Mephisto Waltz No.1

[can]

My recent performance of Liszt Mephisto Waltz No.1

[chopin2015]

F

1. Either you or I have got some rhythms off. Im thinking the beginning, did you work on this with a teacher?
2. The clarity in the presto is amazing, its fast enough! Nice job.

So, you have wrong notes in some places and the rhythm is wrong in a couple spots. You didnt play this piece slowly, long enough. Check the notes in the arppegios at the end, they were really light and great, but you have the left hand wrong or atleast i couldnt hear it as it should be played. Check left hand everywhere. You have random thrash of bass in some spots, but no solid left hand rhythm for me to check...i was confused. It was grand and epic, but maybe you could explain some of your rhythm interpretations....

Nice job. I listened to it roughly. You are able to play fast and with feeling, and that is always envy worthy.

[can]

First and most important of all I would like to thank you for your critcisms. It helped me to find quite a lot of details which I hadn't notice. I double checked the beginning which to my edition correct. However in the doublesemiquaver triplets, I am early about half semiquaver. In any case, I know that when listened while counting the beats, there are some places which does not fit at all. But in all of those places, I needed to make a decision: I would either be metronomically correct or I would take time to prepare the following note. The first choise makes the piece lose its identity. It makes it "unfollowable". (I have tried it before, both at lesson and at concert and received very harsh criticism.) What I believe about the pulse is that it is not mechanical nor countable. In my opinion it is something that can be felt only. This property makes it freer than the beat which is completely numeric. 

I pulse what I feel so the evenness of the piece isn't diperced because I do not take the beat exactly at the metronome mark. It is, somewhat, like extension of the preceding idea, phrase or part of phrase. To cut it short, what I do is to maintain the flow without giving the people that I am out of breath because I am trying to catch up with an invisible metronome. 

Concerning my style of study, I study at half or quarter tempo working on the longer phrases just like I am playing in tempo. (then I do an analysis of what I did: the phrasing, the development of the general idea and the overall picture) A somehow dull motive can be very beautiful and meaningful in the context. (maybe a phrase or maybe the whole piece) And of course vice versa. Unfortunately, when I had given that recital, I was in confusion technically. My teacher here in Ankara suggests a looser technical style which prevents fatigue on the finger muscles. On the other hand, my teacher supports a Brendelesque techinique where finger muscles create the sound, taking their power from the arm weight. Both are very useful but when I consider my hand span (I can reach a 7th without difficulty with 2-4) the second is much easier and cleaner for me. But I had made my utmost decision only several weeks ago. (the recital was in december) Because of this confusion  I was not completely sure technically. Also the piano was a terrible Gunther from 1930's which almost hadn't been restored since!

Maybe that is the reason I had not made the bass clear enough. Nevertheless it always needs to be worked on!

All in all the rhytmic decisions in most places were because of my conception of the pulse itself. In the other places, I will work on them more. If you can listen to the recording as if it was a concert given to you only, without caring about technical weaknesses, and tell that If you find the interpretation of the phrases convincing? It is very important for me to make every phrase as convincing as I can so that the listener would feel as intensly as
I feel even though he/she doesn't agree with me on the conception of the composer and piece. 

[can]

PS- I am by the way sorry about my mistake in language usage. It should have been just quaver and semiquaver instead of semiquaver and doublesemiquaver!

[chopin2015]

Thank you for your reply! I very much enjoyed your insight. I will have to double check some spots. While your sense of pulse is creative, and i was truly convinced....i am confused between how complex the pulse is at the beggining and how wrong it is in other spots! It was very bold. I think your interpretation is without a doubt a very great one. Its not your pulse at the end though, in the arp part, its a polyrhythm of left hand over the arps. Otherwise, i heard wonderful things i was not able to hear before because many people do not play this piece. Thanks so much. When i listen to a different recording tomorrow, I will let you know if I figure something else out.

Also, which quaver and semiquaver r u talking about?!lol