VIDEO: Prelude Op. 28 No. 20 by Frederic Chopin

[michael_sayers]

You may want to check your speaker settings before playing this one.

[stevensk]

OMG..this was the most crappy thing i ever heard...

-Please, WHY must you ply piano??

[verqueue]

Do you like your sound in forte?

[birba]

Wierd.  I loved the sound in the piano sections but what was that banging ff all about? I also liked the paintings you posted with it.  It means the music speaks to you.  But still, i don't get that banging...

[chopinlover01]

Why all the atonality?
Aasdfalghasgh those sounds were harsh.

[michael_sayers]

Do you like your sound in forte?

In general, yes.

Two issues here are: microphones too near the open piano lid, and also a grainy bass sound due to some string corrosion on an elderly N.Y. Steinway D.  Definitely the piano shows its age, though it is very beautiful in quiet and subdued playing.

[chopinlover01]

None of the two things you mentioned would have the effect that you created. You literally just banged the living $#!& out of the keys here. There are also tones sounding there that are completely impossible to be the result of sympathetic resonance- if they were, not only are you using FAR too much sustain, but your piano has far more problems than string corrosion and age.

[michael_sayers]

None of the two things you mentioned would have the effect that you created. You literally just banged the living $#!& out of the keys here. There are also tones sounding there that are completely impossible to be the result of sympathetic resonance- if they were, not only are you using FAR too much sustain, but your piano has far more problems than string corrosion and age.

It isn't my piano.

[chopinlover01]

Still, the awful playing in the recording isn't the fault of the piano to the degree you're making it out to be. Sure, there are better recording instruments out there, but you still need to not kill the keys when you play forte.

[8_octaves]

Hi michael,

I won't judge anything here, and for those who are interested (?), I've a short info-snippet, in case some don't know. I remember something, connected to the prelude:

I'm very interested in the edition you used as basis for the recording. Because, there are some old but funny discussions about bar 3, as we might know.

I think - but my ears aren't very reliable, since other strings seem to resonate, too - you played "e natural" in the last chord of bar 3 (?) please correct me if it was e flat!

Flat or natural! Opinions differ, and I don't think we can 100% be sure for one or the other opinions:

Henle states, e.g., that "e with flat" only appears in the English first edition, and that the "missing of the flat sign in all the other source-editions is a mistake" because of harmonic reasons and because of the reason that Chopin simply has forgotten to write the flat sign.

On the other hand, there's a statement which I partly mentioned somewhen ago: "It's a dangerous way to prove something that is not existing by saying 'it has simply been forgotten' " (Take, for example, a human being!  ) . My source says, that "Chopin was really diligent and wrote very exactly, judged by the existing manuscripts and facsimiles -, and in the manuscript there's no flat sign."

That's correct, as we can see in the Variorum edition.

https://www.ocve.org.uk/jsp/browse.jsp

To be more exact, the flat sign exists only in E1, not in E2. But Henle adds the following statement:

"Chopin himself wrote a flat sign before the "e" in a version for his student Jane Stirling".

But a ) this "Stirling"-version doesn't appear in the ocve to check, maybe it's not relevant or .. not existing?   b ) Chopin wrote many things for many students (e.g. as I mentioned some time ago, for the op.9,2 - Nocturne. There are ca. 17-19 difffering versions for his students), and c ) Chopin doesn't seem to have "e natural" being CORRECTED in the German, French, etc.- first editions. By whom the "e flat" in the E1-version was authorized, I don't know. If it was authorized by Chopin ( whereas he wouldn't have taken action in the other first editions ) , then we could assume:

"He liked BOTH versions: e-flat, and e-natural!"  

Very cordially, 8_octaves!

[themeandvariation]

Greetings, folks.
If the 'off' sound was solely due to the pedal, then the very first chord played would sound in tune.  This, however is not the case…  so, either the piano is terribly out of tune, or there are incorrect notes pushed (as well as the correct notes struck)… Or, both…  
It being a 2 line piece, (and not so difficult to play) it is hard to understand how one couldn't play all the correct notes in one take….  i can understand, and somewhat subscribe to the idea of a single take for a recorded performance… thus perhaps allowing a few missed notes in… if they are harmonically ok, and fall somewhere in the middle …between melody and bass. But allowing this sacrifice, the interpretive force of that take, one feels can't been 'bettered'…Also, it  would definitely depend on the piece in question… some are just too delicate, or utterly definitive in their compositional statement, and can't afford a wrong note….as in a fugue… etc..
Cheers.

[michael_sayers]

Hi 8_octaves,

I am a believer in the E-natural.  I think the choice between E-flat or E-natural might depend on the interpretive sensibilities of the pianist, with the original E-natural not being a notation mistake by Chopin.  As you rightly observe, Chopin was ultra-meticulous in his notation . . . if anyone thinks they can find a notation mistake in Chopin's hand, I wish that person luck because it probably won't be there. I grew up in the pre-internet days - any research back then needed a lot of time and effort (and real research today still needs all that time and effort) so I was selective and focused on Liszt and somewhat on Beethoven.  I'm not a Liszt expert, however, I am more of a Liszt believer, and I studied and researched for enough hours during the course of enough years to confirm that I was on the right track pianistically - and that there may be many things casually reported about Liszt on Wikipedia which are not necessarily true.

As with the notion that Liszt's pianistic achievements were inspired by Paganini.  Liszt said that, but according to one source it wasn't a candid statement.  Chopin's piano playing was the catalyst for Liszt's achievements but Liszt did not want to admit this publicly - this is according to an interview with Moriz Rosenthal from the 1940s.  The article with the interview states that this is something which Liszt confided in to Rosenthal.  True or not, it is there in the source.

Something about Chopin you may know: the original initial tempo marking of Etude Op. 10 No. 3 was Vivace.

One gets the impression that Chopin could be almost as highly variable musically as was his admirer Franz Liszt.

[chopinlover01]

And, to add onto "misinterpreted" etude markings, opus 10/6 was originally written Andante.

[michael_sayers]

And, to add onto "misinterpreted" etude markings, opus 10/6 was originally written Andante.

I didn't know that about the Op. 10 No. 6.

I did a search for a Vivace Op. 10 No. 3 recording but couldn't find one, not even one that was done as a curiosity to show how it might have sounded at the original tempo.

There has been discussion elsewhere that maybe there is a reason the hardest preludes are in the "missing" keys of the etudes.  For instance, none of the etudes is in D minor, but one of the preludes is in D minor and it is one of the most challenging of them.

I really do have to call it a night now . . . I hope that everyone here has a good day (or night, depending on the time zone).

[lostinidlewonder]

It makes me think of a funeral procession in a war zone then suddenly everything becomes silent as the body is laid to rest then the reality of war comes into focus again. Interesting. I've heard the piece played close to ten trillion times so deviations from the norm is a novelty my ears don't mind at all.

[8_octaves]

Hi 8_octaves,

I am a believer in the E-natural.  I think the choice between E-flat or E-natural might depend on the interpretive sensibilities of the pianist, with the original E-natural not being a notation mistake by Chopin.  As you rightly observe, Chopin was ultra-meticulous in his notation . . . if anyone thinks they can find a notation mistake in Chopin's hand, I wish that person luck because it probably won't be there. I grew up in the pre-internet days - any research back then needed a lot of time and effort (and real research today still needs all that time and effort) so I was selective and focused on Liszt and somewhat on Beethoven.  I'm not a Liszt expert, however, I am more of a Liszt believer, and I studied and researched for enough hours during the course of enough years to confirm that I was on the right track pianistically - and that there may be many things casually reported about Liszt on Wikipedia which are not necessarily true.

As with the notion that Liszt's pianistic achievements were inspired by Paganini.  Liszt said that, but according to one source it wasn't a candid statement.  Chopin's piano playing was the catalyst for Liszt's achievements but Liszt did not want to admit this publicly - this is according to an interview with Moriz Rosenthal from the 1940s.  The article with the interview states that this is something which Liszt confided in to Rosenthal.  True or not, it is there in the source.

Something about Chopin you may know: the original initial tempo marking of Etude Op. 10 No. 3 was Vivace.

One gets the impression that Chopin could be almost as highly variable musically as was his admirer Franz Liszt.

Rehi Michael!

Thank you for your reply! Very interesting you mentioned Chopin's diligence, too. But profane circumstances could be an obstacle to us, as we can see, e.g., in the manuscript of the op. 53-Polonaise, where there is a simple and profane HOLE in the paper, so that one in such cases can only estimate by comparison, by the help of copies, by harmony and music-theory, calculate, or try to prove by probabilistic methods whether there was an accidental written or not. And there are mice, which like to nibble on old documents very much, and fungi, too, and book lice, sometimes!   They shouldn't do that!

As far as Liszt is concerned: I don't know very much of his works. I like some of his Rhapsodies, ok. And I have 2 biographies as pdf, one being the Goellerich. But it's so extensive, I still haven't read it completely, only searched through it, if special topics are of interest to me, and if I presume that I'll find statements in it.-

The "old" Niecks-biography of Chopin I have, as pdf., too. But since today there are doubts about its reliability in some points, it brings me to another point you mentioned:

The reliability of WP-articles. You pointed out that in the Liszt-area, there might be some not-necessarily-true articles in it: The same, I think, we could say of some Chopin-info we get from the WP: There are, maybe, some good ideas, but they will make further research necessary, for example, the interesting statement that Elise Gavard could be Chopin's daughter. (And that she is the only person to whom TWO single works were dedicated: a waltz and the Berceuse. It may be interesting, that another person, Emily Elsner, could be the second one to whom two works were dedicated, but this would have to do with an A flat major-waltz and an E-flat major piece in the Henle-Edition, and whether the E-flat-major waltz was 100% correctly assigned to Chopin or not. )

Reliability...is often an important point, I think!

As it's with the tempi of some works. Today, there aren't, at least as far as I know, only activities to play works (e.g. the op. 10,3 Etude, or Schumann's "Träumerei" ) faster, but there are activities ("Tempo Giusto") , to play works 1/2 SLOWER, too, e.g. the op.10,1-etude, because of metronome-based discussions which are fought in my opinion VERY hard, by the interested participants, if I remember correctly, and sometimes it's very amusing to read the quarrels!  

I don't know at all. I'm just a bookworm.

Very cordially, 8_octaves!