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!
I was thinking about trying to learn this song. How brutal is it to learn? It may be beyond my league. I'm to the point of playing Prelude in C sharp minor by Rachmaninov and Prelude in D flat Major Chopin. I think it's about twice the difficulty of those pieces?
First of all, let me apologize in advance for anyone who gets on your case for calling it a "song"! (We have some snobs about that.)That said, anyone who calls this piece a song probably isn't advanced enough to play it.
Snobbery has nothing to do with it. It's just plain wrong.
I believe I'm correct in saying that usage eventually determines meaning. Anyone who is around people 25 years old or less knows that for virtually everyone in that group "song" means any musical composition whether sung or not. If it is already not defined that way in some dictionaries I have little doubt that within a few years it will be.
Maybe someone will correct me, but I believe 'song' as a generic word for any musical composition only came into general use when MP3 players (which can only record 'songs', even if you load it with a 90 minute Mahler Symphony) came into general use, replacing the Walkmans that preceded them, because that's what the LCD display says, and as we know, computers are never wrong.....
I certainly don't remember anyone around me (not even teenagers) calling non-vocal music 'songs' before then.
I believe I'm correct in saying that usage eventually determines meaning. Anyone who is around people 25 years old or less knows that for virtually everyone in that group "song" means any musical composition whether sung or not. If it is already not defined that way in some dictionaries I have little doubt that within a few years it will be.
I can't help agreeing with you.
I agree totally. While I'm with those who would sort of like "song" to be reserved for how we use it, we're fighting a losing battle. And really, there isn't much point to the battle. I think if anything, we should be glad that more and more people, including those not more heavily immersed in classical music training, are interested in classical music, including to the point of participating in a forum such as this. And language evolves. I'm sure there are hundreds of words and phrases that all of us pedants use, without a second thought, which were originally 'misuses.'
Speaking of which, there's another current 'misuse' which I would bet 99% of us pedants now use without a second thought, which bothers me a lot more than this song thing. In fact, I might even be the only one who considers it a misuse but that's my story and I'm sticking to it:
"Shipping," when no boat is involved. I cringe a little every time I see the term. I call it "delivery." How it got to be "shipping," I don't know. But it is what it is.
Maybe someone will correct me, but I believe 'song' as a generic word for any musical composition only came into general use when MP3 players (which can only record 'songs'....
I'm happy to correct you.
We called them "songs" when I was growing up, in the '50's, and I continued doing it into the early '60's.
In fact, my first teacher did it, even though she was a formal type -- probably not because that was her usual way of doing it but to use the same vocabulary that her kid students used. There did come a time when she started getting on my case for saying "song."
Speaking of which, there's another current 'misuse' which I would bet 99% of us pedants now use without a second thought, which bothers me a lot more than this song thing. In fact, I might even be the only one who considers it a misuse but that's my story and I'm sticking to it:
"Shipping," when no boat is involved. I cringe a little every time I see the term. I call it "delivery." How it got to be "shipping," I don't know. But it is what it is.
But "delivery" is wrong, too, because it refers only to the act of actually turning the product over to the recipient, and not the actual process of transporting the product.
(Logistics people hate the term "delivery" where it means "transportation". Almost as much as classical people hate the term "song" when it replaces "piece" or "work". Although technically, "piece" would be wrong, too, because it would indicate that the thing itself is part of a whole. And "work" would be wrong, because the physical labor has already been done. What you have is not the "work" but the "product". See how futile this all gets?)
Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.
Speaking of which, there's another current 'misuse' which I would bet 99% of us pedants now use without a second thought, which bothers me a lot more than this song thing. In fact, I might even be the only one who considers it a misuse but that's my story and I'm sticking to it:
"Shipping," when no boat is involved. I cringe a little every time I see the term. I call it "delivery." How it got to be "shipping," I don't know. But it is what it is.
Maybe someone will correct me, but I believe 'song' as a generic word for any musical composition only came into general use when MP3 players came into general use......
Allow me. You're wrong. People, kids in particular, have been doing it all my life which unfortunately predates mp3s.
Maybe someone will correct me, but I believe 'song' as a generic word for any musical composition only came into general use when MP3 players came into general use......
Allow me. You're wrong. People, kids in particular, have been doing it all my life which unfortunately predates mp3s.
Ah, I'd always suspected I live on a different planet.
But "delivery" is wrong, too, because it refers only to the act of actually turning the product over to the recipient, and not the actual process of transporting the product.
"Delivery" doesn't exactly also mean transporting??
Huh......I guess you're right! (Nice get!!)
That's one that I had gotten so used-to that it never occurred to me that it didn't mean literally what I thought.
So, from now on I'm going to insist on "transporting."
Until Derulux points out that it's not "transporting" unless PORTS are involved.
[...] Ah, I'd always suspected I live on a different planet.
My suspicions are happily confirmed.....
It must be the same planet that I live on, because I had never heard "song" used in the context we are discussing until only a few years ago. None of the students I studied with over the years ever said "song" unless they meant "song."
Before you rush to remind me what a backward country Canada is when it comes to "hip" culture, let me remind you that I lived in the US from 1969 to 2005, and only began hearing "song" for "composition" (et al.) in the late 90's.
[...] Ah, I'd always suspected I live on a different planet.
My suspicions are happily confirmed.....
It must be the same planet that I live on, because I had never heard "song" used in the context we are discussing until only a few years ago. None of the students I studied with over the years ever said "song" unless they meant "song."
Regards,
We must both be living on Alpha Centauri Bb (or is that B flat?). Great to meet a fellow Centaurian.......
But "delivery" is wrong, too, because it refers only to the act of actually turning the product over to the recipient, and not the actual process of transporting the product.
"Delivery" doesn't exactly also mean transporting??
Huh......I guess you're right! (Nice get!!)
That's one that I had gotten so used-to that it never occurred to me that it didn't mean literally what I thought.
So, from now on I'm going to insist on "transporting."
Until Derulux points out that it's not "transporting" unless PORTS are involved.
After years of study experimentation and consultation I have found that the opening octave of this piece is best played using 1-5 in both hands. (This is at least as important/interesting as many of the recent posts on this thread.)
I use the 4th and 5th fingers on the outer notes. How do you play that next chord?
If you mean the rising 16ths, I've done it two ways: with one hand (the right), and split. When I split, I actually play the top two notes of each chord with my right hand, and the bottom chromatic note with my left.
Yes the rising 16ths. The very first chord I play with 4-1 in the left hand and 2 in the right, then play the rest with single notes in the left and double in the right.
Originally Posted by Derulux
And I apologize if I missed a joke. Sometimes I don't quite catch the subtlety when it's written out.
I was being waggish, but hey, why not take it apart note by note?
If in fact you do mean the octaves with the trills at the top, there is a really neat trick that Stanisalv Bunin does. Instead of playing the octave after each trill with the right hand only (which is where the difficulty comes from), ADD the bottom half of the octave to the left hand's chords. That way you free the right up while the left hand feels virtually the same.
Damn! I thought I was the only person ever to discover and use that trick (well,okay, doubtless it didn't escape the likes of Busoni and Friedman!). Cat's out of the bag now, well and true. No more gasps of admiration over my apparent faultless ease here... will just have to find something else to fake equally impressively.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein
After years of study experimentation and consultation I have found that the opening octave of this piece is best played using 1-5 in both hands. (This is at least as important/interesting as many of the recent posts on this thread.)
I use the 4th and 5th fingers on the outer notes. How do you play that next chord?
If you mean the rising 16ths, I've done it two ways: with one hand (the right), and split. When I split, I actually play the top two notes of each chord with my right hand, and the bottom chromatic note with my left.
Yes the rising 16ths. The very first chord I play with 4-1 in the left hand and 2 in the right, then play the rest with single notes in the left and double in the right.
Originally Posted by Derulux
And I apologize if I missed a joke. Sometimes I don't quite catch the subtlety when it's written out.
I was being waggish, but hey, why not take it apart note by note?
Thank you for being so jocular, and for letting me down easy.
I tried to follow the progression of your fingering. LH, assuming 14-3 2132 1? RH, same as me (below), except for the distribution of the "E" on the first chord? This is what I use:
LH: standard chromatic (31 3213 1) RH: 12-13 24-15-24-15 24
EDIT: And thank you. Because of this question, I went back and read through the piece in its entirety. Haven't touched it in at least four years, but it was manageable and enjoyable.
Last edited by Derulux; 01/29/1311:54 PM.
Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.
Speaking of which, there's another current 'misuse' which I would bet 99% of us pedants now use without a second thought, which bothers me a lot more than this song thing. In fact, I might even be the only one who considers it a misuse but that's my story and I'm sticking to it:
"Shipping," when no boat is involved. I cringe a little every time I see the term. I call it "delivery." How it got to be "shipping," I don't know. But it is what it is.
But "delivery" is wrong, too, because it refers only to the act of actually turning the product over to the recipient, and not the actual process of transporting the product.
Well, "delivery" suits me just fine. Believe it or not, the idea of someone handing over a product I've ordered and taken it for granted would be transported to me, is exactly what I anticipate and intend to transpire on ordering it. And, moreover, I seriously believe my delivery address to be the place where that is most likely to transpire. Call me nuts or what?
What's the point of giving a shipping address, I ask. How the heck do I know what the ship's address is (er, "no fixed abode", "moved away", perhaps?)?
Likewise "transportation" address, except that would be even vaguer. At least your ship's address is likely to be somewhere on the seven seas. No such clues where the latter term is concerned.
Call me cranky, but I genuinely maintain it's helpful to use words that convey to others exactly what's meant, especially when they're trying to do something on my behalf.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein
I tried to follow the progression of your fingering. LH, assuming 14-3 2132 1? RH, same as me (below), except for the distribution of the "E" on the first chord? This is what I use:
LH: standard chromatic (31 3213 1) RH: 12-13 24-15-24-15 24
