Liszt's Liebestraum No.3 - pedalling

[pianoviolin]

Hi all,

I've just recently learnt this beautiful piece by Liszt, and I'm just concerned about the pedalling that is used in this piece.

Well for the first cadenza, would I need to use pedal (damper)? I know it says 'senza pedale' but then it sounds.. jumpy. But then If I do use the pedal it sounds like everything is scrunched together and doesn't have that nice flow going. Does that mean I have to press down the pedal half way or...? I would appreciate your opinions.

and also for the first two pages and the last two pages where, do you play it with the soft pedal also? If so, till where do you hold it down for?

Take care

[pbryld]

Hi all,

I've just recently learnt this beautiful piece by Liszt, and I'm just concerned about the pedalling that is used in this piece.

Well for the first cadenza, would I need to use pedal (damper)? I know it says 'senza pedale' but then it sounds.. jumpy. But then If I do use the pedal it sounds like everything is scrunched together and doesn't have that nice flow going. Does that mean I have to press down the pedal half way or...? I would appreciate your opinions.

and also for the first two pages and the last two pages where, do you play it with the soft pedal also? If so, till where do you hold it down for?

Take care

There is no cadenza in my version.

Why would you use the soft pedal?

[mcdiddy1]

I would use flutter pedaling here. Have you heard of it?
It is basicly when you move the pedal up and down rapidly to create a more airy texture without getting blurry. Also works well with Debussey.

Also I think the section you are talking about are the fast, grace notes, sections right ? That is not a cadenza. I would use the soft pedal ( if indicated, I don't remember if it requires that) on beginning phrases just to add some color to the sound. Using too much of it robs it of its effectiveness though so I would be careful.

[nyiregyhazi]

Also I think the section you are talking about are the fast, grace notes, sections right ? That is not a cadenza.

? Why not? Some people might say that the strict definition would be an extended solo passage in a concerto, but it's pretty standard to refer to such passages as cadenzas elsewhere. Certainly not "wrong", by any means. Liszt frequently improvised alternatives to such passages. The two virtuosic filler passages in this piece would be deemed cadenzas in most people's estimation- especially seeing as they are written in grace notes.

[pbryld]

? Why not? Some people might say that the strict definition would be an extended solo passage in a concerto, but it's pretty standard to refer to such passages as cadenzas elsewhere. Certainly not "wrong", by any means. Liszt frequently improvised alternatives to such passages. The two virtuosic filler passages in this piece would be deemed cadenzas in most people's estimation- especially seeing as they are written in grace notes.

The author is not Liszt. If it doesn't say "cadenza", there isn't one. Some versions do state "ad libitum", but it still isn't a cadenza.

[nyiregyhazi]

The author is not Liszt. If it doesn't say "cadenza", there isn't one. Some versions do state "ad libitum", but it still isn't a cadenza.

? You misunderstand the meaning of the word cadenza. It's a virtuosic filler that links two segments. You don't have to refer to it as cadenza yourself if you do not wish to, but there's no basis for telling anyone they are wrong to refer to it as a cadenza. The term is regularly used for virtuosic passages that basically serve no great musical purpose other than to link two sections- especially when notated in free rhythm and without bar-lines. The two passages in this work are the very epitome of the miniature cadenza.

[pbryld]

? You misunderstand the meaning of the word cadenza. It's a virtuosic filler that links two segments. You don't have to refer to it as cadenza yourself if you do not wish to, but there's no basis for telling anyone they are wrong to refer to it as a cadenza. The term is regularly used for virtuosic passages that basically serve no great musical purpose other than to link two sections- especially when notated in free rhythm and without bar-lines. The two passages in this work are the very epitome of the miniature cadenza.

Yes, a filler that is improvised or written by the pianist.

[nyiregyhazi]

Yes, a filler that is improvised or written by the pianist.

? Are you living in the 18th century or something? You do not feel that the Rachmaninoff 3rd concerto contains any cadenza? Anyone who uses the term solely in that context (and goes so far as to "correct" others who use it in the modern sense) must be living in the dark ages.

[pbryld]

? Are you living in the 18th century or something? You do not feel that the Rachmaninoff 3rd concerto contains any cadenza? Anyone who uses the term solely in that context (and goes so far as to "correct" others who use it in the modern sense) must be living in the dark ages.

I haven't "corrected" anybody as far as I am aware... And I don't know. Does it state "cadenza"? In that case I would expect the performer is free to play what s/he want, but Rnoff would suggest what he has written (or the ossia).

[nyiregyhazi]

I haven't "corrected" anybody as far as I am aware... And I don't know. Does it state "cadenza"? In that case I would expect the performer is free to play what s/he want, but Rnoff would suggest what he has written (or the ossia).

You're flogging a dead horse. I don't have a score of the 3rd concerto to hand but I do have the second (EDIT- sorry the first). Cadenza is marked for the orchestral parts, with a pause. That is not in any way implying that the player is being invited to improvise a cadenza instead of using Rachmaninoff's. "Cadenza" no longer meant what it did in Mozart's time. You are taking an archaically restrictive definition and failing to appreciate that the word has evolved- and CONSIDERABLY. If you want to tell someone that there's no cadenza in Rachmaninoff's 1st or 3rd concertos (or that the performer is expected to make up their own, rather than play the composer's cadenza) feel free. But expect some seriously puzzled looks.  

[nyiregyhazi]

To put this nonsense to rest once and for all, the orchestral score of the 3rd says cadenza twice- both in the first half and the second half of the extended solo passage. If you are telling me that you think Rachmaninoff was implying that the recapitulation of the 2nd subject is optional (and that the performer is free to just run a few arpeggios, instead of organically returning to this significant melody) I have no idea who you think you are fooling. You cannot apply archaically specific definitions from a particular era to music in general. Today, cadenza can mean either a solo passage in a concerto, or it can mean a showy solo filler passage in any piece (frequently written in grace notes and without bar-lines).

Can we now return to the subject?

[pbryld]

While i never meant for this to evolve into a discussion (especially since I wasn't the one to even mention the grace notes), I have to say I think it is perfectly reasonable to use the definition of a cadenza in Liszt's time, for a piece written by Liszt.

[nyiregyhazi]

While i never meant for this to evolve into a discussion (especially since I wasn't the one to even mention the grace notes), I have to say I think it is perfectly reasonable to use the definition of a cadenza in Liszt's time, for a piece written by Liszt.

That was NOT the exclusive definition in Liszt's time. It was far broader already. Regarding concertos, few composers either expected or wanted improvised cadenzas. Schumann's concerto is certainly not one where the performer can feel free to replace the cadenza. It's an integral part of the music. The tradition of leaving the cadenza open was pretty much dead altogether (with a single notable exception being brahms' violin concerto).

In this particular case, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Liszt would have been happy for his pupils to replace his notated cadenzas with their own. But the point is that they can reasonably be referred to cadenzas- and that this does not necessarily mean the performer is being either instructed or encouraged to improvise. It's just a term that is widely used for virtuosic linking passages- including in Liszt's time- which is exactly how the poster accurately used it.

[pbryld]

What about the 2nd Hungarian Rhpasody for instance? It says cadenza in the performer is supposed to play s/he has written or improvise.

[perfect_pitch]

FIRST OF ALL Pbryld...

What about the 2nd Hungarian Rhpasody for instance? It says cadenza in the performer is supposed to play s/he has written or improvise.

If I'm not mistaken - it says Cadenza ad libitum... (Improvise at your liberty)... if you want to, and a few pianists have.

However, since a lot of composers began to write out their cadenzas and the two passages in Liebestraume are grace note, unmetred passages - I have to agree with Nyiregyhazi - They are written-out Cadenzas by Liszt.

[nyiregyhazi]

What about the 2nd Hungarian Rhpasody for instance? It says cadenza in the performer is supposed to play s/he has written or improvise.

How does Liszt inviting the performer to improvise one in a particular instance have any bearing on what else can be deemed a cadenza? What point are you trying to make? That all cadenzas in Liszt are improvised? A single example doesn't even set a trend, never mind a rule for what defines a cadenza.

[pianoviolin]

I, myself, wasn't sure if it was the correct name for it. I saw quite a few people call it a cadenza, so i assumed it was called that.

Is there another name for it or..?

[danhuyle]

You change pedals when the harmony changes. Imagine blending the harmony of F minor and C major together without changing pedal