Schumann, Blumenstuke, Op. 19

[rachfan]

A wonderful companion piece for the Arabesque, Op. 18.

Update: I deleted the CD cut (22 downloads) and replaced it with the original tape recording for better fidelity.

[rachfan]

I figured I couldn't have the Arabesque here without Blumenstuke, Op. 19.  I look forward to your comments.

[gerry]

Positive:
You seem to have a really good grasp of Schumannescence and many of your sections are very well played and show that you understand the music. Your melodic lines are better than in the Arabesque but watch out for those accented notes, you tend to punch them a little explosively rather than integrating them into the melodic line.

Negative:
The most noticeable (flaw) to me is your habit of inserting pregnant pauses between each section as if you're preparing for a separate piece or movement. I wouldn't be too ready to defend this on the basis of personal interpretation, I really believe this piece is more seamless than you present. They look on the surface like disparate sections but they must flow together. Maybe you need to think "rubato" more than "ritardando" (a little of the same criticism offered toward your Arabesque.

I'm working with the Kalmus edition and you should check the beginning of the Minor II section: mine shows the opening melody (meas. 1-2 as Dflat C Dflat and so on in meas 3-4 which is consistent with how he treats this figure elsewhere. You are playing Dflat C Bflat - where does that come from?

Overall great - just watch those hesitations, or rethink why you feel they're necessary.
Gerry

[rachfan]

Hi Gerry,

Thanks for listening to this piece, especially where it doesn't enjoy the same popularity as the Arabesque.  On the pregnant pauses, I think it just comes from my intense dislike of run-on abrupt changes, sounding like a collision of two moods.  I prefer to ease into them more.  But if the prevailing practice is to dive headlong into the sequential sections, then I'll try it out (although I know it will be uncomfortable).  Your idea of rubato in those places might indeed mitigate the transitions a bit.  Also, I'll try to mitigate the accents and blend those notes more into the line as well.  Good observation.

The B flat in Minore II was clearly a wrong note that got stuck in my head unfortunately.  Sorry about that.  (On editions, I was using Schirmer which is as bad as Kalmus, ha-ha!)

In general, the Germanic piano literature doesn't attract me nearly as much as the Russian and French, but I occasionally play it for the sake of being "well rounded" as they say.  As to the Romantics, I do find Schumann more satisfying than Brahms' often orchestral/unpianistic idiom, but have actually spent more time with Chopin, Liszt and Mendelssohn. 

Overall, I'm glad you liked this performance.  I appreciate the compliment!

[gerry]

There is a compromise between pregnant pauses and diving headlong - there does need to be a slight sense of separation between the major sections only. But this piece gains a certain momentum as the sections begin to repeat in abbreviated form bringing the piece to a close and shouldn't be treated as new material (almost a stretto effect). Thanks for responding to my suggestions - just like those who post pieces on the forum and never hear much, the same often happens in reverse. Schumann is fascinating and frustrating in that each time you return to his pieces you find something you missed before like an inner held note that suddenly takes on significance as you look around it or as you gain the technique to honor everything he notated. Unlike Chopin with his strong melody with accompaniment, Schumann seems to keep all the fingers busy with something of significance. Someday I'll get the guts (and the equipment) to post a piece here. Have fun.
Gerry

[rachfan]

Hi Gerry,

Thanks for the clarification on transitions between sections.  I think I could adjust my approach accordingly and feel OK about it. 

I know what you mean in sometimes not getting any response to suggestions.  There have been a few times over the years here when I've offered a detailed, concrete and proven technical solution to help the pianist struggling with an obvious rough spot in a score and never even got a one-word "thanks". 

And as you mention, I too have posted some recordings I thought were quite good, they attracted a lot of traffic... but hardly anyone made comments!  A good example is my Bortkiewicz recording on page 2 of this forum.  Close to 1,000 people have visited and nearly 300 downloaded it, yet only 3 saw fit to comment!!!  It leaves one wondering whether they loved it or hated it.  Strange!  I certainly understand that if people have not heard a piece before, they might be hesitant to comment, not knowing the score or having heard other performances.  (In this case, the only recordings are by Cyprien Katsaris, Koji Attwood and me, and all are extremely different interpretations.)  But I don't know why someone would be too bashful to say "Gee, I really don't know anything about the composer or piece, but I liked the sound."  Or, "It just didn't appeal to me."  Or whatever.  I mean, even that is good feedback. 

[daniloperusina]

On the pregnant pauses, I think it just comes from my intense dislike of run-on abrupt changes, sounding like a collision of two moods.  I prefer to ease into them more.  But if the prevailing practice is to dive headlong into the sequential sections, then I'll try it out...

Hi Rachfan!

You perform better here than in op18! I cut out the quote above because I feel it explains your approach very well. Your dislike of abrupt changes cause you to turn 180 degrees around and insert rather too obvious pauses.But who needs these pauses? You? Or the music (and your audience)?

Somewhere else you confessed to being prone to analysis. I've been thinking a bit about this, and I think it's part of what holds up your performances, but it's also the solution! Take the analysis even further! So, you're good with details, what about the whole? What about creating one big line from beginning to end?
I think the issue of bringing out middle voices, e.g., is not so straightforward. They don't have to be loud to be audible, they can be pp but meticoulously phrased. A sort of silent counterpoint which is not 'in your face', but still enhances the performance without anyone becoming aware of exactly why.

I don't mean to sound too critical, just some thoughts I had in general.
This recording forces me to think "how would it sound in real life?", and I'm sure I would thouroughly enjoy it!

Especially from that day in december and onwards!

[rachfan]

Hi danilo,

I'm glad you like my Op. 19.  Thanks for the compliment!  I don't have a big affinity to Schumann's music, but manage to bring some of his pieces off better than others.  If you haven't yet listened to the Op. 4 Intermezzo I posted below, but take a moment to hear it, you see what I mean.  Hardly anyone plays those pieces anymore, so I had to develop an interpretation from scratch, and the long line flows quite nicely there I think.

On the my pauses between sections in Schumann, you're right, of course.  My personal preferences in those artistic matters still need to comport with the intentions of the composer as well as prevailing performance practices.  When I think of Chopin, Liszt, Brahms, Schumann and Mendelssohn, I believe it's fair to say that Schumann, more than the others, tends to create those abupt changes in mood--it's attributable to the Floristan vs. Eusebius muses that ruled his musical psyche.  I'm just going to have to get "more with the program" with those transitions.  Fortunately, we never stop learning.

You raise an important point on score analysis.  I do believe analysis is essential and very helpful to understanding a score, but you are quite correct--too much attention to details can inhibit and/or diminish the longer line.  Also, if one is not careful, it can squelch spontaneity and lead to "academic" playing.  In his day, Hans von Bulow was often accused of that fault.  I most often avoid that outcome just by being aware of the pitfall.  But it's always a danger.   

I also agree with your point on inner lines.  Jorge Bolet believed that they must be clearly etched, but not to the extent of hitting the listener over the head with them.  So yes, there definitely has to be a sense of balance.  In a few of my recordings, there are some scalar inner lines that are probably a bit more prominent than they ought to be.  At the time I was working with an artist-teacher.  One thing that all of us tend to do is take a suggestion and then unknowingly exaggerate it!  A good teacher on a subsequent hearing will tone that down to still retain the necessary effect, but also to restore reasonable balance as well.

Finally, I don't mind the criticism at all.  It's all very valuable.  Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts!