Assuming so, you play it as it is actually written; there is no decoding involved. Suppose that there are six notes in the right hand in a given measure; you play six evenly spaced notes. There are four notes in the left hand in the same measure. You play four evenly spaced notes.
I might add to what's been said that in some later pieces there's a jazzier approach to rhythm, so one (or more) of the rhythms might be swung. In that case, you can't trust the score much at all.In Chopin, there is also the issue of rubato, which complicates matters. Usually the main rhythm (usually the bass) keeps strict time and rubato is only applied to the "tune" - which is where you encounter those big odd numbers of notes. The general principle is that if each rhythm works on it's own, they work together. So use your ears ahead of relying on minute deviations of notes on paper.
There are occasions when this is almost impossible (that 11 against 3 I mentioned, for instance) and you will need to compromise (for that one, I play 4 + 4 + 3 right hand against 3 even left hand, for instance).
So i noticed that notes in sections containing polyrythms are arranged in unaligned way so that they don't fall directly with a note from the other hand, but should you play it exactly as its written or do you have to decode it musically?
bar 170 in Chopin's first ballade
I started this thread because of bar 170 in Chopin's first ballade, in my score, it seems like you have to play b and d right before the g in the left hand, but apparently it is the opposite?
https://www.free-scores.com/download-sheet-music.php?pdf=3344It's in page 7, bar 15.
really? Why? While I agree with the rest of your post, I have to go as far as to saw this is simply incorrect, unless I'm misunderstanding you. It's not necessary to subdivide it in any way, if you feel a flow. Turn it into three points of landing together and the whole purpose is defeated. You don't have to get it perfectly metronomic, but the thing that really matters is that if the mathematical version would have no precise moments of togetherness, you absolutely should not have any two notes coinciding precisely together. Beyond that, there is plenty of room for interpretation. The only thing that I'd regard as invalid is turning a clear instruction for freedom into three squarely measured groups with exactly coordinated arrivals. It misses the whole purpose of writing 11 notes. Even if you're perhaps not directly advising such coordinated landings (?) encouraging someone who is inexperienced with these rhythms to subdivide will encourage them to want to coordinate the hands where they need to learn to liberate them from each other. Am I misunderstanding, or are you actually advising literal coordination of notes to simplify the rhythm? I have to say that I'm overwhelmingly skeptical that could be wise in the Ballade. You can advise that there shouldn't be accents in the middle, but merely to have three coordinated landings is in itself to create an impression of squareness and accent. Only avoiding instances where both hands coincide can you produce a sense of a single group that flows horizontally and without accentuated divisions. To simplify doesn't do the music justice. You need neither do it literally nor cheat in overly simplistic groupings- you merely need voices that are only linked to each other in the moments where they are supposed to land together.
No -- you are right, and I agree with you in principle. In practice, however, it is almost impossible to not have certain notes coincide. Note: ALMOST impossible. Obviously, you try not to. Dima actually says it best -- one wants the hands to be perfectly independent, and that is the ultimate objective, of course. However, I'm not good enough to do that consistently...
Thanks.Apart from the 5/6 polyrhythm here, there's the added complication of the grace note leading to the next note in the RH. It seems to me that that sounds better if the main RH note lines up with the first note of the sextuplet bass. That means you have to fit six notes effectively against six notes, so the question is why Chopin wrote it the way he did. He clearly intends something other than a straight line-up.
I also do what nyiregyhazi does - I play the grace note on the beat as opposed to what j_menz suggests; however, what j_menz suggests could work.
Are there any particular recordings of people executing it this way?
Horowitz, I believe does. Arrau uses your approach. Zimmerman appears to do something in between (grace note before, main note after, but both only slightly so). Somewhat de gustibus, I suppose, but I do like the Arrau.I had never intended any more than two "hard landings", the first of which is inevitable anyway. The Zimmerman approach avoids any more entirely, the Arrau needs careful touch to avoid the grace note providing another. The Zimmerman performance doesn't, I think, make the most of the expressiveness of the apoggiatura, but I'm not sure that that's entirely the result of the approach per se.I understand there is some debate about the extent that Chopin intended the "on the beat" to be a fixed rule, though I claim no immersion in it and certainly don't want to pursue it.
By the hard landings, I mean the three moments where the high notes would arrive with the bass, by the way.
That's what I took it to mean and meant as well. I take your point about these often being a little "triumphant/grasping on for dear life" in the hands of less experienced pianists - not the effect I meant at all. I wonder, after this, whether my conception of "on the beat" may incorporate a certain fluidity. If so, I will need to watch how I speak.