Piano Forum
Piano Board => Repertoire => Topic started by: lombardian on September 23, 2005, 07:04:03 PM
-
Ok fellas, im somewhat new here, but i would just like to start off by asking you guys a question with regaurds to the Brahms second piano concerto (this is directed especially at those of you familiar with the piece). In the first movement, there is a double arpeggio of horrendous difficulty, occuring twice (although in different keys) thoroughout the piece. THe first instnce of this is seen early on, during a piano solo part, a few pages before the reprise of the original theme. THe notes are, in both hands together,
C E G A Bb, repeated for three octaves (starting on the C below middle C in the right hand, and arriving at the Bb two octaves above middle C). My questions are A.) How in God's holy name are you supposed to play this, and B.) Any fingerings assosiated thereof.
Thnx
-
A): practice it...A LOT
B): try 2-1-2-3-4-1-2 etc, rh
2-1-4-3-2-1-4 etc, lh
Don't get too discouraged, the vast majority of pianists (professional and otherwise) end up faking this run (both times).
koji
-
i OWN this run, the brahms 2 is HILARIOUSLY extremely hard.
i mean, harder than rach 3 possibly, and why isnt it played more often?
i think the order of the piece is simply not as appearling as rach 3, the ending of brahms 2 is slightly....poof.
-
The Schirmer edition edited by Edwin Hughes rather impractically suggests using 5-1 and 1-5 runs for each set of five notes (except for the last one in the left hand, which it suggests playing 5-3-2-1-2), which seems a bit like folding two 5-1 and 1-5 runs over each other in the chromatic passages near the beginning of 'Wilde jagd' - you may get the spirit of the run but certainly not hit all of the notes on the way up. (Perhaps, then, this how most pianists fake the run, as koji points out.)
I agree with stevie on both points - the Brahms PC2 is arguably more difficult than the Rachmaninov PC3 (my teacher's explanation for why he thinks this - and he has ample experience playing both - is that as thick with notes as the Rachmaninov may be, at least they fit the hands more naturally than the more sparse notes in the Brahms - and the Rachmaninov doesn't have a passage of quadruple octaves meant to be played quickly, pianissimo, and perfectly evenly immediately before a passage of variable parallel intervals meant to be played in the same manner!) and deserves more exposure than it gets (especially next to the bloody Rachmaninov), but the finale is something of an anticlimax. Neither as exciting as the second movement, nor as beautiful as the third, nor as transcendent as the first. Credit to Brahms for exploring the structure of the, to borrow Litolff's title, Concerto symphonique, but as with many symphonies before Beethoven, the last movement doesn't quite hold up next to the earlier ones. However, the first three movements would be on one of my desert island discs if I had to choose. :)
-
well its a bit like alkan's grande sonata in this regard, not saying they arent unqiue and great pieces, just that this type of way to end a piece isnt ideal for the average audience.
-
I have no clue why people don't appreciate the end of the Alkan Sonata. If anything, it's one of the most unique and sublime endings to any musical work...ever! It's a huge musical and personal statement on Alkan's part.
The FIRST movement on the other hand is the weakest of the 4 and surely contributes to the masterpiece's continued obscurity among serious musicians. The opening part and elaboration of it is a bit annoying...and to quote Stevie, "a bit poof". Alkan saves the movement with a rich and beautiful middle-section, and a breathtaking coda. But still, the piece doesn't really work in the context of the sonata and sounds a bit like a technical exercise.
This is a good idea for a new thread. "Weak movements that detract from great works".
-
The Schirmer edition edited by Edwin Hughes rather impractically suggests using 5-1 and 1-5 runs for each set of five notes (except for the last one in the left hand, which it suggests playing 5-3-2-1-2)
That's exactly how I do it. Let me know if there's a better way.
BTW, Brahms PC 2 is soooo much greater than Rach3!
-
If there is a better way to finger that passage I don't know it - I can't even pretend to play the piece, after all (though I have certainly tried from time to time). Perhaps, as with the chromatic passages in 'Wilde jagd', the spirit of the run is more important than hitting every note on the way up (or down in the case of the Liszt)? I can say it's somewhat easier to play the analogous passage on the violin in the orchestral ritornello, but that's because it's just six notes of an ascending D melodic minor scale. :) (Incidentally, the passage immediately preceding said scale in the ritornello is one of my favourite in the entire movement - indeed, in all music. In fact, the first movement contains at least four or five of my favourite moments in all of music and many others besides that I love to hear each time they come around when I'm listening to it.)
As for the Alkan Grande sonate, well, the first movement is as much a part of the overall progression of the sonata as the last movement - just as 'Promethee enchainee' is extremely slow, heavy, and plodding to depict Alkan's idea of 'old age' (insofar as 50 constitutes old age), so the first movement is a frantic whirlwind to depict the energy and hedonism of youth (the excesses of which catch up to the subject in 'Quasi-Faust', I suppose). Granted, the material from which he spins the scherzo sections is of relatively little intrinsic interest next to the rest of the sonata (creative use of hemiolae notwithstanding), but I don't know that I'd say it doesn't work in the context of the piece as a whole. The piece as a whole, after all, is meant to depict the slowing down that comes with growing older, and to spin this out over four movements so that there is a noticeable drop in tempo at each stage he needs to start with an extremely fast movement - and conclude with an extremely slow movement, which, though I agree it is a unique and powerful way to finish the piece (especially the muted final chords, which seem to imply that the anguish of the preceding bars carries on after the piece is over), is rather different to the usual upbeat conclusions to pieces in four movements, and since the third movement is also on the slow side, it probably confuses more people than it reels in. Perhaps this is why 'Quasi-Faust' is usually played alone?
-
What (live)recordings feature the most impressive playing of these arpeggios?
-
There are two schools of thought re: fingering: those who finger for convenience, and those who finger for sound; I subscribe to the latter philosophy. Mr. Hughes's seems to subscribe to the former with his suggested fingering of that run--which will tend to make the it sound grouped (what I try to avoid it sounding like).
The Gilels/Reiner recording has, for me, the most impressive sound in this passage; my live performance was not so bad here (practiced it a helluva lot).
koji
-
Thanks guys. Yah I'll try out some other fingerings other than the 1-5 5-1 fingerings (which are quite ridiculous i can tell you) However, luckily, i noticed, this passage happens to be played while the piano is alone, thereby allowing a certain amount of freedom with tempo. I was just wondering how any of you would interperate this musically as well. I find a gradual build-up (crescendo as well as a slight accelerando) to really give a nice sense of power, as well as a strong arrival on the Bb. Any thoughts on this?
-
the ending of brahms 2 is slightly....poof.
BAHAHA LMFAO
I agree very much - magnificent concerto, disappointing ending.
-
Thanks guys. Yah I'll try out some other fingerings other than the 1-5 5-1 fingerings (which are quite ridiculous i can tell you) However, luckily, i noticed, this passage happens to be played while the piano is alone, thereby allowing a certain amount of freedom with tempo. I was just wondering how any of you would interperate this musically as well. I find a gradual build-up (crescendo as well as a slight accelerando) to really give a nice sense of power, as well as a strong arrival on the Bb. Any thoughts on this?
Well, a slight ritardando across the three chords in the bar immediately preceding it in both the exposition and the recapitulation can be rather effective (emphasis on slight, of course), so a slight accelerando from the slower tempo for the ascending run might be equally effective - and, as you say, build up to the arrival on the high B-flat (or E-flat in the recapitulation). Take this with an entire salt cellar, though, as I certainly can't play this piece at concert standards.
(By all accounts the entire 'secondary theme' section of the exposition is non-stop torture for the soloist; on either side of this ascending scale the left hand has to gallop across two octaves in a third of a beat - and later a fourth of a beat - for several beats in a row, and then there are the staggered groups of three semiquavers in both hands. Such passages as those were often cited by my teacher as evidence that although there are fewer notes in the Brahms than the Rachmaninov, they do not fall as naturally under the fingers as those in the Rachmaninov. But, again, when the 'secondary theme' section is played well.... there are few moments in all of music to compare with it. :))
-
There are two schools of thought re: fingering: those who finger for convenience, and those who finger for sound; I subscribe to the latter philosophy. Mr. Hughes's seems to subscribe to the former with his suggested fingering of that run--which will tend to make the it sound grouped (what I try to avoid it sounding like).
The Gilels/Reiner recording has, for me, the most impressive sound in this passage; my live performance was not so bad here (practiced it a helluva lot).
koji
Finger for convenience:
RH: 12345 12345 12345
LH: 54321 54321 54321
Finger for sound ( I prefer ):
RH 12345 12345 12345
LH 53213 21543 21321
Pedro
-
I have not played this piece,but this is what i would do.
RH 1234 + 1234 + 12345
LH 5321 + 5321 + 53212
-
No sorry i was wrong i just practiced the arpeggio on my piano and this is what i suggest
RH 12123 + 45123 + 45123
LH 21543 + 21543 + 21543
It is not difficult.
-
Anybody know where I can get the score for this monster online?
-
BAHAHA LMFAO
I agree very much - magnificent concerto, disappointing ending.
One of the arguments I use in support of Brahms 1 being as great as Brahms 2 is that the finale in Brahms 1 is a real tour de force (one of the greatest rondos of all time, I believe)- - the finale is of sufficient gravity and importance to almost match the colossal 1st movement.
With that said, I really don't have a problem with the Brahms 2 finale (and I challenge anyone to compose a "more fitting" finale). Brahms felt the concerto should end in relatively lighthearted fashion, and I respect that. BTW, I've seen this performed live countless times, and invariably pianists will make mistakes in the finale even though the first three movements were performed perfectly. It's more difficult that it sounds.
-
With that said, I really don't have a problem with the Brahms 2 finale (and I challenge anyone to compose a "more fitting" finale). Brahms felt the concerto should end in relatively lighthearted fashion, and I respect that. BTW, I've seen this performed live countless times, and invariably pianists will make mistakes in the finale even though the first three movements were performed perfectly. It's more difficult that it sounds.
Doesn't exactly sound easy either; lots of acrobatic stretches required in the left hand, and all of those double thirds scale passages must give some pianists nightmares (especially the one near the beginning of the recapitulation when said double thirds must be sustained for three octaves while at the same time playing an even 7-against-6 across the hands at near glissando speeds - and all pianissimo). If Brahms felt a light-hearted finale was most appropriate, well, he was probably right - after all, the first movement is rather epic in scope, the second is full of fire, and the third is a work of true beauty, so what is there left but a bit of fun?
No arguments about the D minor concerto being the equal of the B-flat concerto - though I prefer the latter, there is much to enjoy and/or respect about the structure and, more importantly, the music of the former (the horn solos in the first movement, simple as they are, never fail to move me when I hear them). Any list of the top piano concerti would seem somewhat lacking without mentioning both Brahms concerti rather near the head of the list (unless the person compiling the list despises Brahms on general principle - I know there are such people, some of them probably post to these boards).
-
Doesn't exactly sound easy either; lots of acrobatic stretches required in the left hand, and all of those double thirds scale passages must give some pianists nightmares (especially the one near the beginning of the recapitulation when said double thirds must be sustained for three octaves while at the same time playing an even 7-against-6 across the hands at near glissando speeds - and all pianissimo). If Brahms felt a light-hearted finale was most appropriate, well, he was probably right - after all, the first movement is rather epic in scope, the second is full of fire, and the third is a work of true beauty, so what is there left but a bit of fun?
Again, I think Brahms' choice of a lighthearted finale for his PC #2 can't be beat. So why do people criticize something which is as "optimal" as can be conceived? I don't get it.
Any list of the top piano concerti would seem somewhat lacking without mentioning both Brahms concerti rather near the head of the list ......
Again, I gotta agree. Folks who don't place Brahms PC #1 in the top echelon perhaps don't know the concerto as well as they could/should .......
-
Again, I think Brahms' choice of a lighthearted finale for his PC #2 can't be beat. So why do people criticize something which is as "optimal" as can be conceived? I don't get it.
Speaking for myself, I suppose I've heard too many concerti from Brahms' contemporaries and/or predecessors and successors which have real fireworks displays as finales, be they triumphant or tempestuous - by the likes of Beethoven, Schumann, Liszt, Grieg, Saint-Saens, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov, Prokofiev, Gershwin, even Brahms himself in the D minor concerto - so a light-hearted finale is sufficiently surprising that it's difficult to appreciate it for what it is. I do like the finale, especially the 'secondary theme' section in the exposition, but it has always felt rather strange coming after the three movements preceding it, and it's probably my least favourite of the four movements. And yet, as you say, it's hard to imagine it ending any other way - though whether because this is the most appropriate ending or because it's the only ending we have, I'm not sure. Well, Brahms was Brahms, so he must have known what he was doing. And as I said, levity is the last point on the emotional spectrum he has not yet hit by the fourth movement (except for pathos, which, if it's there at all, I suspect you have to look a bit to find).