Hi! Great, but its so short and lots of rubato so its hard to determine what tempo we have here. Post a little longer example (do you play it on a cembalo? ) -Anyway, good job!
I would agree that you might want to re-think the rubato in the arpeggios--- for me, it gives the impression of faltering in the rhythm, rather than just a subtle effect. The end result is that I lost the feeling of speed. Could you maybe post it without the rubato so that we get a real sense of the tempo? It would be really helpful and would be a different perspective for you to hear, as well.
There is no rubato in the arpeggios, the very first arpeggio is an exception. People like to dive right into that final section with no rubato but I personally feel the need to make the final statement really announce itself, especially since this is the third and final chorus and the first two I already played with not very much rubato leading into them. The arpeggios within the chorus in my recording have no rubato, only the melody points between each arpeggio, which I intentionally did so that the melody could sing. But every arpeggio within that chorus is about 150bpm, strictly. The melody doesn't get to sing and soar in my personal expressive opinion if I play it at the tempo that I am playing the arpeggios. But I can make another recording where I am playing even the melody at 150bpm with the arpeggios although, you are talking about the arpeggios having rubato when they don't so I am unsure.. I also greatly admire Cziffra and Sokolov's playing in this piece, they take moments of rubato within the melody but the arpeggios are rapid, and have the most intense interpretations ever recorded, I would never take the moments of thoughtful rubato from theirs, they play it best, and I apply those in my own interpretation as it's something I personally feel too. but once again, please listen to the arpeggios after the chorus begins, there is no rubato, (melody sections excluded)
Sorry for not being clear-- but to my ears, adding the rubato to the melody makes it appear there is uneven tempi. If you are happy with this effect, don't worry.. just wanted to offer a suggestion to record a different way to see what results you get and whether it would be pleasing to you.
Hi, I spent about a month in totality learning this etude and I can play it now but I've hit the stage where I have everything but I just need to polish it up. Although there will always be room to improve, I just mean playing it on a very decent level.
Self-teaching I assume? I think you may need to rethink what you focus on and what's relevant.You've had some time to polish it now. Maybe post a recording of the whole piece in a tempo you are comfortable with? Most people are interested in how well you play a piece, not on what exact metronome marking you are at.
Do you understand where the long melodic line actually lies in this piece? Are you at the point where your torso and hips embody and coordinate the large form, and rhythmic horizontal progression of the piece? Do you notice how the parallel directions in the score actually require the arms to be balancing each other out in opposite directions?
Yes, it is a swaying motion of the body and not to toot any horns but what you hear in the recording is even faster than Chopin's marking and that is obviously not possible without mastering the motions. In my short year of practicing it, I have practiced it in many different angles and know the piece inside out. The melody is actually reversible, and there is even a secret melody underneath. I know the melodies inside out and have so many ways I can play the melody and actually have trouble deciding on which way to play it, this recording was spur of the moment and was one take.. I have over 20 ways I can play the melody lines.
There's also a slow progression melody made from the first note of each of the arpeggios. It's to this slower progression that you coordinate any of the faster melodies to keep them under a consistent and coherent control.
I've been practicing this dearly beloved piece of mine off-and-on for about a year now and wanted to get some thoughts on my tempo as of now in a short example recording for anyone interested.Semi-Off Topic Note: I hear very few great pianists able to play this piece at 160bpm marked by Chopin himself, actually it is much more likely that I find a very well played Winter Wind Etude than I do an Ocean Etude at 160bpm. That is why I deem the piece one of the more difficult Etudes, and I have noticed something, the people who underestimate it's difficulty all share one thing in common... They can't play this piece close to 160bpm... Some people I came across who underestimated the piece actually think 160bpm meant playing in a cut half speed of 80bpm and never thought otherwise because they unconsciously thought ''There's no way it meant 160bpm at double time, that's impossible''. And the latter people either can't play it well and if they can, they max out at the most around 100bpm and cannot go any further but seem to define the piece by the tempo they can manage and that doesn't make any sense to me. Also, it is not just a matter of tempo. Not only is the tempo ridiculous but the more tempo you throw at it, the more intensive the technique required and believe me, this Etude at 160bpm easily puts this among one of the most difficult of his Etudes, but once again, for some reason people clothe this Etude with around 100bpm and then define it's difficulty by that. What do you think? Anyway, I am pretty close to 160bpm and sometimes actually cap out at this tempo in my quick short bursts of playing but I couldn't stay in 160bpm for very long at all without falling apart nor would that be musically expressive enough for the melody to soar. I guess I am talking about the piece at it's default written state which is this tempo, and of course I would like to be able to do that even just for technical reasons because it's certainly not so much for musical reasons. Playing this piece anywhere close to it's original tempo markings while maintaining emotional expression is extremely difficult, it is a joining of the two dualities, technicality and emotionality. There would need to be a great inherent emotional nature in order to play this emotionally at tempos after at least 130 + and I hope I have met with a sweet spot. I have many ways of playing the piece and accentuating particular melody notes but this is just one take and I hope it's good enough. thank you for your time.
I already know my metronome markings, it is not the point of the post. The point is joining the expression and emotion with the virtuosity that this Etude holds. It is extremely difficult to play the Etude in this way and very few great pianists seem to be to tap into that. ...
1) I am going to do what I always do which is "show and tell," for those of us in America. That means I am going to list a link to a historic recording, which elucidates somewhat (your interpretation is your own) how the piece was originally performed. In this particular instance, the performers teacher was a student of Chopin.
I'm lost right at this point.
I'm lost right at this point. Of the various instructions and tips I have received in my studies, "virtuosity" of a piece is one I have never heard of, and would not know how to tap into such virtuosity that a piece might hold. I am familiar with things like interpretation and expression, and individual things that go into creating such interpretation and expression - holding some notes a bit longer, shifting timing while keeping tempo, stressing certain notes or passages over others dynamically, and similar. I can't follow the thinking here.
My explanation is that the OP is having elaborate discussion with his teacher (himself) about virtuosity and world class pianists' playing of this piece, when after about 2 years of studying piano he should be concentrating on something entirely different. Since most of us are not on the level of world class virtuosity, I doubt we can help him with his ramblings. He got some pretty good practical advice already above, but I don't think that's what he's looking for.
2 years of studying the piano has nothing to do with what I should be working on. But it is what I have accomplished in those 2 years, my pace is clearly different to yours. I have studied for 2 years by myself and I can play one of Chopin's more difficult Etudes somewhat past his own metronome marking yet pianists that have been playing 3-5 times as much as I have cannot play this piece as written but decide to judge the piece by how they can manage it anyway. I have many other pieces within my repertoire also. So I don't really think you are entitled to judge me from a time span considering what I can do despite that time without a teacher. It is only rambling to those who has no grasping idea of what this is about. This is about the difference between playing a piece, and PLAYING a piece. It is also about a broad discussion on this Etude and a question of why do people judge it's difficulty when they cannot play it as written?
I read your post, but it makes little sense to me. You ask I your tempo is quick enough when you should be asking whether your playing is good enough for the tempo you have chosen.
I am not talking about just playing the piece here, I am talking about what separates merely being able to play it from actual mastery at the Etude. The thing that separates a mere cover on YouTube to truly performing it.
I see. So you are not talking about "virtuosity" of a piece, but of the playing. This word "virtuosity" has a problem that you may not be aware of. On the one hand there is something you might called artistry, where a musician draws things out of the music, and he employs all his understanding and craftmanship to do this. "Virtuosic" playing most often means somebody plays music which is hard to play because of how fast it is, how difficult for hands to stretch and such - something more akin to musical athleticism. I remember reading about the era where musicians such as Paganini flourished, and how in some quarters he was looked upon with disdain rather than admiration. Though I am sure that Paganini also played artistically. The piece you're featuring might often be approached in a "virtuosic" way - i.e. all those difficult notes played fast and athletically. That is not what you are after. I think you're after the artistic playing.If I'm right about that goal, this is something that I am after too. I work with a teacher. When I was a child I was self-taught, and picked up a lot of things intuitively as I have that kind of instinct. I did not have a piano for 35 years, and restarted again a few years ago. We are choosing simpler pieces for the most part in order to get at the tools - a simple piece can actually be more challenging to make expressive and "artistic" because the bare bones are there undisguised by any flourish of notes, and you have to pour all your skills into the few notes that are there.To get at that kind of goal, you need to develop the physical skills, as well as underlying understanding so that you know what kinds of things to play with in order to create your own interpretation - your ear develops along with this - and there is some degree of what is "inside" you as well. On your own you might listen to Sokolov or whoever, and painstakingly imitate every nuance that he makes for smaller passages, and it might have somewhat an impression of artistic playing (I'm using that word rather the "virtuosic") but something will be missing. When you have gained some understanding and skills, then you will start to hear why these pianists made the choices they made, what is inside the music, and this will also lead you toward your interpretation.Some snippets from my own journey the past few years - in case this gives any ideas - I had a lyrical way of playing since I also sing, but was weak in underlying pulse, and also could not hear this. Going after underlying pulse created a necessary metronomic stage, which when loosened up gave something improved. Metronomic may be the wrong word, because the pulse I was missing came more from measure to measure rather than beat to beat. 2. The idea of dynamics was not new to me, but the fact that you can create an illusion of dynamics in the RH via the LH opened up new channels. 3. Expressiveness by where you place a note, via a slight delay or extension of its value, but without disturbing the pulse, and also not overdoing it, and also not doing it with the wrong notes. 4. Articulation (legato, staccato and how much, etc.) ... The wonderful pianists you hear use these kinds of things. .... While studying with my teacher, the concept may be clear intellectually, but it might take several tries, where the student thinks he/she has got it, but the teacher will point out that no, you don't have it yet. Through the whole process, your ability to hear and produce grows.This piece of music is both "virtuosic" and "artistic". Getting those notes at that speed is the virtuosic part.
I say virtuosity because that is what this Etude requires if it is being played as it should be, it requires virtuosity but I am also talking about an artistical..., the technical means, the virtuosity, ...
I read your post, but it makes little sense to me. You ask If your tempo is quick enough when you should be asking whether your playing is good enough for the tempo you have chosen.
What? Virtuosity can also mean high-skill and technical brilliance alone and can be broken apart from the other elements, yes it can. if someone could play Chopin etudes note perfect but lacks expression emotion and is downright like a computer playing it, they would still be a virtuoso by all means I have heard virtuosos play pieces with absolutely no emotion and it does not all come together. Besides what does that have to do with the post? Nothing but to correct me for an ego boost.
-I totally agree!
I made the mistake of taking your seriously and writing out a number of things that might help you. And you come back quibbling about the meaning of a term, which in itself is unimportant, unless you are trying to talk with a community that might misunderstand what you mean because of the terminology you chose. At the same time you missed anything that might be meaningful or helpful toward reaching the goals that interest you.
I also wrote a reply explaining this, I didn't think I was at 160bpm yet and never thought I would be so I wanted to find out if my tempo is good enough since I think I'll never be able to reach 160bpm but then the same day I checked the recording I made with a metronome marking and was actually at 178bpm so that is why the title changed
-Dont be so occupied by the tempo. You are a good pianist, focus on making good, touching music. Forget speed.
Might help me? I'm not trying to get tips on anything...
No, instead you wanted to give me an english lesson on what virtuosity means.
Usually most people like getting new ideas and feedback, especially when they are starting out and don't have a teacher. I do, and I know advanced musicians who are still open to it. That is why I assumed you would, since you are teaching yourself and have only been at it for a short time.Then you mistook my intent. Were I to give an English lesson, it would look different, and I generally don't do so. Instead it was for the purpose of communication because if in a community you use a term in one way, but it tends to be understood in a different way, and again if you are new to it, then it is good to be aware of it. In the beginning when I read about virtuosity of a piece, I didn't know at all what you meant. There was a time not that long ago when I had trouble getting things across because I didn't know what people might mean by this and that term, because I started off self-taught.
I understand, but I posted this in the Performance section as opposed to the student's corner which seems to be mostly about advice and tips etc. Maybe it doesn't make sense but I know what I meant and if I were to explain it differently I would have felt like I didn't get across what I was trying to get across. Maybe I did explain it wrong, but I also think there shouldn't be limits in that sort of an explanation, it was something very specific I was trying to get at.
Here is your original post 'I've been practicing this dearly beloved piece of mine off-and-on for about a year now and wanted to get some thoughts on my tempo as of now in a short example recording for anyone interested.'Of course, we all thought you wanted comments on the audio excerpt which were provided. Quite frankly, if you only wanted to know if you were playing at 160 bpm, you could have just clicked on the metronome. It seems regrettable that only the tempo is your concern with how you are playing this.. as this has a lot of potential which could be more fully realized.
But don't you see that trying to reach a tempo while ignoring other things that need work is just making it less likely that you'll ever get there? If you had a teacher you would work in a different way.Anyway, I understand that you are proud because you have achieved something that was difficult and took some time. But since advanced pianists who can play such music well look at the whole picture, not just tempo, they most probably won't share your enthusiasm but rather think you are wasting time on nonsense with these elaborate explanations.I think it might be quite an eye opening for you to go to a good teacher for a lesson. Ever considered it?
Thoughts:- I think that the forums are more "fluid" than you expect, one thing blending into the next, so that you might find a "student" thing appear in repertoire, a repertoire thing in student, and teacher - student fuzzing at the seams. If you think about it, it's not that black and white - very advanced players still learn things, teaching and learning are intertwined etc. That is certainly how I have experienced PianoStreet over the years. That is also why you got feedback over here.- feedback that tells you what a person thinks you want to hear, takes you less seriously than people taking the time to point out other things.The rest is a bit more difficult to bring across, since you have not yet had these experiences and may not be able to relate:Everything in music is intertwined, where one thing affects another thing and a bunch of things. If you go to an actually good teacher, and one who will bother, you may come in asking about a particular thing that bothers you in your playing, but that teacher might see something totally different. That totally different thing may have a huge bearing on whatever you think you need help with and he'll see that and you won't yet. It's like you're coming in saying "My eye hurts." and a doctor starts fussing about your shoes, because those shoes, through a chain of things that relate, are causing the eye pain. The biggest frustration that teachers tell me they have with adult students is that often these students won't allow them to guide them, because they already have it all mapped out. Being open to other realities, perceptions, and approaches than the ones you know is a huge gift to give yourself, if a gem or two comes your way (it may look like a rock).
I don't think that technique is mostly about speed; it's mostly about being able to produce a beautiful sound. The same facility that you get by concentrating on producing a beautiful sound will also make it easier to play faster, but the point is a beautiful sound. The last thing I think about when I hear a great performance is what the metronome marking would have been.
Soooo, I'm probably late to the party, and also probably feeding a troll, but here are a couple things I've noticed:Firstly, I don't think that there's a problem with the amount of rubato, but only in it's execution. In my opinion, the OP (and some others) are correct that some rubato helps the melody to sing, especially when the melodic notes are close together. The issue is that the OP slows down abruptly when arriving at melodic notes and then suddenly takes off again at a million miles an hour immediately after the melodic bits are over. If there's going to be rubato, the entire beat structure needs to open up around the points of maximum rubato. That is, if you're going to take time at the first beat of a measure, the fourth beat of the previous measure and the 2nd beat of the current measure need to be a bit fatter than usual. Also, and I'm surprised no one mentioned this (unless I missed it,) the actual metronome marking is not 160bpm (whatever that means.) It's half note = 80. Now, if you subdivide the beat, you get quarter = 160. This is fundamentally not the same thing. The OP is clearly practicing with the metronome set to the latter, rather than the former. This causes bizarre accents in the arpeggiated figuration. Finally, as to the talk of when people should be doing what in terms of their learning, a good friend of mine picked up the piano relatively late in life and 2 years in was playing some pretty serious music quite well (Chopin etudes included.) So I'm not entirely convinced time is a hugely relevant factor with sufficient motivation. However, my friend had a good teacher. It's impossible to state how beneficial that is.
Topic: Broad Discussion and Example Recording - Chopin Etude Op. 25, No 12 in C minor 