Bortkiewicz, (С. Бортке́вич), Prelude Op. 40, No. 6 in F#m

[rachfan]

Here I’m posting the mournful Prelude, Op. 40, No. 6 in F#m by Sergei Bortkiewicz from his set entitled Seven Preludes published by Litolff.  It was written in 1931 during his so-called second Berlin period.  I would characterize the piece as a duet actually.  Therein, the soprano voice sings a tearful lament.  The baritone tries throughout the piece to comfort and reassure the distraught soprano… but she remains inconsolable.  That's the imagery I get from the piece.  There are definitely some technical challenges in this work.  Probably one could make a lifetime study of it and always find new insights for performance.

NOTE: If you select the second (2nd) listing of the piece, you can hear it without the A/C hiss, which I filtered out!  

Piano: Baldwin Model L Artist Grand (6’3”)

Recorder: Korg MR-1000 DSD

Microphones: Two Nakamichi small diaphragm condenser microphones with omni-directional capsules in A-B configuration.

Comments welcome.

[Essyne]

Very nice insight.

[rachfan]

Hi essy,

Glad you liked it!

[remy]

Rachfan,

I've listened to your wonderful recording more than 10 times already.

Actually, I stopped counting at 10, since I don't like to remind myself how obsessive I can be with regard to beautiful music and playing.

And what a gorgeous piece this is, right up there with his D flat Etude and Eros.

My current passion is forgotten composers and unknown music, so your pieces always are an excellent fit.

I did notice that the E# at the end of the first partial measure and the one at the end of the first full measure don't come through. Could be my computer speakers, though.

You probably try to keep file sizes small, but I would definitely recommend that you encode at 224 or 320 to get the full effect of the lush music you play.

Thanks very much for posting your recording.

remy

[rachfan]

Hi remy,

Thanks for listening to my recording!  I'm delighted you enjoyed it so much.  Yes, I've recorded six Bortkiewicz pieces here so far.  It has truly become a project.  But the incredible music of this neglected and nearly forgotten composer deserves to be heard.  So every time I post one of his pieces, I believe I'm at least raising awareness a little bit, so that other pianists might look into these pieces too.  (A couple actually have and posted recordings of their own here.)  It's not a matter of causing a mass sensation over Bortkiewicz's music, as wonderful as that would be, but rather winning over one pianist at a time.

Sometimes there are relatively few comments to postings (despite many downloads), and it all begins to feel like a lonely pursuit.  In moments like that, I think about moving on to other repertoire.  But, when someone like you listens to my recording 10 times, I get motivated all over again to do yet one more Bortkiewicz piece.  So yes, I'll stick with it. 

On those E#s, if you have headphones, try those and I think you hear those notes clearly.  I always use the headphones, as the sound is more pristine than what comes out of the computer speakers (at least mine, subwoffer and all). 

One of the other members also mentioned encoding at higher bit rates a couple of weeks ago.  (I use standard 128 Kbits but can go up to 320.)  Anyway, I experimented with it at higher rate settings.  What I seemed to notice mostly was that the higher the bit rate, the more diffuse and spacey the sound got.  Then I found a technical article saying that (similar to the parallel MHz frequency issue) the human ear really cannot detect a discernable difference over 128K.  That is, the benefit of the higher rates are lost on our feeble ears.  So the other member started researching it too, and even found an online test where one can try to guess the rates, order them, and submit them for scoring.  Turns out everyone flunks, because it's beyond the capacity of human hearing to accurately judge.   

The thing that frustrates me though is that I have a recorder that in addition to WAV does DSD (Direct Stream Digital) at 1-bit/5.6MHz digital recordings.  Problem is that I've yet to find an MP3 converter program that even knows what DSD (or a DFF file) is, never mind how to convert it!  So I record in WAV, but as you know all too well, MP3 does rob fidelity unmercifully.  I do understand that PianoStreet wants compression to save server space, but there's a self-defeating side to that too--the lower quality of recordings. 

Again, I appreciate your comments, remy.  I find them encouraging!

 

[manel]

Hi Rachfan

You have, at least, another unknown fan of  Sergei Bortkiewicz and your playing: me. I have copied all your posted pieces of this composer, and listened at them many, many times. I find that Bortkiewicz is a marvellous romantic composer. And your playing, very good. Unfortunately, these pieces are beyond my scarce pianistic resources.

Manel

[rachfan]

Hi manel,

Thanks so much for the wonderful compliment!  It meant a great deal to me.  And I'm glad you too are a fan of Bortkiewicz's music!  Sometimes I wonder whether I'm putting his music across to enough listeners who care about it.  But when I get a message like yours, it makes my day and re-energizes me to continue on with the project!  I really appreciate your taking time to listen and comment.      

[mwhite]

Let me re-energize you some more.  Keep them coming.  Do you have Op 5, Minuit? 
Mike

[rachfan]

Hi Mike,

As I write this, I'm currently working on another Bortkiewicz Op. 33 prelude.  So far I haven't delved too much into Sergei B's very early works, as they tend to be a bit more derivative than his later opus numbers, where his originality and unique idiom really come to their own.  Usually I pick the pieces that are drenched in that Late Romantic sound.  I just downloaded the Op. 5 "Minuit" from the IMSLP and will definitely read through it to see if I might be able to do it justice.  Thanks for listening and mentioning the minuet.

David   

[mwhite]

Op 17. No 4 is so beautiful that I'm going to try to fight my way through it.  It's the story of my musical life, trying to play things way above my level of ability.  At least, it's fairly slow. 

I listen to Granados and Albeniz by Alicia de Larrocha and wish I could play like that.  Well, I can't play like her, but I have learned some of their works.     
Mike

[rachfan]

Yeah, I agree.  The Op. 17, No. 4 "Consolation" is a gorgeous piece.  I've always found that if I really love a difficult piece with seemingly insurmountable technical issues, I'll manage to overcome the hurdles, learn it and play it.  Actually, that's how a pianist "stretches" his/her abilities--not by invariably playing pieces within their comfort zone.  The only piece that's ever defeated me, despite my determination and resolve, is Scriabin's Etude, Op. 42, No. 6 in D flat.  But someday I'll revisit it for a third time and prevail.  That's part of what makes piano study so exciting. 

David

[wpasman]

Another beautifully played piece! Thanks for pointing me to here.

"Sometimes there are relatively few comments to postings (despite many downloads), and it all begins to feel like a lonely pursuit.  In moments like that, I think about moving on to other repertoire."

But these are lovely pieces, even to play just for yourself!? What other repertoire would that be, I can't see an obvious replacement for this?

Thinking still of that remark on slapping sounds, I noticed a 'twangy-ness' here, the treble notes sound a bit funny, right from the start. But I think this is related to your piano being a bit out-of-tune?

[wpasman]

One of the other members also mentioned encoding at higher bit rates a couple of weeks ago.  (I use standard 128 Kbits but can go up to 320.)  Anyway, I experimented with it at higher rate settings.  What I seemed to notice mostly was that the higher the bit rate, the more diffuse and spacey the sound got.  Then I found a technical article saying that (similar to the parallel MHz frequency issue) the human ear really cannot detect a discernable difference over 128K.  That is, the benefit of the higher rates are lost on our feeble ears.  So the other member started researching it too, and even found an online test where one can try to guess the rates, order them, and submit them for scoring.  Turns out everyone flunks, because it's beyond the capacity of human hearing to accurately judge.

What I can tell is that there are lots of artefacts in many mp3's. In the past I have heard pink noise clouds, distortion in attacks, additional noise, odd harmonics, well all kind of weird things.

 

The thing that frustrates me though is that I have a recorder that in addition to WAV does DSD (Direct Stream Digital) at 1-bit/5.6MHz digital recordings.  Problem is that I've yet to find an MP3 converter program that even knows what DSD (or a DFF file) is, never mind how to convert it!  So I record in WAV, but as you know all too well, MP3 does rob fidelity unmercifully.  I do understand that PianoStreet wants compression to save server space, but there's a self-defeating side to that too--the lower quality of recordings.

Yes MP3 does rob fidelity but you can't help that, if PS wants it that way. But why does recording to WAV reduce your recording quality? You keep the WAV file I suppose?

[rachfan]

Hi,

The information I had posted here is now outdated.  These days I record no longer at 128 Kbps, but at 192 Kbps, as that seems to be the limit that the sites will accept on their servers.  And yes, I save most of my WAV files which have great sound.  I wish I could share those with the listeners rather than MP3s, but, it can't happen here given their restrictions.  I also find that on outside hosting sites, WAV downloads take a considerable amount of time given their enormous size--a drawback.  

If you want to hear artifacts in records, go to YouTube!  After I upload WMVs there, their so-called "processing" invariably enables their output files never to sound as good as the original input files.

Again WAV is a great recording format and its sound is not at all degraded in and of itself.  But can it compete with DSD's 1 bit/5.6 MHz format?  Nope!!!  But the issue is that WAV is at least convertible to MP3.  Nobody that I know of has yet figured out how to convert DSD to MP3.  So I can enjoy listening to DSD here at home, but have no way to share it on Piano Society servers.  And secondly, even if there were a conversion program for DSD, the resulting MP3 would make the effort totally not worthwhile anyway.  By the way, you CAN convert DSD to WAV and then WAV to MP3.  I skip three steps and shrink it to two by just recording in WAV in the first place, then making it MP3.  

[rachfan]

Hi wpasman,

Somehow I just caught your last message here, having missed the prior one.

I do believe that piano tends to be a solitary pursuit.  While practicing, generally we're alone; and if we perform in public, it is only the pianist on stage.  And yes, the comments to recordings fade away all too quickly and one's latest recording slips off the front page.  One of my pianist friends, a wonderful virtuoso, once remarked to me that in the end, we all play for ourselves.  I think he's probably right.

My interest in the piano literature is the Late Romantic period, particularly the Russian composers.  (I'm an American.)  Some of my recordings are also posted on YouTube, where the poster has access to an "Insights" function that indicates on a world map where his listeners are located.  For awhile, it drove me crazy, because my electronic audience seemed to be located in the U.S., Canada, Europe, Japan and Australia mostly.  And where I play Bortkiewicz, Catoire, Rachmaninoff, and Scriabin, I was disappointed that listeners in Russia were not tuning in to my recordings.  Just as I was ready to give up on them, all of a sudden they started listening to my stuff, so now on several of my recordings, the Russians outnumber everyone else!  So in a way I don't feel so alone in my pursuit of Russian music now, knowing that some Russians appreciate my shining a light on lesser known repertoire of their countrymen. 

[wpasman]

Probably most russians are a very closed community, similar to what I saw with chinese. Even the western characters are foreign to them, so in fact they can not even SEE that you are playing russian music from the titles. So I have a suggestion : if you want to reach russian public, I think the first step has to be to show composer and title in cyrillic characters on your webpage

Some servers allow to share wav files and yes I also prefer wav files. With today's download speeds wav files are no problem IMHO. Indeed youtube is a showcase of bad mp3 files, in most cases even the pop music sounds bad.

Interesting that you find the DSD 1bit format so much better. Is this that you think it SOUNDS better or is it for other reasons better?

About converting DSD to mp3, as you describe the two-step way is I think the way to go.  You could make a 1-step converter but the quality of the final mp3 would remain the same. The step from WAV to mp3 will throw out 99% of the quality and that 1% loss in DSD to WAV is totally negligible.

I guess that the DSD 1bit format is a direct equivalent of the 1-bit DA converters that were made in the 90's. I have a book with a shipload of info on the involved conversions like noise shaping, even showing electric schemas. I can give you some pointers but again, if you already have a converter to WAV I would not bother further.

[rachfan]

Hi wpasman,

Your idea to include cyrillic characters in titles is cool.  I have the cyrillic spellings on some of the old editions, plus the cyrillic alphabet characters I can insert from Word.  On YouTube though I do display the pictures of the composers.  Most seasoned musicians can easily identify any composer at a glance from his picture.  So that helps too.

Download speed (despite the rating you pay for on DSL or cable modem) is often victimized by the ISP or at other times the music hosting servers at some sites can be way too busy and insufficient for the traffic load.  Right now there are constant complaints that YouTube has fallen far behind on augmenting their resources to meet demand.  That can be frustrating too.  I notice, for example, that during the daytime, on YouTube videos the download bar is constantly overrunning the play bar resulting in stuttering or stop-and-go performances.  Yet if I go on very late at night, there is no problem at all--straight play-throughs.  So it's definitely at their end, but from what I read, they simply don't care.  There's no sense of the customer there.

DSD renders the most realistic sound with highest fidelity IMHO.  It's a future technology that is already here.  It does surprise me though that it has not caught on big time in the market.  I suspect that it all comes back to lack of conversion conundrum.  If you pick any three conversion programs at random on the planet and try to take DSD directly to MP3,  the conversion engine will go "Wha.......?".  Plus you're right.  Even if you could convert a DSD file directly to MP3 (rather than to WAV as the intermediary step), then in the end there would be destruction of the superior fidelity anyway, so still a no-win.  I just stick to WAV and work with that, as it's so easily converted.

[wpasman]

Yes they can read that page ONCE they arrived at your page. The problem is, Russians won't find you at all assuming they type the cyrillic name into the search engine.

And yes download speed at youtube is pretty low. But why would  you put a wav file on youtube, I think you even can't or maybe you can but then it will be converted to mp3

For the quality difference of DSD, it's interesting. Are you comparing with 24 bit 192khz wav and do you play back both from your recorder?

[rachfan]

Hi,

For YouTube, you have to submit material in video format for them to accept and process it.  I use Windows MovieMaker which is easy and works great.  So it arrives in the upload as a WMV file.  Their "processing then converts the audio track of the file to MP3, so I don't have to do that step myself.  Like other services, their objective is to conserve server space.

To make it easier for Russians to find this music, at YouTube there is an Edit function for users who post videos.  One of the fields in Edit is "Tags" which directly feeds the YouTube internal search engine.  What I envision is, for example, doing a tag, say Georgy Catoire's name in cyrillic in Word, then copying it and pasting it into the Tags field.  Then if they can at least find their way to YouTube and search for Catoire there, it should come up for them presenting the video selections.  Then they just click and play.

Yes, for quality I'm subjectively listening to WAV then DSD from the digital recorder's HD.  (I use the Korg MR-1000.)  Of course, there are far more sophisticated audio engineering measurements that would validate or refute that, but I'm not an engineer, so rely on my ears.  Are you thinking that WAV is superior?

[wpasman]

Yes tags might be a good idea; but I can also imagine using them in the title or comments. Main point IMHO is that the search engines can find it.

Copy/paste might work, not sure, you may want to check on how HTML exactly works with cyrillic. I think word can also export in html, and then you may copy the codes from html. You may have to try a bit...

No I'm not saying WAV is superior. I expect them to be similar as the bit rates are comparible (192k*24=4.7Mbps) and they both do not use compression. Both should be far beyond what anyone can hear if the recording is done properly. But who knows, 48KHz is already double what we can hear and someone must have had a reason to crank it up to 192.... Also, there are often differences in the HARDWARE that play these formats, and these probably CAN be heard. The decoding schemes and required filters are way different, that's sure. And if you hear a difference then there must be SOME difference, either in the format or in the way the KORG handles these formats.

[rachfan]

I'll have to experiment a bit to see what works with the cyrillics.  I'll use Scriabin as the test subject.  He won't mind!

I agree with you that a frequency of 48KHz is beyond human hearing capability.  Maybe they figured that the household pets might benefit from it?   The Kbps of 192 definitely provides a richer listening experience than the older, lower settings like 128.  I think that's a good change.  There again though, hosting sites don't want to get much beyond that, as the increased amount of detail in the recording increases the size of the files raising the server space issue again.  Goes to show once again that everything in life is a compromise.

[ladypianist]

I must go and seek out all your audition post. You speak with Russian soul. How inspiring to hear. To lose myself in your music. to return again to my youth and to sit very quietly in Great Hall at Moscow conservatory and listen to wonderful musicans with the russian soul. Thank you so much for this sound.

Your most adoring new admirer, Lady Pianist.

[rachfan]

Hi Lady Pianist,

You truly honor me with your kind words!  Most of what I play is Russian music, but alas, it's seldom heard by Russians. It's always been my favorite music ever since I can remember, especially the Late Romantic Russian composers.  Russian composers understand the deepest feelings--love, romance, sensuality, ecstasy, despair.  It's like no other music in the world.  Whenever I play one of these pieces, I want it to be as if for the last time.

If you want the fast and easy way to find recordings, here in Audition Room, at the top of the list, just click on Index to Audition Room. The index is arranged by composers in alphabetic order.  

You might want to first listen to my recordings of the music of Georgy Catoire (who taught composition at the Moscow Conservatory) and the Ukrainian, Sergei Bortkiewicz as they are more recent. Very recently I also posted the Medtner Sonata-Elegia, Op. 11, No. 2.  

At the moment I'm preparing a little known but gorgeous work of Rachmaninoff that will take people by surprise.  Once I record that, I plan to turn to Liadov.

I am so very pleased and honored to have you take an interest in my music. I'm so very touched by it.  It means a great deal to me, as you are a great artist.  Thank you!

Best,
David

[rachfan]

Hi wpasman,

In an effort to attract more Russian listeners, on YouTube I followed your suggestion and yesterday put the Cyrillic names into the titles as well as the tags.  I also did the ones on Page 1 here at Piano Street Audition Room as another test.  What I discovered though at both websites is that their search engines cannot recognize the Cyrillic characters, only Latin characters.  So the search engines are of no help in navigation.  (Also both require text for setting up recordings, not HTML.)  

However, that notwithstanding, I'm hoping that if Russian music lovers are simply browsing, that seeing the names in Cyrillic will be a good finding aid.  Nothing ventured, nothing gained.  Several days should tell whether this is helpful or not.  If the shoe were on the other foot, I know for sure it would help me!  Because there is virtually no relationship between the Cyrillic and Latin alphabets, and where the phonetics for pronunciation of characters are entirely different too, when I see Cyrillic, I cannot decipher it.  For many Russians I believe that the Latin alphabet might be just as challenging. So if nothing else, maybe this approach will at least seem more inviting.