Is Rubinstein adding a note to Chopin's Op 64 No2?

[adaubre]

Not to get nitpicky here, but I'm wondering if someone can comment on the following:

In watching the youtube upload of Rubinstein's beautiful rendition of 64/2 I noticed a note
that does not exist on my manuscript.

The video can be viewed here:

The added note (or if in the case my manuscript is flawed, the missing note on my manuscript is)
a B flat at measure 71.

Anyone else catching this?

adaubre

[stevebob]

Bar 71 is the full measure in the center of this picture:



It's at approximately 1:30 in the video, and I don't hear anything unusual.

Could you double-check the measure number?

[adaubre]

Perhaps I've miscounted.  I'm counting half-bars on my manuscript as full bars I suppose.

But in any case, the bar in question would be two back from the one you posted. 
ie: the one that begins with Gflat with what I'm seeing as two quarter rests but what
he's playing is Gflat followed by what sounds like a Bflat.

Thanks for responding, by the way.

adaubre

[slow_concert_pianist]

Which edition was Rubinstein working from? If a note was "added" that might be the answer.

[adaubre]

Which edition was Rubinstein working from? If a note was "added" that might be the answer.

Pardon my ignorance, but are you saying that some editions of op64/2 have notes that others don't?

I just checked the Kissin version on Youtube.  It matches my manuscript.  

Is the Rubinstein added note a mistake, embellishment or another version of the piece?

I just want to point out that the added note seems quite motivated and also changes the character
of the theme quite significantly.   In listening to it a few times now, it seems like quite a significant
modification musically.

adaubre

[thalbergmad]

In listening to it a few times now, it seems like quite a significant modification musically.

That is probably why he did it, being the romantic that he was.

Modern automatons would probably not.

Thal

[adaubre]

That is probably why he did it, being the romantic that he was.

Modern automatons would probably not.

Thal

So is adding a note here or there on a particular piece (or dropping a note here or there) an acceptable approach
if musically / thematically it works?   If you go to a recital and a pianist adds a Bflat here or drops an F Sharp there
but it works musically and its obvious that is done intentionally and with a purpose to enhance the theme would
that be something to be critical of?

I take from your term "automatons" that you view those who play the manuscript as written as limiting their own
creative experience with the piece?

adaubre

[thalbergmad]

I take from your term "automatons" that you view those who play the manuscript as written as limiting their own creative experience with the piece?

Times change and what was acceptable 100 years ago is not always acceptable now. It all comes down to personal taste whether you like it or not. Perhaps competition judges do not, so these kind of liberties have probably been driven from the concert hall.

You can play from a score exactly as written but still make the piece sound different to others, without actually changing any notes, but i do not see that changing notes or even entire sections is inartistic if it is done with taste and knowledge that the composer himself might have done the same on occasions.

Thal

[adaubre]

You can play from a score exactly as written but still make the piece sound different to others, without actually changing any notes, but i do not see that changing notes or even entire sections is inartistic if it is done with taste and knowledge that the composer himself might have done the same on occasions.

Thal

Thanks for your answer Thai.  Very interesting indeed and I agree with you.

It was just the "automaton" term seemed to put a negative connotation on those who do play the manuscript as
written.  I would say that those who play the manuscript as written but do not add their own interpretation and
emotion into the piece are in fact "automatons" and we do see this quite often at recitals.

In terms of adding or subtracting notes, I suppose purists would not do this.  But it goes without saying that some
of the greatest pianists, as artists, are not purists and that might be a good thing.

adaubre

[thalbergmad]

I should have made myself more clear when using that expression, as it is a horrible word to describe pianists

I feel i am probably still in the 19th Century and as i do not perform in public, i allow myself some liberties with certain pieces that would horrify some who's talents are far greater than mine.

When i hear Horowitz and his own ending to Schubert/Liszt Soiree de Vienne and Earl Wild who adds a trill to the Gluck/Sgambati Melodie, i feel that a certain style of playing has died with these great performers and it makes me sad.

Thal

[mephisto]

I remember reading an anecdote about Liszt playing Chopin nocturnes with the left hand as written, but the right hand improvising. Chopin didn't like it.

That being said in some (all?) pieces pianists can do what they want to.

[tsaij]

i would suggest consulting an edition with critical commentary, e.g. henle or polskie wydawnictwo muzyczne (national edition), which will offer alternate readings for individual notes, articulations, etc. chopin often retooled his piano works as he revisited them later in life, and there are about as many chopin editions as there are chopin students (all of them claiming the same imprimatur from the composer) so there can be more than one valid reading. i don't know if that's the case for the one note you're talking about here...

[birba]

Call me dumb, but I still can't hear what Rubenstein "added" to the score.  It sounds like the famous waltz played with great taste and élan.

[lostinidlewonder]

I can see what you are getting at but I don't think it has been described properly.

In Bar 69 we notice that the the score indicates: Eb  Bb (BbGb)

What Rubinstein did was play: Eb (BbGb) (BbGb)   he has added a Gb to the single Bb.


He is merely keeping the waltz LH pattern going, neglecting the missed out note. I think it does effect the sound in a small way, it doesn't rise up as much as it should and thus the energy lost from the decresendo is not as effective.

[adaubre]

What Rubinstein did was play: Eb (BbGb) (BbGb)   he has added a Gb to the single Bb.


He is merely keeping the waltz LH pattern going, neglecting the missed out note. I think it does effect the sound in a small way, it doesn't rise up as much as it should and thus the energy lost from the decresendo is not as effective.

Hmm, no I don't think that's what I'm hearing.  

But to make it clearer here is the actual measure I'm talking about with a black dot over the rest on the manuscript
but where I hear him play a B flat in the treble clef in place of that quarter rest.

[adaubre]

Call me dumb, but I still can't hear what Rubenstein "added" to the score.  It sounds like the famous waltz played with great taste and élan.

He plays the waltz brilliantly.

But there is an added note.  It occurs at the Quarter Rest that I've put a black dot over.  The added not is a B Flat in the
treble clef.

See the image:

[adaubre]

Here it is in context:

[perfect_pitch]

But there is an added note.  It occurs at the Quarter Rest that I've put a black dot over.  The added not is a B Flat in the
treble clef.

Ok - after listening to it again with the little tit-bits of music you've given... I can finally put you out of your misery and testify - he is NOT... putting in an extra note... he plays the music EXACTLY as it is written in that bar... and nothing more.

[birba]

In fact, he has his right hand up in the air when you "hear" that note.  To give you credit, the sound of the left hand chord does sort of go overboard and you hear a ping on the archaic tape recorder, but, no, he's playing it exactly the way it's written.

[adaubre]

sorry for the double posting -see below.

[adaubre]

His hand is actually up in the air for the 3rd beat (ie: the 2nd Quarter Rest).  His hand is down, playing a B Flat at the 2nd Beat (ie: where the 1st Quarter Rest is written) and comes up right after playing it.

In fact, I have found another note added that is not on the manuscript - four bars after the first case - see the picture below.
It is a 2nd A Flat on the 2nd Beat where the manuscript shows a quarter rest.
This 2nd instance of a note being added within the same theme tells me that he must be working off another version
of the piece or is adding the notes as his own "interpretation"  These are not "pings" they are notes being played by
the brilliant pianist.  Theses non-"pings" are occuring at the same point in each of the bars in question.  One is a B Flat
the second is an A Flat which makes perfect sense musically, but its not in my manuscript.  I'd like to get a hold of the
manuscript he was working off of...



adaubre

[adaubre]

Disregard my 2nd example.  Obviously the repeated A flat is being played by the
the left hand as written.

Still no explenation, though, for the first example (the added Bflat).

adaubre

[perfect_pitch]

Still no explenation, though, for the first example (the added Bflat).

Erm - Yes there is... there is no added B flat... he plays it exactly as the music is written.

[stevebob]

nm ... posted in error