Waldstein Repeated Notes

[kevonthegreatpianist]

I've just mastered Op.14 No.1 and I've decided to take an attempt on the first movement of the Waldstein. Some people might think this is a big jump, but I don't think this movement is that difficult. Anyway, for the first section (bars 1-4, I think) of the exposition and the recapitulation, I can't get the repeated notes correctly. I always seem to put the wrong amount of pedal and I just can't get the tone like an advanced pianist. I've already sped the first section up to speed, but do you guys have any tips for that section? Pedal usage? Amount of weight pressed on the notes?

[daniloperusina]

Use no pedal.
Let your fingers be "glued" to the keys.
Try to not fully release the keys between repetions. Say, 9/10ths of the way.
Keep your fingers slightly "spongy" but firm enough to press the keys down.
This sponginess should be rather more felt than visible.
With that in mind, try to feel direct contact with the hammers, and then sort of follow their movement rather than trying to force the hammers and keys.
As for sound, keep it at a pp to p level. On a grand piano you can use the left pedal in order to easier achieve a rich and full sounding pp. It may not necessarily be less loud with left pedal, but will be perceived as such because of the softer tone.
Always slightly bring out the top voice, so slightly more pressure on those keys, but still at a pp to p lever.

[kevonthegreatpianist]

Use no pedal.
Let your fingers be "glued" to the keys.
Try to not fully release the keys between repetions. Say, 9/10ths of the way.
Keep your fingers slightly "spongy" but firm enough to press the keys down.
This sponginess should be rather more felt than visible.
With that in mind, try to feel direct contact with the hammers, and then sort of follow their movement rather than trying to force the hammers and keys.
As for sound, keep it at a pp to p level. On a grand piano you can use the left pedal in order to easier achieve a rich and full sounding pp. It may not necessarily be less loud with left pedal, but will be perceived as such because of the softer tone.
Always slightly bring out the top voice, so slightly more pressure on those keys, but still at a pp to p lever.

but for my piano score, it says to hold pedal all the way to measure 2.

[michael_c]

but for my piano score, it says to hold pedal all the way to measure 2.

That's not what Beethoven wrote. Get hold of a good edition, preferably "Urtext".

[kevonthegreatpianist]

That's not what Beethoven wrote. Get hold of a good edition, preferably "Urtext".

k. im gonna find the unpopular alfred edition. those are my fav

[daniloperusina]

but for my piano score, it says to hold pedal all the way to measure 2.

What edition is that?
Actually, the only great pianist I know of who pedals those bars is Claudio Arrau in his late years. Look for the "80th birhday recital" on youtube, and you'll see. Otherwise I know of no one.
To elaborate a bit on what michael_c wrote: Beethoven never wrote pedal marks in his scores, with very few exceptions. One of them is actually in the third movement of the Waldstein. That doesn't mean that he didn't use it, but...
In his late works he sometimes puts "una corda" and even "due corde" and so on, since he had several of those pedals (the left pedal). But the idea of notating use of right pedal with great detail came with the next generation, especially Schumann and Chopin. So, many of the pedal marks you'll find in their music actually comes from the composers themselves.

[kevonthegreatpianist]

What edition is that?
Actually, the only great pianist I know of who pedals those bars is Claudio Arrau in his late years. Look for the "80th birhday recital" on youtube, and you'll see. Otherwise I know of no one.
To elaborate a bit on what michael_c wrote: Beethoven never wrote pedal marks in his scores, with very few exceptions. One of them is actually in the third movement of the Waldstein. That doesn't mean that he didn't use it, but...
In his late works he sometimes puts "una corda" and even "due corde" and so on, since he had several of those pedals (the left pedal). But the idea of notating use of right pedal with great detail came with the next generation, especially Schumann and Chopin. So, many of the pedal marks you'll find in their music actually comes from the composers themselves.

its the one with the constant changing metronome marks. 168, then 152, then 160, then 168, then 176. then 168, then 152, then 160, then 168 again

[daniloperusina]

its the one with the constant changing metronome marks. 168, then 152, then 160, then 168, then 176. then 168, then 152, then 160, then 168 again

Sounds like Schnabel!
Do you have a name of the editor?

[kevonthegreatpianist]

Sounds like Schnabel!
Do you have a name of the editor?

Frederic Lamond i think. the sheet was fairly recent (in piano times, in modern times it'd be ancient)

[daniloperusina]

Isn't he the pianist that Rubinstein writes so favourably about in his memoirs, especially about him being the greatest Beethoven interpreter in his view?
Anyway...
Considering your description so far, I'd say it's one of those editions where the editor chooses to edit in his own personal way of playing the piece. That is, an "interpretation" in writing.
Very old-school editing and interesting in it's own way, but definately something to avoid nowadays if you're not deeply into it, scholarly-wise.
Find an ur-text instead.

A side note: searching him on wikipedia, there is an article about him. He was the second-last surviving pupil of Franz Liszt. Now, once I found the very old Liszt edition of the Beethoven sonatas, dating maybe from 1830's-40's, I'm not sure. Extremely interesting!! The sonatas I  looked at were as clean as ur-text, nothing added, nothing retracted. I could compare to some manuscripts, and Liszt was dead-on. No names, like "moonlight", "appassionata" etc, since it was made before those names were invented and got stuck in the public mind. It was just perfect proof of the fact that Liszt held Beethoven in the highest possible regard, or indeed, reverence. But that is a whole other story... 

[dcstudio]

Isn't he the pianist that Rubinstein writes so favourably about in his memoirs, especially about him being the greatest Beethoven interpreter in his view?
Anyway...
Considering your description so far, I'd say it's one of those editions where the editor chooses to edit in his own personal way of playing the piece. That is, an "interpretation" in writing.
Very old-school editing and interesting in it's own way, but definately something to avoid nowadays if you're not deeply into it, scholarly-wise.
Find an ur-text instead.

A side note: searching him on wikipedia, there is an article about him. He was the second-last surviving pupil of Franz Liszt. Now, once I found the very old Liszt edition of the Beethoven sonatas, dating maybe from 1830's-40's, I'm not sure. Extremely interesting!! The sonatas I  looked at were as clean as ur-text, nothing added, nothing retracted. I could compare to some manuscripts, and Liszt was dead-on. No names, like "moonlight", "appassionata" etc, since it was made before those names were invented and got stuck in the public mind. It was just perfect proof of the fact that Liszt held Beethoven in the highest possible regard, or indeed, reverence. But that is a whole other story... 

nicely said  and very interesting... thanks for posting    Refreshing to see well thought out factual comments here.   

[kevonthegreatpianist]

Isn't he the pianist that Rubinstein writes so favourably about in his memoirs, especially about him being the greatest Beethoven interpreter in his view?
Anyway...
Considering your description so far, I'd say it's one of those editions where the editor chooses to edit in his own personal way of playing the piece. That is, an "interpretation" in writing.
Very old-school editing and interesting in it's own way, but definately something to avoid nowadays if you're not deeply into it, scholarly-wise.
Find an ur-text instead.

A side note: searching him on wikipedia, there is an article about him. He was the second-last surviving pupil of Franz Liszt. Now, once I found the very old Liszt edition of the Beethoven sonatas, dating maybe from 1830's-40's, I'm not sure. Extremely interesting!! The sonatas I  looked at were as clean as ur-text, nothing added, nothing retracted. I could compare to some manuscripts, and Liszt was dead-on. No names, like "moonlight", "appassionata" etc, since it was made before those names were invented and got stuck in the public mind. It was just perfect proof of the fact that Liszt held Beethoven in the highest possible regard, or indeed, reverence. But that is a whole other story... 

niiice. i have a first edition of the moonlight sonata. its layout is really weird

[daniloperusina]

nicely said  and very interesting... thanks for posting    Refreshing to see well thought out factual comments here.   

Thanks!
And if I may digress even further from the original topic:
This thing about editions, what's the fuss about, really?
Well, since everyone may not be fully aware on this issue, it could warrant a brief explanation.

Mozart. By modern standards, partly an out-dated style of notation (e.g. the many variants of staccato marks), partly a hasty, albeit clear, notation of, say, dynamic markings, where the editor is expected to "get it" as to where that forte is actually meant to be placed, exactly.

Beethoven. First, there is Beethoven's own manuscript, if it survived. Already here the problems start. His writing is worse than the classic case of the doctor's unintelligable handwriting. It's barely decipherable. That is what he sent to the publisher. An editor makes a readable print from it, and sends it back to Beethoven. Beethoven usually starts his replying letter with something like "Who's the idiot who edited this?" Comedy ensues. Now, after several corrections, a First Edition is printed and published. Beethoven gets a copy, and more angry letters with corrections follow. A Second Edition is made. From this mess, a modern day editor has to navigate his way towards a believable "true" account of Beethoven's intentions. It's a labourous study of manuscripts, letters and first and second editions etc.

Chopin. He had the habit of sending his works to three publishers at different times. One in France, one in Germany and one in England. There are letters of corrections to take into account. But what complicates things deeply is that once a satisfying edition is made in france, he sends the same piece to his english publisher. By this time, Chopin has changed his mind, and alters several details of the piece. And if this alteration wasn't enough, his own pupils come to him with editions of his music in order to study these pieces with him. Chopin finds himself not satisfied and alters the piece, again. This time by making notes in the students copy. How to make sense of this mess, when there is often at least three authentic versions?

Schumann. He composed most of his piano music in his early years. His last years were spent in a mental asylum. There, he started to revise his earlier pieces, making some substantial changes. Which version is to be held as the authentic one?

Then we have the "Frederic Lamond" case discussed above. Late 19th century editors, who made their own revisions of famous works of the past. As was the vogue of the day.

The ur-text editor, then, is one who is set to bring some kind of order of original intent of the composer back in print, as far as it can be established.

[dcstudio]

I totally get Chopin changing things up.. tough to say your work is "finished" sometimes.  I am an artist too and man I have really butchered some of my artwork by continuously adding things to it.  My piano arrangements are always changing too... never quite done.  They evolve as I play them and perform them...I really never play them exactly the same way twice.

I never really studied it from the perspective of the publisher... lol..  but I can understand how months after it was published he looked at it and didn't like what he saw... or what he heard.  I would venture to guess that in many cases he had performed these pieces and they had evolved...he was also neurotic as hell...lol.   I wonder if his "final" version was ever published... we may never know how exactly he was playing his pieces by the time he died... some of them may have been strikingly different then how we know them to be today.   What's the correct version? is there a correct version is a better question.

[kevonthegreatpianist]

Then we have the "Frederic Lamond" case discussed above. Late 19th century editors, who made their own revisions of famous works of the past. As was the vogue of the day.

espicaly the godowosky etudes on chopin. i rate all a 15 out of 10

[daniloperusina]

 tough to say your work is "finished" etc...

What you say is likely to be true of the greats of the past as well.
Hildesheimer makes a startling note in his study of Mozart: once a composition is finished and performed, Mozart never mentions it again in his letters. I mean, wouldn't one still years later have sentimentally proud memories of the a minor piano sonata, the d-minor piano concerto, the Haydn Quartets, Le Nozze di Figaro, the last three symphonies (never even once mentioned by him). A stunning, to say the least, lack of interest in his works of the past. Of course, performing his own piano concertos, we know that he improvised a lot of ornaments, maybe even passages, and definitely the cadenzas, even while the performances might have been the first or second time he actually sat down on a piano to try it out, having concieved it all in his head.  

I seem to remember reading that Beethoven was sometimes asked to play some of his older pieces (that is, before his loss of hearing made public performances impossible) and is reported to have not at all stuck to the written score, changing not only dynamics and such, but also altering passages and improvising as he went along. It is stunning, not the least because we today tend to view many of his compositions as tightly structured as if carved in stone. He also mainly composed from his head. Which is part of why going deaf didn't really disturb his abilities as a composer. It disturbed him deeply as a musician of course, and as a human being...

Chopin's method of composing was different. He sat at the piano, playing and improvising, until he had what he felt was a finished piece. Writing it down meanwhile. Doubt seems to have always been there, as described above.

I think it's healthy to view them in the same way as you describe yourself. Yes, they were immortal geniuses, but also restless creative persons who never got complacent about their previous achievements. Rather likely bored by them, and instead heavily immersed into whatever new things they were up to at the moment.

[daniloperusina]

espicaly the godowosky etudes on chopin. i rate all a 15 out of 10

Yes, but the Godowsky's are not editions or revisions, of course. They are new compositions, or rather "paraphrases", "arrangements", or what have you. But certainly, a brainchild from the same late  romantic era.

[kevonthegreatpianist]

Yes, but the Godowsky's are not editions or revisions, of course. They are new compositions, or rather "paraphrases", "arrangements", or what have you. But certainly, a brainchild from the same late  romantic era.

well yeah. I'm think of composing a revision of Godowosky's Chopin Reworking, so I know what you mean.

im gonna make 25/6 both hands for thirds and make 10/1 span 12th.

[dcstudio]

Chopin's method of composing was different. He sat at the piano, playing and improvising, until he had what he felt was a finished piece. Writing it down meanwhile. Doubt seems to have always been there, as described above.

I think it's healthy to view them in the same way as you describe yourself. Yes, they were immortal geniuses, but also restless creative persons who never got complacent about their previous achievements. Rather likely bored by them, and instead heavily immersed into whatever new things they were up to at the moment.

I compose in much the same fashion as Chopin..I am not suggesting that I am like him in any way I just understand him more so than some of the others.  It is my belief that he would be a jazzer if he lived today...it would be right up his alley...   and looking back on past performances.. I have vids on YT that are 9 years old--some of them make me cringe...and others that I thought were dreadful at the time...now seem kinda cool..  the standards I posted way back then bear little resemblance to the way I play them now... and in some cases I think I played them better then...lol.

though I am no immortal genius...and least I don't think so anyway... I am just as neurotic about my playing.  I really get that part of it...lol 

this carved in stone thing... it's why I became a jazzer.  I goof around with some classical pieces...and I have my ingrained rep from decades of playing... but it's not my main focus.