Chopin etude 10-2

[chromatickler]

i'm forward.

I learned half of it, and stopped for other music.

But I remember that I learned that half of the piece up to tempo pretty quickly.

this is a common fallacy regarding 10/2. it's like saying you learnt half of the octave section of the hungarian rhapsody #6, in which case i wouldnt doubt you could played it at cziffra speed.

[maxy]

nope... no jealousy here...
to learn it is not that much of a phenomenal accomplishment.  But that nasty piece has a great tendency to break down in concert....  even for the best of us.

[musicsdarkangel]

this is a common fallacy regarding 10/2. it's like saying you learnt half of the octave section of the hungarian rhapsody #6, in which case i wouldnt doubt you could played it at cziffra speed.

I disagree completely.

The op 10 no 2 etude is the same thing throughout.  The first half is like the second half.

Just like op 10  no 1, if you can nail the first half, you can nail the second half.

Octaves are different, because they involve some tension.

Op 10 no 2 is definitely an easier etude for me.  Many others would give me more technical difficulty.

[m]

Just like op 10  no 1, if you can nail the first half, you can nail the second half.

Totaly wrong. The difficulty of both etudes (and 25/11, btw) is in consistency, stamina, and presise calculation. It is not that difficult to play their first pages. What happens though, is on the second page you realize that your hand (and mind) got tired, but because of the continuos pattern you have no any time to rest. So basically, you got trapped, but you should keep going. If there were a couple spots to rest, then it'd be completely different matter.

To illustrate it, listen carefully to V. Lisitsa's 10/2. She starts fast and is quite consistent in the 1st half. But in the middle section you can distinctly hear the moment when her hand got tired and stiff. Immediately a couple passages completely slipped. The last half she already plays much slower, and it sounds like on an auto-pilot. And she is a true virtuoso, with a quite formidable technique! Actually, I am quite surprized she posted such a performance, which is very far from perfection. And if 10/2 is not perfect, then it does not count (same goes for 10/1).

[gorbee natcase]

Its taken 3 years of off and on practice to make it sound reasonable, it is so deceptivly tricky to give it fluidity 10, 1 I used to think would be harder and as for 10, 10 not even attampted it yet lets get some views on that one ( hope there incouraging)

[chromatickler]

To illustrate it, listen carefully to V. Lisitsa's 10/2. She starts fast and is quite consistent in the 1st half. But in the middle section you can distinctly hear the moment when her hand got tired and stiff. Immediately a couple passages completely slipped. The last half she already plays much slower, and it sounds like on an auto-pilot. And she is a true virtuoso, with a quite formidable technique! Actually, I am quite surprized she posted such a performance, which is very far from perfection. And if 10/2 is not perfect, then it does not count (same goes for 10/1).

i think she posted that performance (along with the other 23 from a single recital) in response to some reviews for her dvd that commented on the audio/video syncronisation problem hence suggesting excessive editing. she was a bit pissed by this evidently

[m]

i think she posted that performance (along with the other 23 from a single recital) in response to some reviews for her dvd that commented on the audio/video syncronisation problem hence suggesting excessive editing. she was a bit pissed by this evidently

So, what did she prove?

[thierry13]

So, what did she prove?

That she could play them without editing.

[m]

That she could play them without editing.

Thierry,

Thanks for clarification.  The problem is that she DID NOT... at least in my book. It seems that she is more impulsive type, and as a result her lack of calculation greatly affected consistency. Should she think more carefully, she might probably do it quite easily.

[thierry13]

Thierry,

Thanks for clarification.  The problem is that she DID NOT... at least in my book. It seems that she is more impulsive type, and as a result her lack of calculation greatly affected consistency. Should she think more carefully, she might probably do it quite easily.

I know she did not perfectly well. I'm not of the ones who are skeptical about her abilities. I'm pissed enough of people who doubt me, I understand her pretty well.

[hodi]

He can say that comfortably and I can't ... you all guys have a problem, and I think it is jealousy.

i'm sure he played more years than you do
and thierry13, you are just full of show off bullshit.

[thierry13]

i'm sure he played more years than you do
and thierry13, you are just full of show off bullshit.

Ho so because I've been playing for a year I can't  think other etudes are harder. That's a funny thing.

[quasimodo]

I am yet to hear Thierry13's performance of 10-2 in the audition room...
O master Thierry, do you think our ears are too profanous to enjoy your music?

[thierry13]

I am yet to hear Thierry13's performance of 10-2 in the audition room...
O master Thierry, do you think our ears are too profanous to enjoy your music?

I didn't ever say I would learn it. Did everybody learnt every piece they ever found "not that hard"? gimme a break. You pissed me off so the countdown has begun NOW.

[dnephi]

How do make an mp3 file ?  What kind of device?
I'd like to post some.

[e60m5]

I didn't ever say I would learn it. Did everybody learnt every piece they ever found "not that hard"? gimme a break. You pissed me off so the countdown has begun NOW.

Out of curiosity, did you ever record Mazeppa (or any of the other works which you had said you would record)?

I do remember an MSN chat which I was dragged into in which there were some remarkable claims being bandied about with proof promised.  And I would be very interested had proof been delivered.

On the instant topic, I do not believe 10/2 can be among the easier études.  However, I do believe it may be much more manageable than it is often bandied around to be.  I think this was the real question that the topic creator was asking - whether it is as hard as it is reputed to be - for it is obviously quite unsustainable to anybody with a decent pianistic intellect that there are many études more challenging than 10/2. 

In my experience, given the appropriate technical foundation, 10/2 may not be a difficult piece to learn, though it is certainly a difficult one to master (but for what étude is this not true?).  Note that this is different from saying that it is one of the easier études.  I have no doubts that to Mei-Ting, this étude is very easy indeed (and having heard him play it in A minor at ludicrous speeds and in Bb minor at respectable speed, I have evidence to back up that claim).  So given the appropriate pianistic foundation, I think that it is quite possible for 10/2 to be an easy piece to play.  However, possessing such a foundation is rare, and I would be extremely surprised if anybody but the usual suspects (Koji, etc) here had such understanding and grounding. 

[jazzyprof]

David Dubal: "Mr. Horowitz, which are the most difficult of the Chopin etudes?"

Vladimir Horowitz:  "Ah, all are terrible.  The double-note etudes are very difficult, especially Op. 25, No. 6.  Everyone tries to show off the speed of their thirds, but the beauty of the piece is in the left hand.  Of course the thirds have to be played very nice, very evenly.  For me, the most difficult of all is the C Major, Op. 10, No. 1.  I cannot do that, and I can't do the other C Major, Op. 10, No. 7.  Also I can't do the A minor, Op. 10, No. 2.  Richter told me he could never do it, either."

[mike_lang]

My teacher taunted me after my lesson... "You see that 13-year-old girl?  That etude is easy for her.  She doesn't know it's supposed to be hard."

[quasimodo]

My teacher taunted me after my lesson... "You see that 13-year-old girl?  That etude is easy for her.  She doesn't know it's supposed to be hard."

Hahaha, Martha Argerich's Scarbo story.

[e60m5]

For the record, I find 10/7 much, much harder than 10/2.

[quasimodo]

For the record, I find 10/7 much, much harder than 10/2.

10/7 is one of my favorite to listen to. Well... but they're all so beautiful...
Strange enough but I've heard 4 pieces with similar double-notes figurations and I LOOOOVE them all: 10/7, the 2nd Ballade, the Fantaisie in Fm and Rachmaninov's prelude op.23/9

[invictious]

Way too easy for me, I sightread it under 2 minutes with 98% accuracy, this is just laughable for pianists who can't play it when they have been learning for over 2 years.

That etude is so easy, I don't get why people think it's so hard!

 

In case you didn't wondering, I was joking.

[quasimodo]

Way too easy for me, I sightread it under 2 minutes with 98% accuracy, this is just laughable for pianists who can't play it when they have been learning for over 2 years.

That etude is so easy, I don't get why people think it's so hard!

Ah wuz born wit da 10/2 in mah fingahs  .

(The trouble is it won't get out of there Muhahahaha)

[m]

  Also I can't do the A minor, Op. 10, No. 2.  Richter told me he could never do it, either."

...which once again proves--never ever believe what greatests say. I have Richter's live recording of 10/2 straight after 10/1... Well, he could do it... better than anybody I ever heard.

For the record, I find 10/7 much, much harder than 10/2.

I can understand that.

[cloches_de_geneve]

The op 10 no 2 etude is the same thing throughout.  The first half is like the second half.
Just like op 10  no 1, if you can nail the first half, you can nail the second half.

Totally wrong. First of all for the fatigue reasons described by Marik. But second, and perhaps more importantly, op 10/2 is NOT the same thing througout. Sadistically, the hardest part begins just when you might feel like resting for a second, at bar 19 and it lasts until bar 35. It demands some of the most spectacular finger contortions in the piano literature; in contrast, bars 1-19 and 35-to- end are much more fluid.

[e60m5]

Totally wrong. First of all for the fatigue reasons described by Marik. But second, and perhaps more importantly, op 10/2 is NOT the same thing througout. Sadistically, the hardest part begins just when you might feel like resting for a second, at bar 19 and it lasts until bar 35. It demands some of the most spectacular finger contortions in the piano literature; in contrast, bars 1-19 and 35-to- end are much more fluid.

Incidentally, I happen to find the B section of this étude much, much easier than the A sections. 

[cloches_de_geneve]

Incidentally, I happen to find the B section of this étude much, much easier than the A sections. 

Lucky you!

[daniel patschan]

...which once again proves--never ever believe what greatests say. I have Richter's live recording of 10/2 straight after 10/1... Well, he could do it... better than anybody I ever heard.

I have also this recording - the fact that one likes Richter does not automatically mean his is "the best recording of 10-2 ever made" (or something like that). One can hear that he fights against the piece, he is definately fighting. He almost doesn´t make it. His problems are not so obvious as it´s the case with Freire`s recording, but his rendition is (tecnically and musically speaken) clearly below the ones of Lugansky, Gavrilov, Anievas, Browning, Yokoyama, Li, Berezovsky (the one on the latest live CD), Kosuge, and Wunder. Unfortunately.

[m]

...which once again proves--never ever believe what greatests say. I have Richter's live recording of 10/2 straight after 10/1... Well, he could do it... better than anybody I ever heard.

I have also this recording - the fact that one likes Richter does not automatically mean his is "the best recording of 10-2 ever made" (or something like that). One can hear that he fights against the piece, he is definately fighting. He almost doesn´t make it. His problems are not so obvious as it´s the case with Freire`s recording, but his rendition is (tecnically and musically speaken) clearly below the ones of Lugansky, Gavrilov, Anievas, Browning, Yokoyama, Li, Berezovsky (the one on the latest live CD), Kosuge, and Wunder. Unfortunately.

???
First, I never said "the best recording of 10/2 ever made". I think I was very specific emphasising STRAIGHT AFTER 10/1 LIVE, which is a completely different matter.
Yes, there is some fight in the last section, but again, it is live straight after 10/1, and Richter plays it faster than MOST of the recordings of this piece ever made.

It is very unfair to compare this live recording to studio ones. As for Berezovsky, his live rendition is much slower, he makes tricks to facilitate difficulties, plus I think I heard a couple edits.

[daniel patschan]

It is very unfair to compare this live recording to studio ones.

That´s of course true. In a live situation you have to play - whether you like it or not, but in the studio you can sleep for an hour and then do the next piece. In this respect and with the regard that he played 10-2 so well right after the very taxing 10-1 means a lot. 

[m]

It is very unfair to compare this live recording to studio ones.

That´s of course true. In a live situation you have to play - whether you like it or not, but in the studio you can sleep for an hour and then do the next piece. In this respect and with the regard that he played 10-2 so well right after the very taxing 10-1 means a lot. 

Your sarcasm is kinda amusing and it seems you are entirely missing the point of difference between live and studio recordings.

In any case, just to make sure we are talking about the same thing, I am referreing to the recording made on Feb. 21, 1960.

[daniel patschan]

It was absolutely not meant sarcastic. It is clearly understandable (even for an amatuer as i am) that doing the two pieces (10-1 and 10-2) one right after the other is much more difficult than doing it under conditions that allow you to rest for a few minutes or longer.

[daniel patschan]

One more thing: i was referring to a recording published by Philipps, it´s called "authorized recordings" or something like that.

[m]

One more thing: i was referring to a recording published by Philipps, it´s called "authorized recordings" or something like that.

Yeah, I figured it out. The one you have is from 1988, i.e. 28 years later, made by an old and already ill man. The one from 1960 has timing 1:13.

BTW, FYI, most of Richter's recordings published by Philips were NOT AUTHORISED by Richter.

[daniel patschan]

Oh man, there is another one !? Can it be purchased somewhere ? Some of the older Richter recordings show his power much more than their later counterparts (the Liszt h-Moll sonata and of course Feux Follets come into my mind).

[m]

Oh man, there is another one !? Can it be purchased somewhere ? Some of the older Richter recordings show his power much more than their later counterparts (the Liszt h-Moll sonata and of course Feux Follets come into my mind).

It is on "Richter in Prague" set of 15 CDs. As far as I know, it is out of print (at least was a few years ago, for some copyright infrigement, IIRC). Check ebay--I saw it a few times there.

[daniel patschan]

Thanks a lot !

[maxy]

It is on "Richter in Prague" set of 15 CDs. As far as I know, it is out of print (at least was a few years ago, for some copyright infrigement, IIRC). Check ebay--I saw it a few times there.

that set has some of the best playing ever IMO.

[emmdoubleew]

Octaves are different, because they involve some tension.

10/2 involves incredible tension.

Ho so because I've been playing for a year I can't  think other etudes are harder. That's a funny thing.

I sightread the TEs when I was 8 (at tempo).