Playing waltzes

[ed_thomas]

How important is it to maintain a steady rhythm when playing Romantic era waltzes?  I don't mean getting all schmaltzy, but sometimes it feels like a fairly generous rubato is almost inevitable.  If it's a titled as a dance type, did the composer expect it to be performed as though dancing were going on as it is being played?  Sometimes it seems like the music invites some rhythmic freedom that would leave dancers hanging in airt, tripping,  and falling over. 

[maxd]

I think that the thing to consider is how different dance movements may have changed from those days.

the steady predictable rhythm which is typical of modern society was not applicable.

the industrial and corporate age brought about a materialization of the modern ideal of mechanical perfection.

people see themselves as succesful when they fit into a global scale of order nowadays, but it's not a thought that would have been applicable to an aristocratic style of living in the 1800's. the romantic period brought even more of an individual slant to music that was made beforehand.

another thing to consider is the decay of the notes of the romantic piano.

the notes from middle c up have a progressively shorter decay, given the lack of cast iron frame..

the whole piano is more guitar like.

this permits and evokes a fluctuating rhythm since there is no sustain to be had... an it makes dance easier because of the faster decay of the fundamental.

[Waldszenen]

Rule of thumb: a waltz is supposed to sound like the opposite of how Idil Biret plays them. -_-

[gyzzzmo]

Just play the stuff how u like it. Youre the musician/performer. It would also be a bit boring when everybody would play it exactly the same

gyzzzmo

[ed_thomas]

Thanks, everyone.  I guess I just started thinking... if composers just wanted to write a pieces in 3/4 time, then why not label them things like: "Thoughtful piece in 3/4 time" or "Lyrical Tune in 3/4".     But they choose "waltz", which is a dance.  So did they just pick that name because it is conveniently understood to be 3/4 time, or because of the unconscious sense of dance within the music?  Since I wrote the first question, I've been thinking that as long as someone doesn't literally try to dance to it, I can probably keep the spirit of the waltz dance movement going yet still have quite a bit of rhythmic freedom.  That seemed to help.  But I don't want to abuse that freedom, either.

[kriskicksass]

Think of waltzes as in 1, not in 3. That is the true spirit of the waltz rhythm, and if you play it that way, then the rubato will take care of itself.

[thalbergmad]

How important is it to maintain a steady rhythm when playing Romantic era waltzes? 

For me, it is completely unimportant, especially in respect of Strauss transcriptions.

If ever there was a genre for liberty taking with the score, it must be the Romantic Waltz.

Consider the stupendous transcription that Pennario wrote on the Emporer Waltz.

How bad would that sound if played with steady rhythm?

Play them how you fancy.

Thal

[nightingale11]

a waltz is both slow and fast. in the first part of a waltz you dance slowly but in the 2nd part it all speeds up and it is if you were going to fall to the floor.