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!
trying to avoid all the antagonism here, my humble thoughts about the 4th scherzo: I think it's the best of the 4, the most difficult it is surely, not only technically (very difficult indeed!), but also and foremost musically, in lesser hands it can sound repetitious, with a rather dull-sounding barcarolle/nocturne-ish trio and a superficial scale to sum up things..But it's so much more! The essence of the 2nd mov. of St Saens 2nd pico is there, Moszk. and the likes found a lot of inspiration here, Chopin invented a new technique, no where in the etudes can one find such broken chord sequenses, and the lightheartiness of the piece is a rare thing among the later works, quite difficult to catch, a gem, and a milestone, and a hard one to perform, the hardest of the 4. I prefer this to the others.
...my humble thoughts about the 4th scherzo: I think it's the best of the 4, the most difficult it is surely, not only technically (very difficult indeed!), but also and foremost musically, in lesser hands it can sound repetitious, with a rather dull-sounding barcarolle/nocturne-ish trio and a superficial scale to sum up things..But it's so much more!
Wonderful post, dolce! (I really should have quoted you in entirety.)
Poly, any comments?
Maybe I'll be forgiven for preferring Ashkenazy, though I didn't seriously think anyone here thought they played it better... I was just letting off some steam because, well, I do admire Ashkenazy. (Not in all composers of course, but his Chopin has always been very special to me.)
Maybe I'll be forgiven for preferring Ashkenazy, though I didn't seriously think anyone here thought they played it better... I was just letting off some steam because, well, I do admire Ashkenazy. (Not in all composers of course, but his Chopin has always been very special to me.)
Remember, I'd like to keep this thread on track. Please start another thread if you wish to discuss this.
And to add my opinion, I totally agree with his opinion - it's a really tough piece to play well. Though certainly it's beneficial to learn it early...before the fear of its musical difficulties becomes too overwhelming!
Working on: Chopin - Nocturne op. 48 no.1 Debussy - Images Book II
Ah, I see what you meant. It was a little unclear.
Originally Posted by dolce sfogato
I think it's the best of the 4,
Agreed, although this is subjective.
Originally Posted by dolce sfogato
the most difficult it is surely, not only technically (very difficult indeed!), but also and foremost musically,
Also agreed. It's the most difficult, by far, musically and technically. And the range of technique required is enormous - fast scales, double octaves, lightning-quick silvery passagework, various double notes, handling multiple melodies (polyphony), etc, etc.
Originally Posted by dolce sfogato
Chopin invented a new technique, no where in the etudes can one find such broken chord sequenses,
Yes, you're right. I never really thought of it this way, but it's true that this is the first place where this technique is used. By the way, you meant blocked chord sequences, not broken.
Originally Posted by dolce sfogato
and the lightheartiness of the piece is a rare thing among the later works, quite difficult to catch, a gem,
Yes, it is unlike the majority of Chopin's output, and consequently stands out as a shimmering masterpiece even among late Chopin, some of the greatest repertoire ever written for the piano.
The purity and beauty of this work really can't be expressed in words.
Chopin invented a new technique, no where in the etudes can one find such broken chord sequenses,
Yes, you're right. I never really thought of it this way, but it's true that this is the first place where this technique is used. By the way, you meant blocked chord sequences, not broken.
Very interesting. I'm tempted to compose an etude for this technique.
The purity and beauty of this work really can't be expressed in words.
Quite true, but I might add the 'Missa Solemnis'. No words AT ALL for that!
We could mention a variety of works to go into this category. Sections of Bach's Goldbergs and Beethoven's Diabellis, the latest Beethoven Sonatas, many late Chopin works, some things by Rachmaninoff (Vespers and the 3rd (or 2nd, Jason ) piano concerto), etc.
Chopin invented a new technique, no where in the etudes can one find such broken chord sequenses,
Yes, you're right. I never really thought of it this way, but it's true that this is the first place where this technique is used. By the way, you meant blocked chord sequences, not broken.
Very interesting. I'm tempted to compose an etude for this technique.
Please do! I'd love to see it.
How about this; I'll write one too. I'm sending you a PM.
Very interesting. I'm tempted to compose an etude for this technique.
.....although maybe about 90% of Mendelssohn consists of that.
I know, it doesn't really.....
Well, yes, there's some of it in Mendelssohn, and some in Liszt (you know the passage I'm thinking of ), but Chopin was the first to use it in the way...well, in the way that he used it. You know what I mean, even though one can't really put it into words.
Having studied all three, there are a few things that make it hard to compare:
Op. 52 culminates at a "point" - the coda. This makes structuring, pacing, and continuity difficult (since no sections repeat exactly). It means that the furious technical demands at the end are harder because of the emotional intensity, plus it has to be played well in order "climax" the piece appropriately.
Op.58 has multiple movements and is a lot longer. There are more varieties of moods, structuring (especially the first movement) remains difficult, and pacing of the performer's energies is important so you don't get too tired by the time the finale starts. Each movement has their own technical and musical difficulties, but at least there is a break between each movement.
Op. 54 has a lot of repetitions with very slight variations each time, so while the primary theme is easy to clarify to the listener, it has to be played well in conjunction with the other material to sound meaningful, instead of repetitive. There's also the lightness which is hard to bring off, but at least formally it's more workable than the other two works.
This isn't including any of the technical difficulties, but in my experience, in terms of hitting the notes and the importance in hitting the correct notes, you could say that op. 54 and op. 58 are a bit harder than op. 52.
Working on: Chopin - Nocturne op. 48 no.1 Debussy - Images Book II
Having studied all three, there are a few things that make it hard to compare:
Op. 52 culminates at a "point" - the coda. This makes structuring, pacing, and continuity difficult (since no sections repeat exactly). It means that the furious technical demands at the end are harder because of the emotional intensity, plus it has to be played well in order "climax" the piece appropriately.
Op.58 has multiple movements and is a lot longer. There are more varieties of moods, structuring (especially the first movement) remains difficult, and pacing of the performer's energies is important so you don't get too tired by the time the finale starts. Each movement has their own technical and musical difficulties, but at least there is a break between each movement.
Op. 54 has a lot of repetitions with very slight variations each time, so while the primary theme is easy to clarify to the listener, it has to be played well in conjunction with the other material to sound meaningful, instead of repetitive. There's also the lightness which is hard to bring off, but at least formally it's more workable than the other two works.
This isn't including any of the technical difficulties, but in my experience, in terms of hitting the notes and the importance in hitting the correct notes, you could say that op. 54 and op. 58 are a bit harder than op. 52.
Thanks for the insightful post, Kuan.
What strikes me about the ballade's coda is the thirds. They scare me. Perhaps it's just a weakness in my technique right now. What was the hardest part for you? (note-hitting wise)
The thirds, but I sort of suck at them. However think of the clarity you need: IMO, the coda of the ballade is sort of an apocalyptic climax where everything is falling apart - it's less of a sin to fudge the thirds while delivering that musical statement, than it is to screw up the thirds in the fourth scherzo.
However, the primary difficulties in the 4th ballade are musical, not so much technical. And most of the sections aren't all that bad technically (though Mark_C will certainly disagree with me!)
Working on: Chopin - Nocturne op. 48 no.1 Debussy - Images Book II
Having studied all three, there are a few things that make it hard to compare:
Op. 52 culminates at a "point" - the coda. This makes structuring, pacing, and continuity difficult (since no sections repeat exactly). It means that the furious technical demands at the end are harder because of the emotional intensity, plus it has to be played well in order "climax" the piece appropriately.
Op.58 has multiple movements and is a lot longer. There are more varieties of moods, structuring (especially the first movement) remains difficult, and pacing of the performer's energies is important so you don't get too tired by the time the finale starts. Each movement has their own technical and musical difficulties, but at least there is a break between each movement.
Op. 54 has a lot of repetitions with very slight variations each time, so while the primary theme is easy to clarify to the listener, it has to be played well in conjunction with the other material to sound meaningful, instead of repetitive. There's also the lightness which is hard to bring off, but at least formally it's more workable than the other two works.
This isn't including any of the technical difficulties, but in my experience, in terms of hitting the notes and the importance in hitting the correct notes, you could say that op. 54 and op. 58 are a bit harder than op. 52.
Thanks for the insightful post, Kuan.
What strikes me about the ballade's coda is the thirds. They scare me. Perhaps it's just a weakness in my technique right now. What was the hardest part for you? (note-hitting wise)
For me, the double notes in the coda are definitely the hardest part - the first four bars, just for starters, are very difficult because of the necessity to articulate both voices within the double notes - then, of course, there are the thirds, and then those crazy passages up with double notes and down with the octaves in the LH, and then the last page or so with the cascading unison passages is very difficult to get accurate, and since you're totally exhausted by now (I would usually program this at the end of a concert) that makes it even harder.
) piano concerto), etc. 