|
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!
|
|
75 members (bluebilly, accordeur, BillS728, aphexdisklavier, bobrunyan, anotherscott, AaronSF, apianostudent, 16 invisible),
2,075
guests, and
354
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328
9000 Post Club Member
|
OP
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328 |
A few interesting things I just realized: The two main prelude opuses are 23 and 32 - these numbers are the reverse of each other. There are a total of 23 preludes in these two opuses. The 24th prelude opus is 3/ 2. Do you think Rachmaninoff did this on purpose?
Regards,
Polyphonist
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,169
4000 Post Club Member
|
4000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,169 |
I think op.3/2 is coincidental, but it seems quite possible to me that given op.23, he decided to finish the preludes off for op.32.
The related interesting question is: At exactly what point did Rachmaninoff decide to write one in each of the 24 keys? It must have been before op.23 was completed; otherwise, if there were no such plan at that point, that set would probably have had a key repeat.
Similar question can be asked regarding Shostakovitch's plan for 24 string quartets, of which he only completed 15.
-J
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 309
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 309 |
A few interesting things I just realized: The two main prelude opuses are 23 and 32 - these numbers are the reverse of each other. There are a total of 23 preludes in these two opuses. The 24th prelude opus is 3/ 2. Do you think Rachmaninoff did this on purpose? Did you know Rakhmaninov initially intended to publish 24 preludes as per Chopin and Scriabin? C Major (Op. 32 No. 1) - a minor (Op. 32 No. 8) G Major (Op. 32 No. 5) - e minor (Op. 32 No. 4) D Major (Op. 23 No. 4) - b minor (Op. 32 No. 10) A Major (Op. 32 No. 9) - f# minor (Op. 23 No. 1) E Major (Op. 32 No. 3) - c# minor (Op. 3, No. 2) B Major (Op. 32 No. 11) - g# minor (Op. 32 No. 12) Gb Major (Op. 23 No. 10) - eb minor (Op. 23 No. 9) Db Major (Op. 32 No. 13) - bb minor (Op. 32 No. 2) Ab Major (Op. 23 No. 8) - f minor (Op. 32 No. 6) Eb Major (Op. 23 No. 6) - c minor (Op. 23 No. 7) Bb Major (Op. 23 No. 2) - g minor (Op. 23 No. 5) F Major (Op. 32 No. 7) - d minor (Op. 23 No. 3)
Last edited by Alan Lai; 10/21/13 02:23 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328
9000 Post Club Member
|
OP
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328 |
The related interesting question is: At exactly what point did Rachmaninoff decide to write one in each of the 24 keys? It must have been before op.23 was completed; otherwise, if there were no such plan at that point, that set would probably have had a key repeat. I don't think this is necessarily true. If he did happen to write two in the same key he could have just replaced one.
Regards,
Polyphonist
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 24,601
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 24,601 |
I'd guess there is something to it. (Nice get!) Including because that 'famous' one is 3/2. And BTW I often have trouble remembering whether it's 2/3 or 3/2. I used to think it was 2/3. Then I saw it's 3/2. I'm still rarely totally sure. The only way I sort of know is, it's the opposite of what I think. But since now I know what it is, it's easy to forget which one I think it is, so I'm not sure which one to take it backwards from.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 26,909
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 26,909 |
[...]Did you know Rakhmaninov initially intended to publish 24 preludes as per Chopin and Scriabin? [...] And that is exactly what he did. I'm not sure I understand the import of "initially intended" since he did what he intended to do.
BruceD - - - - - Estonia 190
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 24,601
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 24,601 |
[...]Did you know Rakhmaninov initially intended to publish 24 preludes as per Chopin and Scriabin? [...] And that is exactly what he did. I'm not sure I understand the import of "initially intended" since he did what he intended to do. What I get from it (not sure if it's right, nor if it's true -- BTW those are two separate things in this case) ....what I get from it is that he was intending it from the start, which is different from just happening to wind up publishing 24 preludes, or deciding in the middle, 'I've done a few, how about if I make it go up to 24.' If that's true and if it's what Alan meant, then our only quibble would be with how he put it -- is "initially intended" redundant or at least awkward? And I don't think it is. I can't think of much of a better way to put it, provided that I'm understanding what he meant. (And that it's true!) BTW I'm pretty much a Scriabin fanatic but didn't know he wrote exactly 24 preludes. Edit: D'oh -- Scriabin wrote more than 24 (way more) (and of course Chopin also wrote a couple extra but I was ignoring that). So, that means Alan probably meant something different: that Rach intended to do a single opus with 24 Preludes (and didn't). Is that it? Bruce: I take back that whole thing about this being clear.
Last edited by Mark_C; 10/21/13 11:06 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 309
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 309 |
[...]Did you know Rakhmaninov initially intended to publish 24 preludes as per Chopin and Scriabin? [...] And that is exactly what he did. I'm not sure I understand the import of "initially intended" since he did what he intended to do. I said "initially intended to PUBLISH..." not initially intended to compose. And therefore, no, he did not do what he intended to do.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 309
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 309 |
[...]Did you know Rakhmaninov initially intended to publish 24 preludes as per Chopin and Scriabin? [...] And that is exactly what he did. I'm not sure I understand the import of "initially intended" since he did what he intended to do. What I get from it (not sure if it's right, nor if it's true -- BTW those are two separate things in this case) ....what I get from it is that he was intending it from the start, which is different from just happening to wind up publishing 24 preludes, or deciding in the middle, 'I've done a few, how about if I make it go up to 24.' If that's true and if it's what Alan meant, then our only quibble would be with how he put it -- is "initially intended" redundant or at least awkward? And I don't think it is. I can't think of much of a better way to put it, provided that I'm understanding what he meant. (And that it's true!) BTW I'm pretty much a Scriabin fanatic but didn't know he wrote exactly 24 preludes. Edit: D'oh -- Scriabin wrote more than 24. So, that means Alan probably meant something different: that Rach intended to do a single opus with 24 Preludes (and didn't). Is that it? Bruce: I take back that whole thing about this being clear. Yes, that's exactly what I meant: PUBLISH a collection of 24 preludes, as per Chopin and Scriabin.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328
9000 Post Club Member
|
OP
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328 |
I'd guess there is something to it. (Nice get!) Including because that 'famous' one is 3/2. And BTW I often have trouble remembering whether it's 2/3 or 3/2. I used to think it was 2/3. Then I saw it's 3/2. I'm still rarely totally sure. The only way I sort of know is, it's the opposite of what I think. But since now I know what it is, it's easy to forget which one I think it is, so I'm not sure which one to take it backwards from. Might help to know that Opus 2 is a set of violin pieces, and 2/3 doesn't exist.
Regards,
Polyphonist
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328
9000 Post Club Member
|
OP
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328 |
By the way, now that we're on the subject of the works themselves, has anyone else ever found the time signature of 23/7 intriguing?
Regards,
Polyphonist
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 309
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 309 |
By the way, now that we're on the subject of the works themselves, has anyone else ever found the time signature of 23/7 intriguing? The c minor with a Common time signature? What's so intriguing?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 24,601
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 24,601 |
By the way, now that we're on the subject of the works themselves, has anyone else ever found the time signature of 23/7 intriguing? Yes! (Never saw it before, need I say.) (edit, re the other replies: Poly -- you mean 23 #8, not #7 -- right? I figure that you must, because it's in 3/2.)And maybe we should add that his music is on either 2 or 3 staves, but that might be taking it to the ridiculous. But maybe not.
Last edited by Mark_C; 10/21/13 11:37 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328
9000 Post Club Member
|
OP
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328 |
By the way, now that we're on the subject of the works themselves, has anyone else ever found the time signature of 23/7 intriguing? The c minor with a Common time signature? What's so intriguing? He writes the metronome mark in half notes; the work definitely feels in 2 to me, and is played in 2 in all the performances I've heard. Yet he writes a common time signature.
Regards,
Polyphonist
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 309
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 309 |
By the way, now that we're on the subject of the works themselves, has anyone else ever found the time signature of 23/7 intriguing? The c minor with a Common time signature? What's so intriguing? He writes the metronome mark in half notes; the work definitely feels in 2 to me, and is played in 2 in all the performances I've heard. Yet he writes a common time signature. The problem is "Allegro". If the time signature is cut common time, with Allegro the prelude will be too fast and sound like a circus chase. With common time, Allegro is about right tempo, not too fast and not too dragging. But if Rakhmaninov change from Allegro to, say, Allegretto, with cut common time, then this piece would lose its meandering energy. Personally I don't think it's intriguing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 24,601
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 24,601 |
See my above edit.
Take a look at 23/8.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 309
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 309 |
See my above edit.
Take a look at 23/8. A 3/2 time signature that sounds like a 3/2, plays like a 3/2.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 24,601
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 24,601 |
A 3/2 time signature that sounds like a 3/2, plays like a 3/2. I didn't think he meant anything about it other than that it's an unusual time signature that mirrors this thread.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 309
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 309 |
A 3/2 time signature that sounds like a 3/2, plays like a 3/2. I didn't think he meant anything about it other than that it's an unusual time signature that mirrors this thread. O we are still in that game. Aight. Sorry!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328
9000 Post Club Member
|
OP
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328 |
23/8 is also interesting, but I meant what I said.
Edit: Not just about the number, but because the first time I heard it I thought it was in 6/4.
Regards,
Polyphonist
|
|
|
|
|
|
Piano
by Gino2 - 04/17/24 02:34 PM
|
Piano
by Gino2 - 04/17/24 02:23 PM
|
|
Forums43
Topics223,408
Posts3,349,457
Members111,637
|
Most Online15,252 Mar 21st, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|