To edit, or not to edit?

[levar]

I realize that Rachmaninoff’s Prelude, Op.3, No.2, in C# minor has been discussed in earlier threads, but I could not find any mention of actually editing and fingering of the score.   Many years ago I wanted to learn this Prelude, and found that playing octaves with crossed thumbs seemed to be a difficult way to play the piece.   I noticed the music was edited and fingered by Louis Oesterle, so I decided to edit the notation myself by switching the notes played by the thumbs … this sixth chord not only made it easier to read but easier for me to play.

Since I have resurrected the original score, the question arises:    should I re-learn the music by playing octaves as originally edited, or is there not enough difference in the sound of the sixth chords to make the change?    What do you think?   Is there a difference in the quality of the sound, or should the technique supersede?

I have attached the original and my changes.

levar

[mistermoe]

Hi there!

Well, where should i start. first of all i think it's an interesting idea (but it made me lough a little bit  ).
I would definatly play the original for several reasons.
Rachmaninov was one of the greatest pianist of all time and he knew how to write for the piano better than anybody else.
As you see in the original, the composer wants u to play all the chords non-legato or pesante (or how ever u want to call it). Playing the original octaves forces you to do this exactly.
In your version on the other hand, you will naturally tend to play all the chords more legato.
==> one point for the original 

of course in your version u will also completely change the role of the different melodic lines in the chords. in the beginning of the original your left hand thumb will play E  G# Fx as a counterpart to the melody in the right Hand (c# e d#). In your version the left Hand thumb plays the same notes as the right Hand and you will loose the other line, because the concentration of your right hand will be on the melody.
So if you now try to make your version sound like the original, you will have a lot of trouble.


I also think that the feeling u get of the piece playing the original version is completely different to your one. I think that's the main reason i would play it. I don't know how to explain, but playing everything in octaves gives it that special feeling. Exactly like playing Brahms. You play much more with your whole body. I hope nobody gets offended but i find it pretty masculin (in a really non-macho way!!)


i don't think that the thumb crossing is that awkward. work on it a little bit and you will get used to it pretty fast i guess.

by the way, i don't know if that edition of Oesterle is that great...i find it a bit overedited. I use the boosey & hawkes.

[stevebob]

I think you're on the right track just to question whether redistributing the notes was such a good idea in the first place.

Even if there's no difference in how it sounds, there's the issue of performing the composition as it was written and intended to be performed.  If you play for your own enjoyment, only you can decide whether that's a meaningful criterion.  In a recital or an audition, though, such a modification to facilitate execution would almost certainly be judged negatively.

As to whether you should relearn the piece or not, that's up to you as well.  If there's no compelling reason to, perhaps you should just learn from the experience instead and keep it in mind in the future.  Even if you're not necessarily inclined to "honor the composer's intentions," there are benefits and satisfaction to be gained from meeting the technical challenges of passages that seem at first to be awkward.

[biscuitroxy12]

OOOOHhh the Rachmaninoff Op. 3 Prelude, No 2 in C# minor
I love this piece.
It made me laugh when you said it. I would play the original. If you ever played it for competitions or anything, judges would be on you for that. Your version is completely different, so I could go either way. I wouldn't suggest editing it. I've tried to do that but my teacher was strictly against it. If you changed like 2 chords by a whole step or even a half or an octave up or down, I could see that, but you completely changed it

[levar]

Thank you, mistermoe;   your comments were very thoughtful indeed.  I appreciate your taking the time to give your ideas.   I shall look up Boosey & Hawkes.

Thank you, stevebob; you answered my question just as I expected to hear.   I was playing the prelude this afternoon the way it is written, and honestly, my hearing is not acute enough to tell the difference in the sound.  I must agree with you, however, that the technique should supersede, and I shall "honor the composer's intentions” as you so aptly put it.   Last night I had dinner with an accomplished piano teacher, and she also said in almost the very same words, “if you play for your own enjoyment, only you can decide whether that's a meaningful criterion.”

[ramseytheii]

I think you're on the right track just to question whether redistributing the notes was such a good idea in the first place.

Even if there's no difference in how it sounds, there's the issue of performing the composition as it was written and intended to be performed.  If you play for your own enjoyment, only you can decide whether that's a meaningful criterion.  In a recital or an audition, though, such a modification to facilitate execution would almost certainly be judged negatively.

As to whether you should relearn the piece or not, that's up to you as well.  If there's no compelling reason to, perhaps you should just learn from the experience instead and keep it in mind in the future.  Even if you're not necessarily inclined to "honor the composer's intentions," there are benefits and satisfaction to be gained from meeting the technical challenges of passages that seem at first to be awkward.

The only thing that matters is the sound.  It matters not at all, how you go about getting it.

If the rearrangement affects the sound of the voice-leading and balance, you shouldn't do it.  If it doesn't, it doesn't matter.

We must not treat composers as gods who knew everything.  We cannot automatically assume that the way they notated it, is the way it must be done.  Composers make mistakes, and composers also write for themselves, and leave it to others to find out what they meant.

Walter Ramsey

[stevebob]

Respecting a composer's intent, and recognizing that there must have been a reason behind what's obviously a deliberate choice of notation, certainly doesn't imply worshiping composers as "gods who knew everything."

I don't agree at all with the assertion that nothing matters but the sound.  Personally, I think that artistry, skillfulness and craftmanship are very much a part of how that sound is achieved.

How does one know when the proper sound has been realized, anyway?  How does one even know what sound to aim for?  If it's determined by the faithful reproduction of the dynamics, articulation and rhythm notated in the score by the composer, then his choices are being honored after all.  I don't think that the composer's manner of distributing notes amongst the hands should be treated any less seriously.

[pianowolfi]

For me it's easier to play it as it is written by Rachmaninoff. I never tried the other option. But why "edit" something if you can just read it? Sharing voices between the hands is certainly an option. But why *edit*? I don't really get it...

[jazzyprof]

Unless a piece is an etude designed to exercise certain particular fingers or to teach a certain technique, it doesn't matter what fingers you use so long as you produce the right sound.  Josef Hoffman tells the story of how he asked his teacher Anton Rubinstein for the fingering of a rather complex passage.  Rubinstein's response:
 
" Play it with your nose, but make it sound well!"

Feel free to redistribute the notes between the fingers if it makes it easier for you to play. 

[stevebob]

But virtuoso pianists—even Hofmann—weren't "gods who knew everything." 

Notwithstanding any justification offered for redistribution of notes, there was in all likelihood a reason behind every aspect of the way a composer wrote a piece.

[scottmcc]

a very simple harmonic analysis will tell you why the opening of this piece was written with interlocking hands:

each chord is a minor triad.  the left hand voices the 3rd, 5th, and then the 3rd again.  the right hand voices the root, 3rd, and root again.  thus each part of the triad is represented twice.

with the return of the A' theme at the end, the chords are the same, but "bigger," meaning all the voices are filled in.  each hand plays root, 3rd, 5th, root.

and now you know.  

[jazzyprof]

Notwithstanding any justification offered for redistribution of notes, there was in all likelihood a reason behind every aspect of the way a composer wrote a piece.

There probably was a reason, such as the harmonic sense of the piece, as scott points out.  However the composer doesn't literally mean that you must use only certain particular fingers.  The bottom line is this: can you close your eyes, listen to a performance and tell whether a pianist has redistributed the notes between the two hands?  If you can't tell then it doesn't matter.

[stevebob]

The bottom line is that if you're not concerned with such details as how the composer intended the music to be executed, then it doesn't matter.  I think that electing not to play music as written in any respect is a slippery slope, though.  If one presumes to have a better (or, at least, different) idea of how the notes should be played than the composer, then that sentiment may easily extend to dynamics, articulation, phrasing, rhythm and even the actual notes themselves.

I appreciate the integrity of a composition in all aspects.  I don't claim it's never permissible to omit a note or redistribute the notes of a chord; I just think there should be a very good reason for doing so.  The idea that it doesn't matter, or that composers weren't gods who knew everything, suggests an attitude of willful disregard—perhaps unwitting and unintended—that I don't understand.

[levar]

Fellow pianists:   the reason many years ago I changed the fingering in the first place was because I found it awkward to cross the thumbs, and frankly could not tell the difference in the sound.   Today, however, knowing more now than I did then, I find interlocking the thumbs is not difficult, and, therefore, I am playing the piece as written.

That said, I still do not hear a difference in the quality of sound as long as the pressure is the same with all fingers.  Increasing the pressure with the octaves does create a more distinct melodic line, and perhaps that is what the composer intended.

I appreciate all your responses … it has turned into an interesting discussion, not for just this one piece, but for perhaps many others as well

[scottmcc]

Increasing the pressure with the octaves does create a more distinct melodic line, and perhaps that is what the composer intended.

to me this is precisely what rachmaninoff wanted.  for instance, the first chord of the melody is C# minor, voiced  E G# E in the left, C# G# C# in the right.  by voicing the 1st and 5th fingers slightly more prominently, the 1st and 3rd of the chord shine through, emphasizing the "minor-ness" of it, whereas if the G#'s were voiced more prominently, you would almost hear C# major, or at least hear an ambiguous chord.  this chord is the first strong statement of the tonic, after a very unexpected opening measure, and so in my opinion is relatively important.  if you haven't done so already, I would suggest you perform a similar analysis for the entire piece.  it won't take you that long, and you'll learn a lot about how rachmaninoff put this piece together.

[ramseytheii]

Actually it is true that the only thing that matters is sound.

The good question is, how do you know what it is supposed to sound like?  Sometimes, the composer will incorporate that into how it is notated.  Sometimes he won't.  The problem for me here is partly that the whole idea of thinking that a "composer's intentions" are evident in every detail is to reduce every composer to the same homogenous material.

Essentially we are taking an aesthetic that developed with very stringent 20th century composers like Schoenberg and Bartók, and evolved through the ultra-controlling composers of the second half of the century, and applying it to music of the past.

Well composers of the past didn't write like that, and Rachmaninoff didn't write like that.  If you don't believe me, listen to his recording of the Etude in a minor from op.39.  The way he plays it is simply not notated in the music.  I reject the question, does one play it as notated, or as the composer plays it.  Instead, the very fact that he notated it one way, and played it another, means it is strong enough to support multiple points of view.

And in this case, the notation did not inform the sound.  That's why the only thing that matters is sound itself.  How you get at it, is another matter.

Or take the case of Beethoven's sonata op.27 no.2.  Andras Schiff argued very persuasively in recent Guardian lectures that the standard, traditional interpretation of the first movement of this sonata is, in his words, "wrong."  He very logically illustrates through Beethoven's manuscript, and through other source material (linking this movement with "Don Giovanni") that Beethoven intended the tempo to be almost twice as fast as most have played it.

In a way I agree with him; I agree with his logic.  But I disagree with his judgment.  Are the great recordings of Friedman, Schnabel, Paderewski, and so on, all wrong?  Should we throw them away, and refuse to listen?  Are they guilty of rejecting the "composer's intentions" and of immorality?

No, because they found another sound, one which it turns out, was not justified by a logical reading of a score, but by a shared cultural association, that communicated music of great power - even if it wasn't the music that was written on the page.

I refuse to believe that just because Schiff plays this movement so much faster, and can logically prove that is the "composer's intention," that makes his performance inherently better.

As you can probably guess this kind of thinking has a lot of implications.  But if you disagree with me, than you must agree that those great artists are less great than is commonly recognized, because they sought a sound and a feeling which the composer did not actually write down.

Walter Ramsey

[rob47]

[stevebob]

Actually it is true that the only thing that matters is sound....

Actually, it's true that it's your opinion.

[ramseytheii]

Actually, it's true that it's your opinion.

Airball!

Walter Ramsey

[stevebob]

Airball!

I think that airball more accurately describes an assertion of opinion as fact.  "Airball!" in this context is itself an airball.

[scottmcc]

walter, very good post above.  I echo the clapping.  interpretation is a sticky matter, which is why even performers as forceful in their idiosyncrasies as glenn gould can have widely different interpretations of the goldberg variations at different times in their careers.  or, to follow your example, why so many vary different interpretations of the moonlight are out there.

yet somehow, we must take what is written on the page and turn it into sound, and do so in a way that is in keeping with the composer's intentions, whatever those may be.  how would you suggest we do so in situations of ambiguity?  for instance...there are numerous situations where there are significant differences between various editions of a score, even well-reputed editions.  a great example of this would be the location of the repeat sign in the pathetique first movement.  what should we do in these instances of lack of consensus?

anyway, I don't have an ironclad adherence to fingerings as suggested by composers, although in general that is the first fingering I try, and if I see the logic behind it I don't often change it.  I do try to infer what they are intending, but quite probably this is what I thought they were intending as opposed to their actual opinions.

here's a question...in the first movement of the tempest, measure 22, do you cross your hands?  I think the answer is yes, but the notation makes it seem like the answer should be no, and that the left hand should take over the d-a triplets.  the fingering in the henle urtext would imply the same.  I've seen it played both ways.  is one correct?  is one more in keeping with beethoven's intentions?