It is such a great piece, and one that is nearly always a crowd-pleaser. I've played it quite often myself (even posted a video to this forum). I always refer to it as "the end of the world in two minutes."As to whether or not you should play it at your level: if you are not planning to perform it for ABRSM or anywhere else, I say go for it. Play it slowly without pedal, hands alone, and definitely work on it with your teacher. It will really stretch your technique, but I will warn you that it will not feel nice to play for quite some time, and if you approach it with a heavy technique or excess tension in your arms, it will hurt quite a lot (in which case, you should definitely not play it). It will be a long project--I would peg it at about the same difficulty as the coda of the Chopin G minor Ballade.As to the piano--I actually think the heavier piano will benefit you. Contrary to many of the recordings you have heard, this is NOT a fast piece. The marking is "patetico," which is basically "with strong emotion." That does not require a fast tempo, but it does require certain energy to be applied to the right hand octaves and left-hand bass (the inner voices, while important, should not be obvious). Also note that a bit of rubato is certainly allowed (even written in to the music), especially with the left-hand leaps and stretches that you have no choice but to roll. Your teacher should be able to help you facilitate those.Best of luck!
Aside from the RH octaves there isn't really much 'technique' involved....make sure you are constantly working to take the vertical motion out of the LH (especially avoid a lot of affected wrist rolling), keep as low to the keys as you reasonably can. More arm motion than wrist-pivoting+stretching.
How can you say it's only in the RH when the LH is much more difficult?
Aside from the RH octaves there isn't really much 'technique' involved....make sure you are constantly working to take the vertical motion out
"Aside from the RH octaves there isn't really much 'technique' involved, the demands it focuses on are outside the scope of standard technique."
Your description of the Lh technique seems rather odd too, remove vertical motion and do large movements horizonally just sets you up for error.
I didn't. Here's how you 'quoted' me:vs. what I actually said:
What did you think I meant by 'the demands it focuses on'? You excised it from my post and then complained that it wasn't there, very weird xD
No. This is the standard Russian School advice for such passages. This is good form 101, this is what they'll yell at you all the time. You can't do -less- horizontal moving than the static metaphysical nature of our universe allows. I don't know how you plan to do it with -less- horizontal motion than I or anyone else would do it with. Worm holes?
Teleportation? Flinging your wrists around, overstretching and locking your hand, and making extravagant arm motions is exactly how to add a bunch of extra misses. Or maybe you want this ABRSM grade 7 student to manifest an arm forte?
You said the RH then continued to talk about the RH
"outside the scope of standard technique." what is that? All technique is connected to one another in some way, there is no mythical outside the scope of standard technique. Why are you double talking too, you said ISN'T REALLY MUCH TECHNIQUE (asides from the RH octaves) then say there is something else which you described as OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF STANDARD TECHNIQUE, that is contradictory. How is anything that is OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF STANDARD TECHNIQUE not technique? Or are you trying to suggest that there is some mythical technique and we can't call it technique, it's more a secret movement that you learn from Russian schools only?? LOL!!!! Well you started this all now, let's continue.
Its not weird at all, what i removed was irrelevant since you made zero attempt at describing your generic terms "technique" and "outside the scope". You used the descriptor "it" and no where did you say LH in that sentence, so all we can think of is you are talking about the RH, but if you are being weird you might mean the Lh and that it has nothing to do with technique because it's really special etc... it is a novel LH pattern but it still can be controlled with standard positional awareness and technique which is not absolutely unique to this piece.
I am absolutely confident to discuss any phrase any bar any part of this work to prove this point, so if you can please demonstrate this OUTSIDE THE SCOPE technique which cannot be called technique in action, let's see what passage you believe this occurs which exact bars and which exact movement within those bars.
What rubbish. You said remove vertical movement how much intensity 100% of it, 90%? You said REMOVE which means all of it, that is idiotic, what about reduce?
Why are you trying to start a fight in this thread? Has this been welling up in you for a while? Have you been sitting there, rectum coiled like a viper, just waiting to spew some crap? I didn't cut off what you quoted, you cut it yourself:
That's literally the only thing I said about the RH, there was and is no 'continuation.' You're misreading my post over and over, and then getting pissed off.
Don't get mad at me, get mad at your elementary school teachers who clearly went too easy on you when it came to that whole 'reading comprehension' thing.
Do you just straight-up not know what the word "aside" means? I don't even buy that your (mis)interpretation is at all reasonable, you're just confused. Even on a pure grammar nazi level you're wrong, since I had already established the referent of 'it' in the previous sentence as the Etude itself: "Yeah, I think you can go for it..." As well, in the next sentence 'it' again refers to the Etude. Given the sentence before, and the sentence after, 'it' suddenly referred to something else in between? That's like a Q-anon grammar conspiracy!
I don't think anybody is gonna consider me as having "started this" one. You're being absolutely histrionic. "Let's continue" like a bad anime villain, jeeze get over yourself.
Is the Brahms triple octave trill from the Concerto 1 'standard technique'? Of course it's *** not. But by your argument, it is standard technique, or part of standard technique, or however you want to put it, since it has a trill in it so is 'connected to technique' Are you really pretending to not understand this distinction, just wailing away at your computer keyboard over that? You can have this philosophical opinion if you want, idgaf, but I think what I meant was clear to anybody not suffering from acute Asperger's.
The leaps in the 8-12 LH (huge and with erratic and constant directional changes) are of a manner that is outside the scope of standard technique to me just like the Brahms trill, it's an extreme distillate, a unique sort of thing that one is not called upon to do in the course of standard playing.
Again, you're REALLY misreading things and projecting your frustrations at me, and I don't like it. Just to be clear, here 'it' means your whining.
Alright everyone, be careful: Don't use the words "technique," "scope," or "it" around this person unless you want to be deluged with half-illegible philosophy and be scolded for not 'defining' them in your post xD If they're so generic then why are you forcefully ascribing particular meanings to them on my behalf? You're inconsistent in your thinking.
Normally I'd hope that anybody would be confident about a discussion (kind of low stakes, isn't it?), but after seeing this I believe your confidence is misplaced. You're acting like an angry 12 year old in the youtube comments xD
I actually didn't say "remove." Oops. Are you on drugs? Maybe in your pcp-induced visual disturbances you mistook it for the word "reasonably," as in where I said "as low to the keys as you reasonably can."
Anyway to the OP, what I said is accurate and it sounds like this lunatic is telling you to do a lot of big, swooping arcs in the air.
They're just wrong, go look up the Horowitz and Sultanov vids and see for yourself, their hands stay very low to the keys except to slam the occasional bottom octave, and even then not coming up dramatically or using some arpeggio-like 'arc' motion.
What I've advised to you is just standard conservatory pablum that I thought was so inoffensive and anodyne that it was borderline-obvious.
Don't try to make big 1-2/1-3/1-4 stretches or 'roll/fling' your wrist much: the horizontal, gliding arm motion is what should bring your hand where it needs to be.
hands stay very low to the keys except to slam the occasional bottom octave, and even then not coming up dramatically or using some arpeggio-like 'arc' motion. What I've advised to you is just standard conservatory pablum that I thought was so inoffensive and anodyne that it was borderline-obvious. Clearly not! Don't try to make big 1-2/1-3/1-4 stretches or 'roll/fling' your wrist much: the horizontal, gliding arm motion is what should bring your hand where it needs to be.
"outside the scope of standard technique."
correct me with exact bars of music explaining yourselfyour response is rather empty and irrelevant. your lack of supporting what you have to say shows that it really deserved to be ignored. prove what is this amazing mysterious techniquePost exact bars and we will see that there is nothing erratic or any constant change.Your response on these bars is just wrongdiscuss the exact bars and exact fingeringsI have asked you to be more specific and provide exact bars to explain what you mean bring actual bars into discussionplease prove this point with actual music contextI am willing to discuss the actual bars of music in specific regions, still waiting for you to start so we can undertsand your secret Russian knowledge.What rubbish, you have not defined your generic responses with concrete refference to exact bars of the music.Again you resist bring up actual bars of musicWhat bars are you talking about?
All your responses are about your PERSONAL feeling about me
You just lack the musical knowledgeyou are getting confused lolyou cry and run your mouth off, it's so funny. you reflecting your own emotionsare you afraid to deal with someone who knows more than yourself?Are you too afraidYOu are cryingyou have no way of actually being concrete with actual barsNope its just your own confusion.That just highlights the extent of your knowledge.Are you not intelligent enoughAww poor thing. make your stange thoughts understandable. Lol you are trappedyou will look like an idiot, perhaps thats ok for you. Aww don't be afraid
You made a feeble attempt at saying the LH is very ERRATIC in bar 8-12 but that is very laughable since the patterns are repeated in a way.
Isn't "pot calling the kettle black" one of these phrases in your psychotic repetition repertoire at the moment? The only difference between my nastiness and yours is that I have panache and you're just boring. I guess there's a moral difference in how I'm punching down, I suppose.
No I didn't, you're the one who mentioned this section.
You can't even follow the things you say; already established by your own admission that you can't follow the things that I say.I already told you which bars. You're the one dodging, now.
You want me to open MSpaint and draw a red circle around them? In your bizarre, rage-addled mind this would somehow signify something, I guess? The only thing that would prove is that I'd waste my time.
As far as I can tell, your whole argument strategy at this point hinges on the idea that I can't circle notes on a pdf and put a fingering on it, is that right? Then I'd just say that the accuracy will be higher on these sections if you are keeping your hand close to the keyboard and using arm motion more than wrist deviation/rolling? Are you banking on my internet dying while I try to upload a jpeg?
That's your bluff. It's offensively stupid. Literally insane thinking.
YOU SAID: "The leaps in the 8-12 LH". So what are you talking about? Not the bars? lol
WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED HERE
Scriabin Etude Op. 8, No. 12. You're embarrassing yourself so much that you're ruining the sport of this for me.
I will use my advice in *any* reasonable fingering, i.e. avoid much wrist deviation/rolling and keep the hand close to the keys in *any* bar of the A-section. Bar 1, bar 2, bar 3, etc. I already answered this several times. Here are your circled bars, you may select any fingering you want. Now please, write this thesis you've been threatening us with. Sorry, my internet didn't die while uploading the jpeg; you basically just wrecked yourself.
A mental breakdown, as far as I can tell. Careful posting in this thread, or you'll be asked to give your typing fingerings in order to deserve to comment.
This Scriabin can be sight read there is no need for vast calculation as with pieces that are erratic.
you wrote: 8-12 LH, that is not the correct way to define an opus and number so you are merely embarassing yourself.
So we can add a third proclaimation of yours that "The leaps in the LH have (huge and with erratic and constant directional changes)". So prove this erratic nature and constant change, good luck!!!
All I see is repeated patterns, you think its erratic like Xenakis works which requires a mathematical like disection of the score to appreciate?
You merely circled bars...and did not define where you should "take out" vertical movements and only do horizonal
It is essential that you reveal fingering otherwise you will not be able to describe anything at all, you should know this if you have ever spoken about a piece in a technical manner with the actual musical score at hand.
Lets discuss the actual bars in the piece and see if your generalistic perspective holds up, lets see if you can actually explain it with the music. That way you are trapped into being specific and concrete not just generalise thinking which could mean anything at all.
You can't even read English. That statement is ludicrous.
Yeah I'm super-embarrassed that I abbreviated it like 8-12. Like Chopin 25-6 or Scarlatti 141. You're right, it would take some sort of supercomputer-like genius to understand what is meant.
You screwed up, just admit it. One of your deranged leaps-of-thought. Your leaping technique is pretty suspect to be doling out advice, it seems.
Add? That's what I've been saying the whole time."Prove" what? The direction changes almost every time from note to note, and the intervals vary greatly both within the 'triplets' and between them, as well as the irregular placement of the octs/10ths. If I copy-pasted Herma into Finale twenty times in a row, would you say it's not 'erratic' since there's a 'pattern'?
If the idea is that you went into all this rage over what does 'erratic' mean in some mathematical sense (that of course you haven't defined and would stumble over if you tried) then you're not going to help your "I'm not crazy" case. There is no 'proving' anything here. The music is as it is.
You forget one of my other teen-years accounts: Xenakophile! Maybe you also forget that I'm literally a mathematician now. So don't even start. I've appreciated his music plenty without doing any dissection btw (though I have read his book); did you forget I was also john11inch, the biggest modern music youtube channel for like a decade? Get his name out of your stupid mouth.
First part's correct. I said it would be: "Your whole argument strategy at this point hinges on the idea that I can't circle notes on a pdf." You begged me to post a picture with bars circled, because just saying the bar numbers wasn't enough. I explained that your request was dumb. Now you see that I was right.
Now you won't engage cuz there aren't fingering numbers. Next you'll want Schenkerian analysis. Will you want exact thumb-to-forefinger angles in radians, and rates of contraction? Cartesian coordinates of hand position relative to middle C? Do I need to take anatomical measurements of myself first? If any poor soul reads this, they will laugh at these demands xD
The rest of the statement is ofc wrong. Because I did tell you the fingering, and I did tell you where I suggest minimizing vertical motion and wrist deviation/rolling: Any fingering, and everywhere.
That's like, the fourth time I answered your question. Literally my other most recent post in this forum was finding and posting fingerings for every single Hungarian scale. You're not going to convince anyone that I'm some neophyte. You can't even convince yourself; if you could, you'd have already chilled out.
You haven't posted fingerings, but have claimed to have described so much!
I guess all your opinions were trash after all. Post your fingerings, you lazy phony. You're the one saying it means something, so you post them. They're irrelevant to what I originally said, which btw remains true despite your tirades. My advice was better, suck it :3
Nice first post, stranger (you might want to remember to log back into your main account before responding). Pathetic beyond imagination omg!!! This is just becoming sad!
I think you are correct that LiiW is way over the top here. I'd just say that, beyond a certain point (which I think is in the rear view mirror), continuing to engage makes it harder to decide who's crazier. I suggest just letting him have the last word and thinking about something else.
Below, I slightly changed the wording to possibly make it clearer. I’m wondering if Lostinedlewonder would be more agreeable to this revised wording. I underlined the changed wording.Proposed revised wording:Aside from the RH octaves there isn't really much standard technique involved. Much of the demands this piece focuses on are outside the scope of standard technique.
Just make sure you are constantly working to take excessive vertical motion out of the LH (especially avoid a lot of affected wrist rolling), keep as low to the keys as you reasonably can. More arm motion than wrist-pivoting+stretching.
By the way. Literally every time I see you respond on this forum without giving fingering numbers . . .
frodo it is not how it is written that causes any confusion, I already have extracted three points form fftransform which are yet to be supported with the actual music. i,e,1) Horizonal movements only taking out vertical2) Technique that is outside the scope of normal technique3) Erratic movements throughout the pieceNone of these points from transform have been supported with the actual music. There is nothing that is OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF STANDARD TECHNIQUE. What does that even mean in this specific case? It is an elitist type attitude. transform even tells the op you want to take years learning this one piece? Ridiculous. I can even sight read through the entire piece which would be impossible if it actually had technique outside the scope of what is standard. I can highlight exactly how much standard technique can be found in this piece but I will not give transform any information to use, I want to see what he REALLY knows, which so far is nothing but generalized talk. What is excessive vertical motion in context to this piece? It should be easy to describe with the combination of fingerings used and exact parts of the bars. fftransform merely generalizes, I asked him to be specific and he is simply resisting. That to me demonstrates someone who merely wants to talk in generalization and leave it at that. Going deeper requires that you actually know how to play the piece with mastery, not just watch videos of other pianists playing it. lol. Never heard any playing from fftransfrom in 15+ years either but a lot of talk about complicated pieces, I wonder what that means too The fact he doesn't discusss the score in a technical manner which should be VERY EASY for someone who plays the piece, tells me a great lot
I mention this to show that we can ALL misunderstand what someone is trying to say. The best way to understand is to take extra time to read and understand what was written then respectfully ask for clarification if needed.
Your original response to fftransform’s first post was:“How can you say it's only in the RH when the LH is much more difficult? Your description of the Lh technique seems rather odd too, remove vertical motion and do large movements horizonally just sets you up for error.”
By my adding just a couple words to clarify what fftransform said, you appear to now understand that:
1) fftransform was NOT saying “it’s only in the RH”. I believe he was saying that the LH was outside standard technique and as such the LH was the most difficult part. I understand your feelings about standard technique expressed above.
2) fftransform was NOT saying to “remove vertical motion”. I believe he was saying to remove excessive vertical motion. I understand your concern that fftransform did not specify to your standards exactly what excessive vertical motion is in context to this piece.
And what is exactly the horizonal movement? Like I said, playing an 11th with your LH if you cant stretch it you have to do a very fast horizonal motion to make it sound like you play it togehter, but if you do this with all the playing its ridiculous. I am waiting for clarification what exactly this horizonal nature is which can be easily defined within the fingering of the piece.
Good question. I was under the impression that horizontal movement is the movement of the hand to the left or right. Example: play C with LH 5th finger then play a C that is 1 octave higher with the same LH finger. This requires about a 6.5 inch horizontal mvt to the right for the LH. Except in the case you mention here, the horizontal movement is the same fixed amount for everyone playing a given piece on a standard size keyboard using a given fingering. Scarlatti for example often requires large, rapid horizontal movements in the cross hand and other pieces. I might be wrong here. Clarification is needed.
Topic: Scriabin Op 8 No 12 - Advice 