chopin prelude #20

[pianistimo]

rolled chord at the end accidentally - but maybe i'll keep it? 

[rach n bach]

Sounds good... certanly how it should. 
The underlying sorrow comes out very nicely.
Just one question, how do you "accidentally" roll a chord?  Did you fall off the bench? 

RnB

[pianistimo]

well, i got to the end - then i saw the chord.  i thought . ..now what do i do with this?

[rach n bach]

You mean to say you sight read that!?!?   

[pianistimo]

yes.

[rachfan]

Hi pianistimo,

For sightreading, you observed all the basics.  I noticed that you play the E flat in the RH at the end of measure 3 per Chopin's change in a pupil's score.  Sometimes on a whim I do likewise; but when I was a kid I learned it with the E natural, and that sound has always remained in my head, so I just personally prefer that.  Pianists tend to fight over that note.
i
First, I would make more of the dynamic levels.  I must admit that I've only played a keyboard once in a showroom several years ago, and have only played accoustic grands.  So I don't really know how much control one has over dynamics with a keyboard--maybe not much.  Line 1 of the piece is ff, the second line p, and the last line pp.  This is meant to be a funeral dirge, where the observer on the curbstone is abreast of the procession as the piece opens, and then it fades as the mourners move off into the distance.  By the way, on your rolled chord, which I know you now perform as a solid chord--I like to redistribute it by taking the midde C written into the RH and give it to the LH.  An octave is super easy for me to play, so it's not a stretch issue at all.  Rather, I find that one can more consistently play the RH and LH chords as a unified sound by using that redistibution of the music between the hands.  You might want to try it and see.  If you hate it, that's ok.

Finally, tempo.  (Hey, have you and I agreed on one yet?  Haha!   )  Well, other than Larghissimo, Largo, of course, is the second slowest tempo in creation.  Again, this is a solemn funeral procession, so the music must sound, well, funerial.  Thus, I'd encourage you to slow it down even more.  I've attached my own recording which I think capture my points in sound.  It might not be your cup of tea, and that's ok too.

[pianistimo]

very interesting - all the things you are telling me.  actually - to tell you the truth - it just sounded good to my ears (and it may have been a sincere misreading of the score - to not play c natural) because it IS in C minor.

ah, well.  someday we will find something to agree on.

[rachfan]

Actually, where you were reading from the Dover, I'd bet that the E flat was notated as such, so you read what you saw there.  But... if you like that sound, stick with it.  I was just brought up on the E natural, so it's a part of me now.

Fear not.  There are 24 of these pieces, so we're bound to agree on something. 

[pianistimo]

actually, the e natural WAS there - i just heard c minor in  my head and just played everying as c minorish.  it's like 'chutzpa!  chopin really said to a student he wanted it there.  well, that proves everything.'  which side are you on, anyways?!  i think you're very sweet.

[rachfan]

Hi pianistimo,

Both the E flat and E natural sound fine and each has their adherants.  Chopin was so changeable!  It might be that while composing he heard the E natural in his "mind's ear" and notated it as such.  After all, on the second beat of that very measure he actually made that preceding E a natural--so why would he necessarily change it back to a flat within the same measure?  Later on, maybe he penciled the flat into the student's score during a lesson in the moment, believing that he had really meant E flat to be consistent with C minor all along.  We'll never know.  It would not suprise me in the least if in his public performances he played it both ways depending on his mood!

To answer your question on whose side I'm on, my response will very much surprise you.  Here goes.  When a composer writes a piece, once it's finished, quite often he or she is off to another project.  If the composer is also a pianist and conductor like Rachmaninoff, Bernstein, Previn, etc. this can happen frequently, especially if the composer doesn't select the work to perform publically in recital.  So it gradually recedes into the composer's background owing to the composer's busy schedule.

The pianist is different.  When a pianist studies and plays that composition for a very long time, he or she gains insights into the piece that the composer may or may not have realized.  In time, the pianist becomes a curator of the piece--a solemn responsibiliy.   I'll boldly add that the pianist sometimes comes to know the piece better than the composer did in creating it.  That is, the pianist discovers potential that was not apparent to the composer originally.  I once heard a recording of Donnanyi, a wonderful composer and pianist extraordinare, playing one of his own pieces--it was obvious to me that he didn't realize the powerful potential of the piece.  (He was one of my teacher's teacher's teachers, so I don't want to be too hard on him, haha!) 

Two of my favorite composers are Rachmaninoff and Ravel.  I've posted many of their works here.  I have Rachmaninoff's recording of his piano transcription of his song "Lilacs", for example.  (My posting of my own rendition is on page 10 here.)   While I enjoy Rachnmaninoff's rendition, it's a tad... well, businesslike.   I infuse it with a more intense romanticism.  If I were to play it for him, if he were still with us, I believe he'd approve that interpretation, although it certainly wouldn't influence his own.  We know that he allowed Horowitz to resynthesize the components of his Sonata No. 2 between the 1913 and the 1931 editions, and even change the ending of the latter, for instance.  And when Perlemuter was studying all of Ravel's piano works with the composer, Ravel imparted suggestions, but did not try to control Perlemuter's interpretations.  A final example: I was in a competition in Boston in my youth.  (I wish I were still in my youth.)  The jury was New England Conservatory of Music piano faculty.  One of the pieces I played was Bach's Prelude and Fugue, No. 2 in Cm in Book I of the WTC.  Despite the score, at the end of the Fugue, I played the final beat adding my own Picardie Third as ornamentation.  Not one eyebrow flew up.  I surmise they must have taken for granted that Bach was all about improvisation, and that if what I did would have been acceptable in 1670, then it should be acceptable in our day too.  They advanced me to the finals. 

So, I believe this: The pianist has a sacred trust in reproducing the composer's intentions by being loyal to the concept and details of the score.  But if the pianist has insights that justify a slightly different and justifiable approach--while not being idiosyncratic, subjective, in bad taste or totally contrary to prevailing performance practices--then the pianist should unhesitatingly present his/her interpretation accordingly.

[pianistimo]

i believe the concept IS the details of the score.  but, agreed - that yellow pencil reproductions are just plain boring.  kudos to you for adding that picardie third, although performers in the renaissance might have liked it even better than the baroque era (with all their stuffiness).  you know - going around with those recorders and just blasting people with happiness at the end of their pieces.