Re: Paul Badura-Skoda's editorial notes to Op.28 No.6

To save space and bytes I won't copy the quotes back, but suffice it to say that I agree with Nyire's post and I don't understand your disagreement.

There is no way Badura-Skoda's single conjecture can be extrapolated to include Chopin's complete oeuvre. Badura-Skoda would certainly not have done it himself.

Nobody (other than yourself) is insisting that concrete proofs have been made of anything or that right answers have been established beyond any possible doubt. However, this single instance provides a clear demonstration of the fact that there are instances where Chopin Chopin willfully omit a logical continuation to achieve something.

If you're not willing to acknowledge the uncertainty of all this, it's really very clear that you have approached this from a preconceived point of view and decided to stick with it regardless.

(How interesting that Badura-Skoda offers "conjecture", but anyone assuming that Chopin's Etude is to be treated as if accents were notated on each beat is offering a concrete realisation of what Chopin supposedly "asked for")

He's hardly going to do it for the fun of it is he? Obviously there's a reason. What you can't do is first speculate and then apply that speculation to the man's complete oeuvre! You are in essence setting up a rule on one speculation i.e. that every time Chopin uses a printing convention to convey his idea, he is 'saying' something extra. You cannot do that.

And NO! ONE INSTANCE!

Nobody has done that here. You brought in an example of another piece, and I replied along the lines that I think it illustrates a similar point to the main piece under discussion.

Yes, I do believe that the pieces just discussed are illustrative of a pattern of subtlely understated notation in Chopin's works, but that's my opinion, not Badura-Skoda's, and I never pretended otherwise. Just because a viewpoint I express comes on the back of a discussion about Badura-Skoda's notes, and I emphasize that he agrees with me regarding a particular example, does not mean that I am somehow extrapolating a single conjecture of his.

No I am saying it is both POSSIBLE and consistent with other examples. Nobody but yourself is portraying speculative extrapolation as if it were a matter of certainty and that alternatives were impossible.

What you CAN do is "speculate". What you cannot do is delude yourself into believing that you can speak with certainty upon what Chopin meant.

How can it do? There are no scratched out marks in op 10 (as far as I know). Remember Badura-Skoda said 'perhaps' - a total conjecture. I would assume Chopin was looking at the score from an aesthetic angle - again a conjecture. You cannot take a single instance and apply it in any way to his complete genre. It's certainly a printing convention - that we know.

Interesting! My guess is that this was for teaching rather than performance: that Chopin felt his pupils would be able to build up fluency and accuracy (with relaxed and supple movements) better by not trying to play with a full tone at the same time? If a very talented pupil making great strides with the piece had wanted to play it in a recital, I think Chopin would have happily endorsed the marked f.

Thank you IBB for at least conversing with me on something sensible and helping me bring some sanity here.

And since my original point was been lost pages ago, to repeat, I said there are potentially two types of people learning 10/1

(a) Those planning on Performing this Piece
(b) Those using this as a true Etude.

As I suspected, you also fall under (b) just like me.

In which case, this pages and pages of arguments on accents is so meaningless. For us, I would guess that it would be best to practice with accents so we can 'group' the notes and develop the technique to sound it out as loud as we wish it emphasized at that moment. The significance of mild to loud accents is lost to me at this point.

I too would be happy to play this at a tempo less than 176bpm.

I hear (because I haven't gotten to it yet), that section 5 or 6 is more difficult and determines how fast one can do this. Section 1 is definitely getting better under my fingers but it does bother me that something unexpected my have to be done some pages in.

Too bad because I was feeling good about solidifying section 1 and I was having confidence in beginning to rack up the tempo a little.

Anyway, if this thread is still "open", I might post a recording of where I got in section 1 after a couple of weeks. Otherwise, maybe I'll have to start ANOTHER 10/1 thread.....sigh....

And the idea that two bars of accents requires a whole study of stronger accents (than those you have scoffed at in so many recordings) is no way "conjecture"?

You wish to dismiss those who put across opinions for "conjecture" (even thought they freely portray it as such), while portraying your own conjectures as if they were fact?

You still didn't even provide a source for the printing "convention" that you wish to be taken for granted. You only gave one example (in which it has become pretty clear that Chopin stopped writing the accents with a purpose in mind, not out of laziness).

You're absolutely right that a single example is not a proof of anything elsewhere. Seeing as you ARE claiming more than conjecture (unlike anyone else) please abide by those standards and provide something of more substance. You are the only one who has tried to prove a rule with a lone example, and you'll have do far better if this "convention" is to be accepted as proven.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p25fVbBqFSM&feature=fvst

I find the effect rather interesting. I am a little skeptical of what this woman says though and find the way she presents herself as little short of being despicable. "No evidence" for forte? Still, I'm sure she must have found something pretty worthwhile.

BTW IBB, how long have you been working on this? And how far how you gotten? Are you playing the whole thing now? Perhaps you can shed light on how difficult section 5 or 6 is.

Where oh where oh where do I say a whole study of stronger accents??? The accents, until told otherwise by cres and dim, stay the same as in the opening! The convention is - do it throughout like this!

I repeat

"stronger accents (than those you have scoffed at in so many recordings)"

please read the whole sentence this time.

Also, please stop responding to a single minor point within my posts and ignoring the important ones. It's time for you to stop being a hypocrite and illustrate that the "convention" you refer to exists. Your whole argument hinges on this.

If you're not going to do so then please remove the hypocritical mantra from your footer.

This guy certainly has another point of view on how to play this.

Well, there must be something wrong with your grammar then because the word 'stronger' applies to the 'two bars of accents' in my language.

My last word on your use of Badura-Skoda's conjecture. You cannot, using his conjecture, imply a motive to Chopin's every use of printing conventions within his entire oeuvre - which is in fact what you are attempting to do.

No scratched out marks could simply mean that Chopin didn't write more marks than he wanted at first, hence there was no need to cross anything out. The Op.28 No.6 example is significant because it is a solid example of Chopin very deliberately removing several measures of accents and leaving them in only at the beginning.

You made an implied assumption and then (accidentally I think) provided a counter-example. Your implied assumption is that the omission of accent marks from bar 3 onwards of Op.10 No.1 (definitely) doesn't mean anything significant. The counter-example of Op.28 No.6 says "not necessarily": we do have a concrete example of Chopin considering having many more accents in a piece but then stripping them down in minimalist fashion to an initial mention. We do not know for a fact that Chopin deliberately omitted accent marks from bar 3 onwards in Op.10 No.1, but it is certainly possible that he did. Let's compare and contrast a piece where Chopin did go to the trouble to write accents throughout: Op.25 No.12. Chopin could have written accents for just the first measure or two of each pattern, but he didn't.

accents on the 1st and 3rd beat of measures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
stemmed melody without accents in 7-8
back to the accents 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
second pattern introduced 15-16, 17-18, 19-20
back to first pattern 21, 22
back to second pattern 23-24, 25-26, 27-28
back to first pattern 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50...

Sheesh, I'm tired of summarizing them and there are two pages to go! Simple assumption here: Chopin wanted firm accents in Op.25 No.12 so he marked them all. In contrast, he wanted gentler ones in the cheerful Op.10 No.1, so he showed in the opening phrase merely that each beat should be marked, then left off. There's no proof of this, but it is just as reasonable (if not more so) an interpretation than that there should be firm accents throughout Op.10 No.1.

No I am not. I am saying it establishes that Chopin CAN and DOES work this way in established instances. Nobody but yourself is claiming to draw proofs. It's simply establishes possibility. Can you honestly not see the difference there?

Stronger applies to accents that are stronger than those that you have dismissed as not being accents. I am referring to accents that are stronger than those you have claimed are not accents eg. in the recording you said has no accents going up. What is the problem?

Now where is your source? Stop beating around the bush. If you have any foundation to put this argument on, please present it. I'm not interested in pointless minutiae. Please deal with the important points. If you are not prepared to abide by your footer, it's time for you to change it.

Establish that these "conventions" exist or stop referring to them.

"Open for debate as long as you can cite your sources."

I think that's funny. Especially when accounts of Chopin playing this and accounts of Chopin's views of Stretching-unstretching as the point of this etude are in direct contradiction to the guy's views. He is unable to play through at tempo with mistakes (how do I know that? He plays wrong notes at slow tempos).

In some ways I think the guy is totally full of crap. Legato is very important and the idea that this is a comprehensive approach to what you need nonsense. However, I did actually find it very useful, despite my skepticism. It's a very interesting way to practise. At that angle, you can work the fingers very confidently without a heavy landing in the keybed- because the angle is quite so indirect. It's definitely useful- but as a practise method rather than a means in itself.

I'm almost hesitant to post back here since apparently and discussion of the actual playing of 10/1 is apparently steering everyone in a different direction that what was intended -- whatever that intention happens to be.

So if there are actually people interested in learning to play this. Let me know and we'll actually have a study group.

Too bad too as the video I just posted could have been good fodder for conversation.

Those who want to learn this, let's continue discussing at the ABF. Everyone's welcome.

I want to learn but not when my technique is unprepared to study this and perform it well in a reasonable amount of time. I will probably wait another year or two before I attempt this.