Liszt: Mazeppa??

[david456103]

Could someone help me identify what fingering these recordings use in the ascending thirds in the beginning? I thought you were supposed to use 24,24,24,24,24...?

[j_menz]

The camerman hasn't been helpful!

As far as I can make out, Despax uses LH 42 RH 24 LH 42, Berezovsky LH (can't tell fingers) RH 13 RH 13 and Tolstonog LH 42 (?)  RH 42 (?) LH 31.

Hopefully, someone will have better eyesight, or quicker pause button reflexes.

The  Depax is the Liszt fingering, I believe.

[chopin2015]

Hey! I'm working on this one. We should discuss it! I got the first 4 pages so far.

[chopin2015]

In the last one, I swear she does lh lh lh rh rh rh...jump. or lh lh rh lh lh rh...jump. if the right hand is last to play before the jump, you don't have to orient the right hand as much....

[david456103]

thanks j menz. i think i'll give despaux's fingering a try. before i was doing lh 24 rh 24 rh 24, which was hard sometimes...

[chopin2015]

The girl used lh lh kh rh rh lh rh jump...i think. I would do lh 52 41 lh  24 15 lh 51 rh13 jump

[danhuyle]

I use fingers (from top to bottom) 2 and 4, so do all the pianists I know who play it.

You'd also use this same fingering on Variation 6 in Liszt Paganini Etude no6. Has anyone used another fingering on that other than 2&4?

Mazeppa requires so much stamina just to play it from start to finish, unlike TE5.

[chopin2015]

I use fingers (from top to bottom) 2 and 4, so do all the pianists I know who play it.

You'd also use this same fingering on Variation 6 in Liszt Paganini Etude no6. Has anyone used another fingering on that other than 2&4?

Mazeppa requires so much stamina just to play it from start to finish, unlike TE5.

What do you mean, from from top to bottom?

[danhuyle]

Just use fingers 2&4 and 4&2. 2 and 4 on both hands.

[chopin2015]

Just use fingers 2&4 and 4&2. 2 and 4 on both hands.

U mean, playing hands together on all thirds as in r hand plays the top notes and l hand the bottom? Or alternating hands? Could u write it in the same format as I?

1 2 1 2 1 2 (3 pairs of 16thnotes)

[danhuyle]

You have to change hands every 2 notes.
Stems pointing down - use your left hand
Stems pointing up - use your right hand

It's written clearly on the score. I got the Urtext edition by G.Henle Verlag.

[chopin2015]

You have to change hands every 2 notes.
Stems pointing down - use your left hand
Stems pointing up - use your right hand

It's written clearly on the score. I got the Urtext edition by G.Henle Verlag.

Oh yeah! I alternate fingerings though.

I am going to ask my teacher about it tomorrow. But, it has been hard getting enough info with this because I am not confident enough to pass judgement on why the fingering is difficult (is it because it is difficult music/new territory or because I am wrong?)...will update you tomorrow.

[david456103]

is it absolutely necessary to always use 2-4? i used 2-4 most of teh time, but on some of the thirds(like the d#g eg# ga# g#b) i find an alternate variation of fingering(that still produces a somewhat detached sound) much more effective.

[danhuyle]

As far as I can make out, Despax uses LH 42 RH 24 LH 42,

The  Depax is the Liszt fingering, I believe.

That's it. This is how you should be learning TE4. I myself asked a teacher back in 2006 and saw him do it at performance tempo right before my very eyes.

There is NO right or wrong to fingering and fingering distribution. This fingering that Despax uses is THE fingering to use. Of course, you can always do your own. There really is no substitute for this fingering.

It's a transcendental etude for a reason.

[chopin2015]

That's it. This is how you should be learning TE4. I myself asked a teacher back in 2006 and saw him do it at performance tempo right before my very eyes.

There is NO right or wrong to fingering and fingering distribution. This fingering that Despax uses is THE fingering to use. Of course, you can always do your own. There really is no substitute for this fingering.

It's a transcendental etude for a reason.

So, it is absolutely necessary to repeat fingers?

[pianist1976]

Emil von Sauer, the famous Liszt's direct pupil, wrote that it is absolutely inadmissible to play Mazeppa with other than Liszt's original fingering as long as the sound produced is quite different. Arrau had exactly the same opinion. He practiced it 10 hours a day when he was 15 in order to master that fingering. I personally think that it's worth the extra effort this fingering requires.

There are many pianists who use or used "easier" * and "faster" fingerings such as LH 42-31 RH 31-24 LH 42-31. I think (but not for sure) Lazar Berman didn't use Liszt's fingering. IHMO, using this kind of "easier" fingering does not only changes the character and the sound, it also distort the original tempi intended by Liszt, many pianists play Mazeppa far faster and lighter than what Liszt intended (according to his metronome indications). Of course it may be legitimate, I'm not critiquing them but I for my taste, I prefer the Liszt's original fingering approach. That doesn't mean Berman's rendering doesn't amaze me...

* I quote the word "easier" because even changing the fingering this etude is still a monstrously difficult piece.

[j_menz]

So, it is absolutely necessary to repeat fingers?

It is absolutely necessary to hear the horses hoofs. Liszt believed the best way to achieve that was the repeated fingers 42 24 42 switching hands. It's a brave pianist who argues with Liszt, who generally didn't go on about such details.

If you can do the Liszt fingering and then AFTER that decide that you can achieve the same effect a different way, by all means use that other option. Until then, buckle down and get the Liszt fingering working.

[chopin2015]

It is absolutely necessary to hear the horses hoofs. Liszt believed the best way to achieve that was the repeated fingers 42 24 42 switching hands. It's a brave pianist who argues with Liszt, who generally didn't go on about such details.

If you can do the Liszt fingering and then AFTER that decide that you can achieve the same effect a different way, by all means use that other option. Until then, buckle down and get the Liszt fingering working.

Ok...I will try anything once. But what do you do after the 7 or 8 bars at the start of the "gallop" when the intervals get bigger in like 4ths?

[danhuyle]

Ok...I will try anything once. But what do you do after the 7 or 8 bars at the start of the "gallop" when the intervals get bigger in like 4ths?

Stay on fingers 42,24,42. You'll do this for the first 2 parts of the etude before the 6/8 modulation and that's another matter that should go onto another thread.

[pianoman53]

The fingering you pick should be according to the sound you want, not what's easiest to play...

[david456103]

how fast do you guys suggest mazeppa be played?? i can get it at 8:00 cleanly, but every single recording i hear(including those by students) are in the 7:30 range. when i try to speed it up, it starts to slop.
another thing, it takes me about 40 seconds to play the first variation(pages 2 and 3), while it takes most recordings around 34 seconds. again, should i try to speed it up, or just leave it at that?

[dima_76557]

how fast do you guys suggest mazeppa be played?? i can get it at 8:00 cleanly, but every single recording i hear(including those by students) are in the 7:30 range. when i try to speed it up, it starts to slop.
another thing, it takes me about 40 seconds to play the first variation(pages 2 and 3), while it takes most recordings around 34 seconds. again, should i try to speed it up, or just leave it at that?

Just repair the horse hoofs and your horse will gallop itself at the right speed. In other words: focus on the artistic picture you want people to hear and put your speedometer/chronometer watch back in the closet.

[j_menz]

Just repair the horse hoofs and your horse will gallop itself at the right speed. In other words: focus on the artistic picture you want people to hear and put your speedometer/chronometer watch back in the closet.

Agreed, though a further hint of what that right speed for the horse might be is to be found in the Victor Hugo poem, which anyone attempting to play this should first read anyway.

[chopin2015]

Good advice, j_menz. I do always enjoy reading the literature that inspired composers. Also, has anyone ever noticed that the middle part (also referred to as "the gallop") is not marked staccato...even if you repeat the fingers, the pairs assigned for each hand are...in pairs.

[david456103]

i can play the opening theme(with 2-4 fingering and pretty cleanly) at roughly the speed bolet plays it(approximately 38 seconds):

fast enough? or should i try to speed it up?

[chopin2015]

Sure. When it gets to triplets, speed up more?

[david456103]

yeah, i do speed up on the "easier" themes(in quotations because none of them are actually close to being easy)

[chopin2015]

yeah, i do speed up on the "easier" themes(in quotations because none of them are actually close to being easy)

I think the biggest no no is to slow down at the end or later in pieces. Starting out in a comfortable, moderate tempo on a theme that repeats is great. Just make sure your energy is right, so people know this is a fast, loud, flashy piece and they are fixing to get schooled. Long term, work on building the energy all the way to the end, so you can scare the sh*t out of everyone.

[j_menz]

I think the biggest no no is to slow down at the end or later in pieces.

Except in this piece, with the fall and death of the horse, the near death of Mazeppa himself and the subsequent raising of him to King, this piece does slow down towards the end. IMO, the most common fault at the very end is to go too fast and thereby understate the majesty.

[chopin2015]

Except in this piece, with the fall and death of the horse, the near death of Mazeppa himself and the subsequent raising of him to King, this piece does slow down towards the end. IMO, the most common fault at the very end is to go too fast and thereby understate the majesty.

I happen to disagree respectfully, stylistically. The theme repeats like 3 times, the later repeats are written out in grouos of 3. Those are played faster. The octaves are a little slower than the triplet themes. But I really don't think slowing down in any way that is not creative or obvious tempo suggestions is good...you may be saying to slow down to express this here idea of a dying horse. But I am also saying, people tend to slow down gradually, and it really shows loss of momentum in what the pianist is doing, not the music. I am totally cool with the idea of slowing down, but to show a musical idea. Please consider this statement to be an extention to what I just said earlier, that I like it when a performer speeds up, as a musical expression. Maybe, speed up to a certain point...idk. play with it.

[j_menz]

I happen to disagree respectfully, stylistically. The theme repeats like 3 times, the later repeats are written out in grouos of 3. Those are played faster. The octaves are a little slower than the triplet themes. But I really don't think slowing down in any way that is not creative or obvious tempo suggestions is good...you may be saying to slow down to express this here idea of a dying horse. But I am also saying, people tend to slow down gradually, and it really shows loss of momentum in what the pianist is doing, not the music. I am totally cool with the idea of slowing down, but to show a musical idea. Please consider this statement to be an extention to what I just said earlier, that I like it when a performer speeds up, as a musical expression. Maybe, speed up to a certain point...idk. play with it.

There are different paces of the horse throughout, agreed - and that last depiction of the horse is "faster than he has ever gone" using the poem as a guide - and the music is certainly in agreement with that. It's just that the final bit is not depicting a horse ride at all, and must be at the right pace to depict what it is supposed to - a fall, near death and then a majestic elevation. You can't rush that.

[dima_76557]

There is a lot of misunderstanding going on in this thread about this piece. Some posters here seem to regard the "Mazeppa" as a cheap, flashy toccata, in which certain passages are played faster and other passages more slowly, but it isn't: The pulse (heartbeat) is basically the same throughout the piece with the exception of the final scene. Any feel of difference in speed is given by Liszt himself (the separate details). The only thing we have to do is keep the pulse with dignity and stop complaining about how "difficult" it all is. Please listen to Claudio Arrau for some ideas of how this piece should be tackled in a musical/programmatic way:

[j_menz]

Some posters here seem to regard the "Mazeppa" as a cheap, flashy toccata, in which certain passages are played faster and other passages more slowly, but it isn't: The pulse (heartbeat) is basically the same throughout the piece with the exception of the final scene. Any feel of difference in speed is given by Liszt himself (the separate details). The only thing we have to do is keep the pulse with dignity and stop complaining about how "difficult" it all is.

Liszt himself gives indications for tempo variations. If you mean follow them, then you are correct, but if you mean they are basically meaningless then I can't agree. They certainly don't lead to a " pulse (heartbeat) [that] is basically the same throughout the piece with the exception of the final scene."  The variations indicated by Liszt are there for a reason, and basically follow the ride in the poem in layout.

For reasons I don't really understand, the Mazeppa legend had a particular resonance amongst the romantics. Byron, Victor Hugo and Pushkin wrote poems based on it, there are countless paintings. Liszt wrote four piano versions and an orchestral piece based on it. Even Tchaikovsky wrote an opera about the character. The story of the ride would have been well know to audiences of the time. It is not today. That is no reason not to imbue a performance with some familiarity of what is being depicted. This really is programme music, and one should follow the programme.

[dima_76557]

Liszt himself gives indications for tempo variations. If you mean follow them, then you are correct, but if you mean they are basically meaningless then I can't agree. They certainly don't lead to a " pulse (heartbeat) [that] is basically the same throughout the piece with the exception of the final scene."  The variations indicated by Liszt are there for a reason, and basically follow the ride in the poem in layout.

I would never say that what Liszt writes is meaningless and should therefore not be followed. I am talking about an approach to perform this piece. Going faster where it is easy and slowing down where it is difficult is NOT a good approach.

Yes, Liszt gives us some indications, but are they really TEMPO indications, though? I think they refer more to the atmosphere of the different scenes, not to the speed. They are more like the pianist asking: "Are you kidding?!?" and Liszt saying: "No, I'm quite serious". Even the lyrical part says "Lo stesso tempo" (the same tempo), although the ear will perceive it as "slower" because of the character of the material itself and not because we change the pulse.

There's a rather logical "stringendo" somewhere, yes, and a couple of "pocco rallentando"s, but they don't really influence the pulse/heartbeat very much. The only real dramatic indication for change of pace is the last page "più moderato (non piano)". The closing cadenza is open for debate (is "Vivace" really as fast as possible as some contemporary pianists seem to think, or not?), but I find Arrau's solution appropriate because it depicts majestic victory. At least we know that he got the tradition straight from one of Liszt's favorite students.

[j_menz]

I would never say that what Liszt writes is meaningless and should therefore not be followed. I am talking about an approach to perform this piece. Going faster where it is easy and slowing down where it is difficult is NOT a good approach.

On that I agree entirely and never meant to suggest otherwise.

Yes, Liszt gives us some indications, but are they really TEMPO indications, though? I think they refer more to the atmosphere of the different scenes, not to the speed. They are more like the pianist asking: "Are you kidding?!?" and Liszt saying: "No, I'm quite serious". Even the lyrical part says "Lo stesso tempo" (the same tempo), although the ear will perceive it as "slower" because of the character of the material itself and not because we change the pulse.

There's a rather logical "stringendo" somewhere, yes, and a couple of "pocco rallentando"s, but they don't really influence the pulse/heartbeat very much. The only real dramatic indication for change of pace is the last page "più moderato (non piano)". The closing cadenza is open for debate (is "Vivace" really as fast as possible as some contemporary pianists seem to think, or not?), but I find Arrau's solution appropriate because it depicts majestic victory. At least we know that he got the tradition straight from one of Liszt's favorite students.

I was also thinking of the "Animato" and "Allegro deciso" as being tempo indicators. I think some of the other mood indications (appassionato etc) can also justify a slight quickening (or slowing) of pace as appropriate.

The Arrau version is my favourite. I think too many people take the "Vivace" to mean prestissimo to finish with a great flurry of notes, but that is not what's there - it should be majestic. FWIW I think even slightly slower than Arrau would be correct.

[chopin2015]

There are different paces of the horse throughout, agreed - and that last depiction of the horse is "faster than he has ever gone" using the poem as a guide - and the music is certainly in agreement with that. It's just that the final bit is not depicting a horse ride at all, and must be at the right pace to depict what it is supposed to - a fall, near death and then a majestic elevation. You can't rush that.

Got it. I can certainly agree with that. Also, yes you should not rush a great ending. But playing all the way up to it fast enough, keeping things exciting sets up the contrast. People always say technique is not as important as musicality. I really disagree. First, if you cannot play as fast as a composer asks, cleanly, then you are not fulfulling the composer's wish. Also, some beautiful things are best expressed with good technique, like water and wind.
But I do like what you are saying. It definitely opened up my perspective.

@dima

Vivace always did confuse me. I am hot sure, but on one of my metronomes, it is marked faster than presto? I would not rush the end of a majestic story though. I think starting out comfortable, but keeping the energy so that the octaves and other parts that aren't compressed into groups aren't dragging. But in grouped parts, play them so that they are fast enough to represent a different pulse but same melody. The pulse will change with every part. Transitions are something to talk about. Also, if you are arguing that groups are not played faster than beats in strict time, I do not know why.

[j_menz]

People always say technique is not as important as musicality. I really disagree. First, if you cannot play as fast as a composer asks, cleanly, then you are not fulfulling the composer's wish.

I have never said that. Technique is the servant of music and must be adequate (at least) to the task. It must never be master.

[chopin2015]

I have never said that. Technique is the servant of music and must be adequate (at least) to the task. It must never be master.

I know you didn't. Also, yes. Technique should be adequate. I was just adding on to the conversation.  

[pianistavt]

Glad to find this post - I started reading Mazeppa today and came across the "unusual" fingering:
LH 2-4, 2-4
RH 2-4, 2-4
where I would be inclined to use:
LH  2-4, 1-3
RH 1-3, 2-4

Apparently repeating 2-4 works well at fast tempos, though seems awkward at slow tempo...

If you've worked on this, curious to hear how you did it...