Scriabin - 2 Poèmes Op.32

[quantum]

Well here's my take on Op. 32.  Nr.1 is often played (others have post it here), Nr. 2 makes for good contrasting material for a pair of Poèmes. 

Scriabin 2 Poèmes Op. 32
1) Andante cantabile
2) Allegro. Con eleganza. Con fiducia.

Mics: (2x) Studio Projects B1
Interface: Edirol UA-25
Reverb: Adobe Audition - Medium Hall Crisp
Piano: Yamaha C3

Enjoy!

[arensky]

Opus 32 #1

Excellent playing, you have a good feel for Scriabin and how to interpret his music, this following your interpretation of Sonata #5. What I really like about your Scriabin playing is your contrapuntal definition, I can hear all the voices and the duet character of this piece, and your tone production is beautiful, even more considering you are playing a Yamaha C3, a model of grand piano that can tend to be tinny and/or metallic. Not here; you mange your piano very well, perhaps you have had the hammers voiced.

The only technical weak points I hear are the 16th note pianissimo scales at mm. 4-5, 9-10, 28-29,  and 33-34. These don't work out a couple of times (it's a hard thing to do I know), you should practice these slowly and really analyze what you are doing that makes this inconsistent.  My other gripes are that there is no change of character or dynamics at the "inaferando" sections or at the aforementioned scale passages, and your first quintuplet 8th note rythym at m.13 beat 3 is not flowing or free enough, it seems very metronomic the way you do it. Your whole interpretation  could use a bit of rubato. These issues seem to smooth themselves when we get into the 3rd page. I think your final four measures are particularly good, the music just fades away. All in all this is an excellent performance.

[pianistimo]

so beautiful.  what does 'inaferando' mean?  an afterthought?

i think i like scriabin. 

[thracozaag]

so beautiful.  what does 'inaferando' mean?  an afterthought?

i think i like scriabin. 

 Inaferando is one of those, what I like to call, "scritalian" markings that would roughly translate to "ineffable".

koji

[arensky]

so beautiful.  what does 'inaferando' mean?  an afterthought?

This word has had it's own thread....

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,14948.0.html

[pianistimo]

ahh.  elusive or losing grip or slipping away.  thank u for the insights, everyone.  u all are on a different level, of course, but it's nice to hear this type of quality and just sit back and listen.  it always sounds so easy - but scriabin must be very difficult to master interpretively.

[arensky]

Op. 32 #2


This is also excellent, again we have the well defined and coherent phrasing that we heard in the Poem #1. The only thing I'll say in this case is that when you make your dynamic changes, which you do very well, you might want to change the tone quality as well, provide a variety of texture. On the other hand, this piece doesn't nessacarily require that, the way the first Poem does.

Randomly I might learn this for a mini recital (30-45 minutes) I'll be playing in about a month, then I'll have both of these Poems in my rep. A thought; what if a performer substituted  the "dim. e rit." direction in the last two measures with "crescendo molto e rit." ? Sacrilege, or viable option? Scriabin indicated in a different manuscript of the Etude in d# minor op.8 #12 that that piece was to fade away to ppp. Clearly he considered different options in the interpretation of his pieces...

[thracozaag]

 direction in the last two measures with "crescendo molto e rit." ? Sacrilege, or viable option? Scriabin indicated in a different manuscript of the Etude in d# minor op.8 #12 that that piece was to fade away to ppp. Clearly he considered different options in the interpretation of his pieces...

  Of course viable option--the score is just that--a score (anyone who slavishly thinks otherwise has obviously never worked with a living composer).  Actually there's a whole different version of the Op. 8 #12 etude with some very interesting variances.

koji

[arensky]

  Of course viable option--the score is just that--a score (anyone who slavishly thinks otherwise has obviously never worked with a living composer).  Actually there's a whole different version of the Op. 8 #12 etude with some very interesting variances.

koji

Several composers I've worked with have been laissez faire, some have been very insistent about their directions being followed. If a composer is dead s/he is not there to insist or suggest, and a crew of musicologists and "experts" inevitably form a possee to enforce their view of what is correct regarding the interpretation of a composer's works. IMO this has been damaging to classical music performance in the last 50 years or so, the "Urtext Mafia" , which included many prominent critics, made performers afraid and reluctant to go against the score, which became a virtual bible that one dare not disobey. Fortunately this trend is disappearing.

I think the music indicates what should happen; the composer's (not some editor's) indications are of course the most important guide to a correct interpretation and should be followed, but if the performer wants to bend these a little, it's OK, as long as it doesn't sound strange or unnatural. Changing the end of Poem Op.32 #2 from dim. to cresc. is OK, it will sound normal, more normal IMO than the diminuendo. So I will do it that way, unless I opt to play Albeniz pieces instead...

What if someone switched the ending of the Appasionata Sonata, played the whole final page as a diminuedo to pp? Unnatural, or valid? I don't think the music wants that, I would consider that wrong...

[wzkit]

I think Arensky's comments on Op 32#1 are spot on. I can't comment on this as specifically, but generally I find the tone production is beautiful (for a C3), and the feel is about right, though I would prefer more rubato and tonal variety (difficult on a C3) at parts. THis might seem unfair, but the performances of Sofrotnitzky (in particular), Horowitz and Pletnev and imprinted in my mind and that's where my point of references are.

[thracozaag]

Several composers I've worked with have been laissez faire, some have been very insistent about their directions being followed. If a composer is dead s/he is not there to insist or suggest, and a crew of musicologists and "experts" inevitably form a possee to enforce their view of what is correct regarding the interpretation of a composer's works. IMO this has been damaging to classical music performance in the last 50 years or so, the "Urtext Mafia" , which included many prominent critics, made performers afraid and reluctant to go against the score, which became a virtual bible that one dare not disobey. Fortunately this trend is disappearing.

  I love the term "Urtext Mafia"--especially when considering that the term "Urtext" is a basically made-up marketing-tool word used by Henle to promlugate their editions as being the only "correct" ones.

koji