At the "bell" part, remember that Rachmaninoff has Persian origins, the name in Iran being Rahman, son of God.
...very interesting what you did in the prelude starting from around 1:25...I also noticed you occasionally rushed the next note after the crotchet note with appogiatura in that section - sounds like you missed half a beat every time it happened. Were they intentional for stylistic purposes?Otherwise, great! Can only say what has been said numerous times before ^^
Listened to op 39 no 1, very well done! Thanks for sharing. The agitato parts were quite convincing, however, I feel you lost the melodic line in the "dreamy" part (page 3-4) - it drowned in all of the other notes. But apart from that, great job.
As I'm studying the piece myself now (or, sort of at least..), I'm curious about what fingerings you use in some spots, like left hand bar 14-15? I do: 5-2-1-3-2-1-3-2-1-2-3-1-2-5 etc.
Then the last figure in the following measure (beat 3-4 in measure 15) is rather awkward - I would probably do 5-1-4-3-2-1-(take the top D with the right hand)-1-2-3-4-1. Is that what you do?
Oh, and the very first RH figure in the piece - I can imagine that since Rachmaninoff had a big hand, he could finger it like this: 2-1-3-4-1-5, but I find it safer to do: 2-1-5-2-1-5 - a fingering which is more "logical" too since it's exactly the same fingering twice. What do you do?
So I wanted to pick apart your performance, not to be cruel or mean, but only to hopefully try and spread a bit more careful attitude to such a piece. Of course it is all only my opinion, but I hope you can gain from it.
First of all like I mentioned before, the RH is just too blurry. In the last bar of the first page (I am going with the Dover edition), before the climactic octave D, the notes are a bit easier to play, and as a result, they are crystal clear, even in this not terribly good sound reproduction. The entire first page has to sound as clear as you play that one bar. You may end up discovering, that you are trying to play it too fast, in other words, faster than what can be played clearly or in a comprehensive way.
Also on the first page, the LH octave syncopated leaps (like in the first bar): the second C is always given a bigger accent then the F#, which actually has the accent. It would be better played more melodically and with more nobility, then with the harshness of an accent.
In the repeated chords on the second page, don't interrupt the momentum until the fortissimo, whcih is the climax - you put in a pause before the rhythm diminishes to sixteenth notes, then another one at the climax, and it takes away from the forward drive. All though this seems like a picky point, I think considering things like this will contribute towards getting more immediate applause at the end, because people can easier follow the structure. I'll address the end at the end of this message , but consider that in general the structure has to be more tight.
At the "bell" part, remember that Rachmaninoff has Persian origins, the name in Iran being Rahman, son of God. The scales he uses are often Persian in origin, or suggesting at least something exotic. When you blur the admittedly difficult scales in the LH, it takes away a very important harmonic element and becomes something like empty virtuosity; I say something like, because the notes don't actually come out. Listen to the Richter recording: every note is amazingly audible in these 32nd note scales. That should be the goal, and I think the piece shouldn't reasonably be played in competitions until passages like that are secure (not a personal cirticism, but relating to my first point).
beautiful transition into the sequential passages at the end of the second page, but I think it is important to note that at those last four bars (the next two continuing on page three), Rachmaninoff didn't notate the hairpin crescendos and decrescendos as he did in the first bars of the piece. Since you are about to move into the angelic middle section, I think it is much more advisable to keep this part restrained, and not try and make it as terrifying as the opening music. It's a settling down music.
When you make the actual transition to the angelic passages, find only one place to slow down and relax, not two. At the moment you are relaxing into the Neapolitan-ish E-flat passage before the D major, and then at the D major. Again, it makes it difficult to follow the structure for the listener; just relax where the music relaxes. Plus, there is an inherent tension in the Neapolitan chord that is cancelled out if you are slowing down for it.
Incidentally, at the last bars of this section, the D-flat minor/half-diminshed harmony, the melody in the LH gets lost, which is not a huge deal, except to point out that it ends on the e-natural, not the D-flat of the RH, and that should be audible.
In the scherzando, notice there is no change of dynamic, and in the last bar of the page, it is only mezzo-forte. It is not as loud as you imagine. The RH is very impressively played, and the LH on the second page, for the oriental scales, has to be just as impressive. Keep that in mind!
In this section's LH, the melody is thankfully brought out, but with not the right notes: first E-natural, D-flat, as you play, then in the sequence you bring out F, C, but actually the melodic notes are E-flat, C. You'll notice it's the E-flat which is the quarter note and has the tenuto, and the F is part of the staccato eighth notes.
On the fifth page, third line (I hope you have the Dover edition), notice that Rachmaninoff composed the "Dies Irae" theme into the LH, at least the first four notes of it, and then in sequence. It's personal of course, but I always bring it out.
At the recapitulation, the RH is even less clear. I think you are faster even than at the beginning, it should be the same tempo exactly, and it is just too fast. The notes and harmonies are not audible. I know it's not the seound quality, because other places which are fast (the scherzando) I can hear just fine, or a few bars here and ther eon the first pages. Also, I think the accents on the LH octaves can be concievably interpreted as, pesante, but you always rush the last beat of the bars, further obfuscating the music. It's at that beat that it can be heaviest.
At the meter change and hemiola passage, you can start much softer, otherwise you will wear yourself out with the 6 or 8 bar whatever crescendo. You get much too loud much too fast, and notice where the forte is actually written. If you play lighter, the RH will also be intelligible. The high notes especially are just not coming out.
In the forte bar, you play the low D-flat in the LH as if it is a long bass note; you give it much more weight than the other notes. But it is not a long, held, bell of a note, it is just part of the melody. It's not even a harmonic fundamental, but you are playing it like it is "the" bass note. This LH melody in octaves is a wild, spread-out passage and the whole contour has to be heard to be effective!
In the G pedal point passage, the Rh has to be more melodic with the "sighing" thirds cleverly written into the triplet texture (they appear as the first note of each triplet). The LH can here play the accompaniment role. At the diminished seventh inferno, the RH slurs have to be articulated, because you rush through the bar. it shouldn't be rushed but extremely tense and demonic.
On the last page, the same comments hold as on the second page, the LH has to be more articulate. Also you;'re rushing and it is making it impossible to play the notes.
Because of your timing, you give us two options of what could be codas, but there should be only one. You suggest at first that the c minor bar with the rising syncopated tenuto octaves in the LH is the start of the coda (not the c minor bar with staccato octaves), ten you suggest that the marcato chords are the coda. But you have to decide which one of these is more iomportant. Things like that contribute to the overall effect, and you will be less likely to get delayed applause at the end.
The delayed applause is, I believe, because of small structural defects which don't convey properly to the audience which section is which. They're not sure which part is beginning, and which part is ending. Help them out more by tightening up the structure, and leading them to the conclusions. In the last bar, a longer delay after the octave C is appropriate before the closing gesture, which should be dramatic, but not rushed, because you will flub the notes as it happened here.
I think you've got the technique to play this etude, but your performance here sort of inspired me to articulate what I feel are common problems in playing this etude. I don't think it gets played enough in professional concerts for students or competitors to have good role models for performance, and it always turns out much flabbier than it should be. Please don't take this as personal criticism, and I hope that it helps you in some way to improve your already accomplished performance of this very, very difficult etude.
Not quite sure what exactly you're talking about. That section marks somewhat of a contrasting middle section and I tried to convey that without altering the general pulse of the prelude. Once you've securely internalized the beat, it's ok in spots like this to alter the "micro beats" as long as the "macro beat" remains. Is that what you mean?
This is another place where I took specific liberty in my interpretation. It is intentional and I like it. I made recordings of this where I put that in contour with the other octaves, and the whole forte measure lacked conviction and sounded bad IMO. Also consider the chromatic bass notes starting at the meter change on the previous page. F - Gb, Ab - A, Bb - B, C - C#, (page turn) D, then the octave I broadened at - Db - and on the next measure it resolves to C. ALSO, yet another defense for this interpretation is the fact that on those 2 measures there is contrary motion between both hands in both directions. The Db LH octave occurs at the point of largest span between hands, and marks the point where they change directions and return for the resolution to the C minor. That's a big climax if you ask me, and to just fly past it I think is a misinterpretation of Rachmaninoff's intentions.
I disagree. Yes, it's a bit rushed, but I played every one of those notes! I will also blame the articulation in the LH on 3 things: register the same as first page (again), the RH being in an easier register for the mic to pick up--making it difficult for the mic to pick out the LH, and finally (and this also ties in to the 2nd thing) that my pedal was holding the C octave pedal through. The important rhythmical stresses are accurate though, and I think the character is correct.
Audiences on average don't understand enough music theory to know anything structural about the pieces you're playing. Audiences know that when you get up from the piano, you applaud. This audience was recently reprimanded for applauding between pieces, and were told to wait until the end of the program. I played 3 etudes-tableaux consecutively here, ending my 20 min recital. The audience (which was not large) didn't IMMEDIATELY clap because they didn't know if I was playing another piece or not after this one.
By the way, do you have a recording of you playing this you'd care to share? Best,Josh
Well I see there was a good reason for it. But I hold to my original point: that tighter renditions of structures will lead to greater understanding. Can the audiences clarify with technical terms the progressions in this etude? 99-1 they cannot. However, if the pianist can make the form sound inevitable, sound so powerful as to produce no other options, it will always be felt viscerally, and responded to. This is the genius of Richter: his forms were so magnicifently sculpted as to be inevitable, and the large-scale could be felt viscerally like in almost no other pianist.
I will try and make a recording of it in August. I don't have my own equipment unfortunately, but will have a session to record some other materials during that time, and try and fit it in. It will be the only time anyone finds me posting int he audition rooM!
PS If my post ever did seem bitchy, it is because I feel the same objections every time I hear this piece played in a competition. I always feel for instance, that the left hand scales cannot be heard as they should. I always feel that the right hand is muddy for 90% of the time, and clear for the other 10%. I usually feel an ambiguous structure, when the one written is so clear and exciting. I offer my apologies@!
At the "bell" part, remember that Rachmaninoff has Persian origins, the name in Iran being Rahman, son of God. The scales he uses are often Persian in origin, or suggesting at least something exotic.
Excellent piano playing, esp. Rachmaninov, which I enjoed very much.One thing I'd suggest is to pay attention to your rubati, esp. when you slow down. I understand and appreciate your desire to "smell" and show all the harmonic/melodic beauties of misic, but to my taste sometimes you little overdo it and music stops, loosing its momentum.
Would that apply generally or to a specific piece?Thanks!Josh
Topic: Some videos from last weekend... 