 |
Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums
Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments.
Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
|
|
|
|
66 members (bcalvanese, 36251, brdwyguy, amc252, akse0435, 20/20 Vision, benkeys, apianostudent, 17 invisible),
2,110
guests, and
330
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,163
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,163 |
But since Chopin is dead, no one knows what Chopin really wanted, so we are all playing our own arrangements of Chopin. ??? What Chopin wanted is what he indicated in the score. Which is of course, exactly the same thing in every single edition he published. He never changed his mind about a thing... Actually, the music is substantially the same in every single edition he published. To the extent there are differences, they're pretty much attributable to copyists. In subsequent editions, the discrepancies are equally minor and attributable to different editors. I can't think of a single instance where anything is attributable to Chopin "chang[ing] his mind." Other composers certainly changed their minds, with the result that earlier works were revisited, completely revised and published anew. Chopin isn't one of them. He was precise and deliberate about the content of a manuscript by the time it was ready for publication, and he didn't look back. (And if he he "never played anything the same way twice" or wrote variants on his students' scores, that's completely irrelevant to what was published.) Steven
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803 |
Yes.] But what if only one of those editions had been published? And someone did something that was not in that particular edition? It serves to illustrate that just because something is not in a particular edition, that does not necessarily mean it should be banned. The composer may have been fine with the idea. He may have been fine with anything, but I think the reasonable thing to do is to choose from whatever edtitions are avialable. Otherwise, following your logic it seems to me one could change anything. Maybe play the Minute Waltz in 4/4 time in D flat minor and Largo?
Last edited by pianoloverus; 09/12/09 10:04 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803 |
It's not just editions, Chopin changed things ALL the time while performing. He almost never played the same thing twice. So really, sometimes we actually don't know what he wanted.. I think it's a very different thing to say Chopin changed things when he performed his own composition and we don't know what he wanted so we can do what we like. If he wanted to leave it up to us, why would he or any composer mark the score with phrasing, dynamics, pedalling, tempo indications? If you could take a lesson from Chopin and he penciled in something in your score, would you ignore it because he might play it differently the next time?
Last edited by pianoloverus; 09/12/09 09:49 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,464
2000 Post Club Member
|
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,464 |
Other composers certainly changed their minds, with the result that earlier works were revisited, completely revised and published anew. Chopin isn't one of them. He was precise and deliberate about the content of a manuscript by the time it was ready for publication, and he didn't look back. (And if he he "never played anything the same way twice" or wrote variants on his students' scores, that's completely irrelevant to what was published.)
Steven What kind of an argument is that? Are we talking about what was published? Or about playing it? Chopin was notorious for changing his mind about things. Apparently he hated writing stuff down and having to put it in a concrete form. Does a published score count as the most important word on a piece of music- taking all priority over any rethinking the composer made? Is it about faith to the composer, or faith to a piece of paper? Chopin certainly DID change things. As for "looking back" however- maybe he simply didn't care exactly what he wrote the last time he wrote the piece down? Maybe it wasn't even in his mind and he just wrote what he felt at the time? There are countless instances of differences between various editions. Not generally in terms of major variants (although there are cases of this), like those he wrote for students, but in terms of dynamics and phrasing etc. Some, but far from all of these can be put down to copyists mistakes. There are too many to assume that Chopin didn't either want to make the changes (or that he simply wasn't all that bothered whether certain things went one way or another) It shows the inherent danger in being overly pedantic about every single detail in the score- and assuming that anything that contradicts the odd mark is necessarily "wrong".
Last edited by Nyiregyhazi; 09/12/09 12:51 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,163
6000 Post Club Member
|
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,163 |
Puh-leeze. Just how many of Chopin's compositions exist in different versions because he re-wrote and re-published them in the way that Liszt did? There are NONE.
This whole discussion is a little ridiculous. I am certain that everyone understands that there are no piano police and no laws to proscribe anyone from playing anything however they please. Neither are there any piano gods or a piano council to grant permission for doing so.
The familiar pattern is that someone asks if it's "okay" to do this or that. Answers are given, and the stage is set for yet another tedious debate between purists (who are somehow enslaved by their lack of creativity and their faithfulness to the notes on the page) and the free-thinking, avant garde iconoclasts who wish to do it their way.
Play whatever you want in whatever way you wish! It's pointless to seek justification—especially defended with bogus reasons and reasoning—when no justification is needed.
Steven
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,453
8000 Post Club Member
|
|
8000 Post Club Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,453 |
WHAT AN AWESOME THREAD!!!!!!!
Close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear weapons.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,257
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,257 |
Well, some pianists do play things "in whatever way they wish," and sometimes they do it publicly. I remember listening to Lang Lang play the Rachmaninoff G minor prelude at the proms and thinking to myself something like, "oh lord, how can he do this .... ouch .... eeeeech ..... NOOOO! ..... now that little bit is OK .... huh, you're kidding .... " 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,464
2000 Post Club Member
|
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,464 |
Puh-leeze. Just how many of Chopin's compositions exist in different versions because he re-wrote and re-published them in the way that Liszt did? There are NONE.
Indeed. But then nobody argued for making substantial rearrangement of textures or form- so what is your point? I referred to the fact that there are substantial differences within finer details- illustrating that Chopin was not as concerned with minutiae as pedants are. Don't you see that these arguments are not to 'prove' that it's okay to do what you want? They are to demonstrate how short sighted most of the continually repeated arguments that come from pedants are. If it weren't for them, we could just do what we wish without needing to defend against small-minded criticisms. PS. although having said that- there are considerable differences in a version of the E flat waltz that Byron Janis recorded from a manuscript. There is also a whole additional section in his recording of the final mazurka.
Last edited by Nyiregyhazi; 09/12/09 05:53 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,464
2000 Post Club Member
|
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,464 |
Well, some pianists do play things "in whatever way they wish," and sometimes they do it publicly. I remember listening to Lang Lang play the Rachmaninoff G minor prelude at the proms and thinking to myself something like, "oh lord, how can he do this .... ouch .... eeeeech ..... NOOOO! ..... now that little bit is OK .... huh, you're kidding .... " But was it the fact that he disobeyed the score that was the problem- or the fact that it sounded crap? Rachmaninoff, too, disobeys his score. He adds an additional fortissimo at the very end. Is that also bad- based on what his score says?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 128
Full Member
|
|
Full Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 128 |
Do whatever you like. Chopin is dead, its your sheet music, your piano, your interpretation. Its always good to know about what the composer intended, but don't feel you should be restricted by that. This can drastically change the mood and "story" of a piece and and change the desired effect is was intended to have. Under your logic, a cadenza marked presto can be played lento and a passage marked pianissimo can be played fortissimo. If it sounds good, sure! Personally, I particularly enjoy Anton Rubinstein's idea of fortissimo where the the funeral march returns with pianissimo. If you need a score in front of you to decide whether you dislike something, it's just pedantry. If something sounds crap, the problem is the fact that it sounds crap- not the fact that the composer didn't ask you to do it. Bravo! The score is useful for learning the piece but for performance, you may as well burn it. The performance either sounds good or it doesn't, on its own merits. I would cite transcriptions of pieces that sound better than the original composition. I think the difference is whether you think of a composition as existing in some kind of Platonic heaven which if altered, even in the slightest, loses its Platonic perfection or if you think of a composition as a cut-and-paste of many existing musical ideas seasoned with the composer's own original insights and ideas. I view musical composition more like the latter. Clayton -
Last edited by Clayton; 09/13/09 06:01 PM.
My listening obsessions:
Kurt Atterberg - Piano Concerto in Bb
Claude Debussy - Cello Sonata
Johannes Brahms - Intermezzo Op. 118 No. 2
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803 |
...or if you think of a composition as a cut-and-paste of many existing musical ideas seasoned with the composer's own original insights and ideas. I view musical composition more like the latter.
"Cut and paste?" A strange way to describe music composed by the greatest composers of Western music. IMO it's hard to imagine a description further from the truth. Maybe we should run some of Beethoven's Sonatas through the musical equiavalent of Turnit in.com so we can get riad some of the weal or plagiarized ones. 
Last edited by pianoloverus; 09/13/09 06:09 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 128
Full Member
|
|
Full Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 128 |
Other composers certainly changed their minds, with the result that earlier works were revisited, completely revised and published anew. Chopin isn't one of them. He was precise and deliberate about the content of a manuscript by the time it was ready for publication, and he didn't look back. (And if he he "never played anything the same way twice" or wrote variants on his students' scores, that's completely irrelevant to what was published.)
Steven What kind of an argument is that? Are we talking about what was published? Or about playing it? Chopin was notorious for changing his mind about things. Apparently he hated writing stuff down and having to put it in a concrete form. Does a published score count as the most important word on a piece of music- taking all priority over any rethinking the composer made? Is it about faith to the composer, or faith to a piece of paper? Chopin certainly DID change things. As for "looking back" however- maybe he simply didn't care exactly what he wrote the last time he wrote the piece down? Maybe it wasn't even in his mind and he just wrote what he felt at the time? There are countless instances of differences between various editions. Not generally in terms of major variants (although there are cases of this), like those he wrote for students, but in terms of dynamics and phrasing etc. Some, but far from all of these can be put down to copyists mistakes. There are too many to assume that Chopin didn't either want to make the changes (or that he simply wasn't all that bothered whether certain things went one way or another) It shows the inherent danger in being overly pedantic about every single detail in the score- and assuming that anything that contradicts the odd mark is necessarily "wrong". The thing that I think the self-styled "purists" fail to understand is that faithfulness to the score is not an end in itself. Faithfulness to the score is only important so far as the performer is communicating the essence of what the score indicates, that is, the musical "message" the composer wanted to capture for the performer to communicate to the audience. Departures from the score that do not stem from a failure to comprehend the composer's clear intent are not "bad" or "wrong", they are simply different ways of communicating with the audience. I read recently that Horowitz did not hesitate to alter a score if he felt it was "unpianolike" and Glenn Gould also re-arranged pieces to suit his own vision of what the piece "ought to" have sounded like. I don't see anything wrong in that. Masterful re-interpretation is a far cry from a student's departure from the composer's clear intent due to a failure to grasp what the composer was trying to "get across" in the piece. Clayton -
Last edited by Clayton; 09/13/09 06:17 PM.
My listening obsessions:
Kurt Atterberg - Piano Concerto in Bb
Claude Debussy - Cello Sonata
Johannes Brahms - Intermezzo Op. 118 No. 2
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 128
Full Member
|
|
Full Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 128 |
...or if you think of a composition as a cut-and-paste of many existing musical ideas seasoned with the composer's own original insights and ideas. I view musical composition more like the latter.
"Cut and paste?" A strange way to describe music composed by the greatest composers of Western music. IMO it's hard to imagine a description further from the truth. Maybe we should run some of Beethoven's Sonatas through the musical equiavalent of Turnit in.com so we can get riad some of the weal or plagiarized ones. I have a very different view from most people on the nature of human "originality" and plagiarism. 99% of what we see as "original" is really just remixes of existing ideas. And yes, that goes for the greatest composers, as well. I'm not saying some people do not contribute more original ideas than others - clearly a Bach, Beethoven or Chopin contributed a great deal more original ideas than many of the minor composers or composers of drawing room music. But I think people have become rapt with this conception of the lone, heroic composer introspecting deeply to create, ex nihilo, great masterpieces. But the greatest composers were students of the folk music which provided the tapestry and variations upon which they composed. Chopin was a student of Polish folk music and this is clearly heard in the lyricality of his melodies. Bach was a student of German and Italian music. Tschaikovsky was a great student of Russian folk music. These men's vast command of the music of the people is the fuel that drove the engines of their creativity. Clayton -
Last edited by Clayton; 09/13/09 06:24 PM.
My listening obsessions:
Kurt Atterberg - Piano Concerto in Bb
Claude Debussy - Cello Sonata
Johannes Brahms - Intermezzo Op. 118 No. 2
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 128
Full Member
|
|
Full Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 128 |
Play whatever you want in whatever way you wish! It's pointless to seek justification—especially defended with bogus reasons and reasoning—when no justification is needed.
Steven I agree with "play whatever you want" but I think there is a difference between just changing something out of ignorance or failure to comprehend the music and changing it out of purposeful intent. In general, I never change the notes for the simple reason that I do not fully understand why all the notes are the way they are in the first place. If I did fully understand, I would feel more freedom to rearrange the notes if I felt I could "improve" the piece in so doing. However, I do understand the dynamics and phrasing of the pieces I play and I use that understanding to depart from the marked dynamics and phrasings where I feel that this can improve upon the piece (in my estimation). So, I do have justifications or reasons for what I do but not because I feel I need somebody's approval, just because I feel that good art does not come into being by accident. Clayton -
My listening obsessions:
Kurt Atterberg - Piano Concerto in Bb
Claude Debussy - Cello Sonata
Johannes Brahms - Intermezzo Op. 118 No. 2
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,163
6000 Post Club Member
|
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,163 |
So a composition is just a pastiche of "many existing musical ideas" that are floating around in the ether, public-domain style, and a composer just plucks that low-hanging fruit and does some cutting and pasting and seasoning. Who knew? You lot who have better ideas than the composer are just beyond the cutting edge of nonconformity ... unbound, unfettered, too big to be contained or constrained. You're rebels, and you don't need no stinkin' scores! That's awesome! Dang, my dismal destiny is to dwell in the Prison of Pedantry. But I'm not a memorizer, so burning the score is out of the question anyway. And since I have it in front of me anyway when I play, I reckon I'll just follow the notes, rhythm, dynamics, articulation, phrasing and tempo as written. Steven
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,393
2000 Post Club Member
|
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,393 |
Beethoven says ... ![[Linked Image]](http://www.bpse.org/media/beethoven.jpg) Better play it exactly as I wrote it or else! Seriously though, let purists play it note for note. Let others do what they want. What does it matter what you do in the privacy of your own home?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,163
6000 Post Club Member
|
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,163 |
Ed, you always find the funnest visual aids, though poor Beethoven looks too placid for the ire of his thoughts! (I bet you already looked for a Beethoven with a ruler at the ready to whack the knuckles of non-purists. ) Steven
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803 |
The thing that I think the self-styled "purists" fail to understand is that faithfulness to the score is not an end in itself. Faithfulness to the score is only important so far as the performer is communicating the essence of what the score indicates, that is, the musical "message" the composer wanted to capture for the performer to communicate to the audience. Departures from the score that do not stem from a failure to comprehend the composer's clear intent are not "bad" or "wrong", they are simply different ways of communicating with the audience. I read recently that Horowitz did not hesitate to alter a score if he felt it was "unpianolike" and Glenn Gould also re-arranged pieces to suit his own vision of what the piece "ought to" have sounded like. I don't see anything wrong in that. Masterful re-interpretation is a far cry from a student's departure from the composer's clear intent due to a failure to grasp what the composer was trying to "get across" in the piece.
Clayton - What could be clearer about a composer's "intent" than when he writes forte or indicates some tempo or phrasing? The Horowitz pieces you refer to were mostly called transcriptions(to distinguish from playing what the composer wrote..,i.e.a new piece based on what the composer wrote) and listed that way in the program. The only time to my knowlegde that Gould changed something was in his transcription of La Valse. When he varied greatly from the composer's tempo he was often severely criticized for doing this by very important musicians(not just some "self styled purists"). When a pianist varies significantly from the text, why do you assume they are still playing what the composer wants to get across and not what they want to get across? Do you think the composer puts tempo, phrasing, dynamics etc. in the score for no reason?
Last edited by pianoloverus; 09/13/09 07:41 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,464
2000 Post Club Member
|
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,464 |
The Horowitz pieces you refer to were mostly called transcriptions(to distinguish from playing what the composer wrote..,i.e.a [i]new piece based on what the composer wrote) and listed that way in the program.[/i]
Not true. He made countless changes to pieces that were not regarded as transcriptions.
When a pianist varies significantly from the text, why do you assume they are still playing what the composer wants to get across and not what they want to get across?
I don't believe he did assume that. It appears that you are simply so set in your belief that the composer is a God, that you assume everyone else must think the same way. Not everyone does. Some people just judge on whether thye like the sound of something- regardless of whether it is 'correct' or not. Can you only appreciate something based on the technicality of whether it follows instructions literally? Can you really not appreciate that what a performer wants to get across might actually sound rather good?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803 |
The Horowitz pieces you refer to were mostly called transcriptions(to distinguish from playing what the composer wrote..,i.e.a new piece based on what the composer wrote) and listed that way in the program. Not true. He made countless changes to pieces that were not regarded as transcriptions. Of course, I'm well aware of this. I don't think the poster was referring to these minor alterations. It sounds like he just heard about Horowitz making transcriptions or changes. When a pianist varies significantly from the text, why do you assume they are still playing what the composer wants to get across and not what they want to get across? I don't believe he did assume that. It appears that you are simply so set in your belief that the composer is a God, that you assume everyone else must think the same way. Not everyone does. Some people just judge on whether thye like the sound of something- regardless of whether it is 'correct' or not. Can you only appreciate something based on the technicality of whether it follows instructions literally? Can you really not appreciate that what a performer wants to get across might actually sound rather good? I think you'll have to let the poster ansswer what he did or did not assume. But it does seem clear that's what he assumed because he praised pianists who he felt varied from the score but still, he felt, got the composer's message across. O course, I don't think everyone thinks about this topic or any topic the same way I do. I that was the case, why would there be all the posts in this thread? If you could take a lesson from Chopin and he pencilled in "f" on one of his works, would you play it that way or do you think you have a better idea on how it should be played?
Last edited by pianoloverus; 09/13/09 08:29 PM.
|
|
|
|
Forums43
Topics223,391
Posts3,349,273
Members111,634
| |
Most Online15,252
Mar 21st, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
