Chopin stuff.

[Chitch]

Hi, I'm Mark, here are the Etudes I'm working on:

Op. 10
- No. 4 (Finished), 9, and 12 (Finished)
Op. 25
- No. 2, 6, 7, 11(Finished), and 12

I've had to change my style of playing a few times because of the lack of similarities in the Etudes. You'll find real quick that the style you use everyday just won't work with these exercises. If you're interested in the style I use post and I'l go as in depth as I can.

I'm also working on two of Chopin's scherzos (Bb and B minor) which seem fairly easy so far, and I've just finished his 2nd piano concerto and the Grand Polonaise (Which is the most intense but beautiful peices he's ever written, IMO.)

[chopiabin]

That's great (I'm not sure how to respond)?

[Chopinkid]

Mark: If you don't mind, how long did it take you to the learn the second concerto? (I'm learning that right now  )

[Chitch]

That's great (I'm not sure how to respond)?

If you're interested in the style I use post and I'l go as in depth as I can.

Mark: If you don't mind, how long did it take you to the learn the second concerto?

3 weeks, 4 hours of practice every other day.

[taloddar2002]

I'm in the process of learning Op. 10 No. 12 if you'd like to give me some pointers.

[Chitch]

Dare I say use a different style then that of M. Pollini? (Assuming you're using Pollini's recordings) His recording (IMO) was dynamically crap. There are so many ways to play that damn song (haha, j/k Ed ) but everyone seems to follow the way of the recording. Be creative in your approach to each section, it'll be more interesting for the people you're playing for to here the song played in your style. Trust me!

[Robert_le_diable]

I'm in the process of learning Op. 10 No. 12 if you'd like to give me some pointers.

The op.10 no.12 is the finale work of his first set of Etudes and according to what I have learnt, these etudes should be learnt in consistant order from 1 to 12. The op.10 no.12 deal with all techniques (however some only briefly) practised in no.1 to no.11.

Apart from that, the work is divided in three sections (as the previous op.10 etudes). Bar 1-28, 29-48 and 49-84. Learn first episode properly before moving on to next. The tempo must be consistant through all the piece and no use of the sustain pedal whatsoever!!!
The piece is very passionated and fiery so adding appassionato to this piece overall is encouraged.

Contrary to what Etienne says, I would advice to use Pollini's versions of the Etudes as the very reference for how these should be performed.
Just listen to the bass-line of the op.10 no.12 and you will understand. There are rather long very fast jumps (16:ths) in the second part in bar 30 and 32 and just listen how Pollini handles these. Absolutely incredible!

[eddie92099]

I have to disagree with all of that,
Ed

[Robert_le_diable]

I have to disagree with all of that,
Ed

How very odd (and very uninformative).

How can you disagree with it all? Some information I wrote is not even arguable.

I know it is a bit conservative in these modern days when the beautiful, so called revolutionary (I do not even like take names of Chopin's works in my mouth as he disliked very much using other than opus numbers), is destroyed by huge washes of sustain pedals by performers who know so little about Chopin and his music.

[eddie92099]

The op.10 no.12 is the finale work of his first set of Etudes and according to what I have learnt, these etudes should be learnt in consistant order from 1 to 12.

I have never heard that in my life.

The op.10 no.12 deal with all techniques (however some only briefly) practised in no.1 to no.11.

Clearly it doesn't.

Apart from that, the work is divided in three sections (as the previous op.10 etudes). Bar 1-28, 29-48 and 49-84. Learn first episode properly before moving on to next.

I see no reason for that.

The tempo must be consistant through all the piece and no use of the sustain pedal whatsoever!!!

I think the absolute opposite.

Contrary to what Etienne says, I would advice to use Pollini's versions of the Etudes as the very reference for how these should be performed.
Just listen to the bass-line of the op.10 no.12 and you will understand. There are rather long very fast jumps (16:ths) in the second part in bar 30 and 32 and just listen how Pollini handles these. Absolutely incredible!  

I prefer Horowitz, Cziffra, Ashkenazy, Perahia etc.

Happy now?
Ed

[zoolander]

and no use of the sustain pedal whatsoever!!!

I belive you can use sustain pedal to get the proper sound, but not to cover up a shitty legato.

[cziffra]

it's a very good idea to never practice with the pedal at all, simply perform with it.  

or if that's a bit extreme, don't use it for at least 90% of your practice time.  

otherwise the pedal becomes a bit of a security blanket, and doesn't help the music at all- if it's never there, then when it is being used, you really notice the effect.  

[Robert_le_diable]

So here I have a choice, either to explain some things in detail or just let it be...well, I feel like the detail thing today.

I have never heard that in my life.

Unlucky you. But now you know.

Clearly it doesn't.

Ok, from the beginning of op.10.
Op.10 no.1 - Arpeggios (RH): Found from bar 5 in no.12
Op.10 no.2 - Weak finger chromatics. With left hand, this is found in many bars. Right only very briefly as in bars 7 and 8.
Op.10 no.3 - Legato playing and syncopation: All over no.12
Op.10 no.4 - This Etude is a summary for the first three Etudes (one reason to learn them in consistant order)
Op.10 no.5 - Arpeggios on the black keys: Again only briefly but the technique is needed to handle op.12 well.
Op.10 no.6 - Legato playing and counterpoint: There is no need to point bars out here.
Op.10 no.7 - A summary of the last three (4, 5, 6...see, the very reason to learn them in consistant order)
Op.10 no.8 - Counterpoint and legato playing: No bars needed to be pointed out.
Op.10 no.9 - Arpeggios (LH), Legato playing and Counterpoint: Very much similarities with no.12.
Op.10 no.10 - Legato and staccato playing with syncopation: Again, no need to point out specific bars.
Op.10 no.11 - Arpeggiated chords and legato playing: Again, no need to point out specific bars.

I see no reason for that.

This is how Chopin taught his students. Lets assume he was not wrong (information found in letters to Delphine Potocka who was a very good friend, and sometimes even more than a friend ;-)).

I think the absolute opposite.

This is how Chopin should be played, always! His use of rubato is very special and often misinterpreted. Feel free to use Rubato for right hand, especially in his Nocturnes. Left hand should be consistant. He was very careful with this in his teaching of his students. Always practise with metronome was one of his most famous advice.

I prefer Horowitz, Cziffra, Ashkenazy, Perahia etc.

Horowitz is ok...though I cannot stand Cziffra. Especially not when he adds improvising in the beginnings (as in one version of op10 no.1 and he finals the piece with a very inapproriate banging right hand chord, what a shame).

Happy now?

Yes. To learn more about Chopin, visit the Chopinfiles Forum at www.chopinfiles.com/forum (which I am moderating by the way).

[meiting]

The op.10 no.12 is the finale work of his first set of Etudes and according to what I have learnt, these etudes should be learnt in consistant order from 1 to 12.

Ok, it is the final work, but there is no reason that the etudes should be learned in order from 1 to 12. And please don't tell me that Chopin taught them in order, because he didn't. you can dig through his letters, but his actions speak more than his words, for me.

The op.10 no.12 deal with all techniques (however some only briefly) practised in no.1 to no.11.

That is absolutely not true. I saw your list of things that 1-11 deal with. You only mention the specific things within an etude that you can stretch to include in 12. Please don't do that as there are people here who will believe you, and you can seriously damage someone by doing this.

Apart from that, the work is divided in three sections (as the previous op.10 etudes). Bar 1-28, 29-48 and 49-84. Learn first episode properly before moving on to next. The tempo must be consistant through all the piece and no use of the sustain pedal whatsoever!!!

Let's go slightly more in detail to the structure of the piece shall we? The etude is basically ABA form, with an introduction to the A's, and a coda. In that sense you can divide it into three the way you did. There's no reason why an episode has to be learned properly before you move on. You can try to learn the entire etude at the same time.

Regarding tempo, I agree it should be consistent, but by saying that you're allowing people to misunderstand you. Rubato is absolutely allowed and necessary.

Regarding pedaling, again, I think you mean no pedal whatsoever during practice, and not during performance. Either way I would disagree. Performing this piece without pedal is ridiculous, and practicing it without is almost as ridiculous. I do not believe in pedalless practicing or playing, though I will agree that more pedal is used than necessary most of the times.

The piece is very passionated and fiery so adding appassionato to this piece overall is encouraged.

And you like Pollini's recording?! Overall, his performances of these are the most boring I have ever heard. Cortot, the early (not late) Ashkenazy, they're all much more interesting (not to mention some of the others, but I'm only talking about complete sets atm).

Contrary to what Etienne says, I would advice to use Pollini's versions of the Etudes as the very reference for how these should be performed.
Just listen to the bass-line of the op.10 no.12 and you will understand. There are rather long very fast jumps (16:ths) in the second part in bar 30 and 32 and just listen how Pollini handles these. Absolutely incredible!

Well, he does have good technique. It's just unfortunate that it sounds so.. planned. there's no spontaneity in his performance at all, and if there was ever a composer who needs and wants spontaneity it's Chopin.

mt

[eddie92099]

Thanks Meiting,
Ed  

[meiting]

Ed,

You're welcome I don't always agree with everything you post either but then that's personal opinion. Here we're dealing with some facts that really isn't debatable  

[eddie92099]

Ed,
You're welcome I don't always agree with everything you post either

I am shocked,
Ed  

[IgnazPaderewski]

Ok, so this is the most peculiar argument I have seen so far on this forum, made the more so by the fact that I agree with everything Ed says (!). I have never EVER heard that the op.10 should be taught in order. There is no logic to that whatsoever. Why no sustain pedal? My favourite rendition (Ignaz Friedman) covers the piece in sustain pedal, and uses an enormous amount of rubato, but the performance is so much more moving (for me) than pollini, ashkenazy, horowitz etc. The analysis of the techniques apparently covered by it is specious - I have never thought of it in those terms while practicing it. And WHY for gods sake should you learn the piece in sections? How is that at all benificial?
Bollocks!

[cziffra]

Especially not when he adds improvising in the beginnings (as in one version of op10 no.1 and he finals the piece with a very inapproriate banging right hand chord, what a shame).

you're not a purist are you?  cziffra was recording an improvisation, not an etude, he threw that in because he wanted to, because you can do that in a free improvisation- in his recordings of the etudes on their own, however, he is faithful to the score.

[Chitch]

It sounds almost like you're talking in 3rd person, Cziffra. It's really quite funny, lol.

[dinosaurtales]

Well, I won't get into the gory details of the etude and pedal discussion.  But I will throw in my 2 cents on the performances.  In order to better understand the nocturnes I bought 2 cd's that my teacher recommended for them , one by Ashenazy (sp? sorry) and the other Rubenstein.  I made the mistake of listening to the Rubenstein one first.  It's an old recording - 1965 - but gorgeous.  Then I listened to the Ashkenazy one - and was quite disappointed.  Totally different interpretation, and not nearly as wonderful.  I just listened to it again after a few months, hoping time would *wear* it differently, and reversed the order.  In my book , Rubenstein is much better.

[Robert_le_diable]

Well, I doubted that I should start this debate before my first post as it takes almost to write a novel to describe his etudes ;-).
I also knew that most people would disagree.

Though (using a somewhat lower voice), it is to my belief, after studying his etudes and many other works (documents, letters and about everything that I have able to lay my eyes on), that his first set of etudes (and also his last set of etudes) were created as exercises to act as a gateway to his more substantial works, particularly the Scherzi, Ballades, Polonaises and Sonatas. This is one of the reasons why I believe these etudes should be learnt in consistant order from 1 to 12. I cannot believe that Chopin (who spent so much time in his composition), just randomly through out the ordering. So give me another reason why they are ordered in the way they are.

Also, it is to my belief that Chopin, especially in his etudes and in particular the op.10 no.12, is wrongly understood and interpreted by the majority of both amatuer and professional pianist all over the world. But maybe it is allowed to change the history and interpretation along the way? Though this is not my way and I was taught to disallow any free mind changes.

Chopin is the true inventor and patron of the étude de concert’ and what separates Chopin’s Études from similarly named works by Cramer, Clementi, Liszt and Moscheles is that it was Chopin who first gave it complete artistic form in which musical substance and technical difficulty coincide.

I'm a purist? Well, as I am from Sweden and do not really understand what the definitation of such a person is so I cannot answer the question properly. Though, my mother always told me I was a perfectionist.

And dangerous to give the other old conservative view of Chopin's etudes? How could that be dangerous? Maybe cause you can get stuck on his first etude which is very hard to perfect in right tempo, though fairly easy to memorize and play slower (if you have done your theoretical homework well). No.1 is by the way very likely a direct reference to Bach (who he admired very much, hm...of course information that everyone already knows). Compare it to Bach’s Prelude no.1 from the WTC I and you will find something very interesting (well, I guess you all knew this already).

My Master of Chopin is the most well-educated and intelligent person I have ever come across on this planet. His 40 years of complete study of Chopin's music and life is the most complete I have ever heard of and shared. Everything he ever has described made very much sense given some research and extra thoughts. I am very much referring to his knowledge in my posts.

I completely understand that my way will not suite you all as it is strict, conservative and hard. I still think it is very valuable to not be given the modern common fashion style of Chopin only, but to be given inputs from the old school too.

/Robert

[meiting]

This almost got a flame.. but I'll keep it civilized for now.

Well, I doubted that I should start this debate before my first post as it takes almost to write a novel to describe his etudes ;-).
I also knew that most people would disagree.

Yes it does take a novel. Which is what I'm doing. Writing a doctoral thesis on the etudes.

Though (using a somewhat lower voice), it is to my belief, after studying his etudes and many other works (documents, letters and about everything that I have able to lay my eyes on), that his first set of etudes (and also his last set of etudes) were created as exercises to act as a gateway to his more substantial works, particularly the Scherzi, Ballades, Polonaises and Sonatas.

True.

This is one of the reasons why I believe these etudes should be learnt in consistant order from 1 to 12.

Absolutely not true. Look at Chopin's teachings and look at how he taught Madame Dubois (previously Ms. O'Meara) and Jane Stirling, and you'll see that he didn't teach them in order.

I cannot believe that Chopin (who spent so much time in his composition), just randomly through out the ordering. So give me another reason why they are ordered in the way they are.

It's very simple. He wrote them as a cycle of pieces such as Bach's WTC. He admired Bach very much, and constructed op 10 as based on a similar key structure (or at least started out as such). Chopin's Preludes are also based on a key structure, though not Bachs, but undoubtly influenced by Bach. However, that does not mean that they needed to be learned IN ORDER. Just because Bach composed his WTC with a careful order in mind does not mean that those needed to be learned in order either. And it also doesn't mean that Chopin's etudes needed to be learned as a book (though I do prefer it that way - it's just not NECESSARY). This idea of playing complete sets and collections is a rather new idea. Nobody played beethoven cycles before the 20th century. Similarly, Chopin never performed his etudes as a cycle, and he didn't even compose them in order.

Also, it is to my belief that Chopin, especially in his etudes and in particular the op.10 no.12, is wrongly understood and interpreted by the majority of both amatuer and professional pianist all over the world.

True.

But maybe it is allowed to change the history and interpretation along the way? Though this is not my way and I was taught to disallow any free mind changes.

Remember that a piece can be interpreted in many different ways. There is not a single THE way to do something, even if the composer wanted it that way. That's the beauty of music. Brahms, with one of his string quartets, heard two very different performances within 2 weeks, one of which was very fast, the other was very slow. He wrote to a friend that he enjoyed both of them very much. So there is always room for interpretation. If everybody had to play a piece in the same way, there is no point for anybody to try to play those pieces anymore cuz it'd just sound the same anyway.

Chopin is the true inventor and patron of the étude de concert’ and what separates Chopin’s Études from similarly named works by Cramer, Clementi, Liszt and Moscheles is that it was Chopin who first gave it complete artistic form in which musical substance and technical difficulty coincide.

Absolutely. Though Liszt has a couple of etudes which ranks as high as Chopin's (Feux Follets and Harmonie du Soir)

I'm a purist? Well, as I am from Sweden and do not really understand what the definitation of such a person is so I cannot answer the question properly. Though, my mother always told me I was a perfectionist.

Being a perfectionist is very dangerous in the musical world because you'll never be satisfied. It makes a depressing life. Like me.

And dangerous to give the other old conservative view of Chopin's etudes? How could that be dangerous?

What I said was dangerous was not an old conservative view of Chopin's Etudes. I was referring to what you said about all of the earlier etudes' difficulties. Someone could very well read what you wrote, and thought, ah, I have good staccato and legato playing with syncopation and decides to learn op. 10 no. 10, and without a good wrist rotation, seriously damage their hands and arms.

Maybe cause you can get stuck on his first etude which is very hard to perfect in right tempo, though fairly easy to memorize and play slower (if you have done your theoretical homework well).

Have you performed all 27 etudes? I have. Many times. So why don't you keep the insults to yourself.

No.1 is by the way very likely a direct reference to Bach (who he admired very much, hm...of course information that everyone already knows). Compare it to Bach’s Prelude no.1 from the WTC I and you will find something very interesting (well, I guess you all knew this already).

of course.

My Master of Chopin is the most well-educated and intelligent person I have ever come across on this planet. His 40 years of complete study of Chopin's music and life is the most complete I have ever heard of and shared. Everything he ever has described made very much sense given some research and extra thoughts. I am very much referring to his knowledge in my posts.

who is this "master of chopin"? and it appears that you're more into hero worship than actual thought.

I completely understand that my way will not suite you all as it is strict, conservative and hard. I still think it is very valuable to not be given the modern common fashion style of Chopin only, but to be given inputs from the old school too.

What old school? And your way.. what IS your way anyway? all you've mentioned so far is the ORDER of etudes that should be learned, some theoretical ideas about Chopin which is either common knowledge (in which case it is correct) or misguided (in which case it is incorrect), and that you think it should be played without pedal. The only thing in that list as a "way of playing" is pedal-less, and that is not strict, conservative or hard, but rather narrow-minded, ridiculous, and stupid.

Have a good day.

mt

[eddie92099]

,
Ed

[DAwud7]

meiting
I noticed u said u dont like too practice without the pedal. I also find this too be stupid i learn by ear so its very hard for me not too use the pedal in practising as i am trying too achieve a certain sound out of my playing when im practicing and if that rquires the pedal i need too be using the pedal.

[krenske]

Mr DAwud
I think we could be talking about two different things here.
Or 2 different levels, separated by much time and ability.

[cziffra]

meiting, on another post, you mentioned that you hate the etudes- but you have also recorded them AND are doing a doctoral thesis on them...

what's going on?

[meiting]

hehe I knew I shouldn't have posted the thing about me hating the etudes... it was meant as a joke

[IgnazPaderewski]

Meiting I think you are reading the Robert the whatevers remarks the wrong way - the bit where he speaks about theoretical homework helping to memorise opus 10 no.1 is a fact, rather than a snide comment directed at yourself and an assumed inability to play the etudes.

[meiting]

His post was so full of nonsense that it's not difficult to take it as a snide remark. And I'm still not sure what it is.

[Robert_le_diable]

Meiting I think you are reading the Robert the whatevers remarks the wrong way - the bit where he speaks about theoretical homework helping to memorise opus 10 no.1 is a fact, rather than a snide comment directed at yourself and an assumed inability to play the etudes.

Correct!

[Robert_le_diable]

It's very simple. He wrote them as a cycle of pieces such as Bach's WTC. He admired Bach very much, and constructed op 10 as based on a similar key structure (or at least started out as such). Chopin's Preludes are also based on a key structure, though not Bachs, but undoubtly influenced by Bach.

This is also not to be meant as an insult so do not take it as such.

Etudes as a cycle of pieces...in what pattern if I may ask?
Of course, Chopin's Preludes are in the circle of 5:th, undoubtly influenced by Bach but the Etudes? Starting out of such...you are welcome to prove such a key-mathematical pattern to me.
And when writing a doctoral thesis, the explanation, or theory of the specific order should be one of the main issues to cover so you must have thought of it.
To my belief, it is a playing technique order rather than a key order but if you have another theory, I would be more than happy if you could share that information to me and this Forum.

[meiting]

I thought I made the pattern clear, but I guess I need to do a better job of it..

Chopin started off the op. 10 etudes in a pattern. It was discontinued. Get it out of your head that the entire cycle has a pattern. It doesn't. It was not composed in order, and in fact went through several renumberings. It also was never taught in order by Chopin, and the revolutionary was taugh to some of his students (Jane Stirling for example) without having all of the rest of them taught.

You still haven't said anything about this "master of chopin" personality..
The only sense of a "cycle" of etudes, is that they are in the end put together with a definitive numbering system, and that is, 1 through 12, for op. 10 and 1 through 12 for op. 25. The fact that Beethoven wrote 32 sonatas, and made no attempt at making all of them prescribe to a certain "order" does not mean that people can't perform them as a cycle, and same for the Chopin Etudes.

As for the theory of specific order, Chopin most definitely chose the order, rather than just threw them in order. However, He was thinking more musically than in any other way, and chose to put the etudes in the order that they are because they SOUND better in that order, not because of any key/technical relation. And in any kind of doctoral thesis, this is one of the LAST things one would be thinking about when looking at the etudes, though that of course depends on what your topic is.

[chopiabin]

I tseems to me that the purpose of an etude is to gain technical secuirty in a certain area through a piece of music. If one wants to study right hand arpeggios, one learns op.10, #1, if one wants to improve the agility of the left hand one learns #12.  Also, playing this without pedal, regardless of the legato, would cause it to sound very dry and mechanical -Bachian, I guess I would say.

Yes, Chopin loved Bach, but regardless of wheter or not he knew it, he was a Romantic, and his music cannot be played in a dry, boring manner.

Chop

[cziffra]

his music cannot be played in a dry, boring manner.

that can very much be said of both chopin and bach

playing this without pedal...

if memory serves me correctly, no one has mentioned PLAYING it without pedal, purely PRACTICING it without the pedal.  of course you can't play it without, chopin has pedal markings in there- but that doesn't mean every time you practice it it also needs the pedal.  practicing a piece that usually has a lot of pedal without the pedal often reveals a lot of deficiency's the pedal would otherwise obscure.