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

Chopin Nocturne in Eb Op. 9 No. 2

The diatonic chords of Eb are Eb, Ab and Bb majors (I, IV and V), F, G and C minors (ii, iii, and vi). I would expect C minor rather than C major in M2.

Measure 6 is an arpeggio of C major, G, C, C, E, G, G. The appoggiatura notes, Db, F, and Ab all have accent marks (>) over them making them 'pointed'. They would would otherwise have been unaccented notes off the beat.

I don't think I could begin to understand what was going on in Chopin's head. My experience is that great composers are great from birth. They get better with age or experience but Chopin, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, even Lennon and McCartney were writing 'characteristically' from the outset of their musical careers.

I suspect that Chopin knew what effect he wanted to achieve and knew instinctively how to arrive at it.

Chopin Nocturne in Eb Op. 9 No. 2

So when will we get to hear you perform this piece on the new CA95, Richard? Or, have you somewhere already and I missed it. If not, here would be a good place.

It is going to be some time for me on this one. I'm playing it all the way through now, but the coda still needs a lot of work.

Also, I'm spending more time on OP 64, No 2 and really liking the Piu mosso. I'm finding the fingering suggestions quite helpful and had never paid much notice to them up to now. Thinking of this one for the next (May) recital. I know it has been done a lot, but I've been working on so much Chopin of late, I want to present at least one of them.

Meanwhile though, happy to continue discussion on the nocturne and it also has practice priority. Is there more to look at?

Chopin Nocturne in Eb, Op. 9 No. 2

You've probably looked at enough on the Nocturne. Is there anything else you can see or anything causing difficulties?

There's nothing too adventurous after the opening and certainly not in the coda.

_____________________________


I promised in the RST thread to post photos of the new CA95 but thought it might be nice to accompany them with an idea of what it sounds like so I've been trying to string together "five easy pieces". I didn't want to pick something painstaking but I don't want to sound like a plonker either (perhaps plinker or plunker might be more appropriate for piano). I think I've settled on my five; an easy piece each by Bach, Beethoven and Brahms plus the Nocturne and a piece by Liszt. These are all pieces I've known for over twenty years (over thirty for the Chopin and Liszt) so I won't be bothered by red dot or hesitations from unfamiliarity.

I've made some preliminary recordings to see how I sound and to make sure I'm playing close enough to what's on the score. It's not as easy as I had originally anticipated despite picking easy material.

I also didn't want to get too close to the ABF or the Mendelssohn recitals but now that we have a date for the latter I can measure my time better.

I'll probably stick 'em in the RST thread in a week or two but I'll let you know on this one when I do.

I've not worked out the timing correctly in M29 yet. I'm sure it will come, it just hasn't yet. I just need to spend some time specifically on this measure and also M32, of course. For M32, once this is up to tempo, I recall you mentioned you do not count the quavers. So, what is the secret to ensure the correct # of quaver iterations when at full tempo?

Aside from the technical challenge of the coda -- when at a presentable tempo -- I'm not finding the piece all that difficult. It was at first for the stride, but after getting the first 4 measures, it has been much easier from there on.

"I've made some preliminary recordings to see how I sound and to make sure I'm playing close enough to what's on the score. It's not as easy as I had originally anticipated despite picking easy material."

Recording is brutal. I've recorded Op 102 No 6 and it is fine and ready for submission to the recital. Op 102 No 1 though, sounds terrible. I don't think it is going to come off so great with recording. Sounds fine when I play it, but the recording is not fine. Thankfully lots of time left now.

I look forward to hearing what you put together.
_____________

I looked at a rebuilt 1944 Heintzman Yorke today. It will be a stretch for me, but I just might be buying a new (old) piano. It's a nice machine. If I go forward with it I might have in time for 2nd Mendelssohn piece.

Chopin Nocturne in Eb, Op. 9 No. 2

M29
Overlay a Mercedes emblem (three spoked wheel) on standard orthogonal and diagonal lines, the eight main compass points, and run your eye around it at an even rhythm.

You get a rhythm along the lines of 'eating some banana dessert with cream'

I use an unrepeatable sentence for the measure ( ) but it uses the rhythm of 'give me a peach and a banana, along with my tea'. Note the comma after banana to emphasise the phrasing in the score. Once you get the hang of it slowly you learn the actual rhythm and you'll be able to play it at speed quite easily without bothering with the sentence.

M32
I don't count the repetitions, I don't use a sentence. I accelerate quickly up to speed and slow down gradually. I might do the thirteen written iterations, I might do seventeen. I've never counted. I go by what feels right at the time. I doubt the audience count it either. Liszt did worse things with Chopin's music - in Chopin's presence.
______________________

Recording easy pieces is harder than I thought. You can get away with a few wrong'uns in the turbulent climax of a Beethoven sonata. It's another problem entirely in the Bach/Petzold Minuet in G.

I'm trying the Bach Prelude in D, bwv 936, that you did in the previous recital and it sounds so nondescript on playback. Ah, me!

This is how I am with most of my pieces. Once they're in memory, unless they're particularly troublesome (e.g. Moonlight, 3rd movement), they just roll out effortlessly.

Good luck with the new piano. If it's a stretch, make sure it's the right one for you.

Chopin Nocturne in Eb, Op. 9 No. 2

I'll work more on the coda this week to get sorted out. Very cool with your response for M32 and makes a lot of sense. I'll keep this in mind, but a long way from having this up to a tempo that feels right yet.

Thanks, and good advise again. I am starting to get excited about the whole idea and through my early research have learned a ton already. For one thing, not all Heintzman's are created equal. There is quite a complicated past with this company. Some Heintzman's (Heintzman & Co.) are very good instruments (Steinway's of Canada,) while others are very good pieces of Furniture (Product of Heintzman, Sold by Heintzman, or just Heintzman) from the more recent Sklar Peplar years or sold by the distributor network. Plus, there was Gerhard Heintzman (Newphew of Theodore) who produced decent pianos (plus second line brands like Nordheimer,) but not of the same class as Heintzman & Co.

Today, Heintzman is built in China (no problem there) but they are not on par with the originals.

Not sure you needed to know all this ... but I'm having fun digesting it.

Bottom line is, I know what to look for now and may not need to pay a fortune to get it as there are some later model Heintzman & Co. that do come available from time to time (eyeing one now,) are in good shape and can be had at a bargain. I think I will be passing on the 1945 after all.

________________
One other tidbit that was pointed out to me and I think is very valid -- just this morning -- and I believe you have also eluded to. Do not buy it because it is a Heintzman, Steinway, any make or particular year. Buy it if you like it for how it is for you, and the quality and value you seek, regardless of any brand or anything else.

I'm interested in Heintzman because my Dad was always a huge fan of them and I have a wee bit of respect for his opinion. Nonetheless, all I can do is my best research and make a decision from there.

So far though ... I'm still very keen on this other Heintzman and will look at it this week

Tempo is a funny thing.

My teacher never mentioned tempo much. I'd play away at a speed I could manage/read until I had it in a state where I could play it error free from memory at the next lesson and needed more guidance on a newer piece, which would then take over. Some weeks later she'd ask to hear the piece again and without any deliberate intervention I'd be flying through it.

I never deliberately tried to speed up a piece until I tackled Chopin's Op. 64/1 waltz in D-flat and quickly learned the perils of forcing speed. It deteriorated quite quickly into a piece I could no longer perform accurately and even now, over thirty years later, I have to pitter-patter through it at a restricted and controlled pace to avoid missing notes in the ornaments; I still can't enjoy just playing it.

So now, once I get a fast piece in memory I try to avoid listening to performances of it at faster speeds than I play it until my own speed is close to it. The speed comes organically and naturally. I believe it's fundamental to the music and changes with different touches and dynamic levels. I find it's better in the long run to restrict the speed and maintain accuracy than go too fast too soon and introduce sloppiness.

I also believe I play at a speed I imagine the piece and not how it's sounding on the instrument. I couldn't believe how fast I played the Romance Sans Paroles in the previous ABF Recital. You need a really light touch to play it that fast. It may have been exacerbated by overplaying it while trying to record it but I don't remember playing it that fast. It also varies, I've found, by what I've been playing before it. I play it slower after Schumann's Traumerei than after Bach's Invention No. 8.

I'm now restricting myself to three plays a day for a piece I'm recording plus going over an extract from the middle or end of it to establish the starting tempo.

I have found my dream piece. It would be a piano reduction of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. This is somewhat odd because I don't particularly like the one piano (actually pianola) version I've heard -- it's missing of course all the beautiful orchestral colours of the real thing (plus the pianola had absolutely awful tone of its own). But it is a different experience playing music inside of it rather than listening to it, and it would be wonderful to be able to with my own two hands produce those melodies and rhythms and interactions.

Now to actually find a piano score.

Concur absolutely on this point now. It is not how I had approached practice in the past (pre-PW,) but it is now.

I'm not convinced the pro's always nail the right tempo for the piece either. Often they do, of course. But, If I don't like it there I'm not going to play it there. I play the Bach no. 2 prelude much slower now and hear the harmonies better. I think no 4 though, belongs a little brisker.

In the end, it is our own interpretation. I don't care for how Valentina just flies through the Piu Mosso of Op 64 no 2, for example.

Any interest in looking at Bach/Hess Chorale from Cantata no. 147, adaptation for piano? I managed to find a score for it (looks like image scans, but the real deal) and a couple of things I'm already not sure about.

Of course, I am delighted by the overwhelming positive response.

QUESTION: What does the thingy in the LH of M5 mean? This is a 10th. which I can hit, but think it is a broken 10th? Play top note immediately followed by bottom note? Is that what this is/means?

Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring - Score Download

We see this again in a few places. Also, some notes that may be omitted. Some, could only be played with 3 hands. The others I will try and reach. This gentleman may have been able to hit them all

It means to roll the marked chord from the bottom note to the top note. In this case, play the bottom note immediately followed by the top note.

If it had an arrow at the bottom pointing down, that would mean to roll from the top to the bottom. Occasionally you will see it with an arrow at the top pointing up, and that means the same thing as the version without an arrow: roll from bottom to top.

Sweet. Figured it was something like that as I could hear something but wasn't sure if double strike, or roll up or roll down. So, now I know. Thanks.

Another question. In M9 the melody hits a high G. But, I don't hear this (high G) in the performance posted. Nor can I play it and also play the full G chord below it. I think I just omit the high G, but then why is it there? Or, play it but immediately followed by the chord below, but this would mean an extra beat. I don't have enough hands to play all the notes here.

The arrangement isn't regular piano material. Probably adapted from organ arrangement where bass pedal can accommodate wider intervals. You have to pick and choose which notes and melodies you're going to leave in.

The square brackets also show which hand should take the optional notes.

Rolling chords to compensate for small hands and wide intervals should always be from the bottom to the top unless stated otherwise and typically finish with the highest note on the beat.

If you want to analyse the piece go ahead and post your findings and we'll look at what you come up with.

{Still in office doing overtime right now. V. busy at present. Back to normal soon.}

Not sure I understand this ...
"The square brackets also show which hand should take the optional notes."

In M2 the first square bracket is in the bass LH. The only way I could possibly reach the middle E though, is with RH and still play the octave below.

No worries. Just teasing about the response, of course. But, have decided to go ahead with this nonetheless and was troubled by a few things. All clear now though. Thanks for the help.

Not sure what there is to say about it yet, but will see what I can come up with. I've played a snippet of this (Dad's adlib) for years so figure I should learn the real deal as I quite like it.
_________
My trouble is currently, not busy enough and not a good thing either.

I have never seen backward flags, or backward stems before. Does anyone know anything about that?

Good question. And now that you mention it, I'm not sure what to do about the G and A together in the middle of M4. It doesn't sit right with me. The G as a brief accent (like a 16 note) after the A might make sense, or I could drop it altogether. The way it is written though, should the G and A be played together?

I think the backward stems are meant to help show another voice.

The G and A in m. 4 I would just play together. It's a temporary dissonance as various voices almost converge and then diverge.

Greener, without studying it too much, I would suggest that you get a hold of the original in chorale form, so that you can figure out what this is reflecting. You have an accompaniment, and you have voices. So find out what the voices do originally, and then you will also know what to emphasize and what to leave out.

Originally, all I could find was the chorale arrangement and I could not make heads or tails of it. Myra though, has kindly adapted the chorale arrangement for piano solo that we have here. And, has indicated the optional notes.

It is good advice and I may try again. But, think I will be OK to work from this score and come up with my own interpretation. I'm liking the high G in M9 already vs. how Alon does it.

Yes, agree. Just playing so slow currently it didn't sit right. But will be fine.