Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Chopin 4th Ballade

And you're part of that group?

I certainly am. Although I never thought of that solution, I might try it.

What is the musical justification for it? The fact that it makes it a little easier is a very bad reason...

No it's not. It's a very good reason.
If the musical result is the same, which in this case I'm convinced it would be, there doesn't need to be a musical justification.

But the musical result isn't the same. You get different voicing, and the RH sounds disconnected, while the LH arpeggios become too prominent.

You don't get a different voicing if you are skilled enough to control the sound.

That's an ignorant thing to say. There will always be a subtle difference and no pianist in the world can control that. Why don't you post recordings of you doing it both ways and I will tell you which one is which.

I never said I was talking about myself.

If no pianist in the world could control subtle voicings then playing fugues would be impossible.

Not so. Fugues are designed to be played the way they are played. Chopin did not designate that passage to be played in this manner.

Irrelevant.

Not at all. Fugues are written so that it will be feasible to play them as the composer intended with the tools available (2 hands). Also, you don't debate by dimissing people's arguments without refuting them. That's what children do.

I haven't dismissed your argument.

You answered it with "Irrelevant", so yes, you did. Plus, it's not irrelevant.

No I didn't.

In my opinion the fact that Chopin didn't designate a passage to be played with a particular rearrangement among the hands (if indeed that is even arguable) is irrelevant.

This doesn't mean I dismissed your argument, merely that I disagreed with it.

All right, well, be that as it may, the fact that Chopin split up the passage in a certain way between the hands means that he intended it to be played that way. A minute difference in technical difficulty does not give a pianist the license to change that. Tell me, which pianist plays it the "alternate" way and makes it sound the same as what Chopin wrote?

But Poly, you've made it hard to get anywhere by seemingly ignoring (or forgetting) things that have been said. Your basic premise seems to be that if a composer puts notes on a certain clef, it means they are intended to be played by a particular hand. We're saying that many people just don't accept that principle.

You're presenting arguments for why you think your 'rule' is good. Obviously those who don't accept the rule feel that other things can outweigh the considerations you're mentioning.

By the way, I'm going to sleep in a few minutes, so we can pick this up tomorrow if you be so inclined.

All right. I feel this conversation is not getting anywhere, so have it your way. Even if you disregard the way Chopin wrote it, I think that the passage is clearer and more appealing when the middle notes are taken with the RH as written.

"All right, well, be that as it may, the fact that Chopin split up the passage in a certain way between the hands means that he intended it to be played that way."

Not necessarily. I see no reason why this can be so confidently stated.

Surely the fact that this alternation is new to me despite all the recordings I have listened to shows that it's not so easy to tell the difference as you suggest.

I've already made numerous other rearrangements in other areas of the piece (none of which anyone has noticed), so adding one more doesn't bother me. 'Pianistic license' is a bit of a silly concept in my opinion, and is certainly not something that ever keeps me awake at night. To me, taking something with the other hand is no more drastic than changing a fingering.

Conversations tend not to go anywhere when one of the participants ignores most of what the others are saying.