Frederic Chopin - Barcarolle Op. 60

The Polish composer Frederic Chopin was born in 1810. As one of the virtuoso performer-composers of the nineteenth century, his input into the piano repertoire is immense and his music has remained a staple in the repertoire of pianists of all levels. The reason why internationally acclaimed scholars and musicians such as Jim Samson and Alfred Cortot see Chopin not only as one of the greatest composers of the romantic period but also as an innovator and a revolutionary is due to how much Chopin transformed the technique of piano playing, influencing almost every composer writing for piano during and after his lifetime. This challenging of convention was partly enabled by developments in piano-making technology in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and any interpretation of his work must take into account the capabilities of the instruments on which Chopin himself would have been playing. Learning and performing any piece composed by F. Chopin is a challenge, especially when it is a large-scale romantic work like the Barcarolle Op. 60. As one of his later productions, this work is a prime example of the composer’s compositional and technical capabilities in their full maturity. Besides a well-developed pianistic technique, the study of this piece requires great attention to style, form, tone production and character in order to do full justice to it. In my attempt to create a stylistic interpretation of the work I will take into account nineteenth century performance practice, the technical construction of the Pleyel pianos which Chopin was so fond of, and also contemporary accounts of the way in which the composer himself thought about and played his own works, among other relevant issues.

G. C. Ashton Jonson defines the barcarolle as “a boat song written in imitation of Venetian barcarolli as they urge their gondolas along the silent canals” (G. C. Ashton Jonson, p. 256). The defining feature of a barcarolle is its underlying rhythmic continuity of alteration between strong and weak beats in 6/8 time. However Chopin breaks this convention. His Barcarolle Op. 60 is written in 12/8, which is how, according to Denis Matthews, Chopin gives himself the possibility of creating longer, more lyrically sustained melodic lines (D. Matthews, p. 154). Chopin’s melodic writing has been the subject of much discussion and praise among scholars of the composer’s music. For example, William Leslie Sumner writes that “He [Chopin] had an instinct for inventing melodies that would be ineffective if played on an instrument capable of sustaining tone but which, picked out in percussive points of sound each beginning to die as soon as born, are enchanting and give an illusion of singing” (W. L. Sumner, p. 160). The melodic writing of the Barcarolle Op. 60 is a clear example of this as, more often than not melodic lines form long phrases (bars 10-16 and 28-31) which would be almost impossible to perform for a singer due to their sustained length. However, there is no doubt that in this piece Chopin intended for the piano to imitate a duet of singers given the title’s reference to a vocal tradition, and the composer’s own fondness for singers and singing. The German composer Robert Schumann said “Chopin in his melodies leans sometimes over Germany towards Italy” (G. C. Ashton Jonson, p. 256). R. Schumann was of course referring to how much Chopin was influenced by Italian opera and especially his contemporary, the composer Vincenzo Bellini. In addition to this, Chopin’s appreciation of the great Italian singers of the time, such as Rubini, Pasta, Malibran and others was well known (W. L. Sumner, p.  162). He based his cantabile aesthetic on the Italian bel canto tradition, and constantly urged his pupils to listen to the performances of good singers (Bellman, p.155). One of the earliest recordings of piano music was by the pianist Theodor Leschetizky (1830-1915) who, like Liszt, was a pupil of Czerny. His performance of Chopin’s D flat major Nocturne, Op.27 No. 2 ‘displays the two prime techniques often categorized as late-Romantic ‘mannerisms’, namely frequent arpeggiation of chords and the asynchronisation of bass and treble’ (Hamilton, p.69). This mode of performance helped to emphasise the melodic notes because no other notes would have been struck at the same time as them, whilst also providing a greater singing quality because of the way in which the piano strings would already be resonating with the pedaled bass note, providing a cushion of sound on which the tune rests (Hamilton, p.70). It is impossible to know how Chopin would have played his own melodies, but this old recording might provide an insight into Romantic performance styles. In my own interpretation of the Barcarolle Op. 60 I will not adopt this method of emphasizing the melodic line, but will instead exploit the capabilities of the modern piano to bring out separate cantabile tone qualities.

With the realization of the importance of singing melodic lines in the Barcarolle Op. 60 comes the inevitable research into tone production which is essential to all of Chopin’s piano music. The composer’s student Carl Mikuli stated that ‘the tone which Chopin drew from the instrument, especially in cantabile passages, was immense and a manly energy gave to appropriate passages an overpowering effect’ (Arthur Hedley, p.120). After hearing the Polish composer playing in a concert in Leipzig in 1836, R. Schumann described Chopin’s tone production in even more poetic terms: “Let one imagine that an Aeolian harp had all the scales and that an artist’s hand had mingled them together in all kinds of fantastic decorations, but in such a way that you could always hear a deeper fundamental tone and softly singing melody – there you have of a picture of his (Chopin’s) playing” (W. L. Sumner, p. 163). According to Bela Siki, Chopin’s unique sound at the piano comes from the freedom he had in his arms and shoulders. This was one of the developments that the virtuoso pianist introduced into piano technique. In disagreement with the German school of piano playing with its emphasis on the strength and independence of the hand and its digits, Chopin’s new method introduced a relaxed forearm and upper arm as well as freedom in the wrist. His approach to the position of the hand on the keyboard was also unique. Moving away from the conventional starting position over all white keys from middle C to G, Chopin regarded a position of a hand over the first five notes of an E major scale (E, F sharp, G sharp, A sharp, B) to be much more natural and useful. This is evident in the writing of the Barcarolle Op. 60.For example in the poco piu mosso  section (bars 60-70) the writing requires a pianist to think carefully about their choice of fingering due to the challenging nature of the legato passages. This type of complicated writing is typical for Chopin and in order to achieve the freedom of the hand which is essential when playing Chopin’s music, a pianist has to consider the composer’s own innovative approach to fingering. Chopin was one of the first pianists to use his thumb and fifth finger on the black keys. He also championed the movement of the third finger over the fourth one in order to achieve a cantabile and legato quality. This is useful not only in Barcarolle Op. 60 but also in many other works written by Chopin, like his etude Opus 10, No. 2, Scherzo no. 1, Opus 20 etc (B. Siki, p.179).

F. Chopin himself said that ‘the correct employment of the pedals remains a study for life’ (Jean-Jacques Eigeldinger, Chopin as Pianist and Teacher, p.68). Very often, the composer provided notation for the right pedal in his manuscripts, and the Barcarolle Op. 60 is not an exception. In many sections the use of pedal is very explicit, for example in the meno mosso section (bars 70-76) where seemingly similar textures are differentiated by the composer through the use of pedal. By changing the pedaling, the composer was able to create specific colours and phrases. However, when perfecting the use of pedal in any piece by Chopin, a pianist must consider the instruments these pieces were composed for. ‘The rise of romanticism coincided exactly with the development of the modern grand piano… Some of the delicate filigree threads of sound woven by Chopin… are intimately bound up with the new range of sound available, and would have been impossible to realize on the instruments of a generation before (J. Ogdon, p.209-10). Pianos were undergoing significant changes throughout the nineteenth century, and manufacturers were competing to produce instruments of increasing tonal and technical capability. Among the changes introduced was the addition of metal in the frame of the piano, which enabled a larger sound production. As Jim Samson notes, in some pieces such as the C Major Etude Op. 10 No. 1 Chopin’s original pedaling can be transferred without controversy from the early nineteenth century piano to the modern concert grand, whilst other music requires reinterpretation of the composer’s instructions to accommodate the capabilities of the twentieth century instrument (J. Samson, p.104). Similarly in the opening of Barcarolle Op. 60 (bars 1-4), the composer indicates that the pedal should be held for the whole section unchanged. This simply does not work on the modern piano, and I will lift the pedal more often than he has indicated in an attempt to create a clearer sound and distinguish between the various voices. Having established himself in Paris, the home of piano-making technology and development, Chopin demonstrated a clear preference towards the instruments produced by Pleyel. Choosing between Pleyels and the more robust Errard instruments being produced at the same time, the pianist made it clear that whilst he enjoyed the sonority of Errard pianos, the Pleyels came closest to his ideal tone quality. As J. Eigeldinger states, ‘the fundamental element of Chopin’s sound esthetic finds its perfect realization on a Pleyel: namely, the precise mechanism of the pedals and the timbre of the una corda’ (J. Eigeldinger (2001), p. 393). The precision of the pedaling action the academic speaks of is of course lost on the modern Steinway and Yamaha pianos we tend to perform on. Their large sound and sonority would have been alien to the aesthetic of the early nineteenth century, and modern pianists must take into account the difference between the dryer instrument that Chopin used and our more resonant modern pianos when performing the pieces he composed. Chopin did not often record the use of the una corda pedal in his manuscripts, but contemporary reports suggest that he did make magical use of it in performance (J. Eigeldinger, p.58). As such, I will use my own discretion in applying the una corda pedal to certain passages in order to create a more intimate and gentle tone quality, such as in the opening bars 4-6 as well as in bars 70-80.

The authenticity of the performance of works composed by F. Chopin depends greatly on the choice pianists make with regards to dynamics and rubato. Returning to the opening of the Barcarolle Op. 60, this section presents several challenges besides those of stylistic pedaling. The first three bars create a dilemma for editors and performers alike in terms of the dynamics. Edition Peters marks both first and second beats forte, in Carl Mikuli’s (Chopin’s pupil) edition forte is marked only on the second beat and in the Paderewski edition forte sign is placed between the first and second beat. These discrepancies are caused by Chopin’s inaccurate marking in the manuscript of the piece. The original score of the Barcarolle Op. 60 has the forte sign written sideways in between the first two beats of the piece (Arie Vardi, 2010). As such, editors have disagreed about the precise location of the forte – it could be regarded as being either on the first beat or on the second beat, whilst others have argued that whilst both are forte, there is a crescendo between the first and second beats. Despite their disagreements on the dynamics of the opening, most editions seem to be unanimous in their reading of Chopin’s hairpins. It is important to note the dynamic markings notated by the composer because they provide an insight into his vision of the tone quality and character of the various sections. The constant movement back and forth between piano and forte throughout the Barcarolle helps to create a sense of gentle rocking, hearkening back to the waves that inspired the music. However, when considering the dynamic range of any piece composed by Chopin it is important to keep in mind the difference between Chopin’s instrument and modern pianos. The pianos of the past would not be able to compete with the instruments of our day in terms of loudness. Stylistically speaking, it is essential not to let the abilities of a modern piano to destroy the intentions of the composer. However, as Mikuli noted of one of his performances in Paris, despite his physical frailty ‘the tone which Chopin drew from the instrument, especially in cantabile passages, was immense… a manly energy gave to appropriate passages an overpowering effect – energy without coarseness’ (quoted in Headley, p.120). In my performance of the Barcarolle Op.60 I will exploit the wider dynamic range provided by the modern piano in order to create more marked contrasts between piano and forte passages than would have been possible in Chopin’s time. However, in doing so I will also take great care not to create a harsh or percussive sound in the louder sections of the piece, always bearing in mind the singing, or cantabile origins of the work and the composer’s own emphasis on lyricism and tone quality in his own playing.

Perhaps the most challenging and subjective feature of Chopin’s style is his rubato, a subject that has been speculated on by many scholars. Chopin himself insisted that “your left hand must be a conductor and maintain the beat” (W. L. Sumner, p.168). This approach can be seen throughout the Barcarolle Op. 60, for example in the meno mosso section (bars 70-76), where the left hand keeps strict pulse while right hand melody sounds very free even without rubato due to the phrasing of the melodic line and its overlapping of the first beats of various bars. The dolce sfogato section that follows could be seen as a completely free improvised cadenza if it was not for the left hand that serves the role of harmonic and rhythmic stabilizer here. This is supported by the words of one the most talented pupils of Chopin, Carl Mikuli, who said: “the left hand always played in strict time, while the right hand, singing the melody, either hesitating as if undecided, or, with increased animation, anticipating with a kind of impatient vehemence as if in passionate utterances, maintained the freedom of musical expression from the fetters of strict regularity” (C. Mikuli, p. 1). Contemporary scholars believe that very often Chopin’s term tempo rubato has been misinterpreted by many pianists. J. Samson states “in general the evidence suggests that Chopin’s rubato was closer to baroque-classical practice than to the exaggerated tempo fluctuations of some of his contemporaries” (J. Samson, p.105). W. L. Sumner goes further and suggests that the music of Chopin suffered greatly because of the freedoms takes by editors and performers and claims that “tempo rubato was exaggerated until the left hand of the performer did not know what the right one was doing” (W. L. Sumner, p. 161). In the Barcarolle Op. 60 there are many opportunities for a performer to abuse the rubato and make the piece sound unnecessarily flashy and extravagant. B. Siki states that ‘it would be safe to say that Chopin hated excesses or sentimentality and liked a well-controlled, balanced performance’ (B. Siki, p. 180). It is therefore important to carefully analyze the harmonic and melodic progression in this piece and wisely choose appropriate moments which during a performance of the piece could be emphasized for the public through the tasteful use of rubato.

In conclusion, my interpretation of Chopin’s Barcarolle Op.60 takes into account the properties of the instruments, playing styles and conventions of the early nineteenth century and adopts them to the capabilities of the modern piano. I am also quite conservative in my use of rubato. In general, keeping true to a style that would have been familiar to Chopin himself is my primary aim, and my research will hopefully enable me to do so.

Bibliography

Bellman, Jonathan. ‘Chopin and His Imitators: Notated Emulations of the "True Style" of Performance’, from 19th-Century Music 24 (2)

Cortot, Alfred. In Search of Chopin (London: Peter Nevill, 1951)

Ehrlich, Cyril. The Piano: A History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990 (1976))

Eigeldinger, Jean-Jacques. Ed. and trans. Roy Howat. Chopin: Pianist and Teacher (Cambridge, 1986 (1970)

Eigeldinger, Jean-Jacques. ‘Chopin and Pleyel’, from Early Music, 2001. 41(3)

Keyboard Music, ed. Denis Matthews (Newton Abbot: Penguin Books, 1972)

Ferguson, Howard. Keyboard Interpretation: From the 14^th to the 19^th century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975)

Hamilton, Kenneth. ‘The Virtuoso Tradition’, from The Cambridge Companion to the Piano, ed. David Rowland  (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998)

Hedley, Arthur. Chopin

Jonson, GC Ashton. A Handbook to Chopin’s Works (London: William Reeves) Sumner, W.L. The Pianoforte (London: Macdonald, 1966)

Mikuli, Carl. ‘Foreword’, trans. Schirmer (ed). Frederic Chopin, Etudes Op.10 (London, 1949)

Siki, Bela. Piano Repertoire: A Guide to Interpretation and Performance (London: Macmillan, 1981)

Samson, Jim. The Music of Chopin (London: Routledge, 1985)

Sumner, W.L. The Pianoforte (London: Macdonald, 1966)