It's a derivation. I either play it with one hand, or split the RH 5/41 LH 1/5. Been a few years since I played this piece, though, so I don't remember if I used the 5 or the 4 in the RH when I split it.

Actually, I played around with it a little in my head, and I don't think it would be too bad. I don't have a keyboard handy at the moment, but I think you can avoid catching the Gb because you're crossing over while your other hand is playing, so you have that extra split second to settle your hand in. As for the 1 at the start of that measure, yeah, you're probably right. A 2 makes more sense, especially considering you just played it as a 2 on the way up, right?

I normally think of "hacking" as something that completely bypasses a mechanic that is meant to thwart one's access to something. As sadistic as Chopin's music can seem sometimes, I don't think that he actively wanted to prevent you from playing it.

Zimmerman cheats here. Chopin wrote it for the right hand only, and it sounds better, but much more difficult to play. I couldn't do it at first read with my great teacher at the time, but she used psychology on me. She said to use both hands if I wasn't "good enough to play it correctly". It took me 4 or 5 days (not sure-long time ago), but it can be done. Most pianists play it as written, because they can.

Aside from his cheat, his fingering might not work for you anyway. All of our hands are different.

What is your basis for that?


IF the "correctly" referred to playing it all with the right hand (and I emphasize the "if" because I wouldn't want to assume that's what she meant), she doesn't understand about this either.

It's just incorrect.

I agree with Mark, and I'll take it one step further: get a new teacher.

I wouldn't go that far. First of all, as I said I wouldn't assume that she said it exactly how it was given here. And anyway, the thing she supposedly said, while IMO flat-out wrong and suggesting that she's more rigid than anyone I'd ever want to work with, is a not-uncommon view, including among knowledgeable people who might be good teachers for some. Plus, since for various reasons it just might not be that easy for someone to get a different teacher, I'm very reluctant to ever say that, even in person with someone I know. It gets said here a lot, but I'm not sure it's a good idea.

I've got the music; I mastered it and have performed it. It was clearly written as a RH arpeggio, and does sound different when played with both Hands. Another ex would be the e-flat seventh cord at the end of his op 53. Some play the two lower e-flats with LH, but as written, the middle e-flat should be played RH, and does have a different sound. As for teacher-she was terrific, and well respected-a star pupil of Edward Fleck.

Total BS.

What about the score makes you think it's written for RH only?

If anything, we could say it's written for both hands, because the latter part of it appears on the bass clef. I mean, that's wrong too, but I could at least see that there's some basis for it, however mistaken it is.

Do you mean because of the fingering in your edition?
What makes you think that's by Chopin?

BTW, let me say, although I'm disagreeing with you, I really appreciate that you're willing to follow through on this discussion. In my experience, most people who assert something like what you did then just run away when asked what's their basis.


Good point, and let's take a look at that.

The ways that I try dividing it, and the way I currently play it, are very much dictated by how I want it to sound -- and the way I want it to sound, it goes much better with the re-distribution than with playing it all with one hand (as I said before). That's one reason why I do it.

And if someone wants it to sound the way you seem to be implying you think it should go -- i.e. basically continuously smooth (I guess) -- part of the challenge of playing it redistributed, if they choose to do so, would be to make it sound just as it might if it were played with the RH alone. BTW I would say that's Zimerman's interpretation, and he succeeds 100%.


I think you better identify it more. I've known the piece for about 1000 years and performed it many times, but offhand I have no idea what chord you mean.

For the op 53 PolonIse: I'm referring to the second to last cord in the piece...the e-flat 7th before the final RH a-flat major with a LH a-flat octave. I just looked at my Schirmer edition of the scherzo (BTW-fingering by Rafael Joseffy), and the second measure of this Arpeggio, all but one 8th note is on the bass staff, but the notes are going up. This reads to me, and is also fingered, for the right hand. I suppose one could make an argument for this being my personal preference, but I still think Zimmerman is merely taking the easy (and less risky) route. When discussing Polish pianists performing Chopin, I prefer Blecharz to Zimerman. I like his crisp clean notes-reminds me of Rachmaninoff and Horowitz.

Oh -- that!

And y'know, I think I have to agree with you here. I've been playing it the way that you consider to be wrong, and while I wouldn't agree that it's "wrong," it does seem to me that you're right about how it tends to change the sound, and in a not-good way. I started playing it that way a long time ago, when I didn't think about things like this enough, and have just kept playing it that way without re-evaluating it. I'll probably be doing it "as written" from here on.

About the passage in the Scherzo: You're assuming that the stems mean something about what hand to play it with. Please realize that your view is far from fact. In my view, and in the view of many, the consistent upward stems are just an indication of what kind of musical figure it is -- a single voice.

I think the reason the Polonaise finale sounds better the way Chopin wrote it, is that it adds an additional melody line at the end. The LH thumb going from C to B-flat to A-flat, and I like it better. Another example is the final notes of his op 10 no 12, the final base note is a single note; however I recently saw an edition where the final bass notes were octaves. I much prefer the sound of the single note. As for the Scherzo, it seems we must agree to disagree here. I think this has been a great discussion, other than the beatings I've taken today over old threads.

If you take another look, you might see that you got more support than beating!

Or at least the support was smarter and better.

You're absolutely right. I think there was some great discourse on Liszt. I have read in several sources, that he could sight read anything. I can't, but my old teacher could, and that's enough proof for me.

Yeah, you're right. It does. I suppose it's my desire to impose a less rigid approach, which is, in itself, rigid. Ah, the conundrum. But I will recant.


I am not sure I subscribe to this idea. (In fact, I would say pretty strongly that I do not.) But for argument's sake, what say you: if I prepare a list of 30-40 different performances, where people use one hand and split hand, and you correctly identify at least 95%, then I will support your belief? (Of course, I may need Mark's and others help compiling the dang list.. but it would be an interesting study.)

I don't think it would be an interesting study. I think it would be a waste of time, because we'd be studying the possible truth of something that relatively few qualified people believe in and which I think is patent nonsense.

I think a reasonable criterion for making the effort to study something is that there be some reason to think it is true. I don't see anything approaching such a reason on this.

I agree, but the believers think it is true. I think, for the sake of the believers, it could help to sway them that their hold on such a notion is faulty. That is the angle from which I believe it can be useful. Obviously, I'm like you and subscribe to the idea that it is utter nonsense. But I understand that some people will not believe less than full evidentiary support. And that is what can be offered for those who are unwilling to find the evidence themselves. No?

Life's too short to try to convince everybody of everything.

And besides, I doubt that what you described (or anything) would convince who you're trying to convince. You're assuming that what you'd find would do so. What makes you think so? I think they'd say it doesn't matter how many people do it how they think is wrong, because they're just doing it wrong -- no matter who they are. And if some of the doubters would be amenable to things like that, they'll eventually come around anyway.

I'm in the camp that believes that it's a right hand passage....but is easier with two hands probably. I think the same can be said for Liszt's second cadenza in his 6th Hungarian Rhapsody.

But as the PW member with by far the greatest posting rate (as in most posts per year) you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time doing just that.

When worthwhile. I gave my criterion. You forgot to take that into account in your reply.

BTW if you reply to this post, please make sure to take everything into account, or you get another lash with a wet noodle.

For even trying, I suppose PT Barnum predicted my birth, down to the second..


I'm interested.. why do you believe that? Do you believe people who play it with two hands are "wrong" or that the music "can't sound the same"? Or is it just a preference in the way you play it?