Rach Prelude C Sharp Minor

[cwjalex]

my teacher gave me rachamninoff's prelude in c sharp minor to learn this week which I found to be pretty easy except for a single chord that is difficult for me.  I was wondering if anyone else finds this chord difficult?  It's the chord near the end in the 47th measure.  On the left hand it's F#, A, E, F# which I finger 5,4,2,1 and on the right hand it's E, F#, A, E, which i finger 1,2,3,5. 

I have pretty small hands and these chords are really uncomfortable for me to play.  I just want to make sure I am playing the right chord and was wondering if other people found this chord difficult?

[j_menz]

Not having bar numbers on my edition, I'm taking it that this is the third bar after the Tempo Primo mark at the start of the second A section.

Notes are correct.

Be careful not to play too deeply into the keys. Start with the LH F# A F# 5 2 1 and RH E A E 1 3 5  then in each hand add in the awkward note. In the RH, you probably will do that by moving slightly deeper into the keys so the index finger can play the front of the F#. In the LH, you may need to move out. A little playing around might lead to a satisfactory position for each hand.

If that still doesn't yield results, rolling would be acceptable. Indeed some (slight) rolling throughout is probably desirable, particularly for the chords in the upper of each hands staves.

[cwjalex]

it's annoying because this single chord is the only difficult part of the entire piece and it's only played once.  i feel like im stretching out my fingers as far as i can to hit this chord.  i spent like 2 hours today just playing the C octaves with both hands then this uncomfortable chord...back and forth, back and forth.

[louispodesta]

my teacher gave me rachamninoff's prelude in c sharp minor to learn this week which I found to be pretty easy except for a single chord that is difficult for me.  I was wondering if anyone else finds this chord difficult?  It's the chord near the end in the 47th measure.  On the left hand it's F#, A, E, F# which I finger 5,4,2,1 and on the right hand it's E, F#, A, E, which i finger 1,2,3,5. 

I have pretty small hands and these chords are really uncomfortable for me to play.  I just want to make sure I am playing the right chord and was wondering if other people found this chord difficult?

Once again (I really don't mind), I list for your listening pleasure a recording of this piece by a pianist, who, in my opinion, does a fairly decent job.  And, he had small hands like you do - NOT!!

In addition, I include my YouTube new story on this subject.

[nyiregyhazi]

Once again (I really don't mind), I list for your listening pleasure a recording of this piece by a pianist, who, in my opinion, does a fairly decent job.  And, he had small hands like you do - NOT!!

In addition, I include my YouTube new story on this subject.

Do you have to shoehorn this into every topic? Yes, Rachmaninoff rolled chords sometimes and indeed frequently. But not here:

His acoustics are a much more reliable document than piano rolls, which are notoriously jerky. He never gives an impression of anything but one moment of sound in these chords (unlike the 2nd concerto, where the anticipated bass of the opening chords is highly obvious).

He can roll if he really has no choice, but it's not what Rachmaninoff did in reliable documents of this particular work and neither is it more correct to do so. Rachmaninoff played these chords with one bell-like sound. If a slight displacement is involved, it's truly minute- to the point where you couldn't recreate the same effect without being capable of striking the chord, anyway. The piano rolls are not a reliable document and the juddering sound is a very bad example compared to how great pianists rolled chords when they really did use the gesture. Good use of rolling gives a very subtle build into a point of focus- it doesn't give the disorganised clutter of uncoordinated tones that the piano roll suggests.

[cwjalex]

while playing this piece i don't like to roll the chords or play a simpler version of the chord.  i ended up just toughing it out and stretching my hands to play the uncomfortable chords.  it's been a couple weeks playing this piece and it is getting more comfortable to play this chord

[louispodesta]

Do you have to shoehorn this into every topic? Yes, Rachmaninoff rolled chords sometimes and indeed frequently. But not here:

Thank you, thank you, thank you.  Now, I know why you are such a blithering idiot.  You are hearing impaired.

Of course, Rachmaninoff is rolling the chords in your recorded example.  It is a very soft roll, but, you betchum believe it, he is rolling those chords.

In addition, he is playing the bass note ahead of the soprano on a regular basis.

Further, Kenneth Caswell, who had recorded multiple CD's in digital stereo off of the piano rolls since the year 2000, assures me of their accuracy.  And, after listening to analog recordings of the same pieces by pianists of the same era, I am convinced that he is correct.

Your blanket statement that piano rolls are not an accurate rendering of how the artist plays the piece only shows that you have not listened to Mr. Caswell's meticulously produced recordings.

Yes, the early transfers were seriously flawed.  That is why he went back (for the last 14 years!) and recorded the rolls again in digital stereo with the proper tension on the roll, which was not done on the original vinyl transfers.

Next, relating to the OP, I posted this answer on another website regarding this piece:

["Many years ago, I was visiting with a local piano teacher, who said the following: "You know, when I was up at TCU studying under Lili Kraus, Rachmaninoff came to Fort Worth (Texas). And, do you know what?: boy, did he play that "B" Section as fast as any human being could play it." . . .

. . . I also cite Earl Wild's Memoir. As a friend of the composer, he heard him perform over 100 times.

Therefore, when he was questioned as to his recordings of Rachmaninoff (including many a rolled chord), he referenced those same personal experiences as my local teacher, . . .

. . .  In this case, the phrase "consider the source," means just that.   And, for the record, I don't play this piece the way the composer did.

But, in terms of rolled chords, breaking of the hands, tempo modification, and most importantly dynamics: Yes, I do!"]

That, , i
Thank you, thank you, thank you.  Now, I know why you are such a blithering idiot.  You are hearing impaired.

Of course, he is rolling the chords in your recorded example.  It is a very soft roll, but, you betchum believe it, he is rolling those chords.

In addition, he is playing the bass note ahead of the soprano on a regular basis.

Further, Kenneth Caswell, who had recorded multiple CD's in digital stereo off of the piano rolls since the year 2000, assures me of their accuracy.  And, after listening to analog recordings of the same pieces by pianists of the same era, I am convinced his correct.

Your blanket statement that piano rolls are not an accurate rendering of how the artist plays the piece only shows that you have not listened to Mr. Caswell's meticulously produced recordings.

Yes, the early transfers were seriously flawed.  That is why he went back (for the last 14 years!) and recorded the rolls again in digital stereo with the proper tension on the roll, which was not done on the original vinyl transfers.

Next, relating to the OP, I posted this answer on another website regarding this piece:

["Many years ago, I was visiting with a local piano teacher, who said the following: "You know, when I was up at TCU studying under Lili Kraus, Rachmaninoff came to Fort Worth (Texas). And, do you know what?: boy, did he play that "B" Section as fast as any human being could play it."

So, in answer to your inference, I also cite Earl Wild's Memoir. As a friend of the composer, he heard him perform over 100 times.

Therefore, when he was questioned as to his recordings of Rachmaninoff (including many a rolled chord), he referenced those same personal experiences as my local teacher, . . .

. . .  In this case, the phrase "consider the source," means just that.   And, for the record, I don't play this piece the way the composer did.

But, in terms of rolled chords, breaking of the hands, tempo modification, and most importantly dynamics: Yes, I do!"]

That, "nyiregyhazi," is the difference between "your opinion" and live human beings who actually heard the man play.

And, as far as my "shoehorning" my way in on this post, there is no single human being on any piano website who can hold a candle to King Troller and the great and all powerful, and all knowing "nyiregyhazi."
 

[nyiregyhazi]

Further, Kenneth Caswell, who had recorded multiple CD's in digital stereo off of the piano rolls since the year 2000, assures me of their accuracy.  And, after listening to analog recordings of the same pieces by pianists of the same era, I am convinced that he is correct.

I don't care what some bloke assures you of. I have listened to numerous recordings of Rachmaninoff and others rolling chords. There's little to no rolling in the acoustics of that prelude. The disorganised mess that is the ampico realisation doesn't even begin to compare to his real sound. Notes are all over the place in seemingly random locations with no corresponding dynamic organisation that would allow the timing to blend into a musical sound. That's a dreadful model to suggest to anyone. Any displacements in the acoustic are either subtle to the point of drawing no attention to themselves or non-existent altogether. And as I said, anyone who cannot reach the chords comfortably could never perform such a discrete effect as the acoustics show, so it's plain irresponsible to suggest that rolled sound is what was wanted anyway. It would be a compromise, not a historically superior version.

Your blanket statement that piano rolls are not an accurate rendering of how the artist plays the piece only shows that you have not listened to Mr. Caswell's meticulously produced recordings.

I listened to the dreadful one you linked. If there's a competent one link that instead. Better still, stick with real evidence on acoustic recordings.

Of course, he is rolling the chords in your recorded example.  It is a very soft roll, but, you betchum believe it, he is rolling those chords.

There are miniscule audible deviations- most of which do not "roll", which means progressive arpeggiation. But they don't evoke the rolled sound at all. There sometimes are VERY slight audible fluctuations between the timing of louder and softer tones in a chord. But he does't "roll"often here. You can hear Rachmaninoff looking for a true "rolled" sound all over the place throughout his other recordings. If wanted that he'd have been damned sure to make you hear it here. In this work, he took great care that any subtle deviations rarely evoke anything other than ONE bell-like sound- not a load of clattering individually distinguishable sounds like on the piano roll. Almost all the subtle deviations among chords come from the fact that louder notes automatically sound earlier than softer notes (due to hammer speed)- which is not the same thing as "rolling" a chord. It's what just happens when you voice a chord to extremes.

Take your personal issues elsewhere. I'm sticking to the issues, sorry. As a life-long proponent of asynchronisation, I'm tired of seeing you fanatically force it into places where you are totally missing the point. Save it for the places where it's relevant. The way you force it into such inappropriate places serves to make the whole concept look like a thing of idle fantasy, not to promote it. I don't care what Earl Wild says, because you're preaching to the choir on the whole- except where you make the false claim that the mess of that piano roll represents the Rachmaninoff sound. It doesn't and if you know of a single source where Earl Wild professed any respect for the rhythmic accuracy of old rolls then you should quote that instead.

[dima_76557]

@ louispodesta

In my opinion:

AMPICO recordings are nothing but perforated arrangements on behalf of the artist with an abundance of severe technical limitations. Getting two tones sound perfectly together, for example, seems to have been near to impossible with that technique. I suspect that trying to get that right would have created even more of a mess than we have now. So, even if Rachmaninoff himself endorsed those "recordings", he did that with the technical limitations of that time in mind, not because he recognized himself.

Even the best computer-restored AMPICO recordings can only be compared to heavily studio-edited recordings of this or that contemporary artist. It's not the real thing and they should therefore not be presented as "historically correct" interpretations or anything of the kind.