Whether the piece is "too above" your level or not is something only you know, better than anyone else. As I always like to think, no one should be kept "away" from a piece he/she loves because it is "too difficult".
With that being said, always make sure you're also practicing simpler pieces which can help you a lot and perhaps save you from frustration that these other "harder" pieces can bring you (regardless of how much we love them). My only "extra" advice would be to take a look at some other pieces by Chopin (if you haven't already), which might help you even more to develop the style and technique needed for the Op.66.
I think it's the case you have basically trained yourself through improvisation. This is a very double-edged sword: it has both positives and negatives. Positives: you are liable to acquire a lot of fluency in the figuration you repeatedly use; thinking in terms of freedom of expression "playing how you feel" really does a lot for you development as a musician. Negatives: you aren't forced to play and learn in a disciplined, structured manner, unless you're really ruthless about the mechanical defects you find in your improvisations. Improvisation is often about gestures, freedom, and things which defy rigid structure. Notated music always has underlying structure and logic. The position you ultimately want to reach is one where you *can* play the pieces in a bland, strictly "as it's written" manner, and then incorporate freedom on top of that. But, unless you're going to become a totally finished, intuitive god of piano, the pedantic version needs to be attained first: you need to show you can do it before moving to the second. But the big plus will be that you can move to the second, many "correct" pianists can't.
But, unless you're going to become a totally finished, intuitive god of piano
...That was my original intention when I started out haha. I've always looked up to Cziffra, and in a sense, he was precisely that....I've found that a lot of people who learn in a 'pedantic' manner dismiss such musical instincts outright, saying that musical instincts imparted by a teacher are qualitatively superior, since they have come from a lifetime of experience. However, I've found my gut instinct about a piece of music or a performance to be most valuable. It's a philosophical issue I keep changing my opinion about -- does musical education train your inherent musicality, or does it make your musicality conform to society's expectations?
I'm not convinced that was the way Chopin, or Liszt, played any of those pieces according to our contemporary standards of "clean, precise, mechanical" playing on the instruments of their period. Namely, I'm not sure they were so concerned about fidelity or clean playing, given their (i) audiences and (ii) their instruments. (Pace Schiff performing the Ch. Préludes on one of Ch.'s Pleyels).
I think you have the polyrhythms down, no doubt down to you being first an ear-player.
BUT what I really want to know is what are you using as a sustain pedal? For me it would seem unnatural to have it so far back from the keyboard. But, you seem to manage. I'm really curious about that, being, not by design but by practical matters, interested in such things.
However, while I'm still stuck on Chopin's Préludes and his variations on La ci darem, you make me want to play this piece, for some reason. You make it seem like fun music, not endless reverb in a nameless studio. And this from someone who has only played the bare minimum of Chopin, going from Beethoven-->Schumann, Liszt-->Debussy and onwards.I think it's a good compliment to your savoir-faire.
I'm using a shitty on-off switch. You'd be better served not thinking about it.
j_tour -- Just to confirm a hypothesis of mine, could you take a listen to this and let me know what you think?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zng3E2Xzyb4
Nice one ranjit I think you have met most of the challenges pretty well. The opening passage with the RH runs is not as convincing as the broken octave type passage. That "murmuring and volume breathing" required in the opening needs a lot of work.
When I was a kid I would learn some tough pieces and although I got my hands around them since the majority was done by ear/memorization there were difficult technical passages which were somewhat estimated, not everything was completely controlled. As I got better with the piano I found it easier later on down the track to relearn these "tough" pieces from scratch rather than depend on surgery on my old muscular memorisations which were not totally accurate. There are stages to our development and this is one which is very interesting. To learn tough pieces with a small amount of estimations used then one day to go back and take it apart with effective tools and analysis. You will usually find that when you return to the peices with that more advanced perspective that it really is a new process, you may preserve some old movements but much is reestablished and solidified. I still go through this kind of estimation type playing especially when sight reading difficult works, and if you attempt to play these tough works at tempo then of course you are going to get very rough estimations, there's nothing wrong with this process and the way in which you do it here is not so bad since it still preserves many of the ideas.
That's what I figured. That's pretty good control you have on....I don't recall the various makes and model numbers, but I think I know what kind you're talking about.
[ETA: I'd consider 3:2 a polyrythm, why not? It's a very common one, but no more so than 5:4 in popular music or folk music.]
Honest opinion? I'd rather hear you play it, once you get some technical little things sorted out. TBH Cziffra's performance there kind of sounds like Liberace to me. That is, very much a sort of stagey, dramatic reading of the piece.I want to hear the guts, not the shiny velour placed over the music. I prefer to hear the struggle in the piece. And, Cziffra, at least in that performance, doesn't give me that at all.
It's the stock Yamaha pedal: https://www.amazon.in/Yamaha-Switch-Sustain-Electronic-Keyboards/dp/B00005ML71/ref=sr_1_12?dchild=1&keywords=yamaha+p125+foot+switch&qid=1607662796&sr=8-12I think getting a decent sound out of rather poor quality keyboards is my specialty.
I just meant that it's too simple, and you don't even have to practice it to get good at it. It's just a 1-2-&-3. Is a 5:4 that common?
Interesting, that gives me something to think about. I think there is indeed a continuum of how dramatized an interpretation sounds.
From my experience, once learned, the fingers never forget!
You are doing well with your progress. The A section has an improved sense of technical control which has resulted in more defined phrases. For the B section, what you need to work on is tonal support. It is a quieter section in the music, however that does not mean you support the tone less. It may also be that you were still not accustomed to the response of this particular instrument.
Well done indeed! The progress you've made so far is clear and one can see how much more under control the fastest passages are now. I agree with the comments above: there is still more work to be done but that doesn't mean you shouldn't feel accomplished with what you've got so far.
I tend to strongly disagree here Once you stop practicing a piece, eventually some of it will be forgotten because you'll have lost bits of the muscle memory related to certain passages.
Thank you! What do you mean by tonal support? I also had a tough time trying to figure out exactly how soft it's desirable to play on the piano, and the balance between the melody and accompaniment while trying to play extremely quietly.
With lyrical passages such as found in the B section, a supported singing tone allows one to have a full, rich and projected melody containing sufficient tonal substance that it may be shaped and sculpted. As Chopin often modelled his melodic lines and ornamentation after vocal music, it is quite appropriate to think in terms of how a singer would project a melody. For a singer, quiet dynamics often requires more support than loud singing. In quiet passages played on the piano, it is easy to get into the trap of wanting to play soft, but ending up playing so soft that notes do not sound and tone lacks shape. Think of these quiet lyrical passage as not playing soft, but rather giving the overall evocation to the listener that they are listening to something soft. This might equate to having a melody that in isolation may be perceived as mp stretching to f, but when phrased and balanced with the accompaniment gives the overall impression of a p dynamic that is well supported and projected to the back of the recital hall.
There's also the consideration of how soft is reasonable.
I like varying the dynamics a lot on the piano, but tonal support is an aspect I realize I have never had to deal with since I've never played on acoustic instruments before.
Here's a 5 year old playing it. lol
Topic: Fantaisie Impromptu attempt - self-taught 