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!
wayne, sometimes the end of a phrase loops into the start, and then I can loop it non-stop. But when it doesn't, I just pause at the end, and then start over. It will be interesting to hear what other people do.
My initial intention, Wayne, was that you could loop the first phrase until you got comfortable with the rhythm, not for all the other phrases. Looping tends not to be too helpful once you've got the rhythm into the fingers as it can take the meaning out of the lines.
All subsequent phrases you should take up the first note of the next phrase then stop, think about what you've just done, what went well, what didn't, play the phrase over again in your head with a view to making corrections then have another go.
Just looping doesn't help in that situation but in the initial phrase, when you're hands are just getting used to the rhythm, melody & bass, two harmony notes, two melody notes etc. then looping can build tempo rapidly and fill you with confidence for the rest.
This piece and others like it where the same figuration dominates the piece (like Bach's Prelude number 1 from the WTC) can benefit from this technique.
Giving this a bit higher practice priority as we are looking at it here. Seems to be coming along fine so far.
For the squiggly thing above the F in M5, I am to just play F,G,F and continue, then the next one above the Eb will be Eb, F, Eb continue? Also, the tr in M7 is a trill that I just continue for the duration of this note and I am playing F,G? For the squiggly thing and the tr, is it always the note above (of the key we are in) that is added?
The LH here (M5-M8) is identical to M1-M4 and the melody is just a more melodic version. So, I would just call the chords an exact repeat.
For the squiggly thing above the F in M5, I am to just play F,G,F and continue, then the next one above the Eb will be Eb, F, Eb continue? Also, the tr in M7 is a trill that I just continue for the duration of this note and I am playing F,G? For the squiggly thing and the tr, is it always the note above (of the key we are in) that is added?
The LH here (M5-M8) is identical to M1-M4 and the melody is just a more melodic version. So, I would just call the chords an exact repeat.
Yes on all counts.
The upper mordent (or Pralltriller in German) is the principal note, the diatonic note above and the principal note. With a vertical line through the sign it becomes a mordent (not used here) and that is principal note, diatonic note below, and principal note.
Chopin begins trills on the principal note because of Hummell's 1825 treatise I think I mentioned earlier.
Mendelssohn - Op 102 No 1 Something has been bothering me and hoping you can help.
I thought the issue (a minor one) would work itself out as I became more familiar with this, but it has not. In fact, I have come to the conclusion that either my score is wrong, or I need to give Barenboim a lesson in counting. I suspect the former.
M12 My score has a dotted eighth note on the fifth note of the melody. Vs. dotted eighth on the first note like M14 has. But, Barenboim is playing the first eighth dotted, like M14. This also makes a difference in how the harmony lines up with the melody in this bar.
I am working on trying to bring out the melody in this piece. So, it would be good if I know that I have the melody right in the first place.
Here is the recording: Note, you can hear the dotted eighth at :55 and not at :58. But my score and the one shown here has it at :58.
You're probably using Ditson, or another similar score. My score (ABRSM) and Barenboim's use the same rhythm as in M14.
I have professional recordings using both readings. Barenboim's is more consistent but Mendelssohn was quite fussy about that sort of thing (like Beethoven) and can use variety without one being better than another. Both this book, Op 102, and the previous, Op. 85, were finished at the time of Mendelssohn's death but were not with the publisher. He may not have finished proof-reading or may not have decided which alternative he preferred.
You might care to compare Beethoven's Bagatelle in G min Op. 119/1, M7-8, M15-16 and M43-44 as a typical example of Beethoven' creativity.
And yes, the Nocturne is done up to the coda now. I caught the post you lost.
I have professional recordings using both readings. Barenboim's is more consistent but Mendelssohn was quite fussy about that sort of thing (like Beethoven) and can use variety without one being better than another. Both this book, Op 102, and the previous, Op. 85, were finished at the time of Mendelssohn's death but were not with the publisher. He may not have finished proof-reading or may not have decided which alternative he preferred.
It is good to know then, I will not be wrong in either case. This pattern occurs in M12, M14, M25 & M27. The only time the pattern is altered (dotted on 3rd beat instead of first) is on the first occurrence. I am going to side with this being an intentional variation and play it as such. Plus, I have learned it this way . The difference of course is subtle, but definitely noticeable.
Just a quick check in of what may be forthcoming in this thread. That is, will we be working on something new soon? The nocturne is very much a work in progress for me. It is coming along ok, but I have a few others that are being developed at the same time and it won't likely be in a position for public consumption until sometime after the Mendelssohn recital.
I for one, would still be interested to move along with other analysis. We can always revert back as needed and as we have done previously. The "Starting Out with Analysis" thread is developing nicely, and I have been keeping an watchful eye on this and it is indeed, filling in some blanks for me. Just thinking though, of the added value of this thread continuing along in conjunction, for the benefit of followers.
So can I assume you aren't going to finish the Nocturne or the Haydn sonata, at least just yet?
The plan was to work in tranches of a major sonata for the historical perspective, an easy and playable piece to be less intimidating and more difficult material to see the value of a structural analysis before learning to play a major piece. The Mendelssohn and the Nocturne have filled this role.
With the new Starting out... thread there may be less call for an easy piece unless you want to look at something around the grade 4 or 5 mark. Mussorgsky's Teardrop/Eine Trane, perhaps?
Do you want to work on the 'few others' currently in a state of development?
The next sonata will probably be Mozart's K.331 in A major looking at variation form. I think I encapsulated music in the starting out thread as repetition, sequence and alteration. Variation form is the most direct form of alteration.
Originally Posted by Greener
Just thinking though, of the added value of this thread continuing along in conjunction, for the benefit of followers.
So can I assume you aren't going to finish the Nocturne or the Haydn sonata, at least just yet? ... Do you want to work on the 'few others' currently in a state of development? ...
This sounds like a good idea. You're right there is enough already to look at. No, I don't think we should abandon anything. So, think we should finish Haydn and the Nocturne. Another one I'm working on at about the same pace as the Nocturne is the Op 64 No 2 Chopin Waltz. So perhaps we can squeeze this in to the conversation somewhere.
I think for now though, in terms of analysis, that Haydn should get bumped back up in priority.
Originally Posted by zrtf90
Originally Posted by Greener
Just thinking though, of the added value of this thread continuing along in conjunction, for the benefit of followers.
What followers?
Well there are 90,000+ views, so I made an assumption that there may be some interested followers. Although it would be nice to pick up the tempo of actual posting activity. We had cross posts galore when we started, but things have settled for sure. Somewhere in between would be good I think.
I'm beginning to have doubts about the validity of the 90000+ views. Most of those vocal enough to mention the thread suggest it's too hard to follow.
What do you make of 64/2 apart from the chords? At this stage you're well able to do a harmonic analysis without me.
When you get back to the Nocturne, look again at M1-4. What chords would you expect in Eb major? How do the actual chords compare? How would you put them in Roman Numerals? How easily is Chopin moving between harmonies? How is the music affecting you emotionally? What's causing that? Of the composers we've looked at so far (or any that you know), whose writing does this most resemble and why?
I'm beginning to have doubts about the validity of the 90000+ views. Most of those vocal enough to mention the thread suggest it's too hard to follow.
One thing that I have noticed is that PW pages get indexed by Google very quickly. So, a lot of views may be coming directly from search engines. Also, there are regular downloads of the scores we have previously done analysis with.
Suffice it to say, there has and is tremendous value in all that has been explored in this thread and it is far more reaching then to just the active participants.
OK, I will take your suggestions under consideration and advise back of my findings.
I've reached a major milestone with Mendelssohn today and I'm pumped.
There are three main sections. To label, I would call this
ABCBAB
Section A first occurrence is M1-M32 and consists of two phrases. The first phrase M1-M4 repeats and is followed by a second phrase M9-M17. Then the entire section above repeats in slight variation.
The B section is M33-M64. This is one phrase with modification in the second occurrence and then the entire section (M33-M48) repeats.
The C section is a delightful contrast to anything so far. It is an entirely new theme from M66-M81 and repeats from M82-M97 with slight variation.
Then back to B section (identical) Then back to A section (identical) Then back to B section again (identical)
Yes. The central section is in D flat - the enharmonic major of C# minor.
The piu mosso section is a sequence from G# down to C# (the old 5-4-3-2-1 trick) using the first beat of each bar but look how he achieves C# on the second iteration. Truly wonderful!
The central section is in D flat - the enharmonic major of C# minor.
Yes, I see this by the key signature, but I am not sure what this means "enharmonic major of C# minor". Is this the first time we have come across this?
Obviously we haven't moved far (at all) on the register from C# to Db. So, I will be interested (when the time comes, as just starting to work on Piu mosso) to look at the chords of this section and get a better understanding of the contrast. I will expect more major vs. minor now for this section. But, only because you've told me so.
