11 notes over 6!! help!!!

[eyeballnick]

im currently learning the nocturne in Bb minor, op.9  no1. any advice on learning to improve the 11 notes over 6, im struggling with getting it!
       Thanks in advance! 

[desordre]

 Dear Eyeball:
 First, you have two very different problems: m. 2 (11 x 6) and m.3 (22 x twice 6). Notice that although matematically 22 x 12 is the same of two times 11 x 6, musically it's not.  Chopin was not the first to use rubato, but he used it a lot, and that's what we are talking about. The basic idea is keep a regular, steady left hand in the arpeggio, and let the melody flow above it. Forget about something like "this note is together with this one, and that is in between this and that, and the other is here". The result of such is poor, and sounds very bad.
 So what you need is this steady arpeggio and this flowing melody. The question that arise (and that's your real question, forgive me for the introductory words) is how to get there. The principle is very simple, but sometimes it takes a long time to render. Study hands separate this way:
 - LH with metronome, and - very important - with a strong sensation of beat, of rhythm and of regularity. Basically, start reinforcing the bass, and playing as even as you can the arpeggio figuration.
 - RH: when you get the proper idea of the arpeggio, and have a clear sensation of the frame of time that you have, start playing RH alone, without metronome. It's very important to say that you are not trying to play regular: you must play with great freedom and flexibility. How will you phrase this is upon you. It could be helpful to play always slightly different.
 Of course that, before this stage, you must be able to play this very quickly. When you have an idea of the phrase, use the metronome. Although the quarter is not the beat, use it as a reference. So, you will have three quarters plus six quarters to end your phrase, and in this practice one thing must be achieved: the b-flat (m.2, second beat), the f (m.3, first beat) and the d-flat (m.3, first beat) have to be played exactly with the metronome.
 
 Then, and only then, you will join hands. The goal is absolute independence. However, if this is your first time around with such a situation, it can keep a very long time indeed. Don't worry if you have to work on this passage for a couple of months. Anyway, it depends on the individual: maybe in your first week of practice you will be playing this smooth and controled.

 Hope it helps. Best wishes!

[the_duck]

as a general rule i tend to match the notes up roughly like this (R=rh note, L=lh note):

L           L             L            L            L            L
R              R          R     R     R     R     R     R     R     R    R


as you can (hopefully) see, the rh notes are clustered towards the middle and end of the passage, which creates a nice little accelerando effect (this is just my personal taste though). the most important thing here is that it sounds fluid and controlled, but it doesn't want to be metronomically even. you might want to listen to the rubinstein recording of this piece (he recorded the nocturnes a few times, but his later recordings are slower and probably more helpful).

the fast Bb minor run near the end might pose similar problems, but it's actually simpler to subdivide. starting from the Bb in each hand i split the right into groups of 3 and 4 to be fitted around each LH note. i play it roughly as follows:

Bb= 3 rh notes, F= 4 rh notes, Eb= 4 rh notes, A= 3 rh notes, F=3 rh notes, F= 3rh notes.

once again this creates a little accelerando in the middle (i also tend to take a little more time here with the last lh note).

hope this makes sense!

The Duck

[nicco]

You guys really make it sound much harder then it is.

[desordre]

 Dear Nicco:
 Although my answer above, I agree with you: it's not that difficult after you master the principle of playing rubato. When you do that, it's natural. However, if you didn't yet, it's a mess, don't you think?
 Basically, it's the same thing when you have to play two against three, then three against four, and so on. The first attempt is artificial, uneven, and musically poor. But with some practice, it works.
 Anyway, it's just my opinion, based on my own experience.
 Best!

[quantum]

Might be useful to look in this recent thread too:
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,21135.0.html

[nicco]

Dear Nicco:
 Although my answer above, I agree with you: it's not that difficult after you master the principle of playing rubato. When you do that, it's natural. However, if you didn't yet, it's a mess, don't you think?
 Basically, it's the same thing when you have to play two against three, then three against four, and so on. The first attempt is artificial, uneven, and musically poor. But with some practice, it works.
 Anyway, it's just my opinion, based on my own experience.
 Best!

I see your point, and your probably right. I read your post again and mostly agree. I just feel this sort of rubato should be 100% natural, and when someone starts telling exactly wich notes goes where i react a bit. I feel its against the meaning of the notation, and rubato as a whole. (But that was the other guys post, not yours )

[gyzzzmo]

I also think (and probably many others with me) you better follow Desordres way of practising those notes. It really should be avoided to have such a mathmatical approach as 'the duck' proposed.
Its a melody. Think your right hand is a butterfly and catch that flower on the next bar!

Did i drink too much?


Gyzzzmo

[counterpoint]

Think your right hand is a butterfly and catch that flower on the next bar!

Wow, what a wonderful picture!!! 

[ahinton]

Interesting comments so far, but where does this leave anyone wrestling - or seeking to wrestle - with the kinds of multiple and sometimes multi-layered cross-rhythmic patterns and figurations (often including nested - and sometimes multiply-nested - tuplet groupings) to be found in the work of some of the so-called "New Complexity" (absolutely NOT my term!) composers? (please take a look at certain scores of Finnissy or Ferneyhough before answering that!). Where (if indeed anywhere) might one draw the/a line between the kinds of approach so far advocated here in respect of a particular work of Chopin with those that might be appropriate when addressing certain of the works of those other composers I mentioned?

Best,

Alistair

[ce nedra]

I played this piece recently and what I did, as a last resort, was I set the metronome to beat once every 6 notes (in the LH) and practised the left hand alone, getting it into a regular rhythm, then I left the metronome at the same speed then practised the right hand alone, fitting all 11 notes in evenly. Once I had done that for a considerable amount of time I switched my conscience mind (the one that tells me its hard and impossible, and OMG how do I get this right) off and just fit them together. Each hand independant of the other. I just played them both at the same time without having them interfere with each other.

Its strange, to me its a lot easier in other pieces after getting it right once.

[the_duck]

I also think (and probably many others with me) you better follow Desordres way of practising those notes. It really should be avoided to have such a mathmatical approach as 'the duck' proposed.

while i can understand what you're saying here, based on recordings i've heard online (in this forum, on youtube, etc), and without meaning to sound like a musical fascist, this is perhaps one of the most misplayed (or at least badly played) phrases i've heard by many amateur musicians. it rarely flows naturally, and notes seem to be clustered completely counter-intuitively, at least to my ears. simply telling someone to "make it sound natural" (especially evoking images of butterflies) seems to me to be quite unhelpful- i'm sure the many people who struggle with this passage are trying their hardest to sound natural. i was just trying to give a little more specific and practicable advice which works for me. and i did say in my post that this was just my opinion, so feel free to disagree. i would agree with the other posters, however, in saying that you NEED to be able to play the phrase rhythmically and metronomically before you start injecting rubato, otherwise there will be no control.

p.s. i try and pride myself on NOT playing "mathematically"!

[mephisto]

Interesting comments so far, but where does this leave anyone wrestling - or seeking to wrestle - with the kinds of multiple and sometimes multi-layered cross-rhythmic patterns and figurations (often including nested - and sometimes multiply-nested - tuplet groupings) to be found in the work of some of the so-called "New Complexity" (absolutely NOT my term!) composers? (please take a look at certain scores of Finnissy or Ferneyhough before answering that!). Where (if indeed anywhere) might one draw the/a line between the kinds of approach so far advocated here in respect of a particular work of Chopin with those that might be appropriate when addressing certain of the works of those other composers I mentioned?

Best,

Alistair

Even Finnissy himself plays his own music COMPLETLY different from the score, so it useless to to discuss.

Great comments so far.

[counterpoint]

it rarely flows naturally, and notes seem to be clustered completely counter-intuitively

There is an easy trick, how to play this sort of independent rhythms basically correct:

concentrate on the hand with the faster notes and insert the notes of the other hand between them at the right places. If the notes are in the right order, that's sufficient in most cases.

[ahinton]

Even Finnissy himself plays his own music COMPLETLY different from the score, so it useless to to discuss.

Great comments so far.

But Finnissy is not the only person who plays Finnissy - and he was not the only composer to whom I was referring here.

Best,

Alistair

[mephisto]

But Finnissy is not the only person who plays Finnissy

Best,

Alistair

And so?

Pluss I think you have a habit of  going off topic

[ahinton]

And so?

And so the possibility that Finnissy may depart from certain aspects of the texts of his own scores when performing them does not in and of itself undermine the point I was making earlier, which was the more general one of performers' problems in mastering the complexities of cross-rhythmic patterns (sometimes incorporating nested tuplets) to be found in certain more recent composers' works.

Pluss I think you have a habit of  going off topic

You may think what you will, but given the nature of my remarks it is pretty clear that what I wrote was very much on topic here.

Best,

Alistair

[mephisto]

What is nested tuplets?

[ahinton]

What is nested tuplets?

Tuplets within tuplets.

Best,

Alistair

[mephisto]

And what is tuplets?

[ahinton]

And what is tuplets?

Groups of notes in the time of - as in 11 in the time of 6 (thread subject, n'est-ce pas?)...

Best,

Alistair

[counterpoint]

Groups of notes in the time of - as in 11 in the time of 6 (thread subject, n'est-ce pas?)...

Best,

Alistair

Yes, but we should not confuse the 11 againt 6 in a piece of Chopin, which does mean something in the sort "play in a free tempo and play hands asynchronous" with an optically equal rhythm in a strictly mathematical piece composed by an "avantgarde" composer.

In avantgarde music, the written music is the real music and the interpreted music is only an approach to it. In "old" music, interpretated music is the real music and the notated music is only an approach to what the composer wants.

It's a completely different understanding of what musical notation means.

[ahinton]

Yes, but we should not confuse the 11 againt 6 in a piece of Chopin, which does mean something in the sort "play in a free tempo and play hands asynchronous" with an optically equal rhythm in a strictly mathematical piece composed by an "avantgarde" composer.

In avantgarde music, the written music is the real music and the interpreted music is only an approach to it. In "old" music, interpretated music is the real music and the notated music is only an approach to what the composer wants.

It's a completely different understanding of what musical notation means.

Whilst I take your point (an interesting one about which one could argue for lifetimes!) about the question of the extent to which certain music may arguably by nature be considered to be open to the vagaries (as well as the enlightening delights) of interpretative licence while certain other more recent music may be music less so by reason of its seeming to be rather more hitched to the demands of its notational conventions, I think that we should be wary of drawing unduly inflexible conclusions here, along the lines of "Chopin's generation viewed 11:6 one way whereas Ferneyhough's viewed it another way"...

Best,

Alistair

[steve jones]

Heres a useful little tip...

Try programming the LH in the sequencer and playing the RH yourself. Iv been doing this today. And I also setup a multitimbral metronome which was handy.

Then I tried to tap a 3/4 time with my LH on the Bb key while playing the RH with full rubato. Next Im going to try to tap quavers on the Bb key (basically creating a drone, but keeping the rhythm) and play the RH.

I think this has helped alot.

SJ