|
but now both hands are included in the sweeping arpeggiation, so that linear elements [...] must emerge through the two-hand figuration. Again there are echoes of Bach – the prelude in the same key from Book 1, for instance – in the tolling ›chorale‹, against which subsidiary material emerges in flexible rhythms (Samson [1985], S. 71). Solche und ähnliche Vergleiche zwischen mehr oder weniger verwandten Werken sind an sich sehr aufschlussreich, aber für die Vorbereitung einer Performance nur sehr begrenzt nützlich. Die werkspezifischen Analysen beschäftigen sich schließlich mit den melodischen, harmonischen, rythmischen und strukturellen Eigenschaften eines Stückes. So liefert Samson eine knappe (z.T. auch komparative) Beschreibung der wichtigsten Merkmale der Etüde Op. 25 Nr. 11: Again the left hand has a march-like theme and again the right-hand ›accompaniment‹ combines harmonic and melodic functions in a uniquely formulated and strongly characterised pattern, sweeping across the registers to create a dramatic and powerful counterpoint to the principal theme. It is the most impassioned of the later set, recalling the ›revolutionary‹ study in its heroic tone and its structural breadth (Samson [1985], S. 72). Beschreibungen wie diese sind jedoch viel zu allgemein, um den Zielen dieser Arbeit zu entsprechen. Etwas nützlicher erweist sich ein Satz von Chechlińska über die ungewöhnliche Metrik in der Etüde Op. 25 Nr. 12, in welcher drei Noten lange Motive in Vierergruppen von Sechzehntelnoten wiederholt werden: »The non-congruence of the figures with the metric groups eliminates any possible schematicism and is yet another characteristic sign of the diversification and purposeful ambivalence in Chopin’s music, evident not only in the harmony and the macrostructure, but also in the detail of his work« (Chechlińska [1988], S. 149). Diese Problematik der Metrik in dieser Etüde wird auch von Agmon ausführlich dargelegt: Interestingly, subsequently in the C minor Etude Chopin both contracts and expands the arpeggio figure, and consequently in two cases striking metrical shifts do occur. In bar 7, for example [...], the pattern is contracted from nine (three times three) beats into six (two times three); since the number of intervening durations is now odd (namely five), a syncopated pattern results. Note the ›metric reinterpretation‹, as it were, suggested by Chopin’s downward stems. In bars 15–16 (and elsewhere in the Etude) the pattern is expanded into twelve beats (four times three); again, the number of intervening durations is odd (eleven). Unlike bar 7, however, Chopin descends from the high-point of contour reversal (the twelfth semiquaver of bar 15) all the way back to the point of origin [...]; the total of twenty-two (two times eleven) semiquavers yields a broader syncopated pattern in bars 16–17 [...], containing the Etude’s motivically important turn figure. Finally, the pattern ending the entire Etude, bars 81–3 [...], may be seen as the ultimate contraction of the original arpeggio-pattern into the minimal number of beats, namely three (see also bars 44–6, where the derivation of the ›one-times-three‹ pattern from the original ›three-times-three‹ pattern is made explicit). In this case, however, the number of intervening durations is again even (two), and thus there is no metric shift (syncopation) (Agmon [1997], S. 67–69).
|