Schubert, d. 810 transcription

[thracozaag]

 Here's the 2nd movement from the 1.30.07 concert--luckily the string players in the audience didn't throw rotten fruit at me.

koji

[pianistimo]

why would they throw rotten fruit?  i don't get it?  you sound just as good or better than a string quartet.  i'd probably go for you over the strings.  koji, you can pretty much do as you please now.  don't apologize.  just do it.  nobody will think you're full of yourself.

on a side note, schubert does prove to me here - that although he writes good music - it isn't necessarily the MOST pianistic.  i mean - people don't generally enter this in piano competitions.  but, when played for relaxation and pleasure - it's the best.  i feel happy and contented when i hear this music.

[dnephi]

Wow, that was great.  I'd looked forward to hearing this for a good while.  You did an excellent job in transcription.

Dan

[thracozaag]

on a side note, schubert does prove to me here - that although he writes good music - it isn't necessarily the MOST pianistic.  i mean - people don't generally enter this in piano competitions.  but, when played for relaxation and pleasure - it's the best.  i feel happy and contented when i hear this music.

  Schubert does tend to be very unpianistic and horribly awkward, compounded by the fact that I'm transcribing string writing which of course, does not lend itself to being that easily translated to the keyboard.  I do like the extra sonority the piano has, which seems to lend a more dramatic flair to the piece (but I'm biased).

koji

[dnephi]

I personally like Mahler's Orchestration.  It gives it a great dramatic flair.



Dan

[rachfan]

I really enjoyed this performance of Schubert.  Thanks for posting it, koji.  You have a real knack for choosing unusual repertoire that deserves to be heard more. 

Schubert did indeed succeed in writing some awkward passages, as many will attest.  I can, however, think of one composer who, in my opinion, is even more guilty on that score--Brahms.  That is very surprising because Brahms was an excellent pianist.  Often in his figuration, however, he writes "outside of the octave" forcing the pianist to devise fingerings and shifts of the hand to cope with it.  I think this is attributable to the fact that Brahms most often thought orchestrally and composed his notation accordingly--awkward or not.  The third Rhapsody comes to mind.  Whenever one has to thus play Brahms orchestrally, it's an added challenge. 

[pianistimo]

good points.  also, brahms seemed to attempt to put counterpoint in EVERYTHING.  you suddenly have a voice going this way or that while your still doing another thing.  his way of being complex, i guess. 

[thracozaag]

 I think that stems from Brahms thinking orchestrally at the keyboard, and Schubert more vocally.

koji

[dnephi]

I think that stems from Brahms thinking orchestrally at the keyboard, and Schubert more vocally.

koji

Schubert's writing was very orchestral as well, and that is why so many awkward jumps occur. 

[ramseytheii]

I really enjoyed this performance of Schubert.  Thanks for posting it, koji.  You have a real knack for choosing unusual repertoire that deserves to be heard more. 

Schubert did indeed succeed in writing some awkward passages, as many will attest.  I can, however, think of one composer who, in my opinion, is even more guilty on that score--Brahms.  That is very surprising because Brahms was an excellent pianist.  Often in his figuration, however, he writes "outside of the octave" forcing the pianist to devise fingerings and shifts of the hand to cope with it.  I think this is attributable to the fact that Brahms most often thought orchestrally and composed his notation accordingly--awkward or not.  The third Rhapsody comes to mind.  Whenever one has to thus play Brahms orchestrally, it's an added challenge. 

Interesting point!  Charles Rosen comes to a different conclusion in his article, "Brahms and the Inspiration of Awkardness."  He speculates that Brahms utilitzed Lisztian piano innovations in decidedly non-Lisztian ways, for instance, fast double octaves at pianissimo instead of the thundering Liszt Sturm und Drang.  In other words the awkwardness didn't come from thinking orchestrally (so many others thought orchestrally and composed fine piano music) but from deliberate intent!

Walter Ramsey

[pianistimo]

i disagree with what a lot of charles rosen says.  i'm going to get killed again.

from my perspective - brahms attempts to incorporate the vocal line with a lot of HEAVY TEXTURE.  there is, no doubt, some harmonic thickness at times in liszt - but usually it is a much lighter veil (ie wayyyy less counterpoint - and voicing).  with brahms you never get the 'virtuosity' because you are dealing with so much heaviness that it slows you down.

also, if brahms had had the piano lessons that liszt did - he would have written more pianistically - and thus been able to achieve great virtuosity at the ppp levels.  it is barely accomplishable to play ppp for three notes in brahms.  you have this sudden drop and are expected to make the piano suddenly 'perform' as though it is the piano and not the performer that is making this 'magic' happen.

brahms simply wished that the piano was a violin or singer.  why didn't he just accept the fact that he would have done better to compose completely for violin/piano or vocal/piano?  i think he wanted to be like schumann and impress clara.  but, clara ended up writing even better cadenzas and stuff.  clara was way more like liszt in the way she thought and composed, imho.

brahms is to liszt what de pachmann is to chopin.  (now i shall be head chopped).

[thracozaag]

 Maybe it's too early on a saturday morning, but I'm afraid you totally lost me there.

koji

[pianistimo]

which pieces of brahms do you consider virtuosic?  let's take the paganini variations (simply because i'm aware of how they are composed and not entirely familiar with the entire brahms repertoire for piano).  ok.  you have these variations - and they are 'virtuosic' but the 'theme' itself is taken at a rather 'staid' tempo.  you don't dramatically start speeding it up at the end or doing anything lisztian other than sixths and thirds and runs, etc.

but, amongst all this - you have very heavy texture (counterpoint) that keeps the pace from getting 'out of hand.'

the brahms requiem is another example of lightness only in maybe ONE of the portions of text/song/orchestration - and the rest has voicing throughout that keeps it really from any virtuosic tendencies.  i think he thought WAY more chordally (vertical) than liszt.  it keeps virtuosity OUT.

[thracozaag]

 Ok, I understand where you're coming from, but I still believe the contrapuntal density stems more from his wish to incorporate orchestral textures than any vocal considerations where his piano music is concerned (Reger is an even more extreme example of this).

koji

[pianistimo]

and yet most of his phrasing for piano repertoire are the exact length as would be made for a violinist/singer!  if you listen to any one of the opus 118 works - they are filled with phrasing one would use for violin/singer - regardless of the 'voice' followed.  to me, brahms was a violinist first and pianist last.  he thought in terms of composing for the piano with violin and voice foremost in his head.

compare this with liszt - who greatly elongates ideas (as wagner) and makes phrases 'grandiose.'  this allows him freedom to arpeggiate more and give an impression of chordal structures more sparsely populating his piano music - rather than every beat - like brahms.  you get a sense of propulsion in his music that one cannot get from any 'virtuosic' passage in brahms beyond a couple of bars.

[thracozaag]

and yet most of his phrasing for piano repertoire are the exact length as would be made for a violinist/singer!  if you listen to any one of the opus 118 works - they are filled with phrasing one would use for violin/singer - regardless of the 'voice' followed.  to me, brahms was a violinist first and pianist last.  he thought in terms of composing for the piano with violin and voice foremost in his head.

compare this with liszt - who greatly elongates ideas (as wagner) and makes phrases 'grandiose.'  this allows him freedom to arpeggiate more and give an impression of chordal structures more sparsely populating his piano music - rather than every beat - like brahms.  you get a sense of propulsion in his music that one cannot get from any 'virtuosic' passage in brahms beyond a couple of bars.

  Are we talking bar-phrasing, or slurring when you refer to 'phrasing' in the Op. 118?  And certainly any of the codas in such vared works as the 3rd sonata, 1st concerto, or either book of the Paganini variations is as 'propulsive' as piano writing can get.

koji

[pianistimo]

not really.  i was meaning the entire phrase being extended only by a few bars here and there in brahms - but normally the size one would use for a violinist or vocalist.  liszt seems to ignore the restrictions of 'classical' phrasing and move into ecstatic territory.

[thracozaag]

not really.  i was meaning the entire phrase being extended only by a few bars here and there - but normally the size one would use for a violinist or vocalist.

  I'm not sure why that would be considered the exclusive domain of either a vocalist or violinist, but fair enough.

koji

[pianistimo]

koji, i start arguments wherever i go because i just speak my mind.  then, i realize that maybe just being silent is an idea.  music is so deeply personal and just because i disagree with charles rosen doesn't mean he's wrong.  just that, personally, i don't agree that liszt is anywhere in brahms.  if he was lecturing, i'd eat a carrot in my head.

[thracozaag]

 I think you are actually making some interesting and quite valid points--just trying to understand your entire argument, that's all.

koji

[el nino]

amazing. you have really beautiful sound