Quiz: Mystery scores

[Maciek]

Sorry I've only got a minute.

Maciek #151 - is that Erkki Melartin's Fantasia apocaliptica? Pretty interesting piece if you're into that whole impressionism/late romantic thing.

Yes, it's the Melartin, and I agree it is very interesting, though I can't really say I like it (the hollow-sounding octaves put me off, probably?).

(The thing he had "in common" with Ravel are his birth and death years.)

I'm appending a new one below, extremely easy, but difficult to read (to make up for the easiness ). If anyone is interested, I can add further comments once it's guessed - I have done some research. But I'm fine either way - this was an entirely satisfying "assignment" in and of itself.

[Luke]

Put me down as interested, and thanks for the research, for, if I'm not mistaken, that is Chopin's manuscript for that very C# minor Nocturne which I was wondering about above, w.r.t. the Rzewski piece which quotes it. And there, in what certainly looks like Chopin's handwriting, is that intriguing cross-rhythm I was interested in. Tell us more!     

[EigenUser]

Put me down as interested, and thanks for the research, for, if I'm not mistaken, that is Chopin's manuscript for that very C# minor Nocturne which I was wondering about above, w.r.t. the Rzewski piece which quotes it. And there, in what certainly looks like Chopin's handwriting, is that intriguing cross-rhythm I was interested in. Tell us more!     

Luke, may I ask how you know all of these scores?! Did you study music? Are you a professional musician?

I was surprised that you got the Boulez so quickly -- that score looks so complicated to me! Then again, that might be why you guessed it!

[Luke]

I have a lot of scores, and I've seen a lot more, and I've always been utterly fascinated with them. I suppose I'm able to spot the unusual features of a piece quite quickly sometimes, so I can often narrow down the possibilities.

With the Boulez, for instance, I knew straight away it was French (partly the language, partly the look); I was also pretty certain it was Boulez because the handwriting was similar to other scores of his I'd seen, and because he uses the conductor's notation that is in the score. I knew, stylistically, it was quite early; I knew it wasn't Soleil des Eaux or Visage Nuptiale (I have those scores), nor the Rituel or Pli Selon Pli (less likely, but I also have them, so I was sure). Notations was one of the only remaining options, and the huge size of the orchestra - 8 percussionists; Japanese blocks! - strongly suggested it. So I listened to the Notations and there it was..

With the Chopin - well, I know the piece well, I play it in concert, I instantly knew it was a Chopin piece (the handwriting is distinctive) and a slow movement in C# minor; I looked closer and there it was, pretty clearly the Nocturne; closer still and I saw the time signature feature I'd been discussing with Maciek...

As for my history, I've been obsessed with printed music from childhood; I compose and perform; I studied music at university; and I teach it for a living. 

[Maciek]

OK then, here goes. [This is a longish post. To make it easier for those who don't want to read all of it (but would still like to read some of it), the section containing what I imagine is the most important part is now in bold.]

I can't tell you which edition Rzewski was using but I can tell you a bit about the history of the piece. According to the notes to what I called the "Paderewski edition"... but here I have to stray off a bit: Technically, I really shouldn't be calling it that, since Paderewski did not live to see it complete - and that specifically includes the volume in question! No, it's actually the Bronarski-Paderewski-Turczynski edition! So, anyway, according to the notes in the Bronarski-Paderewski-Turczynski edition, there are three different autographs, one of which has those mysterious split meters (I was using a Russian edition, without a dictionary, so I may have misunderstood something, but I think I did get the general gist). This autograph was reproduced in a rather low quality (tiny) photograph in "Chopin w kraju" (1955) - a giant-sized volume of assorted materials whence the above scan comes.

The "Ekier Edition" (The National Edition) has the piece in two versions (in vol. 29 "Various compositions"), under the heading "Lento con gran espressione WN 37". A footnote explains that Chopin most likely did not call the piece a nocturne.

The first version ("from the earlier autograph") contains the 3 fascinating sections with the right hand playing 3/4 to the left hand's C. The third time ends with both hands switching to 3/4 for 12 bars, and then both hands back to C through to the end. What I find especially striking is that the first two instances of this have the right hand playing four bars to the left hand's two bars, but the third time the right hand plays five bars to the left hand's two and a half bars! (And then the left switches to 3/4.)

In the second version ("Version from a later autograph reconstructed from copies") there is a single bar with both hands playing 5/4 (the meter is in square brackets, so I suppose it was inserted by the editors), then they immediately both start playing 3/4, and after 11 bars both go back to C.

The Source Commentary lists only two autograph sources (hence the two versions of the piece given), so I suppose one of the 3 listed in the older (Bronarski-Paderewski-Turczynski) edition was an autograph copy (I did not compare the lists, sorry). The interpretation given here of the differences between the two versions is this: the first version is what Chopin noted "for himself" (in 1830, in Vienna - so there's an important element of psychological background, but you can check that in a Chopin biography, so please allow me to leave it at that). The second - is a version of the piece he prepared for his sister Ludwika, and the editors stipulate that the polymetric section would have been too difficult for her, so Chopin slightly simplified the piece. They say, by the way, that this is "a polymetre not encountered anywhere else in Chopin". They attribute the idea to rubato and the independence of each hand that rubato implies.

The editors actually offer a rather specific interpretation of the piece: the outer sections, they say, represent "the composer's nostalgia, (...) his profound sadness at parting from his family and friends"; the middle section, with the (polymetric) quotations, are "his acutely distinct recollections (...) of happiness and joy in their company". Whether this is or isn't going too far, I don't know. What do you think?

Whew, that was long... Sorry if it's a bit jumbled...

[Maciek]

if I'm not mistaken, that is Chopin's manuscript for that very C# minor Nocturne which I was wondering about above, w.r.t. the Rzewski piece which quotes it. And there, in what certainly looks like Chopin's handwriting, is that intriguing cross-rhythm I was interested in. Tell us more!     

Yes, yes, of course, it is. Sorry, I should have started by saying that.

[Maciek]

My rambling seems to have silenced the thread a bit...?

Here's another one. Probably much too easy, but I just couldn't make myself to cut it down to one or two bars.

[Maciek]

Ah, well, let's make it two while I'm at it. This one I'm pretty certain we've had before, though I don't remember if it was ever guessed (or whether it was the same page - almost certainly not).

There's a link between these two composers, and I think it can be seen on these pages a little bit? Or am I imagining things?

Also, I've updated my clues, but... I'm not sure if what I've added is going make things any clearer.

[Luke]

Well the first is from Szymanowski's Second SQ, not sure on the second though...

[Luke]

...and btw, that 'rambling' of yours was a) no such thing; b) deeply fascinating and c) much appreciated, and I'm sorry I didn't say so before. I love this deep nitty-gritty stuff, and your summing-up of the situation re the Chopin was very interesting. 

[Maciek]

Thank you, Luke. I could have been more succint and skipped the part about the earlier edition but maybe that's useful in some way too.

Anyway, you are right. Hopefully about the rambling and definitely about the Szymanowski quartet. I confess I used to listen to it with little enthusiasm. This has currently changed completely. I find it a fascinating and thrilling piece. An evening or two ago it became one of my favorite Szymanowski pieces over the course of one listen. Why was I deaf to its brilliance, to all its undeniable qualities earlier on? The thing I dislike about it currently is that it's too short!

Well, let me add another one while I'm here. There are circles around some of the notes in the score - those are in pencil, they are not part of the score, sorry if that's confusing. (Never mind, I've replaced the page with another one from the same score - one that is more telling, or at least so I hope )

[listener]

may be helpful...
another bit of the 572 set, and there'll be more of 573 on the weekend, format conversion is complicated but it was written for a birthday party, if that's any help.

[listener]

Here's a supplement to my 573 "Birthday Party" music

[Luke]

Well, the second of those is the big Chopin A flat Polonaise. The first looks like Scarlatti, but right this minute I haven't got time to trawl through all 555+ Sonatas etc to check exactly what, even if it is.

However I am confused by the 'birthday party' context, my mind is not in gear at the moment!

[listener]

Oh, that was a nasty mis-lead, but the start will show it's not the Chopin Polonaise.
Each of these sets is by one composer only though, and the references to others are deliberate.
Each set has also a unique theme.   572 is not Siegfried Ochs.

[Maciek]

Wait a minute, now I'm getting confused. What do you mean by "sets"? Does that mean they don't come from a single piece? I assumed you were adding new pages from the same scores, but now it seems you aren't? (I mean I initially thought that this and this were from one piece.) Does that mean they come from the same set/cycle of pieces, but not from same specific piece in the set?

[listener]

There are two composers, one each for 372 and 373, and the bits I've picked are from different 'movements' in each.  The two composers were obviously good pianists.
So we're looking for the writers of a couple of collections that don't look like their usual thing.  I'll stay on line for a bit if that is confusing.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Well, the second of those is the big Chopin A flat Polonaise.

No, it can't be. It is a quotation, and a big one, but look at the ending - it isn't Chopin's own coda.

Which means I otherwise haven't a clue. I thought of Scarlatti for the other one too.

[Luke]

Oops, fell for my own trick there, only looked at the general shapes, not the details. 

The 'Brahms' one and the 'Scarlatti' one are by the same composer, you say? So could it be from a book of pastiches, a kind of 'a la maniere de...' like the Ravel/Casella one? (I set the Casella 'Strauss' pastiche as one of my mystery scores years ago, and he did a Brahms one in that set, too, but it isn't this piece)

[amw]

Well, let me add another one while I'm here. There are circles around some of the notes in the score - those are in pencil, they are not part of the score, sorry if that's confusing.

It's a Requiem setting (or a partial one?) for three choirs and two (or more?) groups of plinky instruments. That may ring a bell for someone else. Also it's probably Polish because I think both of your string quartet pieces were Polish, though I also don't recognise the second one. (Gorecki or something? It looks influenced by Ligeti's Metamorphoses nocturnes, so I suppose it could also be Hungarian/Romanian, but I don't think that piece was premiered until after Ligeti'd become a fixture of Warsaw Autumn)
>.>