This is the same topic you started here in Nov 2017 https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=64437.0
Muchisimas gracias! I am very glad someone else has the intestinal fortitude to out these frauds.And, for the record, the true tempi, if there is such a thing, can be gleaned from the following two recordings of Clara Schumann's students:Their style is very different, but the tempi is pretty much the same, OP!1) 2) 3) Please listen to the overall tempi in the other previous variations because they are the same. As proof, the Traumeri starts in both recordings at virtually the same time 5:06Enjoy.
Some years ago a read somewhere a strange story that Schumann's metronome might have been broken and that somehow resulted in inaccurate metronome markings. Has anyone heard about that?
It is an interesting subject. Some years ago a read somewhere a strange story that Schumann's metronome might have been broken and that somehow resulted in inaccurate metronome markings. Has anyone heard about that?
Tempo and RHYTHM mean different things. My previous post was about the TEMPO. However, the present one is about the RHYTHM. It is strange that no one said a single word about the RHYTHM.I tried to prove practically that this masterpiece does NOT need any modification of its perfect RHYTHM in any TEMPO from traditional (unfortunately) "34" to "supersonic 150".If you check YOU TUBE from this angle, then you have to notice that NO ONE pianist plays accurate RHYTHM, but only own improvisations instead. Some of these improvisations obviously kill this charming piece.Example: Another goal of this post is to attract attention to the problem of synchronous and "lagged" accompaniment. Everyone can compare both ways to accompany the melody by the same pianist in different TEMPOS and decide: what manner is better for the melody?Strange, but no one noticed this aspect of the problem as well. The SPEED is not the most important matter in Music. The RHYTHM - is.
And now that I see the score ... it says eighth note = 100. That sounds right. Then why are you arguing that it's a quarter note?
Why would you use "lagging accompaniment" when it has at various times been common practice to desynchronise by doing it as left minutely before right - the complete opposite.And in truth, I think any decent pianist should be able to"play "Traumerei" at any tempo, "rubato" or strictly on metronome beat, with a perfectly synchronous" (or desynchronised) accompaniment. (ie in varying performance styles).
1. If you look at reliable score, you will see a QUARTER NOTE but NOT an eighth note. I saw this counterfeit in somebody's score here on Forum as well, do not believe it.2. This post is NOT about the tempo but about the RHYTHM. Musician can change the tempo without killing the music. However, wrong RHYTHM destroys everything.
In two words: according to the book of Nadezhda Golubovskaya, NO good musician will tolerate synchronous strike of all the hammers, this lack of Piano should be overcome by the distribution of these strikes in time. However, amateurs do it from the bottom UP, while well educated professionals do it, starting with the top DOWN.Playing from the bottom Up affects the RHYTHM of MELODY. Playing from the top DOWN affects ONLY the rhythm of accompaniment. Therefore, the second variant is obviously much better.
I'm so glad I no longer care about the score, it's such a liberating experience to just play something however the heck you want it to. Here you are arguing and writing paragraphs about a phrase being an eight note too long, 5 bpms too fast , a piano too loud; I'm here just enjoying the music - playing according to my own preferences.Hey if Hoffmann, Siloti, Rachmaninoff could regularly ignore the score why can't i? I doubt Schumann himself played Traumerei according to the first edition, heck I bet he improvised new material during performances a la Chopin.
When I can play as well as Hoffmann, Siloti and Rachmaninoff, I too Will start ignoring the score.
Please define reliable score. I checked IMSLP, found a score edited by Clara Schumann. Believe it or not, there was NO tempo marking for this piece. Perhaps what you are hung up on is not Schumann's mistake, but an editor's. I am curious, though, which edition you are referring to.
Concerning your argument about rhythm, you are wrong, I think. A teacher I respect very much said that the rhythm in Chopin's works (in this case, the Nocturne Op. 48 No. 1), and in Romantic music in general should vary within the general beat of the measure, for the sake of shape. That's how they themselves played. The whole point is that the melody is free and expressive, while the accompaniment is stable. Chopin ALWAYS practiced with a metronome, keeping the accompaniment steady within the beat of each measure. But you seem to be suggesting the opposite.
There are melody lines everywhere, melody lines that can't be brought out clearly at the tempo you seem obsessed with promoting.What you are unfortunately missing from your argument is the whole idea of interpretation. What interpretational choices give maximum effect to the emotions and thoughts you are communicating through your playing of the piece? If you want to play Traumerei at a fast tempo because you feel it should have significant movement, you are free to do that. If your audience enjoys it, then wonderful! I played it today myself, and found a little motion does wonders in bringing the melody alive--but a 100 quarter notes a minute is too much for me or anyone else to enjoy.
But please stop acting as though everyone but you is wrong! I take issue with your reference of Scripture to prove your point in your original post, not because of the Scripture itself, but because you're taking it out of context. If you knew that context, you would know that Jesus' teaching was directed at the Pharisees--legalists. Please do not be a legalist and act as though everyone but you is wrong. It makes this forum a very unpleasant place.
I don't think this is borne out by actual practice, for example one only needs to listen to the recordings of Paderewski and other "golden age" pianists to hear that they play "from the bottom up". Similarly, we find Thalberg recommending "the singing part coming in after the bass albeit with an almost imperceptible delay" in his preface to L'art du chant, and we can also observe that it is far more common to arpeggiate chords upwards than downwards. I think what your comment in reality refers to is the important interpretative question regarding: if we choose to dislocate the hands or parts, which [hand or part] should be played on the beat, and should the other be slightly before or slightly after? (of course this question also applies to the breaking of chords, bottom or top on the beat).
Only compose fugues when you're as good as BachOnly improvise music when you're as talented as ChopinOnly prodigies and de facto "greats" of music have the license to explore musical freedom and leniency towards the score. You will probably never realize you are talented enough to fully express yourself because you mystify greats but whatever, do what you want.
Vladimir though I like your playing of "Traumerei", I can't quite agree with what you are writing. I admit having misunderstood the topic, thinking it was about the controversy of metronome markings. The kind of "rhythmic ideal" you describe appeals more to classical composers but of course in its purest form it is nothing but a misconception. For even in recordings of the best Mozart interpreters, you will find slight (and sometimes not that slight) rubatos and a certain rhythmic elasticity. Not to speak about the music of the romantic era, where the focus is rarely on the perfect execution of a rhythm. That is not to say that all romantic music is without rhythm, on the contrary, rhythm is always there even in the heaviest rubato as long as the relative value of notes is kept within those agogic fluctuations. Don't forget that in order to decide upon an interpretation, the score does not provide exhaustive information. You have to consider what is written on the score by the composer (urtext) but then also get some perspective about the music you are playing, what era is it, what style, which were the performance practices of that time, what do we know about the composer, the instruments of that time etc.Of course, there is the amateurish way of playing where you just sit on the piano and play the notes in the score in a way that makes you happy, without bothering too much about those details. While there is nothing wrong with that, I believe trying to figure out as much as you can about the music and the interpretation of it will give you much more joy in the long run.
So, here is what you can do. You can lie and say that this piece (based on solo encore performance practice) is a separate piece.However, there is no applied musicological basis for your argument/arguments based on the following recording of the chief teaching assistant's, (Fanny Davies), original analog recording of the Kinderszenen:
That recording of the Kinderszenen by Fanny Davies is truly wonderful. Here's the whole cycle:
2 months on and he's still droning on about this??? Bloody hell...FIND SOME NEW MUSIC TO PLAY VLADIMIR!!! EXPAND YOUR REPERTOIRE!!!
In my opinion musicians must argue with their music instead of talking…
Everything played ON beat sounds more clear, more strong for the audience. So, if we want to bring out some voice, to attract attention to some particular notes - we have to play them ON beat. All the rest becomes a kind of background.Playing top not ON beat with a delay of accompaniment is typical for Chopin's and Liszt's music.Why Schumann should be played in an opposite way?
Playing top not ON beat with a delay of accompaniment is typical for Chopin's and Liszt's music.Why Schumann should be played in an opposite way?
Vladimir, you've spent so much time and energy trying to prove that your interpretation of Traumerei is the only true and correct one. I'm sorry but you are fighting a loosing battle. Even if your interpretation is identical to how Schumann himself would have played, people still have their own tastes and opinions. No matter how hard you try you will never convince everybody. Why don't you take your own advice and save yourself all this trouble? Let the music speak for itself. If people like it, great, if not, that's their opinion and no harm done.
I'm working on the book "The laws of beauty in music, unknown to music schools", for which reason all my contacts with ignorant and even stupid people are very important to me.These contacts give me an opportunity to know the mentality of my readers, their ability or inability to understand my reasoning and beliefs, to find explanations available to their level. After the book is released, this opportunity will no longer exist for me.On the other hand, smart readers can do to me and make valuable comments, which I gratefully accept.
I proved, for example, that my asynchronous accompaniment is my intention but not simply my lack of technique.
This is a very strange comment. We often draw attention to specific points of importance by placing them slightly OFFbeat. "I am about to say something important" or "I am about to say something (short pause for emphasis) important". There is also Liszt's description of Chopin's rubato: “Look at these trees, the wind plays in the leaves, stirs up life among them, the tree remains the same, that is Chopinesque rubato.” The trees being the foundation, the accompaniment. See also bel canto opera: does the singer follow the orchestra or the orchestra follow the singer? Mikuli on Chopin: "While the singing hand, either irresolutely lingering or as in passionate speech eagerly anticipating with a certain impatient vehemence, freed the truth of the musical expression from all rhythmical fetters, the other, the accompanying hand, continued to play strictly in time."
I agree, with the playing top NOT on beat part (though it appears to contradict what you said immediately previously), but..this "delay of accompaniment" which you are advocating, i.e. typically right before left, simply goes against everything we can observe and read regarding performance practice in the romantic era. Listen to Paderewski playing the slow movement of the Moonlight, for example. I've already quoted Thalberg on the subject; de Pachmann in Chopin is another example of many which we can sample on record.
Lastly, it's not incumbent upon anyone to produce their rendition of Traumerei just because they disagree with you, and this idea of a "scientific" test to see which version people prefer (and thus which interpretation) isn't in fact scientific at all. It would only be scientific if all the interpretations produced were by the same pianist, on the same piano and under similar recording conditions and quality. You're introducing lots of extraneous variables and qualities into the equation and thus invalidating any hypothetical experiment.
It hasn't convinced us, so please stop trying... because if you continue to BLEAT on about this, the people on this forum will start to look upon you like a...
I'm working on the book "The laws of beauty in music, unknown to music schools", for which reason all my contacts with ignorant and even stupid people are very important to me.These contacts give me an opportunity to know the mentality of my readers, their ability or inability to understand my reasoning and beliefs, to find explanations available to their level.
I will answer you only when you learn to talk politely.
I play strictly on metronome's beat to show that there is no objective necessity to play somebody's else rhythm instead of Schumann's rhythm.
Who authorized you here to BARK on behalf of all?
2. In a good theater, a good orchestra under the direction of a good conductor must follow the singer and not command him. In the bad, of course, the opposite is true.
XXI century is very far from "romantic era". From my 50 years long concert experience, I know the way of musical communication only with my contemporaries and rely on it, when I teach others. I know that it works for MY era and do not care if the audience of Romantic era would except my way to play or not.
I love the irony here... the problem is that you aren't completely playing on the beat when you play your asynchronous LH - the RH maybe, but the LH isn't... so you are in fact, NOT playing Schumann's rhythm. Also, because of it, it blurs the harmonies with the pedal and there's an unusual amount of dissonance associated with your asynchronous playing.
Vladimir, judging from the quote above it sounds like you expect your readers to be ignorant and stupid. Telling people they are ignorant and stupid and talking down to them probably isn't the best way to encourage people to read your book.(I'd consider changing the name of your book also. I'm not sure if it's a translation thing but it comes across rather pompous and self-righteous.)