Please help me

[stephanielancing]

Hi guys and gals. I am a beginner pianist who mainly plays Bach but I really like a prelude by Scriabin and have already got stuck on the third bar. I want to post a picture of it to show you but when I click 'add picture' it just gives me the picture HTML. Is there anyway to upload the picture from my computer to this forum to show you what I am stuck on please?

[j_menz]

Only if it's a pdf. Otherwise you'd need to upload it to a file hosting service.

Alternatively, you could just give the name of the piece and the bar number - quite a few people will have it. A link to a score on IMSLP, if there is one, would also be useful.

[stephanielancing]

edit: ok...so the youtube link function in this forum doesn't work.

Please type in "Scriabin 24 Preludes Op.11 - No.8 in F sharp minor" in youtube. The score should be the first video. Thank you.

Ok I have found a youtube link. The third bar has thirds in it. Frustratingly my piano score does not have these third marks so it clears a lot up for me. Can someone please confirm the only notes that are played together in the third bar are firstly:

G sharp right hand       c sharp left hand

secondly:

c sharp right hand       f sharp left hand.

All the other notes are played after each other.

I would really appreciate some confirmation or if I'm wrong correct me. Thanks again.

Stephanie x

[chopinlover01]

Which Scriabin prelude? We have plenty of Scriabin lovers on the forum who would be happy to point you in the right direction.
That said, if you're stuck on a piece by bar 3, you probably aren't ready for it, unless you read terribly, and learn terribly slow
EDIT: You posted it! Yay!

[chopinlover01]

edit: ok...so the youtube link function in this forum doesn't work.

Please type in "Scriabin 24 Preludes Op.11 - No.8 in F sharp minor" in youtube. The score should be the first video. Thank you.

Ok I have found a youtube link. The third bar has thirds in it. Frustratingly my piano score does not have these third marks so it clears a lot up for me. Can someone please confirm the only notes that are played together in the third bar are firstly:

G sharp right hand       c sharp left hand

secondly:

c sharp right hand       f sharp left hand.

All the other notes are played after each other.

I would really appreciate some confirmation or if I'm wrong correct me. Thanks again.

Stephanie x

No, it does not... Are you perhaps thinking of a different prelude?

[keypeg]

I think I found the link.  (To put in a link yourself, look at the menu just above where you write.  There is a picture of globe and if you hover your mouse it will say "Insert hyperlink".)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOwQ9fJKA8c
I see no thirds, but I do see triplets?  Are you asking about the triplets?

[8_octaves]

Hi Stephanie,
I think keypeg has found the video,

and here is a pdf of the op.11-preludes, which seems to be the score of the video, too:

https://petrucci.mus.auth.gr/imglnks/usimg/f/f8/IMSLP75864-PMLP09363-Scriabin_Ausgewaehlte_Klavierwerke_Band_2_Peters_Op_11_filter.pdf

where the prelude can be found on page 22.

The groups of three notes in the right hand are called "triplets", not "thirds".
(The first one is a "triplet", too, but with a pause for the first note of the triplet.)

I think in the pdf-score we can read well when each note has to be played, and which notes are SUPPOSED to be played together and which ones not. In the case of this prelude it should be, thus, clear. But sometimes, it isn't so clear:

( Additional info now following ) :

In romantic or late / postromantic pieces, composers sometimes use notation which is simplified, and which mathematically SEEMINGLY doesn't "fit". (There are examples I know, which led, on other places, to MASSIVE discussions, e.g. in a Mendelssohn-Song without words, where SEEMINGLY "illogical" notation of triplets occur, there were triplets, of which, e.g., one note was SIMULTANEOUSLY a note of the triplet AND another note of "normal" value, and the "mathematicians" were very angry, because they couldn't understand this kind of "loose" notation.   I could give the example here, but I won't, because it's difficult to discuss.
Other examples with "loose" notation we find, e.g. often in Chopin's works, or in Debussy. Or Rachmaninow.

In playing, pianists who are mentally ok and can think, won't, for example, in works of the above mentioned composers, exactly calculate, WHERE ( or: "between which notes" of a "29plet",   ) some single tone in the left hand is played: They play with feeling, and in such more complex structures you will notice that many pianists differ. For example, at the end of the "Minute-Waltz" D flat major, op. 64,1, of Chopin, there is a fast right hand run, and single Chords during it in the left hand:

https://imslp.nl/imglnks/usimg/d/d7/IMSLP114892-PMLP02373-FChopin_Waltzes__Op.64_BH9.pdf

NO pianist who is mentally ok will exactly calculate WHEN the left hand chords EXACTLY have to be played. This is fact, and is proved by many recordings of pianists, each of whom play it the way they want, or the way it comes close to the notation.

There ARE mathematical ways to exactly specify WHEN the notes should be played. But music is feeling, and only sometimes "maths", I think.  

Cordially, 8_octaves!

[j_menz]

The RH is three sets of triplets (the first of the first lot is the rest). It's thus a straightforward (if you know about and how to do them) 2v3 polyrhythm. These aren't always marked.

If you haven't encountered them before, do a search for polyrhythm on the forum search function - you'll get lots of good advice.

If you haven't don't them before, I'm not sure this is a good place to learn them, though. Have a look at Debussy's first Arabesque as a better starting point.

[stephanielancing]

Hi Stephanie,
I think keypeg has found the video,

and here is a pdf of the op.11-preludes, which seems to be the score of the video, too:

https://petrucci.mus.auth.gr/imglnks/usimg/f/f8/IMSLP75864-PMLP09363-Scriabin_Ausgewaehlte_Klavierwerke_Band_2_Peters_Op_11_filter.pdf

where the prelude can be found on page 22.

The groups of three notes in the right hand are called "triplets", not "thirds".
(The first one is a "triplet", too, but with a pause for the first note of the triplet.)

I think in the pdf-score we can read well when each note has to be played, and which notes are SUPPOSED to be played together and which ones not. In the case of this prelude it should be, thus, clear. But sometimes, it isn't so clear:

( Additional info now following ) :

In romantic or late / postromantic pieces, composers sometimes use notation which is simplified, and which mathematically SEEMINGLY doesn't "fit". (There are examples I know, which led, on other places, to MASSIVE discussions, e.g. in a Mendelssohn-Song without words, where SEEMINGLY "illogical" notation of triplets occur, there were triplets, of which, e.g., one note was SIMULTANEOUSLY a note of the triplet AND another note of "normal" value, and the "mathematicians" were very angry, because they couldn't understand this kind of "loose" notation.   I could give the example here, but I won't, because it's difficult to discuss.
Other examples with "loose" notation we find, e.g. often in Chopin's works, or in Debussy. Or Rachmaninow.

In playing, pianists who are mentally ok and can think, won't, for example, in works of the above mentioned composers, exactly calculate, WHERE ( or: "between which notes" of a "29plet",   ) some single tone in the left hand is played: They play with feeling, and in such more complex structures you will notice that many pianists differ. For example, at the end of the "Minute-Waltz" D flat major, op. 64,1, of Chopin, there is a fast right hand run, and single Chords during it in the left hand:

https://imslp.nl/imglnks/usimg/d/d7/IMSLP114892-PMLP02373-FChopin_Waltzes__Op.64_BH9.pdf

NO pianist who is mentally ok will exactly calculate WHEN the left hand chords EXACTLY have to be played. This is fact, and is proved by many recordings of pianists, each of whom play it the way they want, or the way it comes close to the notation.

There ARE mathematical ways to exactly specify WHEN the notes should be played. But music is feeling, and only sometimes "maths", I think.  

Cordially, 8_octaves!

Interesting read, So are you saying it's subjective and there is no right way to play the bar?  In your opinion then which notes would you play together in the third bar please? Thank you.

[stephanielancing]

The RH is three sets of triplets (the first of the first lot is the rest). It's thus a straightforward (if you know about and how to do them) 2v3 polyrhythm. These aren't always marked.

If you haven't encountered them before, do a search for polyrhythm on the forum search function - you'll get lots of good advice.

If you haven't don't them before, I'm not sure this is a good place to learn them, though. Have a look at Debussy's first Arabesque as a better starting point.

It might be simple to you but it's not to me hence why I am asking for advice. Which notes then would you play together if any please in the third bar?

From what I know about triplets these are the two notes that are played together:

G sharp right hand       c sharp left hand

secondly:

c sharp right hand       f sharp left hand.

Thank you

[stephanielancing]

No, it does not... Are you perhaps thinking of a different prelude?

Why not? Please can someone answer my actual question.

[chopinlover01]

I meant that the prelude does not contain thirds, but triplets. It's a 2v3 polyrhythm, as J_menz has said.
Here's how to do them:

[pianoplayer002]

It might be simple to you but it's not to me hence why I am asking for advice. Which notes then would you play together if any please in the third bar?

From what I know about triplets these are the two notes that are played together:

G sharp right hand       c sharp left hand

secondly:

c sharp right hand       f sharp left hand.

Thank you

You are correct. Not sure why people are giving such overly complicated answers.

[stephanielancing]

I meant that the prelude does not contain thirds, but triplets. It's a 2v3 polyrhythm, as J_menz has said.
Here's how to do them:

Ok so I got the terminology wrong. But another person from another forum said I have got this bar of music correctly. So if I am wrong please tell me why.

[stephanielancing]

You are correct. Not sure why people are giving such overly complicated answers.

Thank you very much! I was starting to go mad. I understand this is a simple bar of music to play so I was confused why no one could answer my question. I appreciate some confirmation so thanks again. I have been playing it correctly after all then x

[8_octaves]

Interesting read, So are you saying it's subjective and there is no right way to play the bar?  In your opinion then which notes would you play together in the third bar please? Thank you.

One moment, please  

I said: In THIS case ( of the prelude of Scriabin) it is very easy to read from the score, WHEN WHICH notes have to be played.

But I warned about other examples, which aren't so clear, if "mathematicians" enter the stage (a stage they don't belong to).

Look at the attachment. It's from a Mendelssohn op. 85 "Song without words". I have enrectangled, for former discussions, the "triplets" which are relevant.

Cordially, 8_octaves!

PS.: Here's a score: Bar 3 of piece 1:

https://petrucci.mus.auth.gr/imglnks/usimg/c/cf/IMSLP52247-PMLP02677-Mendelssohn_Op_85.pdf

[stephanielancing]

One moment, please  

I said: In THIS case ( of the prelude of Scriabin) it is very easy to read from the score, WHEN WHICH notes have to be played.

But I warned about other examples, which aren't so clear, if "mathematicians" enter the stage (a stage they don't belong to).

Look at the attachment. It's from a Mendelssohn op. 85 "Song without words". I have enrectangled, for former discussions, the "triplets" which are relevant.

Cordially, 8_octaves!

PS.: Here's a score: Bar 3 of piece 1:

https://petrucci.mus.auth.gr/imglnks/usimg/c/cf/IMSLP52247-PMLP02677-Mendelssohn_Op_85.pdf

I think we are getting a little too pedantic here. I really just wanted confirmation that I was playing a specific bar correctly. Fortunately at least one member of this forum has confirmed I was correct.

[8_octaves]

I think we are getting a little too pedantic here. I really just wanted confirmation that I was playing a specific bar correctly. Fortunately at least one member of this forum has confirmed I was correct.

I don't think so. How do you think, the "person" will "mathematically" play the notes in the red rectangle of the attachment, then?

PS.: It seems you are "correct", but it doesn't seem that you have understood the "simplified notation" which very often occurs.

 

[j_menz]

It might be simple to you but it's not to me hence why I am asking for advice.

Then do as I suggested and do a forum search for polyrhythms and read through them. Also, consider first tackling the Arabesque I suggested as a better introduction to them.

There is quite a bit more to playing polyrhythms than just getting the notes that play together to do so.  That you are unsure what they are (and your guess is actually correct) suggests that you need to get some more fundamental work done on them before you "play the bar correctly".

[iansinclair]

At a very slight risk of muddying the water... may I submit that there are really two different sorts of polyrhythms to deal with?  One type -- the type our OP is trying to deal with is to be played more or less strictly.  Typically 3 against 2, or some other simple multiple like that.  Some people find these rather simple to do.  Some -- myself included -- find them more difficult than they would like to admit, but eventually get them (practise, practise, practise!).  But whatever, both parts have to be quite exact and even for the effect to work.  The other type -- which is found in many romantic composers -- occurs when there is a rather florid ornament of some sort against a steady beat.  Chopin loves this sort of nonsense, and such things as 22 against 6 and the like are frequent.  As someone else noted, this type is played very freely on the (in this example) 22 side -- but must be very steady on the 6 side.  Again, some people -- such as myself again -- find these rather easy, at least relatively speaking.  Others find them devilishly difficult, and in my experience it is because they are trying valiantly to figure out which note of the 22 should correspond to which of the 6 (and the answer is -- none of them exactly, except the very first one!).

[j_menz]

At a very slight risk of muddying the water... may I submit that there are really two different sorts of polyrhythms to deal with? 

I think people who find the first type easy play them as you do the second type, just in strict time in both rhythms. That gives a more natural feel and still allows for slight variations, or for the case where one of the rhythms is swung.

Another thing to take into account is that the dynamics of each rhythm is correct. In a 2v3 the rhythms should be distinct, and the duplets should feel like duplets and the triplets like triplets. Just getting the notes lined up sometimes feels like one complicated rhythm, not two separate simpler ones.

Of course, there are always going to be ones that make you throw your hands up in anguish. My most recent nightmare encounter was a series of 2v3v5 all in the RH.

[themeandvariation]

i didn't notice the obvious mention of the 2 against 3 having a common denominator of 6.  In measure 3, one can subdivide beat '2' into 6 little beats…Counting for Just that beat: 1&2&3&. ...To get the idea of how the rhythm sounds,  play it (that particular  2 against 3 in question, where the RH plays G# F# D, and the LH plays C# A ) *as a 3 beat measure; the left hand striking on the '1' beat, and also the 'and of 2';  the right hand would play on the main beats, '1 2 3' … The rhythm will sound (with both hands playing) on beats '1' '2', 'and', '3'  -though you must count the 'ands'  ….  1&2&3&.  It will sound like the name, rhythmically :  "George Washington".  
As Iansinclair had mentioned perhaps the chopin ornate RH flourishes could viewed as a different type of polyrhythm…  I was thinking the same thing, thinking of the first Nocturne, where there are 11 against 6, and 10 against 6 (towards the end)…..  and one just feels the pulse of the whole beat as if counting in cut time…2 main beats in a measure  (instead of 6)…though a relatively long one… and yes, the LH needs to be setting the steady pulse….

[themeandvariation]

@8 Octaves… the Mendelssohn passage you mention, quite interesting…  in that it begs the question "Why didn't Mendelssohn commit the last note (F) in that particular measure, to either the RH, or the LH…  he took the trouble to write 2 stems for the same note….  surely he didn't want the f to be struck twice….  once for the last 16th in the RH and once for the last triplet in the left..  otherwise he would have written 2 'F's….  so one must make a decision  as to whether it is a triplet or a 16th…   (i would choose the 16th, as it seems more wedded to the melodic phrase)… 

[8_octaves]

@8 Octaves… the Mendelssohn passage you mention, quite interesting…  in that it begs the question "Why didn't Mendelssohn commit the last note (F) in that particular measure, to either the RH, or the LH…  he took the trouble to write 2 stems for the same note….  surely he didn't want the f to be struck twice….  once for the last 16th in the RH and once for the last triplet in the left..  otherwise he would have written 2 'F's….  so one must make a decision  as to whether it is a triplet or a 16th…   (i would choose the 16th, as it seems more wedded to the melodic phrase)… 

Hi themeandvariation, that's a super posting of you, I will give you KARMA, and let me tell you the following:

EXACTLY this: "he didn't want the f to be struck twice", was what the "mathematicians" in the former discussion couldn't understand. There was one of them, who was really really unreasonable! He even made up a "diagram" to prove slight mathematical deviations..:

Crap. 

The thing is, what I explained above: "Loose" notation we meet often in such works. And I - not without reason - had enrectangled the triplets. And it fits EXACTLY, if we consider the enrectangled structures, ESPECIALLY the FINAL one, as ONE COMPLETE TRIPLET. 

What made me very anxious, was, that on the former discussion , there seemd to be ONLY an accomplished piano-professor and myself having been accustomed to this kind of notation...

But there are so many works (Ballade f minor, Prelude E major (Chopin) , so much of Debussy, and others, ) , that I wondered, what all the others had dealt with before..
In Germany, when, for example, "notes with two stems" are part of a X-plet (for voicing reasons, e.g., or, because of simplified notation as mentioned), and they SEEMINGLY have a NORMAL, not a "x-plet" DURATION-VALUE, we often speak - in German, of "Falsche Achtel" , or "Falsche Viertel" ( "Wrong quavers" or "wrong crotchets". 

So, to inform people who may not have been accustomed to such things, I posted the little "critter" of Mendelssohn here.  BTW.: And the Edition is - at least in my opinion - a VERY GOOD one. Above all, for teaching purposes, I could imagine!

[stephanielancing]

I don't think so. How do you think, the "person" will "mathematically" play the notes in the red rectangle of the attachment, then?

PS.: It seems you are "correct", but it doesn't seem that you have understood the "simplified notation" which very often occurs.

 

I have not been lazy. I have done my research on polyrhythms and subsequently politely asked for confirmation that I am playing a very simple bar of music on the piano correctly. Why are the majority of you giving overely pedantic and arbitrary responses?  Several people now have confirmed that I was correct if saying the only two notes played together on this bar were the ones I stated in my original post. I was considering upgrading my membership from silver to a higher level but let the admins be aware that I will decline to do this on the general ambiguity on forun members responses. I am a beginner pianist. I thought there would be a few decent members on this forum who could give me a straight answer to a straight question. Evidently I was mistaken. I wish you all the best of luck playing the piano. I shant post again.

[j_menz]

I have done my research on polyrhythms and subsequently politely asked for confirmation that I am playing a very simple bar of music on the piano correctly.

If you had done your research, and if you actually understood what you might have learnt from that, you simply wouldn't be asking the question you have asked. The fact you have asked, and continue to protest that it hasn't satisfactorily been answered, or that other posts are irrelevant, simply proves you have rather missed the point.

[themeandvariation]

Stephanie, I am sorry that this has been difficult and/or disappointing experience for you..  The notes that you mention to be played together are indeed correct… Yet, there is also to understand how the rhythm is played.  Even though the concept is fairly simple, perhaps it is difficult to make clear with words, so that you understand without any doubt that you are doing it correctly…Please refer to my earlier post.  I was not trying to be ambiguous, but as clear as possible… I am sorry if it did not translate…  All the best to you.