Modifying Chopin Opus 10 No. 3

[jasperkeys27]

Newcomer here . Just wanted to get an opinion on changing such a highly revered piece. I love the melody of this piece but no matter how much I listen to it, the middle section doesn't appeal to me at all. It just  to be so contrary to the peaceful mood the beginning has.

I was thinking about plunging into trying to learn this piece but I'm a little put off by the middle section for a couple of reasons. One, the middle section doesn't sound good to me in the context of the beginning melody and two; I really think the technical requirements of the middle are way over my head. This might be another reason I would be hesitant to try it.

I know this could sound blasphemous to some but I was thinking about trying to learn this piece and not include the middle but somehow joining the beginning and the ending for a more pleasant piece for my ears.

I don't think of myself as a naturally talented pianist. I did finally learn my dream piece, Debussy's Clair de Lune but I have to say it took a lot of repetition. Even now I don't think I've ever played it without thinking there was something I could have done better. Through  willpower I've managed to learn Clair de Lune; do you think this piece is within my reach give the attention needed to the melody separated from the bass and separated from the inner voices?

Any opinions even contrary to my own would be very welcome. Thanks.

[nyiregyhazi]

Newcomer here . Just wanted to get an opinion on changing such a highly revered piece. I love the melody of this piece but no matter how much I listen to it, the middle section doesn't appeal to me at all. It just  to be so contrary to the peaceful mood the beginning has.

That's the whole idea. Contrast. By all means learn the rest of the piece, but it won't work to joint the first and last sections. It will sound too repetitive to go around again without a middle section. I'd just jump straight to the coda at the end of the first section.

[lloyd_cdb]

Newcomer here . Just wanted to get an opinion on changing such a highly revered piece.

AHHHHHH!!!! MY EYES ARE BURNING!!!!  YOU WILL ROT IN HELL FOR ETERNITY!!!

^ I'm only mocking of course, I just had to get it out of my system before everyone else shows up and repeats that

My theory on music is quite simple:  Do what makes you happy.  If you aren't performing for a serious audience, feel free to change/butcher/improve anything you please.  You don't need anyone's approval 

[chadbrochill17]

Just don't learn it your way and then tell people you'll be performing Op. 10 no. 3. Because you won't be. Honestly the middle section is my favorite part of the etude. It's one of the greatest dramatic movements in music.

[49410enrique]

it would not be the first time this (or several actually) of the etudes have been modified or adapted (heck even ones by other respected composers too).  

it all depends on your reasons for doing so. generally i encourage your artistic sensibilities if you do it for musical reasons. that is we make technical decisions for expressive purposes, we don't make expressive /musical changes for purely technical ones (well some do, i was just never taught to ever do that).

also if you are just playing it for yourself, or as an exercise in arranging or transcribing, that's all good. but don't expect to have it considered a serious piece of music or art. just know your reasons and what the end product should be considered.

then again it's not like anything we say really matters. do what you like, enjoy it, if it works, cool, if not, cool too. heck a failed experiment is hardly an experiment as usually experiments are used to see if something is successful or not. so a failure is a success in that perspective (as you now accomplised the goal of knowing whether or not it works).
edit:
i think i just read the op original post wrong. at first i thought you were out to arrange  or compose a piece of music just on the themem you like not just play the etude and leave part of it out. in that case, i don't think it's such a 'bueno' idea.

[jasperkeys27]

Thank you all for your kind replies. I have long held that "If it sounds good, it is good."  because after all, music is primarily a listening experience. The melody on this piece so beautiful to me but I'm not sure if I'm up to properly balancing the three parts as needed.

[nyiregyhazi]

it would not be the first time this (or several actually) of the etudes have been modified or adapted (heck even ones by other respected composers too).  

it all depends on your reasons for doing so. generally i encourage your artistic sensibilities if you do it for musical reasons. that is we make technical decisions for expressive purposes, we don't make expressive /musical changes for purely technical ones (well some do, i was just never taught to ever do that).

In this case, I'd say the opposite. There can be no acceptable musical reason for omitting this integral section. Sorry to be blunt, but anyone who cannot appreciate the middle section has not appreciated the composition as a whole. Leave out the middle section by all means and enjoy the beautiful melody. However, if that is done because a person cannot appreciate what the middle section means in the context of the music, neither have they fully understood the melodic section as music. The piece is about contrast- not merely about beauty. The only acceptable reason I can see is a technical decision. To claim that it's musically justified to cut the hard bit would be a mere excuse that is completely unjustifiable with regard to the musical nature of the composition. You might as well claim that only learning the first bit of fur elise is done for "musical" reasons-as if some profoundly artistic decision went into doing so. It's just a non-starter, sorry. He can enjoy a beautiful melody by all means, but there's no justification to making up a bogus "musical" rationale for cutting an integral section.

PS. Just to clarify- without the ABA structure there is no beauty to the return to simplicity. Either you have monotony, by adding an extra repeat with nothing between or a melody and then nothing else. It's about the calm after the storm. If that's not going to happen, you're not playing the same piece of music. It's okay to enjoy playing a melody from a composition that you cannot manage the whole of, but it's not okay to pretend that leaving out the emotional structure is done for positive "musical" reasons.

[49410enrique]

In this case, I'd say the opposite. There can be no acceptable musical reason for omitting this integral section. Sorry to be blunt, but anyone who cannot appreciate the middle section has not appreciated the composition as a whole. Leave out the middle section by all means and enjoy the beautiful melody. However, if that is done because a person cannot appreciate what the middle section means in the context of the music, neither have they fully understood the melodic section as music. The piece is about contrast- not merely about beauty. The only acceptable reason I can see is a technical decision. To claim that it's musically justified to cut the hard bit would be a mere excuse that is completely unjustifiable with regard to the musical nature of the composition. You might as well claim that only learning the first bit of fur elise is done for "musical" reasons-as if some profoundly artistic decision went into doing so. It's just a non-starter, sorry. He can enjoy a beautiful melody by all means, but there's no justification to making up a bogus "musical" rationale for cutting an integral section.

PS. Just to clarify- without the ABA structure there is no beauty to the return to simplicity. Either you have monotony, by adding an extra repeat with nothing between or a melody and then nothing else. It's about the calm after the storm. If that's not going to happen, you're not playing the same piece of music. It's okay to enjoy playing a melody from a composition that you cannot manage the whole of, but it's not okay to pretend that leaving out the emotional structure is done for positive "musical" reasons.

that's cool man. no big deal on my end either way. i didn't say he has to have a good musical reason. but i don't see the point making your own arrangement of a work , or a transcription, or a 'paraphrase' on a theme, and including the part you don't like. that's all i meant.

now if we're talking about him studying the piece as is and just playing out of the score and leaving a part of it out? that to me is entirely different.

i read his post as he was out to make a 'new composition' like an arrangement or a piece 'on a theme of chopin' or something ike that and maybe spit it out in finale or some other notation software, not just play the etude as is and arbitrarily leave part out.

sorry if i lead you and others to believe something i did not mean to imply. i was approaching it from an compositional point of view (i.e. like with pieces that are based on other pieces or with concert paraphrases, etc. where a theme is part of the piece but it's considered a separate work of music on it's own).

edit: i just re read the op. yeah that's not what he meant. it looks like he's just trying to learn the etude and leaving part of it out? that doesn't make sense to me.

[j_menz]

it looks like he's just trying to learn the etude and leaving part of it out? that doesn't make sense to me.

Yet people do the same thing with Sonatas all the time. Learn just a movement, rather than the whole.

You can't actually break a Chopin etude. If you only want to play a bit of it, or a simplified version of it or whatever then that's fine. It will survive, undameged, for the rest of us. Just so long as you don't represent either (to yourself or others) that you actually play the thing.  Yes, it may be a better piece musically as a whole, certainly it is a better "etude" as a whole, and no doubt Chopin wanted it played as a whole. But so what? If just a bit of it is what you like, then you can just play that bit; what you do in the privacy of your own piano room is nobody else's business.

I for one have done far worse things to pieces, and doubt I'm alone in that.

[49410enrique]

Yet people do the same thing with Sonatas all the time. Learn just a movement, rather than the whole.

You can't actually break a Chopin etude. If you only want to play a bit of it, or a simplified version of it or whatever then that's fine. It will survive, undameged, for the rest of us. Just so long as you don't represent either (to yourself or others) that you actually play the thing.  Yes, it may be a better piece musically as a whole, certainly it is a better "etude" as a whole, and no doubt Chopin wanted it played as a whole. But so what? If just a bit of it is what you like, then you can just play that bit; what you do in the privacy of your own piano room is nobody else's business.

I for one have done far worse things to pieces, and doubt I'm alone in that.

yeah good points too!

[pytheamateur]

If this is what you want, why not play a Richard Clayderman adaptation?

You tell me whether this is better than the original.

[jasperkeys27]

"The only acceptable reason I can see is a technical decision." You're right, nyiregyhazi. I really don't think I'm up to playing the middle part of this piece. It just looks very difficult to me when I watch various Youtube performances.

As far as the Richard Clayderman version, I'm afraid this one doesn't do it for me. To me it loses the delicate nature of the piece I love perhaps because of the missing inner voices. A lot of people love his music and in listening to other pieces he's recorded he's obviously very talented; it's just not my cup of tea.

As an hobbyist at the age of 58 I'm still discovering new classical music that I've missed out on. There's just so much out there. Thanks for all the input.

[pytheamateur]

No, I never thought Richard Clayderman would do, but then I wonder whether any substantial alteration to this piece would ever be better than the original.
 
The middle section does look daunting at first sight, but the slow section is actually deceptively simple: it requires just as much technique, on balancing the different voices.  Of course, the technical skills are different from playing fast chords, and of course, if you don't have the latter, it does not necessarily mean you don't have the former either.  On the other hand, if you think you can tackle the slow section, perhaps you should not rule out too readily on trying the middle section.

[jasperkeys27]

Well, the balancing act on the first part of the piece would challenging enough for me and perhaps if I learned to play this fairly decently, the middle might beckon. I never thought I'd learn Clair de Lune (although I'm still working on a lot of expression details) so I should never say never. Thanks.

[asuhayda]

Newcomer here . Just wanted to get an opinion on changing such a highly revered piece.

BLASPHEMY!!!! haha