Chopin – Prelude in A Minor, Op. 28 No. 2

The following concerns the collection of Opus 28 Preludes as a whole… This information is the same for any of the reference pages concerning the opus.

From “preluding” to “prelude”: Before Chopin’s Op. 28 Preludes hit the scene, a composition titled “prelude” was meant to mimic the improvisatory “preluding” that many pianists did when first sitting down to perform. If this concept is unfamiliar to you, watch the start of this video from the first Chopin Competition on Period Instruments. There’s “preluding” in the first thirty seconds of the video before the etude begins. The preludes of Chopin’s Op. 28 transcended this realm and entered the domain of compositionally-interesting, self-contained works.

Getting Organized!  Chopin wrote these preludes between 1835 and their publication in 1839. This included the 1838-39 winter where he was relaxing in Valldemosa, Majorca with George Sand and her children.  It’s still a great vacation spot and now has a “Museum of Chopin and George Sand.” Like any good traveler, Chopin remembered to take  his copy of Bach’s The Well-Tempered Clavier with him. Did this influence the structure of his preludes? An obvious point related to the first prelude specifically is that both Chopin and Bach start their collections with a prelude consisting of broken arpeggios. More importantly, many point out the obvious connection that both collections consist of pieces in each major and minor key.  (Bach organized these by rising semitone while Chopin organized them in a circle of fifths). Some argue that Chopin’s arrangement is conducive to a performance of the entire Op. 28 as a whole, which might have been Chopin’s intent (Alfred Cortot was the first to do this in 1926). Others point out (like Marilyn Meier in her dissertation) that Chopin himself never played more than four in any given sitting.

Better than Kessler! The manuscript of Chopin’s preludes shows a dedication to Joseph Christoph Kessler, which probably contradicts the dedication seen in the edition you’re using.  Kessler wrote 24 preludes of his own in 1831 (Op. 31). Maybe one shouldn’t make too much of the Bach connection above considering that Chopin may have simply been trying to one-up Kessler with a collection of his own!  Although Kessler remained the dedicatee of the first German edition, the primary dedicatee of his Op. 28 was changed to Camille Pleyel because…well…money talks!

The Man With the Cash! Camille Pleyel was a major piano entrepreneur of his time.  He could play, he published music, he ran a concert hall, he owned a firm that manufactured pianos…which explains why he could not only afford to commission Chopin’s Op. 28 preludes for 2,000 francs ^[2]Page 213 of Huneker’s Chopin Biography but also give him a piano for his writing! As the preludes were finished, a lot of historical documentation revolved around Pleyel.  Two letters exist from January 22, 1839…  The first to Julian Fontana where Chopin says that Fontana will soon be receiving the preludes and is to copy them with “Wolff,” give one of these copies to “Probst,” and send the manuscript to Pleyel.  The second letter to Pleyel himself says that Pleyel would receive the preludes from Fontana and that they were completed using Pleyel’s piano…a piano remaining undamaged during shipping, despite the sea, bad weather and the Parma customs office (some Chopin humor). And finally, a later letter to Fontana exists from March 1839 changing the Op. 28 dedicatee to Pleyel on the condition that Pleyel will “agree to leave out the Ballade.” If not, the dedication should be changed to Schumann.

What Others Thought: Schumann was surprised, initially expecting pieces “in the grand style of his studies” but finding “sketches, the beginning of studies, or, if you will, ruins, eagle’s feathers, all strangely intermingled”…but all distinctively Chopin.  Liszt said they were characterized by a youthful vigor that was lacking in some of his later works ^[3]Quotes on Pages 120-121 of Huneker’s Chopin Biography.

Care in Sound…Very Difficult to Prevent a Crude Sound!: Although whimsical in tone, the Kleczynski and Leikin quotes above express the interpretive challenges that one faces with the A Minor Prelude.  It is unusual writing for Chopin, both in general and within Opus 28 itself.  One’s performance must create a unique atmosphere and be strikingly different from the surrounding preludes!  This is not an easy task, as Theodore Kullak notes in his preface to the Preludes.  He groups numbers 4, 6, 7, 9, 15 and 20 as offering “no technical hindrance,” while he reserves numbers 2, 5, 13, 19, and 21 for a special group at the end of his ranking saying, “The difficulty of [these preludes] lies in the delicate piano and legato technique, which, on account of the extended positions, leaps and double notes, presupposes a high degree of development.” Performers should make sure to put in sufficient effort to avoid reactions like this one from James Huneker in his Chopin biography, “Desperate and exasperating to the nerves is the second prelude in A minor…Chopin seldom wrote ugly music, but is this not ugly, forlorn, despairing, almost grotesque, and discordant? It indicates the deepest depression in its sluggish, snake-like progression.”

Some Practical Tips: Perform this piece without shaping the melody woven into the left hand and differentiating voicing between left and right, and you deserve to be cut from the Chopin competition immediately! Be sure you have an edition whose initial beaming of the notes in the first two measures suggests the melody B-A#-B-G (see description of the Ekier Edition in the following section). Chopin notated it in this way!  A copy of the autograph shows this beaming in the first two measures with a simplified beaming beginning at measure three.  One fingering to consider is given in the Ekier Internal Edition on the last eighth-note of the seventh measure where a transfer from the second to third finger while on the E is suggested. This is worth exploring as a way to enhance legato into measure eight.

Further concerning legato, it should be noted that Theodore Kullak, in his edition, recommended using two hands to execute the undulating bass clef material.  This video shows a close-up example of this technique if one chooses to explore it.

Don’t rush the grace notes in measures seventeen and twenty.  These should appear as small eighth notes without a bar through the stem. In fact, there is a teaching copy annotated by Chopin where he crossed out this bar (see page seven of the Source Commentary in the Ekier edition for details).

Although the only pedal marking Chopin actually wrote is the one covering measures eighteen and nineteen, one should certainly not play the rest of this piece completely dry!

Another item to be considered in interpretation is the tempo marking of “Lento.”  Yes, Chopin wrote “Lento,” but he also wrote the cut-time marking. A slow two is much different than a slow four; the former is recommended. Some later editions changed this to a common-time marking for no reason at all! An early edition edited by Riemann gives a tempo indication of half note=50.

What to Look for in Good Editions…Ekier International Edition: The clear leader in terms of accuracy, research, and reputation in publications of Chopin’s piano music is the Ekier International Edition.  Edited by Jan Ekier and Paweł Kamiński, it has financial backing from the Fryderyk Chopin Institute.  One often sees it recommended in instructional material for pianists preparing for the International Chopin Competition. If one is arguing against this edition, they’ll feel foolish after seeing the back matter where the research process and manuscripts studied for each prelude are listed.  Other editions may be recommended as a first-choice by some who are simply not aware of this latest project. This edition follows the autograph exactly!  The crescendo in measure eleven, the slentando, the sostenuto, even the dashes after the diminuendo in measure thirteen start and end in the same spot as the autograph! The beaming of the left-hand eighth notes also matches the autograph.  Chopin beamed the B-A#-B-G as one unit and the outer notes as another in the first two measures! Starting at measure three, he probably simplified the beaming so as not to clutter the manuscript, and to make it physically easier to write. All good editions should match this beaming pattern! Finally, the grace notes in measures seventeen and twenty should not be beamed! They should appear as small eighth notes matching the autograph.

Problems with Lesser Editions: As an example of the types of problems with many editions, we will glance quickly at the Mikuli-edited edition (often appearing in a Dover publication with a green cover as seen here). It is missing the distinctive beaming in the first two measures from the Chopin autograph, leaving it to the performer’s ear to detect the B-A#-B-G melody.  There is a mf above the right hand in measures three and eight, not bad recommendations, but not authentic.  There are lines through the grace notes in measures five and twenty (see the note below and the “Tactile Tips” section above to learn why this is so misleading)!   As you can see, nothing that would cause a pianistic crisis, but a bit sloppy nonetheless.

Trivia Concerning Early Editions: 

• If you haven’t already read the “Tactile Tips,”, there is an early edition with teaching annotations from Chopin himself where he crossed out bars that were printed through the stems of the grace notes in measures seventeen and twenty (page seven of the Source Commentary in the Ekier edition).

Recall the quote from Anatole Leikin presented at the top of this page, “Of all Chopin’s works, no other piece has remained so objectionable to listeners and performers, yet so appealing to analysts.” It’s no mystery that the tonality isn’t the clearest thing in the world, starting with an E minor harmony.  This analysis by Scott D. Strader is a good starting point for those beginning to consider the difficulties of doing a traditional analysis based in A minor.

Readers willing to grab a drink, relax, and take a while should read Michael R. Roger’s “Rehearings: Chopin, Prelude in A Minor, Op. 28 No. 2” from the Spring 1981 edition of 19th-Century Music. Rogers posits that much of the harmonic and melodic ambiguity corresponds to “durational codes” like the Golden Section and that identifying this can clarify the purpose of the ambiguity. (There’s also a wonderful image of an autograph facsimile in this article!) All pianists who have felt the entrance of the right-hand A in measure 14 to be a bit odd will be fascinated to read Rogers discussion of this note after identifying that it marks the Golden Section of the work! It’s really worth following his line of thinking for what it reveals.

Death!  Now we’re getting somewhere!: Analyses of the pitch material always seem to be a bit unfulfilling.  To be fulfilled, please locate and read Anatole Leikin’s “Chopin’s A-Minor Prelude and its Symbolic Language” from Volume 6 of the International Journal of Musicology. He gives an extensive list of other analyses in a footnote but, more importantly, he presents a variety of quotes from musicians showing the association of this piece with death. He cites enough references to prove that Chopin did occasionally quote the music of others in his works. He identifies the obvious Dies irae theme in the work (the B-A#-B-G interior voice that most pianists catch immediately…although not all catch the E-D#-E-D similar contour hidden in the chords of mm. 21-22), but more importantly traces it throughout the work, including the right-hand melody! Also pointing out the rhythm in measures six, eleven, etc. is used in the Funeral March from the Op. 35 Piano Sonata, Leikin confidently asserts that the piece is representative of death.  He reminds the reader that while Chopin was finishing up these preludes, his health was deteriorating. The composer wrote that (paraphrasing) one doctor said I croaked, a second said I’m croaking, and a third said I will croak. This article is a must read.  It actually gives the underlying reason for the difficulties in traditional analysis!

One feature shared by all the recommended recordings is a right-hand melody that is voiced clearly above the left-hand undulations.  This is essential to even a mildly successful interpretation.

1. Martha Argerich – (YouTube, Amazon) – Compare her execution of the grace notes in measure ten and twenty to both Kissin and Sokolov.  She finds a literal middle-ground between them.  So literal that the execution comes out as nearly two even eighth notes.  Effective shaping of the melody in measure eleven.  An overall tempo that is slightly quicker in nature.  This gives a overall sense of calm melancholy to the casual listener and leaves the despair beneath the surface.

2. Evgeny Kissin – (YouTube, Amazon) – Observe the slower pace of the grace notes in Kissin’s performance compared to Sokolov below. These two recordings mark the two poles of the decision that each pianist has to make regarding their pace.  Kissin’s pacing of measure twelve captures more of the angst in the harmonies than other recording.  Another interesting detail is how he allows the pedal to continue into measure seventeen, an effective personal choice.

3. Ivan Moravec – (YouTube, Amazon) – Recommended for the very clear voicing of the interior left-hand melody.  Listeners will have no trouble distinguishing between the interior notes and the outer ones.  His tempo is more along the lines of an alla breve and is to be noted.  This pacing adds touches of hope to the somber piece.

4. Grigory Sokolov – (YouTube, Amazon) – Careful shaping of the left hand, with more weight on the odd-numbered eighth notes than the even. One of the most effective uses of the crescendo in measure eleven, set up by a color change in measure ten.  Amazing dimuendo in mm. 13-17. His grace notes are on the fast side (for a clear comparison, listen to Kissin above), although the resulting rhythm matches very closely the suggestion in the Performance Commentary of the Ekier Edition. Many play the grace notes in this manner, including Artur Rubinstein. Many details are worth hearing!