latest Waltz op 64 no 2

[hardy_practice]

Well the tech just left.  Not quite there yet - that'll have to wait till the weekend.

[goldentone]

Coming along, coming along.

[nyiregyhazi]

Well the tech just left.  Not quite there yet - that'll have to wait till the weekend.

It's certainly a lot better. You really need to listen to the sound though and organise your technical practise accordingly. The flowing section is massively louder than the preceeding sections. It's supposed to be pianissimo- ie quieter than what came before and not a glaring leap up to a loud dynamic (in particular don't accent the first note in the second arrival of that section! It's a resolution, that completes the previous phrase- not a point of hard and sudden arrival!). It's clearer now, but you're still pressing the notes out with arm pressure and a forced tempo. It doesn't need to be relentless- it needs phrasing and shaping. Also, in the middle section you are accelerating and doing a crescendo through to the end of almost every phrase. It's a lyrical section that needs space and a sense of easing out of phrases- why the urgency to press forwards without listening through melodic sounds and connecting them up? It all comes back to the physical need to make a lasting and secure connection between finger and key- so you can enjoy the length of the notes rather than feel panicked into rushing away before the note has even had a chance to speak first.

[hardy_practice]

The flowing section is massively louder than the preceeding sections. It's supposed to be pianissimo- ie quieter than what came before and not a glaring leap up to a loud dynamic

I've got a manuscript version with no dynamics so there's no 'supposed to be'.

[nyiregyhazi]

I've got a manuscript version with no dynamics so there's no 'supposed to be'.

I've got a score with plenty of dynamics. Absence of indication in just one of many sources does not point towards forte- especially when the style is abundantly clear.

[hardy_practice]

You've got the score he sent to the printer with indications.  I have the previous one with none.  That doesn't mean I can just simply make the indications up, but it does give me the freedom to do what I think would be acceptable. 

[awesom_o]

It's definitely better...  but it still has a long way to go, as it is overall rather lacking in grace.

I think you need to practice it without rubato or rhythmic distortion of any kind, until you can play it "straight" with perfect control, good dynamics, and good textural balance. Once you have achieved that, you can begin to think about nuance.

The piu mosso section still sounds a bit clumsy, with some mucky pedaling, wrong notes in the LH, and slightly bangy RH. Be careful you don't come in like a ton of bricks in the piu mosso!  

 

[nyiregyhazi]

You've got the score he sent to the printer with indications.  I have the previous one with none.  That doesn't mean I can just simply make the indications up, but it does give me the freedom to do what I think would be acceptable.  

No it doesn't. Absence of dynamics is not an invitation to do as you please. There's a reason why he added indications when the score was specifically intended to be prescriptive to a wide audience. If you can find any version of the score that requests forte, you'll have a point. But failing to include dynamics in just one early version of the score (that was never intended for publication in that form) is not an open invitation.

PS. There's no difference between making indications up and doing what you think is acceptable- if that means playing very loudly when the only evidence of dynamic intentions is of pp. Not a single manuscript asks for a loud dynamic. You're just making it up- or rather playing loudly for no other reason than technical issues and then arguing the toss for no other reason than to be awkward, when you know full well that pp is the appropriate dynamic.

[hardy_practice]

As you say, in your score there is only one dynamic - pp - for the repeat of the piu mosso idea.  You can extrapolate from that? 

[nyiregyhazi]

As you say, in your score there is only one dynamic - pp - for the repeat of the piu mosso idea.  You can extrapolate from that?  

Indeed. You can extrapolate that he neither wants the culmination of the previous phrase to be a given a whacking great accent nor for the section to be played louder than the prior one.

[hardy_practice]

Indeed. You can extrapolate that he neither wants the culmination of the previous phrase to be a given a whacking great accent nor for the section to be played louder than the prior one.

Of course the beginning of the piu mosso can be louder than the first section!

[awesom_o]

You seem to be pretty satisfied with the way you played.  

[hardy_practice]

You seem to be pretty satisfied with the way you played.  

With the interpretation yes, not so much its execution.

[awesom_o]

With the interpretation yes, not so much its execution.

To say this, suggests that music and technique are separate entities.

I accept that this IS the traditional point of view, but I happily challenge that tradition. Technique is music, and music is technique.

If the interpretation was beautiful, then the technique used to render the music was also a thing of beauty. Everything about the interpretation has to be beautiful... we cannot make an exception for the execution! The execution is of paramount importance!

We cannot say 'the interpretation was beautiful.... but the execution was sloppy'. We do a great disservice to the art when we attempt to separate the inseparable.

[hardy_practice]

I can see your point perfectly well but surely you don't expect architects to be able to builld houses?  And what about the audience?  An intelligent audience will have their own interpretation whether they play the specific instrument or not.   

[awesom_o]

Well, this brings me back to my earlier post about building the structure of the piece without fussing about interpretive details and nuances

It does us no good at all to think about the particulars of interior decoration, such as paint colour, choice of curtains, style of furniture, etc, when we haven't yet built a strong foundation, with structurally strong walls and ceilings that are safely built to code!

A good artist builds the composition until it is solid and strong, before he or she fusses about details!
Details can always be modified at a later stage!

[awesom_o]

By the way, I'm not suggesting that anyone should ever play un-musically during the early learning stages of a piece. 

I'm saying that if we worry about putting finishing touches on something that is not ready for finishing touches (i.e. it is not structurally sound) it CAN appear to the audience that we are somewhat vainly putting makeup on a pig!

[hardy_practice]

I preferred your previous post (05:47:25 PM).  It was kinda more of an ancient Greek ideal.  One thing that strikes me about that is that some posters will assume I can just view a vid and copy that.  Not for the piu mosso.  If you haven't the technique it can't be done.  My problem centered on finger 4 - as it did for Chopin.  In the first instance Chopin technique is a finger 4 technique!

I think you need to practice it without rubato or rhythmic distortion of any kind, until you can play it "straight" with perfect control, good dynamics, and good textural balance. Once you have achieved that, you can begin to think about nuance.

Would you call a person's gait a nuance?  Cause that's what it is.

[awesom_o]

Would you call a person's gait a nuance?  Cause that's what it is.

Everyone has a natural gait, and there is nothing wrong with that, provided that we're not talking about something worthy of being in the Ministry of Silly Walks!

I do NOT advocate copying anyone else's interpretation.

If you have problems with your 4th finger (and who doesn't, from time to time!), I have to ask, have you studied Chopin's 2nd Etude from op. 10 extensively?

[hardy_practice]

I do NOT advocate copying anyone else's interpretation.

What I am saying is that some posters feel it is as easy as that - for instance to play a passage smoothly copy someone playing a passage smoothly.  In reality, without the technique, there's no way it's gonna happen.  As for op 10 no 2 - I'll take a look but I'm polishing quite a heap of stuff already!

The piece without my 'gait' just doesn't exist.  It's not an addon to be taken away.  I'm sure Harold Bauer would agree.

[awesom_o]

The piece without my 'gait' just doesn't exist.  It's not an addon to be taken away. 

I do not wish to propose that everyone should play everything the same way, without any trace of individuality or personality. Even if I did wish for this, it could never occur, as we are all human beings, and our playing ought to be a celebration of our humanity, rather than a desire to be like a machine.

However, when we play "classical music", we seek to be as transparent, or invisible, as we can be, so that the audience can experience the work of the composer in the purest possible way! That is the purpose of technique. Technique serves only to make our interpretation as close to perfection as possible!

Of course, nobody can be 100% perfect. A composer's work will always sound different under the hands of different great artists. But all great artists work hard to give as much of the composer as they can, with as little trace of their own ineptitude as they can manage!

I'm not accusing you of imposing yourself upon the music. I recognize that you are trying your best, and I applaud your efforts! I'm just trying to help you become closer to my good friend, Fred.

[hardy_practice]

Here's a quote from Chopin:

People have tried out all kinds of methods of learning to play the piano, methods that are tedious and useless and have nothing to do with the study of this instrument. It's like learning, for example, to walk on one's hands in order to go for a stroll. Eventually one is no longer able to walk properly on one's feet, and not very well on one's hands either. It doesn't teach us how to play the music itself—and the kind of difficulty we are practicing is not the difficulty encountered in good music, the music of the masters. It's an abstract difficulty, a new genre of acrobatics.

I wonder if he's referring here to the pared down, un-nuanced study of music?

[awesom_o]

Look, Steve... you don't have to take my advice, or anyone else's advice, for that matter.

You are more than welcome to continue doing what you're doing!

As long as you're happy with your interpretations... what else matters, for an amateur musician?

What other people think of your interpretations only really matters if you wish to be a professional musician! 



Just be sure to visit op. 10 #2 sooner rather than later, so that your 4th finger can become well-trained! I'm sure it will help you with this Waltz.

[chopinlover01]

Here's a quote from Chopin:

People have tried out all kinds of methods of learning to play the piano, methods that are tedious and useless and have nothing to do with the study of this instrument. It's like learning, for example, to walk on one's hands in order to go for a stroll. Eventually one is no longer able to walk properly on one's feet, and not very well on one's hands either. It doesn't teach us how to play the music itself—and the kind of difficulty we are practicing is not the difficulty encountered in good music, the music of the masters. It's an abstract difficulty, a new genre of acrobatics.

I wonder if he's referring here to the pared down, un-nuanced study of music?

I wonder if he's actually referring to the things like Czerny etudes and the etudes written during his time? Of course, many of the contemporary pieces written were definitely without nuance, but also keep in mind he tolerated little contemporary music.

[goldentone]

If the interpretation was beautiful, then the technique used to render the music was also a thing of beauty. Everything about the interpretation has to be beautiful... we cannot make an exception for the execution! The execution is of paramount importance!

I don't argue against this goal, but I believe you've wandered into idealism.  A beautiful interpretation and playing does not automatically mean it was executed beautifully--Cortot.  What we hear is of paramount importance.  This isn't ballet.  Or such a ministry. . . I would rather hear only the music than also to see the accompanying hands that dealt it.

[awesom_o]

A beautiful interpretation and playing does not automatically mean it was executed beautifully--Cortot.  

Cortot had a beautiful technique, and was capable of stunning execution!

He didn't always have as much time to practice as he would have liked to have before giving concerts-a predicament everyone finds themselves in sooner or later when they enter into the business of concertizing!

Like most artists, Cortot played more beautifully on some days than others.

[nyiregyhazi]

Of course the beginning of the piu mosso can be louder than the first section!

If you insist. But when you pull the same trick where it's definitely supposed to be pp, anyone who let you get away with it on a technicality first time around will have had enough. You can either rationalise these things or you can strive for progress.

[nyiregyhazi]

Not for the piu mosso.  If you haven't the technique it can't be done.  

Indeed. That's why we all told you to practise slowly and evenly, using your ears as a gauge of control. You refused to listen. If you don't want technique, then carry on trying to use words to change how people listen you. If you do, then change how you listen to yourself and stop using empty words to rationalise away the fundamental need to be capable of even execution as a foundation. Even doesn't even mean at a totally monotonous dynamic. It means listening enough to appreciate when a note doesn't even begin to match the intensity of the last. Good pianists express a reasonable musical phrase when practising evenly. They just don't allow randomly applied accents or notes that fall silent.

Meaningful improvement to technical and musical execution is an impossibility for someone who cannot learn to practise in this manner.

[swagmaster420x]

Last time, you used the phrase 'marshaling the little soldiers' as a metaphor for playing the piu mosso section. It's a nice metaphor, but it makes you seem a bit deluded. Why worry about intricacies and subtleties of style and interpretation when the passage would sound a lot better if you just practiced being able to play it 'good,' even if that might sound 'flat'?

I guess one has the right to discourse on the specifics of musically performing this piece without being a master of it.... or does he?

Regardless of the answer to that question, until you basically just suck it up and work to refine technique (trust me, discipline yourself for 15 measly minutes a day and see what happens) , any attempt to maintain, contend, or argue for your personal ideal interpretation will come off as laughable.

[awesom_o]

The master of swag tells it like it is, harsh as it may seem. 

[goldentone]

Cortot had a beautiful technique, and was capable of stunning execution!

There's another school of thought that believes Cortot's technique was deplorable, a model not to be imitated.  But he may have been the greatest pianist of the 20th century in his expressive power.

[awesom_o]

There's another school of thought that believes Cortot's technique was deplorable, a model not to be imitated.  

This doesn't sound (to me) like a man with deplorable technique playing the B minor Sonata!

I've heard people complain about his messy live performances, but I've never heard anyone say his technique was deplorable. 

[hardy_practice]

Last time, you used the phrase 'marshaling the little soldiers' as a metaphor for playing the piu mosso section. It's a nice metaphor, but it makes you seem a bit deluded.

I didn't leave the previous attempt up.  I'm most appreciative of those who've taken the time to listen and couldn't expect them to spend time comparing versions but I think all can hear how much improvement there is now in the piu mosso?  All in just a few weeks?  As I've said earlier, that amount of progress is not about interpretation, it's not about listening,  it's about a far more powerful finger 4 and I've solved how to do that - it's nearly made the rank of Marshall!  If OP 10 no 2 also works I'll certainly be taking a hard look at it.

[dima_76557]

Well the tech just left.  Not quite there yet - that'll have to wait till the weekend.

I downloaded your clip and watched the piu mosso passages in slow-motion.

My findings: the problem is NOT the "strength" (or lack thereof) of your fourth finger. The fingers 2-5 have difficulty finding comfortable balance and your thumb is trying to compensate for that, thereby interfering with the work of those already unbalanced fingers. That is the problem you should aim to solve. Simply "stand" on the finger positions as blocked chords in a relaxed fashion and stay on each position as long as is comfortable without involving the thumb at all. It should stay completely relaxed and held as close as possible to your hand. Just my 2 cents and I won't be offended if you don't believe me.

[dima_76557]

There's another school of thought that believes Cortot's technique was deplorable, a model not to be imitated.

Are you by any chance referring to "Bernhard"?

Alfred Cortot was one of the greatest recreative artists of the 20th century with a more than adequate technique. In his later years, Cortot simply didn't practise at all.

P.S.: In pseudo-pedagogical discussions, it is typical of people that oppose one School to use exactly its exponents' least successful legacy to "prove" how "deplorable" that "other School" is. Kindergarten level, don't you think so?

[hardy_practice]

I downloaded your clip and watched the piu mosso passages in slow-motion.

My findings: the problem is NOT the "strength" (or lack thereof) of your fourth finger. The fingers 2-5 have difficulty finding comfortable balance and your thumb is trying to compensate for that,

That was very attentive of you, thanks, but you can't see the thumb!?  This idea of standing on the fingers may have hit one particular nail - I don't line up my finger bones so they support each other.  If you do that it makes the passage much easier which is why, I was wondering, these kiddies can do it:

I 'caress' the key which involves no skeletal support.  Horowitz does the opposite and collapses the same joint - just as insensitive in my view (I tried playing like that years ago).

[dima_76557]

That was very attentive of you, thanks, but you can't see the thumb!?

I don't have to see it. The disbalance of what I *can* see and hear is symptomatic for the problem. Try slowing down the recording and study what's happening. You can do that with any good media player.

I 'caress' the key which involves no skeletal support.

I think you should stop doing that, at least until you have found your balance. The tiny movement you need comes from the knuckle bridge with the slight "pressure" felt as not going towards the finger, but to the outside of the palm (hope I made the physiology clear enough in this way because I am not as gifted as N. in this respect ). Preferably no deliberate movements in the other joints.

[swagmaster420x]

Wow!! Horowitz is actually so good
like.... SOOOO good!!!
I couldn't believe that piece could sound so beautiful

For the non piu mosso sections in your rendition, I can now more clearly see what you were going for. Still, your ascents and descents in parts like :16 - :17 sound a little too sped up, espcially because you slowed down so noticeably around :13. I really would like to hear what it would sound like if you tried to keep a perfectly even tempo. It would at least be easier to identify stuff that way.

Also I think for the opening chords, and for the left hand, you should try sustain notes more solidly. It kind of sounds disconnected in like :06 to :07. Maybe more pedal, maybe physically hold down the note for longer.

Sorry for being so harsh earlier without really providing specific input, but that's what I thought you should know, and if I didn't post it that's still what I would have thought you should know.

Im not an authority figure on piano by any means, so take w/e I say with a grain of salt. I just thought it would be kind of discourteous and irrelevant to say nothing but "OMG Horowitz interpretation is godlike" on a thread asking for advice. (but that was really the main thing I wanted to post)

[hardy_practice]

I think you should stop doing that,

I'm afraid it's a style that took me years to understand - sometimes described as an early 19th century Paris thing.  I'm not about to go backwards.  My style does not rely on skeletal support, difficult as that may make it.

Also I think for the opening chords, and for the left hand, you should try sustain notes more solidly. It kind of sounds disconnected in like :06 to :07. maybe more pedal, maybe physically hold down the note for longer.

I don't believe in pedaling over the third beat -  the pedal comes off beginning of beat 2 for nearly all my 3/4's.  One student of Chopin said the third beats of this piece should be light and subtle throughout.

[awesom_o]

I'm afraid it's a style that took me years to understand - sometimes described as an early 19th century Paris thing.  I'm not about to go backwards.  My style does not rely on skeletal support, difficult as that may make it.

 

[hardy_practice]

Not just me:

French piano playing style: physical restraint, carezzando touch, and jeu perlé

Debussy was always said to have played like his idol, Chopin, with extreme dynamic nuance and skillful precision in a style sometimes referred to as the carezzando touch, in which the finger is placed on rather than above the key, near its center, and then slides towards and off its edge. Most American pianists play Chopin with too much emotive ebullience, effusion, and energy, and too loudly.
https://cvnc.org/article.cfm?articleId=5560   

[awesom_o]

But seriously, you have to admit that you don't exactly play with "extreme dynamic nuance and skillful precision in style". 

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm afraid it's a style that took me years to understand - sometimes described as an early 19th century Paris thing.  I'm not about to go backwards.  My style does not rely on skeletal support, difficult as that may make it.

You can call it a "style" and claim to "understand" it when you're in command of your sound and actually achieving the nuance you speak of. Until then it's a flaw and something that you haven't understood correctly.

[hardy_practice]

But seriously, you have to admit that you don't exactly play with "extreme dynamic nuance and skillful precision in style".  

Not with a modern keydip and weight without much effort!

Here also:


from: A Natural History of the Piano

[nyiregyhazi]

Not with a modern keydip and weight without much effort!

Well, plenty of amateurs and professionals alike do fine. So stop reaching for excuses and start looking for solutions. Unfortunately, excuses don't solve problems. Your effort is indicative of the fact you're simply not getting it right and it's no use trying to use historical texts to override the results in sound.

[goldentone]

I'm afraid it's a style that took me years to understand - sometimes described as an early 19th century Paris thing.  I'm not about to go backwards.  My style does not rely on skeletal support, difficult as that may make it.
 

Just make sure that whether you are at home or in a Paris salon, all elements of au experience naturale in body philosophy are there in "perpendicular fashion", fancy angle of saying the right way is the only way!

[goldentone]

Still, I have to say for someone who doesn't have to worry about years of not being able to fully and discriminately control his hands, not barred from access to his true technical ability, and one who has no cognitive and focusing interference, it's coming along fine.  Sorry if I wax Victor Borge.

[hardy_practice]

 Sorry if I wax Victor Borge.

I actually had a lesson and spent the day with Leonid Hambro, Victor Borge's sidekick.  A wonderful man and, more importantly, in Schonberg!

[goldentone]

Are you by any chance referring to "Bernhard"?

Alfred Cortot was one of the greatest recreative artists of the 20th century with a more than adequate technique. In his later years, Cortot simply didn't practise at all.

P.S.: In pseudo-pedagogical discussions, it is typical of people that oppose one School to use exactly its exponents' least successful legacy to "prove" how "deplorable" that "other School" is. Kindergarten level, don't you think so?

Bernhard, and I had thought Marik as well, but I'm not sure.  In the Chopin B minor sonata Cortot has an adequate technique, yes.  But technique as a model of efficiency and naturalness is a different story. Deplorable is maybe a bit much, but I was really thinking in this vein.  In the Chopin can you hear the laboring there?  In Cortot's playing of the Chopin Nocturne Op. 27, 1, (from 1951) I hear unevenness and clumsiness.  It reminds me of Robert Casadesus.  It's a little sad because Cortot was such a poet and he was not able to express his musicality but through a less optimal faculty.

Yes, it is a straw turkey of a way to use the worst example to win an argument.  I was merely pointing out the mix in Cortot, rather than defending a school, to make a point that a beautiful interpretation does not automatically translate to "a thing of beauty" in execution.

[dima_76557]

Bernhard, and I had thought Marik as well, but I'm not sure.

Surely not Marik; he studied himself with Pnina Saltzman, who herself studied in Paris under Cortot's direct supervision.