How difficult is Chopin op 25 2 etude?

[rovis77]

How difficult is Chopin op 25 2 etude?

[gyzzzmo]

3,71

[mjames]

The runs aren't special

It's the *** left hand, the *** weird ass quarter notes.

"Hmmm, seems a little bit difficult. I think too many people will be able to play this and I don't like that. I know! Polyrhythms, polyrhythms, and more polyrhythms! That'll teach them not attempt me, the great chopin, mushahahahashahaha."

That's chopin for you. The day I overcome this handicap of mine I will be so *** happy.

[j_menz]

How difficult is Chopin op 25 2 etude?

Since you already (attempt to?) play it, you already know. Why ask us?

[nyiregyhazi]

The runs aren't special

It's the *** left hand, the *** weird ass quarter notes.

"Hmmm, seems a little bit difficult. I think too many people will be able to play this and I don't like that. I know! Polyrhythms, polyrhythms, and more polyrhythms! That'll teach them not attempt me, the great chopin, mushahahahashahaha."

That's chopin for you. The day I overcome this handicap of mine I will be so *** happy.

Does anyone really bother thinking of two threes? If the left hand is felt as syncopated it's almost impossible at speed- and the feeling is very likely to introduce an unwanted sense of jerkiness into the left hand movements and sound. Am I really doing something grossly wrong when I just play the right hand as three twos? I'm not convinced that pianists typically put much significance on the triplet markings. I sure as hell can't hear the results of their troubles in the sound, if they really are going to the bother of feeling it as two threes.

[mjames]

I'm still a novice pianist(2 years) so stuff like this still bug me. I plan on working on a few 2 3 pieces, but only the slow ones. Only the slow ones...

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm still a novice pianist(2 years) so stuff like this still bug me. I plan on working on a few 2 3 pieces, but only the slow ones. Only the slow ones...

Are you misunderstanding the score? It's one left hand note for every two right hand notes. Strictly speaking, that should mean the right hand triplets should mean that the left hand notes feel like syncopation on weird places. But I don't think anyone actually feels the r.h. as 3s. It usually sounds like a simple case of fitting 3 pairs to each left hand note- ie no cross-rhythm.

Awesome, what did you do?

[j_menz]

But I don't think anyone actually feels the r.h. as 3s. It usually sounds like a simple case of fitting 3 pairs to each left hand note- ie no cross-rhythm.

You're kidding, right? 

[nyiregyhazi]

You're kidding, right?  

I've never once heard a recording where it sounds like triplets and an off-beat left hand. So what's the point in trying? Nobody accents the 4th r.h. note in each group (all Cs in bar 1- which be pretty a damned tedious thing to shove down your throat at high speed), in any recording I've heard. If you don't do so to an extreme, no listener's ear will hear 3 left hand notes with two right hand notes as being two threes. They'll hear the simplicity of three twos. I don't even know if a strong accent could be enough to make a listener hear triplets. Can you link an example of anyone who makes it sound like triplets- outside of Godowsky's arrangement?

[j_menz]

As requested.

Sounds distinctly tripletty to me, though your individual mileage may vary.

[nyiregyhazi]

As requested.

Sounds distinctly tripletty to me, though your individual mileage may vary.

I hear him pumping out the Cs (to the point of swamping the intervals around them) but I don't hear triplets as a result of that. It just sounds messy and lacking in clarity due to so much focus on such an uninteresting note. Without thinking about the score, all I'd hear is missing clarity in the detail. It would be interesting to a do a blind listening test between pianists who swear they can play triplets and those who don't with listeners who swear they can tell the difference. I find that recording overwhelmingly less musically effective than pianists who don't whack out 4 Cs in the first bar.

Give me this anyday:

[j_menz]

I find that recording overwhelmingly less musically effective than pianists who don't whack out 4 Cs in the first bar.

Give me this anyday:

Yes, of course Pollini is notoriously inadequate playing this. 

I'm not sure what the point of the Cortot is. He plays in triplets as well. A little less rhythmic accenting, but triplets all the way.

What one does with those Cs is a matter of taste and doesn't affect the way the basic rhythmic structure is organised.

If you were to play just the RH, would you even consider not doing it as triplets?

[nyiregyhazi]

Yes, of course Pollini is notoriously inadequate playing this.  

I'm not sure what the point of the Cortot is. He plays in triplets as well. A little less rhythmic accenting, but triplets all the way.

What one does with those Cs is a matter of taste and doesn't affect the way the basic rhythmic structure is organised.

If you were to play just the RH, would you even consider not doing it as triplets?

? Based on what? He doesn't accent the Cs one bit. What are you suggesting you can hear exactly? There is a simple straightforward left hand triplet with two right hand notes for each one. Nothing about the execution suggests anything more complex. If you are seriously claiming that you'd hear that for the first time and assume some weird rhythm rather than a simple one, you're kidding yourself. No listener will hear anything other than a simple two in a bar with left hand triplets and two right hand notes in each division. Even Pollini's heavy Cs don't change the fact that the left hand defines the way a neutral ear hears the work. It won't suggest a cross-rhythm to anyone who isn't looking for one. 6 in the time of 3 cannot be heard as a cross-rhythm in a fast tempo without both accenting the hell out of the 4th quaver and playing the others so softly that their musical detail fails to register. That's the only possible way to make each beat even begin to feel like a 2 against 3 between the hands.

Even with Pollini, listen to the descending chromatic scale near the end. As clear as day, he accents the fifth note in the right hand, not the fourth. Not remotely like two triplets on any level at all.

[j_menz]

1) Answer my question.

2) Don't project your own inadequacies on to others. What you fail to hear may be abundantly clear to others.

[nyiregyhazi]

1) Answer my question.

2) Don't project your own inadequacies on to others. What you fail to hear may be abundantly clear to others.

I wouldn't really be concerned at all by the issue. The only time I've ever heard actual triplets is in Godowsky's transcription (with a different left hand altogether), so there's no reason to worry- given that it's performed with two hands. Now answer my questions.

What do you claim to be hearing that you seriously think would make you hear a bizzare cross-rhythm in Cortot's recording (other than a score in your hand and knowledge of what it says)? Your stance has no validity unless it's based on an audible feature- that would be projected aurally, rather than by knowledge of the score. Anyone can claim to be able to hear something that they already know about. The issue is what you are supposedly hearing that would have told you if you didn't already know. Without supporting evidence of your means for identification you might as well be telling us that you can see the Emperor's lovely clothes. What is supposed to make me believe you're actually hearing something rather than looking for what you know is meant to be there?

How about a recording where the pianist does NOT play triplets- for us to compare to Cortot, where you claim he does (in spite of no corresponding accentuation- which is the only thing that differentiates between two threes and three twos).

[j_menz]

I wouldn't really be concerned at all by the issue. The only time I've ever heard actual triplets is in Godowsky's transcription (with a different left hand altogether), so there's no reason to worry- given that it's performed with two hands. Now answer my questions.

That's a complete cop out.

What do you claim to be hearing that you seriously think would make you hear a bizzare cross-rhythm in Cortot's recording (other than a score in your hand)? Your stance has no validity unless it's based on an audible feature- that would be projected aurally, rather than by knowledge of the score. Anyone can claim to be able to hear something that they already know of. The issue is what you are supposedly hearing that would have told you if you didn't already know.

It's hardly some "bizarre cross-rhythm"; it is in fact hardly even particularly rare. I hear two lines, with different rhythmic structures. Again, that isn't unusual. Lots of pieces have it.

How about a recording where the pianist does NOT play triplets- for us to compare to Cortot, where you claim he does.

I doubt any pianist worthy of the name would play it without, and I'm not trawling though the drossier recordings on YT to look for one.

[nyiregyhazi]

That's a complete cop out.

It's hardly some "bizarre cross-rhythm"; it is in fact hardly even particularly rare. I hear two lines, with different rhythmic structures. Again, that isn't unusual. Lots of pieces have it.

I doubt any pianist worthy of the name would play it without, and I'm not trawling though the drossier recordings on YT to look for one.

So, you hear triplets- based on no evidence in accentuation. And we're supposed to believe that comes from hearing of a bog-standard example of fitting two notes into each left hand note. rather than from the score. Hearing of WHAT?!!!!!! It's a little bit too convenient when you can hear what you already know full well is on the score but have no basis for explaining how your ears would have deduced that. The emperor is looking pretty damned naked right now.

Do you also hear Fur Elise as being secretly in a cross rhythm? If not, please explain the difference- aurally that is. Not based on what the score says. If accents don't matter, what makes the etude a secret cross-rhythm and fur elise not one? We can identify fur elise as being in 3 2s and not 2 3s by accents and only by accents. Nothing define the right hand as being in 3s except strong accents. Which Cortot doesn't do at all. There is no cross rhythm without accentuation, only the most ordinarily aligned notes.

[nyiregyhazi]

The posters weren't fooled by bullshit here, either:

https://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/2255461/polyrhythm_in_Chopin_op.25/2.html

It would be fine if the internal 2 against 3 were brought out by accentuation. But it isn't- for the simple reason that the piece sounds absolutely awful when you subdue the right hand notes enough to actually project the 4th note of every six, as a syncopation. It loses all detail and interest. It makes as much sense to do that as it does to bang out the first note of all triplets in the Rachmaninoff second concerto 2nd mvt, in order to force a listener to hear 3s instead of 4s. No doubt J Menz heard triplets first time he listened to that too though...

[lazyfingers]

My 2c worth...

1. Chopin purposely wrote it in 4/4 time, and not 6/4, implying that he wished those to be triplets (other than writing the 3s under those groups).

2. The piece is actually too easy as a Chopin etude without triplets. The triplets are written to teach hand independence, and the "bizarre cross-rhythms" are simply syncopations.

[j_menz]

So, you hear triplets- based on no evidence in accentuation. And we're supposed to believe that comes from hearing of a bog-standard example of fitting two notes into each left hand note. rather than from the score. Hearing of WHAT?!!!!!! It's a little bit too convenient when you can hear what you already know full well is on the score but have no basis for explaining how your ears would have deduced that. The emperor is looking pretty damned naked right now.

Do you also hear Fur Elise as being secretly in a cross rhythm? If not, please explain the difference- aurally that is. Not based on what the score says. If accents don't matter, what makes the etude a secret cross-rhythm and fur elise not one? We can identify fur elise as being in 3 and not 2 by accents and only by accents. Nothing define the right hand as being in 3s except strong accents. Which Cortot doesn't do at all.

There are accents, in both hands. Pollini makes them stronger than Cortot. If you really can't distinguish them, then I can't see what I can do to convince you they are there. You seem to be unable to distinguish that there are two lines with independent rhythms and just hearing a single  one.

I cannot "unsee" the score, naturally, so stop making cheap and meaningless references to it as if it implies something sinister.

I do not know how to show you that that which you cannot hear is in fact eminently audible. Rather like I would not know how to begin explaining sight to a blind person.

Why do you think Chopin scored it the way he did. I mean he could have just as easily used duplets in the treble. Why do you suggest he didn't?

[nyiregyhazi]

There are accents, in both hands. Pollini makes them stronger than Cortot. If you really can't distinguish them, then I can't see what I can do to convince you they are there. You seem to be unable to distinguish that there are two lines with independent rhythms and just hearing a single  one.

I cannot "unsee" the score, naturally, so stop making cheap and meaningless references to it as if it implies something sinister.

I do not know how to show you that that which you cannot hear is in fact eminently audible. Rather like I would not know how to begin explaining sight to a blind person.

Why do you think Chopin scored it the way he did. I mean he could have just as easily used duplets in the treble. Why do you suggest he didn't?

I don't really care greatly. Because nobody hears them unless they either try to or decide that they don't want to lose face by not seeing the emperor's special outfit. And given that Cortot doesn't reflect a cross rhythm in the slightest, yet you still claim to hear it as written, we can conclude that there's no need to bother doing it- as you'll decide that you heard triplets anyway (just as people saw clothes on a nude emperor). Cortot didn't do the first thing to suggest anything but the most normal and ordinary rhythm and the fact that you can't detail a single thing about his playing that suggests a cross-rhythm makes it clear that you're deciding what to hear and not acting on listening.

To have a leg to stand on, you really do need to link a recording of someone doing it without the cross rhythm in an audibly different way to Cortot. Better still, post a recording yourself with and without cross rhythm of just a few bars and lets see if posters can actually tell any difference or figure out which is which without prompting. When you listen to the left hand of Cortot's piece, the right in no way at all creates a syncopation effect against that. There's not even a subtle emphasis to suggest syncopation, never mind a notable enough accent to lead an unbiased ear to assume syncopation.

[j_menz]

interest. It makes as much sense to do that as it does to bang out the first note of all triplets in the Rachmaninoff second concerto 2nd mvt, in order to force a listener to hear 3s instead of 4s. No doubt J Menz heard triplets first time he listened to that too though...

Indeed I did, though I don't need them "banged out" to do so. Two distinct lines, too, with a cross rhythm.  Again, I don't see what's difficult about that.

[nyiregyhazi]

Indeed I did, though I don't need them "banged out" to do so. Two distinct lines, too, with a cross rhythm.  Again, I don't see what's difficult about that.

Nonsense. Nothing about the construction of the right hand implies 3s. Motifically the first bar actively suggests 3 groups of 2- due to the pairings of 2nds. Nothing implies the next C starts a new group other than accenting it, in contradiction of the implied motific logic. There is no internal logic to point to that independently of accenting without prior knowledge. No ear would assume threes on any basis other than accentuation in 3s- even when played without the left hand.

 In Rachmaninoff's 2nd concerto, the illusion is created between 3s and 4s simply because the groups all ascend by 4 notes. That's why no unbiased ear hears triplets. Without beating the hell out of the first of each three, the logic of motif prevails. A listener cannot know the notated rhythm unless they saw it first. Here in Chopin the motific logic actively implies 2s and only contradiction through gross accentuation in 3s could inform a listener- especially with the left hand's strength of suggestion. Without such accentuation, only the score can have informed them.

You said it yourself above- you don't "need" them banged out as you've already decided you want to hear triplets. But only the score is responsible for that. Your ears wouldn't perceive that in a million years. Anyone who claims to have heard this etude before seeing the score and already known it would be in triplets would be a liar. You only "hear" the right answer if you've already seen it in the score- because it's nowhere in the actual sound of Cortot's playing.

[j_menz]

the first bar 

Evidently I listened to the few bars before that, you know - the brief orchestral intro you appear to have neglected. It establishes the 4/4 structure, into which the piano part slots.

[nyiregyhazi]

Evidently I listened to the few bars before that, you know - the brief orchestral intro you appear to have neglected. It establishes the 4/4 structure, into which the piano part slots.

If the pianist entered metronomically enough for that to work, I would not wish to listen any further. You should also note what a big ritenuto Stokowski takes on the composer's recording.

Where's the intro in the Etude that overrides the logic of the motif and allows you to hear threes both against the motific logic and against the suggestion of the left hand, all without accents?

PS. I didn't refer to the "first bar" of the concerto. I've performed it twice, so I found that enough to notice the orchestral intro.

[j_menz]

If the pianist entered metronomically enough for that to work, I would not wish to listen any further. You should also note what a big ritenuto Stokowski takes on the composer's recording.

You're having the piano start in 3/4. The orchestra is in 4/4 from the start.

Where's the intro in the Etude that overrides the logic of the motif and allows you to hear threes both against the motific logic and against the suggestion of the left hand, all without accents?

PS. I didn't refer to the "first bar" of the concerto. I've performed it twice, so I found that enough to notice the orchestral intro.

I'd missed that you'd returned to the topic of the etude, since you didn't mention it and we were discussing the Rach 2.

I'm glad you've learnt to spell "motif", but I haven't a clue what you mean by it here.

If you played the Rach 2 in the manner you described, I'm glad I wasn't there. I'm especially glad I wasn't the flautist.

[nyiregyhazi]

You're having the piano start in 3/4. The orchestra is in 4/4 from the start.

I'd missed that you'd returned to the topic of the etude, since you didn't mention it and we were discussing the Rach 2.

I'm glad you've learnt to spell "motif", but I haven't a clue what you mean by it here.

If you played the Rach 2 in the manner you described, I'm glad I wasn't there. I'm especially glad I wasn't the flautist.

No, i start in four four. I don't slot in like a metronome however and neither did the composer if you care to listen. The point is that no bugger knows that I'm playing triplets unless they've seen the score. Or if they are a liar. Things like that are not carried aurally unless gross accentuation is included to contradict the implicit melodic groupings. If you are claiming otherwise then you're lying. Nobody hears such a passage as triplets unless the pianist does something grossly inappropriate, or unless the listener had inside information before listening. The ears do not contradict phrase shapes unless massive accents force them to. Without that, no basis exists for identification. I could be feeling fives for all you know. If I don't accent hard you will not identify correctly what I am feeling.

[j_menz]

I can't, therefore it's impossible.

Yawn.

[gyzzzmo]

Sorry J_menz i have to agree with nyiregyhazi that i dont hear Pollini playing it as triplets either. I actually started a topic once about this piece too, because i thought this piece was a bit too easy when playing it as 2/2, as does practically everybody (and how most editions it also notated).

This piece becomes alot more interesting though if you try to play it 4/4 (i once performed this piece, and did do it at 4/4), but you are limited by speed. Once you get over a certain speed, you cant really hear the difference anymore unless you start bashing the C's and destroy the piece, what definitely cant have been the intent of Chopin. But at lower speed it still has a pretty nice effect, an educational effect and stops this etude from being so much easier than the others (to my opinion, ofcourse).

Gyzzzmo

[nyiregyhazi]

Yawn.

It's very easy to get bored when you're claiming to be able to detect something by ear that contradicts motivic construction, yet which is not designated by strength of beat. as gyzmo says, you can practise thinking as the notation says in a slow tempo but it's out the window at speed. It's one thing to claim to feel complexity while executing but it's just silly to claim to hear that in a recording that in no way brings out a syncopation.

If Chopin wanted syncopation to be heard, he should have based a work on motifically organic triplets - ie a figuration similar to cdc bcb aba etc, from which the most important notes would naturally create a 2 against the left hand three. If he was trying that in this work, he failed. Only extreme accentuating can even begin to project that to a listener. On the level of an étude it's interesting to attempt to accent differently between hands, but it doesn't either work at high speed (as it spoils all the interesting seconds when pollini bangs the Cs) or make a listener hear notably differently.

If you claim to be dealing in anything other than snake oil, record two versions of just two or three bars and see if anyone can identify where you are thinking of a cross rhythm and where you are not. It will make no difference unless you accent like crazy. Ears don't hear complexity when it is not implied in the simple sound, either by accentuation or by motific construction. Only the minds of people who want to look clever hear such things, independently of their ears.

 If you claim otherwise, make a recording or at least find one that plays 3 2s and specify what the difference is between that and cortot, that supposedly distinguishes. The least you can do is actually make a better case for your claim than that you can simply hear something for undisclosed reasons. Given that we're discussing what is conveyed by sound and not what the score says, such a poorly supported case wouldn't even make it to court.

[mjames]

My head hurts..

[lazyfingers]

Sorry J_menz i have to agree with nyiregyhazi that i dont hear Pollini playing it as triplets either

I experienced the opposite - Pollini was quite clearly playing as triplets.

This got me thinking about Cortot's interpretation and why the debate when Chopin clearly wrote triplets. What did Cortot actually advise?

And this is what I found in his study guide.


It is clear that Cortot's practise guide shows accents in the RH triplets (ie. the "triplets in crotchets") against the LH, as well as his allusions to the "two different rhythms/ its individual rhythm".

I interpret this passage

When performing this Study, this accent should of course be softer, more blended and it should be heard only as the audible expression of an inner rhythmical feeling without impairing the melodic outline."

to mean that the triplets are still there merely softer and more blended, than what Pollini was playing, and a reflection of his personal taste. And not an advise to dispense with the triplets.

Not much point Cortot advising to practise the accents ("Make the accent very precisely..."), if only to not play the triplets, it seems to me.

[nyiregyhazi]

I experienced the opposite - Pollini was quite clearly playing as triplets.

Ah, but would any impartial listener assume that? I doubt it. It's clear after a process of deduction, based on the knowledge of the score and the realisation that the Cs correspond to the notated triplets. But that's a very different thing to a listener putting that on and naturally hearing triplets based purely on execution. I don't believe that any musician without prior knowledge of the score would hear triplets at all. And it sounds pretty awful to do those Cs like that, musically speaking.

I tried playing just the right hand in triplets earlier and it sounded awful. The repeated attention to the least melodically interesting note is completely against musical sense- unless I feel 3s internally but phrase 2s outwardly.

It is clear that Cortot's practise guide shows accents in the RH triplets (ie. the "triplets in crotchets") against the LH, as well as his allusions to the "two different rhythms/ its individual rhythm".

I interpret this passageto mean that the triplets are still there merely softer and more blended, than what Pollini was playing, and a reflection of his personal taste. And not an advise to dispense with the triplets.

Not much point Cortot advising to practise the accents ("Make the accent very precise..."), if only to not play the triplets, it seems to me.

Well, clearly he tried to think that way. But it shows nowhere in the results. With that in mind- why bother?

I'm sincerely wondering if Chopin even wanted anything unusual. Do we have firm evidence that it was supposed to imply a syncopation? Or was he simply following a notational convention of subdividing notes into crotchets? If he intended a special effect, it didn't work and Cortot didn't pass it on. But we can't even be 100% sure that he actually did. The difficulty argument is a non-starter due to op 10 no. 6. If that can be an etude in musical execution, there's no reason why this is "too easy" to be an etude in polished legato within pianissimo.

This is what it sounds like when done in audible triplets.

Even when I play the original right hand alone at full speed, it sounds boring as hell unless I feel 3s internally, yet phrase according the groups of seconds (without a triplet emphasis). An unbiased listener will hear twos, because I don't give them accents to contradict the logic of the seconds. This version only works because of the slower tempo and the different left hand rhythm- which automatically emphasises the starts of triplets to an impartial ear, without also requiring the more interesting chromatic notes to be swamped beneath accents.

[lazyfingers]

Ah, but would any impartial listener assume that? I doubt it.

LOL. Are you saying I'm not impartial? We all hear what we want to hear. I could say that those who hear differently to me are not impartial too. Let us agree to dispense with such arguments, because you are clearly saying that only your subjective experience is the right one.

It's clear after a process of deduction, based on the knowledge of the score and the realisation that the Cs correspond to the notated triplets. But that's a very different thing to a listener putting that on and naturally hearing triplets. I don't believe that any musician without prior knowledge of the score would hear triplets at all. And it sounds pretty awful to do those Cs like that, musically speaking.

Excuse me but that reminds me of another chappie that used to frequent here until recently who insisted that his ear was the final arbiter, regardless of what the composer actually wrote. Let us agree to dispense with that too. The objective yardstick is what the composer wrote, surely.

Again, you are attempting a straw man argument that the listener would not hear the triplets without knowing the score. Surely, the purpose of the score is to guide the pianist in playing a certain way. Chopin could have written the whole piece in 6/4 with no triplets at all and it would have sounded the way you claim it sounds. But he didn't.

I tried playing just the right hand in triplets earlier and it sounded awful. The repeated attention to the least melodically interesting note is completely against musical sense.

To you maybe.

I'm sincerely wondering if Chopin even wanted anything unusual. Do we have firm evidence that it was supposed to imply a syncopation? Or was he simply following a notational convention of subdividing notes into crotchets?

I believe simple duplets where known to Chopin. There is no notational convention to subdivide 3 notes into crotchets and play them as duplets, even in Chopin's time.

If he intended a special effect, it didn't work and Cortot didn't pass it on.

It is not a special effect. It is a Study to teach hand independence. Cortot actually did pass it on.

But we can't even be 100% sure that he actually did. The difficulty argument is a non-starter due to op 10 no. 6. If that can be an etude in musical execution, there's no reason why this is "too easy" to be an etude in polished legato within pianissimo.

Apparently not so according to Cortot. He even advised practising the triplet accents.

Even when I play the original right hand alone at full speed, it sounds boring as hell unless I feel 3s internally, yet phrase according the groups of seconds (without a triplet emphasis).

I don't believe Chopin intended to accent only on "groups of seconds", because it would have been easier to write it as 3/4, because that is what it would imply. If that were the case, he would have 6 quavers joined together in the RH, rather than every 3. That kind of notation was also common in Chopin's era.

Addressing this point of your last, because of its import

Well, clearly he tried to think that way. But it shows nowhere in the results. With that in mind- why bother?

Yes - clearly he tried to think that way... because that is the way Chopin wrote it. But the crux is that Cortot actually advised students to practise the triplets, against the different rhythm in the LH.

And it does show in the results. Just because you don't hear it, doesn't mean that it isn't there you know. It is a very old recording after all.

[nyiregyhazi]

LOL. Are you saying I'm not impartial? We all hear what we want to hear. I could say that those who hear differently to me are not impartial too. Let us agree to dispense with such arguments, because you are clearly saying that only your subjective view is the right one.

Not at all. If I listen with no expectation, my brain organises the simplest explanation- ie. a leading left hand which 3 r.h. groups of 2 are organised inside. I'm not saying I'm impartial. Rather I'm saying that you have to have extraodinary sense of prior expectation for your brain to go to a complex rather than simple manner of organising what it hears. Unless something (such as pronounced accentuation) steers the brain away from simplicity of explanation, an unbiased ear does not assume complexity. I only hear triplets in Pollini if I tell my brain to search for them. Small wonder that my brain doesn't reach for the single most complex explanation, unless it expects it. Not even when Pollini bangs the Cs at the expense of melodic detail.

Consider that to hear the triplets as being the prevailing rhythm, the brain must perceive both the second and third left hand notes as being off beat syncopations. Conversely, even if you accent the triplet and the brain adjusts, the brain could conceive the left hand as the prevailing rhythm and perceive only the fourth quaver as being an off beat syncopation. So even there, the least likely interpretation of an impartial brain is triplets plus two confusing off-beat notes in every beat. Even with accents, it's a stretch for an unassuming mind to make up such a complex interpretation of what is being heard.

Excuse me but that reminds me of another chappie that used to frequent here until recently who insisted that his ear was the final arbiter, regardless of what the composer actually wrote. Let us agree to dispense with that too. The objective yardstick is what the composer wrote, surely.

Not in listening, no. The point is whether what he wrote can be conveyed through sound, to the point where a listener without expectations would perceive it. If it's not objectively identifiable without having already read the answer sheet, it's not carried in sound- but only through expectation of a listener who has decided how they intend to hear.

Again, you are attempting a straw man argument that the listener would not hear the triplets without knowing the score.

Show me evidence of anyone accurately distinguishing between 2s and 3s based on impartial hearing alone and I'll listen. A strawman is falsely attributing an argument to the other party, by the way. That's an argument I made, not a strawman I argued against.

And it does show in the results. Just because you don't hear it, doesn't mean that it isn't there you know. It is a very old recording after all.

Hear what? If nobody can even describe what is supposedly meant to be audible (or demonstrate an alternative recording for comparison, that fails to do the "it", whatever that means, in a notably detrimental way), it's looking very much like a nude emperor.

[lazyfingers]

Show me evidence of anyone accurately distinguishing between 2s and 3s based on impartial hearing alone and I'll listen.

But you did. You can distinguish the accented Cs in Pollini's playing. Just because you didn't prefer it that way, you rejected it as not the composer's intent. In fact, I listen to it and it is perfectly fine to me. Such is the nature of subjectivity, eh?

But let us not say that 2s and 3s are not distinguishable. That is what accenting is designed to achieve, and that is also why duplets and triplets were invented. So much so that it is not convention to have to accent the triplets. The mere fact that three notes are joined together and/or the little "3" symbol is placed under the 3 notes is sufficient to denote accent every three. Subtly or otherwise.

Hear what? If nobody can even describe what is supposedly meant to be audible (or demonstrate an alternative recording for comparison, that fails to do the "it", whatever that means), it's looking very much like a nude emperor.

What alternative recording? You tried to present an alternative that you claimed didn't play it as triplets (Cortot) against what is a very strong/clear triplet in Pollini's rendition which even you claim to hear. It is just that I can distinguish Cortot's subtle accenting. It is surely not incumbent upon me to provide a counter example that will result in more subjective experiencing of accents. The argument will once again resolve to whether you, I or another can hear the accents or not. Back to square one. In the meantime, there is objective written advise from Cortot to practice the triplet accents in his words "very precisely, with the fingers only". (But he wrote those words in French of course!  )

[nyiregyhazi]

But you did. You can distinguish the accented Cs in Pollini's playing. Just because you didn't prefer it that way, you rejected it as not the composer's intent. In fact, I listen to it and it is perfectly fine to me. Such is the nature of subjectivity, eh?

I heard a loud off-beat note among three twos. I didn't hear groups of 3. As I explained in the last post, it would be a substantially complex thing for the brain to hear that way (due to two off beat left hand notes), even with accents. It wont hear complexity without good cause not to hear a more simple explanation of the same thing. There's no reason why even a loud note would result in hearing of two triplets with off beat left hand notes. It's more natural to assume simple alignments to simple left hand rhythm, with an accent on an off-beat. A brain won't go for the most complex interpretation without expectation.

I don't go to magic shows with an intent to try to see illusions that the magician doesn't perform properly. If a musical effect is not automatically created in the listener's mind, it not an effect that has been successfully created. You can't tell a crowd to watch magic tricks in a special way. If the listener wants to hear triplets, they'll hear them whatever I do. Conversely, if they don't have expectation, they won't go to the complex assumption for something that seems simpler. It's no expecting them to hear triplets.

But let us not say that 2s and 3s are not distinguishable. That is what accenting is designed to achieve, and that is also why duplets and triplets were invented. So much so that it is not convention to have to accent the triplets. The mere fact that three notes are joined together and/or the little "3" symbol is placed under the 3 notes is sufficient to denote accent every three. Subtly or otherwise.

How? Based on what? They are not organised to suggest units of three. The most natural subdivision of bar 1 is a series of seconds. That creates expecation of two, not threes, even without the left hand. Just like how in Rachmaninoff, the four ascending notes suggest fours to the listener and not 3s. Only notable accentuation or prior knowledge will override the brain's simpler organisation. Only passages where the motif is clearly organised in threes due to its very construction can suggest 3s without accents to clarify.

What alternative recording? You tried to present an alternative that you claimed didn't play it as triplets (Cortot) against what is a very strong/clear triplet in Pollini's rendition which even you claim to hear. It is just that I can distinguish Cortot's subtle accenting. It is surely not incumbent upon me to provide a counter example that will result in more subjective experiencing of accents. The argument will once again resolve to whether you, I or another can hear the accents or not. Back to square one. In the meantime, there is objective written advise from Cortot to practice the triplet accents in his words "very precisely, with the fingers only". (But he wrote those words in French of course!  )

If Cortot's playing contains an actual feature, it should be very easy to provide a point of comparison that lacks that same feature.

If you couldn't listen to me playing the study and tell me whether I'm feeling 2 3s or 3 2s, we're not dealing in anything conveyed by sound but in expectations based on knowledge- from both the score and what Cortot said. If this is based on actual sound, you should be able to listen to any recording and tell me what the pianist is feeling, based purely on listening alone.

[lazyfingers]

I heard a loud off-beat note among three twos. I didn't hear groups of 3.

You have lost me completely here. What would a loud off-beat note among three 2s be? An accent?
If that were so, then it would be two groups of threes with the accent on the triplet.

If Cortot's playing contains an actual feature, it should be very easy to provide a point of comparison that lacks that same feature.

Strawman argument. All that is needed to show was that Cortot actually recommended the accents on the triplets. As I said to you, what you hear in his recording is subjectively yours. Someone else with a keener/different hearing will experience something else.

If you couldn't listen to me playing the study and tell me whether I'm feeling 2 3s or 3 2s, we're not dealing in anything conveyed by sound but in expectations based on knowledge- from both the score and what Cortot said.

We seem to be covering old ground here. Firstly what you are feeling has nothing whatsoever to do with what Chopin wrote. You might simply be playing/feeling it wrong. There are such things are wrong interpretation - even great pianists sometimes do that. The question really is not about an idiosyncratic interpretation. There can/have be many over the 170+ years. It is about what the composer intended.

If this is based on actual sound, you should be able to listen to any recording and tell me what the pianist is feeling, based purely on listening alone.

Again you have repeated the same fallacy - when you listen to anything, you are merely processing that against the your background of your own experiences and through your own sensory apparatus. We are not (generally) blessed with telepathy. Not yet anyway.

[nyiregyhazi]

You have lost me completely here. What would a loud off-beat note among three 2s be? An accent?

If that were so, then it would be two groups of threes with the accent on the triplet.

Obviously you've never heard the A flat waltz then. Because that's exactly what happens and that doesn't make it triplets there. It's an emphasised off-beat. An unassuming ear will never make the assumption that the left hand involves two off beat syncopations. In both cases, the simplest interpretation of an accent would be as an off-beat emphasis between two notes in a left hand group of 3- not as the start of a new triplet. Nobody would interpret the left in such a bizzarely complex way as to allow for listening to triplets unless trying to. The first abnormal aural event is on the fourth quaver. By then, the probability of 2s is already established by the simple coordination of left and right thus far. The ear would not have heard the 2nd left hand note as a weird off-beat syncopation inside triplets- unless it were either trying like crazy to do so or ignoring the left hand outright. So it's naturally heard as an off-beat accent against an established flow- not as a new triplet (unless you chose to try to listen that way).

If you feel there's a basis for an unassuming ear to detect the difference between the triplet of the etude and the non triplet syncopation of the waltz, you might like to clarify what differences in sound you would use for identification of that, compared to the etude. An unbiased ear doesn't magically know what is on the score. It simply listens for cues and forms a picture based on them. What is the difference in the aural cues that might inform it of the difference, please?

Strawman argument. All that is needed to show was that Cortot actually recommended the accents on the triplets. As I said to you, what you hear in his recording is subjectively yours. Someone else with a keener/different hearing will experience something else.

Sorry, but if you want a serious discussion you had better do a lot better. The fact that Cortot didn't cross out notes in Chopin's score and replace them with wrong ones could just as well be used for evidence that his recordings cannot contain wrong notes. Live in the real world- not in such a silly idealised one. Have you ever compared Schnabel's advice in his Beethoven sonatas edition with his recordings? This is a real non-starter. It's analagous to saying the emperor cannot be naked because his tailor already said that he dressed him in lovely clothing. The only pertinent issue is what the recording conveys to someone who is NOT assuming anything based on completely external information to the first hand evidence being discussed.

Also, as I said before, you should look up the meaning of strawman, if you're using it again. An argument I made to support my own case is most certainly not a strawman. A strawman would be putting words into YOUR mouth and arguing against something you never argued for. Whatever you're confusing the word with, it doesn't actually mean what you think.

We seem to be covering old ground here. Firstly what you are feeling has nothing whatsoever to do with what Chopin wrote. You might simply be playing/feeling it wrong. There are such things are wrong interpretation - even great pianists sometimes do that.

Which is exactly why I repeat my request for a "wrong" performance- so others and myself can compare it to Cortot and see for ourselves whether it sounds in any way different. Also, have you forgotten that you previously tried to argue that if Cortot said he did it one way then he couldn't have actually done it differently on a recording?

The question really is not about an idiosyncratic interpretation. There can/have be many over the 170+ years. It is about what the composer intended.

No. It's about whether it's objectively possible for anyone to know specifically what the composer notated or what the performer felt purely by listening to a recording. You can put your own goalposts wherever you like, but I'm not budging mine, sorry. That is what I am talking about- ie whether it's possible to make a listener perceive what Chopin wrote, based on playing alone and in a situation where they are not already expecting a cross rhythm via any external tip-off. I'm not believing a thing until someone demonstrates both that they are detecting an objective difference and that they can accurately identify whether a performer is feeling 2s or 3s on listening alone.

Again you have repeated the same fallacy - when you listen to anything, you are merely processing that against the your background of your own experiences and through your own sensory apparatus. We are not (generally) blessed with telepathy. Not yet anyway.

That claim is obsolete. I detailed the logical reason why a neutral brain would not automatically interpret something with a very simple explanation as being something with a very complex explanation- unless trying to. The converse does not follow. You don't have to try to hear a simple explanation to hear one- especially when complexity is not rammed down your throat via extreme accentuation. Either tear that argument to shreds or agree with it. To speak as if it was never made nor considered is not conducive to meaningful discussion.

Also, if you couple your above argument with mine about unbiased ears tending to go with simplicity over complexity- you'll realise exactly why nobody who isn't trying to actively hear a cross rhythm will perceive one. Because the combination of the brain's tendency to go for simpler explanations plus the issue of listening subjectively will mean that any complexity that is felt by the performer is EXTREMELY unlikely to reach anyone who isn't actively going out of their way to hear the piece that way.  

[j_menz]

Consider that to hear the triplets as being the prevailing rhythm, the brain must perceive both the second and third left hand notes as being off beat syncopations. Conversely, even if you accent the triplet and the brain adjusts, the brain could conceive the left hand as the prevailing rhythm and perceive only the fourth quaver as being an off beat syncopation. So even there, the least likely interpretation of an impartial brain is triplets plus two confusing off-beat notes in every beat. Even with accents, it's a stretch for an unassuming mind to make up such a complex interpretation of what is being heard.

You really don't hear two rhythms, do you. You try and confound a polyrhythm into a single rhythm, rather than hearing it as two separate ones.

That may be common, of course, but it is by no means the universal experience.

But of course you won't believe that either.

Sigh.

[nyiregyhazi]

You really don't hear two rhythms, do you. You try and confound a polyrhythm into a single rhythm, rather than hearing it as two separate ones.

That may be common, of course, but it is by no means the universal experience.

But of course you won't believe that either.

Sigh.

The question remains, why would anyone hear that without deliberately trying to- given that there's a simpler interpretation for an unbiased brain, plus the fact that the logical motific divisions are pairs? And if it depends on trying to hear that way- why does it matter if the performer bothers or not? You've clearly decided how to hear it already, regardless of the execution. If that were not the case, you would surely have provided us with a an example of a performer who gets it wrong in a way that you consider unacceptable, to compare to Cortot. How hard could that be on youtube- with all the amateurs? If you're not done then provide some relevant evidence. You can at least do something to provoke a little thought, right, if you're not going to back down? What are you afraid of?

Listen to the waltz example. Are you claiming that you naturally hear the two different notations differently- and would do so if you weren't using information from the score to inform how you decide to try to hear it?

If you are, then detail what information you would be basing your interpretation of what the score says, upon, if you were in a situation of listening blind without prior knowledge of the score. What information is your decision about the difference (compared to the etude) supposedly being based upon, if not external knowledge? What are the aural cues and differences?

Also, you never came back with any alternative theory for the Rachmaninoff as to how you would supposedly know if the player were doing triplets, after your theory about strict tempo association (which is nowhere in the composer's recording) went out the window. When someone insists they can do something yet offers no evidence or even details as to their method, I'm not much of a casual believer, sorry.

PS. I first discovered how little difference the performer's intent makes when I played and recorded that passage in the Rachmaninoff while feeling 3s very strongly, and then listened back and heard 4s, regardless. It was quite a shock, but what you feel does not necessarily project even to you yourself- unless you accent VERY heavily or decide how to listen in advance. It certainly doesn't magically go across to all other listeners.

[j_menz]

The question remains, why would anyone hear that without deliberately trying to

Some of us do. Live with it.

[nyiregyhazi]

Some of us do. Live with it.

I'll live with it when you have the decency to point to a recording which fails to convey that to you and offer an explanation of the specific differences between that and what you say you hear in Cortot. You're acting like a psychic who's only interested in boasting of their powers- without doing anything to demonstrate them.

How hard can it be for someone who actually believes in themself to present two recordings- one that says 3s to you and one that says 2s, for the rest of the forum to judge for themselves? At present, I can only conclude that nobody has ever failed to convey the 3s and that you always hear them as if by magic, without knowing how. You're welcome to believe in your powers in private, but if you're asserting them in public then have the decency to support assertions with some kind of supportive evidence.

[j_menz]

In twos:

And in sixes:

Though since you can't distinguish threes, I doubt it will assist you much.

[nyiregyhazi]

In twos:

And in sixes:

Though since you can't distinguish threes, I doubt it will assist you much.

The problem here is that they are very different tempos and performance styles. I don't like the first one- on the grounds that it sound pedantic, earthbound and careful. That is not an inherent feature of grouping in twos, if you feel a sweep of movement (which is not unique to feeling threes). There's just no real zip to it. Do you have a faster performance that you consider in twos, for a more direct comparison? Or a slower one and similarly articulated one in threes?  

I'm also interested in your analysis as to what makes you hear as you do. There is no emphasis at all on Cs of bar 1, as with Pollini. So what feature of her playing makes it triplets and not duplets? Given that duplets are implied by a motific breakdown, what feature makes you hear 3s in the absence of accentuation to show that? Please given an honest and sincere answer, as I'm very interested in what reasoning is behind these claims. What's your aural cue? Simply telling me that you can hear 3s doesn't give anything to discuss. What are you saying is the difference that defines these performances as 2s or 3s?

[j_menz]

Do you have a faster performance that you consider in twos, for a more direct comparison? Or a slower one and similarly articulated one in threes?

There's actually only 5 seconds between the Yeol Eum Son one and the Pollini, so they are pretty comparable in speed. The perceived difference may be more to do with the division. Articulation will differ necessarily as well, so I doubt one such as you ask for is possible.

I'm also interested in your analysis as to what makes you hear as you do. There is no emphasis at all on Cs of bar 1, as with Pollini. So what feature of her playing makes it triplets and not duplets? Given that duplets are implied by a motific breakdown, what feature makes you 3s in the absence of accentuation to show 3s? Please given an honest and sincere answer, as I'm very interested in what reasoning is behind these claims. What are you saying is the difference that defines these performances as 2s or 3s?

I just hear in those groups. I don't really have an analysis, just as I've never considered why I see the colours I do. It just is.  That's probably not much use, but I am not inclined to the same analytical dissections as you and really wouldn't know where to begin.

[nyiregyhazi]

There's actually only 5 seconds between the Yeol Eum Son one and the Pollini, so they are pretty comparable in speed. The perceived difference may be more to do with the division. Articulation will differ necessarily as well, so I doubt one such as you ask for is possible.

I just hear in those groups. I don't really have an analysis, just as I've never considered why I see the colours I do. It just is.  That's probably not much use, but I am not inclined to the same analytical dissections as you and really wouldn't know where to begin.

Well, given that you're portraying it as a flaw in my listening if I don't hear 3s, that's really not much of a supporting argument. Perhaps the pianist you say does 2s was feeling 3s and there's a flaw in your listening too? And I hear no similarity between Lisitsa's unnaccented beats and Pollini's heavy Cs. I have no idea what you are suggesting denotes those in 3s yet the other in 2s (supposedly based solely on objective hearing rather than personal interpretation).

Can anything be more subjective than if you just assert that Lisitsa's is felt in 3s- when there is no motific suggestion of 3s, no accentuation pattern of 3s and a left hand that contradicts 3s and suggests 2s? I find it very hard to take that kind of thing seriously, I'm afraid. If you can only argue on pure subjective terms, with no supporting reasoning or analysis of what you claim to be detecting on an objective level, I don't think we'll gain anything from trying to discuss this.

I don't think the odds that Lisitsa felt 3s and the other pianist felt 2s are any higher than the odds that the reverse is true. People interpret what they hear either out of expectation or out of the brain's desire to find the simplest explanation unless something contradicts that simplicity. Although Pollini's heavy Cs suggest that he worked at accenting triplets (even though it doesn't make me hear triplets but rather off-beat accents), there's no basis to assume either way about the other 2.

[j_menz]

I hear no similarity between Lisitsa's unnaccented beats and Pollini's heavy Cs. I have no idea what you are suggesting denotes those in 3s yet the other in 2s (supposedly based solely on objective hearing rather than personal interpretation).

I don't say Lisitsa's is in twos, I hear it as sixes.

If you can only argue on pure subjective terms, with no supporting reasoning or analysis of what you claim to be detecting on an objective level, I don't think we'll gain anything from trying to discuss this.

At the end of the day, we hear what we hear. I am happy to allow that this is subjective. It is only you who claims some sort of objective validity to their own hearing.

As to the futility of discussion, I think it's been amply demonstrated.

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't say Lisitsa's is in twos, I hear it as sixes.

The whole discussion was about the subdivision of the 6. Where on earth has this come from? You said 3s. Who ever said hers is twos? And why are you now switching to 6 after arguing so insistently that you can hear 3s?

At the end of the day, we hear what we hear. I am happy to allow that this is subjective. It is only you who claims some sort of objective validity to their own hearing.

Cite exactly where. My whole argument was actually the fact that feeling a cross-rhythm is pointless, because it's primarily the listener's subjective viewpoint that defines what they receive. You, however, insisted that you can objectively pick up the cross-rhythm depending on whether it is executed correctly. My whole argument was based on the fact that listening is subjective and thus does not magically divine an absolute of what is on the score, unless something about the performance forces a listener to hear it that way.

In this study, I don't believe that anything other than deciding how to listen will result in hearing of a cross-rhythm. Everyone else will get a simpler subjective impression, rather than assume complexity for no audible reason. Quote any sentence in which I asserted that my own hearing is objectively "correct". All I did was explain the mechanism by which subjective impressions are overwhelmingly more likely to assume simplicity over the notated complexity (almost entirely regardless of what the performer does)- except when seeking a specific complexity willfully, due to existing expectation (that has nothing do with the objective sound itself).

[j_menz]

The whole discussion was about the subdivision of the 6. Where on earth has this come from? You said 3s.

And in sixes:

Cite exactly where. My whole argument was actually the fact that feeling a cross-rhythm is pointless, because it's primarily the listener's subjective viewpoint that defines what they receive. You, however, insisted that you can objectively pick up the cross-rhythm depending on whether it is executed correctly. My whole argument was based on the fact that listening is subjective and thus does not magically divine an absolute of what is on the score, unless something about the performance forces a listener to hear it that way.

In this study, I don't believe that anything other deciding how to listen will result in hearing of a cross-rhythm. Everyone else will get a simpler subjective impression, rather than assume complexity. Quote any sentence in which I asserted that my own hearing is objectively "correct". All I did was explain the mechanism by which subjective impressions are overwhelmingly more likely to assume simplicity over complexityt- except when seeking complexity willfully.

In summary, your argument is that everyone hears as you do, and that anyone who doesn't is (a) lying, (b) delusional, (c) unduly influenced by preconceptions or (d) trying too hard just to be contrary.

Grow up.