Execution of 5/3 in m.33 of Scriabin's Sonate-Fantaisie No. 2, Op. 19

[davidjosepha]

The measures question are on the 4th page of this pdf, which is the second page of actual music. Last measure of the 4th line.



My question is about the first beat of the measure. Normally, I would assume that I should play the 5 against 3 naturally, resulting in a roughly precise polyrhythm. However, the presence of the eighth note in a second voice in the right hand makes me think that I should play that together with the eighth in the left hand, but I'm not sure. Any thoughts? It doesn't necessarily make a *huge* difference because up to speed it won't be extremely noticeable, but I'd like to do it right, if possible.

[j_menz]

Hmm.. I could argue either way, I think. That being the case, I'd go with the easiest solution, or better still the one you like the sound of best - but as you say, I don't think there's much in it.

One thing that may sway it, though, is if that quintuplet occurs elsewhere, you need to make sure that they are done the same way, and I'd use your practice on the uncomplicated one as the guide.

[nyiregyhazi]

The measures question are on the 4th page of this pdf, which is the second page of actual music. Last measure of the 4th line.



My question is about the first beat of the measure. Normally, I would assume that I should play the 5 against 3 naturally, resulting in a roughly precise polyrhythm. However, the presence of the eighth note in a second voice in the right hand makes me think that I should play that together with the eighth in the left hand, but I'm not sure. Any thoughts? It doesn't necessarily make a *huge* difference because up to speed it won't be extremely noticeable, but I'd like to do it right, if possible.

I don't think there's any real ambiguity here. why assume that the quaver isn't a quaver within the context of a five? it's not specifically designated as an identical quaver to that in the left hand. as it stands in isolation, there's no motific association to any other regular triplet rhythm that would suggest a triplet quaver. for them to coincide, you'd either have to change the left hand rhythm or change the quintuplet. I'd go as far as to say it would be "wrong" to play them together and that it would be based on misunderstanding of what he is trying to convey with the double stemmed note. The double stem means it's a note to be voiced and held. There's no way he could been wanting the player to feel the same duration of quaver as in the left hand. He's expecting the pianist to read a quintuplet quaver, rather than anything more complex.


PS That's the rational explanation, but above all it would just sound square heavy and dull to sound them together. The five is a gesture of melodic freedom- not something that should involve precise landings onto the accompaniment.

[johnmar78]

David, just tired it in my head several times, the rh 4th E (1/16th notes) should be played just before the LH G. 

[davidjosepha]

I don't think there's any real ambiguity here. why assume that the quaver isn't a quaver within the context of a five? it's not specifically designated as an identical quaver to that in the left hand. as it stands in isolation, there's no motific association to any other regular triplet rhythm that would suggest a triplet quaver. for them to coincide, you'd either have to change the left hand rhythm or change the quintuplet. I'd go as far as to say it would be "wrong" to play them together and that it would be based on misunderstanding of what he is trying to convey with the double stemmed note. The double stem means it's a note to be voiced and held. There's no way he could been wanting the player to feel the same duration of quaver as in the left hand. He's expecting the pianist to read a quintuplet quaver, rather than anything more complex.


PS That's the rational explanation, but above all it would just sound square heavy and dull to sound them together. The five is a gesture of melodic freedom- not something that should involve precise landings onto the accompaniment.

Thinking about it more, you're right. Here was my initial thought process though, to at least explain how I came to the conclusion that they should be played together--I thought that the E and G might have been supposed to form a single harmony together added on top of the existing gesture, but that because there were already quintuplets on the first beat, Scriabin couldn't just write the E quaver (I really should start using these terms, I don't know why we don't seem to use them in the US) on the third triplet of the beat, and so instead had to approximate its position along the quintuplets, if that makes sense. In other words, he wanted to add the G and E as a single "chord" on the third triplet of the first beat, but due to the presence of quints, had to move it to the 4th quint instead.

But looking at it now, there doesn't seem to be any logical correlation between the E and G in terms of harmony, nor do their harmonic lines continue in any way that would imply they are related, so my above explanation doesn't seem to have much merit.

[davidjosepha]

David, just tired it in my head several times, the rh 4th E (1/16th notes) should be played just before the LH G. 

Thanks for the help, but I was more wondering if I should play the rhythm accurately (ie as you described, rhythmically precise), or if I should play it not exactly as written but instead by stretching the first 3 quints to span 2 triplets, then playing the last 2 quints in the space of one triplet, making the E quaver align with the G quaver in the left hand. However, I see now that that doesn't really make much sense, and I will be playing it as you described.

[andreslr6]

Based on the Scriabin's "inaferato" sections of the op.32 no.1 poem, I would play the 5 vs 3 rhythmically accurately, specially after seeing that he did wrote a dotted quaver and 2 semiquavers on the left hand (representing a quintuplet) when he wanted it coincide with the quintuplets of the right hand, and then just left a 5 vs 3 so that they sound "uneven".

It's not that hard to play this kind of 5 vs 3 figure, it's basically just like johnmar said. Based on my experience both playing and listening to Scriabin's music, I came to the conclusion that these kind of polyrhythms are devices for creating certain effect in his music, an effect of "unevenness". This is an "aquatic" sonata after all and I think most of us would describe the sound of water as being rhythmically "chaotic" or "random", so this effect fits perfectly on the idea and mood of the piece...(also, you'll find even more extreme examples, 5 vs 9, there's 2 vs 3 vs 4 at the same time in his concerto, etc.) so again, my vote goes for an accurate execution of the polyrhythm, he clearly wrote 5 vs 3, if he wanted it to sound otherwise he would have written it in another way, simple as that.

Here's my point of reference, bars 20 and then 44, compare the first and second beats with the third beat, you'll notice how he explicitly writes when he wants the left and right hands to sound "uneven" and then coincide (on the left hand, 6 semi quavers on both 1st and 2nd beat, then 5 semiquavers on the third). https://javanese.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/7/7d/IMSLP01993-Scriabin_-_Deux_Po__mes__Op.32.pdf

[steinway43]

The Pogorelich recording of this Sonata is wonderful.