# Repeat in Chopin Sonata no. 2



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

> Ok ...
> 
> Why are people repeating the "Grave" section of Chopin's second sonata? Apparently there are 2 versions, 1 with the repeat marked after the Grave and one without. Slow introductions are almost never repeated in sonata form movements (e.g. Mozart symphonies 36, 38, 39, Beethoven Pathetique, op. 111 (which served as inspiration for the opening of this sonata), symphony 2, trio op 70 no 2, Haydn symphonies 100, 104, etc etc). Harmonically, it makes almost no sense to repeat the "Grave" section (the F in the A-flat13 chord disallows it from resolving to D-flat minor), but it makes perfect sense to repeat from the fast section (giving you a deceptive cadence). Rosen's arguments are nonsensical. So why do people do it?


Can anyone explain this?


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I don't know about the Chopin sonata; I think the sources are conflicted and it may be just an error in the print?
But there is a debate in case of Beethoven's op.13 and I have read both philological and musical arguments for the repeat including the Grave (R. Serkin is the best known pianist who did this). The repeat of the slow beginning is explicitly demanded in Beethoven's op.130. And Harnoncourt and Fey include the (brief) slow intro of Haydn's symphony #85 in the repeat.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Repeating the "Grave" in the Pathetique makes sense as the material and tempo marking come back later in the development and at the end. In Op. 130 it appears in the recapitulation. I don't understand why Harnoncourt / Fey would repeat the intro in Haydn 85, but at the very least it functions harmonically.

Repeating the Grave in the Chopin sonata sounds like a memory slip, to be honest.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

So threads asking you to list your favorite composers for the 100th time reach 22 pages, but a thread asking something of actual substance gets 1 reply?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Both ways sound awkward to me. I think the most plausible way is to play without any repeats. I think it would have been less awkward if there was plausible transition of the A-flat13 chord to the V7 of B flat minor in the beginning just before the fast section.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Explain? No. But it's easy to see why one might get the idea to repeat beginning with the Grave. The exposition ends on the dominant of D-flat, the Grave begins on the note D-flat. Did Chopin have this idea? No clue. Does the repeat as it's usually taken work? Well enough it seems.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

EdwardBast said:


> Explain? No. But it's easy to see why one might get the idea to repeat beginning with the Grave. The exposition ends on the dominant of D-flat, the Grave begins on the note D-flat. Did Chopin have this idea? No clue. Does the repeat as it's usually taken work? Well enough it seems.


The Grave begins with the _chord_ D-flat minor, rendering it harmonically nonsensical to repeat it


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> The Grave begins with the _chord_ D-flat minor, rendering it harmonically nonsensical to repeat it






Btw, it looks like some editions have it in its enharmonic equivalent


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> The Grave begins with the _chord_ D-flat minor, rendering it harmonically nonsensical to repeat it


Eddie has a good point though; 
A-flat13 (dominant of D flat minor) -> D flat minor (i6) -> first inverted D-flat9 (with F as its lowest | 5th augmented) -> V7 of B flat minor. 
It's just that the repeat with the intro sounds like a "bad schoolboy repeat" (a term coined by Bernstein) and the repeat without the intro sounds awkwardly disjointed. So why not play it without any repeats; isn't it what Chopin indicated on the score?


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> Btw, it looks like some editions have it in its enharmonic equivalent


All editions do as for as I know. Doesn't change the sound. Do you know of any dominant 13 chord (with a major 13) resolving to a stable minor chord in tonal music? Seems unlikely.

To your other point: Chopin did indicate a repeat on both editions; on the second edition there is no "start of repeated section" sign


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> All editions do as for as I know. Doesn't change the sound. Do you know of any dominant 13 chord (with a major 13) resolving to a stable minor chord in tonal music? Seems unlikely.
> To your other point: Chopin did indicate a repeat on both editions; on the second edition there is no "start of repeated section" sign


I think you're right (now that I've checked the autograph score). But it is still unclear whether Chopin intended the repeat to be taken with the intro, or without the intro. To me, the bar at the start of the fast section looks more like a double bar than a repeat bar.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Do you know of any dominant 13 chord (with a major 13) resolving to a stable minor chord in tonal music?


I wouldn't necessarily disagree with your point here, but I also wonder if the D flat minor chord in the intro is really a "stable minor chord" by your definition (whatever it is). It is an i6.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> I wouldn't necessarily disagree with your point here, but I also wonder if the D flat minor chord in the intro is really a "stable minor chord" by your definition (whatever it is)? It is an i6.


That's a good point.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> The Grave begins with the _chord_ D-flat minor, rendering it harmonically nonsensical to repeat it


Huh? It makes perfect sense, minor or major. It's certainly a better harmonic resolution than repeating back to B-flat minor, which is just bland and lame.



BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> To your other point: Chopin did indicate a repeat on both editions; *on the second edition there is no "start of repeated section" sign*


That would suggest repeating from the beginning.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

EdwardBast said:


> Huh? It makes perfect sense, minor or major. It's certainly a better harmonic resolution than repeating back to B-flat minor, which is just bland and lame.


Do you know of any precedent for this in functional harmony? V13 -> i6



> That would suggest repeating from the beginning.


That's what I was trying to say.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Do you know of any precedent for this in functional harmony? V13 -> i6
> 
> That's what I was trying to say.


Why would one need a precedent? Harmonically speaking, it's just V-i in D-flat (minor). The "13" isn't a harmonic event, it's an unresolved appoggiatura (calling it a V13 is anachronistic.) Also, the resolution is to a single note in octaves, D-flat, not to a i6. But that's all just trivia.

The main point is that a return to the Grave makes more harmonic sense. It also makes dramatic sense (to me, anyway). I'd be curious to know how great pianists of the past have played it, Rachmaninoff especially, since he played it all the time. Anyone have some info on that?


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I'd suspect many pianists in the first half of the 20th century would have just played without the repeat.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> The main point is that a return to the Grave makes more harmonic sense. It also makes dramatic sense (to me, anyway). I'd be curious to know how great pianists of the past have played it, Rachmaninoff especially, since he played it all the time. Anyone have some info on that?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> I'd be curious to know how great pianists of the past have played it, Rachmaninoff especially


He would have played the A-flat13 chord with one hand.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

EdwardBast said:


> Why would one need a precedent? Harmonically speaking, it's just V-i in D-flat (minor). The "13" isn't a harmonic event, it's an unresolved appoggiatura (calling it a V13 is anachronistic.) Also, the resolution is to a single note in octaves, D-flat, not to a i6. But that's all just trivia.
> 
> The main point is that a return to the Grave makes more harmonic sense. It also makes dramatic sense (to me, anyway). I'd be curious to know how great pianists of the past have played it, Rachmaninoff especially, since he played it all the time. Anyone have some info on that?


You're right about the F being an appoggiatura of course. I didn't intend V13 literally but as a matter of convenience. Still, the fact that it goes unresolved lends credence to its functionality as the V of b-flat minor. If it resolved I'd be more inclined to agree with repeating from the beginning. Besides, how often do you hear the major 3rd as an accented NCT in a minor key? Not very often, if ever.

Regarding the resolution being "to a single note in octaves", that's certainly a reasonable point (especially with Chopin, who commonly suspended the realization of tonality), but in this case I don't think it changes the harmonic progression (V-i).

Admittedly my view on this matter might be a case of first impressions; the recording I was first exposed to (I forget who) repeated from the Doppio Movimento.

But nonetheless I have a hard time hearing the harmonic argument, and an even harder time with the dramatic one. One of my friends brought this topic to my attention since a number of people in this year's Chopin competition were repeating the Grave section, which apparently wasn't as common in past years.

I guess we can only speculate what Chopin truly intended. You guys know what I speculate.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> You're right about the F being an appoggiatura of course. I didn't intend V13 literally but as a matter of convenience. Still, the fact that it goes unresolved lends credence to its functionality as the V of b-flat minor. If it resolved I'd be more inclined to agree with repeating from the beginning. Besides, how often do you hear the major 3rd as an accented NCT in a minor key? Not very often, if ever.


"Functionality as V of Bb minor"? With no leading tone and an Ab in the bass? No, that is clearly wrong. The F sounds exactly like what it is, a non-harmonic tone, the third degree of D-flat major over the dominant of D-flat major. It certainly doesn't sound like the root of a dominant chord in Bb minor.



BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Regarding the resolution being "to a single note in octaves", that's certainly a reasonable point (especially with Chopin, who commonly suspended the realization of tonality), but in this case I don't think it changes the harmonic progression (V-i).


The progression returning to the Grave is indeed V-i, but it's not V-i in Bb minor! The V is the V of Db major. After the tonic resolution to the Db octave, the Fb (spelled as E natural) puts us in Db minor.



BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Admittedly my view on this matter might be a case of first impressions; the recording I was first exposed to (I forget who) repeated from the Doppio Movimento.
> 
> But nonetheless I have a hard time hearing the harmonic argument, *and an even harder time with the dramatic one.* One of my friends brought this topic to my attention since a number of people in this year's Chopin competition were repeating the Grave section, which apparently wasn't as common in past years.
> 
> I guess we can only speculate what Chopin truly intended. You guys know what I speculate.


You haven't heard the dramatic argument yet but that will have to wait til tomorrow. It's sleepy time time here.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

EdwardBast said:


> You haven't heard the dramatic argument yet but that will have to wait til tomorrow. It's sleepy time time here.


I'm excited to hear it!


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I'm excited to hear it!


Chopin's Second Sonata is the first work of which I am aware using the Eastern European variant of sonata form in the first movement. The defining feature of the variant, as described by musicologist Daniel Zhitomirsky, is a structure conceived as a developing opposition between two theme groups, the first dynamic, dramatic, and tense, the second more static and relaxed. Throughout the structure the first theme and its contrast with the second is steadily intensified. The second theme remains in its original relatively relaxed state, as in the recap of Chopin 2, while material of the first is whipped into a frenzy in the development section. In order to maintain the dramatic arc of intensifying contrast, the first theme is never heard in anything like its original form after the exposition. The recapitulation therefore begins with the second theme, material of the first only returning for further intense development in the coda. Later works using this variant include Chopin's Third Sonata, Tchaikovsky's Fourth and Sixth Symphonies, Rachmaninoff's Second Symphony, Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, and Shostakovich's Tenth Symphony.

The return to the Grave for the repeat of the exposition in the Chopin Second is important because it harshly reverses the progress of the exposition, which went from the agitation, tension, and minor mode of the first theme to the more ideal state of the second theme in the relative major. Metaphorically from dark to light. By snapping it back to the minor mode, the repeat of the Grave defines the terms of the conflict. After the second time through the exposition the snap back to minor (Gb minor) at the beginning of the development is even harsher. Thus steadily intensifying contrast and conflict. At the beginning of the development phrases of the first and second themes are alternated but as the section progresses the first theme completely dominates in its most intense transformations. This is followed by the literal recap of the second theme, but even more relaxed now because it is in the tonic major; Once again fulfilling the pattern of steadily intensified contrast. The coda begins with a final snap back to material of the first theme.

So the repeat from the Grave, as we've seen, makes more sense harmonically than returning to the Doppio movimento. It also helps define a systematic dramatic pattern. If one believes the exposition should be repeated, I think both the harmonic and dramatic arguments support repeating the Grave. I'm glad people are doing it that way.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

EdwardBast said:


> Chopin's Second Sonata is the first work of which I am aware using the Eastern European variant of sonata form in the first movement. The defining feature of the variant, as described by musicologist Daniel Zhitomirsky, is a structure conceived as a developing opposition between two theme groups, the first dynamic, dramatic, and tense, the second more static and relaxed. Throughout the structure the first theme and its contrast with the second is steadily intensified. The second theme remains in its original relatively relaxed state, as in the recap of Chopin 2, while material of the first is whipped into a frenzy in the development section. In order to maintain the dramatic arc of intensifying contrast, the first theme is never heard in anything like its original form after the exposition. The recapitulation therefore begins with the second theme, material of the first only returning for further intense development in the coda. Later works using this variant include *Chopin's Third Sonata, Tchaikovsky's Fourth and Sixth Symphonies, Rachmaninoff's Second Symphony, Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, and Shostakovich's Tenth Symphony*.
> 
> The return to the Grave for the repeat of the exposition in the Chopin Second is important because it harshly reverses the progress of the exposition, which went from the agitation, tension, and minor mode of the first theme to the more ideal state of the second theme in the relative major. Metaphorically from dark to light. By snapping it back to the minor mode, the repeat of the Grave defines the terms of the conflict. After the second time through the exposition the snap back to minor (Gb minor) at the beginning of the development is even harsher. Thus steadily intensifying contrast and conflict. At the beginning of the development phrases of the first and second themes are alternated but as the section progresses the first theme completely dominates in its most intense transformations. This is followed by the literal recap of the second theme, but even more relaxed now because it is in the tonic major; Once again fulfilling the pattern of steadily intensified contrast. The coda begins with a final snap back to material of the first theme.
> 
> So the repeat from the Grave, as we've seen, makes more sense harmonically than returning to the Doppio movemento. It also helps define a systematic dramatic pattern. If one believes the exposition should be repeated, I think both the harmonic and dramatic arguments support repeating the Grave. I'm glad people are doing it that way.


Thank you for writing this out. There is a lot I have to say about this, and I need to relisten to the Chopin sonata and some of the other works you mentioned before I respond. I appreciate your input.

But just as an aside, "the defining feature ... is a structure conceived as a developing opposition between two theme groups, the first dynamic, dramatic, and tense, the second more static and relaxed" seems to apply to sonata form in the 19th century at large, no? The form became more about contrast and dialectic, and less about outlining a homogenous tonal movement in the _Hintergrund_ as in Haydn / Mozart. What's so special about Eastern Europe here?

Also, either way of repeating would "snap it back to minor mode" and to an agitated, frenzied character, therein "reversing the progress of the exposition", so I'm not really sure what your point is here.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> But just as an aside, "the defining feature ... is a structure conceived as a developing opposition between two theme groups, the first dynamic, dramatic, and tense, the second more static and relaxed" seems to apply to sonata form in the 19th century at large, no? The form became more about contrast and dialectic, and less about outlining a homogenous tonal movement in the _Hintergrund_ as in Haydn / Mozart. What's so special about Eastern Europe here?


Yes, the form became more about contrast and dialectic and this is reflected in the way sonata form was codified in thematic-schematic terms in the so-called textbook model shortly after the death of Beethoven -- dynamic, striving or conflicted first themes versus idyllic, reflective, or dreamlike second themes. What the textbook model fails to address, however, is that a form based on dialectic requires dramatic forward progress and the sure way to kill a sense of progress is literal repetition. Recapitulations, therefore, particularly the recapitulations of first themes, are inherently problematic for dialectic structures. (Second themes tend to be less problematic because idylls invite revisiting and dreams are wont to recur.) Beethoven's solution in his most dramatic first movements was to drastically alter the recap of the principal theme and to further develop it in an often lengthy coda.

The solution Chopin found in the Second Sonata, and this is true of all the other works I cited as examples of the Eastern European variant, was to take Beethoven's solution to an extreme: Eliminate the recapitulation of the first theme entirely or dovetail part of it into the end of the development.

"What's so special about Eastern Europe here?"

Nothing -- except that all the composers I know who found this particular solution to the recapitulation problem were from countries of that region. The earliest example I know is the Chopin Second Sonata. If you or anyone else knows other examples please let me know.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

I still do not see what any of this has to do with repeating the introduction.

In my opinion, the "Doppio Movimento" provides an even starker and more dramatic contrast than the Grave: in addition to change in key and mode, you also have change in pulse, and a sudden change in dynamic. And I still feel it makes more sense harmonically.

Listen to Pollini do it here:






Contrast with Gadjiev from this year's competition:






It just sounds like a memory slip! (Granted I don't like his interpretation much overall)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Chopin is also very Parisian in tendencies (ie. scherzo in E)


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I still do not see what any of this has to do with repeating the introduction.
> 
> In my opinion, the "Doppio Movimento" provides an even starker and more dramatic contrast than the Grave: in addition to change in key and mode, you also have change in pulse, and a sudden change in dynamic. And I still feel it makes more sense harmonically.
> 
> ...


We're just going to have to disagree on this apparently. I come into this with no bias based on exposure to one repeat over the other. I don't think I had heard it with the exposition repeated either way before this thread. The return to the Doppio movimento just sounds clearly wrong to me -- bad writing if that's what Chopin intended. The return to the Grave is perfect. Moreover, I like Gadjiev's interpretation much better than Pollini's.  Oh well.

Are you sure you aren't biased about the repeat because you heard it that way first?


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

EdwardBast said:


> Are you sure you aren't biased about the repeat because you heard it that way first?


It's entirely possible.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

OK I've changed my mind. The theme from the intro comes back numerous times at the beginning of the development section, so I can see the argument for doing it either way.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> OK I've changed my mind. The theme from the intro comes back numerous times at the beginning of the development section, so I can see the argument for doing it either way.


Lol, btw, look at this. Like the Beethoven and Chopin, the slow introduction is marked "Grave" and the theme from the intro comes back in the fast section numerous times:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8ba5g_jF5M&t=1m44s
www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8ba5g_jF5M&t=3m14s
Would you like the intro in this to be repeated as well?


----------

