Jump to content

Talk:Ballade No. 4 (Chopin)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Rampant subjectivity

I have deleted most of the article because it is subjective. Sorry, but you can't make claims about "poetic" depth or artistic consensus without citing well-known critics or artists. Even technical difficulty falls into this category. Please view the guidelines for classical music articles.

I'll start this article off by adding a little history. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 13:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Form?

What odd description of "Form" (against "Structure") allows one to so distinguish them that "Form" becomes the time signature of the opening bar of the work, and the structure becomes the moment-by-moment happenings in it? ... No. Will see if I can do better, of course, but in my considered opinion- no. Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpt on Page

The excerpt of the first few measures is incorrect. The second note in the L.H. is E natural, not E-flat. This isn't one of the disputed typos common to editions of the ballades, it's just plain wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.212.177 (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.chopin.org/index.php?page=HowToPlayChopin5

This link, "How to play Chopin", is bad. Anybody who added it, know if there's a mirror? Sounds interesting.
thedarkestclear Talk 10:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, found it at http://chopinfound.brinkster.net/Atimo_s/news/SmendziankaPartV.pdf
thedarkestclear Talk 10:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 4 Ballades into one page

I've posted this on the talk pages of the other three ballades as well. Since information on the four ballades is scarce, at best, there is hardly enough to create one article for each. I think it might be better for them to be all consolidated into one article, which would be much more substantial.

Thoughts? Wizard of Yendor (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. They're mostly recorded as a set, and more often than not played as a set at concerts, although there are exceptions, of course. Merge. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support the merge as well. —La Pianista (T•C) 06:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this discussion seems to be *cough* a little old, I'll go ahead and get started on the merger. Insorak (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merger is finished. Ballades (Chopin). Insorak ♫ talk 18:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split

The four ballades were once again split on December 17, 2020 after discussion here. intforce (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

  • Performance and recording history. In the 1992 book "Chopin: the Four Ballades", Jim Samson gives a longish survey of the performing and recording history of Ballade No. 4, Op. 52. The survey covers the 19th century to the present, describing many famous pianists. He mentions those who do not necessarily adhere to Chopin's score, taking great liberties. Samson also describes why most recordings of this demanding piece invariably are not totally satisfactory. His personal recommendation in 1992 was for Robert Casadesus.
Great suggestion. Please feel free to add a new section for it. intforce (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mini-score. Using the lilypond code from mutopia, I have checked that it is possible to create musical quotations from a mini-score. This would provide musical quotations for (a) Theme I, (b) Theme II, (c) the so-called "apotheosis", and (d) the bravura closing section, where the rapid triplets crescendo to a fortissimo close. (Versions of (a) and (d) have already appeared.) Mathsci (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This would be great, however musical scores are currently disabled. It's been like this for almost half a year, and it's sad that it doesn't get much attention. intforce (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know about that particular problem. But for the images of musical quotations, I use the output of the pdf file after tweaking the original lilypond code. Because of the quite complex piano score, the authors had to do a lot of work encoding complicated slurs; there were also parallel entries for expression marks. Fortunately they decided not to have any fingerings. (For examples of the method see BWV 1017 or BWV 1019.) Mathsci (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, though SVG files would be preferred when dealing with musical scores, for both quality and file size (SVG and PDF are basically interchangeable anyway). Let me know if I can do anything to help, I have some experience dealing with SVG stuff and music notation :) intforce (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In September 2016 another editor, Goldenshimmer, said that for BWV 39 svg is better than jpeg, but I couldn't tell the difference: File:Excerpt-score.-test.svg versus File:BWV39.1 section one chorus with orchestra.jpeg. At that time, I worked out how to switch between jpeg and svg.
For standard lilypond 2.18.2, my OS kubuntu 18.04 rejected the ly file (segmentation fault—core dumped); an older laptop running kubuntu 14.04 had no problems, but it was more powerful, so that's what I'm using. Anyway, in this article the musical quotations are in png format so can be switched to any format with no loss of quality. From my point of view, having complete phrases for the themes or other quotations is the most important thing. Anyway, thanks for all your advice and encouragement! Mathsci (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, getting the content in there is most important, no matter the format :)
But if we could choose between PNG/JPEG and SVG, the latter wins, because SVG files can be zoomed in indefinitely. It might not make a huge difference on a standard computer screen, but certainly on higher DPI displays. Another concern is file size: for the test file you linked, the JPEG is 454 KB, while the (optimized) SVG version is only 278 KB. If we have tons of musical scores in the article, it might make quite a difference :) intforce (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Authoritative Chopin edition

I have newly engraved the first three measures, which I propose shall be included in this article:

Notice that the voicing is extremely intricate and took a lot of time to get right – in measure 2 there are four voices on one staff. This engraving is strictly based on the Polish National Edition by Jan Ekier, widely considered to be the most authoritative edition of Chopin's works:

  • recommended by the Chopin Institute for use in the Chopin Competition[1]
  • Paul Badura-Skoda: "The National Edition is so far the best available Chopin edition made with extreme care and precision"[2]
  • Jim Samson (whose analysis is in this article): "By far the best of the modern editions is Jan Ekier’s Polish National. Ekier does work with well thought-through editorial principles and his text comes closer than any other to a faithful reproduction of a single (‘best’) source."[2]
  • Frans Brüggen: "A new urtext of Chopin’s Works prepared by professor Jan Ekier seems to be very trustworthy. Having compared all the different sources available, Professor Ekier was able to make good editorial decisions."

References

  1. ^ https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/media.chopin2020.pl/c38344d9c15a43779f60bfde310cdb08.pdf
  2. ^ a b https://blog.sheetmusicplus.com/2017/09/27/fryderyk-chopin-and-the-chopin-national-edition/

--intforce (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Comments section of the 2010 Henle edition has exactly the same indications for the dynamical markings. The dynamical markings are outside the slurs so are easier to read. In Scherzos (Chopin), I have already summarised content on the "extended works" (taken from Jim Samson) which covers the 4 Ballades, 4 Scherzos and 2 Fantasies. The recent editions can be followed online in the Cambridge/KCL/Mellon website (which also oversees editing in the Fryderyk Chopin Institute). Please could we continue this discussion on my section instead of here?
The exact urtext version is irrelevant as far as wikipedia is concerned: if no musical quotations appear at all, there is no point in debating which of the recent editions to use. Besides, how can you use an edition that is under copyright? In this case, the introductory section for the Ballade was 7 bars long: you have given 3 bars, not helpful. Similarly you have omitted Theme I (and its 4 variations) and Theme II. And so on. The text, summarising Samson's chapter, gives a musical description, but having the score helps. Look at what happens on BWV 39 or BWV 1017. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you give me the numbers of the measures containing those themes, I can engrave them. Regarding copyright: the edition as a whole may be under copyright – however, those files are entirely engraved by me. The original work by Chopin is in the public domain, and the placements of dynamics and slurs do not meet the threshold of originality, especially in the context of a few bars. --intforce (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 2005 Polish edition or the 2007 Henle edition (two versions) are still under copyright; but having these urtext version is completely irrelevant, since non-copyright 1915 editions are adequate—they are only needed for illustrative purposes, cg Waltzes, Op. 70 (Chopin). Also, as mentioned a month ago, lilypond can be used to create miniscore excerpts.
Meanwhile the musical analysis of Jim Samson on Ballade No. 1 (Chopin), Ballade No. 2 (Chopin) or Ballade No. 3 (Chopin) has not yet been done ... Mathsci (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henle edition

In the Comments of the Henle edition, which takes 17 pages, there is an extremely detailed explanation of the five sources used to produce the publication. Two versions E and F provide the two possible "final" versions; the relations between the five sources are described in a diagram. The latest Version E is the one that appears in the text and dates from March 1844. The version F dates from December 1843 and is the one which is hard to read with crescendos above or within the slurs as well as legato markings. At the moment Ballades 1, 2 and 3 are poorly written (the material from Jim Samson has not been used). For Ballade No. 4 that can be seen online in the Cambridge/King's College London/Andrew Mellon website. Indeed it was from there that a downloaded the autograph manuscript. In Ballade No. 4 and now in Scherzos (Chopin), I have located sources and written the content (possibly with too many direct quotes). The 1992 Cambridge Companion to Chopin and the prefaces to the Ballades/Scherzos cover all that material, the so-called extended forms, which also include the two large Fantasies. The ballade starts off with 7 introductory bars, so I don't understand why did you not include all of it. Similarly there are no hints of Themes I (and its variations) and Themes II. So at the moment the short extract you have produced doesn't seem to have any value. A 7 bar introduction would be fine; if the slurs cab be disentangled from the crescendo/diminuendo and legato markings that would also help. I a slightly mystified by you attitude helping improve content (cf Waltzes, Op. 70 (Chopin)). Mathsci (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see your point. The versions used in the Henle edition have no relevance here. We do not perform original research. The source commentary of the National Edition is equally detailed, and as outlined above, valued higher by experts than the Henle edition. So at the moment the short extract you have produced doesn't seem to have any value. This is only about replacing the older images in the article with updated engravings that use a more authoritative source. After that, we can discuss which further measures to include in the analysis – I'm open to engrave more. So the matter we are discussing now is: "Should the old images (on the left) be replaced with the updated versions (on the right)?" I invite other editors to comment. intforce (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even before the article Ballades (Chopin) was separated into 4 articles, for the section later moved to Ballade No. 4 (Chopin), I provided detailed musical analysis based on Jim Samson's chapter in the Cambridge Companion to Chopin. I then created content for Scherzos (Chopin), which provided an overview for the 4 Ballades, the 4 Scherzos and the 2 Fantasies. As far as I'm aware using a 2005 edition infringes copyright rules on wikimedia/wikipedia. But the main points at the moment are
(a) the three bars in the introduction are not sufficient (the intro is 7 bars long)
(b) Theme I, its variations, and Theme II do not appear anywhere at all, regardless of which edition is taken, urtext or otherwise
(c) Samson's text describes the "white heat" frenzy concluding the ballade—the musical quotations do not match up there (it's similar to Scherzo No. 3)
So improving the article has nothing to do with having an urtext version in svg format; instead it involves having relevant musical quotations. These could date from 1915—it doesn't matter. For Waltzes, Op. 70 (Chopin), the musical excerpts were produced from a Schirmer score where copyright had expired. Some markings were removed (fingerings were kept). So this pedantry with "urtext" is irrelevant. The Henle edition was published in 2007; the Preface is a valuable WP:RS for creating the text.
So the extracts you provide are of no use to this article for the reasons (a), (b) and (c) above. Check up with the copyright rules if you intend to use 2005 editions that are blatantly under copyright. Musical excerpts for articles can be used for anything not under copyright preparing articles. Mathsci (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See my answer above. Regards, intforce (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to require an "authoritative source" except for a possible "Publication history" (cf BWV 4). For musical excerpt from the 4th Ballade, a 19th- or early 20th-century source is sufficient. Even though you have been editing wikipedia since 2011, you started creating lots of new musical stubs or articles only in November. I don't know what happens with Violin Sonata No. 2 (Fauré) or Piano Quintet No. 2 (Fauré). With Durand, there surely must be copyright problems. That's why they cost so much. Mathsci (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly do not know what to make of your comments. This discussion was originally strictly about replacing two old images with newer ones of higher quality, and you've somehow made it an entirely different discussion. My registration date or my other articles like Violin Sonata No. 2 (Fauré) are of zero relevance here. I've made a fair argument that my images are in fact in the public domain. I am restructuring this discussion in a format that is more suitable for other editors to participate. intforce (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing old score excerpts in the article Future use of musical excerpts for Ballade No. 4

The question is: "Should the old images (on the left) be replaced with the updated versions (on the right)?"

Old image (unclear source)
 New engraving (adapted from the Polish National Edition)
Old image (Klindworth)
 New engraving (adapted from the Polish National Edition)

Comment User:Intforce's edits started in 2011 and has been quite sporadic; only in November 2020 has he started creating new articles, many of them musical stubs. His edit history shows that he has very little experience of using musical excerpts. In contrast, my experience of editing music dates back to 2008, with audio and image files, starting with BWV 769. Examples can be found in BWV 1017, BWV 39 and BWV 529. Very recent media examples are Waltzes, Op. 70 (Chopin). Just over a month ago, User:Intforce split the articles Ballade No. 1 (Chopin), Ballade No. 2 (Chopin), Ballade No. 3 (Chopin) and this in a mechanical way. He made no attempt to add the main reference, the book "Chopin's Ballades" by Jim Samson, to the three other articles on Nos. 1–3, nor did he attempt to adjust the musical excerpts in those articles. Thus User:Intforce has left the three earlier Ballades in a improperly sourced state.

Currently, four types of musical excerpts are required, in mini-score format, to supplement and match up with text in the pre-existing musical analysis of Samson here:

(a) the seven bars of the introductory passage

(b) Theme I (with its variations) and Theme II

(c) the "white heat" frenzy concluding the ballade

I know regular editors involved in Chopin articles, partly through the Chopin biography article: these are User:Smerus, User:Nihil novi, User:Toccata quarta, User:Kosboot and User:JackofOz. It's not quite clear what Intforce wants: he has read (a), (b) and (c), but it seems it has not sunk in. For articles on music, normally there is a section "Publication history" (or similar). That could include the 2007 Henle score or the 2005 Chopin Institute score. (I have no access to the 2005 score either physically or online, and I do not need them.) The quotations I need—(a), (b) and (c) above—can be created using lilypond from mutopia files, as previously explained a month ago on this talk page. Perhaps if User:Intforce tried editing articles on the three earlier ballades, he might have a more realistic perspective. Mathsci (talk) 06:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that the copyright issues continue; they apply only to the files on Commons, not here. Note also that User:Intforce has also made edits on fr.wikipedia.org, de.wikipedia.org, it.wikipedia.org, zh.wikipedia.org, pl.wikipedia.org, ja.wikipedia.org, da.wikipedia.org, pt.wikipedia.org, fry.wikipedia.org and ca.wikipedia.org. No changes to es.wikipedia.org so far. Yawn. Mathsci (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The 'old' images are perfectly clear and appropriate to the text. The 'new' images' are less comprehensible, both in regards to supporting the text, and as to sight-reading clarity, and would involve copyright considerations.--Smerus (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ballade_No._4_(Chopin)&oldid=1212376833"