Given that :
1 this is an Internet forum where we do not know each other nor each others' musical training history except through varying degrees of "electronic familiarity"
2 this is not a teachers' forum
3 many of us are neither professional musicians nor teachers
4 most of us are not professional music critics

suggesting how we should write critiques of performances may be an exercise in futility. We do not all measure up to professional standards of balanced reviews when it comes to weighing the details against an overall performance.

I would like to think that someone asking for a critique would also bear these things in mind and that s/he is willing to accept that "s/he gets what s/he gets". Some of us who offer occasional critiques react initially to overall impressions; others react immediately to details.

I should think that if a poster who had requested a critique wanted more or - heaven forbid! - was unhappy with a response, that that poster would have the linguistic skills and the interest to ask for more general impressions or for clarifications. Let the multiplicity of responses cover the general and the detailed; let's not be taken to task for how we have invested our time on behalf of others, how we offer our comments or how we write our "reviews."

Regards,

Originally I had a long post here explaining that I didn't intend to be saying what people should or shouldn't do, just giving my view.

But I'm editing it down to this: You're right.

Sorry for not responding to everyone's posts, I have been pretty busy. I have, however, read every single post carefully, and really appreciate the advise! All of these critiques have been extremely helpful, and I will be posting a recording in the next couple of days with the changes that I have made. Thanks! Pianoloverus - I am currently taking piano lessons. However, I am a sophomore in high school, and my main thing is composition, so with composition on top of homework, I have hardly any time to practice.

xtra: You are very talented.

Here are some performances I'd recommend listening to especially for dynamics, shaping of phrases, and tempos.

For inspiration a scene from the movie, The Pianist(based on the life of Szpilaman)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkvDWm9t9DM

The real Szpilman performing the same piece he was playing in a radio station when the bombing began
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AFwZP_gW2A&feature=related

Kissin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs7GZbKx1f0

Zimmerman(my favorite)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR7eUSFsn28

And Partypianist, since I listen to music like a composer more than a performer, I do not usually listen to specific pianists. I have only heard Argerich's performance once, and I do not remember particularly liking it... I can assure you that I did not base my performance off of anyone else's. If I had to name my favorite performer of this piece, I guess it would be Ashkenazy

If it was in private messages, it is inappropriate to mention anything here. FWIW, I've never taken xtraheat for being arrogant. I'm at a loss as to why you do.

I was being euphemistic. I have no performance by Argerich, but gauging her approach to the C# scherzo, that I feel sure would be her rendition.

My intention is to begin some recordings of various works at a professional studio before Christmas. I would hope to have some "warts 'n all" offering of Chopin's ballades for comparison for this forum.

Again, unless we have a different understanding of the meaning of "arrogance" (which is not necessarily a bad thing), if you look at enough posts you will find some gold. I have no private correspondence with xtraheat. As a hint it would be fair to say that anyone who is dismissive of the difficulty of a master work is arrogant [in my opinion] regardless of their status. Your opinion may be different.

I have no doubt I am an arrogant person (you can't be anything less to reach concert standard) & "it takes one to know one!"

I disagree that you need to be arrogant to "reach concert standard".

(OED definition: overbearing, presumptuous, haughty)

I looked back through about 7 or 8 pages of my previous posts, and I didn't really find anything that I would consider arrogant in them. Maybe posts from further back, but that is a really long time ago, and I still am not sure about that? And being dismissive of the difficulty of a masterwork is not in the least arrogant... assuming that just because it is a masterwork and that others find it difficult that everyone will find it just as difficult is arrogant.

Maybe this is splitting semantic hairs, but.....I didn't think it was particularly "arrogant" to imply that the 4th Ballade isn't that hard.
However I did think it showed a lack of appreciation of its issues and difficulties.

I didn't mean to imply that the 4th Ballade was not difficult, and if that is what I came off as saying, I apologize. What I was trying to say is this: I did not find it to be particularly difficult, as it's difficulties happened to coincide with my technical strong-points. There are many pieces that would be considered much easier by most people that I would struggle with.

I hear you, and actually as I said earlier, I myself also find the G minor Ballade more difficult or at least "scarier."

But the thing is that when you use the word "easier" or any form of the word "easy" for the 4th Ballade, it really sticks out. Maybe this will seem silly but I think if you had said "less difficult," it wouldn't have caused any fuss; there's just something about saying "easier" for this piece.
Some people might hear it as arrogant (which I think is way severe), others (like me) might hear it as meaning that you don't fully appreciate what the piece involves.

But regardless, don't take it too personally. There's a lot that we all don't fully appreciate.

So true.

I think I've seen the post you are talking about...I would characterize more as a naïveté rather than arrogance. But hey, I don't know xtraheat personally, so that's just me talking.

I think that's right on.

....and how about we say a little on what it is about the 4th Ballade that makes a word like "easier" seems naive:

I think it breaks down into 2 things:

-- The difference between 'playing' and PLAYING.
-- The emotional content of the piece.

If we just take the opening (i.e. the "intro") and the first appearance of the main theme ...... The notes themselves are quite 'easy' to 'play.' But if someone thinks that 'getting the notes' means that he's really playing the piece, he's mistaken. There are extreme issues of hand-balance, touch, and shaping/phrasing.

And.....let's look at a place that's technically more challenging ...... we could pick many spots, but how about those fast/furious chords leading up to the long pause and quiet chords before the coda.
I would say with complete confidence that someone who plays those chords and would use the term "easier" in comparison to anything whatsoever, just isn't beginning to appreciate what's going on and what's required.

And that's all even before we get to the subtleties of emotion in the piece.

So your comment back on that Chopin preludes thread, PartyPianist, would qualify, I guess:
"(no 8) is one of the few pieces (that have ever been written) that I struggle with."

@MarkCannon: E natural or E flat, last beat of bar 3 of op.28 no.20... did Chopin forget to cancel the E natural and restore the E flat of the key signature, or not?
Autograph => French 1st edition (Paris) - no flat.
Copy by Julian Fontana => German 1st edition (Leipzig) - no flat.
English 1st edition (London), apparently based on the French 1st edition (but has a lot of extra fingering, including good fingering for tricky parts of nos. 3 & 21, so perhaps a copy of the French 1st ed corrected and added to by Chopin?) - flat.
Also a flat in Stirling's copy, Sands's copy, and in most autographs written for friends later on (usually in the original 8 bar version).
So the evidence suggests that Chopin just forgot to include the flat sign in his original autograph. I agree it's still "the piece" either way, but I think it's useful to know this stuff when deciding which to play.


Yes! I remember a roommate of a friend of mine who was quite agitated when listening to a heavily accented version of op.18 where all the crushed notes were played on the beat. The CD was a free one included with a Sunday newspaper (in 1992 or so, that was a relatively new thing), but he was still annoyed: "Am I crazy, or is he hitting lots of wrong notes?" My reply was on the lines of "He's hitting the right notes, but he's emphasizing the wrong ones so it sounds like wrong notes," which met with a relieved smile.


By itself the book may not sway you much. But becoming familiar with the kind of things Chopin was concerned about when teaching, his own works in particular, when combined with the "critical report" or "source commentary" of good modern editions... maybe you will come to see, as I do, someone who was rushing works out to the publishers to bring in badly needed money, and was constantly polishing them at the same time. Beethoven: "That's finished, and if I change it even a bit now, it won't be the same work any more." Chopin: "That's finished. Oops, hang on... [tweak 1] [tweak 2] [tweak 3]... Yes, that's finished. No, wait a minute... [tweak 4] [tweak 5]... Yes, that's, wait, what was the question?" A Scottish lady was helping Chopin to plan a collected, corrected edition, but that was in 1848 and his health was already very poor, so it never happened.

The reason I say "modern editions" above is that Chopin's friend Julian Fontana had handwriting that looks almost exactly like Chopin's, so much so that it was only fairly recently that musicologists figured out how to tell them apart. So lots of previously assumed "autographs" were actually Fontana copies. The obvious downside to the copies is that they have mistakes in them (letters back and forth between show that Fontana hated copying and was sometimes lazy and careless with it, to Chopin's annoyance), but the upside is that they can help musicologists and publishers interpret Chopin's autographs a bit better. For example, if Chopin wrote something messily/ambiguously, they might be able to refer to a Fontana copy to see what Chopin probably meant, because Fontana was an expert at deciphering Chopin's handwriting.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back on topic, I look forward to hearing your new recording, xtraheat!

I pretty much agree with Bruce here but I would emphasize that you've spent too much time being loud, and I can tell when playing is loud even if the recording is compressed. Also the pause between the g minor chord and the beginning of the following phrase in measure 224 was disconcerting to me and spoiled the flow. However, it is certainly impressive and I enjoyed it. Thanks for linking!

My comment may seem small and petty, but it isn't meant to be. I had trouble with the hand/knuckle cracking at the very beginning of the piece.

Is it a habit or a way you release tension?

Either way, please do it (if you must) before turning the recording device on. Some people (me included) find knuckle-cracking very unpleasant.

Thanks for the great, detailed reply. I'm glad you also think that section of the Op. 18 waltz is a good example of an exception to the usual grace-note "rule." And actually I'd be a little surprised if anyone thought those grace notes should be on the beat.

I received the book today, and I promise to read it, enthusiastically. On the issue that led you to suggest the book -- i.e. whether the details in any edition should be regarded as ultimate and/or sacrosanct (I know I'm paraphrasing ......tell me if that's not a fair paraphrase) -- I agree that it's important to realize that some editions (especially earlier editions) might be particularly notorious for unfaithfulness. But I don't see how that would particularly mean that any edition (even a "real good" one) is ultimate or sacrosanct. I totally accept the idea that some editions (and manuscripts) are just bad. But for any given piece, there might be various editions that are legitimate and good, reflecting different ideas that Chopin had at different times. We know that Beethoven re-worked things over and over in pursuit of 'what he really wanted.' I don't think we have any such basic impression of Chopin.

Look for more from me on this while I'm reading the book, and especially after.

LOL! I didn't even notice that.

btw......I wonder about hand/knuckle cracking altogether.
I don't understand why anyone does it, or what they get out of it.

I'm inclined to think it's a habit. It appears to be your way of reducing tension. You're still young and can break the habit.

Seat yourself comfortably at the bench, adjust height, relax your neck,center your mind, but don't crack those delicate knuckles.

You could also put your hands on the bench to stretch your fingers but hyper-extending your fingers to crack them could potentially harm joints.

Take care of your hands. When you are in your 60's, like me, you'll appreciate healthy joints.

OK.....take care of our hands, how?

Whatever the secrets are, I want to know!
BTW I'm not that far from your age number.....

Anything in mind besides not cracking our knuckles? (which I've never done and don't understand)

Not to put words in DianneB's mouth, I would think that the admonition "take care of your hands" is just a call to common sense. Not only does our emotional well-being as (wannabe) pianists depend upon our hands being in good shape, so does much of our daily activity. We can't practically and easily button our shirts, tie our shoelaces, type our pearls of widsom on the Pianists' Corner or open a bottle of good scotch without our hands being fully capable of doing what they were designed to do.

I don't think that that means that we shouldn't engage in some sports - perhaps not boxing! - that we shouldn't peel potatoes or shouldn't use power tools, but it does mean that we should approach those activities with common sense and awareness of what we are doing and how we are doing it.

Regards,

Definitely not boxing! Most ball sports taken should be fine as long as you are in good shape. Running is good too. My piano teacher is a good marathon runner.

The most important thing when working with your hands is to:

1) Wear gloves of the appropriate type. Thick leather if you are working with tools, latex/nitrile if you are handling chemicals (especially if you are in any sort of lab at school; gloves are usually not required, but they are available for those that want them and you'll handle a lot of stuff you don't want on your skin).

2) Be mindful of where you are putting your extremities. I've heard far too many stories involving fan belts, combine feeder houses, and various other moving parts to be careless about this.

Yes......and I do try to take those kinds of care. I play a lot of ball, but I'm smart enough not to do it soon before I have to perform. And I've almost totally given up BOWLING.

Yes to all of that also.
Really that's great advice for everybody. But pianists would be particularly stupid not to heed it.

Well said, Bruce. I'm pretty careful now how I open jars.

On reflection, I think ironing is pretty dangerous for my technique, so I've decided to give it up.