Question regarding reading

[gn622]

I've always been a horrible reader so please excuse my often silly questions

in the last bar of page 398 in this link https://erato.uvt.nl/files/imglnks/usimg/e/e4/IMSLP41306-PMLP02640-Chopin_Klavierwerke_Band_2_Peters_Op.49_600dpi.pdf,

its quite clear exactly on what note my right hand plays with respect to the left hand, but in the bar just before it, its not that clear, do i play the g flat with the A flat or d flat? these passages always confuse me because during slow practice its not clear if im doing it right or not.

much appreciated!


also another completely unrelated question, suppose a measure has a c flat and in the same measure a c with just a sharp sign, what c should i play? the natural or c sharp?

[outin]

in the last bar of page 398 in this link https://erato.uvt.nl/files/imglnks/usimg/e/e4/IMSLP41306-PMLP02640-Chopin_Klavierwerke_Band_2_Peters_Op.49_600dpi.pdf,

its quite clear exactly on what note my right hand plays with respect to the left hand, but in the bar just before it, its not that clear, do i play the g flat with the A flat or d flat? these passages always confuse me because during slow practice its not clear if im doing it right or not.

Neither, you play 2 to 3 twice. Have you played polyrhythms?

[gn622]

Neither, you play 2 to 3 twice. Have you played polyrhythms?

I really am not familiar with music terminology, so i don't understand your post at all (sorry lol), can you please elaborate?

i have a very small reportoir so i don't think i faced polyrhythms before, but the pieces i play are very advanced so i don't worry about technique

[p2u_]

@ gn622

Have a look here: Wikipedia: Polyrhythm. There is an example of two against three. Since this is a very simple polyrhythm, you can use the lowest common multiple (=6) to draw a picture for yourself and count everything out. With more complicated polyrhythms, this will be impossible though. I prefer playing two melodies against each other as independent entities.

Paul

[outin]

I really am not familiar with music terminology, so i don't understand your post at all (sorry lol), can you please elaborate?

i have a very small reportoir so i don't think i faced polyrhythms before, but the pieces i play are very advanced so i don't worry about technique

These are very common in Chopin pieces... You simply need to play 4 notes equally divided in time with the right hand and 6 notes (the 2 triples) equally divided in the same time with the left hand. A bit tricky at first. You play the 2nd and 4th note of the right hand just slightly later than the 2nd and 5th note of the left hand, but you should still keep both hands in strictly correct rhythm. So I would do a lot of HS practice to make sure the hands are independent, otherwise it will sound "clumsy".

[outin]

BTW. I found your other question a bit confusing, maybe Paul could answer that?

[p2u_]

suppose a measure has a c flat and in the same measure a c with just a sharp sign, what c should i play? the natural or c sharp?

BTW. I found your other question a bit confusing, maybe Paul could answer that?

OK. After an accidental flat sign, you would expect a natural sign (♮) first to cancel the accidental, because the effect of accidentals is supposed to last for the entire measure. If it's really impossible to determine by ear, then I'd like to see a fragment of that music first before replying. Some obscure editions have lousy markings in this respect.

Paul

[gn622]

OK. After an accidental flat sign, you would expect a natural sign (♮) first to cancel the accidental, because the effect of accidentals is supposed to last for the entire measure. If it's really impossible to determine by ear, then I'd like to see a fragment of that music first before replying. Some obscure editions have lousy markings in this respect.

Paul

Its in bar 7 of the meno mosso section https://conquest.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/f/f3/IMSLP02036-Chopin_-_Andante_spianato_et_Grande_polonaise_brillante_1836.pdf


thanks everyone for your inputs it really helped!

[p2u_]

suppose a measure has a c flat and in the same measure a c with just a sharp sign, what c should i play? the natural or c sharp?

Its in bar 7 of the meno mosso section Chopin__Andante_spianato_et_Grande_polonaise_brillante

Play it as written (c#), even though the expected accidental is missing. I checked three different versions; they all give the same notation. I'm not near a piano to check right now.

Paul

[gn622]

Play it as written (c#), even though the expected accidental is missing. I checked three different versions; they all give the same notation. I'm not near a piano to check right now.

Paul

Yes i thought so, i also checked different versions and got the same results. it sounds natural with c sharp.
i wonder why they did that though?

[p2u_]

Yes i thought so, i also checked different versions and got the same results. it sounds natural with c sharp.
i wonder why they did that though?

No idea. They may have overlooked it. The "rules" are there to make sight reading easier, but when you play pieces of that level, you are probably supposed to be able to decide yourself what the composer had in mind.

Paul

[keypeg]

What I get from playing that measure is this feeling:
A nat slips into Bb in an appoggiatura kind of way, C# slips into D, E slips into F and the G is a passing tone bringing F to Ab.  Upward semitone movements often emphasize the higher note because of how we hear things in music.  Therefore what you get through the "slipped into" notes are Bb D F Ab which is a Bb7 chord, which is also the V7 of Eb major.  It has to be C# in order for us to have this semitone-slipping thingy happening.  That's also why C# "feels right".

I remember that there were some changing conventions.  One (an older one?) would insist that you put in a natural to cancel the Cb, and then a # to give it a new value of C#.  Newer (but decades ago) says that if I'm going to write C#, obviously the flat is gone, so just stick in the # - what else would it be?  That's what we have here.  It actually does seem to follow rules.

One aspect of reading music is theory, because music theory also gives you clues.  Theory, in turn, is best wedded to the ear, rather than just memorized rules.

[keypeg]

I wonder why there is no response.

[iansinclair]

I wonder why there is no response.

Either because we're all saying yes (which we should be) or are so puzzled we can't think what to say... !

Another way that thing could have been notated -- I haven't looked at it -- but it could have been shown as D flat instead of C sharp.

[keypeg]

Another way that thing could have been notated -- I haven't looked at it -- but it could have been shown as D flat instead of C sharp.

It's not.  The passage is a Bb7 chord.  From memory the melodic line goes:
(A) Bb (C#) D (E) F (G) Ab

It's a melodic line, but what stands out is the Bb D F Ab, and the semitones slide up into those principal notes.  You would not want to have Db instead of C#.

The one person who is absent is the asker.

[j_menz]

aspect of reading music is theory, because music theory also gives you clues.  Theory, in turn, is best wedded to the ear, rather than just memorized rules.

Such theory as I ever knew has largely found itself a happier home, but I do not find it affects my reading. No doubt some of it hangs around silently in the background.

By the late romantics theory had largely stretched to accomodate practice rather than practice comforming to theory; the theory therefore being moulded to be able to "explain" pretty much anything, rendering it useless as a tool for deciphering things.

[keypeg]

We have theory right in the question here, and it is theory that makes the answer clear.

[j_menz]

We have theory right in the question here, and it is theory that makes the answer clear.

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.  Theory does not always make the answer clear.  There are plenty of scores around where editors of impeccable theoretical background have not been able to resolve aquestion of what note was meant.  Many well edited versions have marks such as (#?) in them. Theory has not helped, and mostly neither does one's ear.

Further, not all composers followed alleged theory as exactly as your certainty implies - you may be imposing a constraint they actually hoped to be free of.

[keypeg]

Further, not all composers followed alleged theory as exactly as your certainty implies - you may be imposing a constraint they actually hoped to be free of.

My certainty was about a particular measure in a particular score.  You wrote that you had not looked at it yet.  I also don't see any constraint being imposed by seeing/hearing a Bb7 chord being traced, etc.  People are free to see or hear it as they wish but it does seem helpful.

[j_menz]

You wrote that you had not looked at it yet.  

Nope. I didn't. Must have been someone else.

I also don't see any constraint being imposed by seeing/hearing a Bb7 chord being traced, etc.  People are free to see or hear it as they wish but it does seem helpful.

In this case it probably is. Chopin was very much in the standard practice period and not especially adventurous harmonically.  The problem arises when you see/hear a Bb7 chord that isn't there - which will be the case in other pieces.

[keypeg]

That's why my comment was intended specifically for that one case.  But I also think that it's beneficial to gain some understanding of theory as opposed to none at all.

[p2u_]

But I also think that it's beneficial to gain some understanding of theory as opposed to none at all.

Exactly as with technique: you can never have enough practical theory (as you said: linked to the ear).
P.S.: I still think the editor should have canceled the flat before indicating the sharp. That's what I compared editions for, not to determine the name of the dominant in E flat.

Paul

[keypeg]

P.S.: I still think the editor should have canceled the flat before indicating the sharp. That's what I compared editions for, not to determine the name of the dominant in E flat.

Paul

I remember discussing this when I first studied theory still at the rudiments level.  Apparently that stopped being standard a long time ago.  The reasoning not to do so was that if you have a #, obviously the flat is cancelled because you couldn't have something like C#b.

[p2u_]

I remember discussing this when I first studied theory still at the rudiments level.  Apparently that stopped being standard a long time ago.  The reasoning not to do so was that if you have a #, obviously the flat is cancelled because you couldn't have something like C#b.

I'm sure it works like this in the head of a composer and of an advanced pianist with the necessary skills and knowledge, but I don't think EDITORS (who sell the stuff) should assume this kind of knowledge in the client, who is supposed to sight-read it. My personal opinion, nothing more...

Paul

[j_menz]

but I don't think EDITORS (who sell the stuff) should assume this kind of knowledge in the client, who is supposed to sight-read it. My personal opinion, nothing more...

Paul

Of all the many sins (both of omission and commission) I have experienced editors to be guilty of, this would seem a relatively minor one.

[keypeg]

I'm sure it works like this in the head of a composer and of an advanced pianist with the necessary skills and knowledge, but I don't think EDITORS (who sell the stuff) should assume this kind of knowledge in the client, who is supposed to sight-read it. My personal opinion, nothing more...

We can't read books without knowing about spelling, grammar, syntax.  Publishers should assume this kind of knowledge from the client.  The same for common conventions in music.  Apparently this has been standard for several decades.

[p2u_]

We can't read books without knowing about spelling, grammar, syntax.  Publishers should assume this kind of knowledge from the client.  The same for common conventions in music.  Apparently this has been standard for several decades.

We are talking about Chopin here, so that's a lot of decades. Chopin's music is also comparably easy in this respect, but what about more modern composers? By the way, even if we go further back in history, there are problems with notes that were probably not intended by the composer but slipped into certain editions only. Case in point - Mendelssohn misprint ? where mere theoretical knowledge does not readily solve the problem. It's a very short topic. Please read till the end to see that no actual conclusion was reached.

As j_menz already indicated, many well-edited versions have (#?) marks in them, where even the editors themselves didn't know what the composer actually intended. How much knowledge is enough for the poor sight-reader to be able to play a piece as intended? If you, as an editor, do not take care of your customers in this respect, then they'll just buy another edition and you end up with a bad name.

P.S.: Do you have any information on when exactly it became standard to indicate a natural sign before going from flat to sharp? I've seen that quite a lot, but I have no idea who invented the custom. Personally, I think it was a VERY good idea to avoid ambiguity.

Paul

[keypeg]

I am not suggesting theory as a panacaea.  I may also not be suggesting theory purely in the way it is presently taught.  But for anyone who is just starting out - and some people seem to go straight to advanced pieces, even before understanding basic key and time signatures - getting a handle on theory WILL help with theory and interpretation.  In the least it will give clues.