Chopin, Scherzo No. 2 in B-flat Minor

[gapoc459]

Hey PianoStreet!!!

This is my first post here, but I wouldn't consider myself "new" to the forum because I've been reading the threads here for such a long time. I've learned so much.

So right now, I'm working on Chopin's second scherzo. I'm almost done reading/memorizing, have overcome, or at least, become familiar with the technical challenges presented. Soon I will have to start working on the actual music. And herein lies my problem.

I have never heard a version of this piece that I like. Almost everybody plays it with crazy "rubato," blatantly, imo, trashing much of the music. I do think that, structurally, it is quite weak, and so I'm trying to find a "right way" of playing, or at least at this stage, thinking about how I want the piece to sound. Garrick Ohlsson is the only one who plays it "right" imo, but his interpretation is generally quite boring. I want the piece to be exciting (which, at ~11 minutes, can often not be the case) yet at the same time exciting.

My question is quite vague. I'd be very interested if people could just have a discussion of some sort about this piece .

Thanks all.

Best,
gapoc

[the89thkey]

Hey PianoStreet!!!

This is my first post here, but I wouldn't consider myself "new" to the forum because I've been reading the threads here for such a long time. I've learned so much.

So right now, I'm working on Chopin's second scherzo. I'm almost done reading/memorizing, have overcome, or at least, become familiar with the technical challenges presented. Soon I will have to start working on the actual music. And herein lies my problem.

I have never heard a version of this piece that I like. Almost everybody plays it with crazy "rubato," blatantly, imo, trashing much of the music. I do think that, structurally, it is quite weak, and so I'm trying to find a "right way" of playing, or at least at this stage, thinking about how I want the piece to sound. Garrick Ohlsson is the only one who plays it "right" imo, but his interpretation is generally quite boring. I want the piece to be exciting (which, at ~11 minutes, can often not be the case) yet at the same time exciting.

My question is quite vague. I'd be very interested if people could just have a discussion of some sort about this piece .


Thanks all.

Best,
gapoc

You want the piece to be exciting but at the same time exciting? Interesting...

As for discussing the piece, I will suggest you post a recording of your rendition and I will probably be able to give you some tips if you want.

[thesuineg]

Richter, but a hair slower.
not easy to find the recording tho:/

[cmg]

Hey PianoStreet!!!


So right now, I'm working on Chopin's second scherzo. I'm almost done reading/memorizing, have overcome, or at least, become familiar with the technical challenges presented. Soon I will have to start working on the actual music. And herein lies my problem.


My question is quite vague. I'd be very interested if people could just have a discussion of some sort about this piece .

Thanks all.

Best,
gapoc

So, you haven't actually worked out the technical issues beyond playing the piece in your head?  When you get to the keyboard, and try this thing up to tempo (the development section of Trio, most specifically), you'll see why rubato is used!  Good luck and get very creative with fingering here, i.e. practice some of the Etudes first, to get comfortable with unorthodox choices.  It's not as easy as it sounds, but it is the easiest of the Scherzi.

[j_menz]

Seems to me that Chopin wothout rubato is a bit like Pizza without cheese; if you don't like the cheese, maybe you shouldn't be eating Pizza.

[gapoc459]

@89thkey: Should have read my post over before posting. *I want the piece to be exciting, but at the same time, true to the music, and not completely ridiculous. I might be the only person who feels this way, but I just don't like listening to this piece. Love playing it though .

I just finished reading/memorizing today, so it will be a while before I can post a rendition in reasonable shape. Lots of time over Christmas break though to practice!!!!

@thesuineg: Richter's not too bad . His coda is hilarious.



I think I've got down most of the technical issues. Let's see: catalina (what does that even mean?!?! I've seen it used here, and I know what section it's referring to, but I haven't found that term anywhere else lol), I'm fairly comfortable with in the left hand, long arpeggios I can do 2/3 times, just a bunch of slow practice, middle section is no problem, end of middle section I just learned, challenging, but not terrible, and coda is quite hard (that nasty Gb-Bb-D-Gb-DGb), but again, slow practice.

Etudes??? I don't think they're necessary for this piece...


There's nothing wrong with rubato per se, but I feel that too many people just do it wrong in this piece!!!

[ajspiano]

Seems to me that Chopin wothout rubato is a bit like Pizza without cheese; if you don't like the cheese, maybe you shouldn't be eating Pizza.

...you should reconsider your understanding of whats possible on a pizza...   I'm in agreement with your point though.

[the89thkey]

This is a ridiculous thread...

Coming back to the rubato issue, it should only be used sparingly. When necessary. It's a subjective thing.

[ricardojarav]

For chopin, every piece of chopin, I like Zimerman... Listen to him!

[lelle]

Chopin's music can tolerate a lot of variation in the pulse if it is done tastefully and in accordance with the flow of the music. How to achieve that is another question.

Rubinstein has a very good recording of this piece (he has done several, some of them I don't like).

[the89thkey]

For chopin, every piece of chopin, I like Zimerman... Listen to him!

Do not listen to him...nor should you listen to ricardojarav

[lelle]

I don't like Zimerman, most Chopin I've lsitened to with him sounds so... sterile

[the89thkey]

I don't like Zimerman, most Chopin I've lsitened to with him sounds so... sterile

Or convoluted might be a better term...

[j_menz]

I don't think you have to like a rendition of a piece to learn something from it. 

Indeed, learning what ways of playing don't seem right is just as useful, an possibly more useful, than hearing something that does seem right. Engages the brain more, somehow.

For the OP, learn what you don't like and then produce a rendition that shows what you believe the piece to be. I for one would listen to that with enthusiasm.

[the89thkey]

I don't think you have to like a rendition of a piece to learn something from it. 

I don't agree...You have to like it at least a little.

[nyiregyhazi]

This is a ridiculous thread...

Coming back to the rubato issue, it should only be used sparingly. When necessary.

Necessary? That's a very strange way of putting it. It's about quality of usage, not cutting down to matters of necessity. Very few rubatos are necessary. If we stripped it to those, there'd be almost nothing left.

Few of the details here are necessary, with regard to the specific moment:

They just make it sound better.

[j_menz]

I don't agree...You have to like it at least a little.

Perhaps you would care to explain why.  Your bare assertion is neither convincing, useful or interesting on its own.

** wonders if I will regret asking for another post from 89

[the89thkey]

Necessary? That's a very strange way of putting it. It's about quality of usage, not cutting down to matters of necessity. Very few rubatos are necessary. If we stripped it to those, there'd be almost nothing left.

Few of the details here are necessary, with regard to the specific moment:

They just make it sound better.

I used the wrong word probably. Maybe "desirable" was better

[the89thkey]

Perhaps you would care to explain why.  Your bare assertion is neither convincing, useful or interesting on its own.

** wonders if I will regret asking for another post from 89

It's hard not to shut your mind against a recording you abhor, making it impossible to hear anything useful you might otherwise obtain from it...

[j_menz]

It's hard not to shut your mind against a recording you abhor, making it impossible to hear anything useful you might otherwise obtain from it...

That is probably true in general, but then I suspect most of us don't listen through something too awful anyway.

I personally find there is an exception when I am developing an understanding of a piece, learning to play it or going through it again after a long break. There, once I have a sort of basic structure for it, I find even performances I would normally switch off are not only bearable, but sometimes informative.

[gn622]

My favorite recording of this piece is by yuri egorov

[kalirren]

On the subject of rubato: Karl Mikula, whom Chopin taught personally, said that Chopin's rubato was only in the right hand.  The left hand was metronomically precise when tempo was constant.

When I learned this piece I found it really helps to think of the whole piece as being 1 beat to a measure, 4 measures to a group.  Excessive subdivision leads to too many stresses in this piece, and the arcs of phrases are just so long.

My other advice would be to block all the chords, measure by measure, and listen for a Bach-like chorale.  Once the chorale texture is familiar, then unblock the chords and voice accordingly.

[werq34ac]

It's a freaking Chopin Scherzo. It's supposed to be capricious, quirky, playful, erratic, etc. Which means not playing with a straight jacket.

It's interesting that you think etudes are worthless. Especially Chopin etudes. You are either incredibly ignorant or a troll.

When I learned this piece I found it really helps to think of the whole piece as being 1 beat to a measure, 4 measures to a group.  Excessive subdivision leads to too many stresses in this piece, and the arcs of phrases are just so long.

I really can't imagine any of the scherzi felt in 3...

[chrisbutch]

One of the interpretative choices in this piece is how to approach the more reflective sostenuto interludes. The performing tradition has been a markedly slower tempo (cf the Michelangeli version). Sostenuto is frequently used by Brahms, for instance, in contexts where a slower tempo is obviously required. Chopin also uses it quite frequently, but in his case it's not always so clear-cut that there's a tempo change. If you experiment with these interludes at something closer to the hectic waltz-tempo of the rest, you get some remarkable effects - a sort of anxious, restless yearning. Not saying this is either right or wrong, but worth trying.

[wiggityp]

I really can't imagine any of the scherzi felt in 3...

Are you serious? They are all in 3/4, and particularly the 2nd is very natural to count with a rapid 123, 123, 123. At least for me. I can honestly say I can't imagine counting them in anything but three, maybe some parts of them, but in general--no.

[wiggityp]

This is one of my favorite pieces. In addition to thinking about it in 3, I'd recommend thinking of the whole piece as a narrative rather than the rather blunt segments that it is. Chopin's transitions are so nice in this piece that I usually find some sort of story to go along with it in my own head. He himself said that the initial musical idea in the piece is a question/answer device. I think of the repeats of this section as of a conversation repeated between two intransigent opposing parties--one tip toeing around the other, both aware of what the other has to say. I think that the duality in the dialogue can be observed throughout the entire piece; granted, sometimes the voices are in agreement with one another and the explosive ending, while maybe resulting in increased understanding between the opposing characters, the debate/differences between the two don't actually see a resolution (a victory of one over the other). I think of both voices as male (student-teacher perhaps?) and definitely detect a particularly male vibe throughout this piece, which is interesting as Chopin of all composer's seemed to have no trouble reflecting the feminine in his work. For that, I believe the the second scherzo is very personally inspired piece, perhaps written by Chopin the man-of Chopin the man and for Chopin the man.

And who can deny that when it comes to the piano--Chopin da' Man!

[werq34ac]

Are you serious? They are all in 3/4, and particularly the 2nd is very natural to count with a rapid 123, 123, 123. At least for me. I can honestly say I can't imagine counting them in anything but three, maybe some parts of them, but in general--no.

o_O what are you smoking man? 3 beats per measure? When your metronome can't even go that fast?

Yes it's a 3/4 but it's an incredibly fast 3/4 to the point that counting in 3 would be ridiculous. Feel the piece in 1.

[cmg]

Lord, yes!  One beat per bar!!  It's a Scherzo.

[gapoc459]

J_mens, I agree with you 100%. Almost every recording I've heard contains something interesting (that I like and can try to incorporate into my own playing) and something that I don't like (and that I can try to "improve"). I will post a recording of me playing this piece when I am completely satisfied with it, and eagerly look forward to your feedback.

I can't really imagine counting 3 beats per measure. Except in the middle section. Try counting 3 beats per measure in the opening of the first scherzo! 12 beats each gets pretty confusing...

@werq34ac: Please don't misinterpret my posts and then proceed with ad hominem attacks. I would never begin to claim that Chopin Etudes are worthless (lol please don't compare me to BachScholar). They are among my favorite pieces in the repertoire. I was just saying that, for a piece such as this, I don't think they are necessary as technical prerequisites. Why would I spend months learning Op. 10 No. 1 as "preparation" for the three or four long arpeggios in this piece? Of course I want to learn Op. 10 No. 1, but the technical difficulties in this piece are not so terrible...

Also, I didn't mention that I'm preparing this piece for a competition (my first! ) in July. Again, I don't have unlimited time to learn all the Chopin etudes before playing this piece...


Wiggity said that these pieces should be viewed as a "narrative." I think that is a perfect comparison. Too many people (imo, everybody) concentrates on the playfulness (and sometimes, bland showiness) of individual phrases, rather than considering the piece as a whole.  Again I use the first scherzo as my example. The main theme repeats SIX times. Their character simply HAS to evolve some way throughout the piece. I believe the same applies on this scherzo; otherwise Chopin would not have made those minute details from repeat to repeat.


I just got an amazing book in which Garrick Ohlsson (my favorite Chopin interpreter) says: "If you don't bring to [Chopin's] music a strong sense of the structure, it comes out as magic and moonlight -- but you'll get sick of it quickly. If you only have the structure and miss the magic, it becomes unbearably awful."

This is almost exactly what I've been saying all along (I think in the OP as well?), and I think his first point is what is generally the problem with this piece. Lack of STRUCTURE.

[cmg]

cherzo! 12 beats each gets pretty confusing...

@werq34ac: Please don't misinterpret my posts and then proceed with ad hominem attacks. I would never begin to claim that Chopin Etudes are worthless (lol please don't compare me to BachScholar). They are among my favorite pieces in the repertoire. I was just saying that, for a piece such as this, I don't think they are necessary as technical prerequisites. Why would I spend months learning Op. 10 No. 1 as "preparation" for the three or four long arpeggios in this piece? Of course I want to learn Op. 10 No. 1, but the technical difficulties in this piece are not so terrible...

Also, I didn't mention that I'm preparing this piece for a competition (my first! ) in July. Again, I don't have unlimited time to learn all the Chopin etudes before playing this piece...

I think you've misunderstood the reference to familiarity with the "Etudes."  You don't need mastery of Op. 10 and Op. 25 to play this Scherzo.  

But embedded in the development section of the Scherzo's Trio is a perilous string of wide-spaced arpeggios that go as fast as a bat out of hell and 20 times as loud.  It's the climax of the piece.  

These arpeggios, on first practice run-throughs at a practice tempo, seem to be not very challenging.  But, get them to tempo and you find all kinds of issues arise in executing them  -- the least of which, and the most embarrassing, are the wrong notes; the most damaging is the tension that results if you try to play them as you would in the "classical" manner.  Play them with the slightest bit of tension, using conventional (and seemingly obvious fingering) and you'll lock up and freeze.  And the fortissimo wind-up of the Trio still awaits with that big, fast, rolled chord passage, interspersed with that light, fast triplet motif.  Challenging position changes that require complete relaxation.  If you tense earlier, that fortissimo section will sound like silverware in a blender because you'll be too tired to articulate it.  Furthermore, it will be under tempo, and it will sound like a million other amateur pianists who founder here.    

The remedy for this problem is posed by Chopin in the Etudes, and, yes Opus. 10, No 1 is a good example.  You don't have to master this Etude.  Just play through it, noting Chopin's revolutionary fingering, and you have the answer the Trio's development section.

Spare yourself some grief is all I'm suggesting.

[werq34ac]

Fair enough, as long as you don't think the etudes are worthless.

cmg: I would actually recommend Op. 10/8 since it seems to have a more similar technique.

As for the 1st scherzo, I'm not sure that you necessarily have to play it differently each time. Then you get people who do ridiculous things. Yes structure is important, but I think that the main point of the repeat is that it's such a great theme that it's sort of a "relief" to come back to it.

[gapoc459]

Wait, lemme just make sure we're thinking about the same spot:

. 6:16 or 6:36? Or something else entirely?

I assume you're talking about 6:36. 6:16 is difficult at the tempo that many people (including Argerich above) play it at, but I think it should be taken significantly slower. I can handle it at a tempo above what I think it should be. 6:36 is pretty nasty though... Could you elaborate on what you mean? How you recommend I practice this, or perhaps how I could use the etude (or no. 8?) to help?


@werq: About the 1st scherzo: in my opinion, the way it should be is that, when it first starts, it is quite "normal." Still fiery, of course, but perhaps a bit more melodic. Slower, also. The sixth repeat leading to the coda I like to play very quickly and perhaps more aggressively/percussively. But you are right, about some people doing ridiculous things. I'm not saying that you should play it differently for the sake of playing it differently; rather, you should let the piece evolve naturally, and logically, rather than playing each repeat verbatim.

[cmg]

Wait, lemme just make sure we're thinking about the same spot:

. 6:16 or 6:36? Or something else entirely?

I assume you're talking about 6:36. 6:16 is difficult at the tempo that many people (including Argerich above) play it at, but I think it should be taken significantly slower. I can handle it at a tempo above what I think it should be. 6:36 is pretty nasty though... Could you elaborate on what you mean? How you recommend I practice this, or perhaps how I could use the etude (or no. 8?) to help?

Yes, the whole development section 6:16 and on.  You come out of the "leggerio" section, which, in tempo, is already FAST, and Chopin brings that section to a conclusion with a marking for "crescendo ed animato," and he's not just whistling Dixie.  He means it and Argerich, in this performance you posted, hits it perfectly, flying into the argeggiated development with a fury that it requires.  it's the climax of the piece.  If you take it "significantly slower" there, you certainly make it easier on yourself, but you trash the biggest moment of the Scherzo.  This is the BIG moment.  Argerich does it with astonishing power.  So does Benjamin Grosvenor, and, well, every other pianist worth his or her salt.  

So, you see, you can't just slow it down "significantly" there unless you want to sound not only technically challenged but also musically stunted.

I think you see, then, that this Scherzo isn't that easy at all -- especially at this crucial moment.  It's damned hard and very taxing.

And our friend "werq" is right in suggesting that Op. 10 No 8 is a better Etude for working on this particular problem than Op. 10 No. 1.  Practice No. 8 and you'll see the parallels.  I like Opus 10 No. 1 for its stretching demands, too.  

In that Trio development, examine your fingering to see if it more corresponds to what Chopin indicates in Etude No. 8.  You can't let crossings of 4 over 1 (in the descending arpeggio passages) get in the way.  It's complete arm movements to get to the positions.  Smooth transitions with arm movement and as little wrist action as possible.  If you find your wrist doing most of the work, you're doing it wrong.  And if the wrist takes over, you'll never, ever get the tempo to where it should be.  Plus, your hand will turn into a claw.

Your teacher should be aware of this.  Check in with him or her to help you.  This piece is deceptively "easy".  

[gapoc459]

I see. You've brought up some very interesting and helpful points.

In my lesson today, we spent the whole two hours on the "catalina" (is this a made up term or not?!? 8:23 in the Argerich video). Interestingly enough, she mentioned two Chopin etudes (Op. 10 No. 9 and Op. 25 No. 1) for that left hand motion. Of course they'd be useful; but should I really spend time now, especially when I have a competition in a few months? She recommended that I make an etude out of the piece, rather than practicing a separate etude.

Back to my original question, though. Don't people find that some things that Argerich (and pretty much everyone else) does are ridiculous? 7:56 disgusts me. I understand what she means (I do the same kind of thing), but she COMPLETELY disregards the meter. What do you guys think? 6:16 as well. It's just too suddenly fast...

[p2u_]

In my lesson today, we spent the whole two hours on the "catalina" (is this a made up term or not?!? 8:23 in the Argerich video).

There is a famous quote by Chopin himself: "If you want to play the long cantilena (= sustained, smooth-flowing melodic line) in my Scherzo [no. 2], go hear Pasta or Bellini." So: not "catalina", but "cantilena".

She recommended that I make an etude out of the piece, rather than practicing a separate etude.

I hope she means that you should make your own exercises based on some of the idiomatic material in this Scherzo? There are indeed no etudes that really prepare for this.

Back to my original question, though. Don't people find that some things that Argerich (and pretty much everyone else) does are ridiculous? 7:56 disgusts me. I understand what she means (I do the same kind of thing), but she COMPLETELY disregards the meter. What do you guys think? 6:16 as well. It's just too suddenly fast...

I have no problems accepting it actually because she's a Master. These are mainly mannerisms, not more. Some very famous pianists suffer from this when they play Chopin, yes. Just don't do it after them, because it won't be accepted when YOU do it.

Paul

[lukejones1]

I would recommend listening to Michelangeli's recording on DG, it is a wonderful performance as is the 1st Ballade on the same CD. Actually the whole CD is worth listening to..some delightful mazurkas.

[p2u_]

I would recommend listening to Michelangeli's recording on DG, it is a wonderful performance as is the 1st Ballade on the same CD. Actually the whole CD is worth listening to..some delightful mazurkas.

This is certainly worth listening to for sound balance, but it is not entirely free of certain mannerisms and rhytmic liberties in the text. For example, you can always recognize Michelangeli by the left-before-right trick to bring out certain notes. Given the task at hand, the best no-nonsense, neutral and still very vivid recording is probably by Richter, who never does anything you would recognize him by, were it not for the crazy tempi he takes sometimes, but it's always "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing". Very strong, strict but still natural rhythm is certainly one of the most important features in Richter's art.

Paul

[werq34ac]

I actually like what Argerich does. She plays in a very capricious manner. All of the scherzi have an element of the capricious.

[mr_drm]

Have you heard Ashkenazy play scherzo 2? May be more of what you are looking for, but who knows.

[chrisbutch]

I would recommend listening to Michelangeli's recording on DG, it is a wonderful performance as is the 1st Ballade on the same CD. Actually the whole CD is worth listening to..some delightful mazurkas.

Whether this is the same performance I don't know, but the only time I've heard Michelangeli play this he omitted the entire written-out repeat of the exposition, which changes the whole balance of the piece. I don't know if this was his normal practice - but it seems unlikely that such a fastidious player would agree to do this just to fit some limit on playing time for a recording.

[thesixthsensemusic]

Check out Alfred Cortot's version. He hits a few wrong notes but his phrasing, dynamics, and articulation, are out of this world.

[caroline1200]

My favorite recording of this piece is Nobuyuki, the blind Japanese pianist.