Chopin-Godowsky Etudes

[chopinfan_22]

Where can I find transcriptions of Chopin-Godowksy etudes?

Thanks.

[allthumbs]

Here is the complete works. I have them in individual pdf's if you need them.

Enjoy

allthumbs

[chopinfan_22]

*looks over etudes*

 


How could anyone play those!? And why are some of them specificially designed for left hand alone? Why not both hands (like 25/12)?

[kriskicksass]

Godowsky believed that the Chopin Etudes didn't do anything for the left hand. He had an amazing left hand and he was a master transcriber. So, he just transcribed most of the chopets for the left hand alone.

[emmdoubleew]

Godowsky believed that the Chopin Etudes didn't do anything for the left hand. He had an amazing left hand and he was a master transcriber. So, he just transcribed most of the chopets for the left hand alone.

That's also why some transcriptions have the usual right hand part given to the left hand and vice-versa. 

I think only Hamelin had the courage to record all of them? I know other pianists recorded some (Berezovsky) but never the complete works.

[pita bread]

Hamelin only recorded them; Libetta performed all of them.

[superstition2]

Fussy and overly ornamented is the general jist of them... that's been my reaction to the Hamelin recording. Godowsky seems like another Busoni. Lots of notes saying little.

[mike_lang]

Fussy and overly ornamented is the general jist of them... that's been my reaction to the Hamelin recording. Godowsky seems like another Busoni. Lots of notes saying little.

I don't know how much they are meant to say - they are only studies on the Chopin etudes, which the difficulties translated to the L.H.  My first impression was not that they are a musical endeavor, but simply a milestone in technical mastery.

[liszt1022]

Godowsky is AMAZING. Especially these studies. I'm trying to learn a few, but slowly. I even bought the scores legally 
They are fantastic musically, if you analyze the counterpoint you'll see Godowsky was in genius mode when he made these.

Hamelin, Carlo Grante, Joyce Hatto, and... shudder... Geoffery D. Madge have all recorded the entire set.

I've considered re-notating these studies to make them easier to read. I'm writing Study No. 1 in five staves and it looks great (I think.) If anyone's interested, I could finish it up.

Be warned, I made up a clef for it. It's a super-treble clef, basically. It reads like treble clef, but transposes two octaves up. Don't be afraid, though, because it fits right over a normal treble clef using the existing ledger lines 3,4,5,6, and 7. Once you see it, it might make more sense.

[stevie]

Fussy and overly ornamented is the general jist of them... that's been my reaction to the Hamelin recording. Godowsky seems like another Busoni. Lots of notes saying little.

this whole topic is a bit  until liszt1022's post above

the chopin-godowsky studies are masterworks and are among the most important pieces ever written for piano, almost equalling the importance of the originals, godowsky takes romantic piano writing to the breaking point of saturation, and in doing so revolutionised the way we think about piano writing altogether.

there is no reason to say the original 10/1 is any better than the majestic and beautiful godowsky remake, and the waltz 10/9 just sounds way better than chopin's original, anyway the point is not to compare, just to create something new.

the reason he based them on the chopin etudes was pretty obvious, chopin's etudes off the most beautiful and inventive themes ever composed with pedagogical intent in mind, godowsky takes these as a basis and creates his own masterworks using the same material.

economy of notes isnt what godowsky is all about, thickness, complexity, and elaborate ornamentation are the most basic element of his style, because a painter uses more colours in his palatte to achieve the best overall picture does that make them an inferior painter?


also, dont judge by hamelin's recordings alone, as great as they are, they only offer one style of godowskian playing, thats like only listening to one recording of the chopin etudes and dismissing them, listen to libetta and berezovsky too, awesome alternatives often with more fire and speed.

[ahinton]

this whole topic is a bit  until liszt1022's post above

the chopin-godowsky studies are masterworks and are among the most important pieces ever written for piano, almost equalling the importance of the originals, godowsky takes romantic piano writing to the breaking point of saturation, and in doing so revolutionised the way we think about piano writing altogether.

there is no reason to say the original 10/1 is any better than the majestic and beautiful godowsky remake, and the waltz 10/9 just sounds way better than chopin's original, anyway the point is not to compare, just to create something new.

the reason he based them on the chopin etudes was pretty obvious, chopin's etudes off the most beautiful and inventive themes ever composed with pedagogical intent in mind, godowsky takes these as a basis and creates his own masterworks using the same material.

economy of notes isnt what godowsky is all about, thickness, complexity, and elaborate ornamentation are the most basic element of his style, because a painter uses more colours in his palatte to achieve the best overall picture does that make them an inferior painter?


also, dont judge by hamelin's recordings alone, as great as they are, they only offer one style of godowskian playing, thats like only listening to one recording of the chopin etudes and dismissing them, listen to libetta and berezovsky too, awesome alternatives often with more fire and speed.

That's a very large amount of good sense all within the framework of the one post, I must say. The only sad fact which is omitted here is that, whilst Godowsky had indeed "revolutionised the way we think about piano writing altogether", his supreme efforts fell largely on deaf ears until a couple of decades or so ago. When I became fascinated with them in the late 1960s I was a student at London's Royal College of Music and I spent many hours struggling through them at the piano (I am not a pianist), enthralled to discover as much as I realistically could about how he worked as a pianist/composer. Inevitably, I began to ask quite a few piano students and professors about these masterworks; of the latter, only four such claimed ever to have even heard of Godowsky and, of these, three had nothing but contempt for them and only one bucked the trend and declared "don't worry - Godowsky's time will come!". In those days, of course, hardly anyone ever performed any of these pieces and only David Saperton had ever recorded any, as far as I can remember. The situation is very different now, yet even today there are far too few pianists being encouraged to address this tremendous cycle as part of their development as players. To my mind, a pianist who has not developed facilities through explorations of the studies of Godowsky, Busoni and Alkan is likely to remain a seriously underdeveloped one; these composers are as essential to the pianist's study as are Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, Schumann and Liszt.

For the record, Madge was the first to make a recording of the complete set and Libetta the first to perform them all in public. As you observe, Madge, Grante, Hamelin and (more recently) Hatto are (I think) the only pianists to have recorded them all and I think I am correct in saying that the only pianists to have performed them all publicly are Libetta and Grante. Grante's recorded cycle was originally inteded to encompass the complete Chopin/Godowsky, but in the end he decided to record only four of the six Waltzes and omit the Rondo, Op. 16 (which is neither an especially great Chopin work nor a particularly fine Godowsky transcription) and substitute the great Schubert/Godowsky Passacaglia instead.

Speaking as a composer, I can honestly say that I have learnt much from Godowsky's treatment of his own instrument in his writing for it.

Best,

Alistair

[punch]

Here's a treat for you kids-Bolet performing the 12th Chopin-Godowsky Etude:

&search=godowsky%20bolet

And you're welcome.

[iumonito]

Godowsky is AMAZING. Especially these studies. I'm trying to learn a few, but slowly. I even bought the scores legally 
They are fantastic musically, if you analyze the counterpoint you'll see Godowsky was in genius mode when he made these.

Hamelin, Carlo Grante, Joyce Hatto, and... shudder... Geoffery D. Madge have all recorded the entire set.

I've considered re-notating these studies to make them easier to read. I'm writing Study No. 1 in five staves and it looks great (I think.) If anyone's interested, I could finish it up.

Be warned, I made up a clef for it. It's a super-treble clef, basically. It reads like treble clef, but transposes two octaves up. Don't be afraid, though, because it fits right over a normal treble clef using the existing ledger lines 3,4,5,6, and 7. Once you see it, it might make more sense.

Five staves, of course, that must be so much easier to read!

In seriousness, thanks for putting the effort.  I would love to see your edition as I bet the music will become much clearer visually.  Personally, I think an anatomic, rather than linear, copy would be very helpful to diseminate these.  They are a milestone and I am always surprised that not everybody plays them.

[superstition2]

the chopin-godowsky studies are masterworks and are among the most important pieces ever written for piano,

Subjective opinion, just like mine. I do agree with the point that the pieces can't be completely judged based on listening only to Hamelin's recording. However, I think they can be judged based on his recording. Perhaps another pianist's performance would change my mind?

I feel the Chopin originals are more generally musical because they're not overly ornamented and have clearer and more sensible melody. That's a subjective opinion that can't be disproven or proven. However, as I said in another topic, I don't worship all of Chopin's etudes, either. I think some of them, like the Eb minor Op. 10, are mediocre at best. Others, like Winter Wind, are truly great.

Of all of the Godowsky versions, I do like the first one quite a lot: Op. 10 No. 1 in C (ver 1). Also, his Op. 10 No. 6 in Eb min for the left hand is more interesting than Chopin's. Some of them are excellent, but fussy and overly ornamented for my taste, like Op. 10 No. 8 (ver 1).

[soliloquy]

the chopin-godowsky studies are masterworks and are among the most important pieces ever written for piano, almost equalling the importance of the originals, godowsky takes romantic piano writing to the breaking point of saturation, and in doing so revolutionised the way we think about piano writing altogether.

"Masterworks" is a subjective opinion, but claiming anything Godowsky wrote was important, or certainly among the most important, is a load.  He's an obscure composer like Alkan, who while a few composers respect them and a few pianists play them, they have not had any notable effects on later composers besides the occasional Finnissy piece, who himself is also quite obscure.  Saying they equal the originals is pretty rediculous >>  The Chopin Etudes, along with the Beethoven Sonatas, are the ultimate staple pieces in any pianist's repertoire.  Everyone plays the Chopin Etudes.  Almost nobody plays the Godowsky.  There were other composers before Godowsky that "took romantic music to the breaking point" that are much more important.  Godowsky may have revolutionized the way YOU look at piano, but I doubt it's had the same effect on 99% of the people that have heard his stuff.

[ahinton]

"Masterworks" is a subjective opinion, but claiming anything Godowsky wrote was important, or certainly among the most important, is a load.

It is indeed a subjective opinion, but this no more invalidates it than it implies that it is unique to the writer of it here - which it plainly is not, otherwise, various pianists would not have gone to the trouble to perform and record some or all of these works.

He's an obscure composer like Alkan, who while a few composers respect them and a few pianists play them, they have not had any notable effects on later composers besides the occasional Finnissy piece, who himself is also quite obscure.

The particular century in which it seems you would have us believe you live remains somewhat unclear; the relative obscurity which you would indeed have been correct to accord to Alkan and Godowsky in the past IS now in the past, as the many recordings and performance of their respective piano works testifies. Your grammar and sentence structure lets you down thereafter, although one presumes you to have meant that "Godowsky's pieces have not had any notable effects on later composers apart from Finnissy on occasion - and he is himself also quite obscure"; even then, I'm not sure that Mr Finnissy, who is indeed an ardent admirer of Godowsky, would greatly appreciate your cavalier sidelining of him here, especially as he is not the actual subject of what you are supposedly attempting to write about.

Saying they equal the originals is pretty rediculous >>

Well, it almost certainly would be (provided that "ridiculous" was correctly spelt), if anyone was actually endeavouring seriously to persuade anyone else of any such thing and, as is well known, Godowsky himself would never have made any such claims either for his transcriptive or his paraphrastic work.

The Chopin Etudes, along with the Beethoven Sonatas, are the ultimate staple pieces in any pianist's repertoire.

Utter nonsense. The immense importance of these works is absolutely undeniable, of course - only the most ignorant of idiots would seek to claim otherwise - but one major importance of Beethoven and Chopin as piano composers was that they each sought, in their own ways, to progress and develop the art of piano writing and playing (not to mention, indirectly, piano design and manufacture); they are therefore important "points on the curve to find", so to speak. I suspect that neither composer would have wanted even his finest piano works to come be seen by future generations as the "ultimate" anything, with the implication that they had somehow contrived unwittingly to "freeze" that aspect of their respect art in their own time, never to be capable of further future development.

Everyone plays the Chopin Etudes.  Almost nobody plays the Godowsky.

This is, at best, a half-truth. Certainly, many more pianists have, over the years, played the Chopin Études - well, badly and all points in between - than have played the Godowsky. So what? Can the sheer laziness of many pianists alone be used as a legitimate excuse to justify this neglect? Please don't ask me to answer that question; instead, ask it first of yourself and then, if you can, ask it of at least some of those pianists who have played and and do play Godowsky. Then consider and, if at all possible, try to enjoy - and learn from - the answer/s.

There were other composers before Godowsky that "took romantic music to the breaking point" that are much more important.

In notingWe note that you do not name a single one of them, I must also confess to being unaware that the writer who claimed this for Godowsky was necessarily stating thereby that Godowsky was alone in so doing in any case.

Godowsky may have revolutionized the way YOU look at piano, but I doubt it's had the same effect on 99% of the people that have heard his stuff.

If, by so saying, you intend us to assume that your expression of "doubt" is, in your belief at least, an expression of fact, we must also assume that your have first sought the opinions of that "99%" in order to support it - or at least we might consider taking ot to be so up to a point had you bothered to accompany it with so much as a shred of incontrovertible evidence...

Best,

Alistair

[stevie]

from a musical standpoint, i enjoy listening to the godowsky etudes as a nice alternative to the originals in most cases.

in some cases - the 10/1 (HT) 10/2(HT) 10/8(HT) 10/9(the waltz one), and more in op25....i prefer listening to them over the originals! i simply think its better music.

none of the left hand versions are an equal to the originals, but they provide a very interesting sound of their own, and are very worthy, i have a feeling chopin would admire these greatly.

actually, the 25/12 left hand version may surpass the original in some ways, the texture godowsky employs near the end can be even more powerful than the original.

aside from these musical qualities, the thing that is most unqiue, and special, is the piano writing, this is what i mean by stretching romantic music to its technical breaking point.

sight read some of the left hand alone etudes, observe godowsky's revolutionary fingerings, and try and convince me that what godowsky did in writing these was any less revolutionary than what chopin did in writing his original etudes.

(and yes, godowsky knew more than any of us that he was standing on the shoulders of a giant)

[ahinton]

from a musical standpoint, i enjoy listening to the godowsky etudes as a nice alternative to the originals in most cases.

in some cases - the 10/1 (HT) 10/2(HT) 10/8(HT) 10/9(the waltz one), and more in op25....i prefer listening to them over the originals! i simply think its better music.

none of the left hand versions are an equal to the originals, but they provide a very interesting sound of their own, and are very worthy, i have a feeling chopin would admire these greatly.

actually, the 25/12 left hand version may surpass the original in some ways, the texture godowsky employs near the end can be even more powerful than the original.

aside from these musical qualities, the thing that is most unqiue, and special, is the piano writing, this is what i mean by stretching romantic music to its technical breaking point.

sight read some of the left hand alone etudes, observe godowsky's revolutionary fingerings, and try and convince me that what godowsky did in writing these was any less revolutionary than what chopin did in writing his original etudes.

(and yes, godowsky knew more than any of us that he was standing on the shoulders of a giant)

To me, the one Chopin/Godowsky étude that is perhaps the most notably inferior to the "original" (how can we use that word here? - both the Chopin and the Godowsky are each so immensely original!) is the left hand version of the E flat minor one, Op. 10/4; Godowsky's has the most marvellous elegance and delicacy, yet the sheer restraint in Chopin's most powerful original has very much the edge over the Godowsky, its harmonic progressions set in greater relief than is possible through the Godowskian elaborations.

That said, most of what you write here is, to my mind, beyond argument - and the closer it gets to the end of what you wrote, the more valid, unarguable and vitally important are the things that you say.

THAT said, I have to add that whatever it was that possessed you to write as you did earlier today in respect of the pianist Jonathan Powell - an immense admirer of Godowsky (as any serious Sorabjian would surely have to be) - is entirely beyond me.

Best,

Alistair

[superstition2]

To me, the one Choin/Godowsky étude that is perhaps the most notably inferior to the "original" (how can we use that word here? - both the Chopin and the Godowsky are each so immensely original!) is the left hand version of the E flat minor one, Op. 10/4.

Isn't Godowsky's 10/4 in C sharp minor?

[ahinton]

Isn't Godowsky's 10/4 in C sharp minor?

My mistyping, I fear - sorry! I meant to type 10/6.

Thanks for noting this error.

Best,

Alistair

[superstition2]

Also, his Op. 10 No. 6 in Eb min for the left hand is more interesting than Chopin's.

To me, the one Choin/Godowsky étude that is perhaps the most notably inferior to the "original" (how can we use that word here? - both the Chopin and the Godowsky are each so immensely original!) is the left hand version of the E flat minor one, Op. 10/4

How surprising.

[ahinton]

How surprising.

Well, not necessarily - and not necessarily even an entirely different take on the piece, either. I agree that the Godowsky version of this study is very interesting, a most beautifully conceived work in its own right and a sheer joy to play - but I just happen to feel nevertheless that the restraint that so tellingly characterises Chopin's original seems to me to point up the significance and effect of its harmonic progressions with rather more clarity and power than Godowsky's version which instead concentrates on delicate filigree elaboration of Chopin's basic ideas in this piece (and I apologise for my mistyping of Chopin's name in MY original post on this!).

Best,

Alistair