AN ANALYSIS OF INCONSISTENCIES OF PEDAL MARKINGS

IN CHOPIN’S WALTZ IN C-SHARP MINOR, OP. 64, NO. 2

WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERFORMANCE

H’ng Joo How

A Doctoral Research Project submitted to

The College of Creative Arts
at
West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Musical Arts
in
Piano Performance

James Miltenberger, D.M.A., Chair

Victor Chow, Ph.D.
William Haller, D.M.A.
Keith Jackson, D.M.A.
Connie Arrau Sturm, Ph.D., Research Advisor

Division of Music

Morgantown, West Virginia

2007

Keywords: Chopin, pedal, waltz, Op. 64 no.2, piano, interpretation

 ABSTRACT

AN ANALYSIS OF INCONSISTENCIES OF PEDAL MARKINGS

IN CHOPIN’S WALTZ IN C-SHARP MINOR, OP. 64, NO. 2 WITH
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERFORMANCE
H’ng Joo How

Choosing the most authentic edition for the performance of Chopin’s works can
often pose a dilemma for pianists. Since Chopin sent different manuscripts to several
different publishers, even these (and the first and subsequent editions created from them)
can present conflicting versions of a work. Further confusion can be created when
opinions other than those of the composer (e.g., his students, acquaintances, or editors)
are also considered.

This study presents detailed and thorough comparisons among pedal markings in
facsimiles of one holograph as well as facsimiles of several first and early editions
(published in France, Germany, and England) of Chopin’s Waltz in C# Minor, Op. 64 no.
2 published in Jan Bogdan Drath’s Waltzes of Fryderyk Chopin: Sources, Volume I –
Waltzes Published During Chopin’s Lifetime. One of these facsimiles is believed to be of
a copy owned by Camille O’ Méara-Dubois (Chopin’s student). In addition, several
“Urtext” teaching editions of this intermediate-level composition are compared to these
original sources, and comments and markings by Carl Mikuli (Chopin’s student) in his
edition of the Chopin waltzes are also discussed. Finally, recommendations for pedalling
this piece are offered based on these analyses of pedal indications and also on findings
from scholarly literature related to the topic of pedalling Chopin’s piano music.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deepest thanks to my research advisor, Dr. Connie

Arrau Sturm, for her scholarly guidance, effort, and encouragement with this research.
This research study would not have been accomplished without her generously devoting
much time, patience, and valuable input. I would like to extend my gratitude to my piano
instructor and the chair of my doctoral committee, Dr. James Miltenberger, who imparted
musical insight and knowledge to me, while always being understanding and
encouraging. I would also like to thank Dr. William Haller and Dr. Keith Jackson for
their help and accessibility. Last, but not least, I will also take this opportunity to express
special thanks to Dr. Victor Chow for being supportive and attentive throughout my
doctoral program.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1

Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................2

Need for the Study .............................................................................2
Limitations of the Study.....................................................................3
Definition of Terms............................................................................3
Research Design.................................................................................4

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ....................................................5

Selected Sources Focusing on Chopin or on Pedalling in General....5

Selected Sources Focusing Specifically on Pedalling in Chopin’s
Music.............................................................................................7
Selected Sources Focusing on Comparisons of Different
Manuscripts and/or Editions of Chopin’s Works........................17

III. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF PEDALLING IN

CHOPIN'S WALTZ IN C# MINOR, OP. 64, NO.2 ....................................22

Pedal and Avoidance of Pedal in Chords.........................................24

Pedal in Scales and Diatonic Passages.............................................24
Pedalling of Non-harmonic Tones ...................................................26
Blurring Together Harmonies of Different Function.......................26
Dissimilar Pedalling in Similar and Identical Passages of
the Same Composition ................................................................27
Pedals and Releases Independent of Slurs .......................................28
Juxtaposition of Unpedalled and Pedalled Passages in a
Composition................................................................................30
Avoidance of Pedal in Part Writing and “Solo” Passages ...............33
Pedals Through Rests.......................................................................35
Missing Final Release Signs ............................................................38
Mikuli’s Edition of the Chopin Waltz, Op. 64 no. 2........................38
Overview of Selected Pedagogical Editions Designated
as “Urtext” ..................................................................................40

iv
 IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FURTHER RESEARCH.....................................................................44

Summary ..........................................................................................44
Conclusions......................................................................................44
Recommendations for Future Research ...........................................46

APPENDIX: Chopin’s Waltz in C# Minor, Op. 64, No. 2

Without Pedal Indications........................................................................................48

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................................................................58

v
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Choosing an appropriate edition for musical performance is crucial because it

brings performers and audiences closer to the intentions and desires that the composer

wished to express through the music. However, selecting an authentic edition can often

be a dilemma for performers, especially if that composition has been edited by a number

of different people. Performers have to be knowledgeable enough to seek out the most

authentic score they can find, e.g., manuscript facsimiles (when available), first

edition(s), or modern editions which are faithful to the original sources. However, if

composers sent different manuscripts to several different publishers, even these (and the

first and subsequent editions created from them) can present conflicting versions of a

work. Further confusion can be created when opinions other than those of the composer

(e.g., his students, acquaintances, or editors) are also considered.

Chopin, an accomplished pianist and composer, marked his scores very carefully

with attention to minute details. Since his manuscripts were published in three countries

simultaneously (France, Germany, and England), this created three first editions which,

according to the music scholar Jan Bogdan Drath, were “never identical”. 1 If one also

considers Chopin pupils’ scores and/or their personal reminiscences of his teachings,

interpreting Chopin’s intentions and desires can become even more difficult.
1
Jan Bogdan Drath, Waltzes of Fryderyk Chopin: Sources - Waltzes Published During Chopin’s Lifetime,
vol. 1 (Kingsville, Texas: Texas A&I University Publications, 1979), ix.

1
 2

Purpose of the Study

This study presents detailed and thorough comparisons among pedal markings in

facsimiles of one holograph as well as facsimiles of several first and early editions

(published in France, Germany, and England) of Chopin’s Waltz in C# Minor, Op. 64 no.

2 published in Jan Bogdan Drath’s Waltzes of Fryderyk Chopin: Sources. One of these

facsimiles is believed to be of a copy owned by Camille O’ Méara-Dubois (Chopin’s

student). 2 In addition, several “Urtext” teaching editions of this intermediate-level

composition are compared to these original sources, and comments and markings by Carl

Mikuli (Chopin’s student) in his edition of the Chopin waltzes 3 are also discussed.

Finally, recommendations for pedalling this piece are offered based on these analyses of

pedal indications and also on findings from scholarly literature related to the topic of

pedalling Chopin’s piano music.

Need for the Study

Chopin’s pedal markings reflect very careful and detailed attention to this aspect

of performance. His fondness for variety created pedal schemes which were far from

ordinary. Unfortunately, the Chopin scholar Thomas Higgins noted that the greatest

discrepancies between autographs and most printed editions of his works are in the areas

of pedal and slur markings. 4 Much confusion is created when pedal markings are altered

or imposed by editors. Unfortunately, many editors have “regularized” Chopin’s pedal

markings by replacing his markings with continuous pedalling that eliminated the

2
Ibid., 236.
3
Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin, Waltzes, ed. Carl Mikuli (New York: G. Schirmer, Inc., 1943).
4
Thomas Higgins, “Chopin Interpretation: A Study of Performance Directions in Selected Autographs and
Other Sources” (Ph.D. diss., University of Iowa, 1966), 11.
 3

composer’s initial intentions. This occurs even in so-called “Urtext” editions. The aim of

this research project is to help the performer discern and further understand Chopin’s

original pedal markings in different musical situations through study and analysis of

facsimiles of original sources of Chopin’s Waltz in C# Minor, Op. 64 no. 2.

Limitations of the Study

This study only covers analyses of pedal markings in Chopin’s Waltz in C# Minor,

Op. 64 no. 2 in the scores specified above. A complete theoretical, historical, or

pedagogical analysis of this work is beyond the scope of this study. Analyses of

recordings of this work are not included in this research due to the difficulty in accurately

identifying subtleties and nuances in pedalling from any recording, and due to the

inability of a listener to distinguish the sound produced by actual pedalling from fine

adjustments to that sound quality that can be produced by a professional recording

technician.

Definition of Terms

The following definitions are paraphrased from the Oxford English Dictionary

online: 5

Manuscript – A handwritten document

Autograph – A document written in the author's handwriting

Holograph – A document with the author’s name hand written on it.

Facsimile – An exact copy of a document

5
Oxford English Dictionary online (2006).
 4

Research Design

This research consists of four chapters. Chapter I presents an introduction to the

research. Chapter II provides an overview of selected scholarly dissertations, books, and

articles related to Chopin’s pedal markings. Chapter III consists of examinations and

analyses of Chopin’s pedal markings in facsimiles of one holograph as well as in the

selected editions of his Waltz in C# Minor, Op. 64 no. 2, listed in the “Purpose of the

Study”. Suggestions for performance are offered based on these analyses and on related

findings from different scholars. Chapter IV offers a summary of findings and

suggestions for further research in this area.

 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

In this Chapter, books, articles and dissertations related to pedalling the piano

music of Chopin are reviewed. Sources are categorized under the following three sub-

headings: 1) selected sources focusing on Chopin, or on pedalling in general, 2) selected

sources focusing specifically on pedalling in Chopin’s music, and 3) selected sources

focusing on comparisons of different manuscripts and/or editions of Chopin’s works.

Selected Sources Focusing on Chopin, or on Pedalling in General

David Rowland’s 1993 book, A History of Pianoforte Pedalling, has some

valuable information on the development of the piano and the art of pedalling. While this

book is primarily a survey of pedalling practices throughout the history of the piano

rather than a detailed examination of the works of any single composer, Rowland does

provide some general information related to Chopin. When discussing Chopin, Rowland

noted that he was a great master who excelled in pedalling, and that he was utterly strict

regarding the misuse of it, saying repeatedly to the pupil, “The correct employment of it

remains a study for life”. 6

Rowland told the reader that Chopin used pedal constantly, “with so much tact

and skill that he obtained ravishing harmonies and melodic whispers that charmed and

6
David Rowland, A History of Pianoforte Pedalling (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 125.

5
 6

astonished.” 7 In some cases, Chopin marked simplice to indicate to the performer to play

simply and without the use of pedal (e.g., in the first section of the Nocturne in F Major

Op. 15, no.1), or to gain clarity for the left-hand part (e.g., in the Prelude in B Minor Op.

28, no. 6). Rowland also noted that Chopin crossed out pedalling in certain passages in

his autographs, showing his subtle use of it in some circumstances to avoid any hint of

harmonic blurring (e.g., in the Prelude in E Major Op. 28, no. 9). In contrast, he

sometimes deliberately blurred the pedalling to create a particular effect. For example, in

the Prelude in Bb Minor, Op. 28 no. 16, the pedal begins in m. 2 and is released at the end

of m. 4. Rowland’s book is valuable because it provides historical context for the study of

pedalling of any single composer.

Chopin: Pianist and Teacher is a collection of information on Chopin’s teaching

activity and methods. 8 This is an essential book for those readers who want to gain

knowledge or do research from primary sources. The author, Jean-Jacques Eigeldinger,

closely studied Chopin’s pianistic and stylistic characteristics from reliable sources, such

as his memoranda books, his correspondence, a sketch for a method, the annotated scores

of pupils and associates, and statements of Chopin’s own students in diaries, letters, and

reminiscences (written, dictated or conveyed by word of mouth). 9

The Waltz in C# Minor, Op. 64 no. 2 is mentioned in Eigeldinger’s text, when he

quoted material from a 1913 book by Jean Kleczynski (a personal acquaintance of

Chopin’s close friends). Kleczynski noted that in Chopin’s music, the una corda pedal

7
Ibid., 127.
8
Jean Kleczynski, How to Play Chopin; the Works of Frederic Chopin, Their Proper Interpretation, trans.
Alfred Whittingham (London: William Reeves, 1913), 44-45, 59 quoted in Jean-Jacques Eigeldinger,
Chopin: Pianist and Teacher as Seen by his Pupils, ed. Roy Howat, trans. Naomi Shohet (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1986).
9
Jean-Jacques Eigeldinger, Chopin: Pianist and Teacher as Seen by his Pupils, ed. Roy Howat, trans.
Naomi Shohet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 2.
 7

should be used “with due caution; many passages are best when played simply and

without the use of either pedal.” However, he advocated using the una corda pedal for

melodies which are “truly divine; melodies which remove us from earth”, and he

recommended its use in the più lento section of this waltz. 10 Other sources quoted in

Eigeldinger’s text which mentioned this waltz gave information about articulation, 11

tempo, 12 and rubato. 13

Selected Sources Focusing Specifically on Pedalling in Chopin’s Music

Part Two of The Pianist’s Guide to Pedaling by Joseph Banowetz consists of nine

chapters, each focusing on pedalling the keyboard music of a different composer. Chapter

nine of this book, written by contributor Maurice Hinson, is entitled “Pedaling the Piano

Works of Chopin”. 14 Hinson stated that Chopin was very meticulous in pedalling during

performances. When writing music, Chopin cautiously notated pedal markings which

reflected the way he performed on the piano. Nevertheless, according to Hinson, many of

his publishers did not follow his pedal indications completely. Hinson stated that there is

no published version of Chopin’s works which includes all his original pedal indications

(neither the Henle nor Vienna Urtext editions, nor the Norton Critical Scores edition of

the Preludes). 15 Hinson encouraged all performers to use the more accurate and reliable

editions of Chopin’s works, such as those published by Edition Peters (Leipzig) and

edited by Paul Badura-Skoda and Thomas Higgins. Furthermore, Hinson strongly

10
Ibid., 58.
11
Ibid., 88.
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid., 120.
14
Maurice Hinson, “Pedaling the Piano Works of Chopin,” in The Pianist’s Guide to Pedaling by Joseph
Banowetz (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1985), 179-198.
15
Ibid., 179.
 8

recommended careful study of manuscript facsimiles, “both for the Chopin interpretation

itself and for the cultivation of subtle pedaling techniques.” 16

In this chapter, Hinson further discussed Chopin’s markings in the autographs.

Chopin used the Ped. and * signs in his autographs to indicate the depressing and raising

of the pedal. 17 Although he never indicated the use of the una corda pedal, Jean

Kleczynski (a personal acquaintance of Chopin’s close friends Princess Marcellina

Czartoryska and Julian Fontana) had high accolades for Chopin’s use of both una corda

and damper pedals, saying it “excelled to perfection” and noting that Chopin could

“pass from the hard (damper) pedal to the soft almost instantaneously, particularly in

discordant variations of pitch.” 18

Hinson also examined editors’ changes to Chopin’s original pedal indications in

Chopin’s preludes and selected other works (not including any of the waltzes). This led

him to conclude the following:

The performer should try using Chopin’s own pedal indications where they are
extant, for they offer great variety of color and phrasing. If they do not work
because the modern grand is more resonant or because of room acoustics, delicate
adjustments of touch and a proper balance between the different registers should
be made. But the majority of Chopin’s pedals work quite well on most modern
pianos provided the player listens and adjusts continually. 19

After examining pieces (selected preludes, and Ballades Op. 47 and Op. 38) that

had been studied earlier by Higgins, and briefly discussing three other Chopin pieces (the

Etudes Op. 25 nos. 2 and 10 and the Scherzo Op. 20), Hinson restated Higgins’

16
Ibid., 190.
17
Ibid., 180.
18
Jean Kleczynski, Frederic Chopin - An Interpretation of his Works, trans. W. Kirkbride (Palma de
Mallorca: Mossen Alcover, 1970), 71-72 quoted in Hinson, “Pedaling the Piano Works of Chopin,” 181.
19
Hinson, “Pedaling the Piano Works of Chopin,” 190.
 9

conclusions on Chopin’s use of the pedal. 20 Finally, Hinson offered very general (in

Meniker’s opinion, overly general 21 ) suggestions for pedalling Chopin’s music.

While most scholars referenced in this Chapter examined and compared Chopin’s

pedal markings among different musical scores, Sandra Rosenblum offered some unique

perspectives in her investigation of Chopin’s pedal markings. Not only did she examine

several original autographs of Chopin’s compositions, but she also performed on a Pleyel

piano that belonged to Chopin as well as another Pleyel piano from the 1840’s; thus, she

was able to compare the sound and resonance of historical pianos to the modern piano. In

her article entitled, “Some Enigmas of Chopin’s Pedal Indications: What Do the Sources

Tell Us?” 22 , Rosenblum quoted reports of Chopin’s contemporaries who noted the

individuality, sensitivity and care with which Chopin used the pedals in his own

performances. She observed that the damper pedal played an important role in creating

color in Chopin’s music, and that Chopin’s precise pedal markings enhance the musical

content of his works. In this article, Rosenblum analyzed pedal markings in Chopin’s

Mazurka Op. 59, no. 2 and Nocturne Op. 55, no. 2; both of these pieces reflect Chopin’s

concepts of pedalling in the latter years of his life.

In her analysis of the Mazurka Op. 59, no. 2, Rosenblum compared two

completed autographs and three first editions. One autograph went to the German

publisher Stern, and one was carefully prepared for the Mendelssohns; in addition to the

20
Thomas Higgins, “Chopin Interpretation: A Study of Performance Directions in Selected Autographs and
Other Sources” (Ph.D. diss., University of Iowa, 1966), 66-74. Higgins’ findings will be discussed in detail
later in this Chapter.
21
Zvi Meniker, “Aspects of Performance Practice in Frederic Chopin’s Piano Works: Slurs, Pedalling,
Mazurka Rhythm” (Ph. D. diss., Cornell University, 2001), 46. Meniker’s findings will be discussed in
detail later in this Chapter.
22
Sandra P. Rosenblum, “Some Enigmas of Chopin’s Pedal Indications: What Do the Sources Tell Us?”
Journal of Musicological Research 16 (1996): 41-61.
 10

Stern edition, she examined first editions by publishers Wessel (in London) and Brandus

(in Paris).

First, despite some differences among the sources, Rosenblum observed that

Chopin consistently omitted pedal in some measures of oom-pah-pah accompaniment

where the distance between the left-hand bass note and chords was too great to allow for

the bass note to be sustained by the fingers alone. Furthermore, in one autograph, Chopin

actually crossed out a pedal indication in such a measure, despite the fact that

surrounding similar measures did have pedal indications. Rosenblum’s other sources also

lacked a pedal indication in this particular measure. She noted that such unpedalled

measures are not new, and cited several other compositions where they occur. She found

them as early as the Mazurka Op. 7, no. 1 (ca. 1831). Unfortunately, Chopin left no

directions for performing such passages, although Rosenblum did notice discrepancies

among slurs in such measures among the different sources. She suggested that such

unpedalled material might be played with a different touch based on the timbre of the

instrument at hand (whether contemporary or modern), on the kinds of movements and

steps in the mazurka, on the tempo chosen, on the size and acoustics of the room, and on

our own musical imagination and taste. 23

Secondly, Rosenblum observed that varied reappearances of material frequently

had different pedal indications. She wondered whether Chopin deliberately left earlier

statements unpedalled to create “a gradual metamorphosis of the tone color coincident

with changes in texture and dynamics.” 24 Rosenblum’s third point addressed the

importance of understanding the instruments used during Chopin’s time. Chopin

23
Ibid., 46.
24
Ibid., 47.
 11

preferred the Pleyel piano, which has a lighter action and a less powerful sound than the

contemporary Erards. Rosenblum played on a Pleyel piano that belonged to Chopin as

well as another Pleyel piano from the 1840’s. She reported that these instruments produce

a more lyrical tone, rich in harmonics, with changes in timber among the registers.25 Her

performance on these instruments led her to conclude that “the characteristics of Pleyel’s

instruments support Chopin’s pedalings.” 26 In comparison to the Pleyel, she feels that the

bass on a modern piano is “rather muddy, [and] colorless” and can sound “awkward and

flat” when played unpedalled. 27 Thus, on the modern piano, Rosenblum does add some

half pedal (unmarked by Chopin) just for the octaves (in mm. 25-26 of the Mazurka) to

enhance their timbre and tone color.

Rosenblum’s analysis of the Nocturne Op. 55, no. 2 revealed a lack of pedal

indications where bass notes can be held out with a finger, and where lack of pedal

enhances the clarity of separate voices within the texture (especially where chromatic

linear movement is involved). 28 In a comparison among the autograph and three first

editions of this Nocturne, Rosenblum noted that despite divergences and simplifications

in the three first editions, “the most important features and the essence of Chopin’s

original pedalings remain clear. Yet those in the autograph are the most subtle.” 29

In his 2001 dissertation from Cornell University, Zvi Meniker examined slurs,

pedalling and mazurka rhythm in Chopin’s piano works. 30 To provide background and

25
Rosenblum further noted that “the sound is transparent and bright in the upper half of the keyboard, rich
but still clear in the lower half. The bottom octave sounds robust, the next two octaves to middle C are rich
and warm, the two octaves above middle C are more penetrating, and from approximately c3 to the top the
sound becomes silvery.” (Ibid., 47).
26
Ibid., 49.
27
Ibid.
28
Ibid., 53-55.
29
Ibid., 56-57.
30
Meniker, “Aspects of Performance Practice in Frederic Chopin’s Piano Works”.
 12

context for his study, he reviewed selected prior research on Chopin’s pedalling and also

the differences between Chopin’s piano and the modern piano in regard to pedalling.

Meniker discussed three scholarly works dealing with Chopin’s pedalling:

Maurice Hinson’s chapter in The Pianist’s Guide to Pedaling, 31 David Rowland’s A

History of Pianoforte Pedalling, 32 and a Sandra Rosenblum article from The Journal of

Musicological Research. 33 Meniker feels each of these sources is worthy of study.

However, he noted that Rowland’s coverage of Chopin is rather general. In contrast,

Rosenblum’s article provides detailed and careful study of Chopin’s pedalling. She

compared manuscripts and first editions of pieces and discussed differences among them.

However, he feels she drew certain conclusions based on analyses of too few pieces.

While Maurice Hinson’s work refers to many more compositions than does Rowland’s or

Rosenblum’s, Meniker does not feel his effort is creditable due to his leaning toward the

modern methods of continuous pedalling.

Meniker addressed three differences in sound between Chopin’s piano and the

modern grand: timbre, sympathetic vibration, and attack and sound-curve. Overall, he

noted that Chopin’s piano, with its quick decay, produces a much clearer sound compared

to the modern piano. After describing and discussing various differences, the author still

concluded that it is profitable for the performer to attempt to follow Chopin’s indications

as closely as possible.

Regarding use of the pedal, Meniker feels that Chopin did not wish it to be used

when it is not indicated; in support of this position, he quoted the following remarks of

Camille Saint-Saens:

31
Hinson, “Pedaling the Piano Works of Chopin,” 179-198.
32
Rowland, A History of Pianoforte Pedalling.
33
Rosenblum, “Some Enigmas of Chopin’s Pedal Indications,” 41-61.
 13

The reason [the pedal] is frequently indicated in [Chopin’s] works is that he did
not wish it to be used when not indicated. To dispense with this help is no easy
matter; for many it would even be impossible, so general has the abuse of the
pedal become. 34

Meniker noted that Saint-Saens as well as most other pianists (then and now) find it

difficult to accept anything but continuous pedalling. The author pointed out that most

modern pianists, editors, and researchers impose “obvious” pedallings that are not

marked in some passages. They justify them as “missing”. Although unpedalled passages

can create certain technical difficulties (such as playing legato with many finger

substitutions) and can also necessitate some redistribution of notes between hands,

Meniker urged pianists to learn to observe Chopin’s pedal markings. His analysis

revealed that unpedalled octaves, chords, and repeated notes are regular features in

playing Chopin’s music. He observed that using pedal on repeated notes loses the

contrasts and fine distinctions that would have been possible. The author encouraged

performers to follow Chopin’s explicit directions and to experience repeated notes and

chords without pedal when so indicated. Meniker’s ultimate conclusions stressed the

importance of following Chopin’s pedal markings literally in an effort to discover their

musical purpose.

One of the most extensive studies on interpreting pedal and other markings in

Chopin’s music was completed by Thomas Higgins. In a 1966 dissertation, “Chopin

Interpretation: A Study of Performance Directions in Selected Autographs and Other

Sources”, 35 Higgins asserted that “Chopin is said never to have played a piece the same

34
Meniker, “Aspects of Performance Practice in Frederic Chopin’s Piano Works,” 44, quoting Camille
Saint-Saens, Outspoken Essays on Music trans. Fred Rothwell (London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trubner &
Co., Ltd., 1922), p 105.
35
Thomas Higgins, “Chopin Interpretation: A Study of Performance Directions in Selected Autographs and
Other Sources” (Ph.D. diss., University of Iowa, 1966).
 14

way twice, and part of the pleasure of hearing his music is the sharing in an imaginative

pianist’s insights.” 36 Similarly, the renowned pianist Alfred Cortot (who studied with

Emile Decombes, one of Chopin’s disciples, at the Paris Conservatory) emphasized that

performers of Chopin's music need to “interpret him correctly, to get to the bottom of his

intentions rather than to produce an imitation of his method.” 37 As a result, performers

who try to imitate Chopin would yield no same performances, even by the same pianist. 38

Higgins noted that according to Bronislaw Edward Sydow, the editor of the Bibliografia

F. F. Chopina, this resource lists 11, 527 references to Chopin, focusing on all aspects of

performance, historical background, and compositional style. 39 Despite this enormous

amount of information, Higgins feels we still have much to learn about performing

Chopin’s music.

Most serious performers use an Urtext edition of a piece as their primary source

of information regarding how the composer wished that piece to be performed. As

previously noted in reviews of other sources, deciding which score is most authentic and

definitive for Chopin’s compositions can be confusing, since discrepancies can be found

among different manuscripts, among different first editions, and among later Urtext (and

so-called Urtext) editions. Higgins noted that Chopin made separate copies of his works

for his publishers in France, Germany, and England. Most of these manuscripts were

“written in his own hand”. 40 Sometimes, earlier autographs or preliminary sketches of

works were found but the final autograph was the crucial one. However, as copying and

36
Ibid., 6.
37
Ibid., 7, quoting Alfred Cortot, In Search of Chopin (New York: Abelard Press, 1952), 28.
38
Ibid., 5, quoting Cortot, In Search of Chopin, 28.
39
Edward Bronislaw Sydow. ed., Bibliografia F. F. Chopina (Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Towarzystwa
Naukowego, 1949), quoted in Higgins, “Chopin Interpretation", 1.
40
Ibid., 16-17.
 15

re-copying his scores was a laborious task, Chopin was reluctant to copy the same work

three times. Thus, he entrusted this task to his friend and copyist Julian Fontana. 41

Unfortunately, “between Chopin’s final autograph and the first editions published

in the various countries, something occurred which caused…‘incongruities in the

hundreds’”. 42 While some scholars feel that Chopin later changed certain details on the

advice of “maladroit friends”, Higgins, Arthur Hedley and others feel that these

discrepancies are more likely the result of copying and/or printing errors (which could

happen because Chopin hardly ever checked the work of copyists, who were also

entrusted with correcting the publishers’ proofs). 43

In order to choose a score that most closely represents to the composer’s

directions, Higgins quoted Hedley’s advice regarding a hierarchy of sources; Hedley

advised accessing Chopin’s autographs first, good modern photographs of autographs

second, and Fontana’s copies and those of contemporary professional copyists third. 44

Only if there is no access to any of these sources, did Hedley suggest working from a

printed edition. Furthermore, Higgins noted that Hedley considered later pencil markings

on Chopin’s pupils’ scores to be “untrustworthy and dangerous”. 45

Higgins reported that the primary importance of autographs as primary sources is

recognized by “almost anyone of importance who ever had a hand in editing Chopin’s

works”. 46 However, he then lamented that many editors (including some who hold this

41
Ibid., 17.
42
Hermann Keller, “Zur Textkritik der Preludes nd Etudes von Chopin,” Chopin Jahrbuch, 1963 (Wien:
Verlag Notring der wissenschaftlichen Verband Osterreichhs, 963), 80.
43
Ibid., 19-20.
44
Ibid., 25, quoting Arthur Hedley, “Some Observations on the Autograph Sources of Chopin’s Works,”
The Book of the First International Musicological Congress Devoted to the Works of Frederick Chopin,
ed. Zofia Lissa (Warszawa: Polish Scientific Publications, 1960), 475.
45
Ibid., 25.
46
Ibid., 25-26.
 16

view) still publish editions that “regularize” Chopin’s “inconsistencies”, particularly with

regard to slurs and pedalling. 47 He pointed out that

Chopin’s directions for slurring and pedalling in particular are extremely detailed
and thorough, and demonstrate his liking for variety and the unexpected. Also, it
is in these elements that the greatest disparity exists between the autographs and
the majority of printed editions. 48

Since there is great disparity among different editions with regard to Chopin’s

pedallings, Higgins examined Chopin’s pedal markings and other performance directions

in selected autographs as they appear in the facsimile edition, Faksymilowane Wydanie

Autografow F. Chopina. 49 Based on his observations and analyses, Higgins identified ten

“characteristic pedalling practices” and drew conclusions from each of them. These

pedalling practices and conclusions are outlined in Table 1 below.

Table 1 – Higgins’ List and Concluding Analysis of

Chopin’s Characteristic Pedalling Practices 50

Pedalling Practice Conclusion

Pedal and avoidance of pedal in chords
Pedal in scales and diatonic passages
Pedalling of non-harmonic tones
Blurring together harmonies of
different function
Dissimilar pedalling in similar and
identical passages of the same
composition
Chopin used pedal to connect the final chords in
many of his works to create greater resonance
rather than an easier legato.
Chopin pedalled scale passages to augment the
power of the sound.
Chopin often pedalled through non-harmonic
tones in a melody.
Chopin’s pedal markings sometimes blur together
changes of harmony
Similar or identical passages in the same
composition often have different pedal markings.

47
Ibid., 26, 28, 30-31.
48
Ibid., 11.
49
Wladyslaw Hordynski, ed., Faksymilowane Wydanie Autografow F. Chopina, 9 vols. to date (Krakow:
Poliskie Wydawnictwo Muzyczne, 1951- ).
50
Higgins, “Chopin Interpretation", 66-74.
 17

Table 1 – Continued

Pedalling Practice Conclusion

Pedals and releases independent of
slurs
Juxtaposition of unpedalled and
pedalled passages in a composition
Avoidance of pedal in part writing and
“solo” passages
Pedals through rests
Missing final release signs
Pedal marks do not always parallel slurs; their
function is often more harmonic than melodic.
Contrasting themes are enhanced by contrast in
the use of the pedal.
Chopin’s “studious” avoidance of pedal in many
passages of part writing suggests that he was
more concerned with maintaining “the integrity
of individual parts in a texture” than with
enriching the harmony.
Pedal is very often held through rests.
Chopin often omitted a release sign after the final
pedal near the close of a composition.

Higgins concluded that Chopin’s pedalling is more suitable for the pianoforte of

his day, since it creates less blurring on this instrument than it does on the modern piano.

Kullak, Kleczynski, Winternitz, Abraham, and Hedley all realized and emphasized this

important issue. However, Higgins claimed that even though the modern interpreter may

choose to make adjustments regarding how much pedal to use (e.g., half pedalling versus

full pedalling), the degree of pedalling “ought not be used as an excuse to ignore the

intent of Chopin’s instructions.” 51

Selected Sources Focusing on Comparisons of

Different Manuscripts and/or Editions of Chopin’s Works

To interpret and perform a musical composition in a way that remains faithful to

the composer’s directions, the performer should select and work from the most authentic

edition of that composition he can find. Since Chopin's works have been published in

many different editions, information on the relative merits of each edition can be quite

51
Ibid., 75.
 18

helpful to performers. In a 1981 article, “Whose Chopin?”, 52 Thomas Higgins discussed

seven editions of Chopin’s music including the Fryderyk Chopin Complete Works (26

volumes edited by Paderewski, Bronarski, and Turczinski), 53 the Polish National Edition

(Ballades edited by Jan Ekier), 54 the Wiener Urtext Edition (under the general editorship

of Karl Heinz Fussl and Hans-Christian Muller), 55 the Henle Urtext Edition (edited by

Ewald Zimmermann), 56 two Schirmer sets (one edited by Carl Mikuli, and the other

edited by Rafael Joseffy), the First Critically Revised Complete Edition (edited by

Bargiel, Brahms, Franchomme, Liszt, and Rudorff; reprinted in the U.S. by Edwin F.

Kalmus, now Belwin-Mills), and the Oxford Original Edition of Frederic Chopin (edited

by Edouard Ganche). In discussing the Paderewski edition, which is widely used in the

United States, Higgins noted that the commentaries at the end of each of the volumes

are generous with misinformation. Worse, the musical text suffers seriously from
over-editing… pedallings are regularized where they reveal ‘inconsistencies’...
Such ‘inconsistencies’ prove in practice to be fully consistent with what
contemporaries wrote of Chopin’s performance style, one that was replete with
unexpected but musically justified effects. 57

Higgins also criticized the editors of this edition (other than Paderewski, who died before

the work began) for not distinguishing more carefully between Chopin’s autographs and

his copyist’s manuscripts. He noted that Polish scholars have long recognized the

shortcomings of this edition and have begun a new Polish National Edition, which is in

an early stage of completion. When Higgins wrote this article (1981), only the Ballades

(edited by Jan Ekier) had been published. Unfortunately, Higgins already identified

52
Thomas Higgins, Whose Chopin,"19th-Century Music 5 no. 1 (Summer 1981): 67-75.
53
I.J. Paderewski, L. Bronarski, and J. Turczinski, eds., Fryderyk Chopin Complete Works (Warsaw-
Cracow: Polish Music Publications, 1949-1961).
54
J. Ekier. eds.. Polish National Edition: Ballades (Warsaw: Przedstawicielstwo Wydawnictwo Polskich,
1967- ).
55
K. H. Fussl and H.C. Muller.eds. Wiener Urtext Edition. (Vienna: Universal Edition, 1973- ).
56
E. Zimmermann. eds., Henle Urtext Edition (Duisburg-Munich: Henle Verlag, 1956- ).
57
Higgins, “Whose Chopin,” 68.
 19

problems with this volume as well. Higgins feels that the Henle Urtext Edition has many

laudable features and is the best edition available today. However, although primary

sources are given preference, Higgins feels that the editor’s choice of sources was not

always the wisest (he tended to rely too heavily on German editions). Also, Higgins noted

that “the Henle policy of not printing variants of pitch and harmony extends to pedal

schemes as well.” 58

According to Higgins, the volumes edited by Carl Mikuli, Chopin’s pupil, are the

best Schirmer editions. Higgins feels that Mikuli’s introductions to these volumes should

be required reading for all Chopin performers, since his ideas are based on his

recollections of his work with Chopin, on marginalia that Chopin wrote in his scores, and

on scores of music acquired from other Chopin pupils. Mikuli provided valuable notes

from this first-hand experience.

Higgins does not trust certain volumes from The First Critically Revised

Complete Edition, such as Preludes. This is because they contain some distortions in

notation. He recommended the Waltz volume which is useful in teaching, especially for

those waltzes published during Chopin’s lifetime. Higgins pointed out that there are note

divergences between the manuscripts used for the Oxford Original Edition and other

Chopin manuscripts. Higgins identified several such examples in the Waltz in C# Minor,

Op. 64 no. 2, but noted that “these changes do not produce a version very different from

that in common use”. 59

One reason why finding the most authentic and reliable printed edition of

Chopin’s works is difficult is because of the large number of extant Chopin manuscripts

58
Ibid., 70.
59
Ibid., 74.
 20

and other original materials. In addition to multiple manuscripts which may exist, Chopin

published first editions of his compositions in three countries simultaneously: France,

Germany, and England. These three first editions are never identical because Chopin

made three separate copies to send to each publisher. Furthermore, interpreting these

printed editions is even more complicated when one considers changes marked in his

students’ scores which were either communicated by Chopin to his pupils or simply

written in their music. 60 As a result, editors of Chopin’s works confront a selection of

different sources and sometimes have to interpret the composer’s ambiguous intentions.

Jan Bogdan Drath, in his Waltzes of Fryderyk Chopin: Sources, compiled, reproduced,

and annotated source materials (including holographs, other manuscripts, first editions,

and composer annotations) for the waltzes of Chopin. Volume I includes a thematic

catalog of Chopin’s waltzes listing waltzes published during Chopin’s lifetime, waltzes

published posthumously, waltz-related compositions published posthumously, and

waltzes known only by incipit. 61 Volume I then presents multiple scores for each of the

eight waltzes published during Chopin’s lifetime.

For the Waltz in C# Minor Op. 64 no. 2, Drath reproduced two holographs (an

incomplete sketch and an early version of the composition), neither of which included

any pedal markings at all. He also received special permission from the owner of a third,

more complete holograph (in a private collection in Basal, Switzerland) to copy this

manuscript for publication in his book. When making this copy, Drath claimed that he

gave “special care…to the faithful reproduction of slurs and their occasional corrections

60
Jan Bogdan Drath, Waltzes of Fryderyk Chopin: Sources - Waltzes Published During Chopin’s Lifetime,
vol. 1 (Kingsville, Texas: Texas A&I University Publications, 1979), ix.
61
Drath. Waltzes of Fryderyk Chopin, xii-xiv.
 21

by Chopin, dynamic signs (also with occasional Chopin corrections) and pedal signs.” 62

In addition, Drath’s book contains a reproduction of a French first edition, reproductions

of early English and German editions of this work, and a reproduction of the score for

this work owned by Chopin pupil, Camille O’Méara-Dubois. Drath noted that his book

contains “first sketches…and final versions of all three waltzes Op. 64 published in their

entirety for the first time”. 63 Comparisons among the sketches and final versions of Op.

64 no. 2 may help clarify some ambiguities and allow for further insight into the

interpretation of Chopin’s pedal markings.

As this review of related literature has revealed, the interpretation of Chopin's

piano music, especially with regard to pedalling, is not a simple task. Many printed

editions present conflicting versions of Chopin's works, and many scholars have studied

and analyzed specific Chopin compositions to gain further insight into how to interpret

his pedal markings. Although Drath's compilation and reproduction of source materials

for the Chopin waltzes is a wonderful resource, no study of pedal markings in any of the

Chopin waltzes could be found. This paper will consist of analyses of pedal markings in

selected manuscript facsimiles and editions of Chopin's Waltz in C# Minor Op. 64 no. 2,

and suggestions for performance will then be offered based on these analyses and related

findings.

62
Ibid., 183.
63
Ibid., xviii.
 CHAPTER III

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF PEDALLING IN

CHOPIN'S WALTZ IN C# MINOR, OP. 64, NO.2

This chapter will present an analysis of the pedal indications in several different

scores of Chopin’s Waltz in C# Minor, Op. 64 no. 2. Various sources are used in the

analysis. These sources include facsimiles of one holograph as well as facsimiles of

several first and early editions (published in France, Germany, and England) of this waltz

published in Jan Bogdan Drath’s Waltzes of Fryderyk Chopin: Sources. 64 According to

Drath, the owner of the holograph did not allow him to photograph it but did permit him

to copy its contents and publish the copy. 65 In this analysis, this facsimile is referred to as

the “Drath/Basel manuscript” since it was created from a manuscript located in a private

collection in Basel, Switzerland. The printed sources include facsimiles of editions by

Brandus et Cie (plate no. 4743. (2), published in Paris in 1847), Wessel & Co. (plate no.

6322, published in London in 1848), and Breikopf &Härtel (plate no. 7721, published in

Leipzig; exact publication date unknown), as well as a facsimile of the first French

edition owned by Camille O’ Meara-Dubois (which is identical to the Brandus et Cie

edition referenced above). Since the Chopin scholar, Arthur Hedley, considers Chopin’s

autographs, good modern photographs of his autographs, and copies of his autographs by

64
Jan Bogdan Drath, Waltzes of Fryderyk Chopin: Sources - Waltzes Published During Chopin’s Lifetime,
vol. 1 (Kingsville, Texas: Texas A&I University Publications, 1979).
65
Ibid., 183, footnote 23.

22
 23

professional copyists more reliable than any printed edition of Chopin’s works, 66 the

present author examined the Drath/Basel manuscript first and then compared markings in

other sources to it. Drath also reported that he reproduced this waltz accurately from

Chopin’s handwriting, giving “special care…to the faithful reproduction of slurs and their

occasional corrections by Chopin, dynamic signs (also with occasional Chopin

corrections) and pedal signs.” 67

The first part of the analysis of this waltz is organized according to Thomas

Higgins’ categories of “characteristic pedalling practices” in Chopin’s music, which are

outlined in Table 1 in Chapter II of this study (pages 16-17). This part of the analysis will

focus on Chopin’s pedal indications in the scores reproduced in Drath’s text; thus when

the phrase “all sources consulted” is used in this analysis, it will refer to all sources of

this waltz published in Drath’s text. The analysis of pedalling in this waltz will conclude

with a brief discussion of Carl Mikuli’s edition of the Chopin waltzes, 68 and a brief

discussion of selected pedagogical editions of this waltz identified as “urtext”. A copy of

the Waltz in C# minor, Op. 64, no. 2 is included for reference in Appendix A. Since many

different pedal schemes will be discussed, and since Drath’s copy of the pedalling in the

Basel manuscript is copyrighted, the score in the Appendix will not included any pedal

indications. While this copy of Chopin’s waltz is included for immediate reference,

readers are strongly encouraged to acquire a copy of Drath’s text to consult.

66
Arthur Hedley, “Some Observations on the Autograph Sources of Chopin’s Works,” The Book of the
First International Musicological Congress Devoted to the Works of Frederick Chopin, ed. Zofia Lissa
(Warszawa: Polish Scientific Publications, 1960), 475 quoted in Thomas Higgins, “Chopin Interpretation:
A Study of Performance Directions in Selected Autographs and Other Sources” (Ph.D. diss., University of
Iowa, 1966), 25.
67
Drath, Waltzes of Fryderyk Chopin: Sources, 183.
68
Frédéric Chopin, Complete Works for the Pianoforte: Waltzes / Frédéric Chopin, ed. Mikuli, Carl, with a
biographical sketch of the author by Philip Hale. New York: G. Schirmer, 1894.
 24

Pedal and Avoidance of Pedal in Chords

When chords of relatively long duration are marked with a connecting slur, most

pianists would pedal them, changing with the harmony. However, as Higgins noted in his

dissertation, Chopin sometimes provided pedal markings for such chords and sometimes

he did not. Higgins cited several examples of Chopin’s works illustrating pedalled and

unpedalled final chords. 69 In Preludes Op. 28 nos. 18 and 21, the final chords are marked

with pedal. It is reasonable to pedal these widely-spaced chords, especially since they are

marked f or fff. However, Higgins also cited other instances that do not include pedal

markings. For example, in Preludes nos. 2 and 8, the chords are similar to the earlier

examples but are not pedalled, perhaps because the dynamic levels are p or pp. According

to Higgins, Chopin even deleted the pedal directions in a pp chordal passage (mm. 198-

201) near the end of the Ballade Op. 38.

The Waltz Op. 64, no. 2 does not really have any chordal passages similar to

those cited by Higgins. However, the final bass note and chord of this waltz are pp and

are marked with pedal in the Drath/Basel manuscript. All sources consulted are marked

the same way as this manuscript except that the Breitkopf edition does not include a

decrescendo.

Pedal in Scales and Diatonic Passages

In his dissertation, Higgins cited several examples where Chopin’s use of pedal in

scale passages is consistent with Kalkbrenner’s description of pedalling to “augment the

69
Thomas Higgins, “Chopin Interpretation: A Study of Performance Directions in Selected Autographs and
Other Sources” (Ph.D. diss., University of Iowa, 1966), 67.
 25

power” of sound. 70 These examples illustrate Chopin’s pedalling of only the beginning

and the end of a scale passage, and of Chopin’s pedalling entire scale passages with a

single pedal. In all examples cited, the scale passages were marked either f or ff and/or

cres. and Higgins noted that pedal helped increase the volume of sound.

While Higgins noted the use of pedalling in scale and diatonic passages to elevate

the resonance and volume of sound, the use of the pedal in the Waltz Op. 64 no. 2, on the

other hand, does not illustrate this goal and even provides a direct contrast to its use in

other Chopin works. In the Drath/Basel manuscript of this waltz, Chopin indicated one

pedal marking through 1½ octaves of an ascending scale passage (mm. 45-46) and also

indicated pedal markings only at the beginning and end of a 3-octave ascending scale

passage (mm.61 and 63). However, increasing the volume and “power” was clearly not

Chopin’s goal in these passages. Besides marking a diminuendo throughout both

passages, Chopin further diminished the sound in these scale passages by withdrawing

some or all of an otherwise fairly consistent oom-pah-pah accompaniment in certain

measures within these scale passages. In both of these passages, a new pedal was

indicated and the traditional oom-pah-pah accompaniment returned when the underlying

harmony changed; these changes in timbre and/or texture also have the effect of

highlighting V7 -I cadences and ends of periods and sections. All sources consulted are

marked with the same pedallings in these passages.

While Higgins concluded that Chopin broadened the sonority by pedalling

through scale and diatonic passages, the purpose for pedalling seems to be different in

this waltz. The two instances discussed above provide examples of pedalling to enhance

harmony and form, despite the resulting blur in the melody lines, and despite the resulting
70
Ibid., 67-68.
 26

build-up of sound (from many notes played with the same pedal) in a passage marked

diminuendo.

Pedalling of Non-harmonic Tones

Most of the time that Chopin marked pedalling in homophonic passages, he

pedalled through the non-harmonic tones in the melody, and changed the pedal according

to the harmony. Higgins observed that Chopin’s pedalling of non-harmonic tones where

the passing tones and foreign tones “occur in profusion”, was in accordance with Kullak's

discussion of pedalling as “reinforcement of the sound”. 71 In Chopin's Waltz Op. 64 no.

2, the pedalling in the B section (mm. 33-64) changes along with the harmonic changes in

all sources consulted. In order to keep the bass note and harmony sounding throughout

the measure, the same pedal is maintained and the non-harmonic tones in the melody are

blurred together. Evidently, this pedalling was so important to Chopin that, despite the

numerous repeats and sequences of material, he repeatedly marked this very same

pedalling in virtually every measure of the B section.

Blurring Together Harmonies of Different Function

While Higgins cited a few examples of works in which Chopin used the pedal to

blur together harmonies of different function, no example of this can be found in any of

the sources consulted for the Waltz Op. 64, no. 2.

71
Ibid., 69.
 27

Dissimilar Pedalling in Similar and Identical Passages of the Same Composition

According to those who heard him, Chopin’s playing was known for its endless

variety. Although most pedal indications remain the same in similar and identical

passages in the same composition, Chopin sometimes altered the pedallings (as well as

other aspects of the music) to create variety in texture and sonority in these passages. In

all sources consulted for this waltz, each measure of the opening motive of the main

theme (mm. 1-2) is pedalled, corresponding to the change in harmony. Sequences of this

motive in mm. 5-6 and mm. 21-22 are pedalled the same way. Also, all measures

corresponding to these in the tempo primo section (mm. 129-130, 133-134, 149-150)

retain the original pedalling. However, when the opening motive is repeated in mm.17-

18, Chopin contrasted the sonority by removing the pedal in m. 18. Perhaps to

compensate for the removal of pedal, Chopin retained the bass harmony (which is the

root of the D#7 chord) by transposing the D# in m. 18 an octave higher so that the

performer could connect it to the A# and C# with fingers alone, thus substituting “finger

pedal” for the damper pedal. Furthermore, to be sure the sound of the D# was in fact held

throughout m. 18, Chopin changed its duration from the original quarter note in m. 2 to a

dotted half note in m. 18. When the corresponding measure, m. 146, appears in the tempo

primo section, it is identical in every way (including the absence of pedal) to m. 18. In the

più lento section of the Drath/Basel manuscript, Chopin used a similar pedalling scheme

when the opening theme of this section, mm. 65-69, recurs in mm. 81-85. Although every

measure from mm. 81-85 is varied somewhat from the original statement in mm. 65-69

(e.g., altered rhythm in m. 81, added ties in m. 82, non-harmonic tones in m. 84, further

embellishments in m. 85, and other changes), the original pedalling has been maintained
 28

except in m. 82. Here, the accompaniment is altered with the bass note, Db, transposed an

octave higher on the first beat and the Db omitted in the chords on the second and third

beats. Instead of the single pedal used for the five beats of repeated Db harmony in mm.

65-66, Chopin used separate pedals for each measure in mm. 81-82, despite the continued

Db harmony. Perhaps Chopin used a different pedalling scheme (slightly changing the

sonority from m. 81 to 82) to highlight the added bass note and its change of register

(from Db to db). While these differences between pedal indications in mm.65-66 and

mm.81-82 appear in all sources consulted, all of these sources except the Drath/Basel

manuscript also have a different pedal indication in m. 85 than they do in m. 69. Perhaps

the desire to keep the chromatic embellishment on beat 1 of the original melody clear in

m. 85 caused Chopin to delay depression of the pedal until beat 2 (Wessell and Brandus

editions) or eliminate pedal entirely in that measure (Breitkopf edition); delaying

depression of the pedal until beat 2 can be accomplished without sacrificing the bass note

since the Eb in the bass can be held through beat 2 using the fingers alone. All of the

changes in all scores discussed in this category serve to create subtle variation, making

similar and identical passages nevertheless have an air of freshness.

Pedals and Releases Independent of Slurs

Higgins noted that it is hard to project the beginning of a new phrase if the same

pedal is held over from the end of the previous phrase and through the start of a new

phrase. 72 In the Waltz Op. 64, no. 2 in C# Minor, the problem Higgins described does not

occur. However, it is interesting to note the relationship between pedalling, harmony and

slurs in the più lento section of this piece. In all sources consulted, the pedal is released
72
Higgins, “Chopin Interpretation", 70-71.
 29

several times without being re-depressed midway through a long slur (e.g., mm. 67, 83,

94). This should not pose a problem for the pianist who listens carefully to the melodic

line and uses dynamic shaping to help avoid the perception of a premature ending to the

phrase. Of greater interest might be Chopin’s careful slurring of the chromatic bass line

(e.g., in mm. 68-69, 72-73, 84-85, and 88-89) in the Drath/Basel manuscript. These slurs

highlight the importance of chromatic lines in the bass (and tenor), and it is not surprising

that Chopin’s pedalling avoids blurring any chromatic movement in the bass line (or

tenor). While it may seem to be redundant to mark separate slurs for the soprano, tenor

and bass parts, Chopin marks these individual slurs to emphasize the importance and

continuity of these individual lines and withholds pedalling to assure their clarity.

A comparison of the Drath/Basel manuscript with the other sources consulted

revealed several discrepancies of pedal and slur markings for the chromatic bass lines in

the measures identified above. These discrepancies are outlined below in Table 2.

Table 2 – Pedal and Slur Indications for Chromatic Bass Lines

mm. 68-69 mm. 72-73 mm. 84-85 mm. 88-89

Drath/Basel: Ped. on beat Ped. on beats Ped. on beat 1 * at end of m. 89, but no
pedalling 1 in m. 69 1+3 in m. 72 in m. 85 corresponding Ped. marking

slurs in bass Yes Yes Yes Yes

Wessell: Ped. on beat Ped. on beats Ped. on beat 2 None
Pedalling 1 in m. 69 1+3 in m. 72 in m. 85

slurs in bass No No Yes No

 30

Table 2 - Continued

Brandus: Ped. on beat Ped. on beats Ped. on beat 2 None

Pedalling 1 in m. 69 1+3 in m. in m. 85
72 73
slurs in bass No Yes No
No
Breitkopf: Ped. on beat None None None
Pedalling 1 in m. 69

slurs in bass Yes No Yes No

As Table 2 reveals, the Drath/Basel manuscript is the only source examined that has the

chromatic bass lines marked with separate slurs in all the measures discussed. While

pedal indications for these measures vary somewhat between sources, all sources present

a pedal scheme that avoids blurring any chromatic movement in the bass line or tenor

(see footnote 73). Thus, there can be no doubting Chopin’s desire to keep these lines

clear and smooth, and he uses both slurs and pedal schemes to communicate this.

Juxtaposition of Unpedalled and Pedalled Passages in a Composition

It is very important to follow Chopin’s pedal markings from the original score.

However, of all the characteristics of Chopin’s pedal markings discussed thus far, his

juxtaposition of unpedalled and pedalled passages in a composition may be most likely to

cause confusion and sound different from modern-day pedalling practices. Performers

today tend to apply continuous pedalling while playing a waltz with the traditional oom-

pah-pah accompaniment probably because many editors mark it this way. Also, since

73
The alignment of Ped. and * signs can be difficult to determine in some scores. In the Brandus edition,
the * sign seems to be placed in between the final two eighth notes in m. 72. However, since this is the only
instance in this source where such bass notes are blurred and since none of the other sources consulted blur
any of these chromatic bass notes, it is very possible that the intended placement of this sign was directly
on (and not slightly after) the E natural on beat 3.
 31

pianists are so accustomed to continuous pedalling, some may even find it hard not to

pedal only one measure among pedalled measures which surround it. Thus, performers

are inclined to “regularize” use of the pedal even when it is not indicated. Nevertheless,

as discussed in Chapter II, Higgins, Rosenblum and others recognized Chopin's frequent

juxtaposition of unpedalled and pedalled passages in a composition, even during passages

of repeated oom-pah-pah accompaniment figuration. The Drath/Basel manuscript of the

Waltz Op. 64 no. 2 in C# Minor illustrates this unusual pedalling as well. For example,

consider the unpedalled fourth measure of the opening theme, which has a typical oom-

pah-pah accompaniment; the three measures with oom-pah-pah accompaniment that

precede it are pedalled, and suddenly, the fourth measure is notated without pedal.

Performers may be apt to continue playing with the pedal here (intentionally or

unintentionally), especially since it is easier to sustain the bass harmony with the pedal in

this measure. Furthermore, since m. 4 is similar to m.3 (which is pedalled), and is

identical to m. 20 (except that m. 20 is pedalled), performers may conclude that these

measures should all be pedalled in the same way.

While the omission of a pedal indication in m. 4 may seem to be an oversight, this

same lack of pedal occurs in other manuscripts which differ from each other in various

other respects. In all sources consulted, m. 4 is marked without pedal. Higgins, who

viewed such juxtapositions of pedalled and unpedalled measures as intentional, explained

these unusual pedal markings as a way to provide further contrast between themes of

different character. 74 In fact, these juxtapositions seem to serve a slightly different

purpose in this waltz since m.4 is followed by a repetition of the same opening theme.

Playing this measure without pedal creates a drier sonority which sounds quite different
74
Higgins, “Chopin Interpretation", 71.
 32

from the sonority that precedes it. When pedal is used again in m.5, it serves to highlight

the return of the opening theme and its pedalled sonority. Thus, instead of using pedal as

a way to provide further contrast between themes of different character, Chopin used it to

highlight formal aspects (repeat of the same theme) in this waltz.

Measure 80 seems to serve a similar purpose in the più lento section as m. 4

serves in the opening tempo giusto. While this measure apparently needs pedal to sustain

the bass, pedal is withheld to highlight the return of the main theme of this section (the

material from m. 65).

In the Drath/Basel manuscript, m. 16 not only lacks a pedal indication 75 but the

sonority is further thinned out by suspension of the left-hand accompaniment, leaving

only a single voice in the right hand; this thinner, dryer sonority also occurs at an

important formal juncture, right before the return of the opening theme (and its pedalled

sonority) in m. 17. 76 Measures 94-96 in this manuscript also lack pedal indications and

(as he did in m. 16), Chopin withdrew the left-hand accompaniment to thin out the

texture to set up the return of the più mosso section. In comparison to the earlier

unpedalled sections discussed, in mm. 94-96 Chopin withdrew the pedal for a longer

period of time (three measures instead of only one measure). Perhaps Chopin used three

unpedalled measures this time because the recurring più mosso is a separate section from

of the long più lento passage, rather than simply a return of material from within a

section. Except for one missing release sign in the Drath/Basel manuscript (see footnote

75
All sources consulted have Ped. indications on the downbeats of mm. 15 and 17. All sources except the
Drath copy of the Basel manuscript indicate a * sign at the end of m. 15 (thus leaving m. 16 unpedalled).
The release sign (which belongs in-between two separate Ped. indications) is missing in the Drath/Basel
manuscript.
76
Drath, Waltzes of Fryderyk Chopin: Sources, ix.
 33

75), the pedalling in all measures discussed in this category are identical in all sources

consulted.

As the previous examples illustrate, Chopin frequently juxtaposed pedalled and

unpedalled passages in this waltz to create variety in sonority and texture between

repeated statements of material. Higgins provided examples from Chopin’s other works

to illustrate the juxtaposition of pedalled and unpedalled passages in the same work.

However, most of the examples of passages that he used to demonstrate themes that are

“strikingly different in character” 77 are rather long. In the Waltz Op. 64 no. 2 in C#

Minor, the juxtapositions of pedalled and unpedalled passages are constrained to between

one to three measures. In addition, Chopin often accompanied these short unpedalled

passages with other changes including suspension of the left-hand accompaniment (as

discussed above) or other subtle differences in notation (including use of slurs, longer

note values, added ties, and changes in register that have been discussed in previous

categories). When all of these juxtapositions of pedalled and unpedalled measures are

considered in the context of the entire piece, they do not seem to be arbitrary or

accidental but rather to highlight the formal structure of the work. This makes it very

important for performers to buy editions of Chopin’s music which faithfully reproduce

pedal indications from an original manuscript or other authentic source, and to give

careful consideration to all of Chopin’s markings, even those which may initially seem

confusing.

Avoidance of Pedal in Part Writing and “Solo” Passages

77
Higgins, “Chopin Interpretation", 71.
 34

Chopin’s pedalling in part writing and “solo” passages in most of his

compositions is marked according to the harmonic changes. Nevertheless, Higgins cited

some examples that suggest Chopin purposely omitted pedal indications in part writing to

increase the clarity of sound in each part rather than incorporating pedal to enrich the

harmony and resonance. 78 In all sources consulted for the Waltz Op. 64 no. 2, mm. 67-73

and mm. 83-89 of the più lento section feature part-writing. While the melody and chords

in the opening of the più lento theme (e.g., mm. 65-66) are pedalled in the traditional

manner, Chopin omitted pedal markings halfway through the phrase (mm. 67-68), once

the texture becomes more contrapuntal; however, his slur markings over both the soprano

and bass lines (e.g., mm. 68-69) indicate that he wanted these measures played smoothly.

Perhaps to compensate for leaving out the pedal in these measures, Chopin reduced the

distance between individual parts so that all lines could be sustained by using a “finger

pedal” technique. For example, the tied A natural in mm. 66-67 can be sustained by

changing from finger 5 to finger 1 so that the Db in m. 67 can be played with finger 5.

The same finger technique can be used on the tied Bb from mm. 67-68, the B natural in

mm. 70-71, and the tied C from mm. 72-73. As in mm. 68-69, the Drath/Basel

manuscript indicates that Chopin marked separate slurs for the bass lines in mm.72-73,

84-85, and 88-89; the slurs on these chromatic bass notes indicate Chopin’s desire for

these bass lines and their resulting changes in harmony to sound clearly and flow as

smoothly as possible. Drath thought these slurs over bass notes were significant enough

to make special mention of them in his discussion of the Basel manuscript of this waltz in

his book, Waltzes of Fryderyk Chopin: Sources. 79

78
Ibid., 72.
79
Drath, Waltzes of Fryderyk Chopin: Sources, 235.
 35

In passages with part writing, Chopin not only took care to assure the clarity of

the harmony but also that of the melody. In m. 72 of the Drath/Basel, Brandus and

Wessell sources, Chopin indicated that the first two beats (all C diminished harmony) be

played with one pedal; the Breitkopf source has no pedal indications at all in this

measure. However in the corresponding measure, m. 88, the downbeat is preceded by

three stepwise grace notes and Chopin left the grace notes and the first two beats of m.88

unpedalled in all sources consulted. No doubt the grace notes would have sounded blurry

if played with pedal.

Avoidance of pedalling in part writing and solo passages is an important feature

in Chopin’s pedalling schemes. In this waltz, the part writing in the più lento section is

consistently kept clear with appropriate use or withholding of pedal. The Drath/Basel

manuscript shows that in places where the harmony changes that lack pedal indications,

Chopin inserted slurs to ensure legato bass lines and a smooth connection between

harmonies.

Pedals Through Rests

Higgins discussed two examples from Chopin’s Scherzo in Bb minor, Op. 31 to

illustrate the effect of pedalling through rests. 80 In both places, perhaps Chopin pedalled

the rests to allow all notes in the prevailing harmony to resonate together while, in the

first except, also allowing for a detached articulation.

The function of pedalling through rests in the Waltz Op. 64, no. 2 is to maintain

the harmony and sonority, while allowing for variety in rhythm and articulation. In this

waltz, Chopin highlighted changes of sonority and texture between similar motives.
80
Higgins, “Chopin Interpretation", 73-74.
 36

Measures 3 and 4 contain eighth and sixteenth rests on the first and second beats

respectively. Even though these measures are similar, all sources consulted indicated that

m.3 is marked with pedal but m. 4 is not. As discussed earlier in this paper (p. 31-34),

Chopin likely juxtaposed pedalled and unpedalled measures to highlight the contrasting

sonority and texture. When m. 3 is played with pedal, the sixteenth rest affects the

articulation and accentuation in the right hand, which has a mild affect on the overall

sonority, given the use of pedal. However, when m. 4 is played without pedal, the

sixteenth rest not only affects the articulation and accentuation in the right hand, but the

melodic silence created also has a much greater impact on the overall sonority. When the

opening theme returns, the first two beats of m. 20 (which corresponds to m. 4) are

pedalled in all almost all sources consulted.81 Thus, this pedal scheme in m. 20 creates a

third version of this little motive, different from m. 3 (which has the same pedal held

throughout the measure) and m. 4 (which has no pedal indicated). Each time it is heard,

this motive seems to sound fresh and different, with different colors of sonority.

All sources consulted also indicate that Chopin also pedalled through the rests on

the third beats of mm. 13-15. These pedal indications allow the performer to maintain the

harmony while creating a feeling of anticipation and suspense with the added rests. The

performer's left hand is literally suspended on the third beats of these measures and

finally stops playing completely in m. 16; the waltz rhythm used consistently up until this

point does not return until the opening theme reappears (eliminating the feeling of

anticipation) in m. 17. Pedalling through the rests allows Chopin to maintain the harmony

throughout each measure while still varying the rhythm for special effect. Similar

situations occur several times in the B section of all sources consulted for this waltz, e.g.,
81
The Breitkopf source does not include any pedal indications at all in m. 20.
 37

mm. 37-39, 45-46, 54-55 and 60-61; in all of these cases, Chopin pedalled through rests

when he varied the oom-pah-pah rhythm pattern.

The examples of pedalling through rests discussed thus far reveal an interesting

relationship between rhythm and pedal in similar passages in this waltz. In mm. 3, 4, and

20, the rhythm is notated the same way, but these similar measures sound different

because of differences in pedal. In contrast, the sequences and similar measures in the B

section (mm.33-39 and their repeats) maintain the same pedalling but sound somewhat

different because of the rhythmic changes in the accompaniments. All of these examples

highlight the variety that Chopin created in repeated measures or repetitive passages.

These sets of similar passages show how Chopin maintained the same pedalling and

varied the rhythm of the accompaniment to capture the listener’s attention, and

conversely, how he maintained the same oom-pah-pah rhythm in the accompaniment and

varied the pedalling to capture the listener’s attention.

In other situations, Chopin avoided pedalling through rests. Although the

alignment of the release sign is not very clear in all sources, the Drath/Basel and

Breitkopf sources seem to indicate that the pedal is released on the rest on the third beat

in m. 48, and the Breitkopf source also shows a pedal release on the rest on the third beat

in m. 32 (the Drath/Basel manuscript is missing the release sign in this measure).

Although the pitch on the third beats of each of these measures belongs to the prevailing

harmony, the pedal may have been released because that pitch belongs to the new section

as a pick up beat. It is interesting to see how Chopin utilized pedal changes to emphasize

the beginning of a section. In these cases, clarifying the form seemed to take precedence

over further enrichment of the sonority in these measures.

 38

The examples discussed above reveal that Chopin sometimes pedalled through

rests to create a smooth phrase and resonant sonority. In examples cited from both the

Scherzo Op. 31 and the Waltz Op. 64, no. 2, Chopin pedalled through the rests to

maintain the existing harmony while, in some cases, also allowing for a detached

articulation. However, in the waltz, pedalling through some rests and not through others

also served to create variety in the sonority and texture of similar passages. Furthermore,

not pedalling through other rests served to clarify the structure of the piece.

Missing Final Release Signs

The final release sign for the Waltz Op. 64, no. 2 was not omitted in any of the

manuscripts consulted.

Mikuli’s Edition of the Chopin Waltz, Op. 64 no. 2

Carl Mikuli was a student of Chopin’s from 1841-1847, and Chopin had enough

admiration for him to make him his assistant.82 While Mikuli’s edition of the Chopin

waltzes 83 was not published until 1894 (almost fifty years after his studies with Chopin),

he drew upon his own copies of Chopin’s works (which included penciled corrections by

Chopin) as well as detailed notes of his lessons with Chopin in making his editions. He

also had the assistance (and scores) of other Chopin students, and recorded Chopin’s

82
Jerzy Morawski: ‘Mikuli, Karol (Narcyz) [Miculi, Carol (Carl)]’ Grove Music Online ed. L. Macy
(Accessed 21 February, 2007), <http://www.grovemusic.com>.
83
Frédéric Chopin, Complete Works for the Pianoforte: Waltzes / Frédéric Chopin, ed. Mikuli, Carl, with a
biographical sketch of the author by Philip Hale. New York: G. Schirmer, 1894, v.
 39

remarks during the lessons of other pupils. 84 Unfortunately, Mikuli made no distinction

between Chopin’s original markings, Chopin’s penciled corrections, and Mikuli’s own

editorial suggestions. However, his introductory remarks to his editions provide valuable

reminiscences of Chopin’s playing and teaching (although nothing directly related to

pedalling). Table 3 outlines differences between Mikuli’s edition and the Drath/Basel

manuscript of the Waltz Op. 64 no. 2.

Table 3 – Differences in Pedal Indications between the Mikuli and Drath/Basel Scores 85

Measure Number(s) Drath/Basel manuscript Mikuli Edition

4,132 NP P on 1; off on 3

146 NP P entire measure

22,30,110,174 P entire measure NP

72 P on 1; off on 3 NP
15,32,75-76,143,160 Missing * sign P entire measure
37 P entire measure P on 1; * on 2
8, 10, 20,24,48,82, P on 1; off on 3 P entire measure
136,138,148,152,
157,159

70 P held over from 69; off P (held over from 69)

on 2 entire measure

As the first two rows of Table 3 reveal, several measures that lack pedal indications in the

Drath/Basel manuscript include such indications in the Mikuli edition and vice versa;

while these measures that lack pedal are different in each score, they create a similar

juxtaposition of pedalled and unpedalled measures. As the third row of Table 3 indicates,

several measures that are missing a release sign in the Drath/Basel manuscript include a

84
Jean-Jacques Eigeldinger, Chopin: Pianist and Teacher as Seen by his Pupils, ed. Roy Howat, trans.
Naomi Shohet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 172.
85
To save space in this table, “NP” will indicate “no pedal”, “P” will indicate “pedal” and numbers in
columns two and three will refer to specific beats within a given measure.
 40

release in the Mikuli edition. The fourth row of Table 3 shows that in m. 37, the

Drath/Basel manuscript includes one pedal indication for the entire measure while the

Mikuli edition indicates a release on beat 2; since the harmony remains the same

throughout that measure, the Drath/Basel indication underscores the harmony while the

Mikuli indications underscore the left-hand rest on beat 3. All other differences

referenced above involve measures where the Drath/Basel manuscript includes a change

of pedal within the measure to avoid blurring a change of bass note/harmony while these

measures are pedalled in their entirety in the Mikuli edition (see Table 3, row 5). Thus,

from a harmonic standpoint, the pedal indications in the Drath/Basel manuscript maintain

greater clarity.

Although Mikuli’s edition does have many discrepancies in pedal indications in

relation to the Drath/Basel manuscript and other sources discussed in this chapter, the

notations in this edition and Mikuli’s introductory remarks can serve as valuable

interpretive suggestions from a pianist who had personal knowledge of Chopin’s playing.

Overview of Selected Pedagogical Editions Designated as “Urtext”

Student pianists at all levels of ability should work from accurate and reliable

editions of their repertoire. Chopin’s Waltz in C# Minor, Op. 64 no. 2 has always been

popular with amateur, intermediate-level pianists, and not surprisingly, there are many

pedagogical editions available for this waltz. In this study, editions with pictures, titles,

and/or commentary suitable for developing pianists/musicians are defined as pedagogical

or teaching editions. The pedagogy library at West Virginia University has three teaching
 41

editions of this waltz, all of which are designated as “urtext”. The pedal indications in

these teaching materials were analyzed and compared to the Drath/Basel manuscript.

Dances of Chopin: Pieces to Play Before His Larger Works edited by Maurice

Hinson includes several types of dances composed by Chopin. 86 This volume contains

brief descriptions and characteristics of each type of dance, as well as the year each

composition was written. Sometimes, a brief historical background of the dance is

included as well. Willard A. Palmer’s Chopin: Waltzes (Complete) for the Piano, 87 is

identified as “Practical Performing Edition” which is “Edited from the original sources.”

Palmer provided introductory information about this edition and the waltzes; he also

provided information on ornamentation, and noted that the pedallings in this edition are

“carefully taken from the original manuscripts and first editions”.88 In Wolfgang

Feldmann’s Chopin Easier Favorites: Easy to Moderately Difficult Piano Pieces,

Feldmann included advice on fingerings which have been “tested for their practicality.” 89

All three of the editions listed above are highly regarded and the stylistic,

historical and/or technical information they provide is quite helpful. However, sometimes

there are discrepancies between even reliable teaching materials and original manuscripts

even though they carry “urtext” designations. For example, the editions by Hinson,

Feldman, and Palmer all include a pedal marking in m. 4 of this waltz, although only the

Palmer edition has this pedal marking in parentheses indicating that this is the editor’s

suggestion and not Chopin’s direction. Comparisons of these pedagogical editions to the

86
Maurice Hinson. ed., Dances of Chopin: Pieces to Play Before His Larger Works (Alfred Publishing Co.,
Inc, 1988).
87
Williard A. Palmer. ed., Chopin: Waltzes (complete) for the Piano (Alfred Publishing Co., Inc, 1984).
88
Ibid., 2.
89
Wolfgang Feldmann, Chopin Easier Favorites: Easy to Moderately Difficult Piano Pieces Urtext
(Heinrichshofen Edition, New York, 1980).
 42

French, German, and English editions discussed in this chapter revealed the following

numbers of pedal discrepancies (see Table 4):

Table 4 – Number of Differences in Pedal Indications between Selected Pedagogical

Editions and the Facsimiles Examined in this Chapter

Drath/Basel score French edition German edition English edition

Hinson edition 9 12 15 11

Feldman edition 8 10 14 16

Palmer edition 2 5 11 6

Table 4 shows that there are fewer pedal discrepancies between the teaching

materials and the Drath/Basel manuscript. The Palmer edition in particular seems to

follow this manuscript very closely, with only two discrepancies in pedal indications (and

both of these measures contain the exact same musical material). The Hinson edition has

the highest number of pedal differences compared to these facsimiles. These differences

occur mostly in measures of oom-pah-pah accompaniment where Hinson included pedal

indications and where the Drath/Basel score had no pedal indications. The discrepancies

in Feldmann edition, on the other hand, occur in different situations. These discrepancies

highlight the need for piano teachers and performers to select a score that remains as

close as possible to the composer’s autograph or other authentic source. Also, the editor’s

practice of distinguishing his own markings from those of the composer (as Palmer did)

allow the performer to make more informed interpretive decisions.

 43

The study of manuscripts, first editions and other authentic sources of Chopin’s

Waltz Op. 64 no. 2 in C# Minor revealed some unusual, distinctive and highly creative

uses of pedal in this composition. It is always worthwhile for the performer to explore

Chopin’s unusual pedallings, especially those that are usually neglected or regularized by

other pianists. This overview of sources highlights the importance of using an edition

which distinguishes the editor’s suggestions from Chopin’s directions, and the

importance of giving careful consideration to all of Chopin’s markings, even those which

may initially seem confusing

 CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Summary

This study presents an analysis and discussion of pedal markings in facsimiles of

one holograph as well as several first and early editions of Chopin’s Waltz Op. 64, no. 2

in C# minor; pedal indications in Carl Mikuli’s edition 90 and three pedagogical editions of

this work 91 are also discussed. This analysis is organized according to Thomas Higgins’

categories of “characteristic pedalling practices” in Chopin’s music. 92 While the analysis

of this waltz confirms many of Higgins’ findings, not all of his categories are relevant to

the waltz. Also, some of Chopin’s pedal indications in this waltz seem to serve a

somewhat different purpose than those from other Chopin works discussed by Higgins.

Conclusions

The following conclusions may be drawn from the analysis of pedal indications in

this waltz:

90
Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin, Waltzes, ed. Carl Mikuli (New York: G. Schirmer, Inc., 1943).
91
The following three pedagogical editions were discussed: Maurice Hinson. ed., Dances of Chopin:
Pieces to Play Before His Larger Works (Alfred Publishing Co., Inc, 1988); Williard A. Palmer. ed.,
Chopin: Waltzes (complete) for the Piano (Alfred Publishing Co., Inc, 1984); and Wolfgang Feldmann,
Chopin Easier Favorites: Easy to Moderately Difficult Piano Pieces Urtext (Heinrichshofen Edition, New
York, 1980).
92
Higgins, “Chopin Interpretation", 66-74.

44
 45

1. Chopin sometimes pedalled only the beginning and ending measures of scale
passages, and sometimes pedalled throughout entire scale passages. Since the
pedalled scale passages in this waltz are marked diminuendo, the primary purpose
of pedalling them seems to be to enhance harmony and form, rather than to
broaden sonority.

2. Most of the time that Chopin marked pedalling in homophonic passages, he

pedalled through the non-harmonic tones in the melody, and changed the pedal
according to the harmony.

3. Chopin often altered pedalling in similar and identical passages to create subtle
variation, and an air of freshness.

4. Chopin frequently juxtaposed pedalled and unpedalled passages to create variety

in sonority and texture, and to highlight the form and structure of this waltz.
Chopin often accompanied short unpedalled passages with other changes
including suspension of the left-hand accompaniment and/or subtle differences in
slurs, rhythm values, ties, and register.

5. In this waltz, the part writing in the più lento section is consistently kept clear
with appropriate use or withholding of pedal. The Drath/Basel manuscript shows
that in places where the harmony changes that lack pedal indications, Chopin
inserted slurs to ensure legato bass lines and a smooth connection between
harmonies. “Finger pedal” can often be used to maintain legato in places where
damper pedal is omitted.

6. In this waltz, Chopin sometimes pedalled through rests to maintain the existing
harmony while, in some cases, also allowing for a detached articulation. Pedalling
through some rests and not through others also served to create variety in the
sonority and texture of similar passages. Furthermore, not pedalling through other
rests served to clarify the structure of the piece.

Choosing an authentic performing edition of Chopin’s works is not an easy task

since different autographs, first editions and other authentic sources often present

conflicting versions of the same work with regard to pitches, slurs, ties, and pedal

markings. Furthermore, some editors alter or add pedal markings to make the music

conform to modern-day, continuous pedalling practices. This study highlights the

importance of working with the most authentic score available to more fully understand

the composer’s desires and make the most informed interpretive decisions.
 46

Chopin’s compositions have always enjoyed great popularity among performers

and listeners because of his unique musical expression. Chopin’s brilliant use of pedal not

only enriches the sonority, but also creates enormous variety, highlights musical form,

and elevates the spirit of the composition. Performers accustomed to continuous pedalling

may notice that some of Chopin’s more unique pedallings schemes are hard to follow.

However, those performers who remain faithful to Chopin’s pedallings will gain further

insight into their effect on the composition as a whole, and this greater understanding is

likely to lead to a more informed and stylistic interpretation.

Recommendations for Future Research

The literature review and analysis of the waltz suggest that Chopin's pedal

indications are very unique and deserved to be studied further. Since studies of Chopin's

markings require analysis of authentic sources, future researchers should examine pedal

indications in facsimiles of original autographs. Sandra Rosenblum 93 identified the

following Chopin compositions that have been published in facsimile form by

Schott/Universal and by other publishers:

• Ballades in F major and Ab major, Opp. 38 and 47

• Barcarolle
• Etude in C minor, Op. 10, no. 2
• Mazurkas Op. 24
• Nocturnes Op. 48
• Polonaise-Fantaisie Op. 61
• Preludes Op. 28
• Scherzi in Bb minor and E major, Opp. 31 and 54
• Sonata in B minor, Op. 58
• Etude in E major, Op. 10, no. 3
• Nocturne in F minor, Op. 55, no. 1

93
Rosenblum, "Enigmas of Chopin's Pedal Indications", 58.
 47

• Prelude in Db major, Op. 28, no. 15

While studies of pedal markings in some Chopin works (e.g., Mazurka Op. 59,

no. 2; Nocturne Op. 55, no. 2; Nocturne in F Major Op. 15, no.1; Ballades Opp. 38 and

47; Etudes Op. 25, nos. 2 and 10; Scherzi Opp. 20 and 31; and selected preludes) were

alluded to and/or discussed in Chapters II or III, future researchers should investigate

pedal indications in other Chopin compositions that have not yet been examined in terms

of pedalling. Studies of Chopin's pedal indications in other compositions could provide

further insight into his masterful use of pedal and a new perspective toward the

performance of his works.

 APPENDIX

Chopin’s Waltz in C# minor, Op. 64, no. 2 Without Pedal Indications 94

94
Since many different pedal schemes are discussed in this paper, and since Drath’s copy of the pedalling
in the Basel manuscript is copyrighted, this score does not include any pedal indications.

48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Eigeldinger, Jean-Jacques. Chopin: Pianist and Teacher as Seen by his Pupils, ed. Roy
Howat, trans. Naomi Shohet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Hinson, Maurice. “Pedaling the Piano Works of Chopin.” in The Pianist’s Guide to
Pedaling by Joseph Banowetz, 179-198. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press,
1985.

Rowland, David. A History of Pianoforte Pedalling. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1993.

Dissertations

Higgins, Thomas. “Chopin Interpretation: A Study of Performance Directions in Selected

Autographs and Other Sources.” Ph.D. diss., University of Iowa, 1966.

Meniker, Zvi. “Aspects of Performance Practice in Frederic Chopin’s Piano Works:

Slurs, Pedalling, Mazurka Rhythm.” Ph. D. diss., Cornell University, 2001.

Articles

Higgins, Thomas. “Whose Chopin.” 19th-Century Music 5 no. 1 (Summer 1981): 67-75.

Rosenblum, Sandra P. “Some Enigmas of Chopin’s Pedal Indications: What Do the

Sources Tell Us?” Journal of Musicological Research 16 (1996): 41-61.

Music Scores

Drath, Jan Bogdan. Waltzes of Fryderyk Chopin: Sources - Waltzes Published During
Chopin’s Lifetime, vol. 1. Kingsville, Texas: Texas A&I University Publications, 1979.

Feldmann, Wolfgang. Chopin Easier Favorites: Easy to Moderately Difficult Piano

Pieces Urtext (Heinrichshofen Edition, New York, 1980).

58
 59

Hinson, Maurice. ed. Dances of Chopin: Pieces to Play Before His Larger Works
(Alfred Publishing Co., Inc, 1988).

Palmer, Willard A., ed. Chopin: Waltzes (complete) for the Piano (Alfred Publishing
Co., Inc, 1984).

Frédéric Chopin, Complete Works for the Pianoforte: Waltzes / Frédéric Chopin, ed.
Mikuli, Carl, with a biographical sketch of the author by Philip Hale. New York: G.
Schirmer, 1894.

Online Resources

Jerzy Morawski: ‘Mikuli, Karol (Narcyz) [Miculi, Carol (Carl)]’ Grove Music Online ed.
L. Macy (Accessed 21 February, 2007), <http://www.grovemusic.com>.