rachmaninoff etude tableaux op 39 no. 5 (UpDATED version, true)

[rob47]

edit: upon further review i dont know which one is preferable

http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,25252.msg285038.html#msg285038

[pianistimo]

i think you're pretty good.  what does koji say?  you don't sound nervous.  i like how you change 'temperaments' within the piece.  that middle voice is untuned.  but, somehow i like the low bass.  i'd just tune the middle up a bit.

[pianowolfi]

I could listen to this the wole evening err.. I mean morning for it's 1 a.m here  Anyway I love this etude and I like very much how you play it. Yeah well I really can't say anything negative about this. It's true Rachmaninoff

[rob47]

grazie mille for the nice words from both of u 

my piano was tuned 2 days ago, and as for:

what does koji say?

he recently has retired from the internet and its tomfoolery

PEACE

[rob47]

added a different version with more right notes and like 25 seconds longer and a way better climax possibly

the mic was pointed a bit towards the bass but its not that notoiceable

now you can pull a Dubal and "Reflect from the Keyboard" on these 2 performances

[jakev2.0]

I dig your playing, man. You make your fellow Canadians on here proud! 

[JP]

The JP approves of this rec!

Nice job.

[rob47]

thank jake n jp

you are both true

[pianistimo]

now, the middle voice is tuned just like the treble.  gotta get that tech to do  a mean tuning.  the bass is soooo cool.  i just want to hear the middle voice now slightly (ever so slightly flatter).  you know - that perfect setting - when you actually hear a tenor singing in his most comfortable voice.  i'm hearing the bass and higher treble fantastically.

btw, the lower tenor is great!  it's just like 5 -6 notes from B (under C) to A.  alto voice, i guess.

[rob47]

cool

actually after lisetniing a bit i think tha first one is a more coherent perf maybe just has some legendary misses maybe i should record it a third time

[jlh]

added a different version with more right notes and like 25 seconds longer and a way better climax possibly

the mic was pointed a bit towards the bass but its not that notoiceable

now you can pull a Dubal and "Reflect from the Keyboard" on these 2 performances

I like this one better -- sounds less rushed and you're using time more efficiently to build your climaxes.  One thing I would suggest (beyond more clarity from the mic) and that is at 2:57 at the big climax.  Could you make us anticipate that highest RH chord a bit more?  Just a split second more would make a big difference.

[rob47]

i could!

thanks for listening and ya both of them are still a bit rushed it seems judging by their timings compared with almost every other recording of this piece

[jlh]

just as a rule of thumb, the bigger the climax, the more allargando and louder and desperate it needs to be.  That goes for the smaller ones as well.  I've spoken with Russian musicians who have told me to go visit Russia, because they say I will play Russian music differently after a visit there.  You sound like you're on the right track with this one -- not quite there yet, but on the right track.  Good work!

Josh

[jlh]

i could!

thanks for listening and ya both of them are still a bit rushed it seems judging by their timings compared with almost every other recording of this piece

true dat... One recording I really love is Lugansky's, and he plays it a full 2 minutes longer than you do... lol

Much of the time is taken in the middle section, which is considerably softer and played more freely than you allow it.  It is full of introspect, so allow yourself to bathe in the sonorities...

[quantum]

Thiz rec getz da Quantum zeal of approval. True.

I like the second recording, with the more intense contrasts. 

Randomly, u in da tee dot?

[mikey6]

Based on da second version-
A general observation, It seems alot more RH orientated to me (although this gets better after the clmia).  There's a lot of voice leading in the inner parts that I don't hear - you bring out the tenor voice where he's marked it, but every chord and harmony has to resolve or lead to it's corresponding note in the next harmony - voice leading pretty much.
As for the actual quality of sound, can you somehow sit the RH accompaniment on top of the LH, again, it sounds very RH - you could get a richer sound this way I think.  (then again it might be the recording, but you said the mic was aimed towards the bass and I miss a sonorous bass sometimes...)
Some quick specific points, you could take more time at the fff climax a few bars after tempo 1, it's the high point - remember Rachmaninoff in his own playing always looked for 1 specific highpoint, think you could make more of a gesture out of it.
After that, the f-gb-eg repeated part (sorry dun have bar numbers), the link back into the dolce didn't quite work for me.  It's odd that increases the note durations but wants to draw back the intensity I think (the next bar is dolce).  Can you somehow release all the energy to let it flow into the next bar.

[rob47]

Thiz rec getz da Quantum zeal of approval. True.

I like the second recording, with the more intense contrasts. 

Randomly, u in da tee dot?

hahah the contrasts! respect! my original post said i buckled under the pressure of recording for pianostreet and i was unhappy with this and i roxor quite a bit more in live perfs but this was all i had (and some other excuses i dont rememebr).........but thanks a lot true i am from tha T dot.
u haff probably seen me smoking at the rcm peace

@ mikey6 mazz repzec for the detailed response i appreciate the help!!

truee

[rachfan]

Hi Rob,

Overall I believe this second rendition has come a long way beyond your first recording.  This is much to commend here.   Of course, we as pianists are never "done" with a piece.  We invariably find new insights and possibilities in any piece of music, even if we play it for a lifetime.  So yes, we can always find something to reinterpret or improve somehow.   

You certainly have a greater overarching artistic concept of the piece now, and your execution displays both a fine technique and much expressiveness--a potent combination.  This Op. 39, No. 5 is my favorite of all the Etudes.  I have it on my own "repertoire to do list", but have not yet tackled it, although I have read through it a few times. 

There is only one thing that jars me in your recording.  It's that final sforzando E flat octave.  Looking back to page 6 starting at dolce, the piece, despite its earlier turbulent hyper-romantic theme, becomes instead anticlimactic, reflective and introspective.  This section is like a long, extended coda, fading away in the last two measures down to pp dynamic with a very thin texture of writing, a whole note in the RH and a quiet rocking arpeggiated figuration in the LH.  I have the MCA edition edited by Alfred Mirovitch, but based on Rachmaninoff's own meticulous editing.  (I like this edition because it includes the two etudes discovered in Moscow in 1947, Op. 33, No. 4 and Op. 39, No. 6.  This was the first edition to include them.)  At any rate, that loud octave with which you end the etude is not indicated in this particular edition.  Then I checked the Kalmus edition--it doesn't appear there either.  Nor have I ever heard it before in any other recording.  Does your edition show otherwise?  If not, I would suggest that you think about  eliminating it.  In my opinion it's a jolt that drastically shatters the soft, sensuous spell that is cast as the piece winds down in a state of relaxed afterglow.  It just seems so incongruous.  If you were to include it in performance for a jury, audition, competition, or recital, I think it would raise some eyebrows.  Again, though, overall I'm quite impressed with your performance.       

[rob47]

rachfan thanks for the encouraging comments

the sfz octave at the end of the first recording was just an unfortunate frustration octave becuase i was like "Eff this!"

[rachfan]

Hey Rob,

LOL!!!