Chopin Etude op 10 no 4 Right hand

[pianoman8]

When the etude goes into the part where 1 note is held on the bottom and the 16th notes are moving on the top in the right hand, how do you play this. Do you play as written and hold down 1 note and play the others on top, or do you "cheat" and play 3 notes with the left hand and continue playing regular 16th notes in the right. I would only like advice from people who are familiar with this part.
Thanks

[awesom_o]

For years and years, I played it as written. Eventually I switched over to playing 3 notes with the LH, and haven't looked back since!

[pianist1976]

I did just the opposite: I started playing this etude getting notes with the left hand at that passage. Many years later I started to practice the way it is written, and I can tell that it has been a really hard work. Also it is far more prone to fail/risky than the facilitation approach. So why do I think it's worth the effort?

Because while I think that there isn't anything bad doing the arrangement/redistribution, the huge work of playing the way it's written is rewarding because of the finger independence you get and the extra exercise fingers 3,4 & 5 do (was maybe that the intention of Chopin by writing it this way, similar to Op 10 no. 2?). Just a personal opinion.

[pianoman8]

Thanks for your respones

[gustaaavo]

How nice! I was going to ask precisely this question. On the first lesson I had after I started studying this monster of a piece, my teacher suggested I play the simplified approach (three notes on left hand), since that is how he plays it (and he has an impressive technique). Nevertheless, I then wondered if studying the passage in the way it is written would benefit me technically. So, next lesson I told my teacher that I was thinking on playing it as written, or at least practicing it like that, even if afterwards I would play the easier approach for security. His response was a simple OK. So, I have two questions:
1. Do you think I'm wasting my time in taking the written approach? In other words, will the extra study time on this passage (as opposed to less time required for the simplified approach) really benefit my technique?
2. Arrau thought one should never "simplify" passages: that if a composer wrote an innecessary difficulty it was because he thought it had expressive value. For example, the first two octaves of Beethoven's last sonata can be played with both hands to decrease the chance of making a mistake (Arrau would despise this, of course). Do you have any thoughts on this? I've been pondering this question for a while now and am at a loss; I really don't know what to think. And, of course, this question pertains to the passage here discussed (if Arrau is right, we should play it as written even if it presents no technical benefits).

[gyzzzmo]

Maybe because i studied 10/2 before starting this one, i never had a problem with this part and never considered playing the 3 notes with the left hand either.

But if you do find this hard and study till you can play it as written, ofcourse it will benefit your technique. But if your 3-4-5 technique is so bad that you cant play parts like this properly, maybe you shouldnt have started this piece in the first place, and start 10/2. Maybe that is a lesson for the next time (or other people reading this): Start the more elemental pieces first, like 10/2, 25/6, 10/1, 25/12 etc.

[gustaaavo]

Maybe because i studied 10/2 before starting this one, i never had a problem with this part and never considered playing the 3 notes with the left hand either.

But if you do find this hard and study till you can play it as written, ofcourse it will benefit your technique. But if your 3-4-5 technique is so bad that you cant play parts like this properly, maybe you shouldnt have started this piece in the first place, and start 10/2. Maybe that is a lesson for the next time (or other people reading this): Start the more elemental pieces first, like 10/2, 25/6, 10/1, 25/12 etc.

Thanks a lot Gyzzmo! I know this etude is one of the hardest but it was my teacher's choice (he said it would be very good for working on my technique, more than any other at the moment). Further, I was nearly terrified when he told me to begin studying. But it has worked wonders for my fingers. About the passage this thread's about, I can now play it decently and I have felt the benefits (of course, after repeating it a LOT of times for a couple weeks) in that "3-4-5 technique". So I second what Gyzzmo wrote, "ofcourse it will benefit your technique".

[pianoman8]

Thanks for your your responses, but this was not for just technical reasons. If you play the way its written, it may be harder to make a larger crescendo. I have been playing it as written, my teacher plays the first 2 as written, then the last 2 bars with the LH having 3 notes. Also thinking, Chopin's idea of loudness, was probably much different then our perception of loudness today, which may have made him play as written. Thank you for your answers:)

[gustaaavo]

Thanks for your your responses, but this was not for just technical reasons. If you play the way its written, it may be harder to make a larger crescendo. I have been playing it as written, my teacher plays the first 2 as written, then the last 2 bars with the LH having 3 notes. Also thinking, Chopin's idea of loudness, was probably much different then our perception of loudness today, which may have made him play as written. Thank you for your answers:)

That's very interesting, I hadn't thought about it. Aha! Now I understand. I've been using the Cortot edition as a main source and it has no dynamic markings on that passage. I just checked the Mikuli and it has a crescendo. I guess the Paderewski would be definitive about this but I don't have it.

On the other hand, the Cortot does have the marking "legato", so that could be another aspect to consider. I think playing as written makes the legato of the inner voices (especially that which begins on D#) more manageable.

Of course, pedalling is another choice that has to be made and that pertains immensely both to loudness and to legato. Cortot indicates to have the pedal down for the whole passage (2 bars), lifting it and pushing it back down quickly every 1/4th; Mikuli marks no pedal here.

Great to see so many angles from which to ponder at just 2 bars!