Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum Classical Sonata Analysis

Mendelssohn Op. 30 No. 3

This involves memorising but it's not so much how to memorise as how to tackle a piece.

In my earlier breakdown I lumped M11-17 together though it's not important BUT the climax of the piece is in M13 and this passage builds up to it. It doesn't matter as much what you do after the climax but the climax itself is only as strong as the build up to it. This section may not, then, be the hardest but it IS the most important.

I confess to being very much tongue in cheek at this point. I don't think your memory is as bad as you think it is.

If you're happy with the fingering you have that's great. I usually disregard it and work out my own as part of the process.


There is a lot of psychological research in this area. you need at least 7 correct repetitions for it to start filtering into long term memory. After about 20 the payback is on a reducing scale. It's best to measure your progress at varying numbers of repetitions but the average is 7-10. I do about half a dozen but I always do mental practise between repetitions for four reasons.

Firstly, mental repetitions grow the brain connections exactly the same as physical practise but without the wrong notes (I never hit the wrong notes while playing mentally unless I've learnt the wrong ones).

Secondly, it doubles the number of repetitions.

Thirdly it sets me up for mental practise away from the piano.

And fourthly, it makes my repetitions meaningful instead or just bead counting. Each attempt is trying to improve the last with a specific target.

The brain grows the connections just like muscle growth - not while we exercise, but while we sleep.

Here's the thing. When you play a note it has a dynamic attribute. It may be right for the music or it may be wrong. But it isn't without dynamics. Now you needn't concern yourself with learning the dynamics as you go but as soon as you free up some reserve of brain power and thinking beyond 'the right notes at the right time' you will either practise whatever dynamics you end up with or you can decide how you want them.

I tend to learn a piece as sound before I start sitting at the piano so I already know how I want it to go. Not only is it easy and natural to put the right dynamics in from the start but it's difficult to accept the default dynamics when they're not what I'm expecting. It can be very difficult to add them or correct them later when you're already familiar with playing the piece with 'default' dynamics.

I would have suggested the 11 note phrase from the climax M13.3 to 15.1 as one part, 15.1 to 16.1 as a second. M15 and M16 are the same but for the first note.

Again, this isn't about memorising, per se, but learning a piece, memorising or not.

Absolutely not. Start your practise on this piece by playing any sections you've already memorised in the order you learnt them but not sequentially through the piece without breaks. Go slow and accept no wrong notes at this stage. Go back and fix them first.

When you've memorised a section long enough that you never look at the score when you're playing it, stop playing it every day. You know it well enough that that you can just give it a couple of slow run throughs on Saturday and Sunday.

The next thing I would expect you to do is play through the whole piece once in your head and once on the keys at the beginning of your session. HT where you can (as long as you're not playing wrong notes), HS where you can't and skip sections where you can't even play HS yet. These are the technical difficulties that should be fixed before you start learning the piece proper.

After your recap and play through start on that days section.

She makes a good point. There's no point overloading the brain. I know beforehand what dynamics and phrasing I want but the point is not to begin repetitive practise of just the notes once you've learnt them (without dynamics - and see above).

Then continue to use the score. If you're working on a short enough section you may well find you don't need the score. Intending not to use it encourages closer investigation finding patterns, aides-memoires, and such but feeling pressured to not use it isn't making the best use of your time and won't help your memory. I follow the score until I just can't be bothered looking at it. But sometimes I have to force myself to not look back again later. It's different for different folks. There are passages that have taken me unearthly amounts of time and effort to memorise and still thwart me and others I've never had to go back to the score on (even after my fifteen year break).

If rhythm is your strong point this may have less practical application for you.

The difference between words and counting is that counting has a regular pulse that occurs whether or not a note sounds but words occur only when a note sounds; they show up the rhythm. This is handy in polyrhythms, in fact I started using words when I started dealing with 4 against 3 rhythms.

A sentence like 'pass the golden butter' shows up the resulting rhythm of 4 vs 3 so it can be practised slowly and without rhythm but when the the notes are learnt you can start playing them the way the sentence is metred then bring it up to speed.

When the rhythmic pattern is unusual words give it a 'handle' that you can latch on to without having to read the note values so finely. It can be awkward where notes sounded together appear offset beceause the upstems of the lower notes do not coincide with the downstems of the upper notes or there's a variety of note values and dotted notes (have a quick look at Bach's Prelude & Fugue VII, Book I, for example). When remembering the notes is hard enough and remembering the rhythm is extra, the words help.

A specific example, 8 against 3 in Chopin's C# minor waltz, Op. 64 no. 2, from the last beat of M83 to the second beat of M85 I might use 'and JUST so that NOthing gets beTWEEN the two FAMily ties' (I use a different phrase but it's vulgar so it's easier to remember!).

Mendelssohn, Op. 102 No. 1

I would like to take a look at the harmony (Chords) in this work. However, this is mainly for my interest as I know not everyone will be interested, if they are not working on it.

So, OK to go ahead with this? Or better to wait until we get back to more of a group effort with the Haydn Hob.

In starting (very briefly) to look at the chords, they do not appear to be complex. At least not yet. What is complex though is how they are broken into various inversions and rhythm patterns alternating between RH LH.

There is no question that this piece is going to be a lot of work for me. I believe I heard you mention somewhere else, Richard, that very little is insurmountable with enough practice. I have every confidence of conquering this piece. The challenge will be in having it in presentable shape, once the recital submissions roll around.

Figuring out the chords and trying to name them correctly is fun for me. I am dedicating today to a lot of practice on this piece and will be looking at the chords anyway. But, do not want to hijack the thread if there are other things we should rather focus towards.

If you're analysing the piece then posting the results will be welcomed. There's an academic interest in analysing music (especially harmonic analysis) but there are practical benefits in understanding the piece, knowing it's hidden patterns and idiosyncracies. All the things that make you want to learn it in the first place. It makes it all so much easier to get to know it, enjoy listening to it, get to know the composer, memorising and performing the piece.

It moves to a place that's beyond liking or not liking, somehwere much deeper. Seeing what you do with the analysis of your piece helps us all do more with our own pieces.

That's one of the main benefits of the thread.

A propos the "Haydn Hob.", just in case anyone is in any doubt, Haydn's works were catalogued by a Dutchman named Anthony von Hoboken just as Köchel did for Mozart, Otto Deutsch did for Schubert and Kirkpatrick (K. or Kp.), Longo (L.) and Pestelli (P.) did for Scarlatti. Later composers works can be identified by their published opus numbers.

Bach's BWV (Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis = Bach Works Catalogue) and Handel's HWV appendages are similar.

I'm all over it then, right after breakfast .



I was definitely in doubt. I figured these stood for something, but had no idea what. Thanks for this. Something new every day it seems and why I am loving this thread.

Mendelssohn, Op. 102 No. 1

M1- Em
M2- E7, Am
M3- F#7-9/G (rootless,) F#7/C#, B7sus4, B7

The first chord is diminished (A#dim/G, but as we are going to F#7 next, I would rather call this F#7-9 and then just drop the flat 9.) Plus, I love the name

M4- Em, Am
M5- B, B7, Em

I was thinking of skipping down and starting at M12 next, as this is what I am looking at next, in my practice. M6-M11 is almost a repeat of the A section anyway, so will be similar to above. I'll come back to later if OK.

EDIT: Removed Bsus4 in M5, it is actually a +5 but just passing on the way back to Em.

Mendelssohn, Op. 102 No. 1

M12- Em/B, Bm
M13- Em6/B, Em/B, Em6/C#, Bm
M14- Em/B, Bm
M15- C/B

C over B of course is Cmaj7, but the C major chord moves through different inversions, some of which do not include the major 7 or even the root. So, just calling it a C over B. This happens a lot and I am not trying to name every possible inversion variance. To do so would get crazy .

M16- B7-9sus4
M17- B7, B7/A (pass through Bmaj7 not mentioned)
M18- E7-9/G# (rootless,) A, C6

this is a G#dim7. Again, at various inversions and resolving to A Major. Hence preference for E7-9

These were tricky.

At M19 we are coming back to theme 1 again so this is good place to break. So, back to some playing now ...

I've been reading all this analysis, there's some real good advise, thnx guys, you're doing a great job

Mendelssohn, Op. 102 No. 1

M3- F#7-9/G (rootless,) F#7/C#, B7sus4, B7

M3 beat 1: G, C#, E and A# making G dim.
If this were a rootless dominant 7 flat 9 the root would be a major third below G, C#, E or A# making it D#, A, C or F#. The second beat is F#, C#, E and A. This is F#7 and it's dominant 7th would be C#7. So beat 1 is not a dominant chord (a rootless C#7-9) but a normal diminished chord used to transition to F# on its way to a normal B7 (for me the E is a melody note not part of the harmony, it's just not on my wavelength here) that resolves to Em in M4.

Now, at long last, we can see the difference between a normal diminished chord and a rootless dominant 7-9 in a real situation. Most of the diminished chords we've been seeing have been functioning as dominants. This one isn't.

M15 C/B

Let's look just at the left hand here and just at the beat notes. I see E minor still over the B root but on Beat 2 there's a distinct change to C major and the B returning off the beat so I get Em, C which repeats on beats three and four.

Disregarding the RH melody notes the E and G in RH concur. This confirms Em and C for me or Em/B and C maj7 to be pedantic.

[Edit]

M16:
Beat 1 & 3 = B, E, A, F# = B7 sus 4
Beat 2 & 4 = F#, A, C, B = B7-9

I looked at this at the piano to day. I mistook the C as C# last night at 2 am (after wrapping presents).

M17:
beat 1 = B, D#, A = B7
beat 2 = F#, A, B = B7 (plus colourful(!) melody note)
beat 3 = A, D#, F#, B = B7 (plus colourful(!) melody note)
beat 4 = D#, F#, B, A = B7

M18:
beat 1 = G#, D, F, B = G# dim
beat 2 = D, F, B, G# = same
beat 3 = A, C, E = A min (plus colourful(!) melody note)
beat 4 = C, E, A = same

I don't think there's an A major here. The C# in the melody is cancelled on the next (melody) note.

There's a lot to take in here, Jeff, but I think you'll be better off concentrating on just the LH first, then add the RH accompaniment and only add the melody if it doesn't conflict with a simple chord name.

You'll need to analyse more of Mendelssohn's work before you really get a handle on him and he won't seem as difficult then.

It may seem that whatever you do, real world music throws a spanner in your works but it is so much better to learn it this way than get to the end of a theoretical treatise on harmony and then be dumped into real world music. You'll know when you're making real progress, not because you're near the end of the course, but because you're coming across fewer exceptions in the real world.

It's great, Wayne, to have some feedback. Your comments are very much appreciated. We can see the number of views going up but we've no idea how it's being received.

Thanks.

Mendelssohn, Op. 102 No. 1


OK, makes sense. I have a better idea now (we'll see I guess) of when to choose a rootless -9 (dominant 7th) vs. diminished. In choosing the diminished name though, I would have been more inclined to choose A# diminished, in keeping with proper naming convention of a diminished. But, I see how this would not fit with the progression. Can we/should I weigh progression above naming structure of a diminished chord? This is where I am getting a bit confused I suppose.



Ah, yes. How could I see a Cmaj7 anymore without realizing it is really an Em in disguise . In this case though em and cmaj7 alternating. Check



Check



D is sharp here on both of these beats. How can it be D6?



Check. I agree with the A minor now, but could we not have used the E7-9 (vs. G#dim) in this instance (dominant 7 moving to A?)

You caught me in mid-edit there, Jeff.

I think I've finished now. I was working at 2:00 am this morning just closing off after wrapping presents and tired. Should have left it but didn't!

Diminished naming convention was thrashed out a while ago now so let's recap.

Correct spelling uses alternate note names. Very precise but not always practical. We typically name diminished chords by the lowest note and never need to bother with slash notation.

They are typically used mostly for their ability to move to chords not usually close together (because they can resolve from any one of their four notes) but we have mostly seen them thus far being used as (rootless) dominant substitutes built on the seventh of the scale.

Mendelssohn, Op. 102 No. 1

Yes, we could. I had a different chord on beat two last night but not this morning.

We could but we needn't. The chord is G# dim BUT it can be functioning as a rootless E dominant 7-9 and therefore we've been choosing that naming convention. Both are correct. One is the chord and the other is its function.

I'll be testing you on this NEXT Christmas!

Beautiful. Yes, I think I may have it by next Christmas too. I have earmarked this for future diminishes.

Gots to run now ... time to start my Christmas shopping . Chopin, Schubert, Mendelssohn and Haydn will have to take a back seat today, unfortunately. But not for long.

Edit: Oh yeah, before I forget ... if you're still looking for ideas for me, I would be quite keen on a new piano. No preference, for brand or model. I trust everyone's judgement.

Mendelsohn, Op. 30, No. 3

A brief interjection to say: I have all the notes memorized!

Now I'm working on voicing, and it involves carefully going through the piece all over again phrase by phrase and chord by chord, but I like this because now I know all the notes and fingerings and I enjoy this kind of careful detailed work. I'm working in final decisions about pedaling at the same time, and as I get the voicing down, following it up with more careful attention to the dynamics.

The piece is in XAA'BAA''X format; the various As are 4 measure phrases all sharing the same last two measures. X is a 3 measure introduction and coda. B is a 6 measure phrase. The piece is in E major, except for B which is in the dominant, B major.

The various A and B phrases are linked rhythmically. For example, they all start on the third beat: quarter, dotted eighth, sixteenth.

OK, on to examining the harmonies of 102/1 and what Richard has said.

More simply, one could say Mendelssohn 30/3 is in ternary form, with an added and matching intro and coda: xABA'x, where the A and A' are 8 measures each with a high degree of internal unity and repetition.

Mendelsohn, Op. 30, No. 3


Response #1: Now you just have to get them in the right order!

Response #2: I knew you could do it! Didn't I just say that that your memory is better than you think? Now we can look forward to a virtuosic display with an improvised 21 bar cadenza before the final coda.

Merry Christmas to all!