Chopin Piano Sonata Opus 35

ROYAL NORTHERN COLLEGE OF MUSIC
SHIFTING MODES OF RECEPTION:

CHOPINS PIANO SONATA IN B FLAT
MINOR, OPUS 35
DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL
FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
MASTER OF MUSIC DEGREE IN PERFORMANCE
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER
By
JONATHAN ISAAC OSHRY
Thi !i"#$%$i&' i (y &)' )&#*,
%'! h% '&$ +#",i&-.y /""'
-/(i$$"! 0&# %"("'$ %$ $hi
&# %'y &$h"# i'$i$-$i&'1
SEPTEMBER 1999
i
AC2NO3LEDGEMENTS
This thesis could never have been written without the help and support of various
individuals. I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr Steven Jan, for his invaluable
encouragement, input and guidance in the writing of this dissertation. My gratitude is
also epressed to John !ink and "natoly #eiken, both renowned eponents on the
music of $hopin, for their advice as to the availability and importance of various
source materials relating to $hopin%s piano sonatas.
I would also like to thank all those who were involved in the translation of the
numerous source materials used in this dissertation& to 'abara (ad)a and Josef
"lechowki, for unravelling the etremely complicated *olish articles +some of which
had already been translated from the original !ussian,- to .atrien Matschke and
/endy #aw for effecting the translation of the lengthy (erman articles- and to 0aomi
and /endy #aw for the translation of various 1rench 2uotations.
1inally, and most importantly, I would like to thank my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Joshua
3shry, for their continual support of my musical career.
ii
CONTENTS
41 INTRODUCTION11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111114
51 THE COMPOSITIONAL BAC2GROUND1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111116
31 INITIAL RECEPTION 7486494:;5<1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111:
61 LATE9NINETEENTH AND EARLY9T3ENTIETH CENTURY RECEPTION 748:;94:6;<1145
51 LATER RECEPTION 74:6;94::=<111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111156
=1 CHOPINS OPUS 35 IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111134
>1 THE EARLY ANALYSES ? LEICHTENTRITT AND R@TI11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111138
81 FURTHER ANALYSES 9 3AL2ER AND OTHERS 74:==94::;<111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115=
:1 RECENT 3RITINGS ? SAMSON AND LEI2EN11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111=>
4;1THE FINALE111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111>5
441CONCLUSION111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111184
APPENDIA A: SCHUMANNS CRITIQUE 74864< OF CHOPINS OPUS 35111111111111111111111111111111183
APPENDIA B: ANALYSIS OF THE FINALE OF CHOPINS PIANO SONATA IN B FLAT
MINOR, OPUS 3511111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111118=
BIBLIOGRAPHY1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111:4
iii
LIST OF EAAMPLES
N&1 D"B#i+$i&' P%C"
4. Second sub)ect of the first movement 55
5. Derivation of the second sub)ect +top stave, from the first +bottom stave, 67
8. Derivation of the accompaniment figure +top stave, from the first sub)ect
+bottom stave, 67
6. Derivation of the third sub)ect +top stave, from the first +bottom stave, 64
9. !hythmic interconnection between themes 64
:. !hythmic link between the first sub)ect of the first movement and the
main theme of the 1uneral March 65
;. Modulation from the Trio to the Scher<o in the second movement 68
=. The link between the Scher<o and the 1uneral March 66
>. 1irst movement& #ink between the contours of the first sub)ect and the
introductory motif 6:
47. 3utline of bars 4;?54 of the first sub)ect of the first movement and their
relation to Motif I of the Grave 6;
44. 'ass accompaniment of the first sub)ect +bars >?58, of the first movement
showing its relation to motifs I and II 6;
45. The relationship between the first and second sub)ects of the first
movement 6=
48. 3rnamented version of second sub)ect +bars 9;?9>, 6=
46. The relationship between the first, second, and third sub)ects of the
first movement 6>
49. Similarity in outline between bars 55>?564 of the first movement and
bars 4?= of the Scher<o 97
4:. @se of Motif Ib in the Scher<o 94
4;. @se of Motif II in the Scher<o 94
4=. Similarity between the second sub)ect of the first movement and the Trio
theme of the Scher<o 95
4>. Similarity between the first sub)ect of the first movement and the main
theme of the 1uneral March 95
iv
N&1 D"B#i+$i&' P%C"
57. Similarity between the first sub)ect of the first movement and the first
four bars of the 1inale 98
54. Motif II as it appears in bars 9 and ; in the 1inale 98
55. Aints of a melodious second sub)ect in the 1inale 96
58. Derivation of Motif +b, from bars 4?6 of the first movement +a, 9:
56. Derivation of the second sub)ect 9;
59. The use of Motif +Bample 56, in the second sub)ect 9;
5:. Derivation of bar >> from the first sub)ect 9=
5;. The three?layered structure beginning bar 48; in the development 9>
5=. The use of the minor third in the Scher<o :7
5>. Thematic integration of the Trio with the Scher<o :4
87. #ink between the Trio theme of the Scher<o and the Trio theme of the
1uneral March :4
84. #ink between the main sub)ect of the 1uneral March and the first sub)ect
of the first movement :5
85. @se of the mediant degree in various sub)ects :5
88. The use of the introductory motif in the 1inale :8
86. #ink between the Scher<o and the first movement ;8
89. Thematic link between the Scher<o and the first movement& the rising fifth ;6
v
LIST OF TABLES
4. The derivation of sub)ect material in the eposition of the first movement ;4
5. Structural outline of the 1inales of $hopin%s Sonatas opus 89 and opus 9= ;>
vi
CHAPTER 4
INTRODUCTION
The second piano sonata, in ' flat minor opus 89, of 1rederic $hopin has long been
the centre of controversy ever since Schumann%s negative comments thereon became
widely known.
4
This sonata is one of the most interesting, and perhaps most
discussed, of all $hopin%s works, and has often been cited as an eample of $hopin%s
inability to cope with the large classical forms of the (erman tradition, especially by
commentators writing around the turn of the twentieth century.
This view, however, slowly began to change. " few music theorists began to 2uestion
Schumann%s opinion that, inter alia, $hopin was not comfortable in his use of sonata
form. They ob)ected to the flurry of negative responses to this work- one even claimed
that it was because of only one critic%s proclamation that $hopin was not great enough
to master sonata form, that scores of other criti2ues followed, repeating that same
opinion ad nauseum. Those brave souls who opposed the norm were, it may be
argued, eventually proved correct in their assumptions by various analyses that
appeared in the twentieth century.
The purpose of this dissertation is twofold. 1irstly, an overview of reception to this
sonata will be conducted, 2uoting and presenting the opinions of various music critics,
musicologists, pianists, and the like. 'eginning with the famous comment by
Schumann in 4=64, right up to the present day, the writings of these people will be
eamined and critically evaluated. This will enable the identification of a receptive
trend which, in turn, will be used to pinpoint the ma)or turning point of change in
reception and understanding of this sonata.
Secondly, this change in reception will need to be substantiated. This will be effected
by study of the analyses of twentieth?century musicologists who attempt to disprove
the unsubstantiated opinions of the earlier writers. These analyses range from the
4
Schumann%s criti2ue of this sonata, dating from 4=64, can be found in "ppendi ".
7
early classic writings of Augo #eichtentritt to the more recent studies of Jim Samson
and "natoly #eiken. Aere again, by eamining these analyses in chronological order,
it will become evident how each built upon those of the earlier analyses, thereby
contributing to a better understanding of $hopin%s compositional style as it relates to
the large classical forms.
The difficulty in obtaining newspaper articles and musical )ournals from the late?
nineteenth and early?twentieth centuries necessitated the consultation of a limited
number of sources, mainly books, that deal in part with reception of $hopin%s ' 1lat
Minor Sonata 3pus 89. "rticles dealing specifically with this sonata may well appear
in nineteenth?century *olish )ournals- these, however, have not been indeed, and
would re2uire more time and effort to uncover than has been available, never mind
translating them. In addition, *olish writings of the nineteenth century contain only
sporadic criticism of $hopin%s works.
5
Similarly, Bnglish?language )ournals such as
The Musical Times may contain articles dealing with $hopin%s opus 89- investigation
in this area has likewise demonstrated a lack of indeation of source materials.
Searching volumes of these )ournals for articles that may or may not eist has proved
impractical given present constraints.
"n eamination of the comprehensive $hopin bibliography compiled by .ornel
Michalowski +4>=9, has likewise proved to be of limited value. This book provides a
list of source materials dating from 4=6> to 4>:> that have connections with $hopin
and his works. The vast ma)ority of articles listed under the sub)ect of $hopin%s sonata
opus 89 are in *olish- some of these have been consulted and translated. Moreover,
many of the source materials are difficult to obtain. "s far as reception dating from
the period 4=>7 to 4>67 is concerned, a chosen group of books dealing with opus 89
has been consulted, the selection of which was partly limited by availability. Aere
again, translation of a significant work in (erman was necessary.
This dissertation will begin with a discussion of the compositional background of
$hopin%s second piano sonata, along with the early criticisms of Schumann and
others. Thereafter, a sample of various writings dating from the 4=67%s to the 4>>7%s
5
$hechlinska, Cofia. D$hopin !eception in 0ineteenth?$entury *oland,% The Cambridge Companion to Chopin,
ed. Samson, J. +$ambridge& $ambridge @niversity *ress, 4>>5,, p. 546.
4
will be presented, with a view to plotting a receptive trend line, as it were. "n attempt
at finding historical circumstances that may or may not have influenced $hopin%s
approach to the sonata will then be followed by various analyses. 3wing to the
bewildered response, even in recent writings, of many musicians to the 1inale, an
attempt at disentangling this elusive movement, viewed by Schumann as a mockery,
will be the sub)ect of the final chapter.
5
CHAPTER 5

THE COMPOSITIONAL BACKGROUND
The handsome #ouis EF bourgeois house 0ohant in 'erry provided the beautiful
country setting where $hopin resided in the summer of 4=8> with (eorge Sand.
$hopin%s liaison with Sand had begun in 4=8=, two years after their introduction by
1ran< #is<t. This was a time of contentment in $hopin%s life. Ais health was
improving following illness in Ma)orca the preceding winter, he had the comfort of a
devoted woman who loved him and understood his compositional frustrations and
above all he was free to compose without the daily distractions of running a home.
$ompositions dating from this period were the ( Ma)or 0octurne opus 8;, three of
the four Ma<urkas opus 64 and the 1 Sharp Ma)or Impromptu opus 8:. The other
ma)or achievement of this summer was the piano sonata in ' flat minor opus 89.
The phase of creativity which began in Ma)orca with the second 'allade and the
twenty?four preludes opus 5= continued in Marseilles with the $ Sharp Minor Scher<o
opus 8>. The ideal working conditions at 0ohant offered $hopin the opportunity to
etend this productive phase-
4
it is widely known that he composed little during the
ensuing eighteen months in *aris. Sand noted his manner of working at the country
residence&
4
$hopin returned many times to 0ohant for the summer in the early 4=67s- many of his masterpieces were
composed there e.g., the third 'allade, the 1antasy opus 6>, and the 1 sharp Minor *olonaise opus 66.
8
Ais creation was spontaneous, miraculous. Ae found ideas without looking for them,
without foreseeing them. They came to his piano, sudden, complete, sublime G or sang in
his head while he was taking a walk, and he had to hurry and throw himself at the
instrument to make himself hear them. 'ut then began a labour more heartbreaking than I
have ever seenH Ae shut himself up in his room for whole days, weeping, walking
about, breaking his pens, repeating or altering a measure a hundred times, writing it
down and erasing it as often, and starting over the net day with a scrupulous and
desperate perseverance. Ae would spend si weeks on one page, only to return to it and
write it )ust as he had on the first draftH
5
Sand is also known for the telling of the morbid visions that haunted $hopin while he
sketched out his opus 89 piano sonata in Ma)orca.
8

#ittle could $hopin have known of the impending impact of this sonata. In fact, in a
letter to his compatriot Julian 1ontana dated Thursday "ugust 4=8>, $hopin wrote&
Aere I am writing a Sonata in ' 1lat minor, containing the march that you know. There is
an allegro, then a Scher<o in B 1lat minor, the march and a short finale, perhaps 8 of my
pages- the left hand in unison with the right, gossiping after the march. I have a new
nocturneH
6
The matter?of?fact manner in which $hopin writes about his new sonata is 2uite
astonishing. The finale lasts around seventy seconds and concludes a work of more
than twenty minutes% duration. Jeremy Siepmann maintains that this movement,
Iwhich $hopin so casually dismisses as gossip, may well constitute the most
enigmatic movement in the entire history of the sonata idea.J
9
The sheer volume of
critical commentary that this movement has evoked is substantial.
$hopin%s sonata opus 89 was first published in 4=67 by 'reitkopf K ALrtel, and was
sometimes referred to as $hopin%s Ifirst sonataJ as it was the first of all his sonatas to
5
(avoty, 'ernard. Frederic Chopin, tr. Sokolinsky, M. +0ew Mork& $harles Scribner%s Sons, 4>;;,, p. 586.
8
ibid., p. 8=:.
6
3pienski, Aenryk. Chopins Letters, tr. Foynich, B.#. +0ew Mork& "lfred ". .nopf, 4>84,, p. 576.
9
Siepmann, Jeremy. Chopin: The Reluctant Romantic +#ondon& Fictor (ollanc<, 4>>9,, p. 498.
6
be published. It was also called the I1uneral March Sonata,J a title +unusually,
approved by $hopin himself in 4=6;.
:
The original IMarche funNbreJ in ' flat minor
+4=8;, was not published until it was incorporated as the slow movement of the
complete, four?movement sonata opus 89. It was, however, published separately in
various editions following $hopin%s death, and performed in an orchestral version at
$hopin%s funeral.
The other two piano sonatas of $hopin are the opus 6 in $ minor and the opus 9= in '
minor, which date from 4=5; and 4=66 respectively. 3pus 6 was composed around the
middle of a three?year course under Joseph Blsner at the /arsaw $onservatoire. To
use the words of Jim Samson, it seems that his student efforts IHindicate all too
clearly that in his early years at least this was not the air he breathed most naturally.J
;
0o reviews nor reports of nineteenth?century performances of this sonata have
surfaced- even today the work is played no more than as a historical curiosity, or for
the sake of providing a complete edition of $hopin%s piano music, as has been done
by the pianist Fladimir "shkena<y in recent years. 3pus 9= originated during
$hopin%s last happy, relatively untroubled summer at 0ohant. It presented nothing like
3pus 89%s march or short finale to arouse the sort of criticism directed at opus 89,
although there were some reservations. Ironically, it will become evident that in fact
the sonatas opus 89 and opus 9= are remarkably similar in their overall outline.
The second sonata consists of four movements, the first of which is in sonata form in
the key of ' flat minor, and is marked I(rave?Doppio movimento.J This is followed
by a IScher<oJ in the key of B flat minor, in the middle of which is embedded a trio in
( flat ma)or. The third movement, the original funeral march in ' flat minor +4=8;,,
is marked I#entoJ and consists of two statements of the march between which is a trio
in D flat ma)or. The finale is marked I*restoJ and is essentially a perpetuum mobile of
four groups of 2uaver triplets per bar, in a kind of compressed sonata form.
=

"ccording to "natoly #eiken, the choice of a funeral march as the Icentre of gravityJ
is no accident- $hopin was certainly attracted to this genre.
>
Bven though only one
:
Samson, Jim. The Music of Chopin +#ondon& !outledge and .egan *aul, 4>=9,,p. 45>.
;
ibid., p. 45>.
=
The opinions as to the form of this final movement vary& See $hapter 47 for an analysis.
>
#eiken, "natoly. DThe Sonatas,% The Cambridge Companion to Chopin, ed. Samson, J. +$ambridge& $ambridge
9
other of his compositions was designated as such +the 1uneral March in $ minor from
4=5>,, he incorporated elements of the funeral march into several of his other works.
Bamples of this can be seen in the introduction to the 1 Minor 1antasy 3pus 6>, the
$ Minor *relude from 3pus 5= as well as various nocturnes such as 3pus 6= 0o 4.
In most sonatas from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the funeral march, if
used instead of an adagio, would be employed as the second movement, with the
scher<o as the third movement. In this sonata, however, those positions are reversed,
as is the case with 'eethoven%s piano sonata in " flat Ma)or opus 5:, one of $hopin%s
favourite works. #eiken%s reasoning for this is that since the first movement of opus
5: is a relatively slow theme?and?variations, it seems only logical to insert the scher<o
before the funeral march in order to introduce tempo contrasts between movements.
47
"lthough the first movement of $hopin%s ' flat Minor sonata is fast and basically in
sonata form, this did not prevent $hopin from following 'eethoven%s plan. In
addition, Fladimir *rotopopov highlights the fact that all of $hopin%s four?part cyclic
works contain a scher<o or minuet as the second movement.
44

The single documented report of $hopin%s own performance of the ' flat Minor
Sonata around this time was when Moscheles visited $hopin in *aris in 3ctober 4=8>,
shortly after the completion of the work. Moscheles was complimentary about
$hopin%s work, proclaiming that only after hearing $hopin IHdid I now for the first
time understand his music, and all the raptures of the lady world become
intelligible.J
45

It is interesting to note that no record eists of $lara Schumann playing the opus 89
sonata, in spite of the fact that she played both $hopin%s concertos and many other of
his works.
48
$hechlinska notes that $hopin%s sonatas in general were performed
etremely rarely, both in *oland and throughout Burope.
46
The first complete
performance of the Sonata in ' minor was reported only in 4=::, more than twenty
@niversity *ress, 4>>5,, p.4:4.
47
ibid., p. 4:4.
44
*rotopopov, Fladimir. D1orma $yklu Sonatowego w utworach 1. $hopina,% in Polskorog!"skie miscellanea
mu#!c#ne +4>:=,, p. 45=.
45
0ewman, /illiam S. The $onata $ince %eethoven +0ew Mork& /./. 0orton and $o., 4>;5,, p. 6>4.
48
ibid., p. 6>8.
46
:
years after its completion. $hopin was known to have played the opus 89 sonata once
in his final fourteen concerts beginning in *aris in 4=8>, that being in the (entlemen%s
$oncert Aall, Manchester, on "ugust 5= 4=6=.
49
In the decades following its
publication, however, most renowned pianists included opus 89 in their concert
repertoire, including #is<t, Tausig, 'usoni, "nton !ubinstein, and *achmann.
The basic compositional background of $hopin%s second piano sonata having been
presented, the initial public reaction to this work will be eamined in $hapter Three,
with a view to providing a contet for twentieth?century analyses which attempt to
dispel negative comments about the work.
49
"twood, /illiam (. Freder!k Chopin: Pianist from &arsa' +0ew Mork& $olumbia @niversity *ress, 4>=;,, p.
4>9.
;
CHAPTER 3
INITIAL RECEPTION (1841-1905)
"s noted in the introduction, *olish writings on music of the nineteenth century
contain only sporadic criticism of $hopin%s works. $hechlinska observes that the
earlier works of the larger forms +ballades, scher<i, and impromptus, were appreciated
more than the later ones.
4
She cites leading critics who regarded the ( Minor 'allade
as Ithe most magnificent,J while the 1 minor 'allade was described as Iless happily
conceived.J
5
Today, few would dispute that the 1 minor 'allade is one of $hopin%s
greatest works, and that it is the most beautiful of the set of four +a view supported by
"lfred $ortot, an eminent interpreter of $hopin%s piano music,.
8
1rom around $hopin%s time up until the last 2uarter of the nineteenth century, the
public knew only a selection of $hopin%s works G those for piano and orchestra as
well as works from the IsecondJ period +i.e., the 4=87s,. $hechlinska notes that the
later works, including the sonatas, and even earlier works whose musical techni2ue
deviated markedly from the norms of the time +e.g., the *relude in " minor opus 5=
0o 5,, were not readily understood.
6
It was not until the end of the nineteenth century
that they became a part of the standard repertoire, which is also around the time that
reception of the second piano sonata, although initially negative, was beginning to
change, as will be seen shortly.
The first ma)or written criticism of $hopin%s sonata opus 89 was that of !obert
Schumann, which appeared in 4=64. .nown, inter alia, for commenting on the works
of his contemporaries, Schumann was unreserved in giving his opinion. Ais criticism
of this sonata is legendary, and is referred to in almost any general discussion of this
sonata in the literature. It became the catalyst for a chain reaction of countless other
4
5
ibid., p. 546.
8
$hopin, 1. %allades ed. $ortot, ". +*aris& Salabert, 4>9;,, p. 6>.
6
=
writings on the sub)ect. 3ther critics often referred to Schumann when presenting
their views on opus 89- many agreed with him, others 2uestioned his opinions, while
some even tried to read between the lines and offer different interpretations of his
criti2ue. Seeing that this review had such far?reaching conse2uences as far as the
reception of the ' flat Minor sonata is concerned, the complete review, translated
from the original (erman, has been included in this dissertation, as "ppendi ".
!eading Schumann%s criti2ue, it can be concluded that, on a general level, he had the
following reservations about opus 89&
4, The binding together of four such different pieces under the title IsonataJ is
problematic, especially with respect to the fact that the last two movements have
little to do with the first two. 0o organic or thematic unity seems to eist between
the four movements. /ith reference to this comment, it might be added that the
concept of IunityJ is a very broad one, and, to use the words of Jim Samson, Ia
highly problematic notion in music.J
9
There are various methods of uncovering
the unity of a work- thematic unity between movements is but one of these
methods.
5, $hopin was not comfortable in his use of sonata form.
8, The March does not belong to the rest of the work- rather, an adagio would have
been more suitable.
6, The finale is more mockery than music.
9, The use of unusual harmonic devices, such as arbitrary and wild chord writing as
well as ecessive dissonance, makes the large?scale structure unclear.
"t this point one could 2uestion Schumann%s astonishment at certain aspects of this
work. $hopin was valued as an utterly original pianist and composer- the predominant
view among critics in *oland for most of the nineteenth century was that $hopin%s
music was of such a far?reaching originality that it showed no connections with the
work of anyone else.
:
Surely, then, if this Ifar?reachingJ originality is what shapes
$hopin%s music, why was this work singled out on account of a short finale and a
9
Samson, Jim. The Music of Chopin +#ondon& !outledge K .egan *aul, 4>=9,,p. 45>.
:
>
supposed lack of unityO /as $hopin not adopting an original approach in the use of
sonata form and the sonata cycle as a wholeO
Moreover, another comment made by Schumann three years earlier seems to
contradict his own view of $hopin%s opus 89 sonata. Ae wrote& II no longer think
about form Pas a mold to be filledOQ when I compose- PinsteadQ I create it
PintuitivelyOQ.J
;
3n this contradiction, 0ewman writes that IPyQet several times we
shall find him calling attention to departures from what he regarded as standard sonata
procedures, as in his review in 4=64 of $hopin%s D1uneral March Sonata,% 3p. 89.J
=
3ne should view this comment as being highly significant- yet, of all the sources
consulted, only 0ewman seems to have mentioned it. Schumann disregards the fact
that $hopin may have done eactly what Schumann permitted himself to do G create a
form.
Two years later, J./. Davison epressed a view 2uite contrary to that of Schumann&

*erhaps one of the most etraordinary of all the works of $hopin, both on account of its
eceeding originality, and its strangely fantastic structure is the grand S30"T", in the
sullen and moody key of ' 1lat Minor. This wild and gloomy rhapsody is precisely fitted
for a certain class of enthusiasts, who would absolutely revel in its phantasmagorial
kaleidoscopeH P" lengthy poem follows, depicting the author%s image of the work.Q
Such are the impressions to which we are sub)ect under the influence of this wonderful
work G a very triumph of musical picturing G a con2uest over what would seem it be
uncon2uerable G vi<. G the mingling of the physical and metaphysical in music G the
sonata representing a dual picture ? Hthe battle of the actual elements and the conflict of
human passions G the first for the multitude, the last for the initiated.
>
This poetic description of the sonata was the usual manner of presenting a critical
appreciation of a musical work at the time. $hechlinska notes that reviews of
;
0ewman, /illiam S. The $onata $ince %eethoven +0ew Mork& /./. 0orton and $o., 4>;5,, p. 86. Interpolations
are 0ewman%s. @nless otherwise stated, all interpolations are my own.
=
ibid., p. 86.
>
Davison, J./. (ssa!s on the &ork of Frederic Chopin +#ondon& /essel and $o., 4=68,, p. ;.
47
$hopin%s works during his time seldom mentioned his technical achievements- if
included, they were discussed only in broad terms.
47
3f the various sources consulted, it is evident that the ma)ority of critics disagree with
Schumann%s comments. Those who do agree constitute a group originating mainly
from the mid? to late?nineteenth and early?twentieth centuries. *rior to the 4>67s,
most writings concerning $hopin%s opus 89 were decidedly negative, although some
critics 2uestioned Schumann%s reasoning for his reservations about the work. 3ne
such writer was Aenry T. 1inck, who, in his 4==> work Chopin and )ther Musical
(ssa!s* daringly proclaims&
I do not know whether he was a (erman or a 1rench critic who first wrote that $hopin,
although great in short pieces, was not great enough to master the sonata form. 3nce in
print, this silly opinion was repeated parrot?like by scores of other critics. +o' silly it is
may be inferred from the fact that such third?rate composerlings as Aer< and Aummel
were able to write sonatas of the most approved pattern G and that, in fact, an! person
with the least musical talent can learn in a few years to write sonatas that are absolutely
correct as regards form. "nd yet we are asked to believe that $hopin, one of the most
profound and original musical thinkers the world has ever seen, could not write a correct
sonataR H$hopin not able to master the sonata formO The fact is, sonata form could not
master him.
44
1inck may have a valid point in believing that many critics blindly agreed with each
other +and therefore with Schumann, without looking at the work ob)ectively and
drawing their own conclusions. Ae adds that $hopin was not the first who tried to get
away from the sonata, citing the numerous poetic licences evident in 'eethoven%s
sonatas as an eample. This negative attitude, however, changed drastically in the
twentieth century. Since the mid?4>67%s, the vast ma)ority of writings on the sub)ect of
opus 89 are positive and oppose many aspects of Schumann%s criti2ue. Bvidence of
this is found in several analyses undertaken, the most important of which will be
47
ed. Samson, J. +$ambridge& $ambridge @niversity *ress, 4>>5,, p. 54:.
44
1inck, Aenry T. Chopin and )ther Musical (ssa!s +#ondon& T. 1isher @nwin, 4==>,, pp. 67?64.
44
eamined in due course. This highlights the fact that the improvement in standing of
$hopin%s opus 89 is as a result of a more analytical approach to the work.
"nother writer who opposed the negative appraisal of opus 89 at the turn of the
century was (.$. "shton Jonson. Ae believed that the partial 2uotation of Schumann%s
criti2ue resulted in a misunderstanding of Schumann%s view of the work.
Ae maintains that ISchumann never meant to say that these four wildest children were
not related and were only bound together fortuitously- it is calling the work a Sonata
that he describes as a )est, not the )utaposition of the four movements.J
45
3n
Schumann%s comments with regard to the finale, Jonson maintains that IHit must be
heard in its right place at the end of this so?called Sonata, which is not a Sonata in the
classic sense, but is an organic and indivisible whole, a tone poem, a reading of life on
earth, even such a life as that of $hopin himself.J
48
1ran< #is<t is also credited with writing a paragraph on opus 89 in 4=94.
46
In typically
poetic vein, #is<t praised the sonata%s beauty, but showed his reservation as to whether
$hopin felt comfortable with large?scale forms. Ae writes&
0ot content with success in the field in which he was free to design, with such perfect
grace, the contours chosen by himself, $hopin also wished to fetter his ideal thoughts
with classic chains. Ais Concertos and $onatas are beautiful indeed, but we may discern
in them more effort than inspiration. Ais creative genius was imperious, fantastic and
impulsive. Ais beauties were only manifested fully in entire freedom. /e believe he
offered violence to the character of his genius whenever he sought to sub)ect it to rules,
to classifications, to regulations not his own, and which he could not force into harmony
with the eactions of his own mind. Ae was one of those original beings, whose graces
are only fully displayed when they have cut themselves adrift from all bondage, and float
on their own wild will, swayed only by the ever undulating impulses of their own mobile
natures.
49
45
Jonson, (.$. "shton. , +andbook to Chopins &orks +#ondon& /illiam !eeves, 4>79,, p. 4>>.
48
ibid., p. 577.
46
49
#is<t, 1ran<. Life of Chopin, tr. $ook, M./. +0ew Mork& #eypoldt K Aolt, 4=::,, p. 58.
45
"s previously stated, however, most of the sources from the nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, like those of Schumann and #is<t, show a negative response to
$hopin%s Sonata in ' flat Minor. These responses will be eamined in $hapter 1our in
more detail.
48
CHAPTER 6
LATE-NINETEENTH AND EARLY-TWENTIETH
CENTURY RECEPTION (1890-1940)
"s noted earlier, sources prior to 4>67 show reservations about $hopin%s sonata opus
89. This is not to say that nothing positive was to be said- on the contrary, many were
2uite complimentary about certain aspects of the work, as was Schumann for that
matter. Moreover, counter?arguments to Schumann%s criti2ue were appearing, the
importance of which can be noted in subse2uent articles which used these
propositions as a basis for further epansion.
In his book Frederick Chopin as a man and musician, 1rederick 0iecks begins his
discussion of opus 89 by critically analysing #is<t%s view of the work 2uoted on page
48. !eferring to #is<t%s statement that the IHConcertos and $onatas are beautiful
indeed, but we may discern in them more effort than inspiration,J 0iecks proposes
that there IHis no lack of inspiration here, nor are there traces of painful, unrewarded
effort.J
4
1urthermore, he adds, IHeach of the four pieces of which the sonata consists
is full of vigour, originality and interest.J
This praise soon gives way, however, to a reservation as to whether these four pieces
can be called a sonata. 0iecks 2uestions whether $hopin first intended to write a
sonata, or whether these four movements simply came into being Iwithout any
predestination, and were afterwards put under one cover.J
5
Ae does admit, though,
that IHthere is something gigantic in the work whichHimpresses one powerfully,J
and ob)ects to Schumann%s abhorrence of the third movement, although he does not
offer reasons therefor.
8
4
0iecks, 1rederick. Frederick Chopin as a Man and Musician, Fol II +#ondon& 0ovello, Bwer and $o., 4=>7,, p.
559.
5
ibid., p. 559.
8
ibid., p. 55:.
46
In his book Frederic Francois Chopin, $harles /illeby addresses the issue of
IprogrammeJ versus IabstractJ music as it applies to $hopin%s works in general. Ae
regards the third piano sonata as the most interesting of all, and is of the opinion that
the finale of opus 89 has Inot the remotest connection, thematic or otherwise, with
anything in the Prest of theQ Sonata.J
6
Ae believed that $hopin was a pure romanticist
and that, as a conse2uence of this, his best music is his IprogrammeJ music +i.e.,
music in which the generally eplicit IprogrammeJ is an epression of the ideas and
feelings within the composer as he wrote,. This prompted /illeby to 2uestion how
anything else could be more antagonistic to the classic form of the sonata. Ae adds,
IHwe find him hereHcontinually endeavouring to repress the ideas within him which
were clamouring for utterance, as unsuitable to the form in which he was writingH It
is sufficiently manifest that $hopin%s nature rendered him incapable of the creation of
music wholly for its own sake.J
9

/illeby also discusses the concept of Isubordination of musical ideas,J which
warrants attention here. Ae believed that $hopin epressed his musical thoughts as he
wrote, and subordinated them to nothing, unlike composers of IabsoluteJ music +such
as the sonata, who allowed the subordination of their harmonic, melodic, and
rhythmic senses to the form in which they are writing. !eferring to these two
situations, /illeby concludes his discussion as follows&
That Pa composerQ have an imagination is of course as essential in the one case as in the
other- but the fact remains that which is art with the one is not so for the other, for it has
not the same aims, nor does it rest upon the same foundation. "nd when we have regard
to this, can we wonder at or 2uestion the truth of Pat all events as regards the SonatasQ
#is<t%s )udgment when he said that they contained Iplus de volont- .ue dinspirationJ
/more effort than inspiration01
2
It is interesting to note the eistence of two completely different opinions with regard
to #is<t%s remark G 1rederick 0iecks contra, and /illeby pro, by way of a carefully
constructed argument. It would appear that, although he does not offer much
6
/illeby, $harles. Frederic Francois Chopin +#ondon& Sampson #ow K $o., 4=>5,, p. 559.
9
ibid., pp. 55=?55>.
:
ibid., p. 584. "ll interpolations ecept the final one are those of the author.
49
)ustification for his reasoning, 0iecks offers the better opinion of the two, simply on
the grounds that /illeby oversimplifies the concepts of IabstractJ and IprogrammeJ
music in general. In all probability, there is also no means of substantiating /illeby%s
assertion that $hopin%s musical ideas were not subordinate to the form in which they
were employed.
Bdgar .elley is at odds with /illeby%s stand on subordination of musical material
with regard to $hopin%s sonatas in general. Ae writes&
$hopin was not the only composer who seemed to be obsessed with the idea that, )ust as
the fugue?sub)ect must comply with a long series of limitations before it is fugue?worthy,
so must a sonata?theme conform to certain re2uirements respecting shape and si<e. This
eplains why $hopin, when writing in the specifically classical forms, employed themes
that are classical rather than $hopines2ue, melodic rather than harmonic- which may be
easily grasped by the hands with little or no etension, and which, in their development,
run along the old highway instead of in the new, bold path he had bla<ed in the !omantic
forest.
;
.elley did feel, however, that the only case where the use of Iclassical themesJ did
not apply was to that of the second piano sonata in particular&
Bven in the more mature Sonata 3p. 9= we are conscious, in the first few measures, of
classical influence, but the composer soon frees himself. In the Sonata in ' 1lat Minor,
3p. 89, we find no lingering survivals of the classical sonata?themes, although
throughout the entire work the spirit of that form is manifest.
=
This specific case is, therefore, partly in agreement with /illeby%s proposition that
$hopin%s imagination and musical ideas preceded his attention to form. Aowever,
.elley%s statement is somewhat contradictory, as it implies that although $hopin did
not employ Iclassical sonata?themesJ in his sonata opus 89, they were conceived
within the framework of sonata form structure. The analyses of opus 89 surveyed in
;
.elley, Bdgar. Chopin The Composer: +is $tructural ,rt and its 3nfluence on Contemporaneous Music +0ew
Mork& (. Schirmer, 4>48,, p. 498.
=
ibid., p. 498.
4:
$hapters Seven and Bight tend to support .elley%s general view that $hopin made use
of classical themes in his forms such as the sonata.
#ike 0iecks, James Auneker agrees with Schumann%s doubts as to whether the four
movements collectively can be called a sonata, stating that&
Schumann says that $hopin here Ibound together four of his maddest children,J and he is
not astray. Ae thinks the march does not belong to the work. It certainly was written
before its companion movements.
>

It is interesting to note the varying interpretations of Schumann%s analogy of the four
movements of opus 89 to $hopin%s children. Some writers, such as Auneker and
Aadden, refer to four of $hopin%s ImaddestJ children, while others such as Jonson
and 0ewman use the word Iwildest.J These two ad)ectives clearly have different
connotations. The former seems to imply that all four movements are of a cra<ed or
deranged nature, while the latter emphasises rather their untamed, savage character.
Save perhaps for the 1inale, the use of the word ImadJ would seem to be incorrect-
the first three movements are not deranged or out of the ordinary. I/ildJ possibly
more correctly depicts the passionate, untamed nature of the first movement, the
darkness of the Scher<o, the morbid vision of death of the 1uneral March, and the
irony of the 1inale.

Auneker praises the 2uality of each movement as a separate entity, but adds that these
four movements Ihave no common life.J Ae is of the opinion that the last two
movements have nothing in common with the first two, although as a group they do
Ihold together.J Bpanding on this comment, he states that I0otwithstanding the
grandeur and beauty of the grave, the power and passion of the scher<o, this Sonata in
' flat minor is not more a sonata than it is a se2uence of ballades and scher<i.J
47
The manner in which Auneker states above that the march was written before the
other movements seems to suggest that he, like many other critics of the day, believed
that it was simply added on to the rest of the work. It is interesting to note how this
>
Auneker, James. Chopin: The Man and +is Music +0ew Mork& $harles Scribner%s Sons, 4>77,, pp. 4::?4:;.
47
ibid., p. 4:;.
4;
was disproved in the twentieth century by means of thematic analysis. #ike
Schumann, Auneker also senses an overuse of dissonance, especially in the Iworking
out section,J which Iis too short.J
44
Ae does, however, feel that the funeral march,
when isolated, has a much more profound effect than in its normal se2uence. 3f the
finale, he proclaims that it Iis too wonderful for words.J
45
*ossibly the most negative review of the sonata is that from James Aadden. In a
direct, matter?of?fact style, the only comment given to the second piano sonata is as
follows&
3f the three sonatas the same thing might be saidH The second, the ' flat minor Sonata
+3p. 89,, appeared in 4=67. Schumann said of this work that $hopin had here Ibound
together four of his maddest childrenJ& a pregnant remark. The four movements, regarded
separately, are admirable, but taken together they have little thematic or other affinity.
The Marche fun4bre, which constitutes the third movement, has been populari<ed to
death, though Schumann found in it Imuch that is repulsive.J It is really the finest
movement in the Sonata.
48
This 2uote is taken from The Master Musicians series of the day. The minimal space
devoted to $hopin%s three sonatas in a book of over 577 pages is 2uite staggering.
$omments relating to all three piano sonatas as well as the cello sonata opus :9 total
little over twenty lines. The author obviously considered these works as being of
inferior 2uality and thus felt it unnecessary to devote much attention to them. This is
in stark contrast to various other authors who, even when epressing their reservations
about the second piano sonata, still give $hopin his due where deserved.
1rom an analytical point of view, Augo #eichtentritt, although not counting $hopin
among the Ireal composers of sonatas,J was one of the first to acknowledge that an
analysis of this work showed that one could Ihardly uphold any longer the ob)ection
of imperfect structure.J
46
Ae was possibly the first to read deeper into $hopin%s
understanding of sonata structure, and thus come to a different conclusion as to the
44
ibid., p. 4:;.
45
ibid., p. 4:=.
48
Aadden, J. $uthbert. The Master Musicians: Chopin +#ondon& J.M. Dent and Sons #td, 4>78,, p. 4=:.
46
#eichtentritt, Augo. ,nal!se der Chopinschen 5lavier'erke, Fol. II +'erlin& Ma Aesse, 4>54?4>55,,p. 547.
4=
validity of opus 89 being called a Isonata.J In his monumental work ,nal!se der
Chopinschen 5lavier'erke +4>54?4>55,, he writes&
Strange to say, as far as I know, no one has yet noticed that the ' 1lat Minor Sonata is
constructed in an etraordinarily subtle way that anticipates #is<t%s and $Ssar 1ranck%s
Iprincipe cycli2ueJ, that reveals a penetrating study of late 'eethoven which one hardly
epects from $hopin. So the last word on the two sonatas Popus 89 and opus 9=Q has by
no means yet been said. They invite ehaustive study and repay this eamination
thoroughly as the following investigations will show.
49
"t this point, reference can be made to Jim Samson%s view on the significance of
#eichtentritt%s analyses of $hopin%s works. 1rom 4=97 onwards, in a pro)ect spanning
some forty years, the (erman publisher 'reitkopf and ALrtel compiled collected
editions of ma)or composers. It was launched by editions of 'ach and Aandel +clearly
viewed as the foundation stones of (erman music,. The works of Mo<art, 'eethoven,
Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, and $hopin soon followed. "ccording to Samson,
$hopin%s inclusion is significant in that it was Itantamount to a form of adoption.J
4:
It
confirmed him as Ia sort of honorary member of the (erman tradition,J a status
further secured by the appearance of serious biographies by "dolf /eismann
4;
and
'ernard Scharlitt.
4=
3ne of the cornerstones of this tradition was the music of the
Fiennese classics, which clearly made etensive use of the sonata and sonata form.
'eethoven%s thirty?two piano sonatas, acknowledged by many as the pinnacle of
achievement in this genre, form a part of this select group of works. If the prevailing
opinion was that $hopin was a master of miniature romantic forms, and not
comfortable with writing sonatas and using sonata form, then why was he included in
this eclusive (erman traditionO Moreover, if he was considered a failure with respect
to his adoption of the large classical forms +a view accepted by various critics at the
time,, surely this alone would eclude him from that tradition, regardless of the
2uality of the remainder of his outputO Met, $hopin%s works were included in the
49
ibid., p. 547.
4:
Samson, Jim. D$hopin !eception& Theory, Aistory, "nalysis,% Chopin $tudies 33 ed. Samson, J., !ink, J.
+$ambridge& $ambridge @niversity *ress, 4>>6,, p. ;.
4;
/eismann, "dolf Chopin +#eip<ig, 4>45,.
4=
Scharlitt, 'ernard. Chopin +#eip<ig, 4>4>,.
4>
'reitkopf and ALrtel compilation- this surely provides significant evidence that
contradicts the idea that $hopin could not master the large?scale classical forms.
#eichtentritt%s ma)or analytical study of virtually all $hopin%s published works further
attests to $hopin%s Ihonorary membershipJ of the (erman tradition. Jim Samson
notes that a work of this magnitude based upon a single composer was rare at this
time, and that few composers were given such an honour.
4>
Ae adds, Iit was truly a
monument to a recently established and increasingly specialised
Musik'issenschaft.J
57
In spite of #eichtentritt%s ob)ection to the idea that opus 89 had a imperfect structure,
negative criticisms continued in following years, although by the 4>67%s attitudes had
begun to change. Aenry 'idou maintains that IPiQt is true that P$hopin%s sonata opus
89Q is not very coherent. Schumann has pointed out the defect in its composition.J
54
(erald "braham also considers the first movement of opus 89 as being Isomething
less than first?rate $hopin.J
55
Ae thought it unusual that $hopin employed unmodified
four? or eight?bar phrases as well as undisguised s2uareness of phrasing for such a
long period. This is evident in the second sub)ect of the first movement, which can be
seen as two 6?bar phrases followed by an =?bar phrase, as shown in Bample 4&
4>
Samson, Jim. D$hopin !eception& Theory, Aistory, "nalysis,% Chopin $tudies 33 ed. Samson, J., !ink, J.
+$ambridge& $ambridge @niversity *ress, 4>>6,, p. ;.
57
ibid., p. ;.
54
'idou, Aenry. Chopin, tr. *hillips, $.". +0ew Mork& Tudor *ublishing $o., 4>8:,, p. 4=>.
55
"braham, (erald. Chopins Musical $t!le +#ondon& 3ford @niversity *ress, 4>8>,, p. 9>.
57
ED%(+." 4: S"B&'! -/E"B$ &0 $h" 0i#$ (&,"("'$
53
"braham, like critics before him, also felt that $hopin%s sonata opus 89 was not
comparable with the sonatas of the great classical tradition. Ais reasoning was that
$hopin%s conceptions of form and thematic development were too radically different
from those of 'eethoven and the earlier classical masters who had created the sonata,
for him to be able to cast his ideas successfully in a classical form. Ae sees $hopin%s
sonatas as affairs of se2uence, variation, and modulation, IHswept along by powerful
winds of improvisatory inspiration and worked out with fine attention to detail.J
56
In
conclusion, he states that IHhere again $hopin must be )udged not as an inferior
successor of 'eethoven but as the brilliant forerunner of #is<t and /agner.J
59
Thus far, a sample of opinions concerning $hopin%s opus 89 have been presented and
critically evaluated. It is evident that most critics had serious reservations about the
work, the most common being a lack of structural coherence and thematic connection
between the four movements of the sonata. In connection with the latter, it should be
highlighted that this need not necessarily be a criterion for sonata?cycle status, as is
the case in the sonatas of Aaydn and Mo<art. The writings of Augo #eichtentritt can,
however, be interpreted as the beginning of a turning point in the reception of this
sonata, as well as the beginning of the shift from criticism to analysis. In $hapters
58
$hopin, 1rSdSric. 5laviersonate bmoll opus 67 +MTnchen& (. Aenle Ferlag, 4>;:,, p. 9.
56
"braham, (erald. Chopins Musical $t!le +#ondon& 3ford @niversity *ress, 4>8>,, p. 47;.
59
ibid., p. 47;.
54
Seven, Bight, and 0ine, the works of other analysts who follow on from and epand
upon #eichtentritt%s analyses will be eamined.
55
CHAPTER 5
LATER RECEPTION (1940-1996)
The post?#eichtentritt writings on $hopin%s ' 1lat Minor sonata ehibit a definite
change in reception. "lthough those from the 4>87s were still 2uite negative, by the
4>67s most theorists showed a change in reception of the sonata. This led to the
general acknowledgement that $hopin%s sonatas opus 89 and opus 9= could be
counted among his greatest compositions, which is a far cry from the oft?repeated
nineteenth?century reservation that $hopin was not able to master the large?scale
forms.
The influential $hopin scholar "rthur Aedley opposed the act of sub)ecting $hopin%s
sonata opus 89 to tests of adherence to ItetbookJ sonata form. In writings from 4>6;,
he argues that IHan eaggerated respect for the letter of the law governing the
mythical Dtrue sonata form% +an invention of the lecture?room rather than of the
composer%s workshop, has been the cause of much in)ustice to the two Sonatas, in '
1lat Minor and ' Minor, of whose Dwrongness% 2uasi?mathematical proof is to be
found in some tet?books.J
4
Ae continues by stating that although these sonatas are
not above the law, it is important to discover what law $hopin was attempting to
conform with, before deciding that the work Icannot be good, since it does not agree
with the principles laid down by Aerr *rofessor E in 4=59.J
5
Aedley believed that because of the fact that $hopin chose to do in 4=66 in the '
Minor Sonata what he had done in 4=8> in the first movement of 3pus 89, he
intended to write the sonatas in a way that best suited him i.e., using IHlong lyrical or
dramatic periods rather than the closely reasoned development of short, pregnant
themes.J
8
Aedley maintained that this did not imply that $hopin should have left
sonata form alone, unless one rules that IHa sonata cannot eist ecept in the form
4
Aedley, "rthur. The Master Musicians: Chopin, revd. 'rown, M.J.B. +#ondon& J.M. Dent K Sons #td, 4>;6,, p.
49;. It should also be noted that in 4>54 #eichtentritt offered 2uasi?mathematical proof of the sonata%s Drightness%
in his analyses of $hopin%s piano works +see $hapter Seven,.
5
ibid., p. 49;.
8
ibid., p. 49;.
58
fied for all eternity by certain older masters.J
6
Ae criticises Schumann%s abhorrence
of the 1uneral March, stating that Schumann missed the whole point of the sonata in
that the 1uneral March is the central core of the whole work. #ike many other
theorists in the twentieth century, Aedley believed that it was from the March +written
two years before the other movements, that the first movement and Scher<o were
derived in that it stimulated $hopin Ito embody within the framework of a sonata the
emotions which the vision of death aroused in him.J
9

Aerbert /einstock also attacks Schumann%s criti2ue of opus 89. Ae maintains that
IPtQhe literary?minded Schumann would have been less disturbed if $hopin had given
the four separate movements coined romantic names.H $alling the '?flat minor a
sonata was neither caprice nor )est& it is a sonata by $hopin.J
:
1rom a performance
point of view, /einstock believes that if the work is played so that it sounds like four
separate pieces, the fault is that of the pianist, and not $hopin. Ae adds that if he IH
heard it playedHwith the complete, over?all, four?movement structural and aesthetic?
emotional unity of a Mo<art piano concerto or 'eethoven piano sonata- then the
achievement was $hopin%s G and the pianists.J
;
@nfortunately, /einstock makes an
error here in comparing the four?movement structure of $hopin%s opus 89 with the
three?movement form of a Mo<art piano concerto- presumably he is attesting to the
presence of the structural unity of the sonata cycle in $hopin%s opus 89. In connection
with the foregoing, he asserts that $hopin designed the other three movements to go
with the 1uneral March, and that he conceived them as belonging together. The
presence of thematic interrelationships between all four movements of the sonata +as
outlined in $hapters Seven and Bight, tends to support this view.
"lthough he does not illustrate his observation, /einstock notes the close relation
between the second sub)ect of the first movement, the melody of the pi8 lento section
of the Scher<o, and the Trio of the 1uneral March. Ae also highlights the importance
of the manner in which the Scher<o and the 1uneral March are connected, whereby
$hopin ends the Scher<o with the melody from the pi8 lento section. This, according
to /einstock, is a perfect bridge between the most agitated and brilliant of movements
6
ibid., p. 49;.
9
ibid., p. 49=.
:
/einstock, Aerbert. Chopin: The Man and +is Music +0ew Mork& "lfred ". .nopf, 4>9>,, p. 58>.
;
ibid., p. 58>.
56
and the Imournful pomps to come.J
=
This view contradicts, and in a sense disproves,
the earlier reservation of James Auneker that the 1uneral March and 1inale have
nothing to do with the first two movements.
/einstock concludes his discussion of opus 89 by stating that IHthe '?flat minor
Sonata seems to me one of the perfect formal achievements of musicHI believe that
by itself, had $hopin written little else, it would entitle him to a position as peer of the
greatest artistic creators.J
>
" similar view is echoed by 3rga "tes, who states& IMet
Popus 89Q can today be seen as one of $hopin%s greatest achievements, a grandly
handled piece for which no prose can ade2uately describe its musical essence or the
eperiences it seems to embody.J
47
Mareck and (ordon?Smith likewise feel that opus
89 is IHsurely one of the great achievements of piano music, in spite of the bathos
which bad playing has smeared over the third movement.J
44
"lan /alker calls it a IH
noble structureHwell in advance of its time,J and epresses ama<ement at the fact
that many eminent musicians failed at first to comprehend it fully.
45
The $hopin
scholar Fladimir *rotopopov likewise believes that opus 89 is among the best of not
only $hopin%s compositions, but also those of the western classical repertoire in
general.
48
'ernard (avoty seems pu<<led by the indifference opus 89 met from the composers
#is<t, Schumann, and Fincent d%Indy& I1rom the first two G whom, however, the
scholastic collar hardly choked G a basic severity astonishes us. /hy refuse $hopin
that which gives such particular color to his imagination& freedom of form,
indifference to stereotyped modelsOJ
46
3f d%Indy, (avoty states that I/ith my own
ears I have heard Pd%IndyQ maintain at his course at the Schola $antorumHthat Dit is
too bad that Schubert and $hopin were ignorant of counterpoint- this accounts for the
poverty of their sonatas.%J
49
This scathing remark with regard to $hopin%s sonatas is in
agreement with the generally accepted opinions of that time +i.e., the late nineteenth?
=
ibid., p. 567.
>
ibid., p. 564.
47
"tes, 3rga. Chopin: +is Life and Times +.ent& Midas 'ooks, 4>;:,, p. 476.
44
Mareck, (eorge !. and (ordon?Smith, M. Chopin +#ondon& /eidenfeld K 0icolson, 4>;=,, p. 46=.
45
/alker, "lan. D$hopin and Musical Structure& "n "nalytical "pproach,% Fr-d-ric Chopin: Profiles of The Man
and The Musician ed. /alker, ". +#ondon& 'arrie and !ockcliff, 4>::,, p. 58>.
48
mu#!c#ne +4>:=,, p. 45:.
46
(avoty, 'ernard. Frederic Chopin, tr. Sokolinskes, M. +0ew Mork& $harles Scribner%s Sons, 4>;;,, p.8=9.
49
ibid., p. 8=:.
59
century,, as presented in earlier chapters. D%Indy%s assertion that $hopin was ignorant
of counterpoint is 2uestionable on even a cursory eamination of many of $hopin%s
scores. 1or eample, the ,llegro maestoso from the piano sonata opus 9= shows
possibly the clearest influence of 'ach in all $hopin%s works, by ehibiting much
independence of voice movement. (avoty maintains that d%Indy and his pupils% blind
confidence in scholarly schemes is far from desirable, and that it Iaccounts for their
perfect, inert sonatas G reinforced concrete to the marrow.J
4:
(avoty does not agree with the idea that because it does not obey the canons derived
from the sonatas of Aaydn, Mo<art, and 'eethoven, opus 89 is an inferior work. Ae
also disagrees with Schumann%s comment that IPoQne would say that the *olish
background has disappeared and that $hopin, by way of (ermany, is leaning toward
Italy.J
4;
(avoty%s reasoning is that the singing episodes of the sonata have nothing of
the cavatinas that liven the arias of !ossini or 'ellini. Ae reiterates that $hopin was a
*olish composer and that IHthe fate of his fatherland was a constant concern of
his.J
4=
Some of the most influential writings on $hopin in recent years are those of Jim
Samson. In his discussion of $hopin%s opus 89, Samson does not attempt to
IdisproveJ Schumann- rather, he provides suggestions for the uni2ue characteristics
ehibited in this sonata. These will be eamined in $hapter 0ine. 1or now, it is
worthwhile mentioning one of Samson%s important observations in his 4>=9 The
Music of Chopin, in which he states&
/hen P$hopinQ returned to the sonata in 4=8>Hhe had already proved himself a master
of other lines of thought, musically speaking. The $onata fun4bre9is a dialogue between
these lines of thought and the (erman sonata principle. #ike the !ussian symphony, it
has been criticised often and vigorously for failing to achieve a result which it never
sought.
4>
4:
ibid., p. 8=:.
4;
ibid., p. 8=;.
4=
ibid., p. 8=;.
4>
Samson, Jim. The Music of Chopin +#ondon& !outledge K .egan *aul, 4>=9,, p. 45>.
5:
This last comment echoes "rthur Aedley%s ob)ection to comparing $hopin%s opus 89
to the ItetbookJ sonata form. Samson notes that the sonata was IHcultivated with
greatest energy in "ustro?(ermany,J which led to attempts to codify sonata
compositional principles, IHwith implications for pedagogy, criticism and indeed
creative process which were not always beneficial.J
57
Ae cites the !ussian symphony
as an eample, stating that it was viewed as an IHunhappy deviation from, rather
than a potentially eciting collaboration with, (erman symphonism.J
54
Ae maintains
that although a combination of aspects of the symphonic tradition with indigenous
thematic material and formal treatments did occasionally lead to undesirable results,
the music should be )udged in relation to its aims and ideals.
Samson reinforced this view in his 4>>: Chopin, in which he states that $hopin%s
modelling of his opus 89 on 'eethoven%s opus 5: was a response to classical
precedent, and that this precedent placed eceptional pressures on the work.
55
Samson
suggests that the formal epectations of the $lassical sonata were bound to remain
unfulfilled in opus 89, as $hopin was trying to create effectively a new kind of sonata,
albeit based on the old. This ties in with $hopin%s role in the evolution of the sonata,
which will be eamined in $hapter Si.
"natoly #eiken echoes Samson%s contention that unnecessary Ieceptional pressuresJ
were placed on opus 89. Ae observes that the !omantic period saw a significant
decline in the number of sonatas being written per composer. Mo<art wrote seventy
and 'eethoven fifty?five, yet $hopin wrote five, Schumann eight, and #is<t only two.
#eiken does not interpret this as the !omantic composers% loss of interest in the
sonata, but rather as a reflection of their unease at attempting to reach the 3lympian
feats of the sonatas of Aaydn, Mo<art, and 'eethoven. Ae reckons that although the
!omantic sonata differs in many respects from the $lassical sonata, one should not
assume that these changes are for the worse. !ather, they should be viewed as a IH
strong urge to renovate a form that had been around for many decades, to make it
more spontaneous and less predictable.J
58
It should be mentioned, however, that the
57
ibid., p. 45=.
54
ibid., p. 45=.
55
Samson, Jim. Chopin +3ford& 3ford @niversity *ress, 4>>:,, p. 547.
58
#eiken, "natoly. DThe Sonatas,% The Cambridge Companion to Chopin ed. Samson, J. +$ambridge& $ambridge
@niversity *ress, 4>>5,, p. 4:7.
5;
sonatas of Aaydn, Mo<art, and 'eethoven are rarely IpredictableJ, although this may
be the case with some of the lesser composers of sonatas in the $lassical era.
In a recent work, Jeremy Siepmann makes some interesting comments with reference
to the Itet?bookJ sonata?form structures laid down in the codifications by Mar and
$<erny. Ae asserts that few great composers have adhered to Itet?bookJ sonata form,
with the result that these structures have usually to be drawn from second?rate
works.
56
3n the one hand, this is plainly obvious in that the sonatas of Aaydn, Mo<art,
and 'eethoven predate the definition of sonata form- they could therefore not follow
rules not yet written. 3n the other hand, however, !osen has noted that Mar%s
codification of sonata form was modelled on 'eethoven%s middle?period works.
59
3ne
can therefore conclude that some sonatas of the great composers will show a
similarity with the tetbook definition, while others will not. Siepmann adds that if
$hopin had called his ' flat Minor sonata I1antasy, Scher<o, March and 1inaleJ he
might IHhave saved himself and history a lot of fruitless trouble.J
5:
There is probably
much truth in this.
In another recent publication, $harles !osen critically eamines Schumann%s
comments and offers some interesting ideas. Ae 2uestions whether Schumann%s
undoubted knowledge that the 1uneral March had been written two years earlier than
the rest of the work affected his )udgement of its unity. 3n opus 89%s unity, !osen
argues that IHthe unity of tone and of harmonic color that holds $hopin%s four
movements together is not only impressive, but far surpasses the more arbitrary
techni2ue of achieving unity by 2uoting literally from earlier movements in the later
ones, a techni2ue that was popular with many of $hopin%s contemporaries
includingHSchumann himself.J
5;
This highlights the etreme diversity of opinions on
one work G from the early notion that opus 89 lacked structural unity, to recent
writings that not only attest to the presence of unifying factors in the work, but also
the subtle manner in which they are employed.
56
Siepmann, Jeremy. Chopin: The Reluctant Romantic +#ondon& Fictor (ollano<, 4>>9,, p.499. Siepmann does
not give eamples of such second?rate works- Schumann%s Sonata opus 44 could be one.
59
!osen, $harles. $onata Forms +0ew Mork& /./. 0orton and $o., 4>==,, p. 6. !osen also notes that Mar was an
important factor in the creation of the myth of the supremacy of 'eethoven, which eplains the use of 'eethoven%s
procedures in Mar%s codification of sonata form.
5:
Siepmann, Jeremy. Chopin: The Reluctant Romantic +#ondon& Fictor (ollano<, 4>>9,, p.499.
5;
!osen, $harles. The Romantic Generation +#ondon& Aarper $ollins, 4>>9,, p.5=8.
5=
!osen addresses the issue of why so much notice was taken of Schumann%s comment
in the first place. $hopin was known to have general contempt for most of his
contemporaries. 3n being given a copy of Schumann%s 5reisleriana, he commented
favourably only on the design of the cover page +which was, indeed, impressive,.
1urthermore, this work was dedicated to $hopin. Is it coincidence that Schumann%s
negative criti2ue appeared only two to three years after $hopin had reacted
unfavourably to 5reisleriana, completed in 4=8=O The answer is probably no.
"nother issue addressed by !osen is the notion that $hopin was incapable of dealing
with large forms. Ae argues that it might more reasonably be maintained that I
P$hopinQ was the only musician of his generation who felt invariably at ease with
Plarge formsQ G each of the 'allades and Scher<i is, after all, as long as, or longer than,
an average movement of 'eethoven.J
5=
This view is somewhat simplistic, however, as
large forms carry implications of not only length, but also compleity. The 'allades
and Scher<i may be long, but are rather simple in structure.
Thus far, a large sample of critical writings relating to $hopin%s sonata opus 89 has
been surveyed. These writings, spanning a period of over 497 years, have shown a
definite trend of initial negative criticism giving way to a greater understanding of
$hopin%s compositional style, and hence a more positive reception. 'efore embarking
on a survey of the various etant analyses of the work, an overview of the history of
the sonata cycle is necessary, in order that $hopin%s sonata can be placed in historical
perspective.
5=
ibid., p. 5=6.
5>
CHAPTER =
CHOPINS OPUS !5 IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTI"E
"nalyses by various commentators such as #eichtentritt, !Sti, /alker, and #eiken
provide much useful information on $hopin%s compositional style inasmuch as it is
connected to the sonata. These analyses are responsible for a general trend of
increasingly favourable reception of $hopin%s sonatas in general, especially over the
last half?century. It is advantageous, however, to eamine briefly the state of the
sonata in the nineteenth century +referred to as the I!omantic sonataJ by /illiam
0ewman, in order that $hopin%s style of sonata composition can be placed in
perspective. " short investigation into the evolution of $hopin%s sonata style from his
early opus 6 to the late opus :9 will also be conducted. /hile these endeavours
cannot prove or disprove the validity of Schumann%s comments, they may shed light
on the possible reasons why $hopin intentionally or unintentionally chose to compose
a sonata as controversial as opus 89.
/illiam 0ewman%s 4>;5 work The $onata $ince %eethoven from his monumental
three?volume , +istor! of the $onata 3dea provides a detailed study of the term
I!omantic sonataJ as well as a history of the origin of the terms IsonataJ and Isonata
formJ. Ae begins by looking at !omantic views of the sonata, whether as a title, a
particular form or an aesthetic problem. Ae emphasises the importance of the
transition, by the mid?nineteenth century, IHfrom a loose, casual concept of a free,
even a fantasy, form to a tight, fied concept of a highly specific form, specific
enough to crystallise in the tetbooks and even to become a criterion by which sonatas
soon were evaluated.J
4
"ccording to 0ewman, few theorists had IHshown more than a ha<y recognition of
Dsonata form% during the $lassic Bra and up to the late 4=87%s.J
5
- only two to three
do<en definitions and eplanations can be found in writings from the $lassical era.
8
4
0ewman, /illiam S. The $onata $ince %eethoven +0ew Mork& /./. 0orton and $o., 4>;5,, p. 5;.
5
ibid., p. 84.
8
0ewman, /illiam S. The $onata in the Classic (ra +0ew Mork& /./. 0orton and $o., 4>:8,, p.54.
87
Ae adds that A.$. .och came closest to such recognition in his eplanation of the first
movement of the symphony, with, however, an implication that the sonata was
somewhat different and more intimate in style than the symphony. " study of .och%s
writings as they appear in 0ewman yields little in terms of the sonata cycle as a
whole. In general, the only re2uirement that seems to be mentioned in writings from
this time is that of contrast between the movements. Suggestions regarding the choice
of form and character to be used for each movement were barely touched upon.
1urthermore, dictionary definitions were ha<y at best. J.".*. Schul<%s 4;;9 discussion
of a sonata mentions the fact that it is an instrumental piece consisting of two, three,
or four successive movements of different character. Ae adds that the sonata is the
best form with which a composer could depict his feelings without words. 0othing is
mentioned about first?movement sonata form, or the form of the sonata work as a
whole. This is also evident in a 4;99 article by !ousseau.
6
0ewman considers the appearance of an eight?page discussion of I#a grande coupe
binaireJ +Ifully?developed binary designJ, from "nton !eicha%s Trait- de haute
composition musicale in 4=5: as the net step in the process of recognition of sonata
form. "lthough !eicha does not mention the word Isonata,J nor recognise the ternary
implications of the design, he does cover the basic essentials, including the terms
IepositionJ and Idevelopment.J Ae also establishes the proportions of both parts of
the binary design, saying that they should be in a 4&5 or 4&8 relationship. More
importantly, he fies not only the arrangement of the themes in the eposition, but
also the key structure.
9
0ewman also refers to "dolph 'ernhard Mar who, in 4=69, published a detailed
48;?page section on Isonata formJ in the first edition of :ie Lehre von der
musikalischen 5omposition. Ae states that Mar Idevoted much attention to details of
phrase?and?period synta, he preferred a ternary to a binary concept of Dsonata form,%
and he included among the other movements the overlapping of types like the Dsonata
rondo% and the Dfugal sonata.%J
:
6
ibid., p.58.
9
Aelman, Cofia. D0orma indywiduac)a w sonatach $hopina,% in Musica 3agellonica +4>>8,, p. 6;.
:
0ewman, /illiam S. The $onata $ince %eethoven +0ew Mork& /./. 0orton and $o., 4>;5,,. p. 84.
84
It was in 4=8;, however, that $arl $<erny who, in the preface to his opus :77 +a work
devoted to the eplanation of compositional techni2ues,, implied that he was the first
to describe the sonata in any detail. It was only in 4=6=, however, that this three?
volume treatise on composition appeared in print. 0ewman provides a brief summary
of $<erny%s description of the first movement of the sonata, which will be discussed
here.
$<erny described in detail, in the forty?nine pages of his sith chapter, what ImustJ go
into each of the four movements +allegro, adagio or andante, scher<o or minuet, and
finale or rondo,. Ae cautioned that in connection with the first movement, Iwe must
always proceed in a settled form. 1or, if this order were evaded or arbitrarily changed,
the composition would no longer be a regular Sonata.J
;
Ae still viewed the first
movement as being in two parts. Its first part consists of the Iprincipal sub)ect,J its
etension and a modulation to Ithe nearest related key,J a Imiddle sub)ectJ and its
etension in the related key, and a Ifinal melodyJ that closes in that key at the repeat
sign. Its second part divides into two sections, a modulatory IdevelopmentJ of any of
those ideas or a new one, ending back in the original key- and a recapitulation that
restates the first part ecept for abridgements and ad)ustments needed to remain in the
original key. $<erny also discussed the other three movements of the sonata and
2uoted eamples from piano sonatas regarded by him as successful, including those
by Aaydn, $lementi, Mo<art, 'eethoven, and Dussek.
=
The most striking feature of this discussion of the codification of the term IsonataJ is
that $hopin%s second piano sonata was composed before the concepts IsonataJ and
Isonata formJ +in their modern sense, had been fully recognised as specific terms in
tetbooks on music theory. "s 0ewman puts it, $<erny%s work provides Ian
astonishing illustration of the degree to which theory can trail practice. 0ot until as
much as sity years after some of the masterworks of Aaydn, Mo<art, 'eethoven, and
$lementi had appearedHdid anyone write an eplicit description of what happens in a
;
ibid., p. 87. The important points from $<erny%s opus :77 have been taken from an Bnglish translation of the
original (erman which appear in 0ewman%s work +translator not named,. It is important to note, however, that the
terms IepositionJ and IrecapitulationJ as used in this paragraph are not those of the translator.
=
ibid., p. 87.
85
sonata.J
>
Ae also recognises the significance of this tetbook description as being Ia
fair abstraction of the still fluid $lassic forms.J
47
The phrase Istill fluid $lassic formsJ has particular relevance here. Sonatas were, for
obvious reasons, not sub)ect to rigorous tests of adherence to tetbook sonata form
until 4=5:- more probably not until the appearance of Mar%s writings on sonata form
in 4=69. $omposers around the turn of the nineteenth century were writing sonatas
under the influence of Aaydn, Mo<art and 'eethoven. The codification of sonata form
complicated the situation somewhat in that many of the Fiennese sonatas did not
conform thereto. "ccordingly, composers were faced with a dilemma and were
possibly unsure as to how the sonata was to develop further. This could be a reason
for the noticeable decline in volume of sonata output in the 4=87%s.
44
The codification process, then, could be viewed as having an obstructive effect on the
Istill fluid $lassic forms.J That being so, it is possible that !omantic composers felt
the need to move away from tetbook sonata form so as to maintain the fluidity and
continual development of sonata form and the sonata cycle. $hopin could be viewed
as an integral part of this process- in fact, 0ewman singles out four composers as the
main cornerstones of the !omantic sonata& Schubert, Schumann, $hopin, and
'rahms.
45
Ae argues that their importance can be compared to that of $orelli in the
'aro2ue era, and to Aaydn, Mo<art, and 'eethoven in the $lassical era.
It would seem, then, that $hopin subconsciously assimilated the great sonatas of his
predecessors over time and adapted the sonata to suit his own style. "lthough
!eicha%s account of the Ifully?developed binary designJ was published around
thirteen years before $hopin composed his ' flat Minor sonata, and that fre2uent
references were made from the start of the nineteenth century to Ithe usual form of the
sonata,J
48
the writings of Mar and $<erny had not yet appeared in print. In addition,
as noted earlier, theorists devoted IHthe lion%s share of attention to the first fast
movement, sometimes to the almost total neglect of the other movements.J
46
It was
>
ibid., p .84.
47
ibid., p. 84.
44
See page 5=.
45
0ewman, /illiam S. The $onata $ince %eethoven +0ew Mork& /./. 0orton and $o., 4>;5,,. p. 47.
48
ibid., p. 86.
46
ibid., p. 84.
88
the third and fourth movements of opus 89 that troubled Schumann most, and yet
theorists until that time had written little about these movements in a ItypicalJ sonata.
/hy, then, should $hopin%s funeral march and finale of opus 89 have evoked such
criticism, given that the sonata cycle was still an evolving genre not yet described in
great detail in theoretical worksO "n answer might be that their content was not the
norm of the day, yet how can a form develop and evolve if the norm is continually
usedO
"t this point, a general discussion of !omantic era opinions relating to the sonata
would be useful in highlighting other possible reasons for the emergence of a sonata
of the form of $hopin%s opus 89. It is a known fact that throughout the !omantic era
Ithere was a stream of pessimistic opinions to the effect that the sonata had already or
would soon come to its end.J
49
"ccording to 0ewman, the number of sonatas being
composed declined precipitously in the 4=87%s.
4:
'y the 4=97%s a rise in interest in the
sonata was once again evident, although pessimistic opinions regarding the status and
prognosis of the sonata outnumbered the optimistic ones.
Bamples of such negative opinions are in abundance. 0ewman mentions an 4=85
review of *io $ianchettini%s 3pus 5: begins& I" sonata once moreR?The newest
fashions after all are but old ones forgotten and revived.HJ
4;
Schumann%s view on the
sub)ect from 4=8> is particularly interesting&
Strange that suddenly there are mostly unknowns who are writing sonatasH It is easy to
guess what moves the former, mostly young artists. There is no worthier form by which
they might introduce and ingratiate themselves PbetterQ in the eyes of the finer critics. 'ut
in conse2uence most sonatas of this sort can be considered only as a kind of testing
grounds, as studies in form. They are scarcely born out of a strong inner compulsionH
3ccasional lovely manifestations of this sort are sure to appear here and there, and
PsomeQ already have done so. 'ut otherwise it seems the form has run its course, and this
Pdrop?offQ is certainly in the order of things, and Pwhat is moreQ we should not have to
repeat the same PformQ year after year and at the same time deliberate over the new. So
49
ibid., p. 8;.
4:
ibid., p. =6.
4;
ibid., p. 8;.
86
one writes sonatas or fantasias +what matter the nameR,- let one not forget music and the
rest will succeed through our good geniusH
4=
It is clear that Schumann felt that the sonata as a genre was becoming stale, and that it
was used to a large etent as a vehicle for recognition among younger composers.
Bven he called for new forms, saying that the sonata Ihad run its course.J /hy then,
when presented with a sonata of the originality, imagination, and beauty of musical
ideas of $hopin%s opus 89, was his reaction so negativeO Ae was re2uesting that IH
we should not have to repeat the same PformQ year after yearJ G did $hopin%s second
piano sonata not fulfil this wishO 3ne would have thought that at the lowest depths of
the decline of the sonata, Schumann would have welcomed such an interesting work-
a work that was a far cry from the Itetbook styleJ sonatas of younger composers
which were Iscarcely born out of a strong inner compulsion.J
3ther views echoed that of Schuman. In 4=68 the #eip<ig publisher $.". .lemm
preferred to issue Schubert%s Sonata D.69> as F;nf 5lavierst;cke, apparently because
the title IsonataJ had become old?fashioned.
4>
In 4=99 the 1rench leicographer
$harles Soullier regarded the sonata as having IHdied with the 4=
th
century that
produced it so abundantly.J
57
0otwithstanding these negative opinions, one view did remain constant in the
!omantic era. The sonata was seen IHas an, if not the, ideal of both technical and
musical achievement to which a composer might aspire ? usually an ideal that related
to 'eethoven%s image and one that could not be approached other than with the
highest standards and greatest sincerity.J
54
"n important aspect of the !omantic
sonata%s association with high ideals was the constant 2uest for originality. This 2uest,
already developed in the $lassic era, was still present in the early?nineteenth century,
when a reviewer wrote that a sonata could not be a mere routine- there must be some
caprice, eploration, and originality, but not to ecess. The numerous neutral or less
favourable reviews of sonatas at the time repeatedly used the phrase?Jgood
4=
ibid., p. 8=.
4>
ibid., p. 8>.
57
ibid., p. 8>.
54
ibid., p. 64.
89
craftsmanship, but lacking in originality.J
55
The interpretation of originality, if not
ecessive is of course open to debate, but nevertheless suggests conservative
limitations in the 2uest for originality.
3f the sources consulted, it cannot be ascertained whether the general state of the
sonata at the time of the composition of opus 89 influenced $hopin in any way,
although one could argue that $hopin%s style anyway derives in the main from the
works of his predecessors. The conclusion that $hopin felt that the sonata as a genre
was becoming stale and was in need of something new and controversial to rekindle
interest therein is speculative and has not been substantiated. $ertainly his letter to
Julian 1ontana concerning the ' flat Minor Sonata shows no evidence of this.
58
It
could certainly be a matter of coincidence that opus 89 appeared when the sonata, as
Schumann said, Ihad run its course.J
That said, the analyses of $hopin%s opus 89 will now be eamined, beginning with the
early ones of Augo #eichtentritt in $hapter Seven.
55
ibid., p. 65.
58
!efer to page 9 for the applicable 2uote taken from this letter.
8:
CHAPTER >
THE EARLY ANALYSES # LEICHTENTRITT AND R$TI
"s stated in $hapter 1our, one of the first comprehensive analyses of the works of
$hopin was that of Augo #eichtentritt in 4>54. The significance of a (erman
musicologist undertaking a pro)ect of such a scale has already been mentioned in
$hapter 1our. #eichtentritt%s analysis of the ' flat Minor Sonata is 2uite significant in
that it is almost always referred to in subse2uent analyses of the work by other
analysts. Many of his opinions and analytical discoveries were used to great
advantage as a basis for further investigation in later writings. "lan /alker views
#eichtentritt%s analyses as etremely important for their time in that when it was still
Ifashionable to regard $hopin as a mere dreamer, a loose musical thinker,J
#eichtentritt revealed $hopin%s structural mastery to Ia generation who had not yet
heard the news.J
4
" significant portion of #eichtentritt%s analysis of the opus 89 sonata deals with
$hopin%s harmonic idiom. Ais preoccupation with harmonic analysis can in some
cases be seen as superfluous, in the sense that any musically educated reader would be
able to discern $hopin%s underlying harmony for themselves. The issues dealt with by
#eichtentritt in his analysis will be eamined only inasmuch as they contribute
counter?arguments to the negative reception of the late?nineteenth and early?twentieth
centuries. " comprehensive survey of his analysis will thus not be undertaken.
#eichtentritt%s understanding of the function of the introductory four bars of the first
movement of opus 89 is that of delaying the entry of the first sub)ect in order to create
tension, the degree of which is intensified by the metrical and harmonic irregularity of
these bars.
5
1urthermore, he believes that the work begins on the fifth bar of an eight?
bar phrase. !ight from the start, then, #eichtentritt highlights the importance of the
4
/alker, "lan. D$hopin and Musical Structure& "n "nalytical "pproach,% Fr-d-ric Chopin: Profiles of the Man
and The Musician ed. /alker, ". +#ondon& 'arrie and !ockcliff, 4>::,, p.584.
5
#eichtentritt, Augo. ,nal!se der Chopinschen 5lavier'erke, Fol. II +'erlin& Ma Aesse, 4>54?4>55,,p. 544.
8;
first four bars. Ais observations in connection with the latter have been eamined in
further detail in more recent writings such as those of !Sti, /alker and #eiken.
#eichtentritt also eamines the issue of thematic unity in the sonata. Ae observes that
derivatives of the first sub)ect manifest themselves in the second sub)ect, as well as
the accompaniment to the melody of the second sub)ect.
8
"s shown in Bample 5, the
second sub)ect grows organically out of the first through the rhythmic change of the
first sub)ect. Bample 8 shows how the accompaniment of the melody of the second
sub)ect makes use of a new rhythmic variant of the first sub)ect. " further link is
shown in Bample 6, where the material in the right hand of bars =4 to =5 also derives
from the first sub)ect. #eichtentritt calls this phenomenon of thematic integration the
Iprincipe cycli2ueJ, and notes that it was used by 'eethoven in his *iano Sonata 3pus
=4a and last 2uartets as well as by #is<t in his sonatas.
8
ibid., p. 545.
8=
ED%(+." 5: D"#i,%$i&' &0 $h" "B&'! -/E"B$ 7$&+ $%,"< 0#&( $h" 0i#$ 7/&$$&(
$%,"<
6

ED%(+." 3: D"#i,%$i&' &0 $h" %BB&(+%'i("'$ 0iC-#" 7$&+ $%,"< 0#&( $h" 0i#$
-/E"B$ 7/&$$&( $%,"<
5
6
ibid., p. 545.
9
ibid., p. 545.
8>
ED%(+." 6: D"#i,%$i&' &0 $h" $hi#! -/E"B$ 7$&+ $%,"< 0#&( $h" 0i#$ 7/&$$&(
$%,"<
=

#eichtentritt also highlights the presence of rhythmic interconnection between themes.
Ae emphasises the importance of the rhythm of the first sub)ect of the first movement
in that variants thereof are found in the themes of the Scher<o and the March.
;
"s
shown in Bample 9, rewriting the rhythmic outline of the first sub)ect in 6U6 reveals
how etensively this rhythm is used throughout the Scher<o in various forms. The
octave passage in bars 4=8?4==, the accompaniment figure of the Trio, and the main
theme of the Scher<o beginning in bar 4 are all rhythmically derived in some way
from this first sub)ect. Similarly, a link between this sub)ect and the main theme of the
March is also evident, as shown in Bample :&
=
ED%(+." 5: Rhy$h(iB i'$"#B&''"B$i&' /"$)""' $h"("
:
:
ibid., p. 548.
;
ibid., p. 559.
=
ibid., p. 55=.
>
ibid., p. 559.
67

ED%(+." =: Rhy$h(iB .i'* /"$)""' $h" 0i#$ -/E"B$ &0 $h" 0i#$ (&,"("'$
%'! $h" (%i' $h"(" &0 $h" F-'"#%. M%#Bh
4;

#eichtentritt%s view of $hopin%s harmonic idiom is interesting in that he sees the
etensive use of chromaticism +especially in the development section of the first
movement, as an important precursor to the harmony of /agner.
44
/ith reference to
the development section itself, he interprets it as a free fantasy over the main sub)ect
and distinguishes it from the thematic developments of 'eethoven. #eichtentritt also
highlights $hopin%s effective manner of modulation at the end of the Trio section of
the second movement in bars 4=8?4== +see Bample ;,, pointing to a similar usage by
'eethoven at the beginning of the third Leonora 3verture.
45
Ae observes that the
47
ibid., p. 55=.
44
ibid., p. 548.
45
ibid., p. 556.
64
octaves between the two hands have the effect of a darkening of the harmonic
meaning of single notes. These notes also function as a means of delaying the re?entry
of the Scher<o%s main theme in B flat minor, as well as obscuring the overall harmonic
function of the link between the Trio and Scher<o. This state of limbo is abruptly
ended by the emergence of the B 1lat minor harmony that provides a sense of relief to
the listener as the repeat of the familiar material of the Scher<o begins in bar 4=>. It
can thus be seen that #eichtentritt%s thorough eamination of $hopin%s choice of
harmonies sheds new light on Schumann%s ob)ection +see page =6, that $hopin%s use
of arbitrary, wild chord writing and ecessive dissonance renders the detection of
musical goals more difficult. The difficulty in ascertaining these goals is precisely the
effect $hopin wished to create, and should not be interpreted as a compositional
weakness.
ED%(+." >: M&!-.%$i&' 0#&( $h" T#i& $& $h" SBh"#F& i' $h" "B&'! (&,"("'$
43
The net important section of #eichtentritt%s analysis, one that has been repeated ad
nauseum by hosts of other writers, is that of eplaining the absence of the first sub)ect
at the beginning of the recapitulation section of the first movement. #eichtentritt
maintains that the first sub)ect generates such a significantly large portion of the
development section that to recapitulate it would be repetitive and ungainly.
46
"part from the 1inale, which will be eamined in $hapter Ten, the final point of
#echitentritt%s analysis worth highlighting is that of $hopin%s manner of linking the
Scher<o and the Trio, a feature eamined previously in the work of Aerbert /einstock
on page 59. #eichtentritt maintains that the beginning of the 1uneral March is
48
$hopin, 1rSdSric. 5laviersonate bmoll opus 67 +MTnchen& (. Aenle Ferlag, 4>;:,, p. 4=.
46
#eichtentritt, Augo. ,nal!se der Chopinschen 5lavier'erke, Fol. II +'erlin& Ma Aesse, 4>54?4>55,,p. 54=.
65
prepared by the slow ending of the Scher<o, by means of an epertly placed
ritardando +beginning bar 5;;, at the end of the Scher<o and the changing of time
signature from 8U6 in the Scher<o to 6U6 in the March. The effect of this is that the
March is heard as a continuation of the ritardando of the Scher<o owing to the
stretching of the time signature and broader tempo.
49
This is illustrated in Bample =&
ED%(+." 8: Th" .i'* /"$)""' $h" SBh"#F& %'! F-'"#%. M%#Bh
4=
The revelatory aspects of #eichtentritt%s work having been eplored, the net
important analysis of $hopin%s opus 89 will now be eamined G that of !udloph !Sti.
Ais analysis is based on a form?building element considered by him as being almost
completely neglected by the theoretical community at the time. This is the sphere of
49
ibid., p. 55;?55=.
4:
$hopin, 1rSdSric. 5laviersonate bmoll opus 67 +MTnchen& (. Aenle Ferlag, 4>;:,, pp. 54?55.
68
thematic or ImotivicJ structure,
4;
which, when applied to $hopin%s second piano
sonata, reveals how thematically unified this work really is.
3ne of the principal reservations epressed by earlier critics about opus 89 was its
apparent lack of thematic and organic unity between the four movements. !Sti%s
analysis seems to provide overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Aowever, this
should be seen in perspective, as !Sti is clearly using $hopin%s opus 89 as a medium
for proving the validity of his analytical method, and not as a means of rehabilitating
$hopin. The uncovering of thematic links between sub)ects and movements should
always be viewed with one important issue in mind& that by a process of reduction, it
is often possible to demonstrate a link between any two sub)ects. In so doing, an
analyst might be reading an affinity that is coincidental, not consciously or
subconsciously motivated. "ttention is drawn below to instances in !Sti%s analysis
where it appears that he has overly manipulated data to fit his claims.
!Sti, like #eichtentritt, begins his analysis by eploring the importance of the
introductory four bars. Ae attests to their structural importance, noting that& IThe
variegated and fantastic thematic picture $hopin manages to evolve from this
inconspicuous introductory shape is almost incredible.J
4=
Ae illustrates the link
between the introductory passage +Grave, and the first sub)ect by showing the
contours of various parts of this sub)ect, as shown in Bample >.
4>
0ote how part +d,
of this eample is almost an eact replica of the grace?note phrase in the bass of bar 8
of the Grave +e,.
4;
!Sti, !udolph. The Thematic Process in Music +$onnecticut& (reenwood *ress, 4>94,, p. 8. It should be noted
that Schoenberg used a similar method when analysing atonal works around the beginning of the twentieth century.
!Sti etended this analytical method by applying it to tonal works.
4=
ibid., p. 5>>.
4>
ibid., p. 874.
66
ED%(+." :: Fi#$ (&,"("'$: Li'* /"$)""' $h" B&'$&-# &0 $h" 0i#$ -/E"B$
%'! $h" i'$#&!-B$&#y (&$i0
5;
57
ibid., pp. 5>>?874.
69
!Sti also discusses the importance of the motives in the second half of the first
sub)ect. Bample 47 shows how he reduces this section to a phrase formed by a
stepwise descent of four notes. Aere again he illustrates unifying aspects of the first
and second halves of this theme, where motif II is a I2uasi?inversionJ of motif I.
54
1urthermore, the bass accompaniment of the first sub)ect forms a line epressing
inversions of motives I and II, as shown in Bample 44. The detailed analysis of this
first sub)ect reveals that not only the motivic detail, but also its wider melodic line are
derived from the original thought of the Grave, to which merely one new phrase
+motif II, is added.
55
ED%(+." 4;: O-$.i'" &0 /%# 4>954 &0 $h" 0i#$ -/E"B$ &0 $h" 0i#$ (&,"("'$ %'!
$h"i# #".%$i&' $& M&$i0 I &0 $h" Grave
53
ED%(+." 44: B% %BB&(+%'i("'$ &0 $h" 0i#$ -/E"B$ 7/%# :953< &0 $h" 0i#$
M&,"("'$ h&)i'C i$ #".%$i&' $& (&$i0 I %'! II
56
54
This is 2uestionable- as noted above, !Sti%s method can often be used to relate any three notes to any three
others. The emphasis here is certainly on I2uasiJ.
55
ibid., p. 875.
58
ibid., p. 874.
56
ibid., p. 875. It should be pointed out that the appearance of motif Ia in the bass line could also be due to
harmonic reasons G the " natural functions as a component of FII; in ' flat minor. 3f course, !Sti could argue that
the harmony is motivically driven.
6:
#ike #eichtentritt, !Sti notes the link between the first and second sub)ect of the first
movement. Ae observes that the beginning of the second sub)ect is actually a IH
greatly slackened reiteration of the nervous, agitated first theme,J
59
as shown in
Bample 45. Ae also illustrates that the connection of the second sub)ect to the work
as a whole is not confined to is first three notes. Bample 48 shows that the varied
repetition of this sub)ect +beginning in bar 9;, can be seen as a derivative of the
introductory motif in that the motivic change from the sith to the seventh is included
as an ornament in the melodic line +the (?flat,.
5:
Thus both the first and second
sub)ects are derivatives of the introductory motif. !Sti emphasises the significance of
this discovery, saying that these lines of $hopin, IHso often described as the
archetype of purely emotional outpouring, are firmly rooted in structural ground.J
5;
ED%(+." 45: Th" #".%$i&'hi+ /"$)""' $h" 0i#$ %'! "B&'! -/E"B$ &0 $h" 0i#$
(&,"("'$
58
ED%(+." 43: O#'%("'$"! ,"#i&' &0 $h" "B&'! -/E"B$ 7/%# 5>95:<
5:
59
ibid., p. 875.
5:
The " flat here is as !Sti says G an ornamentation. "sserting its importance by linking it to the introductory motif
is arguable as the note is not part of the sub)ect per se.
5;
ibid., p. 875.
5=
ibid., p. 875.
5>
ibid., p. 875.
6;
The third sub)ect +beginning in bar =4, can be seen as a combination of the first and
second sub)ects, as shown in Bample 46. The brackets show the affinity between the
second and third sub)ects, while the beginning of the third recalls that of the first.
ED%(+." 46: Th" #".%$i&'hi+ /"$)""' $h" 0i#$, "B&'!, %'! $hi#! -/E"B$ &0
$h" 0i#$ (&,"("'$
3;
!Sti regards these three themes as the basic material from which the whole movement
is built in constant ornamentation, yet Iwith an almost rigid adherence to the basic
idea.J
84
This is consistent with what most analysts would observe with regard to a
movement in sonata form. 1urthermore, he emphasises the fact that once the unified
structure of the first movement has been clarified by the analyses presented thus far,
IHthe design of the following movements as the natural outgrowth of the first cannot
be mistaken.J
85

87
ibid., p. 878. The similarity between the first and third sub)ects is presumably their identical first two notes +i.e.,
D flat and ' flat,, the use of a falling semitone, and a similar contour. It should be noted, however, that they are
rhythmically completely different. This shows that !Sti does not regard rhythm as being very important.
84
ibid., p. 878.
85
ibid., p. 878.
6=
The net important point emphasised by !Sti is that of the effective manner in which
$hopin connects the first movement with the Scher<o. 'y comparing the coda of the
first movement as it rises from d
5
? b flat
5
G a
5
+bars 587?58:, to the Scher<o theme,
the similarity in outline becomes obvious, as shown in Bamples 49+a, and 49+b,&
ED%(+." 45: Si(i.%#i$y i' &-$.i'" /"$)""' /%# 55:9564 &0 $h" 0i#$ (&,"("'$
%'! /%# 498 &0 $h" SBh"#F&
33
88
ibid., p. 876.
6>
!Sti illustrates that, starting in Bample 49+a, with the D?sharp in bar 585, and in
Bample 49+b, with the B?flat in bar 4, and embroidering the line of Bample 49+a,
with the ornamentation of the second sub)ect from the first movement +Bample
49+c,,, the Scher<o theme is revealed. 3n the absence of the opening D of the coda of
the first movement in the Scher<o, !Sti eplains& I"s $hopin apparently planned the
Scher<o in B?flat, yet wished to carry over the essential pitch of the concluding group
from the preceding movement, he had almost no alternative to omitting the opening
D.J
86
1urthermore, the last melodic note of the first movement is a D- if $hopin did
not feel that this note was important as far as thematic design was concerned, it is
likely that he would have ended the movement on a ' flat, the note to which the
whole group tends. !Sti also believes that $hopin had Motif Ib from the Grave in
mind when he formed the Scher<o theme.
89
Bample 4: shows the material from bars
> to 44, which epresses motif I in its full course from D?flat to '?flat to "?flat.
ED%(+." 4=: U" &0 (&$i0 I/ i' $h" SBh"#F&
3=
The links do not end here. "s illustrated in Bample 4;, motif II emerges net, in bars
4; to 57, though the stepwise descent of four notes is ad)usted to the 8U6 rhythm of the
Scher<o.
ED%(+." 4>: U" &0 (&$i0 II i' $h" SBh"#F&
3>
86
ibid., p. 876.
89
ibid., p. 879.
8:
ibid., p. 879.
8;
ibid., p. 879.
97
If motifs I and II are to be found in the first sub)ect of the first movement and the
main theme of the Scher<o, it is possible that the Trio of the Scher<o would reflect the
first movement%s second sub)ect. $omparing the latter reveals that this is indeed the
case, as shown in Bample 4=&
ED%(+." 48: Si(i.%#i$y /"$)""' $h" "B&'! -/E"B$ &0 $h" 0i#$ (&,"("'$ %'!
$h" T#i& $h"(" &0 $h" SBh"#F&
38
3nto the third movement, yet another interesting link is to be found. If the constant
note repetitions of the main theme of the March are ignored, the full motivic contour
of the first sub)ect of the first movement in its original key clearly emerges, as
illustrated in Bample 4>. The bracket covering the last five notes of the theme of the
March indicates the appearance of motif II&
ED%(+." 4:: Si(i.%#i$y /"$)""' $h" 0i#$ -/E"B$ &0 $h" 0i#$ (&,"("'$ %'! $h"
(%i' $h"(" &0 $h" F-'"#%. M%#Bh
3:
8=
ibid., p. 879.
8>
ibid., p. 87:.
94
!Sti%s ma)or revelation concerns the 1inale. Ae states that IThe design of the 1inale is
so strikingly in accord with the idea of the "llegro theme that it really is surprising
that at least this analogy was not noticed long ago.J
67
Ae is referring to the fact that
both themes follow the same pattern, as shown in Bample 57. 1urthermore, the
ensuing parts ehibit characteristics of motif II, as illustrated in Bample 54&
64
ED%(+." 5;: Si(i.%#i$y /"$)""' $h" 0i#$ -/E"B$ &0 $h" 0i#$ (&,"("'$ %'! $h"
0i#$ 0&-# /%# &0 $h" Fi'%."
65
ED%(+." 54: M&$i0 II % i$ %++"%# i' /%# 5 %'! > i' $h" Fi'%."
63
67
ibid., p. 87:. !Sti%s emphasis.
64
This is 2uestionable. Barlier, !Sti refers to motif II as the stepwise decent of four notes. 'ar 9, however, contains
four descending tones which are not in stepwise motion.
65
ibid., p. 87:.
68
ibid., p. 87:.
95
!Sti even manages to find hints of a true cantilena as the second theme in a movement
characterised by fast, continuous triplet 2uavers. The idea of such a melodious theme
is evident in the second section of the 1inale +bars 58?87,, eactly when it is due,
through figurations shown in Bample 55&
66
ED%(+." 55: Hi'$ &0 % (".&!i&- "B&'! -/E"B$ i' $h" Fi'%."
65
!Sti emphasises the fact that $hopin%s music, while ehibiting epressive and
romantic 2ualities, is firmly entrenched in thematic homogeneity and thematic
transformation. These transformations, he adds, Ibecome architectural forces, and,
indeed, engender musical form.J
6:

3n the results of his efforts, !Sti concludes&
(uided by these structural clues, the compositional process through which the work must
have grown becomes strikingly transparent. /e can imagine a musical thought, pregnant
both with emotional impulse and with structural possibilities, revolving in the
composer%s mind. Fisions flash up of the various configurations and moods which this
thought may assume, and thus different sections and movements take shape.
6;
66
ibid., p. 87;. 1inding a melodious figure such as this in a movement with over =77 continuous 2uavers is
statistically likely.
69
ibid., p. 87;.
6:
ibid., p. 87=.
6;
ibid., p. 87;. !Sti%s emphasis.
98
The results of these two ma)or analyses by #eichtentritt and !Sti show a disagreement
with certain of the reservations with regard to opus 89 that were uncovered in earlier
chapters. The relevant criticisms are&
4, The fact that $hopin was not comfortable in using a sonata +implied in
Schumann%s criti2ue in "ppendi ",-
5, The fact that the last two movements have no connection with the first two
+Auneker, page 4=,-
8, The lack of organic or thematic unity between the four movements +Aadden, page
4>,-
6, The fact that the 1uneral March does not belong to the rest of the work
+Schumann%s criti2ue in "ppendi ",-
9, The finale is mockery and not music +Schumann%s criti2ue in "ppendi ",-
:, @sing the term ISonataJ to describe four seemingly unconnected pieces
+Schumann%s criti2ue in "ppendi "U0iecks, page 49UAuneker, page 4=,.
1urthermore, the harmonic analysis of #eichtentritt unravels $hopin%s unusual use of
harmony, and places Auneker%s claims of wild chord writing in perspective. It would
seem, then, that there is nothing much else left to uncover, save for a more in?depth
investigation of the structure of the finale. That may be the case- yet analyses of this
sonata were published in the latter half of the twentieth century, revealing further
interesting features. These analyses will be the sub)ect of discussion in $hapter Bight.
96
CHAPTER 8
%URTHER ANALYSES - WALKER AND OTHERS
(1966-1990)
In Frederic Chopin: Profiles of the Man and the Musician, "lan /alker devotes a
number of pages to $hopin%s second piano sonata in his chapter on I$hopin and
Musical Structure.J Ae, like !Sti, emphasises the importance of the introductory bars,
stating that they determine IHthe thematic destiny of the entire work.J
4
/alker
interprets the falling diminished seventh and rising second in the bass clef of the
Grave as IHthe cells out of which $hopin%s intuitive genius builds one of his most
Dspontaneous% works.J
5
This motif is shown in Bample 58+b,&
ED%(+." 53: D"#i,%$i&' &0 (&$i0 7/< 0#&( /%# 496 &0 $h" 0i#$ (&,"("'$ 7%<
3
'uilding on !Sti%s analysis of the first sub)ect of the "llegro, /alker states that an
octave transposition of the first three notes of this sub)ect shows that it clearly derives
from the first three notes of the work, as shown in Bample 56. #ike #eichtentritt and
!Sti, he points out the derivation of the second sub)ect from the first, where the first
few notes of the second sub)ect form an augmented version of motif E. This is
4
/alker, "lan. D$hopin and Musical Structure& "n "nalytical "pproach,% Fr-d-ric Chopin: Profiles of the Man
and The Musician ed. /alker, ". +#ondon& 'arrie and !ockcliff, 4>::,, p. 58>.
5
ibid., p. 567.
8
ibid., p. 567.
99
illustrated in Bample 59. /alker adds that although the etreme contrast of character
of the two sub)ects could hardly be greater, the second sounds inevitable because of
this strong thematic link.
6
ED%(+." 56: D"#i,%$i&' &0 $h" 0i#$ -/E"B$
5
ED%(+." 55: Th" -" &0 (&$i0 D 7ED%(+." 56< i' $h" "B&'! -/E"B$
=
0ot mentioned in the previous chapter is yet another connection between the first
sub)ect and the final bars of the eposition.
;
Bample 5:+b, shows the melodic outline
of bar >> near the end of the eposition- when inverted, it is an eact replica of the
first four notes of the first sub)ect&
6
ibid., p. 567.
9
ibid., p. 567.
:
ibid., p. 564.
;
ibid., p. 564.
9:
ED%(+." 5=: D"#i,%$i&' &0 /%# :: 0#&( $h" 0i#$ -/E"B$
8
/alker also emphasises the importance of the tempo relationship between the Grave
+bars 4?6, and :oppio Movimento +beginning bar 9, in the first movement, i.e., that
bar 9 onwards is eactly double the speed of the first four. 'y doing so, he gives
credence to his opinion that the Grave is not something merely Itacked onJ at the
beginning, and that it should not be played in a slow, improvisatory manner.
/alker is of the opinion that the closely?knit argument of the development section of
the first movement, which is based almost eclusively on the first sub)ect, disproves
the notion that $hopin could not develop his themes. Bample 5;, taken from bars
48; to 467, shows how $hopin uses the introductory motif simultaneously with the
first sub)ect in the same passage&
=
ibid., p. 564.
9;
ED%(+." 5>: Th" $h#""9.%y"#"! $#-B$-#" /"Ci''i'C /%# 43> i' $h" !",".&+("'$
:
The importance of the minor third +the inversion of the diminished seventh of !Sti%s
motif Ia on page 6:, as a Ibackground unitive force throughout the sonataJ is also
emphasised by /alker.
47
Ae notes that the first few bars of the Scher<o show rising
minor thirds, while bars 49 to 57 shows a restoration of balance in the use of falling
thirds, as shown in Bample 5=&
>
ibid., p. 565.
47
ibid., p. 566.
9=
ED%(+." 58: Th" -" &0 $h" (i'&# $hi#! i' $h" SBh"#F&
44
"nother thematic link noted by /alker, one that does not appear in the writings of
#eichtentritt or !Sti, is the subtle integration of the strongly contrasted Trio to the
Scher<o itself. Bample 5> shows the striking similarity between the concluding bars
of the Scher<o and the theme of the Trio. In addition, /alker notes that the Trio theme
also looks forward to the Trio section of the 1uneral March, as illustrated in Bample
87. Thus this Trio theme is strongly linked thematically not only to the Scher<o but
also the 1uneral March&
44
ibid., p. 566.
9>
ED%(+." 5:: Th"(%$iB i'$"C#%$i&' &0 $h" T#i& )i$h $h" SBh"#F&
45
ED%(+." 3;: Li'* /"$)""' $h" T#i& $h"(" &0 $h" SBh"#F& %'! $h" T#i& $h"(" &0
$h" F-'"#%. M%#Bh
43
/alker epands on !Sti%s discovery of the thematic link between the first sub)ect of
the first movement and the main theme of the 1uneral March. Ae illustrates that the
melodic contour of the opening bars of the 1uneral March is not only derived from the
first movement, but is in fact a strict retrograde motion to the first sub)ect of the
"llegro, as shown in Bample 84. /alker calls this Icreative integrity of a high
order.J
46
3thers, however, may interpret this as note manipulation.
45
ibid., p. 566.
48
ibid., p. 569.
46
ibid., p. 56:.
:7
ED%(+." 34: Li'* /"$)""' $h" (%i' -/E"B$ &0 $h" F-'"#%. M%#Bh %'! $h" 0i#$
-/E"B$ &0 $h" 0i#$ (&,"("'$
45
Aaving already highlighted the importance of mediant relationships as a unifying
source in this sonata, /alker goes even further to show that no fewer than si of the
sonata%s themes begin on the mediant degree itself, as shown in Bample 85&
ED%(+." 35: U" &0 $h" ("!i%'$ !"C#"" i' ,%#i&- -/E"B$
4=
"nother revelation by /alker awaits& he observes that the falling seventh?rising
second interval of !Sti%s motif Ia is present in the seemingly athematic,
incomprehensible 1inale. Bample 88 shows that the notes D?flat, B, and 1 beginning
49
ibid., p. 56:.
4:
ibid., p. 56:.
:4
in the second half of bar 4 of the 1inale are eactly those of the introductory notes to
the entire work.
ED%(+." 33: Th" -" &0 $h" i'$#&!-B$&#y (&$i0 i' $h" Fi'%."
4>
/alker also believes that one of $hopin%s chief contributions to sonata form is the
intense compression of his recapitulations.
4=
In this regard he discusses the omission
of the first sub)ect from the reprise of the first movement, which, in his opinion, is not
a Istructural weakness,J as perpetuated by conventional wisdom, but Ia salutary
lesson in how not to compose.J 1urthermore, he regards this structural compression as
an Iunconscious function of creative mastery.J
4>

/alker%s comments on the sonata on a general level are particularly interesting and
relate directly to $hopin%s opus 89. Ae calls the sonata Ia story of musical form from
'ach%s B Ma)or Fiolin $oncerto to Schoenberg%s 1irst $hamber Symphony.J
57
Ae
eplains that the divisions between movements gradually collapsed under the creative
pressure of geniuses ranging from 'ach to Schoenberg. /hat began as a multi?
movement form, with each movement having its own character, developed into a
greatly compressed form two hundred years later. This manifested itself in epositions
and recapitulations becoming ever more developmental, separate movements being
linked and penetrating one another, and the assembly of every possible character
under the name Isonata.J Ae concludes by stating that sonata form has always been
Ion the move,J and that $hopin was one of those who helped it along.
54
4;
ibid., p. 56=.
4=
ibid., p.565.
4>
ibid., p. 568.
57
ibid., p. 568. It should be noted that sonatas were being written before 'ach.
54
ibid., p. 568.
:5
Aaving surveyed a rather in?depth thematic analysis by /alker, other analytical
writings on $hopin%s opus 89 sonata will now be reviewed. In an article largely based
on the work of !Sti, !udolf .lein makes note of $hopin%s invention of very
concentrated themes, a phenomenon already noticeable in his early $ Minor *iano
Sonata 3pus 6.
55
In addition, as already noted by !Sti, .lein observes that $hopin%s
themes are all derived from a few basic motives. This is in agreement with /alker%s
view that, in general, the sonata was sub)ected to a large amount of structural
compression in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
In a monumental dissertation from 4>=4, John 'ollinger uses integrative and
Schenkerian analyses to investigate the relationships among unifying compositional
devices within $hopin%s opus 89. Ais work involves the integration of several
analyses, a summary of which follows&
4, Foreground<erticalLinear ,nal!sis. This shows the fusion and interplay of the
unifying intervals +the ma)or and minor third, of the Sonata within the pianistic
teture.
58
5, Compositional$tructure )utline. This shows the basic structure of each
movement, including details of sub)ect material, key changes, and the demarcation
of each movement into its respective sections.
56
8, Chromatic$cale ,nal!sis. This uncovers another unifying device in the Sonata&
the ascending and descending chromatic scale as it occurs in each of the four
movements.
59
6, :iatonicMa"or and MelodicMinor $cale ,nal!sis. This shows the importance of
ma)or and minor scales as unifying devices in each of the four movements.
9, Reconstruction ,nal!sis. This involves the )utaposition of material notated in
sharps and flats in the first, second, and fourth movements in order to show chord?
function continuity.
5:
55
.lein. !udolph. D$hopins Sonatentechnik,% in )sterreichische Musik#eitschrift EEIIU; +4>:;,, p. 8>8.
58
'ollinger, John S.I. ,n 3ntegrative and $chenkerian ,nal!sis of the %Flat Minor $onata of Frederic Chopin.
*h.D dissertation, @niversity of /ashington, 4>=4, p. 8.
56
ibid., p. 44.
59
ibid., p. 56.
5:
ibid., p. 5;.
:8
:, Middle and %ackground $chenkerian $ketches. These corroborate the integrative
analyses, and include sketches of each movement as a separate entity, as well as a
final unified sketch of the entire Sonata.
/hile it is beyond the scope of this dissertation to enter into detail concerning these
analyses, 'ollinger concludes that $hopin%s opus 89 is a Itotally integrated
composition.J
5;
Ae identifies the most important unifying device of the sonata as the
compositional relationship of the 1uneral March to the other movements, adding that
the March IHstrongly dictates the compositional outlines of the outer three
movements.J
5=
This is consistent with the fact that the March was written two years
prior to the rest of the work. 'ollinger also identifies the utilisation of the ma)or and
minor third for theme construction and harmonic development as the other important
unifying device. These conclusions are in agreement with the work of !Sti and /alker
mentioned earlier.
Dammier?.irpal%s discussion of the seven large?scale cyclic works of $hopin contains
an interesting thought regarding the connection between $hopin%s opus 89 and
'eethoven%s sonata opus 5:. She, like #eiken +see page ;,, attests to 'eethoven%s
influence on $hopin, pointing out the striking similarity between the order of
movements in these sonatas.
5>
Dammier?.irpal believes that the contrast between the
1uneral March and the 1inale of 'eethoven%s opus 5: portrays the same impression as
that of $hopin%s opus 89 G Ilike chatting after the march.J
87
/hat surprises her
though, is what 'eethoven, the undisputed master of the sonata, did, $hopin did years
later, only to be rebuked, thereby causing the appearance of scores of analyses
attempting to eplain what was perceived as a problematic relationship between the
movements.
84
1urther evidence regarding 'eethoven%s influence on $hopin is the fact
that 'eethoven%s opus 5: was one of $hopin%s favourite sonatas in that he played,
taught, and analysed its structure for his students more often than he did any other of
'eethoven%s sonatas.
85

5;
ibid., p. 4.
5=
ibid., p. 4.
5>
This link, namely the employment of the same type and order of movements, was discussed earlier in $hapter 5.
87
Dammier?.irpal, @rsula. :er $onatensat# bei Frederic Chopin +/iesbaden& 'reitkopf K ALrtel, 4>;8,, p. >7.
84
ibid., p. >7.
85
@niversity *ress, 4>>5,, p. 4:4.
:6
In his 4>=9 article I$hopin und die Sonate,J Joachim .aiser raises an interesting and
valid point with reference to Schumann%s reservation that the four movements of opus
89 cannot collectively be termed a Isonata.J Ae observes that if the Scher<o of opus
89 is compared to any of $hopin%s four stand?alone Scher<i, a huge contrast is
evident.
88
@nlike all four stand?alone Scher<i, which contain a vehement coda and end
in a triumphant manner, the Scher<o of opus 89 is rather tame by comparison.
86
This is
evident in the 2uiet ending of the movement, as the melody from the Trio enters and
slowly dies away. The feeling of epectation or 2uestioning here suggests that the
Scher<o has been moulded to fit the bigger contet of the Sonata. This, in turn,
provides further substantiation for those who opposed Schumann and Auneker%s view
that the four movements of this sonata were seemingly unconnected and thus cannot
collectively be called a Isonata.J
$harles !osen raises an important issue with regard to the introductory four bars of
the first movement of opus 89. Ae notes that a glance at the autograph in /arsaw
shows that the repeat markings in almost every edition appear in the wrong place G
bar 9 instead of bar 4.
89
This, according to him, makes Iawkward nonsense of an
important moment in the opening movement.J
8:
Ae believes that the repeat is clearly
intended to begin with the first note of the movement, or else the harmonic change
between the cadence in D flat ma)or at the end of the eposition and the beginning of
the accompaniment figure in bar 9 makes no sense. Thus the opening four bars serve a
double function& they are a dramatic beginning, and a transition from the end of the
eposition back to the tonic.
8;

Aaving eamined the work of various commentators since the 4>:7%s, recent
publications of two influential $hopin scholars of the last decade or so will now be
investigated. These are the writings of Jim Samson and "natoly #eiken, the work of
88
.aiser, Joachim. D$hopin und die Sonate,% in Musik5on#epte 69 +4>=9,, p. 48. $hopin%s four Scher<i are opus
57 in ' minor, opus 84 in ' flat minor, opus 8> in $ sharp minor, and opus 96 in B ma)or.
86
ibid., p. 46.
89
!osen, $harles. DThe 1irst Movement of $hopin%s Sonata in ' 1lat Minor, 3p. 89,% in =ineteenthcentur! Music
EIFU4 +4>>7,, p. :4.
8:
ibid., p. :7.
8;
ibid., p. :5.
:9
whom has contributed further to the understanding of $hopin%s compositional idiom
as it relates to the sonata cycle. This material will be eamined in $hapter 0ine.
::
CHAPTER :
RECENT WRITINGS # SAMSON AND LEIKEN
These commentators have contributed significantly to the understanding of $hopin%s
music in the last fifteen years, and for this reason their comments and analyses with
respect to $hopin%s second piano sonata are included in a separate chapter. Their
writings are particularly informative and seldom constitute a mere rehash of the works
of others.
4
In his 4>=9 The Music of Chopin, Samson discusses the issue of unity in this sonata,
and goes a step further than simple thematic interconnections between movements. Ae
emphasises that the concept of IunityJ is a highly problematical notion in music, and
that there are various approaches that may be used to investigate this issue. Ae 2uotes
Jo<ef $hominski, who states that opus 89 is
Hin reality a synthesis of $hopin%s earlier achievements within the framework of the
four?movement sonata. The four?movement scheme provides in short a contet within
which the figurative patterns of the studies and preludes, the cantilene of the nocturnes
and even the periodicity of the dance pieces may be drawn together.
5
*rotopopov adds to this argument asserting that $hopin transformed the sonata cycle
in a significant manner. In particular, he mentions that, like 'eethoven, whose
willingness to introduce the fugue into his own later works led to its permeation
through to his works using sonata structure, $hopin%s use of the nocturne finds its way
into certain themes of the sonata cycle.
8
4
"lthough his work has not been used for this thesis, the writings of John !ink on the music of $hopin are also
highly regarded. "mong them is a book on $hopin%s piano concertos, a dissertation dating from 4>=> relating the
evolution of $hopin%s structural style to improvisation, and various articles in Chopin $tudies 33, ed. Samson, J.,
!ink, J. +$ambridge& $ambridge @niversity *ress, 4>>6,, and The Cambridge Companion to Chopin, ed. Samson,
J. +$ambridge& $ambridge @niversity *ress, 4>>5,. $ontact was made with Dr. !ink- he himself stated that his
writings +in particular his dissertation, are not relevant to the content of this dissertation. 1or this reason, his
contributions to the understanding of the music of $hopin have not been included.
5
8
mu#!c#ne +4>:=,, p. 45;.
:;
This idea that $hopin adapted his earlier achievements to the framework of the sonata
can, to some etent, eplain the unusual nature of the 1inale. $hominski notes that
comparing the 1inale of opus 89 with the B 1lat Ma)or *relude opus 5= no. 4> shows
numerous similarities.
6
'oth have a similar teture +i.e., a single line in triplet
octaves,- they are almost identical in length +;9 and ;4 bars respectively,- and both
end on a fortissimo chord. "lthough it may be true that the *relude%s triplets are more
focused harmonically in that they provide support for the top?voice melody +which is
not the case in the 1inale of opus 89,, the comparison can render the 1inale less
Ifuturistically athematicHwithout precedent in the history of the keyboard.J
9
"s far as the first movement is concerned, Samson demonstrates that the eternal
pattern of the movement respects the main sonata?form outline, save for the avoidance
of a Idouble repriseJ +which will be eamined in due course,.
:
Ae does, however,
highlight the fact that the dynamic scheme is subtly different from that of the
$lassical sonata. In connection with the latter, he observes that the stark character
contrast between the stormy first sub)ect and the beautiful second sub)ect of the
"llegro of opus 89 intensifies such inclinations of the $lassical sonata to the etent
that they take precedence over tonal dialectic.
;
The result is a Iromantic distanceJ
between the two sub)ects rather than the classical ideal of polarity +which would
ultimately demand a resolution,.
=
/ith reference to the development, Samson notes
that the necessary instability is created through shifting tonality and breaks in
continuity, as is the case in many other sonatas. Ae maintains that the power of the
main clima here is significantly large, and is made even greater by the intensity
achieved through concentrated motivic working and the use of a three?tier
stratification of teture.
>
This is evident in Bample 5; +see page 9>,, where the
introductory motif, the first sub)ect, and a middle line of crotchet triplets are
employed simultaneously.
6
In Samson, Jim. The Music of Chopin +#ondon& !outledge K .egan *aul, 4>=9,, p. 487.
9
ibid., p. 487.
:
Samson is here referring to the absence of the first sub)ect in the recapitulation.
;
It should be noted that the sonatas of Aaydn do not ehibit such inclinations.
=
ibid., p. 485.
>
ibid., p. 485.
:=
*articularly interesting is the reason Samson offers for the lack of the first sub)ect in
the recapitulation of the first movement. Ae dismisses the oft?2uoted opinion that its
etensive use in the development renders a repeat in the recapitulation redundant,
stating that, by the same token, many a Mo<art movement would ehibit thematic
redundancy.
47
!ather, he believes that the reason lies behind the choice of strongly
contrasting characters for the first and second sub)ects of the eposition- this, in turn,
has a profound effect on the overall shape of the movement.
The function of the $lassical eposition is to present a tonal opposition- the first
sub)ect is 2uoted in the tonic, while the second is in a key other than the tonic. This
tension is resolved in the recapitulation with the return of the second sub)ect in the
tonic key. The first movement of $hopin%s opus 89, however, is conceived differently.
Samson maintains that the function of the lyrical second theme is to resolve the
tension and drama of the first theme, and that the response to the eposition +i.e., the
development and recapitulation, preserves this relationship.
44
Therefore, the drama
and energy of the first sub)ect is heightened by motivic development while the
stability and calm of the second sub)ect is achieved through a return to the tonic key.
The result is a model with an overall shape that inevitably results in a slackening of
formal and tonal bonds of the $lassical sonata. This accounts for Samson%s
proposition that the intra? and inter?movement motivic and thematic links +as
illustrated in $hapters Seven and Bight in the work of #eichtentritt, !Sti and /alker,
assume a largely compensatory role.
45
"s far as the Scher<o is concerned, Samson notes that it takes IHits cue from the
muscular, rhythmic energy of 'eethoven,J thus highlighting a 'eethovenian influence
on opus 89, an issue discussed on page :9.
48
"gain, he makes reference to $hopin%s
use of different genres embedded in one movement- in this case a berceuse as the
main sub)ect of the Trio, and suggestions of the polonaises and scher<i in the first
sub)ect of the Scher<o. #ikewise, he points to a nocturne embedded in the 1uneral
March. In conclusion, Samson states that Schumann was correct in his observation
that opus 89 is no ordinary sonata. Ae cites the )utaposition of contrasting, relatively
47
ibid., p. 485.
44
ibid., p. 488.
45
ibid., p. 488.
48
ibid., p. 487.
:>
self?contained worlds such as the dance and berceuse in the Scher<o, funeral march
and nocturne in the third movement, and study in the 1inale as the reasons for this.
/here Schumann went wrong, according to Samson, were the conclusions he went on
to draw from this.
46
"natoly #eiken%s dissertation The :issolution of $onata $tructure in Romantic Piano
Music has particular relevance to $hopin%s opus 89. In a chapter devoted entirely to
the sonatas of $hopin, he states that I$hopin%s contributions to the dissolution of the
sonata norm areHthe most far?reaching among !omantic composers.J
49
Ae adds that
many of $hopin%s works that appear to have nothing in common with sonata structure
include sonata features. Ae cites the 1 Ma)or 'allade 3pus 8=, the 'arcarolle 3pus
:7, and the *olonaise?1antasie 3pus :4, among others.
#eiken%s chief contribution to the understanding of $hopin%s use of sonata form is his
eplanation of the fusion of sonata and variation principles in opus 89. Ae considers
this phenomenon as an important factor in contributing to the structural unity of each
movement, long regarded as the principal weakness of this work in the late?nineteenth
century. !eferring to the analyses of #eichtentrit and !Sti, he states that, although
they addressed the 2uestions of thematic unity, they ignored one crucial issue. This is
IHthe miing of forms by !omantic composers striving to renovate the $lassical
formal patterns and to depart from the predetermination of the traditional sonata
mould.J
4:
'y means of a thorough motivic analysis, much of it indebted to those mentioned in
$hapter Seven, #eiken concludes that the first and second sub)ects of the first
movement of opus 89 are actually variations on the introductory four bars. Bach
sub)ect itself is then varied further. The third sub)ect +Bample 46, page 6>,,
beginning at bar =4 +the closing section of the eposition,, 2uotes all thematic
elements of the movement. " summary of #eiken%s analysis of the eposition is
shown in Table 4&
46
ibid., p. 484.
49
#eiken, "natoly. The :issolution of $onata $tructure in Romantic Piano Music >?@AB?@7BCD *h.D
dissertation, @niversity of $alifornia, #os "ngeles, 4>=:, p. 4>8.
4:
"fter #eiken, "natoly. DThe Sonatas,% The Cambridge Companion to Chopin ed. Samson, J. +$ambridge&
$ambridge @niversity *ress, 4>>5,, p. 4:4.
;7
T%/." 4: Th" !"#i,%$i&' &0 -/E"B$ (%$"#i%. i' $h" "D+&i$i&' &0 $h" 0i#$
(&,"("'$
4>
Drawing from his observations, #eiken notes that one way of understanding the
eposition of the "llegro is viewing it as a se2uence of variations. 3ne might note that
a similar phenomenon can be found in Schubert%s Vuartet D. ==;.
#eiken follows on from Samson%s reasoning for the lack of the first sub)ect in the
recapitulation. Ae similarly dismisses the notion that heavy eploitation of the first
sub)ect in the development renders its restatement in the recapitulation redundant, his
reasoning being that all themes are 2uoted in the development and that it is not based
almost eclusively on the first sub)ect as stated by #eichtentritt.
4=
Ae adds that, since
all the themes are variations of the same material, the development becomes yet
another variation.
4>
1urthermore, even if the first sub)ect were the sole basis for the
development, many $lassical developments based only on the first sub)ect are
followed by a full recapitulation +e.g., 'eethoven%s sonata 3pus 48,. #eiken feels that
although this approach was not used by $hopin in opus 89, it is valid in that after the
4;
ibid., pp. 4:;?4:>.
4=
ibid., p. 4:>.
4>
ibid., p. 4:>.
;4
material of the primary group has been atomised and thrown into various keys, it is a
relief to hear it again it its original form and key.
57
Ae is thus hinting that even if
$hopin restated the first sub)ect at the beginning of the recapitulation, it would not
amount to a structural weakness, as maintained by /alker.
#eiken makes an interesting literary analogy here. Ae associates the first sub)ect with
the hero and the second with the heroine. In the typical classic sonata, they are driven
apart in the eposition, to be reunited in the reprise. In the case of opus 89, however,
the tonal conflict of the eposition is left unresolved- this is owing to the lack of the
appearance of the first sub)ect in the tonic key at the beginning of the recapitulation.
Aere, then, the hero and heroine cannot be re?united because the hero dies. The
1uneral March thus follows.
54
#eiken offers another reason for the phenomenon of the compression of the
recapitulation. Ae sees it as the restoration of the older binary form typical of D.
Scarlatti%s sonatas in the 'aro2ue era i.e., return to a two?part rather than three?part
form. 1urther evidence of 'aro2ue tendencies in $hopin%s work is seen in the
contrapuntal writing of the first movement of the sonata 3pus 9=.
55
Jim Samson
devotes an entire chapter in The Music of Chopin to $hopin%s employment of 'aro2ue
compositional procedures.
Bchoing Samson +see page :>,, #eiken interprets the furious insistence on repeated
octaves and chords in the Scher<o as an indication of its close connection to the
'eethovenian tradition, on account of its eplosive rhythmic power.
58
Ae adds that
while 'eethoven%s scher<o is a transformed minuet, $hopin%s is a transformed
ma<urka, with all the characteristic )umps or stamps on the second or third beat.
#eiken also attests to the notion that the Scher<o is an integral part of opus 89, citing
/alker%s observation of the importance of the minor third in this movement as a
unifying force throughout the four movements +see page :7,. Ae believes that the
Scher<o begins as a natural etension of the closing section of the first movement, in
57
ibid., p. 4;7.
54
ibid., p. 4;7.
55
It should be noted that contrapuntal writing is not eclusively confined to the 'aro2ue period.
58
@niversity *ress, 4>>5,, p. 4;7.
;5
that the triplet?metre crotchet motion in the former +Bample 86+b,, is similar to the
triplets in the latter +Bample 86+a,,.
56
The arrows indicate intervallic similarities. In
addition, #eiken notes that the predominance of repeated octaves and chords in both
movements reinforces this similarity. "ccording to #eiken, the Scher<o%s growth out
of the closing section of the first movement is one possible reason for eplaining the
absence of a tempo indication for the Scher<o.
59

ED%(+." 36: Li'* /"$)""' $h" SBh"#F& %'! $h" 0i#$ (&,"("'$
5=
#eiken also identifies a further thematic link between the first movement and the
Scher<o& the melodic line rising from the first to the fifth scale degree. This is shown
in Bample 89, where the circled notes make up the interval of the fifth&
ED%(+." 35: Th"(%$iB .i'* /"$)""' $h" SBh"#F& %'! 0i#$ (&,"("'$: $h" #ii'C
56
ibid., p. 4;7.
59
ibid., p. 4;7.
5:
ibid., p. 4;4.
;8
0i0$h
5>

3ne final note concerning thematic and rhythmic interconnections between
movements should be included here. #eiken points out that the prolonged repetitions
of a single note seen at the beginning of the 1uneral March is also the backbone of the
main theme of the Scher<o and the closing section of the first movement.
5=
This is
possibly the final nail in the coffin for the Ilack of structural unityJ theory.
This concludes the study of the reception of $hopin%s Second *iano Sonata. 1rom the
early writings of Schumann to the very recent ones of Samson, a definite trend of
increased awareness and understanding of this work is noticeable. 'efore concluding
this dissertation, however, a separate chapter will be devoted to the 1inale. /hile it
has been touched upon earlier, many remarks have been deliberately held back until
this point. "n attempt will be made to trace the problematic reception of this
movement by eamining the writings of various commentators, almost all of whom
have already been mentioned in the dissertation.
5;
ibid., pp. 4:=,4;4.
5=
ibid., p. 4;6.
;6
CHAPTER 4;
THE %INALE
"s noted in $hapter Three, it was the 1inale of $hopin%s second piano sonata that
pu<<led Schumann most. Ae viewed it more as a piece of irony than music. It has
captured the imagination of many, causing hosts of commentators to etend their
views as to the literary associations of this movement. 3n the face of it, seventy?five
bars of 2uick, non?stop triplet passages in unison between the two hands with hardly a
change in dynamics may seem like a strange choice for the final movement of a
sonata. Modern commentators have tried to demystify this movement by means of
harmonic and motivic analyses. These analyses will be discussed in due course- first,
however, a glance at some reactions to this movement provides interesting reading.
1rederick 0iecks describes this finale as Ithe solitude and dreariness of a desert.J
4
The famous nineteenth?century !ussian pianist "nton !ubinstein interprets it as
I/inds of night sweeping over churchyard graves.J
5
Tausig described the Ivery
peculiarJ finale as IHthe ghost of the departed wandering aboutJ after the IMarche
funNbreJ- subse2uently, only two weeks before his own death in 4=;4, he referred to it
as IHthe wind blowing over my grave.J
8
"lfred $ortot saw IHthe free<ing
whirlwind descending on tombs.J
6
Mendelssohn was known to dislike the work,
saying, I3ne may abhor it, yet it cannot be ignored.J
9
/ith reference to $hopin%s
comment that the hands are IgossipingJ after the march, 0iecks interprets this as the
good neighbours discussing the merits of the departed after the burial, albeit with a
spice of backbiting.
"ccording to Juri) $holopow, a survey of writings on the 1inale shows that it has been
accused of a lack of melody, obscure and undefined harmony, lack of sub)ects, as well
4
0iecks, 1rederick. Frederick Chopin as a Man and Musician, Fol II +#ondon& 0ovello, Bwer and $o., 4=>7,, p.
55;.
5
/einstock, Aerbert. Chopin: The Man and +is Music +0ew Mork& "lfred ". .nopf, 4>9>,, p. 564.
8
6
(avoty, 'ernard. Frederic Chopin, tr. Sokolinsky, M. +0ew Mork& $harles Scribner%s Sons, 4>;;,, p. 8=;.
9
Auneker, James. Chopin: The Man and +is Music +0ew Mork& $harles Scribner%s Sons, 4>77,, p. 4:>.
;9
as a lack of formal clarity.
:
These views are by no means confined to the early?
twentieth century either. In an article of 4>=9, *eter 'enary concludes that the musical
sense of the 1inale remains Ihidden.J
;

Jim Samson highlights the etraordinary construction of the single line in this
movement, both in terms of phrasing and implied harmonic background. Ae describes
the effect of the 1inale as IHrather like a film se2uence coming in and out of focus,
with moments of relative diatonic clarityHundermined by the shifting, seemingly
directionless activity surrounding them.J
=
Diatonic clarity can be seen in the opening,
bars 56?87 +established through literal repetition,, the reprise at bar 86, and the final
bars. 1or the rest of the movement, repeated shapes emerge only tentatively from a
continuous stream of sound, thereby increasing the elusive 2uality.
"natoly #eiken views the finale like a piece for unaccompanied cello, an instrument
with which $hopin was well ac2uainted.
>
#eiken notes that the *relude from 'ach%s
Suite in D ma)or for solo cello '/F4745 is a similar perpetuum mobile of four
2uaver triplets per bar, and that one of its main motives bears a striking resemblance
to the main theme of the first movement of $hopin%s opus 89. This parallel adds to his
argument that the 1inale should not be played too fast, or else not much remains of a
'ach connection in such a performance, and the listener will have no chance of
grasping the 1inale%s form. In addition, a fast rendition will cause the movement to
appear athematic, whereas in reality it has IHa system of tonal and melodic repeats
that creates a tangible trace of sonata form.J
47
$harles !osen views the 1inale as IHso much less radical than this *olonaise Pin 1
Sharp Minor 3pus 66Q that it may be difficult at first to put one%s finger on )ust why
Schumann and his contemporaries were shocked by it to the point of considering it
unmusical, although it is easy to understand why they were fascinated.J
44
1ormally, he
sees it as a one?part invention in relatively simple binary form. Ae adds that this kind
:
$holopow, Juri). D3 Casadach .ompo<yc)i $hopina& Cagadka 1inalu Sonaty '?moll,% in Roc#nik Chopino'ski
EIE +4>=;,, p. 544.
;
'enary, *eter. DBin 1all von 1ehlinterpretation,% in Musica 8> +4>=9,, p 5=.
=
Samson, Jim. The Music of Chopin +#ondon& !outledge K .egan *aul, 4>=9,, p. 487.
>
@niversity *ress, 4>>5,, p. 4;9.
47
ibid., p. 4;9.
44
!osen, $harles. The Romantic Generation +#ondon& Aarper $ollins, 4>>9,, p. 5>6.
;:
of binary IsonataJ form without development was common from 4;97 to 4=77, after
which it appeared fre2uently in opera overtures such as those of !ossini and 'erlio<.
45
@nderstanding the construction of the 1inale is possible by means of a thematic and
harmonic analysis, such as those by !iemann, #eichtentritt, 'ronarksi, and 'enary.
This dissertation will reproduce that found in a 4>=; *olish article by Juri) $holopow,
the translated title of which is I"bout principles of $hopin%s compositions& Mystery
of the finale of the ' 1lat Minor Sonata.J
48
*art of this analysis can be found in
"ppendi ', a basic summary of which follows.
The first four bars have been viewed by some as an introduction, while others
interpret it as the beginning of the first sub)ect. $harles !osen subscribes to the
former view, adding that its harmonic outline recalls the opening four bars of the first
movement.
46
$holopow%s analysis takes the latter view, interpreting the first four bars
as the first sub)ect, and bar 9 as the beginning of an episode.
'ars 9 to 58 form a largely chromatic episode +a term used by $holopow but not
!osen,, although the harmony gradually settles on the dominant of the relative ma)or
+D?flat,. " new, secondary theme enters in D flat ma)or in bar 58 and is repeated an
octave higher beginning at bar 5;. In bar 84, another episode +not so called by !osen,
begins in which the dominant of '?flat minor is carefully prepared, in !osen%s words,
Iin the most respectable $lassical fashion,J by its own dominant.
49

'ar 8> marks the beginning of the recapitulation with a literal repeat of bars 4 to =,
with another episode appearing in bar 6;. This reprise also contains elements of the
first episode and the secondary theme which are developed toward a cadence. 1or
eample, bars :8?:6 clearly recall bars 58?5;, while bars 4;?4= are recalled in bars
9;?9= and :4?:5. Fiews as to the location of the beginning of the coda seem to differ.
!osen believes it begins in bar :9 on the implied dominant pedal, while the analysis
used here points to bar :> as the beginning.
4:
45
ibid., p.5>;.
48
This analysis can be found on page 55= of the article, under the heading DMusical form as a whole%.
46
!osen, $harles. The Romantic Generation +#ondon& Aarper $ollins, 4>>9,, p. 5>6.
49
ibid., p. 5>9.
4:
ibid., p. 5>;.
;;
!osen calls the final cadence an anticipated tonic in that the fundamental base note is
reached tentatively four times over a weak beat in bars ;5?;6.
4;
Aarmonically, the
piece ends in bar ;8, which gives the fortissimo of the last bar all the more impact.
$holopow highlights the fact that this movement reveals characteristics of the small
Ibi?thematicJ rondo, which are&
4=
4, The fact that the rondo is a common form for a final movement.
5, The characteristics of perpetuum mobile of the final movement of opus 89 are
similar enough to the IrollingJ character of a typical rondo that is attained through
continuous, even rhythmic motion.
4>
8, "lternation of sub)ects and episodes as shown in the analysis +typical of all
rondos,.
6, !ondos have two, not three, sub)ects. This last point is debatable.
It is interesting to note that all these characteristics, typical of a rondo, are present in
the finale of $hopin%s net sonata +opus 9=,, that is undoubtedly in rondo form. In
addition, $holopow notes that the structural outline of the 1inale of opus 9= is the
same as $hopin%s other works in rondo form i.e., !ondo opus 9, !ondo opus ;8,
!ondo opus 4:, and the third movement of the sonata opus :9.
57
1urthermore, both
1inales of opus 89 and opus 9= are characterised by a similar general structure as
shown in Table 5&
54

T%/." 5: S$#-B$-#%. &-$.i'" &0 $h" Fi'%." &0 Ch&+i' &'%$% &+- 35 %'!
&+- 58
55
4;
ibid., p. 5>;.
4=
EIE +4>=;,, p. 585.
4>
This is highly debatable. The rondo from 'eethoven%s Sonata opus 48 does not ehibit a Drolling% character. The
same may be said for many other rondos.
57
EIE +4>=;,, p. 588.
54
ibid., p. 588.
55
ibid., p. 588.
;=
There are, however, two important differences. 1irstly, in opus 89 there is no
repetition of the secondary sub)ect or the second recapitulation of the main sub)ect.
$holopow maintains that although this contracts the scheme of bi?thematic rondo
form, it does not contradict its Irondo?likeJ 2uality.
58
Secondly, the etraordinary
terseness of the main sub)ect of opus 89 differs markedly from the epansiveness of
that in opus 9=. $holopow attributes these differences to the small dimensions of the
1inale of opus 89.
56

$holopow%s harmonic analysis of this 1inale +as shown in "ppendi ', has thus
uncovered some interesting details. The outline of key sub)ect material and underlying
harmonies allows for the identification of an overall structure of an apparently
obscure movement. These findings are contrary to the criticisms noted earlier ?
obscure, undefined harmony, lack of sub)ects and lack of formal clarity. $holopow%s
58
ibid., p. 588.
56
ibid., p. 588.
;>
observation that this 1inale is similar in structural outline to $hopin%s other
movements in rondo form provides further substantiation for the belief that this
movement does ehibit a clear formal structure. It is also possible that $hopin was
comfortable with the 1inale of opus 89, or else he probably would not have used a
similar structural outline five years later in opus 9=, given the negative critical
appraisal relating to opus 89.
=7
CHAPTER 44
CONCLUSION
This brings to an end a survey of the long and interesting history relating to the
reception of $hopin%s piano sonata in ' flat Minor opus 89. The content and order of
this dissertation was organised so as to highlight the change in receptive trend as it
occurred around the mid?nineteenth to the late?twentieth centuries. This trend has
been shown to ehibit a turning point around 4>57 with the writings of Augo
#eichtentritt.
The change in receptive trend is in part due to a better understanding of the sonata
cycle and sonata form. The evolution thereof began in the early 'aro2ue era with the
multi?movement suite. This continued with the appearance of the $lassical sonatas of
Aaydn, Mo<art, and 'eethoven- the sonatas of 'eethoven showing remarkable poetic
licences and digressions from those of Aaydn and Mo<art. "lready by this stage, a
significant compression of the form was evident, especially in the later piano sonatas
of 'eethoven +although an epansion of the form is also seen in 'eethoven%s late
+ammerklavier piano sonata,. The !omantic composers continued the line of
evolution, one of the most important results of which was the miing of various forms
and characters under the title Isonata.J $hopin%s eperimentation with these forms
and characters is no more apparent than in his second piano sonata. Aere he mies
variation and sonata principles in the first movement, uses a three?layered form for the
Scher<o, uses a slow 1uneral March as the third movement instead of the second +the
second being traditionally the home of the slow movement,, and ends the work with a
bi?thematic rondo lasting around seventy?five seconds.
Just as Aaydn and 'eethoven substituted a scher<o in place of the minuet, and
introduced the fugue into their sonatas +'eethoven opus 47:, and 2uartets +Aaydn
opus 57,, similarly, $hopin placed his own forms into his sonatas. "s observed by
Jo<ef $hominski, $hopin used the four?movement scheme as a contet within which
=4
he could include the cantilene of the nocturnes, the figurative patterns of the studies
and preludes, and the periodicity of the dance pieces.
4
Aere again, this can be
interpreted as a contribution toward to the development and evolution of sonata form
and the sonata cycle itself.
"round the time of its composition, it is no wonder that this sonata raised a few
eyebrows. Bven though Schumann epresses his reservations about this work, one can
definitely see that he did admire some aspects of it. It is interesting that he attests to
the idea that musical tastes change over time, by stating that IHa grandson will be
born and raised, will dust off and play the sonata, and will think to himself, DThe man
P$hopinQ was not so wrong after all.%J
5
It is almost as though he epected future
musicologists to dispute his views through studies and analyses of the work. These
studies have done )ust that, and have been outlined in $hapters Seven to Ten.
It is interesting to note not only the change in reception toward $hopin%s opus 89, but
also the manner in which commentators substantiated their opinions. The writings of
the nineteenth century clearly show a narrative approach while those of the latter part
of the twentieth century are more analytical in style. It cannot be said that one is of
more value than the other, although it may appear that the analytical writings show a
better substantiation of the opinion of the writer. "s mentioned before, it must be
remembered that analyses are sub)ective in nature.
In conclusion, it might be added that the survey of critical appraisal of $hopin%s opus
89 has highlighted one important facet of the history of the sonata cycle& that the
sonata evolved over time. $hopin%s opus 89 can be viewed as one of those works that
ensured the continuation of the sonata%s )ourney- a )ourney of evolution and
adaptation to new compositional techni2ues and styles.
4
5
0ewman, /illiam S. The $onata $ince %eethoven +0ew Mork& /./. 0orton and $o., 4>;5,, p. 6=>.
Interpolation is 0ewman%s.
=5
APPENDIA A
SCHUMANNS CRITI&UE (1841) O% CHOPINS
OPUS !5
To look at the first measures of the . . . sonata and still not be sure who it is by, would be
unworthy of a connoisseur. 3nly $hopin starts so and only he ends so, with dissonances
through dissonances in dissonances. "nd yet, how much beauty this piece contains. /hat
he called ISonataJ might better be called a caprice, or even a wantonness PinQ that he
brought together four of his wildest offspring perhaps in order to smuggle them under
this name into a place where they otherwise might not fit. 3ne imagines some cantor, for
eample, coming from the country into a music centre in order to buy some good music-
he is shown the newest PthingsQ- he will have none Pof themQ- finally a sly fo shows him
a IsonataJ- IyesJ, he says happily, Ithat is for me and a piece still from the good old
daysJ- and he buys and gets it. "rriving home he goes at the piece?but I would have to be
very wrong if, before he even gets painstakingly through the first page, he will not swear
by all the holy musical ghosts that this PisQ no ordinary sonata style but actually godless
PtrashQ. Met, $hopin has still accomplished what he wanted- he finds himself in the
cantor%s home, and who knows whether in that very home, perhaps years later, a
romantic P?ally inclinedQ grandson will be born and raised, will dust off and play the
sonata, and will think to himself, IThe man was not so wrong after all.J
/ith all this, a half )udgement has already been offered. $hopin no longer writes
anything that could be found as well in Pthe works ofQ others- he remains true to himself
and has reason to.
It is regrettable that most pianists, even the cultivated ones, cannot see and )udge beyond
anything they can master with their own fingers. Instead of first glancing over such a
difficult piece, they twist and bore +their way, through it, measure by measure- and then
when scarcely more than the roughest formal relationships become evident, they put it
aside and call it Ibi<<are, confused etc.J. $hopin in particular +somewhat like Jean *aul,
has his decorative asides and parentheses, over which one should not stop too long at the
=8
first reading in order not to lose the continuity. Such places one finds on almost every
page in the sonata, and $hopin%s often arbitrary and wild chord writing make the
detection Pof the musical goalsQ still more difficult. To be sure, he does not like to
enharmoni<e, if I may call it that, and so often gets measures and keys in ten or more
sharps, which PetremesQ we can tolerate only in the most eceptional cases. 3ften he is
)ustified, but often he confuses without reason and, as stated, alienates a good part of the
public in this way, who, that is, do not care to be fooled all the time and to be driven into
a corner. Thus, the sonata has a signature of five flats, or '?1lat minor, a key that
certainly cannot boast any special popularity. The beginning goes thus& PThe opening four
measures are 2uoted.Q
"fter this typically $hopines2ue beginning follows one of those stormy passionate
phrases such as we already know by $hopin. 3ne has to hear it played fre2uently and
well. 'ut this first part of the work also brings beautiful melody- indeed, it seems as if
the *olish national favour that inhered in most of the earlier $hopin melodies vanishes
more and more with time, PandQ as if even he sometimes turned +beyond (ermany,
towards Italy. 3ne knows that 'ellini and $hopin were friends, that they often told each
other of their compositions, PandQ probably were not without artistic influence on each
other. Aowever, as suggested, it is only a slight leaning toward the southern manner. "s
soon as the melody ends, the whole Pbarbarian tribe ofQ Sarmatae flashes forth again in its
relentless originality and tumult. "t least, 'ellini never dared to write and never could
write a crisscross chord pattern such as we find at the end of the first theme in the second
part Pundoubtedly mss. 48=?98Q. "nd similarly, the entire movement ends PbutQ little in
Italian fashion, which reminds me of #is<t%s pertinent remark. Ae once said, !ossini and
his compatriots always ended with a IvWtre tres humble serviteur,J but not so $hopin,
whose finales epress rather the opposite.
The second movement is only the continuation of this mood, daring, sophisticated,
fantastic, PwithQ the trio delicate, dreamy, entirely in $hopin%s manner& Pthat is,Q a
Scher<o only in name, as with many of 'eethoven%s Pscher<osQ. Still more somber, a
Marcia funebre follows, which even has something repulsive Pabout itQ- an adagio in its
place, perhaps in D 1lat, would have had a far more beautiful effect. /hat we get in the
final movement under the title I1inaleJ seems more like a mockery than any Psort ofQ
music. "nd yet, one has to admit, even from this unmelodic and )oyless movement a
peculiar, frightful spirit touches us, which holds down with an iron fist those who would
=6
like to revolt against it, so that we listen as if spellbound and without complaint to the
very end, yet also without praise, for music it is not. Thus the sonata ends as it began,
pu<<ling, like a sphin with mocking smile.
4
4
0ewman, /illiam S. The $onata $ince %eethoven +0ew Mork& /./. 0orton and $o., 4>;5,, pp. 6=>?6>7.
Interpolations are 0ewman%s.
=9
APPENDIA B:
ANALYSIS O% THE %INALE O% CHOPINS PIANO
SONATA IN B %LAT MINOR' OPUS !5
1
4
$holopow, Juri). D3 Casadach .ompo<yc)i $hopina& Cagadka 1inalu Sonaty '?moll% in Roc#nik Chopino'ski
EIE +4>=;,, pp. 55=?585.
=:
=;
==
=>
>7
BIBLIOGRAPHY
"braham, (erald. Chopins Musical $t!le +#ondon& 3ford @niversity *ress, 4>8>,.
"tes, 3rga. Chopin: +is Life and Times +.ent& Midas books, 4>;:,.
"twood, /illiam (. Fr!der!k Chopin: Pianist from &arsa' +0ew Mork& $olumbia
@niversity *ress, 4>=;,.
'enary, *eter. DBin 1all von 1ehlinterpretation,% Musica 8> +4>=9,, pp. 5:?5=.
'ollinger, John S.I. ,n 3ntegrative and $chenkerian ,nal!sis of the %Flat Minor
$onata of Frederic Chopin. *h.D dissertation, @niversity of /ashington, 4>=4.
'idou, Aenry. Chopin, tr. *hillips, $.". +0ew Mork& Tudor *ublishing $o., 4>8:,.
$hechlinska, Cofia. D$hopin !eception in 0ineteenth?century *oland,% in The
Cambridge Companion to Chopin ed. Samson, J. +$ambridge& $ambridge @niversity
*ress, 4>>5,.

$holopow, Juri). D3 Casadach .ompo<yc)i $hopina& Cagadka 1inalu Sonaty '?moll,%
in Roc#nik Chopino'ski EIE +4>=;,.
$hopin, 1rSdSric. 5laviersonate bmoll opus 67 +MTnchen& (. Aenle Ferlag, 4>;:,.
$hopin, 1. %allades ed. $ortot, ". +*aris& Salabert, 4>9;,.
Dammier?.irpal, @rsula. :er $onatensat# bei Frederic Chopin +/iesbaden& 'reitkopf
K ALrtel, 4>;8,.
Davison, J./. (ssa!s on the &ork of Frederic Chopin +#ondon& /essel K $o., 4=68,.
>4
1inck, Aenry T. Chopin and )ther Musical (ssa!s +#ondon& T. 1isher @nwin, 4==>,.
(avoty, 'ernard. Frederic Chopin, tr. Sokolinskes, M. +0ew Mork& $harles Scribner%s
sons, 4>;;,.
(ould, *eter. D$oncertos and Sonatas,% in Fr-d-ric Chopin: Profiles of the Man and
the Musician ed. /alker, ". +#ondon& 'arrie K !ockcliff, 4>::,.
Aadden, J. $uthbert. The Master Musicians: Chopin +#ondon& J.M. Dent and Sons
#td, 4>78,.
Aedley, "rthur. The Master Musicians: Chopin, revd. Maurice J.B. 'rown +#ondon&
J.M. Dent K Sons #td, 4>;6,.
Aelman, Cofia. D0orma indywiduac)a w sonatach $hopina,% in Musica 3agellonica
+4>>8,, pp. 68?:=.
Auneker, James. Chopin: The Man and +is Music +0ew Mork& $harles Scribner%s
Sons, 4>77,.
Jonson, (.$. "shton. , +andbook to Chopins 'orks +#ondon& /illiam !eeves,
4>79,.
.aiser, Joachim. D$hopin und die Sonate,% in Musik5on#epte 69 +4>=9,, pp. 8?4:.
.elley, Bdgar S. Chopin the Composer: +is $tructural ,rt and its 3nfluence on
Contemporaneous Music +0ew Mork& (. Schirmer, 4>48,.
.lein, !udlof. D$hopins Sonatentechnik,% in )esterreichische Musik#eitschrift EEIIU;
+4>:;,, pp. 8=>?8>>.
#eichtentritt, Augo. ,nal!se der Chopinschen 5lavier'erke, Fol. II +'erlin& Ma
Aesse, 4>54?4>55,.
>5
#eiken, "natoly. The :issolution of $onata $tructure in Romantic Piano Music
>?@AB?@7BC. *h.D dissertation, @niversity of $alifornia, #os "ngeles, 4>=:.
#eiken, "natoly. DThe Sonatas,% The Cambridge Companion to Chopin ed. Samson, J.
+$ambridge& $ambridge @niversity *ress, 4>>5,.
#is<t, 1. The Life of Chopin, tr. $ook, M./. +0ew Mork& #eypoldt K Aolt, 4=::,.
Mareck, (eorge !. and (ordon?Smith, M. Chopin +#ondon& /eidenfeld K 0icolson,
4>;=,.
0ewman, /illiam S. The $onata in the Classic (ra +0ew Mork& /./. 0orton K $o.,
4>:8,.
0ewman, /illiam S. The $onata since %eethoven +0ew Mork& /./. 0orton K $o.,
4>;5,.
0iecks, 1rederic. Frederic Chopin as a Man and Musician, Fol II +#ondon& 0ovello,
Bwer and $o. #td, 4=>7,.
3pienski, Aenryk. Chopins Letters, tr. Foynich, B.#. +0ew Mork& "lfred ". .nopf,
4>84,.
*rotopopov, Fladimir. D1orma $yklu Sonatowego w utworach 1. $hopina,% in Polsko
rog!"skie miscellanea mu#!c#ne +4>:=,, pp. 45:?467.
!Sti, !udolph. The Thematic Process in Music +$onnecticut& (reenwood *ress,
4>94,.
!osen, $harles. DThe 1irst Movement of $hopin%s Sonata in ' 1lat Minor, 3p. 89,% in
=ineteenthcentur! Music EIFU4 +4>>7,, pp. :7?::.
>8
!osen, $harles. The Romantic Generation +#ondon& Aarper $ollins, 4>>9,.
!osen, $harles. $onata Forms +0ew Mork& /./. 0orton and $o., 4>==,.
Samson, Jim. D$hopin !eception& Theory, Aistory, "nalysis,% Chopin $tudies 33 ed.
Samson, J., and !ink, J. +$ambridge& $ambridge @niversity *ress, 4>>6,.
Samson, Jim. The Music of Chopin +#ondon& !outledge K .egan *aul, 4>=9,.
Samson, Jim. Chopin +3ford& 3ford @niversity *ress, 4>>:,.
Schumann, !obert. Gesammelte $chriften ;ber Musik und Musiker von Robert
$chumann I K II +#eip<ig& 'reitkopf K ALrtel, 4>46,.
Siepmann, Jeremy. Chopin: The Reluctant Romantic +#ondon& Fictor (ollano<,
4>>9,.

/alker, "lan. D$hopin and Musical Structure& an "nalytical "pproach,% Fr-d-ric
Chopin: Profiles of The Man and The Musician ed. /alker, ". +#ondon& 'arrie and
!ockcliff, 4>::,.
/einstock, Aerbert. Chopin: The Man and +is Music +0ew Mork& "lfred ". .nopf,
4>9>,.
/illeby, $harles. Frederic Francois Chopin +#ondon& Sampson #ow K $o., 4=>5,.
>6

Chopin Piano Sonata Opus 35

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Chopin Piano Sonata Opus 35

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ROYAL NORTHERN COLLEGE OF MUSIC

SHIFTING MODES OF RECEPTION:

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi