Piano Forum

Topic: Schubert - 4 Impromptus  (Read 9265 times)

Offline storyseller

  • PS Silver Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
Schubert - 4 Impromptus
on: May 27, 2009, 07:46:58 AM
Hello everyone.

I had the idea to present 4 Schubert Impromptus as one big circle, and juxtapose them with 4 (more obscure) Scriabin Impromptus played in the same way. I think it worked out fine and had a very possitive feedback by the audience. Curently I'm expanding this concept as to form an impromtu only full program

I tried to capture the esence of Romanticism but puting side by side these two circles of pieces. The 4 Schubert mark the dawn of Romanticism.

op. 90 no. 2

op. 142 no.2
&feature=channel
op. 142 no. 3
&feature=channel
op.90 no. 4
&feature=channel

Coments are welcome.
Enjoy!

Offline aslanov

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 275
Re: Schubert - 4 Impromptus
Reply #1 on: May 30, 2009, 06:11:39 AM
You labelled that last one wrong, its no. 3 not 4.
:) pretty dandy playing on that one btw, althought it feels slightly rushed, especially those inner notes. those repeating parts of the middle voice get louder, it sounds like your giving them more value than they really deserve, but not intentionally i assume. Overall i think the tempo is a bit too fast...you play it at least a whole minute faster than brendel. I think the main melody could be a little bit more..... flowing (if thats the rite word).....and the relationships between the voices need to have an overall structure, where the boundaries aren't crossed.

Offline storyseller

  • PS Silver Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
Re: Schubert - 4 Impromptus
Reply #2 on: May 31, 2009, 07:34:49 PM
Of course you are right - it's no.3!

Thank you for the comment.

Well, I feel this is the right tempo for it for 2 reasons:

1) Schubert writes TWICE "alla breve" or "doppio movimento" (I dont know the english term! I mean the 2 big "C"s split by the vertical line in the begining of the score - LITERARLY it means one beat per measure, however Andante it may be).

2) This is a song without words in the truest sence - in Horowitz's or Brendel's tempo, no singer could "sing" some hypothetical lyrics of a lied that was never written but I feel was intented by Schubert.

I tried to play as straight and simple as possible - I cant help to feel that people tend to oversentimentalize this kind of repertory. With this famous impromptu it has almost become the canonical aproach to play it as slow as possible. IMHO it's not the way schubert intended it to be played. After the "valses sentimentals" he wrote some "nobles" ones too :-)

Offline aslanov

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 275
Re: Schubert - 4 Impromptus
Reply #3 on: June 03, 2009, 05:47:32 AM
You may be right on the tempo, infact, if you've studied it, you are more right than I, because I have never really studied it, just tried to play around with it. However, I still think my previous comment on the small crescendo that happens in the middle notes when they are repeated (again, i assume they may be because of simple repetition, not intentional) subtly divert the attention of the listener from the main melodic line, which causes the overall structural integrity of the piece to be compromised. Maybe i'm talking nonsense, but from the recordings I have heard, and from playing the piece a bit myself, i think the middle voice is just there as an accompanying wash of harmony for the melody, subtly there so as to not disrupt the upper melody.

Good luck.

Offline ramseytheii

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2488
Re: Schubert - 4 Impromptus
Reply #4 on: June 04, 2009, 02:12:16 AM
Oh yikes!

Well, I feel this is the right tempo for it for 2 reasons:

1) Schubert writes TWICE "alla breve" or "doppio movimento" (I dont know the english term! I mean the 2 big "C"s split by the vertical line in the begining of the score - LITERARLY it means one beat per measure, however Andante it may be).

Literally speaking, cut time only means a doubling of the beat.  In this case, there are four beats (here half-notes) per bar: cut time means a whole note receives one beat, not an entire bar!  God help us all.

Second, one's tempo should be determined on what sounds good, not based on literalism about time signatures.  I don't think this sounds good, for a lot of reasons.  For one, it sounds very agitato and tempestuoso.  All thoughts of time signatures aside, do you think the character Schubert intended was agitated and busy?  To me, this piece sounds much more like a simple pastoral.

Secondly, it sounds like you can't manage every bar at this tempo; it's kind of tricky.  Why push the tempo?  When you reach the minor section about halfway through, the pick-up eighth notes sound martial, Verdi-esque, totally out of character.  They sound like sixteenths.  It's too fast!


Quote
2) This is a song without words in the truest sence - in Horowitz's or Brendel's tempo, no singer could "sing" some hypothetical lyrics of a lied that was never written but I feel was intented by Schubert.


This to me is another instance of literalism run amok.  First of all, your hypothetical singer doesn't seem to have much breath support, as they can't manage a simple line in a more relaxed tempo.  Perhaps you can compare your performance of this to a singer singing Ave Maria, where one really has to have good breath support.  It's a similar texture, though marked: "very slow."  So if the singer can manage it there, why can they not manage a slower tempo here?

Second of all, wouldn't a singer in fact be more sentimental by pronouncing certain words more carefully, more expressively?  You decry sentimentality, and perhaps subjectivity implicitly; I have heard pianists who style themselves as "objective" (though they never are), but never a singer who did such.  I don't even think the analogy holds!

In general, I would say that you are thinking too much of external situations (ie comparing your tempo with other pianists) and not listening to what really works.

Hope this helps,
Walter Ramsey


PS This is not a waltz, it is in 2.

Offline storyseller

  • PS Silver Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
Re: Schubert - 4 Impromptus
Reply #5 on: June 04, 2009, 09:17:51 AM
Thank you Walter for your time and comment.... I've been watching this forum for a couple of years now and you opinions always seem good to me... but I have to insist....

1) My playing is not as good as I want it to be. A lot of things went wrong but believe me it's not that hard to manage and play it in my tempo. So if we talk about my playing you are right but if we talk about the piece as Schubert wrote it you are not. I prefer to be in good terms with Schubert and play it sloppy than play perfect but too slow, not for speed's sake but for the composer's. In my literal  :) world the composer's intentions are better depicted when playing in the tempo they ask! Yikes!

2) I really dont care about how others play, I just try to do justice to the composer. In this impromptu's case however, because it's so famous, most people have an idea about it by having heared one of the "greats" playing it. I would be happy if 30 years from now I'd still live and be half as good as Horowitz or Brendel. I'm not comparing my playing whith their's BUT because of them people play this in the speed they do and not in the speed "proposed"  :) by it's composer. I will try and explain

Quote
Literally speaking, cut time only means a doubling of the beat.  In this case, there are four beats (here half-notes) per bar: cut time means a whole note receives one beat, not an entire bar!  God help us all.

Yes, sorry, I tend to think in 4/4 and this is 8/8. God help us on this! :)

STILL twice "cut time" means one beat every whole note. I play at 78 per half note. Schubert continues and states "Andante" but this Andante is about a whole note because he wants us to count in whole notes.. poor him.... Then the equasion turns to Andante= mm 39. Even that doesnt sound too Andante to me - it sounds more like largo. God help me on that!

Let's now suppose for argument's sake that the slowest andante possible is mm=50 per beat . Schubert STATES "count one Andante beat every whole note" ->100 per half note in THIS instance.... THAT would be literal but (I have to agree) TOO literal.

Then comes old Liszt and edits Schubert's impromptus. He writes mm=82 (or was it 88?- I dont really rember) per half note for this piece! He could be wrong, he could be too literal  :) he could be right! The two actually never met but I trust Liszt, and I trust his suggestion not because he is Liszt but because he seems to try and come as close to Schubert's indications as possible.

Quote
Second, one's tempo should be determined on what sounds good, not based on literalism about time signatures.

God help you :) on that!

Composer:"play this at the tempo I ask because I wrote it that way!"
Interpeter:"No, I play the way it sounds good TO ME"
C.: "But I tell you, I waste my good ink to tell everyone for centuries to come "Andante in TWICE cut time" - I never ever wrote twice cut time in another piece (well maybe he did I'm sure it's not too common :))
I.: " It sounds too agitato this way you want it - cant I have some freedom?"
C." "Then dont play it how I want (Andante per whole note) but try and stay as close as possible to what I specifically write please"
I.: " No, to me this piece sounds much more like a simple pastoral :)"
C.: "How do you know this? I write what I want you to play"
I.: "Stop being too literal silly"

End of story!

(I dont mean this to be offensive in any way but I couldn't restrain myself!)

Quote
For one, it sounds very agitato and tempestuoso.

Blame my palying for that, but wouldn't it be nice if someday someone could play this not agitato and still RESPECT Schubert's ink? I tried to do that. Maybe I failed. But maybe a 13 year old student of mine who has never heared it again is more right. I made him listen mine and some "great's" version of it. God forbid  :) he prefered mine. I didnt of course tell him who were playing... He thought mine was the correct tempo and the other too slow.... When I insisted on quality of tone, clearness, expession etc. he had to addmit that the "slow one" was better, but still he liked the "fast one" more. I always do this kind of experiment before playing a piece in public especially when I will have to play a very famous piece in a different than usual way. I listen to other's interpretations, and then I stop listening to it for a few months to clear my head - Then I go on and study it as if I would be the first to perform it ever. Finally I turn back and compare again. If it sounds too different I do this "tabula rasa" kind of experiment. If the results turn out possitive I stick with my way and defend it!

This turned to be ONE BIG POST!

Thank again for you time, and sorry if I sound too defensive on my playing or too offensive to you.

Quote
PS This is not a waltz, it is in 2.

?

Offline ramseytheii

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2488
Re: Schubert - 4 Impromptus
Reply #6 on: June 04, 2009, 04:51:38 PM
For me, the problem arises of applying a modern sensibility to a perhaps Romantic music.  We are so accustomed to the example of strict modern composers like Bartok and Stravinksy, who really expected their metronome markings to be taken as seriously as the pitches.  Often times, when we try and approach older composers the same way, we trick ourselves into thinking we are realizing what they wanted, we are being more objective, more simple, imposing less interpretation.  But the opposite is true.  We are not considering the sound of the music first and foremost; we are applying modern ideas of strictness of tempo, to music that was composed in a much more - impromptu - way.

This is not an observation original to me, though I formulated it before I found the original source.  Richard Taruskin wrote, many years ago, that the modern Baroque performance aesthetic was based more in the sound-world of Stravinsky than in actual Baroque practices, from what could be determined about those practices.  Since then, that approach has clearly bled over into other styles (Norrington recently insisted on an Elgar symphony performed entirely senza vibrato).  I think it is bad for the sound of music.


STILL twice "cut time" means one beat every whole note. I play at 78 per half note. Schubert continues and states "Andante" but this Andante is about a whole note because he wants us to count in whole notes.. poor him.... Then the equasion turns to Andante= mm 39. Even that doesnt sound too Andante to me - it sounds more like largo. God help me on that!

This is in my opinion where literalism interferes with listening.  You are saying that tempo indications like Andante refer to the speed of beats, in this case, the speed of the whole note beats.  However, to the ear, because of all the moving notes, which have a lot of detail, the impression given with a quicker whole-note beat is one of Allegro.  All the parts have to be taken into consideration, in order to arrive at the right tempo.

Look, for instance, at Impromptu op.142 no.3 in B-flat major.  This is also in cut time, and marked andante.  Your metronome tempo fluctuates between 38-50 in your performance of the theme.  According to your literal definition of Andante (which comes from Bartok's philosophy, not Schubert's), you are playing this too slow.  You are not playing andante, but largo.  Yet it feels andante.. because we don't determine the tempo because of the placement of beats, but how the whole music moves.

In your performance of the last variation, you are playing with a half-note beat so slow, my metronome doesn't register it - the minimum on my machine is 40.  How can you yourself justify that as andante?  It must be, that you are playing Molto largo.  But does it feel like a dirge?  Of course not - because for every half note beat, there are 12 sixteenths.  That is what gives the impression of tempo.

Therefore using a 39 per whole note in the G_flat Impromptu, also will only feel slow, if you only hear whole notes.

Quote
Then comes old Liszt and edits Schubert's impromptus. He writes mm=82 (or was it 88?- I dont really rember) per half note for this piece! He could be wrong, he could be too literal  :) he could be right! The two actually never met but I trust Liszt, and I trust his suggestion not because he is Liszt but because he seems to try and come as close to Schubert's indications as possible.

I've never known Liszt to be a Schubert purist, and in fact all the evidence would seem to suggest Liszt thought Schubert needed to be adapted to the concert stage, not played objectively.  To me, that indication sounds like Liszt interpreting Schubert's impromptu according to the styles of Liszt's time: he heard it as he heard Chopin op.25 no.1.  In my opinion, these two pieces are very far apart in style.

Quote
God help you :) on that!

In this case, I am quite capable of helping myself!

Quote
Composer:"play this at the tempo I ask because I wrote it that way!"
Interpeter:"No, I play the way it sounds good TO ME"
C.: "But I tell you, I waste my good ink to tell everyone for centuries to come "Andante in TWICE cut time" - I never ever wrote twice cut time in another piece (well maybe he did I'm sure it's not too common :))
I.: " It sounds too agitato this way you want it - cant I have some freedom?"
C." "Then dont play it how I want (Andante per whole note) but try and stay as close as possible to what I specifically write please"
I.: " No, to me this piece sounds much more like a simple pastoral :)"
C.: "How do you know this? I write what I want you to play"
I.: "Stop being too literal silly"

Actually, I am of Landowska's opinion in this matter: "If Rameau himself were to rise from the grave to demand of me some changes in my interpretation of his Dauphine, I would answer, 'You gave birth to it; it is beautiful.  But now leave me alone with it.'"

But I have more objections.  First, you presume to know how Schubert wanted the music to sound according to a literal feeling of a beat.  You are ignoring acoustic evidence, which causes us to perceive music at certain tempi, regardless of the metronomic indications.  In fact, you contradict yourself in two readings of cut time, Andante pieces!  So how, exactly, are you following what Schubert wanted in both cases, if one goes against what you argue for the sake of the other?  Clearly there is more ambiguity than you care to admit.

Secondly, we have to take into consideration the consequences of our interpretation, and ask if those consequences violate the spiritual quality of the piece.  Do you think that by writing Andante with a cut time, Schubert intended an agitato music?  Then what contrasts the opening G-flat major bars, with the middle bars in E-flat minor, which are clearly intended to be more dramatic in feeling?  If you start agitated and tempestuous, you cannot interpret the middle part in a contrasting way; and that is clearly an element of the spiritual quality - that he wanted a contrast.

The main thrust is, to count beats in a literal way is a dangerous way to approach music.  First and foremost, we should use our ear; then come questions of metronome etc.

Walter Ramsey


 

Offline storyseller

  • PS Silver Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
Re: Schubert - 4 Impromptus
Reply #7 on: June 04, 2009, 11:30:47 PM
Nice points. Well....

Quote
Look, for instance, at Impromptu op.142 no.3 in B-flat major.  This is also in cut time, and marked andante.  Your metronome tempo fluctuates between 38-50 in your performance of the theme.  According to your literal definition of Andante (which comes from Bartok's philosophy, not Schubert's), you are playing this too slow.  You are not playing andante, but largo.  Yet it feels andante.. because we don't determine the tempo because of the placement of beats, but how the whole music moves.

1) op 142. no.3 is written and actually IS (the left hand accompaniament suggests so) a landler - a dance type typical back then. The difference is ONCE cut time - it makes sence...At my tempo it can be danced so it's ok by me - please note that I play it faster than averange as well - it's a Schubert curse to oversentimentalize his pieces because he is a "Romantic".

2) About m.m. ... it's my point also you cant be toooooo literal about everything but some things just cry out to take them into account. TWICE cut time is an oddity in itself! It cannot be incidental - it cannot be a carefree pastoral sorry.... Why, I ask why,did he write twice cut time?  It's like he feared that people would play it too slow. He never did something like that again as far as I know... in fact I have never seen this marking in ANY piece by ANY composer..... have you?

3) About m.m. in general. I have a sefety rule as well. If you play it more than eg.+/- 10-12-14..... "metronome cuts" (I dont know the word- I speak about mechanical metronomes and the metal thing that goes up and down on them  :)) then either you or the composer is wrong! The composer is usually right  :).... Genarally the farther you get from the averange mm from what the composer writes the worse for you...

Quote
For me, the problem arises of applying a modern sensibility to a perhaps Romantic music.
It's not a modern baroque-clasical-romantic-modern or whatever music/sensibility. I think these terms are just irelevant to a simple ink marking - as simple as it can be... I dont understand how the fact that this is written in what we call the Romantic period can affects the ink.

Quote
performance aesthetic

Irelevant as well. It's not a metter of aesthetic.

Quote
I think it is bad for the sound of music.
Irelevant as well. Our opinios dont mater I think when we are talking about Schubert's ink marking  :)

Quote
"If Rameau himself were to rise from the grave to demand of me some changes in my interpretation of his Dauphine, I would answer, 'You gave birth to it; it is beautiful.  But now leave me alone with it.'"

Now I cant help myself again...

Shakespeare rises from his grave and watches one of his plays. After the applause he speaks to the performer....

S: Very nice thank you for you time. It was perfect, but in act... scene... I have written eg. "smiling" as a dictation. You didnt smile.
P: I know I wasnt trying to smile
S: Why?
P: It doent work for the play. Is not good.
S: But I write so..
P: But it deosnt work for me.
S: But....
P: And there is this book by famous mr.... about you and your age and it says you did not mean what you wrote...
S: I havent read it I was dead
P: You see, you didnt mean it it was just incidental
S: Please can you smile the next time you say that line?
P: No you are not right about it
S: My play
P: You wrote it but play it my way. Now go back to you grave silly!!!!

Quote
First, you presume to know how Schubert wanted the music to sound according to a literal feeling of a beat.  You are ignoring acoustic evidence

Acoustic evidence based on other people interpratations on this piece.
And you ignore Schubert!!!!!


Last thing. I dont claim to know Schubert but when I was practising at slower tempi it sounded not good to me. I started speeding up and finally got to a tempo where it made sence to me. I noticed then that I was too fast when compared to most other interpretations. But I felt right. I asked myself can everyone be wrong and only I correct? Then I noticed the TWICE cut time and asked has noone else noticed it before? Luckily youtube has a verison by Pires that sound like what I had in mind. My is indeed faulty but try and listen to hers, I think she is right on the piece. To prevent any comments I really listened to Pires after deciding how I imagine it played.

PL&index=4
Does it sound agitato to you?

Quote
If you start agitated and tempestuous, you cannot interpret the middle part in a contrasting way; and that is clearly an element of the spiritual quality - that he wanted a contrast.


I agree. I wanted to play it not agitato and tempestuous but at the correct speed....

With respect
D.

Offline ramseytheii

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2488
Re: Schubert - 4 Impromptus
Reply #8 on: June 05, 2009, 12:13:13 AM
Nice points. Well....

1) op 142. no.3 is written and actually IS (the left hand accompaniament suggests so) a landler - a dance type typical back then. The difference is ONCE cut time - it makes sence...At my tempo it can be danced so it's ok by me - please note that I play it faster than averange as well - it's a Schubert curse to oversentimentalize his pieces because he is a "Romantic".

2) About m.m. ... it's my point also you cant be toooooo literal about everything but some things just cry out to take them into account. TWICE cut time is an oddity in itself! It cannot be incidental - it cannot be a carefree pastoral sorry.... Why, I ask why,did he write twice cut time?  It's like he feared that people would play it too slow. He never did something like that again as far as I know... in fact I have never seen this marking in ANY piece by ANY composer..... have you?

Just because you have never seen a double cut time, doesn't mean it's strange.  It's an old Classical convention.  If he had written op.90 no.3 in quarter notes, with triplet sixteenth accompaniments, he would have written one cut time, meaning the half note gets the beat.  However, since he wrote it in half notes, he wrote two cut times, meaning the whole note gets the beat.

It doesn't mean anything different - he is just coordinating the sign with the meter.  You are overthinking, and making too much of nothing.


Quote
3) About m.m. in general. I have a sefety rule as well. If you play it more than eg.+/- 10-12-14..... "metronome cuts" (I dont know the word- I speak about mechanical metronomes and the metal thing that goes up and down on them  :)) then either you or the composer is wrong! The composer is usually right  :).... Genarally the farther you get from the averange mm from what the composer writes the worse for you...

I am afraid that your rule cannot apply here.  For one, Schubert has not indicated a metronome marking.  For two, what is a metronome marking for Andante?  On your previous post, you suggested hypothetically that 50 would be the cut-off (which is arbitrary, because it depends on how many notes have to fit into a beat).  But on the back of my metronome, it says Andante is 76-108.  I dare you to play this Impromptu at whole note = 76.

It just goes to show, that these things are arbitrary.  It only depends on how it sounds; if you want the music to breathe, if you want to hear the details, if you don't want it to be rushed, you have to play it a bit slower.  One cannot continue to insist on a tempo marking meaning a minimum or maximum metronome mark, without considering what is in the music.

Quote
It's not a modern baroque-clasical-romantic-modern or whatever music/sensibility. I think these terms are just irelevant to a simple ink marking - as simple as it can be... I dont understand how the fact that this is written in what we call the Romantic period can affects the ink.
 

Because composers have different ideas of words, even language, throughout the years.  A Rachmaninoff allegro, is significantly faster than a Mozart allegro.  A Brahms Andante, is probably slower than a Schubert andante.  It all depends on the material you are playing. 

You are, in my opinion, bringing a modern idea of fixed tempi to this piece.  There can be no definition of Andante in metronomic terms, that will serve all composers.

Quote
Irelevant as well. It's not a metter of aesthetic.
Irelevant as well. Our opinios dont mater I think when we are talking about Schubert's ink marking  :)

Once again, you are convincing yourself that you are being objective.  But you are clearly contradicting yourself in your two performances.  In the B-flat, it is an Andante marked cut time.  Your half note is significantly slower, than the whole notes in the G-flat.  The "double cut time" is irrelevant, because he is only following notational convention to coordinate the time signature with the meter (4 - 2).

If you are being objective, in saying that how fast the whole note is the only consideration that counts, you are clearly contradicting yourself in playing a half note in the B_flat which is far from your definition of Andante.  If I use your terms, your B_flat impromptu is largo.  But the tempo sounds right to me - because you are not insisting on measuring it by how fast the half note goes.  If you did measure by how fast the half note goes, you would have to play significantly faster in order to reach Andante, and the last variation would be impossible.

If you want to play the G-flat faster fine, but you can't in good faith say that you are just following Schubert's text, if you don't do it everywhere else.

Quote
Now I cant help myself again...

Shakespeare rises from his grave and watches one of his plays. After the applause he speaks to the performer....

S: Very nice thank you for you time. It was perfect, but in act... scene... I have written eg. "smiling" as a dictation. You didnt smile.
P: I know I wasnt trying to smile
S: Why?
P: It doent work for the play. Is not good.
S: But I write so..
P: But it deosnt work for me.
S: But....
P: And there is this book by famous mr.... about you and your age and it says you did not mean what you wrote...
S: I havent read it I was dead
P: You see, you didnt mean it it was just incidental
S: Please can you smile the next time you say that line?
P: No you are not right about it
S: My play
P: You wrote it but play it my way. Now go back to you grave silly!!!!

There are some things Shakespeare notated, and many that he did not.  Anyone who pretends intepretation doesn't exist doesn't know what they are talking about.  No marking is objective.  Even in your fecitious example: did Shakespeare say to smile for how long?  Did he say to smile, then start talking?  Or to talk, then smile?  To fake smile?  To bare your teeth?

What is piano?  What is forte?  Do those indicate decibel levels?

Quote
Acoustic evidence based on other people interpratations on this piece.
And you ignore Schubert!!!!!

Playing the piece slower does not cancel out the Andante.  If so, then you ignore Schubert in your B-flat impromptu, which by your standard is at least largo.

Quote
Last thing. I dont claim to know Schubert but when I was practising at slower tempi it sounded not good to me. I started speeding up and finally got to a tempo where it made sence to me. I noticed then that I was too fast when compared to most other interpretations. But I felt right. I asked myself can everyone be wrong and only I correct? Then I noticed the TWICE cut time and asked has noone else noticed it before? Luckily youtube has a verison by Pires that sound like what I had in mind. My is indeed faulty but try and listen to hers, I think she is right on the piece. To prevent any comments I really listened to Pires after deciding how I imagine it played.

Does it sound agitato to you?

It actually does, and it seems that was her intent... she plays with the tempo quite a bit, surging ahead to a much faster tempo around measure 12.  I personally don't like it, and would probably make similar comments about the tempo were I to leave a comment.

Walter Ramsey


Offline storyseller

  • PS Silver Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
Re: Schubert - 4 Impromptus
Reply #9 on: June 05, 2009, 09:03:53 AM
I think that we disagree philoshofically on some matters, and then on some others we agree but with different words. In any case - music has space for everybody.  :)

Quote
Just because you have never seen a double cut time, doesn't mean it's strange.  It's an old Classical convention.  If he had written op.90 no.3 in quarter notes, with triplet sixteenth accompaniments, he would have written one cut time, meaning the half note gets the beat.  However, since he wrote it in half notes, he wrote two cut times, meaning the whole note gets the beat.

I am not an expert on musical semiology but I think you have to addmit that this is like saying to a car engineer that "just because you and most of your co-workers havent seen a car with 5 wheels doesnt mean it's strange." Well, it is. The point IS exactly what you say : why didnt he write it in quarter notes? with didnt he write op.142 no.3 in half notes and write twice cut time again? It's strange IMHO but it is a matter of oppinion. However I really would be interested to actually see any other piece of music that you know of with the same marking.

Quote
You are overthinking, and making too much of nothing.

Again "de coloris et de gustibus non dispudandum" - a matter of oppinion. I could easily say that you are making too little of something.

Quote
I am afraid that your rule cannot apply here.

I tried to be as clear as I could on this but it seems I wasnt. Again, I wrote if you play +/- (6...8...)10..12...14...(16.....18....20...) cuts away... I didnt prescribe exactly how many because yes it depends on a lot of other factors - even the accoustics of the piano and the hall. But can you disagree that at some point it just will get too far away from what the composer was thinking? My point is that my tempo is CLOSER to the metronomic Andante of today and so (hopefully) somewhat closer to Schubert's intention. You seem to argue that since we cannot know what Schubert thought about andante, the hell with it play as you feel it's better.

"Andare" mean "go" in Italian, or in music terminology I feel it as "walking" pace. At the tempo most people play this one it sounds like "stay" but again it is a matter of oppinion. However the melody I think should be "as Andante as possible" even if thet means the triplet accompaniament get a little too fast, because it is the melody that has to be "walking" even if it makes the accompaniament "runing". My point is that by making the accompaniament "walk" the melody "stays" and isnt "going" nowhere. Again you may feel it "walking" at slower tempi than I do and please lets not arguee on that. I tend to walk fast even in real life. :)

I realise I cant convince you but have you thought this maybe is not a pastoral or an "Ave Maria" without words, but something more fleeting, more like a journeyfull something.. more moving towards the end, more kinetic...


Quote
Because composers have different ideas of words, even language, throughout the years.  A Rachmaninoff allegro, is significantly faster than a Mozart allegro.  A Brahms Andante, is probably slower than a Schubert andante.  It all depends on the material you are playing. 

You are, in my opinion, bringing a modern idea of fixed tempi to this piece.  There can be no definition of Andante in metronomic terms, that will serve all composers.

Yes I agree. That what I'm saying. "Red" can mean different things to different people even in the same age or region. But then red is red, lighter or darker it may be, but it's not green. This impromtu sounds to me more "red" in my tempo than "pink-red" or ever "green" in most other's people versions. There can be no deffinition of red, but you now green when you see it and you dont perceive it as red. Pink is closer and my goal is in such matters to be as close as possible to the original colour taking of course into consideration other factors.

Quote
If you are being objective, in saying that how fast the whole note is the only consideration that counts, you are clearly contradicting yourself in playing a half note in the B_flat which is far from your definition of Andante.  If I use your terms, your B_flat impromptu is largo.  But the tempo sounds right to me - because you are not insisting on measuring it by how fast the half note goes.  If you did measure by how fast the half note goes, you would have to play significantly faster in order to reach Andante, and the last variation would be impossible.

Agree. We are saying the same thing in different words. For me the melody is the main factor and it should sound andante. Op.142 no.3 sounds andante and we agree on that. In op.90 no.3 we disaggre because by doing the melody andante the accompaniament may sound agitato. But but doing the accompaniament sound andante the melody looses shape and form and people may fall asleep. This piece is very intence for me even if it is lyrical and if I worry too much about accompaniament the melody looses intencity - which I believe Schubert prescribed as something to avoid by inserting the second cut time.

M.M. is a safety net rule not a law IMHO. A safety net that exists for a reason however.

Quote
There are some things Shakespeare notated, and many that he did not.  Anyone who pretends intepretation doesn't exist doesn't know what they are talking about.  No marking is objective.  Even in your fecitious example: did Shakespeare say to smile for how long?  Did he say to smile, then start talking?  Or to talk, then smile?  To fake smile?  To bare your teeth?

What is piano?  What is forte?  Do those indicate decibel levels?

Shakespeare however said "smile". Smile as you may or want but "SMILE YOU @#!@%. Smile wrongly maybe but dont ignore what I write".

Piano and forte: the same applies. You can have 10 different pianos or fortes but if it says "P" do it piano. Do not play forte and then say maybe he didnt mean it literally, or agruee about the degrees of forte and piano.

You know it sounds too technical, too philosofical.... why try to find reasons why Shakespeare maybe didnt mean "smile" when he says smile and what kind of smile he wanted? Why not just smile?

Quote
Playing the piece slower does not cancel out the Andante.  If so, then you ignore Schubert in your B-flat impromptu, which by your standard is at least largo.

Agree. But the slower/faster you play the further you get from the composer's intention. I try to stay as close as possible.


Quote
It actually does, and it seems that was her intent... she plays with the tempo quite a bit, surging ahead to a much faster tempo around measure 12.  I personally don't like it, and would probably make similar comments about the tempo were I to leave a comment.

Disagree, but it is a matter of oppinion. Then again I think you tend to concentrate on the accompaniament and not on the melody. If you whistle the melody at her tempo it makes more sence IMHO than if you whistle it at (say) Horowitz's tempo. I dont like her fluctuations of tempo, but I tried not to fluctuate that much and I think I pulled it off. Then again maybe not.

All in all I think we disagree on a very fundamental subject. You say you agree with the "if he rose from the grave..." statement. Let's not get lost in the "freedom" "objectivity" "interpetation" "subjectivity" labyrinth. Really you say that if Schubert rose and told you to play it in another way you would tell him to leave you alone? I wouldn't but maybe it just me being too literal or overthinking or just seeing ghosts!  :)

What do Rameau or Schubert or Shakespeare know about what the write after all? Thank god they lay in their graves (this is geting macabre :)).

Offline faj

  • PS Silver Member
  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
Re: Schubert - 4 Impromptus
Reply #10 on: June 07, 2009, 11:34:38 AM
wow, I also love schubert's impromptus
For more information about this topic, click search below!
 

Logo light pianostreet.com - the website for classical pianists, piano teachers, students and piano music enthusiasts.

Subscribe for unlimited access

Sign up

Follow us

Piano Street Digicert