Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner dotted eights in Schumann's "Of Foreign Lands and People"

Peyton's recent recording of this piece, and some comments on that recording, raise a question I've been wondering: should the melody's sixteenth note have the value 1/6 of a quarter note, or 1/4 of a quarter note? In other words, should it be half the value of one of the triplet notes below it, or should it impose a 4 vs. 3 on the triplet accompaniment?

The notes in question are:



Most recordings I've heard play it as 1/6 a quarter note. On the other hand, most recordings of the Moonlight Sonata's first movement play the analogous sixteenth as 1/4 of a quarter note.

Thoughts?

-Jason

Yeah, good point. I'm glad you didn't suggest a triplet. I find it unbearable when people make the rhythm even more normal still. In both cases, I'd definitely do a genuine semiquaver. It's far more interesting. It naturally marks the descent very slightly, instead of cheaply letting it slide down. The key is to keep the third triplet exceedingly soft- to prevent any feeling of two lines merging into one or jarring too notably against each other. There's a way of making the displacement only just register, so it creates interest without the movement from the third to the fourth note feeling overly jagged. Also, the semiquaver still needs to feel like it progresses forwards to connect to the next- instead of seeming to separate everything. I think this is the really hard part. It's not easy to make it feel like interrupts that tiny bit but still make a feeling of connection to the next note. I've worked on getting students to balance connection against length many times in the moonlight too. It never proves to be easy. I'm not sure if it needs to be quite literal, but I'd never tolerate a feeling of being so short as half a triplet.

Good question.

I don't think there's any uniform answer -- there are all the different possibilities, and we have to think whenever we see this kind of thing.

I've also usually heard the Schumann as you said (although as per the above post there's a good argument for that other way) but about the Moonlight Sonata -- I've often heard it as in the Schumann. Professionals are more likely than others to play it as you said (i.e. as a "regular" 16th note), but even among them, I'm not sure 'regular 16th" is what most do. When I played it, I did it the other way.

I'm having this issue with a passage in the slow movement of Schubert's "little A major sonata" (Op. 120, D. 664), top of the 2nd page in my edition, I think it's measures 35 & 36. I don't think it's clear exactly what to do. At various times I've done it all three ways (although as per the above post, playing it as a triplet is probably kind of dumb) and now I'm inclined probably to do it as you said about the Schumann.

P.S. For an example where they really "should" be played as triplets ('should' being in "quotes" because IMO these things are rarely if ever absolute):

What about the coda of Chopin's F minor Ballade -- the L.H. part in m. 223 and 225.

I've hardly ever heard them as anything but triplets -- i.e. the short notes in the LH played together with each 3rd triplet note of the RH -- and I can't imagine playing them otherwise. I've played the piece many times, including for various teachers and in performances, and sometimes there have been some issues but nobody ever said boo about that.

When you're playing that coda, I imagine it's a matter of life and death, and we don't have the luxury of such a subtle distinction.... But here especially, I'd think playing along with the triplets is less appropriate. After all, if that's what Chopin had intended, wouldn't he have notated that measure similarly to the right hand of m.217 and 218, i.e. without dots?

In the last 24h, I've taken to playing the Schumann using a real sixteenth note, and I like it much more. It's slightly less cute, and slightly more sad.

Mark, I go back and forth about your Schubert dilemma.

-Jason

While I haven't studied this particular work, nor much of Schumann for that matter, the simple, direct character of the piece suggests to me that the melody - kept as separate from the accompaniment as possible by understating the accompaniment - should be as close to the rhythmic notation as possible. In other words, I would opt not for a sixteenth note that is 1/6 of a quarter note but one that is 1/4 of a quarter note. Rendering the eighth-note any shorter than that takes away from the otherwise gentle flow of the piece.

That is not based on any extensive research but more on my feeling of what is appropriate for the context.

Regards,

I have three editions of Schubert works whose editors make comments on the interpretive dilemma with the triplet vs. the dotted eighth plus a sixteenth-note and with further reference to a fourth comment. All of them come to the same conclusion that it is up to the performer to determine how these two rhythmic patterns should be treated. This is in specific reference to Schubert and would not necessarily transfer to later Romantic writers; then again, maybe it could.

If anyone is interested in the specific quotes, I'll be happy to produce them.

Regards,

"We are never more true to ourselves than when we are inconsistent."
- Oscar Wilde


(For some reason, this quote seems appropriate to the matter at hand, although I'm not sure how...)

Well how about that, folks.

This is one where I didn't expect any other view, and all it took was about 10 minutes!

Schumann’s Opus 15-1 ... Von fremden Landern und Menchen
8th-notes make up the dual triplets (6 notes) in each measure ...
the RH F# and E in m2 (according to the notation) have a proportional 3:1 duration
in relation to a 1/4-note.

However, the nett mix against the rhythmic LH pulse results in the E being squeezed in
like a grace note (acciaccatura) ... top marks to Kreisler for

"We are never more true to ourselves than when we are inconsistent."
- Oscar Wilde

Here’s a MIDI diagram of the accurate relationship of the notes in question.

I've been playing this one for a while now. It's a wonderful little piece full of interpretive options. Some days I like a more even melody and some days I like a little more edge to it. There is obviously a strictly mathematical outcome to what should be played according to the score, but I think scores fail to account for an inaccuracy between what the composer would have us play and what can be indicated in a score. Here I think the title "Von fremden Landern und Menschen" suggests a little trepidation to me and a bit of edge. There's the whole amazement childlike interest in something new, but also something unfamiliar. That is what I would take from the title as I think what the composer titles something is as important to us in interpretation as the notes. I think my last recording of this was overly-edgey on those notes. But that was me relistening today and next week I might be back to edgey again. I don't think there's a black and white answer on this one. I love this piece more every time I sit down to work on it as it is different every day and it truly brings something from itself and from me when I play it even if I'm not an accomplished pianist.

The only thing I'd suggest Peyton, is if you've always been playing it one way, play it the other way and see what your brain feels. I'm really looking forward to the four or five recordings we're going to get of this piece for the e-ctial.

the Romantics, from Schubert on to quite a while on, used the classic, even baroque method of triplets in one part and 16th notes in the other, just to make sure that the last of the triplet-notes coincides with the postponed 16th note, thus: the 16th note is to be played at the same time as the last note of the triplet, just to confuse you all, have a decent look at Chopin's prelude in E, various editions, it's worth a phd!

"just to make sure that the last of the triplet-notes coincides with the postponed 16th note"

??? That does not 'make sure' of anything. If they meant a triplet, writing a triplet would have made sure. To write this way could scarcely make the intentions less clear- if those intetions were indeed of a triplet rhythm.

Some people assume that it means a triplet, but there's no question that it's universally accepted that it's merely a lazy notation for that. In the above case, I think it sounds unbelievably boring to play it with the triplet. Regardless of whether Schumann meant it, I'd play it as he wrote it down.

I have to agree. I have no idea how Schumann's notation makes sure that it coincides. If he wanted a triplet he would have simply written one out. Clearly, he doesn't want one. Play it the way it's written.

Absolutely !!! And that seems to be the commonly accepted approach to this particular piece. I've never heard it played any other way - other than by a student who didn't know any better......!!

I did hear a recording by Clara Haskil, as I recall, that did all triplets. I found it horrendous.

Stores, I don't think we can necessarily assume that Schumann did not want triplets though. I play it as a dotted rhythm because I hate the sound of triplets- but I couldn't state for a fact Schumann had not meant them. Frankly, if there were solid evidence that he did mean triplets, I'd do semiquavers anyway and say that it's his own fault for not being clear.

Really? The reason why I started this thread wasn't to ask about whether to play it as a 16th note (1/4 beat) vs. a triplet (1/3 beat). That's a clear choice.

Rather, I'm curious whether it should be played as 1/2 a triplet, i.e. 1/6th a beat, instead of 1/4 a beat. I usually hear it performed as half a triplet, which is not "as written".

For example: (This is where is really gets fun and debatable! )

Horowitz:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BfmJL6A2yE

Moiseiwitsch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6wopZQZDaI

Lisitsa:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq8LDUCw6sg

and many other (non-youtube) audio recordings.

The only recording I found with a proper 16th note in my brief search was Argrich:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3FzO72Vt8A

At least NONE of them play it as a triplet !!!

And I really like Argrich's approach !!

I suppose that you're right. There isn't any factual evidence that he didn't want triplets, but then he'd have been much clearer had he simply written triplets, which I'm sure he would've been aware of had that been his intent. Like you, to me, it's not at all the same piece without the dot.

The Henle edition has a note at the bottom of this piece stating, "The notation in the first edition ([they show a dotted note in RH lining up exactly above the 3rd LH note]) may indicate that triplets should be played in the melody part as well." I don't think the autograph has survived, but it seems reasonable to assume that the first edition was imitating the layout in Schumann's manuscript, and that he intended the notes to be struck simultaneously.

As far as laziness or lack of clarity is concerned, I don't know when composers started writing the 1/4 note, 1/8 note with a 3 between them. It might not have started or caught on at that time? (Musicologists, thoughts please?) Mark_C has already pointed out an excellent example in late Chopin where simultaneous playing is surely intended (Ballade in F minor Op.52, much of bars 211-225 near the end). Also there is the final passage of the Chopin's Polonaise-Fantasy Op.61. The autograph has triplets and dotted rhythms lined up exactly, and Paderewski and the National Edition honor this. In this case I find it natural for the third-beat division to stretch close to an ending quarter-beat where the melody asks for it, but always with the LH and RH notes together.

That's what I also find with this Schumann piece being discussed: where there is a dotted rhythm in the RH, I stretch the rhythm just slightly towards a quarter of a beat (1/16 note if you prefer), with the hands playing the notes simultaneously. It takes very little of a stretch to make all the difference. Different strokes for different folks, but I don't find it boring at all. I also find the brief 7th D-C at the end of the bar 14 resolving to G major more poignant than with a non-simultaneous execution. For me, in general the piece has more harmonic life in it with those notes sounding together, as per the layout in the first edition.

Given that there are no duplet rhythms at all in this piece, Schumann could have written the whole thing in 6/8. Maybe by not doing this, Schumann was instinctively writing some of his rubato into the piece, the inclination to stretch/hesitate slightly before the shorter melodic notes?