Four Scherzos

No.1 in B minor, Op.20

No.2 in B flat minor, Op.31

No.3 in C sharp minor, Op.39

No.4 in E major, Op.54

from 26/9/76

Like Schumann, Chopin wrote only three pianos sonatas and, in spite of his alleged discomfort in large-scale forms, two of them proved to be among the most successful works of their kind. Among the other larger forms he employed, the ballade, which was his own invention, was obviously the most congenial. It was his inspired solution to the great romantic problem - where to find the dramatic or epic form which could be sustained by lyrical material. But he was scarcely less original in his treatment of the scherzo and, in fact, his work in that form was complementary and parallel to his work in ballade form. The first Ballade and the first Scherzo were both conceived in about 1831, and the fourth and last of each was completed in 1842.

It is true, of course, that the background to the Chopin scherzo was quite different: whereas the ballade was new, invented to suit the composer’s lyrical genius, the scherzo was traditional, adapted to make the best of his less abundant but no less intense dramatic gift. Of course, almost as soon as it was established as a valuable item in the symphony or sonata, the scherzo had ceased to be an exclusively jokey or even witty movement. The macabre was becoming almost as common in the scherzo as good humour. But the character of Chopin’s First Scherzo was still so unconventional when Schumann reviewed it that he was moved to make his classic remark that if this is a joke he would like to know what serious music sounds like. When it first came onto the market in this country, the publisher thought it expedient to ignore Chopin’s title and call it “The Infernal Banquet.”

However, Chopin’s attitude to the scherzo developed considerably during the ten years or so between the first and the last. The First, in conventional ternary form, ends in a mood as “bold and stormy” (as Schumann described it) as it begins, in spite of the intervention of the Polish Christmas song “Sleep, Baby Jesus” as the basis of a serenely lyrical middle section in the relative major.

The Second Scherzo - completed five years after the First and two years before the Third - remains close to the former in shape but has more in common temperamentally with the last two. The threatening introductory gestures are ominously reminiscent of the First Scherzo, but in this case the relative major makes an early impression in the lyrical second subject. A development extends the A major middle section but there is still nothing to suggest that the scherzo will not end in the same B flat minor mood as it began. However, on its recapitulation, the lyrical second subject proves strong enough to bring about a D flat major ending, in spite of powerful opposition.

The Third Scherzo represents another advance. Even though, to begin with, it is recognisably related by temperament to the B minor, it later achieves a radiance which is not so very distant from the mood of the Fourth Scherzo in E major. After the passionate first section in C sharp minor, and in anticipation of the conventional ternary form, the ear easily accepts the D flat chorale (with its quiet cascades of quavers at the end of each line) as the contrasting major-key middle section. In fact, the opening section is only briefly recalled and the chorale makes a long reappearance in E major before the final acceleration into the coda and the not obviously predictable C sharp minor ending.

The Fourth Scherzo, in the bright key of E major, is good-humoured, capricious and unpredictable. Basically, it is in the ternary form of the conventional scherzo, with quick outer section and a slow trio section in the middle in the relative minor, the theme of which is recalled before the precipitous coda. But there is a remarkable flexibility of form, allowing for a combination of sonata form (with second subject and development) with ternary scherzo form. There is also a new purity in the piano writing, with the simple two-part texture of the trio section so very different from the richly scored middles of the earlier scherzos.

No.1 in B minor, Op.20

No.2 in B flat minor, Op.31

No.3 in C sharp minor, Op.39

No.4 in E major, Op.54

Chopin’s work in scherzo form was complementary and parallel to his work in ballade form. The first Ballade and the first Scherzo were both written in about 1835 and - after what seems like far more than a seven years of development in style and temper­ament - the fourth and last of each set was completed in 1842. It is true that, whereas the ballade was something he more or less invented, the scherzo had a long history and had already developed something of the macabre element which is such a prominent feature of Chopin’s treatment of the form.

Even so, the demonic character of his First Scherzo in B minor was still so unconventional that Schumann was moved by it to make his classic remark that if this is a joke he would like to know what serious music sounds like. When it first came onto the market in this country the Chopin’s British publisher thought it expedient to ignore the composer’s title and call it “The Infernal Banquet.” In conventional ternary form, it ends in a mood as “bold and stormy” (in Schumann’s words) as it began. The intervention of the Polish Christmas song, “Sleep, Baby Jesus,” as the basis of a serenely lyrical middle section in the relative major, has no influence on the emotional outcome.

Although it would be a further six years before Chopin could approach the scherzo in the playful mood traditional to it, the Scherzo No.2 in B flat minor is nowhere near as demonic as its predecessor in B minor. Written in 1837, five years after the First Scherzo, it begins with fiendishly threatening gestures ominously reminiscent of the earlier work. But in this case the relative major makes an early impression as a melodious second subject, its aspiring line carried high in the right hand over impulsive arpeggios in the left. The lyrical middle section, moreover, instead of being hermetically sealed off from the rest of the work like that of the Scherzo in B minor, integrates with it by absorbing a variant of the opening gesture into its contrapuntal texture. While this gives the demonic element an opportunity to return, by shaping the variant motif back to its original form, it also means that major-key ambitions are more realistic here than in the earlier work. So, although the demonic gesture is recalled once again after the recapitulation, D flat major most convincingly triumphs over B flat minor opposition in the final bars.

The beginning of the Third Scherzo in C sharp minor - which was written during the composer’s unhappy visit to Majorca with George Sand in 1839 - is recognisably related in temperament to the First in B minor. Before the end, however, it achieves a radiance not so very far from the happy mood of the Fourth in E major, which he was to write three years later. After the passionate first section in C sharp minor, in anticipation of the conventional ternary form the ear easily accepts the D flat chorale (with its quiet cascades of quavers at the end of each line) as the contrasting major-key middle section. In fact, the opening section is only briefly recalled and the chorale makes a long and mostly radiant reappearance in E major before the final acceleration into the coda and the not obviously predictable C sharp minor ending.

Intolerable though he considered life in George Sand’s manor house to be - and as her children grew up his situation there became all the more uncomfortable - it was at Nohant that, in the summer of 1842, Chopin started work on a scherzo remarkable for the evidence it offers of a settled, happy and even playful state of mind. Certainly, in comparison with its three more or less demonic predecessors, all in minor keys, the Scherzo in E major is a serene and radiant inspiration. The pìu lento middle section in C sharp minor might be taken as a suggestion that the emotional reality is not so cheerful or it might, on the other hand, be no more than a professionally calculated contrast. And, on the return of the E major material, do those new details in harmony and colouring add a touch of petulance to the prevailing capriciousness?

Gerald Larner©2002