207–210 and 226–229.

3 This rondo possesses certain features of the sonata rondo, principally in the thematic dualism; however, both themes adhere to the parallel key, which is characteristic rather of segments separating successive statements of a principal theme (cf. Helman, ‘Norma’, 64). 4 Chomiński, ‘Die Evolution’, 49.

118  Variations of macrostructures

Example 51  (Continued).

Chomiński defines the form of this movement of the Sonata as ‘a cross between rondo and variation form’, and elsewhere as ‘the form of a rondo merged with variation technique’, which seems more apt.5 Although the modifications do not alter the character of the theme, but develop and activate the forces latent within it from the start, the theme does not return to the original form, and the modifications that occur in it are of a cumulative character, achieved through variation technique, as in a number of late one-movement works. Such changes sometimes lead to a fundamental transformation of the original character of themes. This occurs above all in late works, such as the ballades, Barcarolle in F sharp major and Polonaise-Fantasy. The presence and significance of variation technique in the ballades, the Barcarolle and the Polonaise-Fantasy are widely known. They have been described by many scholars,6 and some have even ascribed the variations there a role in the creation of the form.7 The object of our interest at this point is

5 Chomiński, Sonaty, 241, 250. 6 For example, Wilkowska, ‘Środki’; Lissa, ‘Zagadnienie’; Chomiński, Chopin; Rink, ‘The Barcarolle’; Bogdańska, ‘Technika’; Samson, ‘Extended forms’. 7 For example, Lissa, ‘Zagadnienie’, 173.

Variations of macrostructures  119 not so much the fact that variations occur as their particular form and the role they fulfil in these works. In the Ballade in G minor, the second theme appears three times. I­ nitially lyrical (bar 68 ff.), it turns into a mighty theme, full of dynamism (bar 106 ff.). The melodic line is presented in chordal guise, is shifted to a higher register and is then ornamented through a rapid octave motion, which serves a purely dynamic function. The dynamisation is enhanced as the theme progresses by increased melodic leaps and dotted rhythms. This all fundamentally alters the expressive character of the theme in the variation, and that character is also gradually intensified, whereas in the model it remains constant. In the reprise, the process of transformation continues (bar 166 ff.). It is primarily the form of the accompaniment that changes, unifying the whole of the theme with its homogeneous motion. The melody, the internal syntax of the model and the harmony are not altered in the variations, apart from the changes of key and the insertions of passing harmonic functions. Minor deviations in this respect are not of crucial significance. The principal factor in the transformation of the theme is texture (see Example 27). It is changes in texture that underpin the variations in all the works of the group under discussion. The first theme of the Ballade is also subjected to expressive transformation, but through a change of harmony rather than texture, and through the insistent repetition of a pedal point, which lends it – as Zieliński puts it – ‘a gloomy and tension-filled character’.8 In the Ballade in F major/A minor, only the first theme is expressively transformed. At first of a uniformly elegiac character, it becomes increasingly dynamic and stormy, approaching the expression of the second theme (bars 83–140), again mostly thanks to changes in texture. Here, however, both variation and development technique contribute to the transformations. Besides variationally repeated segments, there appear phrases forming new entities, for which the motifs of the theme represent solely the raw material, whilst the harmony is also altered. In the Ballade in A flat major, meanwhile, not only are both themes variationally transformed, but also the area of each of them is also built according to that principle. The first theme consists of three segments, the third of which is a variation of the first, realising – to use Narmour’s ­terminology – an implication contained at the beginning, and the second is built from the variational repetition of phrases and a lengthier segment of a development character.9 Further into the work, however, only a variation of the first segment of the theme appears (bar 213 ff.), which this time assumes a chordal form and is strongly dynamised. The Ballade’s second theme area consists of two segments, variationally repeated, and further into the work it is again subjected to variation, leading, as in the case of the first theme, to violent

8 Zieliński, ‘Nowatorstwo’, 76. 9 Narmour, Beyond Schenkerism.

120  Variations of macrostructures dynamisation, which grows over successive stages corresponding to the second segment of the model, also containing elements of the first (see p. 67).10 So, a kind of synthesis of the two parts of the second theme is achieved in the variations. The shared model that underpins the  whole of this network of variations forms the foundation that integrates the work. The two themes, which were calm and elegiac at the beginning of the work, are later transformed in the same direction; so towards the end of the work they are still expressively concordant, but that expression is the opposite to what it was at the start.11 Similarly, in the Polonaise-Fantasy and the Barcarolle, the initially lyrical themes return towards the end of the work in the form of the rapid motion of expansive chords, thereby creating the work’s tension and dramatic climax, or – as Edward Cone puts it – its apotheosis.12 The general conception of these two works is similar to the conception of the ballades. It involves the transformation of themes, which gradually builds up the tension, leading to a climax at the end of the work.13 James Parakilas sees here an analogy with the thematic transformation characteristic of works by Berlioz and Liszt, where the change to the character of the theme is also achieved through a change in ‘forces’, that is, a different textural setting.14 Apart from that shared characteristic, however, Chopin’s thematic transformation differs in a crucial way from that employed by Berlioz and Liszt. Whilst in Liszt, the transformed theme acts as an independent, as if new, theme, and the actual process of transformation can be rather sudden, in Chopin the process of transformation grows, and it generally applies to all the themes, with their identity and distinctiveness preserved to the end, despite the similar expression. Also different is the purpose of transformations of this type in Chopin: they serve to connect, or to synthesise, as it were, the themes. The Ballade in F minor is strongly suffused with variations. Although its second theme does not appear until near the end of the work, in the form of 10 See Chapter 2, pp. 82–83. 11 The two themes of this Ballade are linked not only by their expressive character but also by their motivic writing. Neil D. Witten (The Chopin Ballades, 187) even sees a transposed inversion of the first theme in the second. 12 The first theme and the middle section theme of the Polonaise-Fantasy and the first and third themes (bar 62 ff.) of the Barcarolle. Edward T. Cone gives the last variation of the principal theme of the Polonaise-Fantasy as an example of apotheosis, which marks the ending that brings the work to a dramatic climax (see Cone, Musical Form, 84); John Rink (‘The Barcarolle’) uses the same term for the last segment of the Barcarolle. 13 Lev Mazel (‘O pewnych cechach’, 251) points to a strong link between the Polonaise-­ Fantasy on the one hand and the ballades and ‘balladic artistic conception’ on the other hand, particularly emphasising the ‘balladic character of the introduction’ (252); Anthony Newcomb (‘The Polonaise-fantasy’, 89–90) similarly sees very strong links between the Polonaise-Fantasy and the ballades, also pointing to the former work’s beginning and ending as being closest to the ballades. The analogy with the ballades seems no less distinct in the way in which the themes are transformed. 14 Parakilas, Ballades without Words, 68–71.

Variations of macrostructures  121 two consecutive variations (bars 169 and 177), and only there is dynamised in such a way that it leads directly to the character of the tempestuous coda, the first theme appears four times, subjected to strict variation (bars 23–36, 58–71, 135–151, 152–164).15 The first variation differs from the model solely in a few ornaments and the shifting of the whole in relation to the bar line. The second arises through the introduction of a countermelody. The next is formed by imitation and rich nocturne-like ornamentation. Besides this, the presence of the first theme is distinct in two other segments (bars 37–57, 99–128), although these are not strictly variations. The first is closed in a similar way to the model; earlier, however, it is not so much variation technique as thematic working that is the means of transformation. The motifs of the theme constitute the raw material for the construction of new phrases; they are contrapuntally processed, and the very beginning – besides discernible motivic analogies woven into an entirely different context – does not display any connection with the model. None of the elements is preserved in its entirety, as in the second of the segments mentioned here.16 The latter is of an even more developmental character, as is indicated above all by the elaborate harmony; it is also lacking a closing phase convergent with the model. The figurational character, meanwhile, lends it – despite the developmental features – certain generic traits of the etude. So, the theme of the Ballade is modified not only in the form of variation but also as a ­m ini-development. These two techniques are mutually supportive and appear in alternation. Both, however, are subordinated to the transformation of the character of the theme. The techniques of variation mentioned earlier are the principal ones used by the composer, bearing in mind that variations are built through changes to different elements of a work. It is important, however, that successive variations do not arise through the consistent addition of new techniques to those previously introduced, as occurred, for example, in the late nocturnes, but are forged in a different way every time. According to Janet Levy, texture can function as a sign (strictly speaking, a signifier) of a particular syntax.17 The specific textural pattern employed in a closure, for instance, can replace an analogous closure further into a work,

15 Anna Bogdańska describes this Ballade as ‘a freely shaped bithematic set of variations’ (‘Technika’, 66). Bronisława Wójcik-Keuprulian was so fascinated by the quantity of ­variations of the first theme of the Ballade that it blinded her to the presence of variation technique in the other ballades: ‘the use of variation technique for repeats of the theme lends this ballade a distinctive stamp in relation to the other ballades and to the scherzos, where these two kinds of technique [polymelody and variation technique] were little used’ (Melodyka, 205). 16 Zofia Lissa (‘Zagadnienie’, 172) distinguishes in this Ballade as many as eleven variations of the first theme, including among them all segments of a development and bridge type in which there is some reference to its motivic writing. Those segments do not retain – apart from motifs, which in any case are sometimes concealed – any elements of the model in their entirety, which is why they have not been included here as variations. 17 Janet M. Levy, ‘Texture as a sign’, 487.

122  Variations of macrostructures even in cases where other elements, differently shaped, do not form a similar cadential caesura. So, texture is a sign of the syntactic function of a given musical structure. The role of texture as sign can be extended to genres as well. Many of them, despite detailed differences, have a number of shared features specific to a given genre. Thus, a textural pattern characteristic of a particular genre can in a sense represent that genre. The variational changes in the Ballade in F minor involve precisely changes to texture, which in successive variations displays features specific to completely different ­genres, for which it acts like a sign. So, the theme of the Ballade in F minor is not – as in earlier works of this type – gradually dynamised, but undergoes generic transformation, creating allusions to strict Baroque polyphonic genres, the Romantic nocturne and also the etude.18 Despite the references to such heterogeneous exemplars, it is variation technique that integrates the work, thanks to which a single, common model underlies the diversity. So, variations and the transformation of themes that is linked to them fulfil a very important function. They are factors in the integration and synthesis of both themes in the work, which, irrespective of whether they originally contrast with one another or not, towards the end of the work are expressively combined, merged. Variation technique also guarantees the fluidity of the work, despite the changes in expression and the different generic references. So, it is not only a means of integrating the themes, but it also forms the basis for the continuous flow of the work.19

4.2  Reprise as variation A reprise as a modified form of an exposition was already assigned to the category of variation in nineteenth-century literature (see Chapter 1, p. 10). That attests to the popularity of repeating an exposition with changes. In Chopin, reprises also assume the form of variations of expositions. In all the works adhering to sonata form, including the early works, the reprises are shortened in relation to the exposition, and that very fact already allows us to term them variational reprises since they display departures from the model (exposition).20 These cuts chiefly involve curtailing bridge passages and eliminating repeats and, in the Sonatas in B flat minor, B minor and G minor, also the first theme. Yet, the differences in 18 The significance and the use of polyphony in the Ballade in F minor are discussed by Vladimir Protopopov (‘Polifonia’). In the literature, attention is also drawn to the presence in the ballades of elements of other genres, above all the waltz (see, e.g., Koszewski, ‘Pierwiastek’; Rawsthorne, ‘Ballades’, 59). 19 Of course, the variation technique here is only one of the integrating factors. In this respect, it acts together with the harmonic-tonal plan and the motivic writing, which links the themes of each of the works discussed here. 20 The works in question are the Trio in G minor, the concertos and the sonatas. I pass over here such works as the ballades, for example, in which scholars discern sonata form, but in which that form is not confirmed by the generic name.

Variations of macrostructures  123 relation to the exposition involve more than just curtailment. In the reprises of the concertos, the themes, already developed in the expositions through the ornamentation of their melodic line, are embellished even more intensively. Even the four-bar segment that represents the first theme in the reprise of the Concerto in F minor is richly ornamented. Such a way of differentiating themes, characteristic of the style brillant, is not practised in the reprises of the sonatas. In the latter works, besides a change of key and consequent changes of pitch, the themes do not differ from their original form in any fundamental way. Despite this, and not only with regard to the tonal changes, the distribution of tensions is different here from that in the exposition. This is determined first and foremost by transformations in the bridge passages, and sometimes in the epilogue. Although such bridge passage transformations are relatively few in number, the structural importance of the places where they occur means that they exert a clear influence over the character of the reprise. For example, in the reprise of the Sonata in B flat minor, the change of cadential section to a sequence of dominant references (see bars 73–81 and 202–210), combined with stretto and a different type of motion, results in an increase in tension. Placed at a point that leads directly to the epilogue, it acquires particular weight. Also working in the same direction are the thickenings of dissonances and doublings introduced in the epilogue, and the whole process of building up the tension is crowned by a modified repeat of the motifs of the first theme at the end of the work. In this way, the climax of the whole Allegro is placed at its ending, which according to Charles Rosen was a frequent practice among composers born around 1810.21 However, at the time when Chopin’s sonatas were written, that norm was only just taking shape. Therefore, the changes introduced in the reprise are not just a differentiation of the return in Chopin; they also serve the realisation of a specific concept of the form. In other reprise forms, the relations between the reprise and the model are even more diverse. In the early works from the Warsaw period, above all the mazurkas and polonaises, reprises were literal reiterations of the first section of the work, marked ‘da capo al fine’. By the turn of the thirties, however, there was a marked change in approach to the shape of reprises, involving the avoidance of literal repeats.22 From that time onwards, literal repeats of the first segment of a work appear only exceptionally, largely in works which the composer did not intend for publication, which may explain why he did not entirely polish their form.23 In the mazurkas, one notes a tendency for 21 Rosen, Sonata Forms, 320; the same feature is emphasised as being characteristic of ­n ineteenth-century compositions by James Webster (‘Sonata Form’, 504). 22 This was pointed out by John Rink (‘Tonal Architecture’, 89 ff.). 23 Such repeats occur in the Mazurkas in B flat major, without opus number (dedicated to Aleksandryna Wołowska, 1832), in B flat major, Op. 17 No. 1 (1833), in A flat major, Op. 17 No. 3 (1833), in A flat major, without opus number (in Maria Szymanowska’s album, 1834), in

124  Variations of macrostructures r­ eprises to be shortened, sometimes reduced to just the opening period. At the same time, the return of that period is modified either in its entirety or else through the variation of phrases or motifs, which serves to underscore the closure (e.g. Mazurkas in F minor, Op. 7 No. 3, in E minor, Op. 17 No. 2, in G minor and in C major, Op. 24 Nos. 1 and 2, in C major, Op. 33 No. 2, in E minor, Op. 41 No. 1, in G major, Op. 50 No. 1). The changes vary from the incidental to a distinct modification of the whole model, and they sometimes even impinge on its tonality (e.g. Mazurka in A minor, Op. 59 No. 124). Sometimes, the reprise refers not to the original form of the opening idea of a work, but to its final variation in the first section (e.g. Mazurka in A minor, Op. 17 No. 4, Mazurka in B flat minor, Op. 24 No. 4). In such cases, the last section of the work carries on the process of variational changes from the first section – an almost continuous process interrupted only by the middle section. This is a procedure characteristic primarily of the nocturnes, but it also appears in other genres. The process of shortening the reprise is accompanied by the expansion of the closing parts, which are usually based on earlier material, often also variationally modified (e.g. Mazurka in C minor, Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor, Op. 56 No. 3).25 This way of closing a work is not the sole province of the mazurkas; it also appears in other dances, in other miniature pieces and in larger works, sometimes forming expansive codas. This helps to integrate a work, synthesising its material. Variation technique is used most intensively in the reprises of nocturnes.26 Only five works in this genre are not of a reprise form; of those, two works (Op. 9 No. 2, Op. 27 No. 2) are based on several returns of the opening idea divided by a complementary period, so in terms of structure they constitute a kind of analogy to a sequence of variations, and the two-section Nocturne in E minor repeats the first section in an ornamental form. So, only three nocturnes do not contain a return to the opening material in the closing phase.27 Three nocturnes possess full reprises: in F major, Op. 15 No. 1, in A flat major, Op. 32 No. 2 and in C minor, Op. 48 No. 1. In each

24

25 26

27

G major, Op. 67 No. 1 (1835), in G minor, Op. 67 No. 2 (1848 or 1849), in C major, Op. 67 No. 3 (1835) and in A minor, Op. 67 No. 4 (1846), and in the Polonaise in A major, Op. 40 No. 1 (1838). In the reprise of this work, the opening idea appears first in the key of G sharp minor and is subsequently shifted to A minor, which is not ultimately stabilised until bar 103. Chopin also employed tonal shifting as a means of variation in the Fantasy in F minor – see Chapter 2, p. 58. This was pointed out by Gerald Abraham (Chopin’s Musical Style, 46 ff.); see also Kallberg, ‘The problem’, 21. Included here are only those works to which the composer gave the generic name ‘nocturne’, so all the works with opus number, as well as the Nocturnes in E minor and in C minor. The nocturnes with a non-reprise design are those in E minor, without opus number, in E flat major, Op. 9 No. 2, in G minor, Op. 15 No. 3, in D flat major, Op. 27 No. 2 and in B major, Op. 32 No. 1. I ignore here the Nocturne in C minor, without opus number, the authenticity of which – as Jean-Jacques Eigeldinger has shown (Chopin i Baronowa, 12–13) – is highly dubious.

Variations of macrostructures  125 of these works, we find variational changes compared to the first section. In the other nocturnes, the reprises are shortened, often reduced to a variation of the opening musical idea, which is followed by a more or less elaborate ending (e.g. Nocturnes in B flat minor and B major, Op. 9, in E flat major, Op. 55 No. 2, in B major and E major, Op. 62).28 In such cases – as in the mazurkas – the variations in the reprise represent a continuation and at the same time a sort of crowning of the modifications made in the first section. Here, particularly in the late works, one notes the accumulation of different techniques of variation (see Examples 37, 41). A particular type of such continuation occurs in the Impromptu in F sharp major. The reprise of this work does not so much ‘add’ a component to the variation of the first section,29 as itself constitutes a variation, the model for which is the variationally constructed exposition.30 The first twelve-bar unit corresponds to the first period of the opening section; the second unit to the second period.31 The next segment (bar 82 ff.) is another variation, which leads to the conclusion of the work, strengthened by the return of the chordal segment that rounded off the first section. The variational changes in this section of the work involve the acceleration of the motion. First, the motion of the accompaniment is intensified, then the melody acquires the form of a rhythmically uniform ornamental line (quaver triplets), before the ­variation in demisemiquaver motion finally appears. This goes hand in hand with

28 Andrzej Tuchowski states that the shortening of reprises intensifies after the Nocturne, Op. 32 No. 2 (‘Integracja’, 87). In actual fact, reprises no less shortened occur also in early nocturnes: in B flat minor and in B major, Op. 9. In the Nocturne in B major, Op. 9, the reprise covers a twenty-bar segment of the first section, but that represents less than a quarter of its length (movt I = 87 bars). In the reprises of the last nocturnes, the proportions are similar, even somewhat tilted in favour of them; for example, in the Nocturne in B major, Op. 62, movt I, 36 bars, the reprise of the principal musical idea, 10 bars; in the Nocturne in E major, Op. 62, 39 and 10 bars, respectively, so in both cases more than a quarter of the section. The crucial difference lies not in the proportions between the returns of the principal theme and the first section, but in the place and proportions between this return and the whole of the last section. Nota bene the expansive endings in the Nocturnes, Op. 62 develop material which appears in short form in the first section. There, it represented merely a small segment leading to the ending of the section; in the reprise, meanwhile, it is expanded, becoming larger than the theme. 29 See Chapter 3, p. 107. 30 Krystyna Wilkowska (‘Impromptus Chopina’, 159) shows the convergence between the notes of the melodic line of the variation in the reprise and in the first part of the work. At the same time, she refutes the presence of a reprise design in this work, due to the ­variational character of the last section and the lack within it, at the beginning, of the principal key (see n. 31). Neither of these arguments is particularly convincing. A return to the principal key deferred to the body of the reprise occurs in Chopin several times; although in no other work is the reprise forged from a sequence of variations, there are works in which the relationship between the exposition and the reprise is a strict model-variation relationship (e.g. Nocturne in C minor), such as exists in this work as well. 31 The reprise begins in the key of F major, so a semitone lower than the principal key. The return to F sharp major only comes in the next variation; for more on this subject, see Wilkowska, ‘Impromptus Chopina’, 154–155; also Samson, ‘Chopin’s F sharp Impromptu’, 302–303.

126  Variations of macrostructures growing harmonic, melodic and syntactical changes. The last variation gradually loses its connection with the model, passing into a continuous, uncut stream of sound, which to some extent represents an analogy to the expansive coda of variation form. The internal structure of the variation, differentiated in the exposition, is unified here; this constitutes another element of otherness in sections that are in some way analogous. The modifications to the model that are employed here, different to those in the first section of the work, are subordinated to the function of the reprise; that is because the acceleration of the momentum signals the approaching closure of the work. Variation technique is used in a different way in the reprise of the Nocturne in E flat major, Op. 55. In reality, this work is decidedly a one-­ movement composition, and the internal segmentation within it is even blurred. Despite this, the opening material returns, forming a semblance of a reprise. This would perhaps be better termed a recapitulation, as it is called in ­Anglo-American musicology, since that name most aptly conveys the function of this segment. It consists of a variational return of the ­variation of the theme, hereafter designated a′, and a subsequent segment, which we will call b′. Yet, the process of variational changes does not end there. The b′ segment, already modified once in the recapitulation, is again subjected to variation, b″, this time leading to the expansive closing part.

Example 52  Nocturne in E flat major, Op. 55 No. 2 (a) bars 9–18, (b) bars 34–52, (c) bar 32 (part of the right hand).

Example 52  (Continued).

128  Variations of macrostructures

Example 52  (Continued).

So, the material of the exposition not only returns in the recapitulation in a modified form but is subsequently transformed by means of variation. In contrast to the Impromptu in F sharp major, however, this does not concern the entire return, but only a part of it – not the opening idea, but its continuation. The repeat expands the recapitulation, the dimensions of which, including the coda segment, are almost identical to those of the first ‘part’ (see graph on p. 129; pt. I, 34 bars; pt. II, 33 bars). This work, employing phrases of different length, devoid of distinct syntactic caesurae, constituting an almost unbroken flow of notes, is actually based on an exceptional symmetry. It falls into two equal sections (I and II), which – although there is no distinct caesura between them – can be distinguished because their opening is marked by the work’s theme. The second section does not repeat the first section in its entirety because the symmetry would then be too trivial; it actually forms – in the literal sense of the word – its recapitulation or summary. The introduction of a variation alters the internal structure of the recapitulation compared to the first section, at the same time evening out their dimensions. So, this gives both the symmetrical basis of the whole and also its differentiation. What is more, the distinguishing elements, present in the unrepeated Section I, are introduced as a means of variation into (b″), thanks to which the whole of the work’s first section is synthesised. So, the turn that is characteristic of this whole section appears in the variations (see Examples 52b, c), as does the chain of trills that, as in Section I, precedes the closure, albeit not the closure of the whole work, but of the recapitulation before the coda (A′). Those trills, as a sign, discharge the syntactic function that was assigned to them in Section I.32 The importance of such signs grows as the syntax is less clearly marked by the set of harmonic-melodic-rhythmic techniques, as occurs in this work. And here again that caesura underscored by the composer marks out the symmetry, although it is now not so distinct. Up to the entrance of the coda part (A′), the recapitulation numbers 23 bars, whereas the segment of Section I, from the place that in the last section was subjected to variation and ‘recapitulation’ (A), numbers 26 bars. The proportions underlying this work are represented on the graph below. So, the functions of the variational repeats here are not only diverse but also extremely important to the structure of the work as a whole. 32 Levy, ‘Texture as a sign’; see also above, p. 121.

Variations of macrostructures  129

A different function again is exercised by variation technique in the reprise of the Nocturne in C minor, Op. 48. The sections preceding the reprise are contrasted both in expression and also in terms of the means employed there and the internal structure. The opening lyrical section is followed by a section whose expressive character gradually becomes highly dramatic and intense. The reprise is a real variation of the first section. It preserves intact all its syntactic elements, melody, harmony and also phrase-sentence structure, whilst the texture is altered. The regular crotchet accompaniment is replaced by chords in rapid motion, expanded by means of further superimposed thirds. This dynamises the whole flow, transforming the original expression into something entirely different, something close to the expressive character of the middle section. In this way, the variation becomes a means of synthesising the two earlier sections, combining the musical substance of the first with the expression of the second. It is worth noting that the Nocturne in C minor was written in the same year (1841) as the Ballade in A flat major, and a year before the Ballade in F minor. In all these works, the codas or finales synthesise earlier material of the work, and everywhere this is done by means of variation technique. In more expansive works, this synthesis involves combining themes subjected to total transformation; in the Nocturne in C minor, combining the harmonic-melodic substance of the first section with the texture and expression of the second. Yet, the idea of synthesis is the same in all these cases. A process of dynamisation occurs also in the reprises of other works, mainly more elaborate compositions, such as the Scherzo in E major, where an abrupt thickening of the motion transforms what was initially a calm theme into a stormy and tension-filled one. In this instance, however, the reprise is not a synthesis of the whole work. The variational change serves to highlight the contrast between the reprise and the lyrical middle section, thereby emphasising the ternary design of the work as a whole. At the same time, it is a means of building the climax towards the end of the work, as in other works of the forties.

130  Variations of macrostructures In the reprises of nearly all Chopin’s mature works (that is, from the thirties onwards), the material of the exposition is subjected to variational changes. They serve to bring variety to the repeats, to synthesise the musical substance and to build the closure; they are subordinated to the overall conception of the form, forming a source of differentiation and at the same time connection of the outer sections, and also a means of balance between sections that are at once both similar and different to each other. Moreover, the scope and functions of the variational changes in reprises increase in later works.

4.3 The dominance of variation technique in the shaping of a work The use of variation technique in the building of many themes, and also in their transformation, in the modification of the segments that make up the sections of a work, and the relations of variation between sections ­(exposition – reprise) attest to the considerable contribution of this technique to constructing works as a whole. It is employed on a greater or lesser scale in almost every section of Chopin’s work. Sections in which the theme is subjected to variational change are often juxtaposed with sections based on a different principle of shaping, such as sequential technique.33 However, in such cases as well, the variational changes are not entirely eliminated. In the Nocturne in B major, Op. 32, for example, the outer sections contain variations that differ in terms of the hierarchy of units, as a result of which a complex network of variational references is formed.34 The middle section, meanwhile, consists of two twelve-bar sections differing solely in key (F minor, F sharp minor). Yet, each of these sections comprises three smaller, four-bar particles, the second of which is a repeat of the first with minor modifications. Whilst in the outer sections, it is primarily melody that undergoes change, in the middle section it is the arrangement and vertical density of the notes, against constant harmony and melody. Consequently, the function of the variation technique also differs. In the outer sections, it differentiates, but also develops, the melody; in the middle section, it is a means of obtaining subtle fluctuations of sound. In the Nocturne in F minor, Op. 55, the outer sections are based on the variational repetition of a phrase of the theme, modified mainly through ornamental means; in the middle section – besides the contrastive juxtaposition of phrases and sequential shifts – there appear variational repeats, in which the variable element is harmony (e.g. bars 57–60). In the outer sections of the Nocturne in B major, Op. 62, meanwhile, the main thematic idea is modified by a whole set of techniques,35 except for harmony, which remains constant not just in its overall plan but also in the sequence of specific functions, and in the middle section the opening segment is subjected, on its return, to variation based 33 Wójcik-Keuprulian, Melodyka Chopina, 233. 34 See Chapter 3, p. 109. 35 See Chapter 2.5, pp. 77–78, and Example 37.

Variations of macrostructures  131 36

on changes in harmony. So, in different sections of the work, the vari­ ations not only are used to a different extent, but they are also built using different means. This becomes one of the elements of contrast. Despite its widespread use, variation technique is not the only technique used in a work; it usually acts together with other compositional techniques; in general, it also does not influence the overall architectonic plan. This applies as well to works that are particularly intensively suffused with vari­ations, such as the Nocturne in C minor, Op. 48 and the Impromptu in F sharp major. In the Nocturne, the middle section is a kind of mini variation form, and the last section repeats the first with variation.37 In the outer sections, however, besides variation, we also find – albeit to a lesser extent – ­sequence and the processing of a selected motif, which shape the second period of the ­Nocturne. The material subjected to changes in the outer sections and the middle section is also different, since the work is based on a ternary architectonic plan of an ABA type, realised in a very specific way. The situation is similar in the Impromptu in F sharp major. The last section, a variation of the first, is at the same time also a continuation of a sequence of vari­ ations commenced earlier, interrupted by the introduction of the contrasting, non-variational middle section, based on different material.38 Hence, the variation here is also subordinated to the ternary design of the work. Variation technique is of special significance in shaping the large-scale later works: the ballades, Polonaise-Fantasy and Barcarolle. From the moment when Leichtentritt, in his analyses of Chopin’s works, stated that ‘Chopin created a new genre, the essence of which lies not so much in new formal ideas [emphasis Z. C.] as in the new mood’, and its architecture rests on sonata form, the latter component has been widely adopted as the starting point for the form of the ballades.39 Although Chomiński demonstrated many years ago that the form of the ballades is shaped by the course of dramatic events,40 and in more recent literature devoted to this genre the significance of the narrative and dramatic character is increasingly accentuated,41 analogies to sonata form have formed a reference point in discussion of the ballades in most works.42 An exception is the work by James Parakilas, who sees in Chopin’s ballades a replication of the structure of folk and literary ballads.43 The latter unfold over three stages, similar to 36 37 38 39 40 41

See Chapter 2.2, pp. 56–58, and Example 23. See Chapter 2.3, pp. 65–66, Chapter 4.2, p. 129. See Chapter 3.2, pp. 102–103. Leichtentritt, Analyse, ii: 1. Chomiński, Chopin. In the ballades, analysts have discerned the combination of epic, lyrical and dramatic features that is characteristic of the literary ballad, pointing to a specific balladic ‘tone’ in them; cf. Wagner, Die Klavierballade; also Dahlhaus, Nineteenth Century Music, 148; Dahlhaus also stresses that the form of Chopin’s ballades is marked not so much by the text of a specific ballad as by the ballad as a particular type of genre. 42 See, e.g., Abraham, Chopin’s Musical Style, 55–56, 108. 43 Parakilas, Ballads without Words. The author does not discern any specific story in Chopin’s ballades, as did nineteenth-century authors, but he sees in them a structure analogous

132  Variations of macrostructures the ternary design in Chopin. It is also characteristic of many musical forms of that period, including sonata form. During the nineteenth century, the principles of sonata form dominated works of a dramatic character, above all due to its thematic dualism, which is a germ of conflict.44 Hence, certain similarities to the architecture of the sonata allegro appear not only in the ballades but also in other large-scale works, such as the Fantasy in F minor and the Polonaise-Fantasy. However, that similarity is a purely external and non-essential aspect. Regardless of its presence and its scope, the forms that Chopin gave to his one-movement works represent a different quality, as is eminently demonstrated by a comparison of these works with the sonata allegros in the sonatas, concertos and Trio in G minor. In the cyclic works, the division of the allegro into an exposition and a development with reprise is clear. In the sonatas and in the Trio, it is enhanced by a repeat of the exposition, whilst in the concertos, a distinguishing function is discharged by successive orchestral tuttis.45 In all these works, most of the themes in the exposition contain repeats with greater or lesser modifications. In the concertos, the Sonata in C minor and the Trio in G minor, they serve the expansion of the thematic area, although without altering their expressive character; at most, this occurs in the last segment of the theme, leading directly into a bridge section (e.g. Concerto in F minor). In  the late sonatas, the variational changes sometimes bring about an increase in tension and the dynamisation of themes (e.g. theme II of the allegro in the Sonata in B flat minor), but in the reprise in all these works the themes return to their original character, replicating any process of dynamisation that had previously occurred. So, the process of change is not expanded here. The modification of the themes, already occurring in the exposition, is intensified in the development section, in accordance with the Classical norm, chiefly by means of thematic working.46 In the concertos, the development section replicates in a sense the exposition. The first theme appears here shortened and tonally altered, ornamented in a ­different way than in

to that of verbal ballads. He supports his arguments with comparative analysis of the structure of the genre in music and in literature, taking account not only of the overall course of works but also of details of their design, indicating a complete structural concordance. Entirely independently, a similar concept was put forward by Tadeusz Zieliński (‘Nowatorstwo’), but it is lacking there the evidential foundation presented by Parakilas. Another scholar to attempt to link Chopin’s ballades to the principles underpinning literary ballads was Serge Gut, taking as his example the Ballade in G minor (‘Interférences’). 4 4 See Dahlhaus, ‘Der rhetorische Formbegriff’, 159. 45 Charles Rosen (Sonata Forms, 98 ff.) emphasises that Chopin, in his later sonatas, was relatively conservative and observed, particularly in his later works, the current norms quite closely; cf. Helman, ‘Norma’. 46 In older literature, Chopin was accused of being incapable of constructing developments, something that was supposedly manifest in such things as the variational replication of the exposition in this section of the allegro, and not in the actual modification of its material. In actual fact, variation technique is employed quite sparingly in Chopin’s developments.

Variations of macrostructures  133 the  exposition; in the Concerto in E minor, its first phrase is sequentially transposed, and then the place of the themes is taken by an elaborate virtuoso part, an equivalent of analogous bridge sections in the exposition, which is accompanied by selected motifs of the themes in the orchestra part. Thus, some elements of thematic working are undoubtedly present. Variation is manifest not so much in strict variations of segments of the exposition as in an – incomplete – replication of the course of its events. These are typical development sections of brillant-style concertos.47 In the late sonatas, thematic working comes to the fore. In the Sonata in B flat minor, the composer employs selected elements both of the introduction and of the first and second themes (the form of the accompaniment and the motif closing the first phrase of theme II), either alternating them or combining them simultaneously, as is typical of thematic working. What occurs here is not so much the synthesis of the two themes as the absorption of elements of the second by the first. Anatole Leikin discerns variation here, but that results from the fact that he understands the notion very broadly – so broadly that even the second theme of the Sonata is for him a variation of the first.48 Yet, irrespective of how one describes the technique employed by Chopin, neither of the themes here is subjected to transformation. In the Sonata in B minor, the development of elements of the first theme is followed by the second theme, this time indeed in the form of a variation, built mainly by means of harmonic changes, but this variation also does not transform the theme and retains its original expression. Throughout the allegro, the themes are of a contrasting character and not expressively close to one another. Among the one-movement works mentioned earlier, the Ballade in G ­m inor, the earliest among them, is the closest in its design to sonata form.49 In this work, one can easily distinguish the basic elements of the form: exposition, development and reprise. In the development, the two themes appear in the form of variations, which transform their original expression.50 James Parakilas defines the modification of the first theme as ‘progressive transformation’; that is, change that leads to further transformation of the expression. The tension is forged by the pedal point and the violent crescendo, which breaks off and then swells again. Analogous progressive transformations occur also in literary and folk ballads.51 Next, there appears a variation of the second theme, which immediately passes into a part of a development 47 See Milligan, The Concerto. 48 Leikin, ‘The sonatas’, 168–169. 49 Chomiński and Turło (Katalog, 70) date this work to 1833; Jan Ekier (Wstęp) dates it to 1835. This is not just the first instance in Chopin of variations that gradually grow, accumulate and lead to expressive transformation, but the only one before 1839. If the date given in the Katalog is correct, then this is a complete exception at that time, including with regard to the means employed, which depart from the means of variation previously applied. 50 See Chapter 4.1, p. 119. 51 Parakilas, Ballades without Words, 70.

134  Variations of macrostructures character, based on motifs of the first theme. This is the next wave in the swelling of the tension. In the reprise, the two themes, in the form of further variations, appear in reverse order and form further growing waves. Neither of them returns to its original form. The work culminates with an expansive coda. Thus, the entire work, unlike the allegro in cyclic works, is based on a growing process of transformation, based on the symmetry of tonal and thematic sequences.52 In both the late ballades, the variational changes and the accompanying transformation of themes are even more extensive. In the Ballade in A flat major, variations appear already at the stage of the building of the themes themselves. In the first theme, the third and last segment is a variation of the first, and in the second, the tension is built up through variational changes in repeated phrases.53 This theme leads directly to the second theme, built entirely according to the principle of variation, which is followed by the short third theme, in which the tension – analogously to the first theme – grows in variations of two-bar phrases.54 The next segment of the work, relatively short, is based on motifs of the second theme and is actually a kind of development of that theme, another wave in the unfolding intensity curve, after which the second theme reappears in the form of a sequence of variations, this time fundamentally transformed. A variation of the first theme, in which that theme comes close in character to the transformed second theme, is preceded by a development section, joining motifs of both themes into a single phrase – testament to their complete synthesis. The subsequent segments of the Ballade, already mentioned above, flow continuously into one another. It is difficult, and utterly fruitless, to distinguish here sections analogous to the sections of sonata form, and especially its development section.55 The themes appear in the form of successive ­variations, processed primarily by that means almost from the beginning to the end of the work, and in the short development segments interleaving the variations the process of the transformation and mutual adaptation of the themes is continued. In the Ballade in F minor, the first theme is followed by several variations of that theme, ending with a short development of the theme leading to the second theme, which, in turn, passes immediately into a development of the first theme. This can be treated as an analogy of the corresponding section of sonata form, but it is the only segment of the work that ‘breaks up’ the succession of variational sequences. Arising

52 See Samson, Chopin: The Four Ballades, 46–47; the author points here to symmetry in the literal meaning of the word; that is, to a mirror image in terms of tonality, the sequence of themes and the relationship between the reprise and the development. 53 See Chapter 4.1, pp. 119–120; also Chapter 3, p. 94. 54 Lev Mazel defines this theme as the ‘central episode’, seeing it as the axis of the symmetry of the whole work (‘O pewnych cechach’, 264–269). 55 Hugo Leichtentritt (Analyse, 19), among others, sees the beginning of the development in bar 157, that is, at the beginning of the second segment of the variation of theme II.

Variations of macrostructures  135 directly from it, in turn, are variations of the introduction, the first theme (two variations) and the second theme. Here too, as in the earlier ballades, in no variation does the theme return to its original form; the process of transformation continues unabated. In contrast to the Ballades in G minor and A flat major, that process here only partially involves dynamisation and growing tension (theme I); it partially features allusions to other genres.56 Samson posits the view that the Ballade in A flat major ‘unfolds against a background of existing norms, from which it derives much of its essential meaning, but that the deviations from those norms in turn contribute to the tentative establishment of new norms’.57 That remark may be extended to all the ballades. At the heart of this genre lies the principle of variation, which shapes a work to varying extent on different levels, from microstructures to a work as a whole. As a rule, at least two, and sometimes three, themes are subjected to variations, which shorten or lengthen the model. They are often of an open character, passing directly into the next segment of the work. Sometimes, only the opening component of the theme is subjected to variation (e.g. Ballade in A flat major, theme I), or particular segments of the theme, to varying degrees (Ballade in A flat major, theme II). Here – unlike in the sonatas – variational changes clearly dominate, but they are not the sole means of transforming the material. Along with thematic work, they serve the continuous transformation of the themes. The result is a new type of form,58 differing from both sonata and variation form – a form that is not a straightforward cross between sonata and variation, but constitutes an entirely new quality.59 According to Parakilas, this is a replication of the form of the literary ballad, and that may well be its origin, but in Chopin it acquires the significance of an independent musical form, applied, in variant guises, also in the Polonaise-Fantasy and the Barcarolle.60 There too, the themes are subjected to variation (in the Barcarolle, all the themes; in the Polonaise-Fantasy, the principal theme and the theme of the middle section); they are transformed, expressively ‘agreed on’, forging a mighty apotheosis in the last phase of the work. In the Polonaise-Fantasy, not all the themes undergo transformation. The lyrical theme, appearing here in two variant forms, the second of which represents an analogous segment to the first, returns with minor modifications, which do not alter its expression.61 Yet, the two themes, both the principle theme and the middle section theme, are subjected to transformation towards the end of the work,

56 See Chapter 4.1, p. 122. 57 Samson, Chopin. The Four Ballades, 62. 58 The fact that Chopin created a new type of form in his more expansive one-movement works was pointed out by Lev Mazel in ‘O pewnych cechach’, 248. 59 Lissa, ‘Krzyżowanie’. 60 Parakilas, Ballades without Words. 61 Jim Samson defines this theme as the ‘first nocturne’ and its equivalent, the second lyrical segment, as the ‘second nocturne’; see Samson, ‘The composition-draft’, 52.

136  Variations of macrostructures ­ ssuming a similar, strongly dynamised, character. Thus, the principle that a occurs in the ballades is present here as well. Variation plays a different part in shaping the Fantasy in F minor. The design of this work is based on a sequence of variationally modified themes, but they are not subjected to transformation. The relatively minor variational modifications involve mainly deviations in the arrangement of notes and also tonal-harmonic shifts in the central variation of the first theme.62 In all the returns, the texture is the same as in the models. Such fundamental elements as melody, harmony and rhythm also remain essentially unchanged. The exception is the above-mentioned variation of the first theme, where the tonal centre is weakened.63 That tonal centre introduces crucial deviations from the prototype, but without changing its expression; all the other variational changes yield only a minor variation in the sound of the repeated themes. As a result, the individual themes represent different, but expressively constant, qualities. Mazel notes here analogies to the sonata rondo and sonata allegro, which involve, on the one hand, separating iterations of the themes with segments of an improvisatory-figurational character and, on the other hand, the overall tonal plan of the work.64 The improvisatory-figurational segments do not represent strict variations in relation to each other, but they are analogous segments, bordering on the latter.65 Thus, the themes are connected to each other by similar bridges, and that helps to integrate the work. The themes are contrasted among themselves and also with the bridges.66 As a result, the conception of the form is entirely different here than in the ballades, the Polonaise-Fantasy or the Barcarolle. In the last two works, the variational changes lead to the themes being unified and the contrasts between them eliminated, shifting the contrast rather to between the beginning and the end of the work. The Fantasy, in accordance with the properties of the genre, possesses a number of themes. All the units that comprise them (themes and bridge) appear in the form of a model and – in the returns – ­variations, but the variational changes do not grow, and at times even diminish, as in the case of the first theme, the third statement of which is closer to the model than to the variation. They also do not disturb the contrasts between units, which throughout the work remain on a more or less similar level. So, the function of the variation technique here is different: it introduces differentiation to the repeated units, but does not alter the relations occurring between them.

62 63 64 65 66

See Chapter 2.2, p. 58. See Chapter 2.2, p. 58, n. 40. Mazel, ‘Fantazja f-moll’, 42–53. See Chapter 2.5, pp. 73–74. At the same time, there exist very strong substantial links between the themes, as Zofia Lissa demonstrated (‘Jedność’). Those links were noted earlier by Lev Mazel (‘Fantazja f-moll’), who even discerned the relationship of ‘free variation’ between the Fantasy’s themes (129).

Variations of macrostructures  137 In the works discussed above (Nocturne in C minor, Impromptu in F sharp major, ballades, Barcarolle, Polonaise-Fantasy and also Fantasy in F minor), variation technique plays a particularly substantial role. The ­variational modifications work together to shape a work, but they are ­always subordinated to the needs of the genre, or – as in the ballades, for e­ xample – to a new form resulting from that genre. The character and number of themes, the relations occurring between them, the placement of variations, and the degree and nature of variational modifications – all of these result from the different conception of the work, independent, as it were, from the variations themselves, and at the same time they form a means for realising that conception. The variations also do not determine the architecture of these works. Throughout the Chopin oeuvre, that occurs in just a few cases.

4.4  Variation forms Chopin composed only six works adhering to variation form.67 They are, in chronological order, the following: • • • • • •

Variations in E major on a German song (1824); Variations in D major for four hands on an air of Moore (1826)68; Variations in B flat major, Op. 2 (1827); lost Variations in F major, dedicated to Tytus Woyciechowski, composed in 182769; Variations in B flat major, Op. 12 (1833); Berceuse, Op. 57 (1844).

67 Not included in this number are the Flute Variations, a work attributed to Chopin (see Chomiński and Turło, Katalog, 250), the authenticity of which arouses serious doubts (cf. Ekier, ‘Le problème’, 463–473). Jan Prosnak (‘Wariacje’) tried to show, based on analysis of the means employed there, that Chopin did indeed write the extant flute part. The author invoked the similarity of instrumental figures appearing in the Flute Variations and in works by Chopin. However, those figures belonged to the current repertoire of instrumental means at the time, and it was not the use of the figures themselves, but the way they were used and the specific context within which they appeared that determined the specific properties of a composer’s music. Hence, the author’s argumentation is not convincing. Variations Souvenir de Paganini are also excluded because their authenticity is doubtful. 68 According to Joanna Falenciak (‘Wariacje’), this name is false. ‘In fact, the theme of the variations is the Neapolitan song “La Ricciolella”, [which] was published by Thomas Moore, with his own text, in the collection National aires and other songs now first collected’ (234). I will employ this name, however, to identify the work because it is widely used and also appears under that name in the catalogue of Chopin’s works (Chomiński and Turło, Katalog, 228). 69 The information about this work comes from a list of ‘unpublished compositions’ prepared by the composer’s sister, Ludwika Jędrzejewicz, containing the incipits of works and dating. The list is currently held in the Chopin Muzeum in Warsaw, under the shelf-mark M/301 (D/68); see Chomiński and Turło, Katalog, 242 and 244.

138  Variations of macrostructures Passing over the occasional Variation from the cycle Hexameron, of which Chopin was only the co-composer, all these works, except for the Berceuse, were composed early, up to 1833.70 During the first thirty years of the nineteenth century, sets of vari­ ations were among the most popular genres. ‘The new listener’ – as Irena ­Poniatowska writes – ‘brought a need for virtuosity that transported him into a transcendental atmosphere of awe. He demanded ever newer works, but also a new approach to familiar works, art created a new, ­occasional art, referring to current themes. Hence improvisation, fantasies and ­variations [emphasis Z. C.] based on well-known motifs became the most popular forms of concert performance’.71 In these variation sets, the ­melodies of popular themes were subjected to ornamental changes, whilst the harmony and the phrase-sentence structure of the theme was ­generally left untouched. That led to the extensive use in such works of virtuoso means, figuration of various kinds based on passagework, scale runs, leaps, ­doublings, etc.72 The theme of the variations did not constitute essential substance, the individuality or conventionality of which determined the form. In accordance with the aesthetic tendencies of the early nineteenth century, originality and formal convention were mutually ­complementary, so the replication of a model in variations was universally accepted.73 ­Chopin’s early variation sets adhere to a current in fashion at the time. They all have themes borrowed either from operas or from popular songs, and they are all ornamental variations. In Chopin’s variation forms, one can distinguish two groups: the first consists of variation sets which the composer called variations and the second comprises work that is clearly in one movement, based on an ostinato figure that serves to integrate the work, not possessing the title ‘variations’. 4.4.1  Variation sets Of Chopin’s four extant sets of variations, three comprise numbered variations, and one (Op. 12) unnumbered variations; in the latter work, the variations pass directly into one another, but the partitions between them are clear.

70 This is a cycle of variations on a march from Bellini’s opera I puritani, composed specially for a charity concert. Besides Chopin, the composers of the variations in the cycle were Liszt, Thalberg, Pixis, Herz and Czerny. Liszt – as well as the second variation – composed the introduction and the coda and prepared the theme. Chopin’s short variation is the last, before the coda. 71 Poniatowska, Muzyka fortepianowa, 244. 72 The range of style brillant instrumental figures is discussed by Irena Poniatowska; ibid., 156–159. 73 See Dahlhaus, Between Romanticism and Modernism, 43.

Variations of macrostructures  139 All these works display several common features: an introduction preceding the theme, based on its motifs, a penultimate variation in the parallel minor key, adhering to a slow tempo, or at least one that is slower than the others, and the last variation, directly linked to the former, of a dance character,74 and also (in the Variations in E major and in Op. 2) in an altered triple metre and a quick tempo or one quicker than the other tempi. All these features – apart from the introduction – are among the characteristics of Mozart’s variations; in Mozart, however, unlike in Chopin, besides a minore variation, there is also a slow variation.75 Chopin combines both these features in a single segment; only in the Variations in D major are there two ­m inor-mode variations, one halfway through and the other towards the end of the set. We may assert, therefore, that the architecture of a set of variations in Chopin is strongly grounded in the Classical tradition. Only the number of variations is different: in Mozart, it varies from six to twelve76; in Chopin, from four to six. Introductions to variation sets, meanwhile, were composed at the time when Chopin was writing his, so in this case the composer was referring to a current trend.77 The themes of Chopin’s variations satisfy the postulates advanced by music theory at that time. Koch demanded simplicity in the theme,78 which had to be of a ‘cantabile character’ and be constructed in such a way that it would ‘easily stick in one’s memory’.79 From his times onwards, that became a crucial requirement. According to Adolf Bernhard Marx, the theme should be satisfactorily closed and ‘ideally in the form of a song’, and Reissmann postulated that the theme form in itself a closed entity, so as to constitute a musical work even without the variations – as simple as possible.80 All the themes in Chopin’s variation sets are indeed very simple. They display

74 Tempo di Valse in the Variations in E major, Vivace (scherzando) in the Variations in D major, Alla Polacca in Op. 2, Scherzo Vivace in Op. 12. 75 See Mies, ‘W. A. Mozarts Variationswerke’; also Cavett-Dunsby, Mozart’s Variations, 95–96; Robert U. Nelson (The Technique) describes these features as being typical of ­variations sets of the turn of the nineteenth century, although he notes that the minor-mode ­variation generally comes mid-way through the set (81), so differently than in most of Chopin’s ­variation sets; according to Esther Cavett-Dunsby (95), in Mozart such a variation occurs two-thirds of the way through the cycle or towards the end of the set, so as in Chopin. Only in the Flute Variations ascribed to Chopin, a set consisting of four variations, does the minor come second, which is an additional argument against attributing that work to Chopin. 76 See Cavett-Dunsby, Mozart’s Variations, 95. 77 An introduction can be found, for example, in Schubert’s flute variations on his own song ‘Trockne Blumen’, from 1824, and Cramer’s earlier piano variations (1810–1820) on a theme ­ arakilas, ‘A from Mozart’s Don Giovanni (Zerlina’s aria ‘Vedrai carino’, from Act II); see P nineteenth-century musical tribute’, 51. 78 Koch, Versuch, iii: 52. 79 Koch, Musikalisches Lexikon, 1630. 80 Marx, Die Lehre, iii: 54; Mendel and Reissmann, Der musikalischen Konversationslexikon, 456.

140  Variations of macrostructures a regular periodic construction and a distinct division into four- and eightbar segments with distinguishing points underscored by cadential phrases, and they are based on basic harmonic functions: TD (D). They also contain repeats, often more than single repeats, of the opening phrase, and the whole of the theme is usually rounded off by a return of the first period, with a strongly emphasised closure, which in Op. 12 is built by means of non-­ ornamental variational changes (the superimposition of a top voice, melodic changes in the middle voices). Chopin took the themes for his variations intact, without making any ­major adjustments. James Parakilas has made a very interesting comparison between the original of the duet ‘Là ci darem la mano’ from Don Giovanni with the theme in Chopin’s Op. 2 Variations and in Beethoven’s variations for two oboes and cor anglais from 1796 to 1797.81 Beethoven removes the second segment of the duet and shortens the first by more than half. Despite such extensive cuts, he leaves the second phrase on the words ‘non più forte’ intact. As a result, Beethoven’s theme does not possess a regular phrase structure or the repeats that are so typical of the themes of other variation sets, yet – as Parakilas stresses – he conveys the Mozartean character of the theme.82 Chopin essentially preserves the duet in its entirety, making only minor cuts; however, he eliminates the expansive phrases that Beethoven – despite his shorter version of the theme – retains. Hence, Chopin’s theme is longer, contains a sixfold repetition of the opening phrase and has a very regular design. Besides the minor cuts, Chopin’s changes boil down to adding ornamental devices at the endings of segments, which distinctly emphasises the internal segmentation, and a dotted rhythm at the beginning and in all analogous places, thanks to which the head motif stands out more, and making a melodic change combined with an ornament, which is lacking in the Mozart (bar 21 of the theme in the Variations, Op. 2). All these revisions serve to render the theme more vivid, and at the same time to simplify it, to make it more easily remembered, as Koch demanded. Despite the ornamental additions, the theme has a simple texture. It is the only segment of the work devoid of virtuosic features. The themes in Chopin’s other variation sets do not even contain such minor ornaments. Every variation – except for the last – replicates the design of the theme in its entirety, in accordance with the binding norm of the genre.83 Some deviations from that principle are displayed solely by the minor-mode variation from Op. 2, which in its second segment is shortened in relation to the theme, deprived of an equivalent to its last eight-bar period. In this way, the ­variation ceases to be a self-contained work, but is strictly connected to the final Alla Polacca that follows immediately afterwards. The remaining variations

81 Parakilas, ‘A nineteenth-century musical tribute’, 49–50, 53. 82 Ibid., 48. 83 See Nelson, The Technique.

Variations of macrostructures  141 in this work are additionally divided by the theme, repeated after each of them by the orchestra, which separates them even more strongly, and at the same time forms a bridge between them.84 In terms of harmony, as well, the variations replicate the theme. In the ­earliest set, in E major, the harmony is based on a sequence of dominant and tonic; only in the minor and final variations is the range of functions somewhat expanded, although it does not exceed chords I, IV, V and VI.85 The harmonic plan of the theme remains intact. In later variations, that plan is also preserved, but the functions are enriched in the variations with added dissonant sounds, sixths, sevenths, changing and passing notes, functions swapped for their substitutes (e.g. tonic for submediant and accordingly for chords leading to it: Vars. II and V in Op. 2; ‘Lento’ variation in Op. 12), further functional relations introduced in passing, and even a certain tonal ambiguity (‘Lento’ variation from Op. 12, D flat/b flat). The contour of the melodic line of the theme is also generally repeated in variations. The minor-mode variations in Op. 12 and Op. 2 depart relatively the farthest from the theme, in terms of design, harmony and melody. Particularly in Op. 2, the theme’s melodic line is not replicated in its entirety, but only represented by selected processed motifs. Despite this, the connection with the theme does not disappear, and the regularity of its design is quite faithfully reflected in the variations.86 Each variation – except for the slow variation in the sets with opus number – constitutes, like the theme, a closed entity, the regular design of which is not disturbed even by the rhythmically uniform figuration since the repeats it contains correspond strictly to the phrase design of the theme (e.g. Var. IV 84 Elaine R. Sisman (‘Haydn’s Variations’, 511) draws attention to the repetition of the theme between the variations in sonatas by Haydn; so, in this area Chopin turns also to the Classical tradition. A similar design is displayed also by Franciszek Lessel’s Potpourri, Op. 12 (the autograph of this work, held in the Muzeum Narodowe in Cracow, bears the title Caprice et Variation pour le piano avec orchestre, Op. 10), in which the melody of the krakowiak ‘Krakowiaczek ci ja’ [I’m a Cracovian] is arranged in the form of six numbered variations, and the last is transformed into a polonaise (tempi di polonaise); after each variation, the orchestra repeats the same melodic formula, like a recurring refrain. The analogies between this work (pub. c.1812) and Chopin’s Variations in B flat major, Op. 2 are clear: the same number of variations, the switch to a polonaise rhythm in the last component and the returns of the theme in the orchestra part. That does not mean that Chopin modelled his work on those of Lessel. We do not even know if he was familiar with them. It does show, however, that variations with this design were popular at that time. 85 These variations were analysed by Hieronim Feicht (‘Dwa cykle’, 56–78), who also compared them with a set written by another composer on the same theme. 86 Józef Michał Chomiński (‘Problem formy’, 355–356) considers that Chopin ‘turns his back’ on the structure of the theme in the Variations, Op. 12, on the basis of the change of motifs at distinctive points. In actual fact, the examples cited by Chomiński clearly point to the retention of the same harmonic relations, and only the chords representing them are more or less full and more or less dissonant; the motivic changes, meanwhile, involve rhythmic subdivisions, as a result of which new partial motifs arise, as is typical of variations. Yet that does not alter the structure of the theme.

142  Variations of macrostructures from Op. 2), thereby emphasising the symmetry. Only as a result of the rich ornamentation and the numerous irregular thickenings of the motion is the regularity somewhat disturbed in the slow variation of Op. 2. The last ­variation, the variation-coda, does depart from the structure of the theme, but this was again in accordance with current practice and was linked to the function of works composed in the style brillant; rendered more elaborate – at times, as in Op. 2, much more so – it formed an expansive, virtuosic finale. The Variations, Op. 2 is not only the largest set of variations in ­Chopin, but it also displays the greatest wealth of figures shaping successive v­ ariations. In the Variations in E major and in D major, the piano texture is not very advanced, understandably given the composer’s young age. The Variations in D major had the additional constraint of being scored for four hands. In the variations on a theme of Mozart, Chopin deployed all his pianistic mastery. The introduction in the first set of variations is quite weakly linked to the theme. It is of an improvisatory character, using numerous irregular groups of notes, based on scalar runs and passagework. This is clearly a work in which Chopin was only familiarising himself with current piano texture. In the ­Variations in D major, the link between the introduction and the theme is more distinct, whilst the pianistic means employed are more modest than in the preceding variations. In the Variations, Op. 12, the introduction is connected to the theme, but the piano texture is not very varied and original; given that this work was written after the Etudes, Op. 10, it manifests a certain regression. The introduction is most elaborate, and at the same time most distinctly linked to the theme, in the Variations in B flat major, Op. 2. Its head motif winds repeatedly through the orchestra part, but it also appears in the solo part. This work is testimony not only to the young Chopin’s complete mastery of the pianistic means at his disposal but also of his individual ability to deploy them. ‘The most original and attractive writing is once again in the ­introduction, which ends with a strikingly beautiful improvisatory passage and cadenza’, writes John Rink.87 Essentially, the introduction ‘announces’ the entire range of means that appear later in the successive variations, namely the irregular, elaborate ornaments (Var. V), the leaps in doublings (Var. IV), the ‘meandering’ figurations of undulating motion (Alla Polacca) and the figurations placed in the middle voice, entwined with the melodic line and the bass line (Var. I). Most importantly, however, Chopin employs here colouristic effects, ranging from the juxtaposition of legato and staccato through to the colouristic use of figurations in the instrument’s highest register, in a pianissimo dynamic – a procedure that will appear later in the Berceuse, among other works. The kinds of figuration that appear here belong to the repertoire of the style brillant. However, Chopin expands on them, employs them in a somewhat different registral disposition, and above all varies them,

87 Rink, ‘Tonal Architecture’, 82.

Variations of macrostructures  143 avoiding the simple repetition of a schema, as will be characteristic of his entire later output. The set is designed according to the principle of a swelling to a full sound. The motion of semiquaver triplets that accompanies the modified melodic line in the first variation changes in the second into a rhythmically homogeneous demisemiquaver figuration in unison, so the motion is augmented, but at the same time the density decreases. In the third vari­ ation, the demisemiquaver motion remains as an accompaniment, whilst the theme appears in the top voice in the form of two-note chords. Likewise, in the third variation of Chopin’s first set of variations the theme in the top voice is accompanied by a uniform figurational motion. The fourth variation is the next stage in the heightening of the sound: leaps of double-notes in a rapid, uniform semiquaver motion covering a considerable area.88 The start of the fifth variation is a dynamic point of climax for the cycle as a whole. With maximum use made of the soundspace, an opening fortissimo is followed by the utmost softening, and only towards the end of the finale does the dynamic again reach maximum intensity, but with a lesser volume of sound. So, the work unfolds in two swelling waves, so to speak. The last set of variations does not display such a distinct process of growth. Its successive sections differ in terms of rhythm; however, apart from the third (a slow minor variation), the type of motion is similar in all of them. This work is based rather on direct contrasts of rhythm and articulation between variations than on a more expansive overall plan. Despite this, the order of the variations is not accidental. In the first, despite the uniform rhythmic motion, the notes of the melodic line are retained, merely entwined with changing notes. At the start of the second variation, as well, the theme’s melody is clearly present, although the placement of its components is altered. As this variation unfolds, the link with the theme’s melodic line becomes looser, and this process deepens in the third variation, before passing into a kind of free fantasy in the finale. So, Chopin’s variation cycles, apart from the common features mentioned at the outset, are shaped in different ways. They are linked by the way in which variations are built by means of the ornamentation of the theme’s melodic line and the placement of that line always in the top voice, which still betrays the influence of the style brillant. The remarkable popularity of variations and their almost mass production, involving the continual replication of the same pattern (for the most part the work of poor composers), brought the genre into increasingly ill repute. According to utterances from the mid-nineteenth century quoted by Gerhard

88 Variation IV originally had a different version, based on demisemiquaver passages in divergent motion covering almost the whole scale of the instrument. The work’s overall conception is the same with this version of the variation. On the original version of Var. IV, see Zagiba, ‘Nieznana wariacja’, 127–130; Zagiba misread the first syllable of the word ‘vide’ and regarded the original version of Var. IV as Var. VI; cf. F. Chopin. Dzieła Wszystkie [Complete works], ed. I. J. Paderewski, L. Bronarski and J. Turczyński, xv (Cracow: PWM, 1960), 185 (revision commentary).

144  Variations of macrostructures Puchelt, variations were ‘the eternal prey of tinkers and hacks’, leading people to avoid them.89 That negative attitude towards variations among wider circles only appeared later, although variations were already not the most highly regarded genre among serious musicians by the thirties. We know that Schumann was averse to the very name ‘variations’ and avoided it in relation to his own works, one example being the title Etudes symphoniques given to the first edition, of 1837, to what was actually a set of variations. It was only in the revised version of 1852, that the composer supplemented the title: ‘Etudes in the form of variations’.90 The trivialisation of the genre could be one of the reasons why Chopin did not return to the set of variations in his later work. However, the fact that he cultivated the genre in his youth was not without significance going forward. It was as a youngster that Chopin first employed variation technique, developed it and enriched it. A role in shaping Chopin’s variation technique was undoubtedly played also by other works characteristic of the virtuosos’ repertoire, in which that technique was a principal means of processing material, and which Chopin cultivated during his Warsaw years (Fantasy, Op. 13, rondos, concertos). In his other works from that period, however, the composer either generally eschewed variational changes or else employed them to only a limited extent and sporadically (mazurkas, waltzes, polonaises, Sonata in C minor, Trio in G minor). The only work, besides those mentioned above, in which variation technique plays a significant role is the Nocturne in E minor, dating from the same year as the Variations, Op. 2. Chopin’s interest in the style brillant during the early phase in his work, and consequently his cultivation of genres characteristic of that style, in which variation technique was of primary importance, was probably the main reason that he made such extensive use of this technique in his later output. This technique underwent change, was diversified and was transferred to other genres, but to the very end it remained one of Chopin’s main composition techniques. 4.4.2  Ostinato variations Only one work is built entirely on an ostinato foundation: the Berceuse. It has an original theme (i.e. written by the composer), and is based on just tonic and dominant harmonies. The dimensions of the variations are determined by a theme four times longer than the ostinato figure, subjected to a range of ornamental changes. Chopin employed ostinato on a large scale only in a number of works composed after 1839. They comprise not just the Impromptu in F sharp major (1839), Barcarolle (1845–1846) and Berceuse, which are usually mentioned in the literature but also the middle section of the Polonaise in A flat major, Op. 53 (1842–1843), the Prelude in D minor, Op. 28 No. 24

89 Puchelt, Variationen, 142–143. 90 See Weber, ‘Varietas’.

Variations of macrostructures  145 (1839) and the third movement of the Sonata in B minor (1844).91 Everywhere, ostinato is an integrating element, but besides that its functions are various. In the Prelude and the Polonaise, it is primarily of dynamic importance; in the Sonata, it forms an accompaniment to the cantilena melodic line.92 In none of these works does the ostinato possess the melodic qualities that distinguish it in the Barcarolle, the Impromptu and the Berceuse; however, the Barcarolle and the Impromptu are not works based entirely on an ostinato figure. The ostinato, which remains constant in its basic shape, undergoes modification, depending on the needs of the harmonic development of a work. The Berceuse is Chopin’s only work based entirely on an ostinato ground, which moreover preserves an identical, unchanging form throughout the whole work. The ostinato unit is a one-bar figure, the first half built on the tonic, the second on the dominant. Hence, the foundation for the whole work is formed by a constant harmonic rhythm: the alternation of I and V. A change only occurs towards the end, in bar 55, where the composer forges the closure over quite an extended section. After halting on the tonic, regular two-bar segments are again occupied by the subdominant and the dominant in turn, until the tonic is finally stabilised. The Berceuse is a singular work, not just in the Chopin oeuvre. It is one of the few examples of an ostinato variation form to be found anywhere at that time. It consists of a theme and fourteen variations of that theme, preceded by an ostinato figure and rounded off by the return of the theme and of the same ostinato figure. Thus, it adheres to a uniform framework. The theme and all the variations are of equal dimensions; they form four-bar segments. Unlike in the Impromptu in F sharp major, the length of successive vari­ ations is determined, therefore, not by the ostinato figure, but by the theme. The constant harmony, repeated ostinato figure and succession of equal segments form a highly regular structural foundation. Superimposed upon that foundation are ornamental variations, built in a similar way to other variations from this period in Chopin’s oeuvre: through the addition of a counterpointing voice, then its subdivision (analogous means to those employed, for example, in the Nocturne in E flat major, Op. 55), the shifting of the theme’s line to the layer of embellishments (again an analogy to the Nocturnes, Op. 55 No. 2 and Op. 62 No. 1) and a variety of ornaments, in most 91 See, e.g., Chomiński, Chopin; Samson, The Music of Chopin, 95–97. 92 Anatole Leikin (‘The sonatas’, 182) sees in this section a nocturne character, which changes in the reprise due to the introduction of an ostinato accompaniment, which reminds the author of the Berceuse. ‘The steady flow of triplets is broken with a quaver rest in alternate rhythmic groups. This subtle detail alters the genre character of the main theme, making the new rhythmic ostinato in the accompaniment reminiscent of Chopin’s Berceuse […] the solemn procession of the first part turns, in the Largo’s reprise, into a lullaby.’ The similarity between the ostinato figures in the two works, written in the same year, is indeed considerable. In the Sonata, however, the significance of the ostinato does not go beyond the function of an accompaniment.

146  Variations of macrostructures cases rhythmically homogeneous (a clear similarity here to the last variation in the Impromptu in F sharp major and the reprise of the Nocturne in F ­m inor, Op. 55). These procedures do not accumulate, as in the late nocturnes; each variation is formed by means of a single, characteristic type of change. We find here pianistic figures referring to the range of techniques deployed by Chopin in his early variations. Different kinds of figuration, thirds and chordal doublings, leaps, single notes combined with doublings – this can all be found in his variation sets, and especially in the Variations, Op. 2. Jim Samson notes a similarity to style brillant ornamentation, at the same time underlining the fundamental difference in the function of the means employed.93 These are unquestionably procedures derived from the style brillant. They gained a lasting place in Chopin’s pianistic ‘language’ and can be found not only in the Berceuse but also in other works. However, the way in which they are used and the significance they hold in a work are completely different than in the style brillant, and also different than in ­Chopin’s own early variations. The swift motion, slightly differentiated over a lengthy space, combined with a fixed harmony and placed in a high register of the instrument, becomes a colouristic device.94 The gradual intensification of this motion, its shifting upwards into increasingly high registers and the fluctuation of the ‘thickness’ of the note line lend the form of this work the shape of a slowly rising arc, which then falls back to the point of departure.95 Thus, the strictly defined succession to the means employed forges a homogenous form out of four-bar segments. In the first three variations (up to bar 18), the theme’s melody is very distinctly present; subsequently, the audible link with the theme gradually dwindles. In the fourth variation, the ornamental figure is still based on the opening succession of the theme’s notes, but as the work progresses this affinity also becomes lost in the rapid flow. Only in the sixth variation do the 93 Samson, The Music of Chopin, 98. 94 Józef Michał Chomiński (‘Mistrzostwo’) singles out colouristic figuration as one of the categories of structures of this kind in Chopin; the issue of the colouristic importance of the figuration and its influence on the harmonic sense is addressed by Zofia Lissa (‘Harmonika’); see also Teresa Dalila Turło, ‘Funkcja harmoniczna’. Leonard G. Ratner (Harmony, 299 ff. and 307) emphasises that Chopin was the nineteenth-century composer ‘most committed to the values of color’ in the piano, who established the most distinctive procedures for the colouristic exploitation of the instrument. He points, among other things, to the colouristic function of non-chordal notes, which play a large role in the Berceuse, among other works. The role of colouristics in this work was previously noted by Hugo Leichtentritt (Analyse), who numbers the Berceuse among works of ‘brillant, impressionistic action’ (280). 95 Zofia Lissa (‘Inspiracje’, 433) distinguishes four successive groups of segments in the Berceuse: the theme and variations I–III; variations IV–X; variations XI–XIV; the return of the theme and conclusion. The second group is marked by an increased mobility, leading to a climax in the eleventh variation. From the point of view of the overall form of the work, Bronisława Wójcik-Keuprulian links the Berceuse to the form of the passacaglia and chaconne (‘Wariacje’, 62).

Variations of macrostructures  147 theme’s motifs distinctly reappear, like a reminder, after which they vanish, only resurfacing towards the end of the work. In the design of the ornamental figures of particular variations, one can find numerous affinities with the motifs of the theme, as Zofia Lissa pointed out.96 That certainly helps enhance the work’s cohesion. More crucial, however, is the way in which the whole is built from those sixteen different segments. Each four-bar unit is prepared, in a sense, in the last bar of the preceding segment. The first ­variation in which a two-part writing occurs is anticipated by the same ending to the theme, the pendular motion of the second variation is foreshadowed by an analogous motion in the fourth bar of the preceding variation, the repeated note a flat2 of the third variation appears before that at the end of the second variation and so on.97 The resultant work displays exceptional continuity, which Rothstein describes as ‘a virtual exercise in endless melody, since the four-bar variations – while still distinct – overlap continuously until the coda, largely avoiding perfect cadences along the way’.98 In actual fact, the variations do not so much overlap, as is typical, for example, of the phrases of the Nocturne in E flat major, Op. 55, the Barcarolle, the late mazurkas and many other works from the forties, as elide, each emerging directly from its predecessor. This is linked not only to a lack of perfect cadences but also to that anticipation or preparation of each subsequent vari­ ation by its predecessor, which eliminates the regular division determined by the dimensions of the theme.99 The order of the variations here is strictly ordained; they form a sort of ‘cause-effect’ sequence. In the Berceuse, as in the Impromptu in F sharp major, a strong, symmetrical structural foundation interacts with a superimposed asymmetry on the foreground. In the Impromptu, however, the succession of six-bar segments was distinct, and the disturbances of the symmetry concerned their internal flow. Here, the ‘endless melody’ blurs the regular division, forming an unbroken, rising and falling line.100 In both cases, as in other works (e.g. the Nocturne in E major, Op. 62, the Nocturne in C minor, Op. 48, middle section), variation technique is the element, or at least one of the elements, forging both that foundation and also the surface asymmetry, owing to two defining features of variation: repetition and at the same time change.

  96  Lissa, ‘Inspiracje’, 434.  97 T he concept of linking successive variations is visible already in the first documented stage in the composing of this work, namely the autograph sketch (Muzeum. Chopina, Warsaw, M/2165), where, although many places within the variations are not ‘filled out’, their connections are already marked; see also Nowik, ‘Fryderyk Chopin’s Op. 57’.   98  Rothstein, ‘Phrase rhythm’, 129.   99  See Witkowska-Zaremba, ‘Wersyfikacja’. 100 ‘Endless’ melody’ is Rothstein’s expression (‘Phrase rhythm’) in relation to Chopin’s melodic writing of this period.

5 The evolution of Chopin’s variation technique

The way in which variations are designed, their function and the extent to which they permeate a work alter over the course of Chopin’s oeuvre and vary in different genres. Thus, an attempt to show the changes that occurred in Chopin in this respect requires that generic specificities be taken into account. The boyhood works, up to 1824, do not contain variations on any level of a work. Chopin first employs a model with variation in the Variations in E major, from that year. Thereafter, they appear increasingly and in an ever greater number of genres. It is primarily the melodic line that is subjected to variation, through its rhythmic subdivision. Two main kinds of ornamental variations emerge: (1) those in which the rhythmic subdivisions lead to the creation of a line of uniform or (more rarely) only slightly diversified, movement, kept within a strict rhythmic framework and (2) those in which highly elaborate ornamental devices replace passages of the original melody, with the resultant melodic line displaying considerable fluctuation in the relative compactness of the motion. The former type occurs above all in variation forms and in quick sections or movements of such works as the concertos (finales), the rondos and the Fantasy, Op. 13; the latter type characterises themes of a cantilena character, and it first appears, as well as in the slow variations of variation sets, in the Nocturne in E minor, the concertos and the Fantasy, Op. 13 (Variation I on a theme of Kurpiński). Both types are characteristic of the variations of composers of the style brillant. They are of a virtuosic character, giving the performer scope for displaying his technical prowess. Chopin endowed them with pianistic devices that are typical of that style, although the way in which he uses them already displays individual characteristics. The procedures taken from current concert repertoire are much more diversified, and their form attests to the composer’s incomparably greater inventiveness; the ornaments blend with the melodic line, and are present almost from the outset, assuming a melodically different form each time. The model itself, particularly in lyrical-cantilena works such as nocturnes (Op. 9, Op. 15 No. 2), is of an ornamental character, which is only intensified as the work progresses. Chopin’s variations from this period represent the further development of the principles governing the design

The evolution of Chopin’s variation technique  149 and functioning of structures of this type in the virtuosic repertoire and the raising of those principles to a higher artistic level. In the concertos, the Nocturnes, Op. 9 and Op. 15 No. 2 and the Andante spianato and Grande Polonaise brillante, Op. 22 (1830–1835), we find phrases coupled together and repeated with variation – a feature that is characteristic of Chopin’s later output. Designed in this way are themes in the nocturnes and thematic sections of the concertos. The functions of variations gradually expand. In the Op. 9 Nocturnes, variations of microstructures create variation areas that serve to form the closure of works or sections of works, and periods are expanded with motifs repeated with variation. This is the first time that Chopin uses variation technique as a means of breaking up symmetry. The first reprises with variation also appear during this period. They are shortened in relation to the exposition and appear in the Sonata in C minor, Trio in G minor, concertos and nocturnes. In the Sonata and the Trio, the texture of the themes is varied slightly in its detail; in the concertos and the nocturnes, the variations of the themes in the reprises represent a continuation of the changes to which they were subjected in the exposition. Besides changes in melody, variations also exhibit changes in texture, albeit confined to modifications already employed by the Classical composers (doubling the melodic line, changing the form of the accompaniment, and interchanging the registers of melody and accompaniment on repetition). This concerns variation forms, cyclic forms based on sonata form and also the Rondo à la mazur, Op. 5 and Rondo à la krakowiak, Op. 14. The variational changes in rondos are very limited. In Op. 16, the theme still recurs in an unaltered form, and modifications are introduced solely on a lower structural level, with repeats of particular phrases. Only the Rondo, Op. 14 is more strongly suffused with variations; the theme appears each time in the form of differently shaped figurations. Variational changes in dances appear somewhat later. Up to 1831, reprises in dances were literal repeats of the opening section of a work. It is not until the Mazurka in F minor, Op. 7 that Chopin introduces changes of rhythm and articulation to the phrase immediately preceding the section that ends a work. In earlier mazurkas, very minor differentiations appear over the course of a work when particular phrases recur. These are of an incidental character and involve minor deviations in the mutual rhythmic relations between notes, the introduction of single embellishments or a change of articulation. These minor modifications, although of an entirely different character to the variational changes in the nocturnes and concertos, also concern the melody alone. Although the degree of change is admittedly very limited here, the fact that they appear at all shows that Chopin was fond of differentiating successive iterations of the same material already in an early period in his oeuvre. Variations appear in waltzes and polonaises even later, in Op. 18 (1833) and in Op. 22 (1830–1835), respectively.

150  The evolution of Chopin’s variation technique The pinnacle in the development of ornamental variations in Chopin falls around 1833. In the works composed at that time, the variations are exceptionally richly embellished, each in a different way; there are no literal repetitions, and the degree to which the music is suffused with varied repeats and returns is very high. The range of genres in which variations of this type occur is also expanded. They are even introduced into the mazurka ­(Mazurka in A minor, Op. 17–1833) and the polonaise (Polonaise in E flat major, Op. 22), genres in which ornamental variations were not widely employed, either before or after. At the same time, however, signs of change are discernible. Already in the Nocturne in F major, Op. 15, the ornamentation is much more limited than, for example, in the Nocturne in F sharp major from the same opus or in previous nocturnes. In this same Nocturne, the composer first uses a v­ ariation in which the melody is retained as a fixed element whilst the harmony is subjected to change (see Example 49). This variation lengthens the period, breaking up the regular succession of eight-bar segments. Whilst the variation technique did perform this function in earlier nocturnes as well, the changes had always involved modifications to the melody, whereas the harmonic foundation remained constant. The last nocturne from Op. 15 (G minor) does not contain variational changes at all, and in the next work in the genre (Nocturne in C sharp minor, Op. 27–1835), the theme is modified on its recurrence not through the ornamentation of its melodic line, but through the addition of a counter melody and through changes to the arrangement of the notes in the accompaniment. So, ornamentation as the principal means of variation is restricted, and at times even eliminated, whilst Chopin begins to create variations not just through different techniques, but through several techniques at once. Dating from the mid-1830s is the first work in a new genre, the Ballade in G minor,1 in which variational changes become a means of transforming themes expressively. Here, the variations are formed in a completely new way. Melodic changes are greatly reduced, and if they do appear, they discharge a dynamic function. The variational changes are now based on the texture, which leads to the theme becoming increasing dynamic. Parallel to this, we find harmonic changes (first theme), which are used during this period increasingly as a crucial ­element of variation (e.g. Nocturne in D flat major, Op. 27). In the ­Mazurkas from Op. 24,2 the variational changes, although still more limited and of a different character than in the nocturnes or the Ballade in G minor, take on new significance, and above all they are constructed in new ways. These include shifting the melodic line to a different register (Mazurka in C major, 1 See Chapter 4, n. 51. 2 Jan Ekier (Wstęp, 45) dates these mazurkas to the years 1833–1836; Józef Michał Chomiński and Teresa Dalila Turło (Katalog, 116) date them to 1833. The latter date seems secure, as it is based on the composer’s correspondence with his publisher (cf. Turło, ‘Z badań’, 38).

The evolution of Chopin’s variation technique  151 Op. 24 No. 2) and employing contrapuntal voices (Mazurka in B flat minor, Op. 24 No. 4). The changes in successive variations are cumulative; they refer not directly to the model, but to the preceding variation (Mazurka in B flat minor, Op. 24), a method that is typical of nocturnes and, earlier still, of the concertos, but has not previously been used in mazurkas, apart from the Mazurka in A minor, Op. 17. Although it will not be the rule in later mazurkas, appearing in a consistent way only in the Mazurka in A flat major, Op. 59 No. 2 (1845), the extent of the variational changes generally increases from this point on and the range of means through which the changes are obtained expands. Henceforth, besides melodic changes, variations will often be designed through counterpointing the melody of the principal theme. The changes that Chopin introduced in the variation technique used in the mazurkas of 1833–1835 show that he was no longer satisfied by the literal repetition that had hitherto clearly dominated in this genre; he sought ways of modifying recurrent thematic ideas that were adequate to the character of these works. The same applies to the polonaises. After the rich ornamental variations of the Polonaise in E flat major, Op. 22, the Polonaise in C sharp minor, Op. 26 (1835) does not have a reprise at all, and the modified repeats concern microstructures alone. Although the changes are also of an ornamental character, the ornamentation is much more limited than in the previous Polonaise; meanwhile, repeats are modified by doubling the melodic line, which serves the dynamisation that in later polonaises, particularly those from Op. 44 and Op. 53, will characterise returns of themes, where it is forged from a set of different procedures. In the Polonaise in E flat minor, Op. 26, meanwhile, both the returns of larger segments and also the repeats and returns of microstructures are almost exclusively literal, so in this respect the composer reverts here to the general principle governing earlier polonaises, at the same time abandoning the literal repetition of the first section of a work in its reprise. Variational changes also occur on a much wider scale in the waltzes. They concern chiefly the melodic line, but they not only bring variety to it but also link segments characterised by different kinds of motion; so, they help to ensure continuity in works where the sections are of contrasting character (Waltz in A flat major, Op. 34 No. 1–1835). In addition, variational changes help to boost the sound. Here, the composer employs procedures derived from ornamentation, such as elaborate scale passages over a considerable space. He deploys them in the melodic line, but at the same time alters their function, from ornamental to dynamic (Waltz in A flat major, Op. 34). During this same period, ornamental variations still hold their place, although they are not of such dominant significance as before. They also undergo change. In the Nocturne in D flat major, Op. 27 (1835), the first eight-bar segment at the beginning of the work has a melodic line of an ornamental character. Its first variation involves the intensification of the ornamentation; this process is strengthened further in the second variation, although there it is accompanied by a fundamental harmonic change (see Example 4). So, 

152  The evolution of Chopin’s variation technique ornamentation is no longer the sole means of modifying a theme, but one of a number of procedures. The changes that arise in Chopin’s variations at this time involve not just the techniques that shape them. Already in the Nocturne in F ­major, Op.  15, alongside variation of the main thematic idea, in the second period of the first section of the work we find a phrase and its variation designed differently from the variation at the beginning of the work. So units of different rank, modified in different ways, are subjected to ­variational changes. In the above-mentioned Nocturne in D flat major, the opening eight-bar unit, subjected integrally to modifications over successive returns, is followed by a section that also consists – as in the Nocturne in F major – of phrases and their varied repetitions. In this instance, the changes are of an ornamental character, yet they concern the melodic line in doublings. In successive repeats, the doublings split, and a kind of twopart writing arises. More importantly, the type of motion and the considerable thickening of the texture dynamise the entire section, imparting to it, despite its symmetrical design, an evolutionary character. In works composed during the period 1833–1835, we find for the first time variations of different rank and different significance juxtaposed with one another. Consequently, the rhythm of the variational changes differs, and this is one of the ways in which the regularity to the succession of segments of the same size is overcome. Ornamental variations of the former time still occur during this period. In the Impromptu in A flat major (1837), the second segment of the middle section is based on ornamental changes to the melody as the only means of variation, underpinning modifications on the level of motifs and also of repeated periods. So, the mid-1830s represent a transitional period in the shaping of variations, during which old ways of configuring variations and old functions coexist with new ways and means. New features in Chopin’s variations manifest themselves in works completed around 1839. In the Impromptu in F sharp major, for the first time (except for the Souvenir de Paganini, which is of doubtful authenticity), the variations are based on an ostinato formula. Besides the Impromptu, other works from the 1840s are designed along similar lines. The Impromptu comprises a number of variations subordinated to a periodic design and to a ternary architectonic plan; their sequence is interrupted by a contrasting middle section. As in the Barcarolle, for example, the variations are constructed using a set of different procedures: melodic changes – shifting the notes of the melody to a different pitch, rhythmic modifications and ornamentation, and also harmonic and tonal changes. Here, the modifications to the melody are of a completely different character than in earlier works. The original melodic contour of the theme is preserved only in some variations. In the first (the consequent of the opening period), ­ thers although an elaborate ornamental device, outwardly similar to o used earlier, does appear, it does not embellish the fundamental line,

The evolution of Chopin’s variation technique  153 but shifts its point of gravity to the end of the variation (see E ­ xample 48), helping to break the internal symmetry of consecutive segments. In the reprise, the ornamental line is rhythmically homogeneous. Unlike in ­e arlier works, where the melody of the theme, or its contour, formed focal points for the ornamentation, here it is merged into a homogeneous line; at first clearly audible, it gradually fades, and in the figuration of the last variation it is no longer audibly discernible at all. The ornamentation loses its melodic function and becomes primarily a bearer of the goal-directed motion, which assumes primary importance. Built in a similar way is the last variation in the Nocturne in F minor, Op. 55, written a few years later (1842–1844). Here, and in other works composed during the 1840s, the ornamentation of the melodic line again acquires greater significance in variations, but at the same time its character alters compared with the first period in the Chopin oeuvre. Ornamental changes appear alongside modifications of other elements, discharging a different function than before (e.g. Impromptu in F sharp major): they are moved into a counter melody (Nocturne in E flat major, Op. 55); or they colour a melodic line left in its original intervallic shape (e.g. Nocturne in E flat major, Op. 55, Nocturne in B major, Op. 62 – reprise); from melodic values, they mainly turn into colouristic or dynamic values. The blurring of a work’s symmetry, which in the Impromptu was achieved through variation technique, is also now achieved in a completely different way from in earlier works. In the Nocturnes from Op. 9 and Op. 15, it involved extending sentences or periods through a succession of different shapings to phrase repeats, without interfering in the early course of a musical unit. Now, it is the internal structure of the repeated segments that alters.3 At the same time, six-bar segments of regular proportions, marked out by ostinato, form the structural foundation of a work, ensuring it of structural integrity, and subordinating these segments to the periodic structure means that those irregularities return periodically. So from 1839 onwards, variation technique fulfils a new function, or perhaps rather an old function in a completely different way: it blurs the symmetry and at the same time forges a construct that is underpinned by a distinct regularity and proportionality to the component parts of the work. This occurs in a number of works written after the Impromptu, not only based on ostinato technique, such as the Nocturne in E flat major, Op. 55,4 the Barcarolle in F sharp major,5 the Nocturne in E major, Op. 626 and the  Berceuse.7 In each case, the tasks are realised in a different way, but the function is similar. 3 See Chapter 3, pp. 102–103, and Chapter 4, p. 125. 4 See Chapter 4, pp. 125–126 and Example 52. 5 See Chapter 3, pp. 97–98 and Example 46. 6 See Example 41 and Chapter 3, pp. 107–108. 7 See Chapter 4, pp. 144–147.

154  The evolution of Chopin’s variation technique A ‘theme and variations’ design, which in the Impromptu in F sharp ­ ajor forms the outer sections, appears also in the Nocturne in C minor m (1841), this time as its middle section. Yet whilst in the Impromptu the variations do not transform the character of the theme, in the Nocturne that is precisely their function. Also similar in these two works is the relationship of the variations between the exposition and the reprise. From 1839 onwards, the number of variations created through changes in texture, transforming the theme’s expression, grows quite startlingly. One such instance had occurred earlier, in the Ballade in G minor, but that was a completely isolated phenomenon. Comparing the means employed in different genres is quite a risky and methodologically dubious procedure since each genre has its own specific character and consequently uses different means. Hence, comparisons of this type can lead to utterly false conclusions. Variations as a way of transforming themes are characteristic above all of the ballades, and over the few years that passed from 1833–1835 to the end of the decade no ballade was written. Chopin focussed first and foremost on miniature pieces, and the only larger work from this period is the Scherzo in B flat minor (1836–1837). Yet, the expressive transformation of themes in variations created through changes in texture, with the other components of the model retained, is not confined in works of the last decade to the ballades alone. It also occurs in the Polonaise-Fantasy and the Barcarolle, where it may be seen as influenced by the ballades, and also – although not on such a broad scale and not playing such a fundamental role in shaping an entire work – in the Nocturne in C minor, Op. 48, the Polonaises in F sharp minor, Op. 44 and in A flat major, Op. 53 and the Scherzo in E major, Op. 54, so in genres cultivated during the second half of the 1830s. Consequently, although this feature of variations is not entirely new in Chopin, it may be regarded as a characteristic feature of his composition technique after 1839 since it occurs then with exceptional intensity. The first case of such transformation during the period in question ­occurs in the second theme of the Sonata in B flat minor8 although the transformation of this theme is confined solely to the exposition; in the reprise, the whole process is re-run. The themes of the Polonaises in F sharp minor, Op.  44 (1841) and in A flat major, Op. 53 (1842–1843) undergo a similar ­metamorphosis, also in the work’s first section only. However, unlike in the Sonata, those themes do not return in the reprise to their original form, but are repeated in a more dynamic form. In the Scherzo in E major, meanwhile, the work’s principal theme only appears in a transformed, dynamic form in the reprise, and that is where the climax of the whole work appears. This is worth particular attention not only because the variation technique in ­earlier scherzos was relatively less important than in other works but also because this very Scherzo in its entirety is the least dynamic of them all; more

8 See Chapter 4, pp. 116–117.

The evolution of Chopin’s variation technique  155 than three-quarters of the work proceeds in a piano dynamic with the use of a relatively ‘thin’ texture. Whilst in earlier scherzos the themes returned as specific, unaltered expressive qualities, here the theme’s expression is altered, dynamised towards the end of the work; this represents an analogy, albeit a rather distant one, to the ballades and the last polonaise, since one feature crucial to the works listed here is missing, that is, the dynamisation does not apply to the musical material of the whole work. It does fulfil such a function not only in the ballades but also in the Nocturne in C minor, which is not typical of this genre. Given that variations in the last years of C ­ hopin’s oeuvre serve to transform the themes, and at times also to synthesise them in places where it is not a typical property of the genre, it is undeniably a feature common to the output of this period, although manifest in only some of the works. Around the turn of the 1840s, the range of procedures shaping variations also increases. This is manifest in two ways. On one hand, variations in different works or even different variations in the same work are built in a different way; on the other hand, individual variations arise through changes introduced in several components of the model at the same time. In early works, it was quite easy to distinguish the types of variation represented by a relatively numerous group. The composer modified the model, introducing into it ornamental or other melodic changes, at times adding to this a different form of accompaniment. After 1839, it is essentially impossible to distinguish the types of variations that might be represented by a larger group of them. The only such group is formed by the above-mentioned variations created by means of textural changes, through a significant heightening of the motion and expansion of the soundspace. An increasingly marked role in shaping variations is played by harmonic changes, and even shifts of tonal centre (Fantasy in F minor/A flat major, Mazurka in A minor, Op. 59), and also by contrapuntal voices, which modify repeats both in large-scale works (e.g. the Ballades in A flat major and in F minor, the Polonaise-Fantasy) and in miniature works (e.g. Mazurkas in B major and in A flat major, Op. 41, in C minor, Op. 56; Nocturnes in E flat major, Op. 55 and in B major, Op. 62). At the same time, there appear segments bordering on variations that share only a common rhythmic model (e.g. Scherzo in C sharp minor, slow section, 1839, Nocturne in F sharp minor, Op. 48, middle section, 1841, Polonaise-Fantasy, first and second ‘nocturnes’, 1846) and others in which the melodic line of the model, although retained intact, is developed into a more elaborate entity with new harmonies and rhythmic structure (Scherzo in E major, beginning, ­1842–1843; cf. Examples 34, 35, 36). Modifications to different elements of the model lead to a change in the relationship between the model and the variations. In early works, the variations usually replicated the structure of the model. They could be extended, more elaborate than the model or shortened (e.g. the slow variation from Op. 2), but the structure of the variation as a whole echoed the structure of

156  The evolution of Chopin’s variation technique the model. In the Impromptu in F sharp major, published in 1839 and cited here many times already, this structure was altered, whilst the dimensions of the model were retained, forming a rigid framework that integrates the work.9 So here too the variation refers to the model as a whole. In the Ballade in A flat major, this situation changes. The variation of the second theme, comprising several segments, constitutes a sequence of modifications of the second component of the theme, at the same time uniting in them some features of the first component.10 In this situation, the link between the ­variation and the structure of the model is rather distant. Besides variations of differing design and function, simple variations built solely from rhythmic subdivisions of the melodic line still occur during the period under discussion. Variations of this type occur up to the end of Chopin’s output, albeit now only to a limited extent, even forming the basis for a whole section of a work (Impromptu in G flat major, middle section, 1842). They can also be found in late mazurkas, especially on the level of the variation of motifs and phrases (e.g. Mazurka in A flat major, Op. 50 No. 2). In this genre, despite the greater suffusion with variations than in the early mazurkas, the type of incidental variation, concerning mainly the melody, also holds its own. The next, and last, manifestations of change in Chopin’s variation technique can be observed in works written in 1846. In the Barcarolle (theme I) and the Nocturne in E major, Op. 62 (see Example 41), variation, development and sequential technique are merged. Chopin had combined sequential and variational changes before, but then it involved superimposing variational changes onto a sequentially transposed model, which did not alter its internal structure (see Example 39). Now, the interaction between these techniques is much deeper. Individual particles of the model are modified in different ways, through variation, through sequencing, or segmented and recombined into new entities. In this situation, the new unit that is formed is not a variation in the strict sense of the word; it does not replicate any element of the model in its entirety, and it also has a different structure from the model and, although maintaining some points of contact with it, forms a different value, bordering on all the techniques listed above. In the Nocturne in B major, Op. 62, meanwhile, we come across an unprecedented condensation of different variation procedures, which accumulate, coming to a head in the reprise (see Example 37). We also witness here interference in the structure of the model, but of a completely different kind than in the Barcarolle or the Nocturne in E major. That structure is gradually loosened, until it is broken in the reprise. A model forming a whole that is devoid of distinct internal fragmentation gives rise

9 The principal integrating factor here is the ostinato figure, discussed above; see Chapter 3, p. 107. 10 See Chapter 2, p. 67, and Chapter 4, pp. 119–120.

The evolution of Chopin’s variation technique  157 to two segments, the second of which, the more elaborate, forms a distinct particle leading directly to the work’s coda. The variation technique of the ­Polonaise-Fantasy, written in the same year, does not display any new features; the variations are built in the same way and discharge the same function as in the ballades. The question arises as to whether, and if so to what degree, the changes in variation technique coincide with other changes in Chopin’s output and how they relate to the periodisations of his oeuvre effected to date. Different phases in the development of Chopin’s work were distinguished in the twentieth-century literature. Although neither Bronisława ­Wójcik-Keuprulian, analysing melody, nor Ludwik Bronarski, looking at harmony, pointed to any particular stages of development, Leichtentritt, before them, had distinguished the style of the 1820s, 1830s and 1840s, albeit without specifying the criteria for his division.11 From then on, a decade-based division of Chopin’s oeuvre was adopted by many authors, including Abraham, Kremlev and Chomiński.12 Józef Michał Chomiński adopted the kind of forms cultivated by the composer as the criterion for his division. A much more detailed periodisation of the Chopin oeuvre has been proposed by Mieczysław Tomaszewski, who first distinguished five ­phases,13 and then as many as eight.14 Jeffrey Kallberg, meanwhile, separates a phase of ‘Chopin’s last style’, represented by the Polonaise-Fantasy and the ­Mazurka in F minor, Op. 68 No. 4.15 Maciej Gołąb, in turn, sees two phases in the development of chromaticism and tonality in Chopin: up to 1837 and from 1838.16 The results of research into changes in Chopin’s style show that it is impossible to arrive at a uniform periodisation suited to all the aspects of his work.17 With regard to the sonatas, Zofia Helman sees a change in style c.1837.18 Elżbieta Witkowska-Zaremba does not really make any clear divisions, although she does point to several dates symbolising innovations, 11 Wójcik-Keuprulian, Melodyka; Bronarski, Harmonika; Leichtentritt, Frédéric Chopin. 12 Abraham, Chopin’s Musical Style; Kremlev, Frederick Chopin. Chomiński (‘Z zagadnień’) defines the periods in Chopin’s oeuvre as follows: I – the period of interest in Classical forms; II – the period of the development of Romantic forms; and III – a return to cyclic forms and more elaborate one-movement works. 13 I – 1817–1829, the youthful period; II – 1828–1831, the Romantic period; III – 1832–1835, the virtuosic period; IV – 1835–1846, the mature period; V – 1846–1849, the last period; Tomaszewski, ‘Uwagi’. 14 I – the phase of childhood essays, 1817–1823; II – the phase of post-Classical and sentimental conventions, 1823–1826; III – the phase of Warsaw virtuosity, 1826–1829; IV – the phase of Romantic watershed, 1829–1831; V – the phase of Parisian virtuosity, 1832–1835; VI – the phase of a dynamic Romantic synthesis, 1835–1840; VII – the phase of a reflective Romantic synthesis, 1841–1846; VIII – the phase of post-Romantic propositions, 1846–1849; Tomaszewski, ‘Chopin Fryderyk Franciszek’. 15 Kallberg, ‘Chopin’s last style’. 16 Gołąb, Chromatyka. 17 Gołąb (ed.), Przemiany. 18 Helman, ‘Norma’, 66.

158  The evolution of Chopin’s variation technique not all of which were taken further.19 According to Andrzej Tuchowski, a change in the development of the nocturnes occurred around 1839/1840; Tadeusz Baranowski sees three phases of development in the polonaises (up to 1829, 1834–1846); and for Danuta Jasińska, the style brillant expires in Chopin during the mid-1830s.20 Chopin’s work altered gradually, to varying extent in different genres, almost every one of which had its own specific means. Even within one and the same genre, the development was not of a straightforward, unidirectional character. Returns to earlier procedures, the abandonment of i­ nnovations – this all makes it difficult to delineate the boundaries of changes. Maciej Gołąb suggests basing research into the changes in Chopin’s style on the socalled ‘emergent theory’, which ‘places emphasis on the appearance of that which is new […] enables us to identify a set of dynamic features in a specific cultural reality’.21 In the changes in Chopin’s variation technique outlined above, attention has been drawn to the appearance within that technique of new phenomena, even though they coexisted with earlier phenomena. That is because new phenomena attest to ongoing changes, even if they are not of a dominant character. In Chopin’s variations from the mid-1830s onwards, it is impossible to point to specific dominant features. They are slightly different in each genre, and works in the same genre can even differ from one another in this regard. We can only trace the general directions to the changes, the realisation of which is different each time. That gives us a basis on which to distinguish the following phases in the evolution of this technique: •

• •

the first phase covers a period more or less up to the years 1833–1835. Until that time, variations essentially hold similar functions as in works by other composers of those times; they are also designed in a similar way, although in Chopin they acquire an individual form, different each time; the second phase, from 1833–1835 to 1839: limiting ornamental vari­ ations, expanding the range of variation procedures and differentiating the functions performed by variations in a work; the third phase, from 1839 to 1846: the highly intensive use of variation technique, variations built from a set of different means, the transformation of themes through variational changes, the expansion of the functions of variation technique, which becomes a means of synthesising a work;

19 Witkowska-Zaremba, ‘Wersyfikacja’. 20 Tuchowski, ‘Integracja’, 86–89; Baranowski, ‘Przemiany’, 105–106; Jasińska, ‘Problem’, 154–155. 21 Gołąb, ‘Metodologiczne aspekty badań nad przemianami stylu Chopina [Methodological aspects of research into the changes in Chopin’s style], in Gołąb (ed.), Przemiany, 19.

The evolution of Chopin’s variation technique  159 •

the fourth phase covers the Barcarolle and the Nocturnes, Op. 62, works written in 1846: combining variation technique with sequence technique and thematic work.

The phases outlined above only partially coincide with the stages distinguished on the basis of the study of other components of a work or of particular genres. The first phase coincides with the style brillant mentioned by Jasińska, which is understandable since the variations of that period represent a type that emerged out of the work of the virtuosi. It does not co­incide, however, with changes in particular genres, the manner of integrating and designing form, or chromaticism and tonality. The second phase is the closest to the second period in the changes affecting the polonaises pointed out by Baranowski. However, that coincidence seems purely incidental. The Polonaises, Opp. 26 and 40, which Baranowski assigns to this period, were not works in which variations played a great role, and for the author their composition dates mark the limits of the period. In light of this, it would be difficult to discern a correlation between changes in the conception of this particular genre and variation technique. There is also some convergence between this phase and the period of ‘dynamic Romantic synthesis’ distinguished by Tomaszewski.22 Although the author does not specify what led him to distinguish that particular period, he may have had some general concept of the musical work in mind, one that in the domain of composition was reflected in changes to variation technique. The upper limit of that phase, separating it from the next, more or less coincides both with the decade-based periodisation and also with the boundaries marked out by Tuchowski and Baranowski in relation to the evolution of nocturnes and polonaises. The turn of the 1840s was an exceptionally fecund period, during which a number of Chopin’s great works were written. It was probably then that Chopin effectuated a more general transformation of his composition technique, as those coincidences might suggest. Thus, changes in vari­ ation technique would be merely one of the manifestations of that process. The last phase of change in variation technique coincides with the ‘Chopin’s last style’ as distinguished by Kallberg. The Polonaise-Fantasy, which for Kallberg formed the principal basis on which to draw conclusions relating to changes, does not actually contain new features in variation technique; yet, the fact that more works show new distinguishing features concerning various composition problems at that time confirms Kallberg’s opinion that Chopin, in his last style, ‘experimented widely’ and ‘explored substantially new possibilities in his art’.23 The similarities and differences between attempts to chronologise the changes in Chopin’s works shows, among other things, that not all the

22 See above, n. 14. 23 Kallberg, ‘Chopin’s last style’, 133.

160  The evolution of Chopin’s variation technique elements of compositional technique evolved at exactly the same time and to exactly the same degree. Even if we adopted similar methods of periodisation for different compositional issues (which occurs very rarely), as was attempted in the collection of works cited above,24 the results could not be entirely convergent. Chopin’s work developed continuously; there are no sudden breakthroughs or regressions. So, we cannot expect that the changes concerning different aspects of composition technique will suddenly appear at the same moment in time. Yet despite the discrepancies in the chronologies of events in this respect that are visible in the results of research, there exist no specific dates, but periods marked by a distinct increase in the changes in different aspects. We must also take into account here the fact that research is based on the date when works were completed, yet only in a small number of cases is the date they were commenced documented. We know that the creative process in Chopin varied: it proceeded sometimes quickly, but sometimes lasted for a longer time. Consequently, the changes that are pinpointed at particular moments in time when a work was completed actually occurred earlier. For that reason, as in every periodisation, the years cited above for the beginning of a phase are only an approximate guide; we are dealing here not with a particular year, but with a lengthier period over which the changes can be noted. Adopting such a perspective, there is considerable concordance over the ‘periods of change’. This applies especially to the turn of the 1840s. The date 1837/1838 singled out by Gołąb and Helman as separating two stages in the evolution of chromaticism and of the sonata cycle is indeed close to the year 1839, when the beginning of new phenomena in the area of variation technique was noted, and also with regard to the development of such genres as the nocturne and the p ­ olonaise. Hence, we may conclude that despite the continuous character of the changes in Chopin’s work, they are more intense at particular times, when they cover a number of crucial aspects of a work. *  *  * The degree to which Chopin’s works are suffused with variations is not uniform. Alongside the nocturnes, ballades and impromptus – genres in which variations occur in almost every work, on different levels, from micro- to macrostructure – there are others, such as the scherzos, in which variations play a lesser role. Generally speaking, however, they are a very frequent phenomenon in Chopin’s work and fulfil a range of functions, from the nuanced modification of the sound of almost identical repeats, through the expansion of themes, the differentiation of sections of a work, and the blurring and loosening of symmetry, to the transformation of themes and, consequently, helping to shape the overall conception of a work.

24 See above, n. 17.

The evolution of Chopin’s variation technique  161 Thus, the question arises as to the sense and meaning of variations for the character of Chopin’s work. Rose Rosengart-Subotnik considered a mosaic character to be a distinguishing feature of Chopin’s style on the local level of his works – a concept similar to that previously formulated by Michał Bristiger in relation to Renaissance music, so a completely different style.25 To support her argument, Rosengart-Subotnik cites a number of analyses, including motifs repeated with variation, at the same time showing how Chopin replaces causal or implicatory Classical structures (antecedent-consequent) with analogous structures, thereby turning attention away from propulsive relations towards that which is immediate, which is currently happening.26 The examples analysed by the author are indeed convincing, yet the problem lies in the fact that they represent a quite carefully selected sample. Besides those structures, there are a number of others that could splendidly illustrate the opposite thesis. Nevertheless, that mosaicity, that concentrating on the ‘now’, and not on further development, is indeed frequently present in Chopin’s works. Such examples might include the middle section of the Impromptu in A flat major or the variation areas in the mazurkas and nocturnes, which appear to represent the suspension of the motion. Yet that is not the only factor determining a static quality. Two opposing forces lie at the very heart of variations. The repetition that characterises them bears a static element, but at the same time change, that immanent feature of ­variations, constitutes an aspect of development. Thus, the very presence of variations brings to a work forces that act in converse directions. The relations between them, the more or less static character of a particular variation, depend, of course, on the way in which it is shaped, yet the static element is never entirely eliminated, even in the most dynamic variations. So, the interplay of these two forces is almost ever present in Chopin’s works. The combining of procedures that act in different directions is universally considered to be a characteristic feature of Chopin. Suffice it to evoke, from the material comprising the present study, the problem of symmetry and its blurring or, from other fields, rhythmic-metric oppositions, tonal ambiguity and clarity, instrumental figures created in opposition to rhythmic divisions and so on. William Thomson considers that such ambiguity is a condition of all great music, and he introduces the term ‘functional ambiguity’ to define structures in which opposing forces are rooted.27 It would appear, however, that in Chopin such functional ambiguity occurs with particular prominence. It is indicated by scholars analysing almost every aspect of the composer’s output, at least in its mature and late phases. The presence of a single variation in a work could hardly be regarded as

25 Rosengart-Subotnik, ‘On grounding Chopin’; Bristiger, ‘Forma wariacyjna’. 26 Rosengart-Subotnik, 124. 27 Thomson, ‘Functional ambiguity’.

162  The evolution of Chopin’s variation technique a manifestation of such ambiguity, but it could be generated by a greater number of them since that extends the conflict between two opposing forces to the whole of a work. The mosaic character of which Rosengart-Subotnik writes is just one of the manifestations of this phenomenon – a place where the static aspect gains the upper hand, yet not entirely devoid of developmental features. It would seem, therefore, that it is generally not so much that mosaicity itself as the interplay of opposing forces, of which first one then the other comes to dominate, but where they are both always present to some degree, that is one of the factors determining the distinctive, specific character of Chopin’s works.

Bibliography

Abraham, Gerald, Chopin’s Musical Style (London: OUP, 1946). Badura-Skoda, Paul, ‘Chopin’s influence’, in Alan Walker (ed.), Frédéric Chopin. Profiles of the Man and the Musician (Barry and Rockliff, London, 1966), pp. 258–276 Baranowski, Tomasz, ‘Przemiany muzycznych kategorii formalnych w fortepianowych polonezach Chopina’ [Changes in formal musical categories in the piano polonaises of Chopin], in Maciej Gołąb (ed.), Przemiany stylu Chopina [Changes in Chopin’s style] (Musica Iagellonica, Cracow, 1993), pp. 91–107. Bent, Ian, ‘Analysis’, in Stanley Sadie (ed.), The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, i (Macmillan Publ., London, 1980). Berkeley, Lennoz, ‘Nocturnes, Berceuse, Barcarolle’, in Alan Walker (ed.), Frédéric Chopin. Profiles of the Man and the Musician (Barry and Rockliff, London, 1966), pp. 170–186. Berry, Wallace, Form in Music (Prentice-Hall, Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ, 1966). Bogdańska, Anna, ‘Technika wariacyjna i praca tematyczna w balladach Chopina’ [Variation technique and thematic work in Chopin’s ballades], Rocznik Chopinowski, 18 (1986), pp. 63–91. Bristiger, Michał, Forma wariacyjna w muzyce instrumentalnej renesansu’ [Vari­ ation form in instrumental music of the Renaissance] (Liber Pro Arte, Warsaw, 2008). Bronarski, Ludwik, Harmonika Chopina [Harmony in Chopin] (Towarzystwo Wydawnicze Muzyki Polskiej, Warsaw, 1935). Carew, Derek, ‘Victorian attitudes to Chopin’, in Jim Samson (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Chopin (CUP, Cambridge, 1992), pp. 222–245. Cavett-Dunsby, Esther, Mozart’s Variations Reconsidered. Four Case Studies ­(Garland Pub., New York, 1989). Chechlińska, Zofia, ‘Ze studiów nad źródłami do scherz Chopina’ [From studies on sources for Chopin’s scherzos], Annales Chopin, 5 (1960), pp. 82–193. ——— ‘Faktura fortepianowa Chopina’ [Piano texture in Chopin], doctoral dissertation, Instytut Sztuki Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Warsaw, 1966, typescript. ——— ‘Chopin a impresjonizm’ [Chopin and impressionism], in Zofia Chechlińska (ed.), Szkice o kulturze muzycznej XIX wieku [Sketches of the musical culture of the nineteenth century], ii (Polish Scientific Publishers, Warsaw, 1973), pp. 21–34. ——— ‘The nocturnes and studies: Selected problems of piano texture’, in Jim Samson (ed.), Chopin Studies (CUP, Cambridge, 1988), pp. 143–165.

164 Bibliography ——— ‘Chopin reception in nineteenth-century Poland’, in Jim Samson (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Chopin (CUP, Cambridge, 1992), pp. 206–221. ——— ‘Chopin in the context of nineteenth-century Polish musical culture’, Chopin Studies, 4 (1994), pp. 54–60. ——— ‘The variation technique in Chopin’s nocturnes’, Musica Iagellonica, 1 (1995), pp. 75–90. Chodkowski, Andrzej, ‘Die Variationstechnik und die thematische Arbeit in der Musik der Romantik’, in Ivano Cavallini (ed.), Studi in Onore di Giuseppe Vecchi (Mucchi, Modena, 1989). Chomiński, Józef Michał, ‘Problem formy w Preludiach Chopina’ [The question of form in Chopin’s Preludes], Kwartalnik Muzyczny, 28 (1949), pp. 240–395. ——— ‘Mistrzostwo kompozytorskie Chopina’ [Chopin’s compositional mastery], Rocznik Chopinowski, 1 (1956). ——— Sonaty Chopina [Chopin’s sonatas] (PWM Edition, Cracow, 1960). ——— ‘Z zagadnień faktury fortepianowej Chopina’ [Aspects of Chopin’s piano texture], in Zofia Lissa (ed.), F. F. Chopin. Zbiór prac Instytutu Muzykologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego [F. F. Chopin. A collection of studies from the Institute of Musicology of the University of Warsaw] (Warsaw University Press, Warsaw, 1960), pp. 150–169. ——— ‘Z zagadnień ewolucji stylu Chopina’, Muzyka, 3 (1960); Ger. ver. ‘Die Evolution des Chopinschen Stils’, in Zofia Lissa (ed.), The Book of the First International Musicological Congress Devoted to the Works of Frederick Chopin (Polish Scientific Publishers, Warsaw, 1963), pp. 44–52. ——— Chopin (PWM Edition, Cracow, 1978). Chomiński, Józef Michał and Turło, Teresa Dalila, Katalog dzieł Fryderyka ­Chopina / A Catalogue of the Works of Frederick Chopin (PWM Edition, Frederick Chopin Society, Cracow, 1990). Chomiński, Józef Michał and Wilkowska-Chomińska, Krystyna, Formy muzyczne [Musical forms], i: Małe formy instrumentalne [Small instrumental forms] (PWM Edition, Cracow, 1983). Chopin, Fryderyk, Chopin’s Polish Letters, tr. David Frick (The Fryderyk Chopin Institute, Warsaw, 2016). ——— Korespondencja Fryderyka Chopina [Correspondence of Fryderyk Chopin], 2 vols, Bronisław Edward Sydow (ed.) (Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, Warsaw, 1955). Chybiński, Adolf, ‘Do kwestii reminiscencji w utworach Chopina’ [On the question of reminiscence in the works of Chopin], Kwartalnik Muzyczny, 28 (1949), pp. 142–148. Colles, Henry Cope, ‘Variation’, in Eric Blom (ed.), Grove’s Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 5th edn, viii (Macmillan Pub., London, 1954). Cone, Edward T., Musical Form and Musical Performance (W.W.Norton & Co, New York, 1968). ——— ‘Ambiguity and reinterpretation in Chopin’, in John Rink and Jim Samson (eds.), Chopin Studies 2 (CUP, Cambridge, 1994), pp. 140–160. Dahlhaus, Carl, ‘Der rhetorische Formbegriff H. Chr. Kochs und die Theorie der Sonatenform’, Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 3 (1978), pp. 155–177. ——— Zwischen Romantik und Moderne (Munich, 1974); Eng. tr. as Between Romanticism and Modernism, tr. Mary Whittall (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1980).

Bibliography  165 ——— Die Idee der absoluten Musik (Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag, Kassel, 1978). Debryn, Carmen, Vom Lied zum Kunstlied. Eine Studie zu Variation und Komposition im Lied des frühen 19. Jahrhunderts (Kümmerle Verlag, Göppingen, 1983). ——— Die Musik des 19. Jahrhunderts (Wiesbaden, 1980); Eng. tr. as Nineteenth Century Music, tr. J. Bradford Robinson (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1989). Dessauer, Heinrich, John Field, seine Leben und seine Werke (H. Beyer & Söhne, Langenzalza, 1912). Dommer, Arrey von, Musikalisches Lexikon (Mohr, Heidelberg, 1865). Dyckerhoff, Wilhelm, Compositions-Schule, i (Verlag des Autors, Emmerich, 1864). Eigeldinger, Jean-Jacques, ‘Placing Chopin: Reflections on a compositional aesthetic’, in John Rink and Jim Samson (eds.), Chopin Studies 2 (CUP, Cambridge, 1994), pp. 102–139. Ekier, Jan, ‘Le problème d’authenticité de six oeuvres de Chopin’, in Zofia Lissa (ed.), The Book of the First International Musicological Congress Devoted to the Works of Frederick Chopin (Polish Scientific Publishers, Warsaw, 1963), pp. 463–473. ——— Wstęp do Wydania Narodowego dzieł Fryderyka Chopina [Introduction to the National Edition of Chopin’s Works] (PWM Edition, Cracow, 1974). ——— ‘The final text or final texts of Chopin? The problem of variants’, Chopin Studies, 4 (1994), pp. 144–151. ——— ‘Frederick Chopin. How did he play?’, Chopin Studies, 4 (1994), pp. 9–21. Erpf, Hermann, Form und Struktur in der Musik (Schott, Mainz, 1967). Falenciak, Joanna, ‘Wariacje Fryderyka Chopina na tematy włoskie’ [Fryderyk Chopin’s variations on Italian themes], Pagine, 4 (1980), pp. 233–239. Federhofer, Hellmut, ‘Heinrich Schenker’, Muzyka, 4 (1986), pp. 5–24. Feicht, Hieronim, ‘Dwa cykle wariacyjne na temat “Der Schweizerbub” F. Chopina i J. F. Marcksa’ [Two sets of variations on ‘Der Schweizerbub’ by F. Chopin and J. F. Marcks], in Zofia Lissa (ed.), F. F. Chopin. Zbiór prac Instytutu Muzykologii Uni­ wersytetu Warszawskiego [F. F. Chopin. A collection of studies from the Institute of Musicology of the University of Warsaw] (Warsaw University Press, Warsaw, 1960, pp. 56–78). Fischer, Kurt von, ‘Bemerkungen zu Beethovens Variationswerken’, in Ernst Mohr (ed.), Kongress-Bericht Internationale Gesellschaft für Musikwissenschaft (Bärenreiter, Basel, 1949). ——— ‘Variation’, in Friedrich Blume (ed.), Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, xiii (Bärenreiter, Kassel–Bassel, 1966); repr. in Stanley Sadie (ed.), The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, xix (Macmillan, London, 1980). Forte, Allen, and Gilbert, Steven E., Introduction to Schenkerian Analysis (W.W.Norton & Co, New York, 1982). Friedland, Martin, Zeitstil und Persönlichkeitsstil in den Variationenwerken der Musikalischen Romantik (Breitkopf & Härtel, Leipzig, 1930). Frisch, Walter, ‘Brahms Sonata Structures and the Principle of Developing Vari­ ation’, dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1981, University Microfilm International, Ann Arbour, MI, M/48106. Geiringer, Karl, ‘Bemerkungen zum Bau von Beethovens “Diabelli-Variationen”’, in Horst von Heussner (ed.), Festschrift Hans Engel (Bärenreiter, Kassel, 1964), pp. 117–124. Georgii Walter, Klaviermusik (Atlantis Verlag, Zurich, 1950).

166 Bibliography Gołąb, Maciej, Chromatyka i tonalność w muzyce Chopina [Chromaticism and tonality in the music of Chopin] (Warsaw University Press, Warsaw, 1960). ——— ‘Leksykon terminologii Schenkerowskiej’ [Lexicon of Schenkerian terminology], Muzyka, 4 (1986), pp. 59–66. ——— ‘Metodologiczne aspekty badań nad przemianami stylu Chopina’ [Methodological aspects of research into the changes in Chopin’s style], in Maciej Gołąb (ed.), Przemiany stylu Chopina [Changes in Chopin’s style] (Musica Iagellonica, Cracow, 1993), pp. 11–22. Gress, Richard, Die Entwicklung der Klaviervariationen von Andrea Gabrieli bis zum Johann Sebastian Bach (Omnitypie Ges. Nachf. L. Zechnall, Tübingen, 1927). Guignard Silvain, Frédéric Chopins Walzer (Verlag Valentin Koerner, Baden-Baden, 1986). Gut, Serge, ‘Interférences entre le langage et la structure dans la Ballade en sol mineur opus 23’, Chopin Studies, 5 (1995), pp. 73–113. Hamburger, Paul, ‘Mazurkas, waltzes, polonaises’, in Alan Walker (ed.), Frédéric Chopin. Profiles of the Man and the Musician (Barry and Rockliff, London, 1966), pp. 73–113. Hand, Ferdinand, Aesthetik der Tonkunst (Verlag Hochhausen, Jena, 1841). Helman, Zofia, ‘Norma i indywiduacja w sonatach Chopina’ [Norm and individuation in Chopin’s sonatas], in Maciej Gołąb (ed.), Przemiany stylu Chopina [Changes in Chopin’s style] (Musica Iagellonica, Cracow, 1993), pp. 185–195. Hławiczka, Karol, ‘L’échange rythmique dans la musique de Chopin’, Annales Chopin, 4 (1959), pp. 39–50. ——— ‘Chopin. Meister der rhytmischen Gestaltung’, Annales Chopin, 5 (1960), pp. 31–81. ——— ‘Eigentümliche Merkmale von Chopins Rhytmik’, in Zofia Lissa (ed.), The Book of the First International Musicological Congress Devoted to the Works of Frederick Chopin (Polish Scientific Publishers, Warsaw, 1963), pp. 185–195. Hollander, Hans, ‘Chopin als Vorläufer der Impressionismus’, Neue Zeitschrift für Musik, 10 (1961), pp. 400–402. Indy, Vincent d’, Cours de composition musicale, ii (A. Durand et Fils, Paris, 1909). Jasińska, Danuta, ‘Problem stylu brillant w twórczości Chopina’ [The question of style brillant in the work of Chopin], in Maciej Gołąb (ed.), Przemiany stylu Chopina [Changes in Chopin’s style] (Musica Iagellonica, Cracow, 1993), pp. 137–156. Kallberg, Jeffrey, ‘The Chopin sources: Versions in later manuscripts and printed editions’, doctoral dissertation, Chicago University 1982, typescript in the Library of the Fryderyk Chopin Institute, Warsaw. ——— ‘O klasyfikacji rękopisów Chopina’ [On the classification of Chopin’s manuscripts], Rocznik Chopinowski, 17 (1985), pp. 63–96. ——— ‘Chopin’s last style’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 38/2 (1985), pp. 264–315. ——— ‘The problem of repetition and return in Chopin’s mazurkas’, in Jim Samson (ed.), Chopin Studies (CUP, Cambridge, 1988), pp. 1–23. ——— ‘Are variants a problem? “Composer’s intentions” in editing Chopin’, Chopin Studies, 3 (1990), pp. 257–267. Kinderman, William, Beethoven’s Diabelli Variations (OUP, Oxford, 1987). Klauwell, Otto, ‘Ludwig van Beethoven und die Variationenform’, in Studien und Erinnerungen (H. Beyer & Söhne, Langenzalza, 1906).

Bibliography  167 Koch, Heinrich Christoph, Versuch einer Anleitung zur Composition (Adam F ­ riedrich Böhme, Rudolstadt, 1793). ——— Musikalisches Lexikon (August Hermann der Jüngere, Frankfurt, 1802). Koszewski, Andrzej, ‘Melodyka walców Chopina’ [Melody in Chopin’s waltzes], Studia Muzykologiczne, 2 (1953), pp. 276–341. ——— ‘Pierwiastek walcowy w twórczości Chopina’ [The waltz element in the work of Chopin], in Zofia Lissa (ed.), The Book of the First International Musicological Congress Devoted to the Works of Frederick Chopin (Polish Scientific Publishers, Warsaw, 1963), pp. 196–201. Kremlev, Yuli, Frederick Chopin. Ocherki z hiznii tvorchestva (Muzgiz, St. ­Petersburg, 1949). Leichtentritt, Hugo, Frédéric Chopin (Harmonie Verlag, Berlin, 1905). ——— Analyse von Chopins Klavierwerken, 2 vols (M. Hesse, Berlin, 1921–1922). Leikin, Anatole, ‘The sonatas’, in Jim Samson (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Chopin (CUP, Cambridge, 1992), pp. 160–187. Levy, Janet M., ‘Texture as a sign in classic and early romantic music’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 3 (1982), pp. 482–531. Lippman, Edward A., ‘Schumann Robert’, in Friedrich Blume (ed.), Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, xii (Bärenreiter/Metzler, Kassel, 1965). Lissa, Zofia, ‘Harmonika Chopina z perspektywy techniki dźwiękowej XX wieku’ [Chopin’s harmony from the perspective of twentieth-century composition technique], Annales Chopin, 4 (1959), pp. 7–38; also in Zofia Lissa (ed.), Studia nad twórczością Fryderyka Chopina [Studies on the work of Fryderyk Chopin] (PWM Edition, Cracow, 1970), pp. 445–487. ——— ‘Inspiracje chopinowskie w twórczości Regera’ [Chopin inspirations in the work of Reger], Rocznik Chopinowski, 7 (1969), pp. 67–99. ——— ‘Jedność substancjalna jako podstawa integracji formy w Fantazji f-moll op. 49 F. Chopina’ [Substantial unity as the basis for the integration of the form in Chopin’s Fantasy in F minor, Op. 49], in Zofia Lissa (ed.), F. F. Chopin. Zbiór prac Instytutu Muzykologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego [Collection of studies from the Institute of Musicology of the University of Warsaw] (Warsaw University Edition, Warsaw, 1960), pp. 5–55; also in Zofia Lissa (ed.), Studia nad twórczością Fryderyka Chopina [Studies on the work of Fryderyk Chopin] (PWM Edition, Cracow, 1970), pp. 104–165. ——— ‘O wpływie Chopina na Ladowa’ [On Chopin’s influence on Lyadov], in Z. Lissa (ed.), Studia nad twórczością Fryderyka Chopina [Studies on the work of Fryderyk Chopin] (PWM Edition, Cracow, 1970), pp. 349–405. ——— ‘Zagadnienie krzyżowania form u Chopina’ [Hybrid forms in Chopin], in Z. Lissa (ed.), Studia nad twórczością Fryderyka Chopina [Studies on the work of Fryderyk Chopin] (PWM Edition, Cracow, 1970), pp. 166–175. Lobe, Johann Christian, Compositionslehre oder umfassende Lehre von der thematischen Arbeit (Bernhard Friedrich Voigt, Weimar, 1844). ——— Lehrbuch der musikalischen Composition, i (Breitkopf und Härtel, Leipzig, 1850). Marston, Nicholas, ‘Analysing variations: The finale of Beethoven’s string Quartet op. 74’, Music Analysis, 3 (1989), pp. 303–324. Marx, Adolf Bernhard, Die Lehre von der musikalischen Komposition, 5th edn ­(Breitkopf und Härtel, Leipzig, 1879). Mathias, Georges, Preface to Isidore Philipp, Exercices quotidien: tirés des Oeuvres de Chopin (Hamelle, Paris, 1897).

168 Bibliography Mazel, Lew [Lev], ‘Fantazja f-moll Chopina’ [Chopin’s F minor Fantasy], in L. ­Mazel (ed.), Studia chopinowskie, tr. Jerzy Popiel [Chopin studies] (PWM Edition, Cracow, 1965), pp. 17–217. ——— ‘O melodyce Chopina’ [On melody in Chopin], in L. Mazel (ed.), Studia chopinowskie, tr. Jerzy Popiel [Chopin studies] (PWM Edition, Cracow, 1965), pp. 219–238. ——— ‘O pewnych cechach kompozycji w swobodnych formach Chopina’ [On certain features of composition in Chopin’s free forms], in L. Mazel (ed.), Studia chopinowskie, tr. Jerzy Popiel [Chopin studies] (PWM Edition, Cracow, 1965), pp. 239–312. Mendel, Hermann, and Reissmann, August, Musikalisches Konversations-Lexicon (L. Heimann, Berlin, 1878). Mersmann, Hans, Angewandte Musikästhetik (Max Hesses Verlag, Berlin, 1926). Methuen-Campbell, James, Chopin Playing. From the Composer to the Present Day (Victor Golancz Ltd., London, 1981). Meyer, Leonard B., Emotion and Meaning in Music (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1956). ——— Explaining Music. Essays and Explorations (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1973). ——— Style and Music. Theory, History and Ideology (University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, 1989). Mies, Paul, ‘W. A. Mozarts Variationswerke und ihre Formungen’, Archiv für Musikforschung, 2 (1937), pp. 466–495. Mikuli, Carl, Foreword to Friedrich Chopins Pianoforte Werke, ed. C. Mikuli (Fr. Kistner, Leipzig, 1879). Milligan, Thomas B., The Concerto and London’s Musical Culture in the Late Eighteenth Century (UMI Research Press, Ann Arbor, MI, 1983). Mitschka, Arno, Der Sonatensatz in den Werken von Johannes Brahms (Uden forlag, Gütersloh, 1961). Morawski, Jerzy, ‘Technika sekwencyjna w mazurkach Chopina’ [Sequence technique in Chopin’s mazurkas], Muzyka, 4 (1959), pp. 63–73. Murray, David, ‘The romantic piano: Chopin to Ravel’, in Dominic Gill (ed.), The Book of the Piano (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 1981), pp. 78–113. Narmour, Eugene, Beyond Schenkerism: The Need for Alternatives for Music Analysis (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1977). Nelson, Robert U., The Technique of Variation. A Study of Variation from Antonio de Cabezon to Max Reger (Berkeley University Press, Berkeley, CA, 1948). Newcomb, Anthony, ‘The Polonaise-fantasy and issues of musical narrative’, in John Rink and Jim Samson (eds.), Chopin Studies 2 (CUP, Cambridge, 1994), pp. 84–101. Niecks, Frederick, Frederick Chopin as a Man and Musician, 2nd edn, 2 vols (Novello, Ewer & Co, London, 1890). Nowik, Wojciech, ‘Proces twórczy Fryderyka Chopina w świetle jego autografów muzycznych’ [Fryderyk Chopin’s creative process in light of his musical autographs], doctoral dissertation, Instytut Muzykologii Uniwersytetu ­Warszawskiego [Institute of Musicology, Warsaw University], Warsaw, 1978, typescript. ——— ‘Preludium a-moll op. 28 nr 2 Fryderyka Chopina. Z zagadnień interpretacji naukowej’ [Fryderyk Chopin’s Prelude in A minor, Op. 28 No. 2.Aspects of scientific interpretation], Rocznik Chopinowski, 17 (1985), pp. 97–122. ——— ‘Fryderyk Chopin’s Op. 57 – from Variants to Berceuse’, in Jim Samson (ed.), Chopin Studies (CUP, Cambridge, 1988), pp. 25–40.

Bibliography  169 Öhrström, Eva, Borgerliga Kvinnors musicerande i 1800-talets Sverige [Bourgeois women musicians in nineteenth-century Sweden] (Musikvetenskapliga Institutionen, Gothenberg, 1987). Ottich, Maria, Chopins Klavierornamentik (Berlin, 1938); also altered version, Annales Chopin, 3 (1958), pp. 7–62. Palmer, Christopher, Impressionism in Music (Hutchinson, London, 1973). Parakilas, James, ‘A nineteenth-century musical tribute to Mozart’, Studies in Music (University of Western Ontario), 8 (1983), pp. 47–65. Pawłowski, Tadeusz, Pojęcia i metody współczesnej humanistyki [Notions and methods of contemporary humanities] (Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wrocław, 1977). Pistone, Daniele, ‘Chopin i Paryż w drugiej połowie XIX wieku’ [Chopin and Paris during the second half of the nineteenth century], Rocznik Chopinowski, 17 (1985), pp. 179–184. Poniatowska, Irena, Faktura fortepianowa Beethovena [Piano texture in Beethoven] (Polish Scietific Publishers, Warsaw, 1972). ——— ‘Artykulacja jako środek ekspresji w grze fortepianowej w pierwszej połowie XIX wieku (Między metodyką gry a praktyką wykonawczą epoki)’ [Articulation as a means of expression in piano playing during the first half of the nineteenth century (Between the playing method and performance practice of the epoch)], Rocznik Chopinowski, 17 (1985), pp. 136–146. ——— Muzyka fortepianowa i pianistyka w wieku XIX [Piano music and pianism in the nineteenth century] (Oficyna wydawnicza ‘Rewisz’, Warsaw, 1991). ——— ‘Frühe Monographien über F. Chopins Werk. Ein Beitrag zur Rezeption der Musik im.19. Jahrhundert’, Chopin Studies, 4 (1994), pp. 93–108. Prosnak, Antoni, ‘Niektóre zagadnienia wariacyjności etiud Chopina’ [Some aspects of variation technique in Chopin’s etudes], in Zofia Lissa (ed.), The Book of the First International Musicological Congress Devoted to the Works of Frederick Chopin (Polish Scientific Publishers, Warsaw, 1963), pp. 58–81 Prosnak, Jan, ‘Wariacje fletowe Chopina’ [Chopin’s flute variations], Studia Muzykologiczne, 1 (1953), pp. 267–307. Protopopov, Vladimir, ‘Variatsyonnost kak printsip razvitiya w muzikye Chopina’ [Variation technique as a principle of development in Chopin’s music], in Zofia Lissa (ed.), The Book of the First International Musicological Congress Devoted to the Works of Frederick Chopin (Polish Scientific Publishers, Warsaw, 1963), pp. 224–229. ——— [Protopopow, Władimir], ‘Polifonia w Balladzie f-moll Chopina’ [Polyphony in Chopin’s Ballade in F minor], Annales Chopin, 7 (1969), pp. 34–44. Puchelt, Gerard, Variationen für Klavier im 19. Jahrhundert (G. Olms, Hildesheim, 1973). Ratner, Leonard G., Harmony, Structure and Style (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1962). Rawsthorne, Alan, ‘Ballades, fantasy and scherzos’, in Alan Walker (ed.), Frédéric Chopin. Profiles of the Man and the Musician (Barry and Rockliff, London, 1966), pp. 42–72. Reicha Anton, Traité de haute composition musicale (Zetter & Cie, Paris, 1824–1826). Reti, Rudolph, The Thematic Process in Music (The Macmillan Company, New York, 1951). Richter, Alfred, Die Lehre von der thematischen Arbeit (Breitkopf u. Härtel, Leipzig, 1896).

170 Bibliography Riemann, Hugo, Grosse Kompositionslehre (W. Spemann, Stuttgart 1903). Ringer, Alexander R., ‘Beethoven and the London pianoforte school’, Musical Quarterly, 4 (1970), pp. 742–758. Rink, John, ‘The barcarolle: Auskomponierung and apotheosis’, in Jim Samson (ed.), Chopin Studies (CUP, Cambridge, 1988), pp. 195–219. ——— ‘Tonal architecture in early music’, in Jim Samson (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Chopin (CUP, Cambridge, 1992), pp. 78–97. Ritterman, Janet, ‘Piano music and the public concert 1800–1830’, in Jim Samson (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Chopin (CUP, Cambridge, 1992), pp. 11–31. Rosen, Charles, Sonata Forms (W.W.Norton & Co, New York, 1980). Rosengart-Subotnik, Rose, ‘On grounding Chopin’, in Richard Leppert and Susan McClary (eds.), Music and Society: The Politics of Composition, Performance and Reception (CUP, Cambridge, 1987), pp. 105–132. Rothstein, William, ‘Phrase rhythm in Chopin’s nocturnes and mazurkas’, in Jim Samson (ed.), Chopin Studies (CUP, Cambridge, 1988), pp. 115–141. Rowland, David, ‘The nocturne. Development of a new style’, in Jim Samson (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Chopin (CUP, Cambridge, 1992), pp. 32–49. Salzer, Felix, ‘The variation movement of Mozart’s Divertimento K.563’, The Music Forum, 5 (1980), pp. 257–315. Samson, Jim, The Music of Chopin (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1985). ——— ‘The composition-draft of the Polonaise-fantasy: The issue of tonality’, in J. Samson (ed.), Chopin Studies (CUP, Cambridge, 1988), pp. 41–58. ——— ‘Chopin’s F sharp Impromptu: Notes on genre, style and structure’, Chopin Studies, 3 (1990), pp. 297–304. ——— Chopin: The Four Ballades (CUP, Cambridge, 1992). ——— ‘Extended forms: The ballades, scherzos and fantasies’, in J. Samson (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Chopin (CUP, Cambridge, 1992), pp. 101–123. ——— ‘Contribution to round-table discussion entitled ‘Musical poetics’, Chopin Studies, 4 (1994), pp. 179–184. Schenker, Heinrich, Der Freie Satz (Universal-Edition, Vienna, 1935). Schilling, Gustav, Encyclopädie der gesammten musikalischen Wissenschaften oder Universal Lexikon der Tonkunst, vi (Verlag von Franz Heinrich Köhler Stuttgart, 1838). Schoenberg, Arnold, Fundamentals of Musical Composition, eds. Gerald Strang and Leonard Stein (Belmont Music Publishers, New York, 1967). ——— ‘Brahms the progressive’, in Leonard Stein (ed.), Style and Idea: Selected Writings of Arnold Schoenberg (Faber & Faber, London, 1975), pp. 398–441. Schucht, Johann, Friedrich Chopin und seine Werke (C. F. Kahnt, Leipzig, 1879). Schulz, Johann Abraham Peter, ‘Veränderung, Variationen’, in J. G. Sulzer (ed.), Allgemeine Theorie der schönen Künste (Weidmann Verlag, Leipzig, 1774). Schwarz, Werner, Robert Schumann und die Variation, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Klavierwerke (Bärenreiter, Kassel, 1939). Sisman, Elaine R., ‘Haydn’s variations’, dissertation, Princeton University 1978. ——— ‘Variation’, in Don Michael Randel (ed.), The New Harvard Dictionary of Music (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986). ——— ‘Brahms and the variation canon’, 19th Century Music, 14/2 (1990), pp. 132–153. ——— ‘Tradition and transformation in the alternating variations of Haydn and Beethoven’, Acta Musicologica, 2–3 (1990), pp. 152–182.

Bibliography  171 Temperley, Nicholas, Music in Britain. The Romantic Age 1790–1830 (The Athlone Press, London, 1981). ‘Der Terminus Variation’, round-table discussion, in Gerald Abraham, Suzanne Clercx-Lejeune, Hellmut Federhofer and Wilhelm Pfannkuch (eds.), Bericht über den siebenten internationalen Musikwissenschaftlichen Kongress. Köln 1958 (Bärenreiter, Kassel, 1959), pp. 363–366. Thomson, William, ‘Functional ambiguity in musical structures’, Music in Perception, 1 (1983), pp. 3–27. Tomaszewski, Mieczysław, ‘Uwagi o ewolucji stylu u Chopina’ [Remarks on the evolution of Chopin’s style’, in Elżbieta Dziębowska et al. (eds.), Studia musicologica, aesthetica, historica (PWM Edition, Cracow, 1979), pp. 405–416. ——— ‘Chopin Fryderyk Franciszek’, in Elżbieta Dziębowska (ed.), Encyklopedia muzyczna PWM: Część biograficzna, cd [PWM encyclopaedia of music: biographic part, cd], ii (PWM Edition, Cracow, 1984). Tuchowski, Andrzej, ‘Integracja strukturalna a faktura i forma w nokturnach Chopina’ [Structural integration with regard to texture and form in Chopin’s nocturnes], in Maciej Gołąb (ed.), Przemiany stylu Chopina [Changes in Chopin’s style] (Musica Iagellonica, Cracow, 1993), pp. 69–90. Turło, Teresa Dalila, ‘Funkcja harmoniczna figuracji u Chopina’ [The harmonic function of figuration in Chopin], in Zofia Lissa (ed.), The Book of the First International Musicological Congress Devoted to the Works of Frederick Chopin (PWM Edition, Warsaw, 1963), pp. 255–258. ——— ‘Z badań nad chronologią form sonatowych, nokturnów, polonezów i mazurków. Studium dokumentacyjno-źródłowe’ [From research into the chronology of sonata forms, nocturnes, polonaises and mazurkas. A source-documentary study], in Maciej Gołąb (ed.), Przemiany stylu Chopina [Changes in Chopin’s style] (Musica Iagellonica, Cracow, 1993), pp. 23–39. Viecenz, Herbert, ‘Über die allgemeinen Grundlagen oder Variationskunst mit besonderer Berücksichtigung Mozarts’, Mozart Jahrbuch, ii (1924), pp. 183–232. Vogler, Georg Joseph, Verbesserung der Forkel’schen Veränderungen über ‘God save the King’ (Varrentrapp u. Wenner, Leipzig, 1793). Wagner, Günter, Die Klavierballade um die Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts (Katzbichler Verlag, Munich, 1976). Walker, Alan, ‘Chopin and musical structure’, in A. Walker (ed.), Frédéric Chopin. Profiles of the man and musician (Barry and Recliff, London, 1966), pp. 227–257. Weber, Horst, ‘Varietas, variatio / variation, variation’, in Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht (ed.), Handwörterbuch der musikalischen Terminologie (Steiner, Wiesbaden, 1986). Webster, James, ‘Sonata form’, in Stanley Sadie (ed.), The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, xvii (Macmillan, London, 1980). Wilkowska, Krystyna, ‘Impromptus Chopina’ [Chopin’s impromptus], Kwartalnik Muzyczny, 26–27 (1949), pp. 102–182 ——— ‘Środki wyrazu emocjonalnego w balladach Chopina’ [The means of emotional expression in Chopin’s ballades], Kwartalnik Muzyczny, 28 (1949), pp. 167–239. Wiora, Walter, ‘Chopins Preludes und Etudes und Bachs Wohltemperiertes Klavier’, in Zofia Lissa (ed.), The Book of the First International Musicological Congress Devoted to the Works of Frederick Chopin (Polish Scientific Publishers, Warsaw, 1963), pp. 73–81.

172 Bibliography Witkowska-Zaremba, Elżbieta, ‘Wersyfikacja, składnia i forma w mazurkach Chopina’ [Versification, syntax and form in Chopin’s mazurkas], in Maciej Gołąb (ed.), Przemiany stylu Chopina [Changes in Chopin’s style’ (Musica Iagellonica, Cracow, 1993), pp. 109–133. Witten, Neil D., The Chopin Ballades: An Analytical Study (Ann Arbor, MI, 1991). Wójcik-Keuprulian, Bronisława, Melodyka Chopina [Melody in Chopin] (K.S. Jakubowski, Lviv, 1930). ——— ‘Wariacje i technika wariacyjna Chopina’ [Chopins variations and v­ ariation technique], in Studia, krytyki, szkice [Studies, critiques and sketches] ­(Gebethner & Wolff, Warsaw, 1933), pp. 380–392. Wolf, Eugene K., ‘Development’, in Don Michael Randel (ed.), The New Harvard Dictionary of Music (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986). Wörner, Karl H., ‘Das Zeitalter der thematischen Prozesse in der Geschichte der Musik’, Studien zur Musikgeschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts, 18 (Gustav Bosse Verlag, Regensburg, 1969). Zagiba, Franz, ‘Nieznana wariacja Fryderyka Chopina na temat Mozarta’ [An unknown Chopin variation on a theme of Mozart], Kwartalnik Muzyczny, 28 (1949), pp. 127–130. Zieliński, Tadeusz, Chopin. Życie i droga twórcza [Chopin. His life and creative path] (PWM Edition, Cracow, 1993). ——— ‘Nowatorstwo formy w balladach Chopina’ [Formal innovation in Chopin’s ballades], Rocznik Chopinowski, 21 (1995), pp. 67–79.

Musical examples

  1. Nocturne in A flat major, Op. 32 No. 2 (bars 7–8, 71–72).   2. Nocturne in E minor, Op. 72 No. 1 (bars 2–9, 31–38).   3. (a) Concerto in F minor, Op. 21, movt I, piano part (bars 82–86, 90–94) (b) Mazurka in A minor, Op. 17 No. 4 (bars 5–8, 13–16, 29–32, 53–56).   4. Nocturne in D flat major, Op. 27 No. 2 (bars 2–9, 25–32, 46–53).   5. Ballade in F minor, Op. 52 (bars 8–12, 152–155).   6. Impromptu in F sharp major, Op. 36 (bars 15–18).   7. Nocturne in F minor, Op. 55 No. 1 (bars 1–4, 73–76, 77–80).   8. Impromptu in F sharp major, Op. 36 (bars 7–8, 82–83).   9. Waltz in A flat major, Op. 42 (bars 41–48, 229–236). 10. Impromptu in G flat major, Op. 51 (bars 49–52, 65–68). 11. Mazurka in C major, Op. 24 No. 2 (bars 21–24, 25–28). 12. Mazurka in C sharp minor, Op. 30 No. 4 (bars 21–28). 13. Sonata in B minor, Op. 58, movt I (bars 61–64). 14. Mazurka in G minor, Op. 24 No. 1 (bars 1–4, 9–12). 15. Mazurka in B major, Op. 63 No. 1 (bars 1–4, 9–12). 16. Waltz in D flat major, Op. 64 No. 1 (bars 37–40, 54–57). 17. Mazurka in A minor, Op. 67 No. 4 (bars 33–36, 41–44). 18. Nocturne in F major, Op. 15 No. 1 (bars 13–14, 17–18). 19. Waltz in A flat major, Op. 42 (bars 9–12, 17–20). 20. Mazurka in D flat major, Op. 30 No. 3 (bars 41–56). 21. Mazurka in A minor, Op. 7 No. 2 (bars 17–24). 22. Etude in A minor, Op. 25 No. 11 (bars 23–24, 31–32). 23. Nocturne in B major, Op. 62 No. 1 (bars 37–43, 53–59). 24. Mazurka in A flat major, Op. 41 No. 3 (bars 5–8). 25. Nocturne in C sharp minor, Op. 27 No. 1 (bars 3–6, 19–22). 26. Mazurka in F sharp minor, Op. 59 No. 3 (bars 97–106). 27. Ballade in G minor, Op. 23 (bars 68–71, 106–109, 166–169). 28. Waltz in A flat major, Op. 34 No. 1 (bars 50–53, 66–69). 29. Nocturne in C minor, Op. 48 No. 1 (bars 29–44). 30. Etude in A flat major, Op. 10 No. 10 (bars 1–2, 9–10, 13–14, 55–56). 31. Concerto in F minor, Op. 21 movt I (bars 125–128, 133–136).

174 Musical examples 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51.

Mazurka in G major, Op. 67 No. 1 (bars 5–12). Nocturne in E flat major, Op. 55 No. 2 (bars 1–4, 9–12, 35–38). Scherzo in C sharp minor, Op. 39 (bars 155–171). Scherzo in E major, Op. 54 (bars 1–9, 17–25). Polonaise-Fantasy, Op. 61 (bars 116–117, 182–183). Nocturne in B major, Op. 62 No. 1 (bars 1–10, 29–36, 68–80). Barcarolle in F sharp major, Op. 60 (bars 6–11). Nocturne in C minor, Op. 48 No. 1 (bars 9–12). Ballade in A flat major, Op. 47 (bars 54–88). Nocturne in E major, Op. 62 No. 2 (bars 1–33, 58–70). Mazurka in F minor, Op. 7 No. 3 (bars 1–9). Nocturne in B flat minor, Op. 9 No. 1 (bars 51–66). Polonaise in A flat major, Op. 53 (bars 17–20). Ballade in A flat major, Op. 47 (bars 9–16). Barcarolle in F sharp major, Op. 60 (bars 62–70). Mazurka in B minor, Op. 33 No. 4 (bars 13–20). Impromptu in F sharp major, Op. 36 (bars 7–18). Nocturne in F major, Op. 15 No. 1 (bars 1–24). Polonaise in F sharp minor, Op. 44 (bars 9–11, 17–19, 35–37, 61–63). Sonata in B minor, Op. 58, movt IV (bars 9–12, 28–31, 100–103, 119–122, 207–210, 226–229). 52. Nocturne in E flat major, Op. 55 No. 2 (bars 9–18, 32, 34–52).

Index of Chopin’s works

Allegro de concert in A major, Op. 46 60 Andante spianato and Grande Polonaise brillante, Op. 22 149, 150, 151 ballades 22, 58, 59, 101, 118, 120–2, 131–2, 135, 136, 137, 154, 155, 157, 160 Ballade in G minor, Op. 23 38, 64, 101, 119, 132, 133, 135, 150, 154 Ballade in F major, Op. 38 59, 71, 119 Ballade in A flat major, Op. 47 1, 18, 64, 67, 81–2, 93, 94, 95, 101, 119, 129, 134, 135, 155, 156 Ballade in F minor, Op. 52 1, 2, 39, 62, 63, 71, 101, 120–2, 129, 134, 155 Barcarolle in F sharp major, Op. 60 43, 62, 63, 64, 75, 78–80, 93, 96–7, 101, 118, 120, 131, 135, 136, 137, 144, 145, 147, 152, 153, 154, 156, 159 Berceuse in D flat major, Op. 57 1, 2, 3, 15, 43, 49, 62, 114, 137, 138, 142, 144, 145–7, 153 concertos 32, 34, 51, 60, 69, 93, 101, 114–15, 122, 123, 132, 144, 148, 149, 151 Concerto in E minor, Op. 11 93, 133 Concerto in F minor, Op. 21 35, 70, 93, 123, 132 etudes 56, 112, 113 Etude, Op. 10 142 Etude in F minor, Op. 10 No. 9 92 Etude in A flat major, Op. 10 No. 10 68–9, 112 Etude in F major, Op. 25 No. 3 112 Etude in A minor, Op. 25 No. 4 112 Etude in E minor, Op. 25 No. 5 60, 112 Etude in A minor, Op. 25 No. 11 56, 112

Fantasy on Polish Airs in A major, Op. 13 32, 34, 51, 69, 144, 148 Fantasy in F minor, Op. 49 58–9, 74, 124, 132, 136, 137, 155 impromptus 101, 106, 160 Impromptu in A flat major, Op. 29 36, 93, 109, 111, 152, 161 Impromptu in F sharp major, Op. 36 1, 2, 39, 40, 41–4, 102–3, 107–8, 125, 128, 131, 137, 144, 145, 146, 147, 152, 153, 154, 156 Impromptu in G flat major, Op. 51 45, 62, 109, 113, 124, 156 Impromptu in C sharp minor, Op. 66 18 mazurkas 34, 48, 60, 77, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 95, 96, 99, 101, 102, 105–6, 113, 123–4, 125, 144, 147, 149, 151, 156, 161 Mazurka in C sharp minor, Op. 6 No. 2 90, 92, 95–6 Mazurka in E major, Op. 6 No. 3 90 Mazurka in E flat minor, Op. 6 No. 4 99 Mazurka in B flat major, Op. 7 No. 1 92 Mazurka in A minor, Op. 7 No. 2 55, 92 Mazurka in F minor, Op. 7 No. 3 89, 124, 149 Mazurka in A flat major, Op. 7 No. 4 92 Mazurka in B flat major, Op. 17 No. 1 92, 99, 123 Mazurka in E minor, Op. 17 No. 2 92, 99, 102, 105–6, 124 Mazurka in A flat major, Op. 17 No. 3 99, 105–6, 123 Mazurka in A minor, Op. 17 No. 4 34–5, 36, 92, 99, 105–6, 124, 150, 151 Mazurkas, Op. 24 150, 151

176  Index of Chopin’s works Mazurka in G minor, Op. 24 No. 1 48, 95–6, 99, 106, 124 Mazurka in C major, Op. 24 No. 2 46, 92, 99, 124, 150–1 Mazurka in A flat major, Op. 24 No. 3 93, 96, 102 Mazurka in B flat minor, Op. 24 No. 4 51, 53–4, 99, 106, 124, 151 Mazurka in C minor, Op. 30 No. 1 106, 124 Mazurka in B minor, Op. 30 No. 2 92, 96, 105–6 Mazurka in D flat major, Op. 30 No. 3 51, 54, 89, 92 Mazurka in C sharp minor, Op. 30 No. 4 46, 51, 90, 99 Mazurka in G sharp minor, Op. 33 No. 1 96, 99, 105–6 Mazurka in C major, Op. 33 No. 2 99, 105, 124 Mazurka in D major, Op. 33 No. 3 92, 96 Mazurka in B minor, Op. 33 No. 4 90, 99, 101–2, 105–6 Mazurkas, Op. 41 59, 62 Mazurka in E minor, Op. 41 No. 1 60, 92, 99, 106, 124 Mazurka in B major, Op. 41 No. 2 92, 99, 106, 155 Mazurka in A flat major, Op. 41 No. 3 61, 62, 105–6, 155 Mazurka in C sharp minor, Op. 41 No. 4 99 Mazurka in G major, Op. 50 No. 1 99, 124 Mazurka in A flat major, Op. 50 No. 2 90, 92, 99, 105–6, 156 Mazurka in C sharp minor, Op. 50 No. 3 92 Mazurka in C major, Op. 56 No. 2 90 Mazurka in C minor, Op. 56 No. 3 99, 124, 106, 155 Mazurka in A minor, Op. 59 No. 1 96, 124, 155 Mazurka in A flat major, Op. 59 No. 2 61, 99, 106, 151 Mazurka in F sharp minor, Op. 59 No. 3 63, 99, 105–6 Mazurka in B major, Op. 63 No. 1 48, 92, 99, 102, 106 Mazurka in F minor, Op. 63 No. 2 99, 106 Mazurka in C sharp minor, Op. 63 No. 3 99, 106

Mazurka in G major, Op. 67 No. 1 70, 123–4 Mazurka in G minor, Op. 67 No. 2 106, 124 Mazurka in C major, Op. 67 No. 3 60, 99, 106, 124 Mazurka in A minor, Op. 67 No. 4 52, 106, 124 Mazurka in F minor, Op. 68 No. 4 157 Mazurka in B flat major, without opus number 123 Mazurka in A flat major, without opus number 123 nocturnes 34, 36, 39, 83, 92–3, 93–4, 99, 101, 106, 109, 111, 121, 124–5, 146, 149, 150, 151, 158, 159, 160, 161 Nocturnes, Op. 9 32–3, 34, 92, 111, 148, 148, 149, 153 Nocturne in B flat minor, Op. 9 No. 1 91, 93, 102, 108, 109, 125 Nocturne in E flat major, Op. 9 No. 2 92, 93, 111, 124 Nocturne in B major, Op. 9 No. 3 92, 102, 108, 109, 125 Nocturnes, Op. 15 34, 36, 92, 153 Nocturne in F major, Op. 15 No. 1 52, 109–11, 124–5, 150, 152 Nocturne in F sharp major, Op. 15 No. 2 32–3, 93, 111, 148, 149, 150 Nocturne in G minor, Op. 15 No. 3 40, 124, 150 Nocturnes, Op. 27 92 Nocturne in C sharp minor, Op. 27 No. 1 52, 62, 111, 150 Nocturne in D flat major, Op. 27 No. 2 37, 49, 60, 72, 92, 94, 111, 124, 150, 151, 152 Nocturne in B major, Op. 32 No. 1 18, 93, 95, 111, 124, 130 Nocturne in A flat major, Op. 32 No. 2 32, 49, 109, 111, 124–5 Nocturne in G minor, Op. 37 No. 1 99, 111 Nocturne in C minor, Op. 48 No. 1 61, 64, 65–7, 80, 95, 99, 101, 106–7, 111, 112, 124–5, 129, 131, 147, 154, 155 Nocturne in F sharp minor, Op. 48 No. 2 73, 93, 155 Nocturne in F minor, Op. 55 No. 1 41, 93, 111, 130, 146, 153 Nocturne in E flat major, Op. 55 No. 2 60, 62, 70–1, 72, 111, 125, 126–8, 145, 147, 153, 155

Index of Chopin’s works  177 Nocturnes, Op. 62 77, 125, 159 Nocturne in B major, op. 62 No. 1 49, 56–7, 75–8, 79, 95, 99, 111, 113, 125, 130, 145, 153, 155, 156 Nocturne in E major, Op. 62 No. 2 83, 84–6, 107–8, 125, 147, 153, 156 Nocturne in E minor [Op. 72 No. 1] 32–4, 93, 124, 144, 148 Nocturne in C minor, without opus number 124, 125, 137

Sonata in C minor, Op. 4 51, 60, 69, 114, 132, 144, 149 Sonata in B flat minor, Op. 35 18, 19, 64, 93, 113, 116, 122, 123, 132, 133, 154 Sonata in B minor, Op. 58 15, 47, 56, 62, 74, 111, 116, 117–18, 122, 133, 145 Sonata in G minor, Op. 65 36, 60, 116, 122 Souvenir de Paganini 137, 152

polonaises 88, 90, 92, 99, 101, 113, 123, 144, 149, 151, 158, 159 Polonaises, Op. 26 159 Polonaise in C sharp minor, Op. 26 No. 1 93, 99, 151 Polonaise in E flat minor, Op. 26 No. 2 92, 93, 151 Polonaises, Op. 40 159 Polonaise in A major, Op. 40 No. 1 99, 124 Polonaise in C minor, Op. 40 No. 2 92, 99 Polonaise in F sharp minor, Op. 44 90, 92, 99, 115–16, 151, 154 Polonaise in A flat major, Op. 53 92, 93, 94, 99, 116, 144, 145, 151, 154 Polonaise-Fantasy, Op. 61 73, 74, 93, 99, 118, 120, 131, 132, 135, 136, 137, 154, 155, 157, 159 Polonaises [Op. 71] 93 Polonaise in B flat major [op. 71 No. 2] 101 Preludes, Op. 28 56, 62 Prelude in A minor, Op. 28 No. 2 56 Prelude in D minor, Op. 28 No. 24 144, 145

variation sets 40, 137–9, 143 Variations in A major see Souvenir de Paganini Variations in B flat major, Op. 2 40, 69, 137, 139, 140–2, 144, 146 Variations in B flat major, Op. 12 1, 40, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142–3 Variations in E major on theme from Rossini’s Cinderella for flute and piano 3, 137 Variations in E major on a German song 137, 139, 142, 148 Variations in D major on a theme of Thomas Moore for four hands 137, 139, 142 Variations in F major for four hands [lost] 137 Variation in E major from the cycle Hexameron 138

rondos 144, 148, 149 Rondo in C minor, Op. 1 93 Rondo à la mazur, Op. 5 149 Rondo à la krakowiak, Op. 14 34, 51, 149 Rondo in E flat major, Op. 16 149 scherzos 121, 154, 155, 160 Scherzo in B flat minor, Op. 31 73, 154 Scherzo in C sharp minor, Op. 39 72, 155 Scherzo in E major, Op. 54 73, 129, 154, 155 sonatas 18, 22, 58–9, 116, 117, 122, 123, 132–3, 135, 157

waltzes 44, 88, 92, 93, 99, 100, 101, 104, 105, 113, 144, 149, 151 Waltz in E flat major, Op. 18 104, 105, 149 Waltz in A flat major, Op. 34 No. 1 25, 65, 104, 105, 151 Waltz in A minor, Op. 34 No. 2 40, 104 Waltz in F major, Op. 34 No. 3 104 Waltz in A flat major, Op. 42 18, 25, 44, 53, 99, 104 Waltz in D flat major, Op. 64 No. 1 49, 104 Waltz in C sharp minor, Op. 64 No. 2 104 Waltz in A flat major, Op. 64 No. 3 44 Waltz in A flat major, Op. 69 No. 1 92, 99, 104 Waltz in B minor, Op. 69 No. 2 104 Waltz in E minor, without opus number 99

Index of names

Abraham, Gerald 26, 62, 124, 131, 157, 163, 171 Badura-Skoda, Paul 163 Baranowski, Tomasz 158, 159, 163 Beethoven, Ludwig van 8, 13, 21, 26, 31, 50, 58, 63, 140 Bellini Vincenzo 138 Bent, Ian 16, 163 Berkeley, Lennox 33, 83, 163 Berlioz, Hector 120 Berry, Wallace 28, 29, 163 Blom, Eric 13, 164 Blume, Friedrich 165, 167 Bogdańska, Anna 118, 121, 163 Brahms, Johannes 3, 9, 14 Bristiger, Michał 161, 163 Bronarski, Ludwik 143, 157, 163 Carew, Derek 36, 163 Cavett-Dunsby, Esther 17, 23, 139, 163 Chechlińska, Zofia 36, 61, 95, 163–4 Chodkowski, Andrzej 13, 14, 21, 164 Chomiński, Józef Michał 30, 32, 51, 56, 62, 64, 71, 90, 100, 107, 117–18, 131, 133, 137, 141, 145, 146, 150, 157, 164 Chybiński, Adolf 25, 164 Collaer, Paul 14 Colles, Henry Cope 13, 164 Cone, Edward T. 67, 89, 120, 164 Cramer, Johann Baptist 139 Czerny, Carl 138 Dahlhaus, Carl 13, 25, 72, 108, 131, 132, 138, 164–5 Debryn, Carmen 51, 165 Debussy, Claude 95 Dessauer, Heinrich 31, 165 Dommer, Arrey von 10, 12, 165

Dusík, Jan Ladislav 31 Dyckerhoff, Wilhelm 10–12, 165 Dziębowska, Elżbieta 171 Eggebrecht, Hans Heinrich 14, 21, 171 Eigeldinger, Jean-Jacques 62, 95, 124, 165 Ekier, Jan 1, 2, 32, 71, 133, 137, 150, 165 Erpf, Hermann 98, 165 Falenciak, Joanna 137, 165 Federhofer, Hellmut 90, 165, 171 Feicht, Hieronim 141, 165 Ferand, Ernst T. 14, 26 Field, John 31 Fischer, Kurt von 3, 9, 14, 23, 30, 50, 165 Forte, Allen 17, 19, 24, 165 Frick, David 164 Friedland, Martin 3, 50, 165 Geiringer, Karl 50, 165 Georgii, Walter 68, 69, 165 Gilbert, Steven E. 17, 19, 24, 165 Gołąb, Maciej 90, 112, 157, 158, 160, 163, 165–6, 171 Gress, Richard 21, 166 Guignard, Sylvain 100, 104, 166 Halm, August 12, 15 Hamburger, Paul 73, 166 Hand, Ferdinand 6, 7, 166 Haydn, Joseph 141 Helman, Zofia 116, 117, 132, 157, 160, 166 Herz, Henri 138 Hławiczka, Karol 69, 166 Hollander, Hans 95, 166 Hummel, Johann Nepomuk 31

Index of names  179 d’Indy, Vincent 7, 12, 13, 166 Jasińska, Danuta 40, 158, 159, 166 Jędrzejewicz, née Chopin, Ludwika 137 Kallberg, Jeffrey 2, 34, 56, 73–4, 124, 157, 159, 166 Kinderman, William 63, 166 Klauwell, Otto 81, 166 Koch, Heinrich Christoph 5–6, 7, 10, 11, 15, 139, 140, 166 Koszewski, Andrzej 88–9, 100, 122, 167 Kremlev, Yuli 157, 167 Kurpiński, Karol 148 Leichtentritt, Hugo 41, 42, 44, 131, 134, 146, 157, 167 Leikin, Anatole 18–19, 96, 133, 145, 167 Leppert, Richard 170 Lessel, Franciszek 141 Levy, Janet M. 121, 128, 167 Lippman, Edward A. 50, 167 Lissa, Zofia 2, 58, 95, 118, 121, 135, 136, 146, 147, 164, 165, 166, 167, 169, 171 Liszt, Ferenc [Franz] 67, 120, 138 Lobe, Johann Christian 7, 10, 12, 167 Lyadov, Anatoly 95, 167 Marston, Nicholas 17, 167 Marx, Adolf Bernhard 6, 28, 139, 167 Mathias, Georges 1, 167 Mazel, Lev [Lew] 36, 38, 51, 58, 120, 134, 135, 136, 167–8 McClary Susan 170 Mendel, Hermann 139, 168 Mendelssohn, Felix 100 Mersmann, Hans 23, 102, 168 Methuen-Campbell, James 1, 168 Meyer, Leonard B. 16, 23, 25, 33, 36, 72, 78, 88, 168 Mies, Paul 40, 60, 139, 168 Mikuli, Carl [Karol] 1, 168 Milligan, Thomas B. 31, 114, 133, 168 Mitschka, Arno 19, 168 Mohr, Ernst 165 Mohr, Wilhelm 14 Moore, Thomas 137 Morawski, Jerzy 96, 168 Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus 2, 15, 17, 23, 31, 40, 48, 60, 139, 140, 142 Murray, David 95, 168

Narmour, Eugene 119, 168 Nelson, Robert U. 3, 9, 22, 28, 50, 51, 81, 139, 140, 168 Newcomb, Anthony 120, 168 Niecks, Frederick 49, 109, 168 Nowik, Wojciech 15, 56, 147, 168 Ottich, Maria 31, 169 Öhrström, Eva 36, 168 Paderewski, Ignacy Jan 143 Palmer, Christopher 95, 169 Parakilas, James 3, 120, 131–2, 133, 135, 139, 140, 169 Pawłowski, Tadeusz 24, 169 Philipp, Isidore 167 Pistone, Danièle 36, 169 Pixis, Johann Peter 138 Poniatowska, Irena 22, 31, 36, 59, 60, 65, 67, 68, 138, 169 Popiel, Jerzy 167, 168 Prosnak, Antoni 112, 169 Prosnak, Jan 137, 169 Protopopov, Vladimir [Władimir Protopopow] 122, 169 Puchelt, Gerhard 3, 50, 144, 169 Randel, Don Michael 3, 6, 170, 172 Ratner, Leonard G. 146, 169 Ravel, Maurice 95 Rawsthorne, Alan 122, 169 Reicha, Anton 8, 169 Reissmann, August 139, 168 Reti, Rudolph 16–19, 169 Richter, Alfred 11, 169 Riemann, Hugo 4, 7, 169 Ringer, Alexander L. 31, 169 Rink, John 2, 118, 120, 123, 142, 164, 165, 168, 170 Ritterman, Janet 22, 170 Robinson, J. Bradford 164 Rosen, Charles 55, 123, 132, 170 Rosengart-Subotnik, Rose 90, 161–2, 170 Rothstein, William 62, 77, 105, 147, 170 Rowland, David 31, 170 Sadie, Stanley 9, 30, 163, 165, 171 Salzer, Felix 17, 170 Samson, Jim 2, 3, 30–1, 43, 62, 78, 83, 86, 95, 107, 118, 125, 134, 135, 145, 146, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170

180  Index of names Schenker, Heinrich 4, 17–18, 19, 23, 24, 90, 170 Schilling, Gustav 6, 170 Schlesinger, Maurice 15 Schneider, Marius 14 Schönberg, Arnold 13, 18, 19, 28, 108, 170 Schubert, Franz 3, 67, 104, 139 Schucht, Johann 36, 38, 170 Schulz, Johann Abraham Peter 7, 8, 10, 170 Schumann, Robert 3, 50, 100, 144 Schwarz, Werner 50, 170 Scriabin, Alexander 78 Sisman, Elaine R. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 17, 22, 23, 28, 29, 141, 170 Stein, Leonard 170 Strang, Gerald 170 Sulzer, Johann Georg 170 Sydow, Bronisław Edward 15, 166 Szymanowska, Maria 123 Temperley, Nicholas 31, 170 Thalberg, Sigismond 138 Thomson, William 161, 171 Tomaszewski, Mieczysław 62, 157, 159, 171 Tuchowski, Andrzej 125, 158, 159, 171 Turczyński, Józef 143 Turło, Teresa Dalila 32, 56, 71, 133, 137, 146, 150, 164, 171

Viecenz, Herbert 15, 171 Vogler, Georg Joseph 7, 171 Wachsmann, Kurt, P. 14 Wagner, Günter 131, 171 Wagner, Richard 14 Walker, Alan 18, 44, 96, 163, 166, 169, 171 Weber, Horst 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 21, 144, 171 Webster, James 123, 171 Whittall, Mary 164 Wilkowska-Chomińska, Krystyna 2, 43, 90, 100, 103, 107, 118, 125, 164, 171 Wiora, Walter 14, 62, 171 Witkowska-Zaremba, Elżbieta 77, 89, 105, 147, 157, 158, 171–2 Witten, Neil D. 2, 120, 172 Wolf, Eugene K. 6, 172 Wołowska, Aleksandryna 123 Woyciechowski, Tytus 137 Wójcik-Keuprulian, Bronisława 2, 19, 20, 31, 42, 88, 93, 121, 130, 146, 157, 172 Wörner, Karl H. 14, 98, 172 Zagiba, Franz 143, 172 Zieliński, Tadeusz 32, 33, 119, 132, 172