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 cheat by performing the Godowsky etudes which are easier than the originals...
You're not laughing (okay, no smiley) I hope. There is some truth in that.
Indeed, there is! With some of the etudes, anyway.
Well, it is an interesting situation.
David Saperton -who knew Godowsky- was a great champion of the Chopin paraphrases, and recorded several of them.
I heard them once back-to-back with a few recordings he made of the Chopin originals. Perhaps I wasn't in full command of my senses (was I going through unrequited love as a misty-eyed uni student?), yet it very much seemed to me that Saperton was apparently more comfortable in Godowsky territory, rather than Chopin territory. He seemed mildly flummoxed with Chopin's originals, technically and musically. Certainly he was no match for Ashkenazy.
From that point on, I have always suspected -for all the build-up of fancy counterpoint and embroidery- Godowsky's sugary confections are actually NOT more difficult than the originals.
But IMO Godowsky's Tower of Babel fails a simple acid test: I can listen to all of Chopin's Op 10 or 25 in one sitting, yet I cannot listen to more than three or four of the Godowsky paraphrases in a row without my ear growing very tired (and exasperated) with a sound world which is so constricted and impotent emotionally. If one wishes to gild the lily, do so in moderation.
Which brings me to my point that I think the Godowsky paraphrases are more interesting to look at in score than to listen to.
The etudes are IMO great compositions and have a lot of musical value. He may have had the idea of the technical concerns in his mind but could not help to create new musical ideas as well. They were written at the time when he got to know many virtuoso pianists and understood that he had his own unique way of playing and probably wanted to show others what could be achieved with his way. This is my theory, obviously cannot be proven
I like the Chopin etudes, but they strike me as pop tunes with a technical problem thrown on top. Hard to learn, easy to memorize.
It seems that it is again us two defending this rational viewpoint that I believe most people share (how often do you see Chopin etudes programmed?) against the angry hordes of die-hard Chopin fans.
The etudes are IMO great compositions and have a lot of musical value. He may have had the idea of the technical concerns in his mind but could not help to create new musical ideas as well. They were written at the time when he got to know many virtuoso pianists and understood that he had his own unique way of playing and probably wanted to show others what could be achieved with his way. This is my theory, obviously cannot be proven
I think they are pretty varied in musical worth. Certainly op. 10, no. 3 is a keeper, musically. But the one just before it, to me, is just not very interesting as music. True, it's more interesting than many Czerny studies, but that's not saying a great deal.
I also think it can be difficult for those of us who have attempted any of them to sort out the musical interest from the technical interest. I don't think I can recall a single time when, hearing someone play them, the technical aspect didn't come into play in how I appreciated the performance. To me, that tells me they aren't working as pure music. YMMV, of course.
I also think it can be difficult for those of us who have attempted any of them to sort out the musical interest from the technical interest. I don't think I can recall a single time when, hearing someone play them, the technical aspect didn't come into play in how I appreciated the performance. To me, that tells me they aren't working as pure music.
They are working pretty well as pure music for many of us who don't dare to attempt to play them
OTOH whatever piece I have played changes as a hearing experience after that. Not necessarily for the worse though.
But maybe you do have a point, I listened to the etudes for years as just music played by the greats, without even seeing the scores, so my view is probably very different...
It seems that it is again us two defending this rational viewpoint that I believe most people share (how often do you see Chopin etudes programmed)...?
Quite often in my experience, at least for one book.
Well Jeffrey, you said something along the lines of "other composers have tried to come up with similar exercises..." and so this is what largely the etudes are - exercises. Whereas Liszt and Rachmaninoff are more musical works.. IMHO.
"The eyes can mislead, the smile can lie, but the shoes always tell the truth."
This is another aspect of cheating: "I’ve been surprised that even some professional pianists are rather inaccurate listeners. In an audition, a young player flew through Chopin’s Étude, opus 10, no. 2. She omitted the middle notes of many of the three-note chords in the right-hand part. After she left the room, some remarked on the speed and perfection of her playing. When a colleague pointed out that the piece had been simplified by leaving out those middle notes, not everyone agreed that the notes had been omitted."
When a colleague pointed out that the piece had been simplified by leaving out those middle notes, not everyone agreed that the notes had been omitted."
BTW, Prof. Bruce Brubaker is a wonderful masterclass teacher.
If it helps you make music, you can always master it with the cheats, and return to it when your technical skills pick up.
(And by "cheats" I don't mean overtly simplifying the music, just solving a problem here and there--as I do--by not holding a note or omitting a doubled note, etc.)
...and so this is what largely the etudes are - exercises. Whereas Liszt and Rachmaninoff are more musical works.. IMHO.
This is the musical opinion I'm astonished to find around here. I'd never heard it before. To me, the etudes have the same musical worth as the nocturnes.
I'm puzzled how anyone can think that... most of the etudes contain pure harmonic significance, and something like the nocturnes or the sonatas have so much more melodic and musical substance...
I don't mean that in a bad way, the etudes are great and very useful.
"The eyes can mislead, the smile can lie, but the shoes always tell the truth."
...and so this is what largely the etudes are - exercises. Whereas Liszt and Rachmaninoff are more musical works.. IMHO.
This is the musical opinion I'm astonished to find around here. I'd never heard it before. To me, the etudes have the same musical worth as the nocturnes.
I agree, including with the surprise at what we're seeing, although I'd say it's a different kind of musical worth with the etudes, which includes an appreciation of it being in the context of an etude. You might say I'm giving 'extra credit' for that; I'm not sure because for me that appreciation is such an inherent aspect of the appreciation of the music and of what the composer did.
...and so this is what largely the etudes are - exercises. Whereas Liszt and Rachmaninoff are more musical works.. IMHO.
This is the musical opinion I'm astonished to find around here. I'd never heard it before. To me, the etudes have the same musical worth as the nocturnes.
-J
I find this opinion more astonishing, and I don't dislike the etudes. But to compare them musically to Chopin's more thoughtful pieces is an exercise in worship, IMO.
I find this opinion more astonishing, and I don't dislike the etudes. But to compare them musically to Chopin's more thoughtful pieces is an exercise in worship, IMO.
Nope, not an exercise in anything; we just have different opinions.
Chopin is far from my favorite composer. I'm not even familiar with his concerti. But I got keyed on to the poetry in the etudes from an early age, and they remain some of my favorite compositions of his. I've always thought of them as pure music, no different from the other wondrous varieties of his output.
But given our very divergent views regarding Chopin vs. Liszt, I'm not surprised if we not only don't agree, but fundamentally don't understand each other.
I like the Chopin etudes, but they strike me as pop tunes with a technical problem thrown on top. Hard to learn, easy to memorize. 
