Chopin etude 25/2, too easy or are we doing something wrong?

[gyzzzmo]

First, good afternoon everybody!

About the etude, every time i play it i have something like, `this etude is far too simple, are we supposed to play it differently?'
Most editions say it's in 2/4, but has anybody tried playing it in 4/4? I tried playing it like this, thus giving every first note of the RIGHT hand triol an accent. Its splitting my brains up, but at least i have the idea that this way the etude is actually hard 

Any opinions?

Gyzzzmo

[Kassaa]

Nah play it on the left hand, not the right hand. Left hand is the melody, right hand is less important. You can play it with less pedal maybe and use more finger legato to make it harder, and otherwise play the right hand in octaves.

[gyzzzmo]

I know the left hand is generally considered as the leading hand in this piece, but that makes the piece so dead simple. Also, it doesnt seem to have the 'educational effect' as the other chopin etudes have. Thats why i was thinking about playing this piece differently than people normally do.

gyzzz

[sharon_f]

Besides the quick close fingerwork of this etude, another "educational effect" of this etude is the cross rhythms.

[counterpoint]

Wow, that's a good example for head bopping too 

Yes I play 4/4 with accents on every first of the triplets of the right hand. It sounds completely different. Otherwise this etude would be rather boring.

[michael_langlois]

Any opinions?

Gyzzzmo

It is an étude in perpetual motion, à la the fourth movement of the op. 35 sonata, though here it bubbles up at m. 43, rather than at the end.  It challenges  one to think harmonically and in grander gestures, rather than melodically.  Like many of the études, the challenge lies in achievement of a very specific sound.  Unlike many of the études, there is the additional challenge of playing the entire piece as one phrase, which is what Chopin has uniquely indicated here.  Furthermore, I believe it is wrong to treat it as in four because the writing, regardless of time signature, clearly reveals two beats per measure (one, perhaps), and it would be contrary to the musical intention to further divide it metrically.

Best,

ML

[michael_langlois]

Besides the quick close fingerwork of this etude, another "educational effect" of this etude is the cross rhythms.

What cross rhythms?

[gyzzzmo]

What cross rhythms?

Yeah, i didnt understand that reply either. As far as i know its pretty much 'go with the flow'. Only if you would play 4/4 you would get cross rhythms i gues...

[sharon_f]

What cross rhythms?

The right hand has four groups of eighth note triplets against two groups of quarter note triplets in the left hand.

[gyzzzmo]

The right hand has four groups of eighth note triplets against two groups of quarter note triplets in the left hand.

Yeah, but people dont play the right hand as triplets (rhythmicly seen), thats pretty much the point of my post :p

gyzzz

[sharon_f]

Yes, we are both making the same point. Even if the meter is 2/4 you have triplets in the right hand, so the pulse is 123, 123, 123, 123 not 12,3,4,5,6. The accents in each hand fall in different places and only line up twice in each measure. It is a very subtle but very important cross-rhythm. That's what makes it so difficult to play correctly. Many people play it incorrectly.

[michael_langlois]

Yes, we are both making the same point. Even if the meter is 2/4 you have triplets in the right hand, so the pulse is 123, 123, 123, 123 not 12,3,4,5,6. The accents in each hand fall in different places and only line up twice in each measure. It is a very subtle but very important cross-rhythm. That's what makes it so difficult to play correctly. Many people play it incorrectly.

Yes, but my point is that there should not be accents in the right hand - the eighth note triplets are only a notational incidence.  In other words, the meter is basically six (marked as cut time in order to stress the duple feel) with running eighth notes in the RH.  There may be a subtle accent on the first metrical beat and one still subtler on the second, but since that the piece is in cut time and must flow very rapidly, there is a rhythmical and temporal problem if accents are played on the eighth note triplets.

I agree with you that there is a bit of a cross-rhythm that can be perceived in the notation, but not in the music itself, as it is to be played.

[sharon_f]

Cortot's take on the cross rhythms in this etude.

[marik]

First, good afternoon everybody!

About the etude, every time i play it i have something like, `this etude is far too simple, are we supposed to play it differently?'
Most editions say it's in 2/4, but has anybody tried playing it in 4/4? I tried playing it like this, thus giving every first note of the RIGHT hand triol an accent. Its splitting my brains up, but at least i have the idea that this way the etude is actually hard 

If you look at the score could you tell what Mr. Chopin has written for the R.H.?--are those triplets or duplets? Hopefully it will give you an explicit answer as for how to play it.
And we all know that "easy/hard" part is a relative concept.

Best, M

[michael_langlois]

Cortot's take on the cross rhythms in this etude.

I disagree.  The pairs of triplets could as well have been written as sextuplets, and the character of the study, which requires that there is no disruption of the fluidity via "cross-rhythm," supports this.  Examine, for example, the first measures of the study, during which the right hand gesture is clearly (at the most minute level) in groups of two, which correspond to the quarter-triplets in the left.  And though I prefer to use the score first, which I have, I must also direct your attention to recordings which have been made, none of which highlight this so-called cross rhythm.  Moreover, in Cortot's particular example, there is absolutely no reason that the rhythm should be divided in such a way, on account of the impulse on beat which leads into beat two, with a quarter pick-up (in both hands!) into the next measure.  The fact that Chopin has written triplets rather than sextuplets is nothing more than a notational formality.

Best,

ML