How difficult is Chopin op 25 2 etude?

[nyiregyhazi]

In summary, your argument is that everyone hears as you do, and that anyone who doesn't is (a) lying, (b) delusional, (c) unduly influenced by preconceptions or (d) trying too hard just to be contrary.

Grow up.

It's childish to call bullshit on someone who claims to have ability to distinguish things objectively, when the reality is based on subjectivity? It's no use pulling the everyone's different card when your whole argument was based on purported objectivity of your hearing, sorry, where the reality is based on subjective and individual factors. I never said everyone hears as I do. I said that ears do not divine secret hidden complexity out of normally aligned notes (as you think yours do) unless it's either severely emphasised by accent or already expected for separate reasons.

Given that you offered no evidence to make us think you are picking up any objective or definable difference between the performances you gave as an example of 2 vs 3, clearly one of the above is spot-on.

I'll happily post two recordings of the Rachmaninoff passage, one felt by me in 3 and the other in 4. You can tell me which is which based on your objective powers- given that you are so sure they are indeed objective (rather than an interpretation of suggestions, that may or may not be accurate).

[lazyfingers]

Obviously you've never heard the A flat waltz then. Because that's exactly what happens and that doesn't make it triplets there. It's an emphasised off-beat.

I have to give up here because in the A flat Op 10, Chopin actually wrote the accent on the third crochet, and therefore is in a totally different context. Chopin never wrote the accents in Op 25/2 in the first few bars, and then wrote the quavers as triplets. Anybody familiar with music theory will know to accent the first note of the groups, to varying degrees depending on the beat, in the absence of explicit overriding instructions like explicit accents.

I can only presume you mean the op 10, because Chopin wrote 5 different A flat waltzes that were not destroyed. If not, then please show which A flat waltz that had triplets that had an off-beat accent without markings.

We are referring to the triplets written by Chopin in Op 25 No. 2 which even your proffered example of playing sans triplets, Cortot, advised practising as triplets, which Cortot explicitly marked with accents.

You are just arguing for arguing sake and bringing in other things that are not even related. As far as I know, Chopin never wrote the Op 25 No 2 with duplet timing, unlike that of Op 10.

As a summary, I have to agree with jmenz that your argument boils down to a masquerading of subjectivity (i.e. yours) as objectivity. And that the piece was intended that way because you hear it that way.

[nyiregyhazi]

I have to give up here because in the A flat Op 10, Chopin actually wrote the accent on the third crochet, and therefore is in a totally different context. Chopin never wrote the accents in Op 25/2 in the first few bars, and then wrote the quavers as triplets. Anybody familiar with music theory will know to accent the first note of the groups, to varying degrees depending on the beat, in the absence of explicit overriding instructions like explicit accents.

I wasn't talking about the notation. I was talking about what can be observed aurally. Why would one type of accent suggest an off-beat syncopation among 3 2s and the other suggest two triplets with the emphasis on a new triplet? There's no rational reason why a listener would divine any of these differences by listening. And you've obviously forgotten that you had suggested that an emphasis might automatically signify r.h. triplets. I said:

Show me evidence of anyone accurately distinguishing between 2s and 3s based on impartial hearing alone and I'll listen.

and you replied.

But you did. You can distinguish the accented Cs in Pollini's playing.

What I perceived was an accented off-beat within 2s, exactly like what my ears perceive in the waltz (which it shares identical grouping and patterns of accentuation with). To hear it as triplets, I'd have to either be shutting out the left hand or perceving TWO different off-beat notes among the left, against the right hand rhythm. I still don't hear Pollini as triplets, but as a pianist who accents an off-beat in an otherwise ordinary rhythm- regardless of what he himself felt while performing. My ears don't leap to assumptions of such complexity and I consider it highly improbable that anyone could prove that this would be their first assumption in a test of blind listening. Listening blind, with no score, there's no definitive distinction between the pattern of the etude and that of the waltz. It's a subjective issue of how you interpret hearing of an identical pattern of emphasis, in the executions. Personally, my ears interpret it in more obvious way (with one right hand syncopation, rather than two left hand syncopations), in both cases. In one case they're right and the other they're wrong, compared to the score- but the sound simply doesn't carry the distinction between the possibilities in any objective way.

How about if Pollini played it twice- once feeling an off-beat accent and the other time doing an identical accenting pattern based on two triplets. Do you think you'd know which is which? I sure don't think you would. It's a very subjective issue and there may not even be a way to signify the difference aurally in a subjective manner, never mind an objective one that will eliminate listener's subjectivity. The ears simply make their own interpretation of what is available to them. The performance does not inherently convey which pattern is which.  

We are referring to the triplets written by Chopin in Op 25 No. 2 which even your proffered example of playing sans triplets, Cortot, advised practising as triplets, which Cortot explicitly marked with accents.

So? Why would they sound any more like triplets here (rather than off-beats against a prevailing left hand rhythm) when they do not sound like triplets in the waltz? You need to stop thinking so much about the score and consider what aural information can actually convey to an ear that has no expectation. Whatever the performer feels, a listener doesn't generally assume outrageous complexity when there's a simpler explanation that fits perfectly- unless you know the score has something different.

You are just arguing for arguing sake and bringing in other things that are not even related. As far as I know, Chopin never wrote the Op 25 No 2 with duplet timing, unlike that of Op 10.

So, an identical pattern of coincidences between the hands and accentuation, which fails to suggest a triplet rhythm is "unrelated" to your assertion that the very same accenting pattern automatically suggested triplet to me in Pollini's recording? I'm afraid I see a notable link, even if you don't wish to consider it. I don't hear either as suggesting triplets, whether Pollini did or not. That's because hearing is so subjective- and not a psychic link to either performer or score.

As a summary, I have to agree with jmenz that your argument boils down to a masquerading of subjectivity (i.e. yours) as objectivity. And that the piece was intended that way because you hear it that way.

That's plain silliness. My points are these:

1. People who think they hear all rhythms obectively are mistaken. Rhythm can easily be misinterpreted and complexity is much easier to hear when you expect it. Anyone who displays bravado about pieces where they know the score needs to have the humility to try blind listening and see how accurate they really are.

2. A listener without assumption does not assume outrageous complexity, if what they hear has a simpler explanation that also fits. It's the reason why nobody hears the second movement of Rach 2 as triplets unless they know the score. And also why nobody hears notated groups of 4 elsewhere and wonders if they might secretly be triplets, as in the Rachmaninoff. The more complex the actual rhythm (and the more it contradicts the phrase groupings), the more accenting is required for complexity to be heard. But even then, an accent does not automatically denote a beat- as evidenced by the identical accenting patterns of the waltz, which does not feature the triplets of the Etude but rather an off-beat accent.

Conversely, J Menz believes that anyone who doesn't hear triplets where he does has faulty hearing- rather than a different subjective viewpoint of aural information that, in itself, contains too little concrete information to definitively inform an impartial ear of precisely what is on the score.

And I'm the one who thinks I hear objectively, you claim? My hearing is spectacularly subjective. I'm the one who doesn't lie to myself that it's objective or that it automatically corresponds with what the performer is thinking. You know, there's a passage in the Liszt sonata where I always feel the beat location when playing it. When I hear my own recording, my ear automatically moves perception of the beat to a quaver out of whack. I never follow the beats that I executed, when acting as the listener myself. That's quite how subjective my hearing is. I felt the accents as off-beat syncopations in performance, but when listening to myself, my ear incorrectly takes those accents for beats.

You couldn't have misread the situation more, if you're trying to turn the tables on who is actually arguing subjectivity and who is trying to claim objectivity of listening. Sound doesn't carry enough objective information for anyone to reliably guess complexities by ear alone. It carries enough for a listener to make their best subjective estimate. In cases of complexity, that best estimate may often be different to what the performer was feeling.

[lazyfingers]

I wasn't talking about the notation. I was talking about what can be observed aurally. Why would one type of accent suggest an off-beat syncopation among 3 2s and the other suggest two triplets with the emphasis on a new triplet?

But apparently some of us CAN hear the difference between natural accents within triplets in 4/4 time and explicitly marked accents. I suggest you ask yourself why Chopin wrote triplets if he didn't mean triplets.

What I perceived was an accented off-beat within 2s, exactly like what my ears perceive in the waltz (which it shares identical grouping and patterns of accentuation with). To hear it as triplets, I'd have to either be shutting out the left hand or perceving TWO different off-beat notes among the left, against the right hand rhythm.

Just play triplets on your piano and then get use to the sound. Triplets just sound like:
ONE two three FOUR five six. (with FOUR less loud then ONE).

Those ARE the beats, because they are regular. You claim you can hear them but then get carried away with the LH beat. So, your hearing apparently is dominated by the LH. And wish to say that the RH is simply off-beat. Whatever man - they are triplets in the RH because they are regular. Also, the LH isn't giving off a beat for you to call, They are also triplets, and counting in the same space would sound like.
ONE ... three.... five....

It is just your hearing that makes the LH
ONE.... THREE... FIVE....

and so establishes in YOUR mind that those on the top are duplet quavers. Precisely what Chopin didn't write.

Conversely, J Menz believes that anyone who doesn't hear triplets where he does has faulty hearing- rather than a different subjective viewpoint of aural information that, in itself, contains too little concrete information to definitively inform an impartial ear of precisely what is on the score.

So, far you haven't provided any concrete evidence of anything. All you claim is you can't hear it. What about addressing the practise guide of Cortot's where he explicit gave advice to practise as a triplets complete with explicit accents on each third group, and also his specific advice:

When performing this Study, this accent should of course be softer, more blended, and it should be heard only as the audible expression of an inner rhythmical feeling without impairing the melodic outline.

And I'm the one who thinks I hear objectively, you claim? My hearing is spectacularly subjective. I'm the one who doesn't lie to myself that it's objective or that it automatically corresponds with what the performer is thinking.

Our point is that just because you yourself don't hear the triplets, doesn't make it non-triplets.

You claim that one cannot interpret them as triplets on the mere hearing it. But at the same time you claim to hear Pollini's Cs. But then you explicit claim them to be offbeat rather than as triplets - when is of course the simpler explanation and Occam's Razor would suggest to be the more probable answer.

And then you bring up the straw man of what the performer is thinking. It is what Chopin's intention was that was the subject matter.

But the long and short of it was that you claim that Cortot didn't play the triplets, whereas I produced evidence that he actually advised playing them as such. So, my conclusion is that you simply cannot hear it and then building your case on that alone.

Ask yourself why a composer of such pre-eminence as Chopin would write it in 4/4 time with triplets and not 6/4 time with duplets, if he did not expect there to be an audible difference. He wrote it that way because there IS a difference, notwithstanding the many interpreters who choose to play otherwise, but someone like Cortot would appreciate.

[nyiregyhazi]

But apparently some of us CAN hear the difference between natural accents within triplets in 4/4 time and explicitly marked accents. I suggest you ask yourself why Chopin wrote triplets if he didn't mean triplets.

That's been asserted. Not proven to be anything other than a case of seeing what the score says and deciding the performance must reflect that. The only way to prove that is to correctly deduce what variety of performers are thinking, based on sound alone.

You're intent on moving the goalposts, but I'm not going to get involved in idealism based discussions here. My goalposts remain solely on the issue of whether it's OBJECTIVELY POSSIBLE to distinguish accurately through sound alone that a complex rhythm has been notated, rather than a direct equivalent that is actually simpler- without having any prior knowledge of the score. You and J Menz insist it is. I remind you that it's an extremely subjective issue of how an individual brain interprets the information given to it. Even a hard accent can be interpreted differently- as either a beat or an off-beat syncopation. In lieu of accentuation, it's doubtful as to whether there's any way to deduce anything triplets all. The ear can only assume- and, when the score has not created existing expectations, it usually assumes the most obvious explanation available.

Just play triplets on your piano and then get use to the sound. Triplets just sound like:
ONE two three FOUR five six. (with FOUR less loud then ONE).


Those ARE the beats, because they are regular.

So the waltz is therefore in 2/4? The conclusion is not valid. It fits all the criteria, other than where the beats really are. I wouldn't even need to do a single r.h. emphasis other than one and four because the left makes a listener without expectation hear 3 in a bar, not 2. A left hand pulse is established in the ear before the right hand even gets to the 2nd accent. Only blurring the left to the point of inaudibility allows the listener to hear rh triplets first, except where they expect that.

So, far you haven't provided any concrete evidence of anything. All you claim is you can't hear it. What about addressing the practise guide of Cortot's where he explicit gave advice to practise as a triplets complete with explicit accents on each third group, and also his specific advice:Our point is that just because you yourself don't hear the triplets, doesn't make it non-triplets.

How about the fact that Cortot doesn't accent a single C in the first bar? So it doesn't even fit your accentuation pattern. So, given that the intervallic writing suggests pairs of 2nds and the left hand suggests confirmation, why on earth would your ear hear triplets that are not even marked by accent? All the aural information points at 2s. Yet you hear threes? And it's supposedly nothing to do with the fact you already saw the score? The aural information does not carry anything that would make an impartial ear draw such a bizzarely complex conclusion, from the sound itself. Anyone who thinks they just divine something so unusual and improbable, without so much as accentuation of triplets, is kidding themself. You are getting it from expectation of something, not hearing something in the sound (that nobody can even define) as a basis for identification.

You claim that one cannot interpret them as triplets on the mere hearing it. But at the same time you claim to hear Pollini's Cs. But then you explicit claim them to be offbeat rather than as triplets - when is of course the simpler explanation and Occam's Razor would suggest to be the more probable answer.

Precisely. Subjective listening tends to draw simpler conclusions, except where a listener is trying to hear the sounds in a particular way based on existing knowledge.

And then you bring up the straw man of what the performer is thinking. It is what Chopin's intention was that was the subject matter.

That's the third time you've incorrectly used the word strawman. Can you please look it up before using the word wrongly yet again?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I have not attributed anything to you. I have spoken of a relevant aspect of how the sound gets to the listener. You don't think it's relevant as to what a performer thinks? Are you serious? So everything in the score should be objectively audible to a listener, regardless of what the performer was thinking? It just automatically comes across, regardless? No, it doesn't, so it's a primary issue. I've defined my subjective matter as being about whether it is possible to CONVEY the specific thing that Chopin wrote in sound, to the point where a listener without expectation can know.  If you want to change the subject then by all means argue with someone else on that basis, but I'm writing on a specific issue- not debating you on idealism.

But the long and short of it was that you claim that Cortot didn't play the triplets, whereas I produced evidence that he actually advised playing them as such.

We have his recording with unaccented Cs. You're trying to prove the emperor isn't naked in reference to a statement from his tailor.

If you seriously believe you are dealing in objective issues, rather than subjective ones, I suggest the following exercise:

Record yourself playing a few bars of the waltz, first with its own accentuation pattern and then with that of the etude. Then do both versions with the Etude too. Then listen back in a random order. And see if even you yourself have any idea which is which or whether your own ears automatically hear them as you had intended them. Do you think an impartial listener could tell which is which?

The only way for that to be even faintly possible is with extremely pronounced accentuation, to try to FORCE an ear to hear the performer did, rather than as it seems most natural to hear it. Given that Cortot doesn't accent any Cs, what is telling you about these supposed triplets- other than such secondary issues as his word for it and the what the score says? There's certainly nothing about the sound that's informing you of triplets- because it doesn't correspond to triplet accentuation and not a single other thing would point to triplets (if you didn't already have the convenient head start of knowing the score).

[nyiregyhazi]

Also, please detail whether each of these are grounded in 2s or 3s. You have a very useful head start here, in that you can look at what J menz wrote- just as you already know what the score says. However, given that you assert these to be objective issues, please state whether each is in triplets or not and what your basis for identification is. If the two of you did this for ten or fifteen performances without seeing each other's answers, I'd be willing to bet that the level of correlation about this supposedly objective issue would be on a par to that expected from completely randomised answers.

[awesom_o]

Although there is much to be admired in Lisitsa's performance, Yeol Eum Son's strikes me as being more musical. Lisitsa doesn't give the LH the attention it deserves. Son plays with great detail, without any trace of self-indulgence. Lisitsa seems so fearful of sounding self-indulgent, that she skips over musical detail at near lightning speed. Since when does 'presto' mean 'rush'?

[nyiregyhazi]

What's your view on the cross-rhythm though? I'd be interested in whether you went to trouble to feel a complex rhythm or just kept it simple. I find that it's interesting practise exercise to attempt to feel triplets with off-beat l.h. syncopation, although I don't see any reason to bother with such a thing in performance- given how unlikely it is that anyone can even tell.

[awesom_o]

Listen to my recording, and you'll hear my view! 

[nyiregyhazi]

Listen to my recording, and you'll hear my view! 

It all depends how you listen to a recording though. Other than pollini with his accented cs, virtually all recordings have no hint of a triplet, to anyone who isn't looking for one.

[lazyfingers]

How about the fact that Cortot doesn't accent a single C in the first bar?

Based on what? Because you personally can't hear it?

In fact the objective evidence is to look at Cortot's practice guide where he does recommend playing the accents on the triplets. This is what Cortot wrote: When performing this Study, this accent should of course be softer, more blended, and it should be heard only as the audible expression of an inner rhythmical feeling without impairing the melodic outline.

Surely, Cortot's practice guides gives a better objective view as to his intent. Whether you can hear the accents or not depends on the acuteness of your hearing.

That's the third time you've incorrectly used the word strawman. Can you please look it up before using the word wrongly yet again?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

No. It is actually correctly used. You built a strawman when you introduced what the performer was thinking. Actually, nobody can ascertain what someone else is thinking unless (s)he has ESP. In other words, you are replacing the original proposition with an entirely different one. Here is what you wrote

I'm the one who doesn't lie to myself that it's objective or that it automatically corresponds with what the performer is thinking.

It doesn't matter what performers think, really, for the purposes of this discussion as there are lots of performers interpreting this in a variety of ways, as the ample video links show. The real proposition is what Chopin intended.

Your primary proposition is that Chopin didn't intend triplets because you can't hear them, or that different performers might interpret differently. But the real proposition is whether Chopin intended them to be triplets. Surely, the composer's intent is all that matters here.

[nyiregyhazi]

Based on what? Because you personally can't hear it?

In fact the objective evidence is to look at Cortot's practice guide where he does recommend playing the accents on the triplets. This is what Cortot wrote: When performing this Study, this accent should of course be softer, more blended, and it should be heard only as the audible expression of an inner rhythmical feeling without impairing the melodic outline.

You already told me about the statement from the emperor's tailor. I'm not interested in the external. Tell me what your basis for identification is in your own ears. You've claimed you're hearing something. What? There's no accent. So what aural cue suggests triplets? THIS is my primary issue- not the one you claimed is lower down. Deal with it or there's nothing to discuss- other than a bold claim about hearing something that is not even being objectified. There's not a hint of accent on the Cs that would correspond to triplets and no other issue points to them- other than an external source that is nothing to do with your hearing.

Surely, Cortot's practice guides gives a better objective view as to his intent. Whether you can hear the accents or not depends on the acuteness of your hearing.

This is a pointless line to pursue. Cortot also intended to play the notes Chopin wrote. Are you going to use an analagous argument to suggest that he didn't play wrong notes? There is no accent. It would be very easy to hear four accented Cs- if they were accented.

No. It is actually correctly used. You built a strawman when you introduced what the performer was thinking. Actually, nobody can ascertain what someone else is thinking unless (s)he has ESP.

Inconvenience and irrelevance are not the same issue. You're the only one claiming ESP. I'm saying that I generally have no idea whether the performer does anything to reflect what the score says  (on an issue where they have to be able to CONVEY what the score says to a listener for it to matter)- because there are no aural indications that would lead to complex thought- UNLESS I'm already looking for complexity. But if I'm looking for it, it won't even matter whether the performer thought that. If you're intent on hearing that way, you can anyway. As you so rightly state we don't have ESP. So we hear based on our own expectations/listening habits- not based on how the performer thought or whether they were trying to convey Chopin's triplets. Only in Pollini do I hear notable reflections of the triplet- but my ears hear an off-beat accent. Again, I don't have ESP and neither do you- so my ears make the simpler assumption of one off-beat note rather than two off-beat left hand notes. Ears don't divine triplets- because we don't have ESP.

Incidentally, you nullify your own argument about the supposed lack of sigificance of what the performer is thinking by insisting we should do triplets because Chopin says so. I won't bother. Your own baffling suggestion that the performer's intent is irrelevant altogether gives me carte blanche to do so. It's not irrelevant. It's just next to impossible to tell their intent by listening, unless they accent like buggery.

In other words, you are replacing the original proposition with an entirely different one. Here is what you wroteIt doesn't matter what performers think, really, for the purposes of this discussion as there are lots of performers interpreting this in a variety of ways, as the ample video links show.
The real proposition is what Chopin intended.

Your goalposts, not mine. If you want to live in idealism then do. I only care about whether it's actually possible to CONVEY what Chopin wrote to a listener, via performance alone and without the listener cheating by seeing the score. If no impartial listener can hear triplets without expecting to, there's little point caring too much.

Your primary proposition is that Chopin didn't intend triplets because you can't hear them, or that different performers might interpret differently. But the real proposition is whether Chopin intended them to be triplets. Surely, the composer's intent is all that matters here.

I'll thank you not to feed opinion I don't hold. That was a mild passing speculation and not a primary
issue. The primary issue is that if a listener without any expectation cannot tell the difference either way, it's rather a waste of time to attempt to make a difference.

Especially given that your figurehead Cortot achieves no such difference in any audible way. If it doesn't sound like triplets and there's not a hint of accentuation to turn pairs of seconds into groups of threes, it isn't triplets. If Chopin wanted triplets, Cortot didn't convey them in anything but his written statement.

[lazyfingers]

Tell me what your basis for identification is in your own ears. You've claimed you're hearing something.

No. That's YOUR argument.

What? There's no accent.

But there is. I can detect it. Even if Cortot himself suggested that it must be subtle. Do not judge the world by your ears. They are unique.

THIS is my primary issue- not the one you claimed is lower down.

Just because you don't detect it doesn't mean Cortot did not mean for those triplets. If he didn't mean the triplets, he wouldn't have recommended practising them.

This is a pointless line to pursue.

Your line of reasoning is pointless to pursue, unless you can as Mark Anthony says to "lend us your ears". Until that is possible, I urge you again to hear Cortot;s rendition very carefully and marvel at his subtle use of accents.

Cortot also intended to play the notes Chopin wrote.

Are you arguing that Chopin never wrote triplets? Basic music theory says that 3 quavers joined together is a triplet. Please show us some authoritative  guide where this is not so. I trust Chopin knew this already.

You're the only one claiming ESP. I'm saying that I generally have no idea whether the performer does anything to reflect what the score says

And yet you are the one who brought up the issue about what the performer was thunking. I didn't.

Especially given that your figurehead Cortot achieves no such difference in any audible way.

Actually, I didn't bring up Cortot. He was YOUR example as exemplary of interpretation of this Etude. I merely showed what he really thought. It matters nought that you do not hear his subtle interpretation. After all, it doesn't have to meet each and every ear. I remind you in his Practice Guide where he wrote:

Make the accent very precise.

You can't hear it. Let us agree on that.

[nyiregyhazi]

Your whole argument is self-contradictory. One minute you insist that Cortot's sound is objectively of triplets, the next you're saying you're not claiming to hear something? And you insist has to be played as triplets and then suggest that it doesn't matter what a performer is thinking? Well, I don't think in triplets. That doesn't matter? So why are you drawing attention to the fact Chopin wrote triplets then- if you don't think it matters whether a performer thinks about them? And why are you referencing what Cortot says about subtle emphasis for triplets if it doesn't matter what a performer thinks?  

Cortot doesn't accent the Cs in bar 1. It would be very easy to hear four emphasised Cs within the first bar. He doesn't mark any of them notably (especially not the important 2nd and 4th ones)- ie he doesn't do the sole possible means of suggesting that a listener should hear triplets rather than something more obvious. Not a single thing suggests triplets in his playing of the bar that would need to establish the cross-rhythm in the ear. Whether he intended or not, he does not do anything to convey triplets in his sound. If you think you divine a triplet message from something in his sound, it's because of how you are choosing to listen, not because you have a special ear for an objective component of the sound. An emphasis on all those Cs would be easy to distinguish, were it present.

I'm arguing purely on what can be conveyed through the medium of sound to a listener who has no expectations- so you're wasting your time making separate arguments about idealism.  Unless it's first proven that triplets can indeed be conveyed to a listener who doesn't have prior expectation of them, I don't greatly care to waste my time on something that nobody will know about anyway (except those who will decide to listen that way, because they chose to- which they will manage whether I do anything to mark triplets or not).

Do not judge the world by your ears. They are unique.

Indeed- my very point. We listen in our own way to the information we receive- without any psychic link to whether the performer is trying to feel something complex, such as triplets. The ears are also biased when you intend to hear a certain way due to existing knowledge of the score. Listen without expectation and nobody will hear triplets suggested in Cortot's playing. Triplets are only perceived when you already intend to hear that way, because the playing itself does not mark them sufficiently to contradict the simpler explanation that anyone without expectation of complexity would make.

[j_menz]

[nyiregyhazi]

Here's a performance that actually has some tangible audible evidence of triplet accentuation:

=31m16s

I wouldn't expect an listener who didn't know about the triplets to perceive the piece that way (rather than with slight off-beat accents) but it at least has some objective sign of triplet accentuation that is not even hinted at by Cortot's playing. Personally, I wouldn't waste time trying to think in triplets, because I still have to make a conscious decision about how to listen in order to hear it that way. If I just listen, my ears don't assume they are hearing triplets. It's more about what I choose to expect before listening than that something in the sound makes me want to hear in triplets. When it's the listener's decision about how to listen that matter most, there's little reason for the performer to waste mental effort that cannot override their decision.

[liszt1022]

This is the real "Last Post Wins!"

[lateromantic]

I played this etude in high school, a VERY long time ago, but I'm pretty sure that in my mind I heard the right-hand triplets as they are written--i. e., as triplets.  Would another listener who was unfamiliar with the score and who heard me play it have heard it that way?  That's hard to say.

Obviously, you don't want to put a strong accent on each of the C5s, since that would sound terribly unmusical.  But even without accents, if the RH were heard by itself I think a "competent"  (borrowing a term from linguistics here) listener would hear that part as composed of triplets.  In the first two full measures, the C5 is a harmonic tone (root of the dominant in the first measure, then fifth of the tonic in the second), and most of the others are nonharmonic, thus heard as embellishments.  Therefore the ear would more naturally hear the C5's as falling on the quarter note pulses.  By the time you get to the third measure, that rhythm should be pretty well established in the ear.

If the LH is played quietly and sensitively, I think the listener should still retain at least some subconscious awareness of the triplets in the RH and will therefore hear a cross-rhythm.  Or possibly a listener will hear the piece as fluctuating between the two, rather like viewing an Escher drawing in which the foreground and background keep trading places--which could explain a lot of the charm of the piece.

[nyiregyhazi]

I played this etude in high school, a VERY long time ago, but I'm pretty sure that in my mind I heard the right-hand triplets as they are written--i. e., as triplets.  Would another listener who was unfamiliar with the score and who heard me play it have heard it that way?  That's hard to say.

Obviously, you don't want to put a strong accent on each of the C5s, since that would sound terribly unmusical.  But even without accents, if the RH were heard by itself I think a "competent"  (borrowing a term from linguistics here) listener would hear that part as composed of triplets.  In the first two full measures, the C5 is a harmonic tone (root of the dominant in the first measure, then fifth of the tonic in the second), and most of the others are nonharmonic, thus heard as embellishments.  Therefore the ear would more naturally hear the C5's as falling on the quarter note pulses.  By the time you get to the third measure, that rhythm should be pretty well established in the ear.

If the LH is played quietly and sensitively, I think the listener should still retain at least some subconscious awareness of the triplets in the RH and will therefore hear a cross-rhythm.  Or possibly a listener will hear the piece as fluctuating between the two, rather like viewing an Escher drawing in which the foreground and background keep trading places--which could explain a lot of the charm of the piece.

Your argument works on paper but you could equally use the inverse. My ear is more drawn to dissonance than consonance. I'm more interested in the b natural than the resolution. In expressive playing or singing, performers are far more inclined to emphasise chromatic notes and treat harmonic pitches as softer resolutions- than to treat chromatics as mere neighbour notes to a more important harmonic pitch. Such an attitude would be against the romantic spirit of tension release, were it the norm. Also, the right hand consists of three intervals of seconds, which strikes me as a far bigger issue (not to mention the corresponding left hand) in terms of what an impartial ear would be led by.

Ultimately the only way to prove anything is to play the work to impartial listeners who don't know the score at all and ask what they hear. But I'd be very surprised if anyone naturally drew conclusions of complexity based on solely on a note repetition, when all other factors point towards a simpler and more logical explanation that is not even contradicted by accentuation. Even with pronounced accentuation, I'd expect most to go for a simpler explanation of what they are hearing. Without either accentuation or inside knowledge, I find it very hard to believe that a mere repetition of a note would cause a listener to start hearing in triplets, when they could make a simpler assumption that is consistent with virtually everything about the sound.

[pianoman53]

This is the real "Last Post Wins!"

Every post that Nyiregyhazi enters is like this...

[hardy_practice]

Every post that Nyiregyhazi enters is like this...

Yet another thread thrown on the trash heap.

[nyiregyhazi]

Yet another thread thrown on the trash heap.

Yes, apologies for offering sincerely thought out opinions that pertain directly to a topic. It's terrible when this site descends into such matters.

[hardy_practice]

I don't think the kind of vitriol you spout can be called sincere.  As for 'thought out' - only in the mad scientist sense.

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't think the kind of vitriol you spout can be called sincere.  As for 'thought out' - only in the mad scientist sense.

Quite. Complain that a thread is supposedly being run into the ground (via completely on topic opinions) and then start a series of entirely off topic ad hominem posts. That makes a world of sense.

If you have nothing pertaining to the topic to say for yourself, consider the possibility that you have nothing to contribute to this thread and stop running it off-topic. I'm not going to waste any further words on the irrelevant direction in which you're taking this. If you don't like anything I've stated on the topic, write a topical counterargument. Otherwise we have nothing to discuss.