 |
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!
|
|
|
|
50 members (Bostonmoores, 20/20 Vision, Cheeeeee, Adam Reynolds, Burkhard, 1200s, clothearednincompo, akse0435, busa, 36251, 5 invisible),
1,315
guests, and
298
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,562
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,562 |
No, but I certainly get pointers (especially on other instruments) on how something could be written or notated better. In fact I do know that even Stravinsky would be altering his parts, after recommendations from performers.
This is one large reason why my scores lack pedal instructions and fingerings almost always (except in Sketch Music, where I didn't add them myself, btw): It's too personal and I find that I would be dictating things to the performer which may not work for them, as they do for me... My pedalling, my piano, my hands. Not theirs!
Come on, Nikolas. You clearly know that is comparing apple to oranges. And you are talking about completely different things. You can't be serious in comparing the way you compose vs. Rakhmaninov's. to be honest no I don't think I'm comparing apples to oranges. Obviously I'm not trying to compare myself to any other composer. But what I'm saying is that, over the course of studying piano for almost 30 years now (or playing the piano, not only studying), at some points I did consider changing the hand distribution, for example, in a few passages. And this idea was reinforced by the idea that the final score that we see is the result of many people, not just the composer. In this case it's pretty obvious that the hand distribution and the way it's written is Rachmaninoffs, but in other scores it can be a little peculiar to know who put in what and what's going on exactly. (especially in more contemporary scores). So, again, I think that the passage should be played as it's written, but in other instances it's not bad to be considering alternatives.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,264
4000 Post Club Member
|
|
4000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,264 |
C minor Prelude by Rachmaninoff
Piano Slave is right on the money in suggesting
omission of the HAND OVERLAPPING,
The “big guy Rach †was renowned for his giant stretch.
But for mere mortals like us, that loopy overlap
(presumably to effect a singular grand chord) ...
can so easily be played by separate hands,
playing IDENTICAL CHORDS .
Why try to stretch smaller hands to breaking point,
when matching 3-note chords shouts recognition.
The Asian chappie Lai from Singapore,
has obviously been brainwashed into thinking that the
Rach original score needs to be defended ...
forgive me for saying that this is quite a wrong deduction, for the reason fore-mentioned.
Kind regards, btb
PS With big hands, I have always played the two hands separately ... my dog doesn’t howl so I must be doing something right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 309
Full Member
|
|
Full Member
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 309 |
C minor Prelude by Rachmaninoff
Piano Slave is right on the money in suggesting
omission of the HAND OVERLAPPING,
The “big guy Rach †was renowned for his giant stretch.
But for mere mortals like us, that loopy overlap
(presumably to effect a singular grand chord) ...
can so easily be played by separate hands,
playing IDENTICAL CHORDS .
Why try to stretch smaller hands to breaking point,
when matching 3-note chords shouts recognition.
The Asian chappie Lai from Singapore,
has obviously been brainwashed into thinking that the
Rach original score needs to be defended ...
forgive me for saying that this is quite a wrong deduction, for the reason fore-mentioned.
Kind regards, btb
PS With big hands, I have always played the two hands separately ... my dog doesn’t howl so I must be doing something right.
You are such a character! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 863
500 Post Club Member
|
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 863 |
1) Earl Wild wrote that it was most common for pianists in the 19th and early 20th centuries to re-arrange chords to fit a particular hand. In other words, everybody, especially Josef Hoffman, did it. 2) Not only do I re-arrange it here, I also do it in the "C" section of the Brahms Intermezzo Op. 118 No. 2. The reason being is that in the Rachmaninoff some of the chords are rolled (all of them in the Brahms) and the emphasis is on the voicing at the top. 3) Listen for yourself. And, as far as the end is concerned, he is playing so loud you couldn't possible tell the difference if the beginning section was re-arranged. 4) Oh, in regards the Agitato section, there is a nun here in San Antonio, by the name of Sister Lucy Marie, who studied under Lili Kraus up in Fort Worth. Well, one day Rachmaninoff came to town, and she told me personally that yes he did play it that fast. Jeez, just listen to all of those rolled chords. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXGSfJn3nKQ
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328
9000 Post Club Member
|
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328 |
The day when Louis Podesta makes a post in which arpeggiation of chords is not mentioned will be the same day that pigs fly and the cow jumps over the moon.
Regards,
Polyphonist
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 863
500 Post Club Member
|
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 863 |
The day when Louis Podesta makes a post in which arpeggiation of chords is not mentioned will be the same day that pigs fly and the cow jumps over the moon. Oh, and I almost forgot about his use of asynchronization, especially when he plays the octave chords, which along with the arpeggiation is also not "in the 'sacred' Urtext score."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,955
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,955 |
3) Listen for yourself. And, as far as the end is concerned, he is playing so loud you couldn't possible tell the difference if the beginning section was re-arranged. 4) Oh, in regards the Agitato section, there is a nun here in San Antonio, by the name of Sister Lucy Marie, who studied under Lili Kraus up in Fort Worth. Well, one day Rachmaninoff came to town, and she told me personally that yes he did play it that fast. Jeez, just listen to all of those rolled chords. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXGSfJn3nKQ A unique interpretation indeed.  Thanks for posting it !!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 410
Full Member
|
|
Full Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 410 |
It seems like a bit of a shallow question on the surface, but there's a lesson to be learned from it. Most great composers for the piano were also great pianists, and based on his recordings, I feel Rachmaninoff was a greater pianist than a composer. So it's more safe to follow the score and assume that he knew better than you do, rather than second-guess him. In the case of the hand distribution, it's a subtle effect which emphasizes the emptier sonority of the open fifth in the right hand, rather than the thickness of the full chord. Subtle though it may be, though, it's key to the way Rachmaninoff conceived the opening.
It seems extremely common to disregard most of the directions that Rachmaninoff wrote in his scores. The editions of the C-sharp minor Prelude with "sffff" directions seem to sum up the attitude that people have towards a piece which Rachmaninoff himself recorded several times, but never slammed through. He wasn't after bombast - he was after the sound of bells ringing. I've heard it debated before about what Rachmaninov was best at, piano, composition or conducting. I find it hard to believe that this would ever be up for consideration. Being a composer at the level of a Rachmaninov is an achievement far beyond that of any conductor or pianist
Last edited by antony; 10/30/13 04:17 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,662
2000 Post Club Member
|
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,662 |
It seems like a bit of a shallow question on the surface, but there's a lesson to be learned from it. Most great composers for the piano were also great pianists, and based on his recordings, I feel Rachmaninoff was a greater pianist than a composer. So it's more safe to follow the score and assume that he knew better than you do, rather than second-guess him. In the case of the hand distribution, it's a subtle effect which emphasizes the emptier sonority of the open fifth in the right hand, rather than the thickness of the full chord. Subtle though it may be, though, it's key to the way Rachmaninoff conceived the opening.
It seems extremely common to disregard most of the directions that Rachmaninoff wrote in his scores. The editions of the C-sharp minor Prelude with "sffff" directions seem to sum up the attitude that people have towards a piece which Rachmaninoff himself recorded several times, but never slammed through. He wasn't after bombast - he was after the sound of bells ringing. I've heard it debated before about what Rachmaninov was best at, piano, composition or conducting. I find it hard to believe that this would ever be up for consideration. Being a composer at the level of a Rachmaninov isabel achievement far beyond that of any conductor or pianist He certainly left some unqualified masterpieces, like Vespers and the Symphonic Dances. But his performances of Schumann's Carnaval, Chopin's 2nd Sonata, the Grieg violin sonata with Kreisler, and his own smaller works are so arresting. It's hard to believe what you're hearing sometimes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328
9000 Post Club Member
|
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328 |
He certainly left some unqualified masterpieces, like Vespers and the Symphonic Dances. ...and the second and third symphonies, and the second and third concertos, and the Opus 28 sonata, and the cello sonata, and etc, etc, etc. Opus 27 in particular outdoes the symphonies of even Tchaikovsky, Mahler, and Elgar.
Regards,
Polyphonist
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,998
5000 Post Club Member
|
|
5000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,998 |
The day when Louis Podesta makes a post in which arpeggiation of chords is not mentioned will be the same day that pigs fly and the cow jumps over the moon. This might well be true, but in the case of this thread, it's particularly relevant. If you do happen to slightly "roll" the hands from low to high, redistributing the notes between the hands has a drastic effect on the sound. I like to do this a bit myself on this prelude. I tried redistributing the notes in the way suggested and it sounded quite different - certainly enough to suggest to me that the overlapping hands technique indicated by Rachmaninoff is the superior way to play it. It emphasises the sixths between the hands. If you redistribute as suggested and then "roll" the chords, you get rather dull octaves between the hands. Rachmaninoff knew what he was doing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 863
500 Post Club Member
|
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 863 |
I particularly don't think an average audience member can hear the difference in live performance. You tell me, after viewing this live performance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj5cNBCNcPQ
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 309
Full Member
|
|
Full Member
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 309 |
It seems like a bit of a shallow question on the surface, but there's a lesson to be learned from it. Most great composers for the piano were also great pianists, and based on his recordings, I feel Rachmaninoff was a greater pianist than a composer. So it's more safe to follow the score and assume that he knew better than you do, rather than second-guess him. In the case of the hand distribution, it's a subtle effect which emphasizes the emptier sonority of the open fifth in the right hand, rather than the thickness of the full chord. Subtle though it may be, though, it's key to the way Rachmaninoff conceived the opening.
It seems extremely common to disregard most of the directions that Rachmaninoff wrote in his scores. The editions of the C-sharp minor Prelude with "sffff" directions seem to sum up the attitude that people have towards a piece which Rachmaninoff himself recorded several times, but never slammed through. He wasn't after bombast - he was after the sound of bells ringing. I've heard it debated before about what Rachmaninov was best at, piano, composition or conducting. I find it hard to believe that this would ever be up for consideration. Being a composer at the level of a Rachmaninov is an achievement far beyond that of any conductor or pianist Yes it is debatable. I used to think Rakhmaninov is a great composer. However, the more I listen to other composers of his contemporaries, such as, Scriabin and Medtner, the more I believe Rakhmaninov is a greater pianist and conductor than a composer. I know some of you guys will reply in rage, but let me finish: this is in no way disrespecting Rakhmaninov nor his compositions in any way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328
9000 Post Club Member
|
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328 |
It seems like a bit of a shallow question on the surface, but there's a lesson to be learned from it. Most great composers for the piano were also great pianists, and based on his recordings, I feel Rachmaninoff was a greater pianist than a composer. So it's more safe to follow the score and assume that he knew better than you do, rather than second-guess him. In the case of the hand distribution, it's a subtle effect which emphasizes the emptier sonority of the open fifth in the right hand, rather than the thickness of the full chord. Subtle though it may be, though, it's key to the way Rachmaninoff conceived the opening.
It seems extremely common to disregard most of the directions that Rachmaninoff wrote in his scores. The editions of the C-sharp minor Prelude with "sffff" directions seem to sum up the attitude that people have towards a piece which Rachmaninoff himself recorded several times, but never slammed through. He wasn't after bombast - he was after the sound of bells ringing. I've heard it debated before about what Rachmaninov was best at, piano, composition or conducting. I find it hard to believe that this would ever be up for consideration. Being a composer at the level of a Rachmaninov is an achievement far beyond that of any conductor or pianist Yes it is debatable. I used to think Rakhmaninov is a great composer. However, the more I listen to other composers of his contemporaries, such as, Scriabin and Medtner, the more I believe Rakhmaninov is a greater pianist and conductor than a composer. I know some of you guys will reply in rage, but let me finish: this is in no way disrespecting Rakhmaninov nor his compositions in any way. Of course it is; you're claiming that Scriabin and Medtner are greater than Rachmaninoff. Of course, IMNSHO, this is absolutely wrong. Scriabin and Medtner never reached the level of depth that Rachmaninoff reaches in, say, the second movement of the second concerto, or the Preludes 32/10 and 13, or the third or fourth movements of the second symphony. Rachmaninoff was a great pianist and conductor, but when it comes to composition I count him among the titans.
Regards,
Polyphonist
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 309
Full Member
|
|
Full Member
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 309 |
It seems like a bit of a shallow question on the surface, but there's a lesson to be learned from it. Most great composers for the piano were also great pianists, and based on his recordings, I feel Rachmaninoff was a greater pianist than a composer. So it's more safe to follow the score and assume that he knew better than you do, rather than second-guess him. In the case of the hand distribution, it's a subtle effect which emphasizes the emptier sonority of the open fifth in the right hand, rather than the thickness of the full chord. Subtle though it may be, though, it's key to the way Rachmaninoff conceived the opening.
It seems extremely common to disregard most of the directions that Rachmaninoff wrote in his scores. The editions of the C-sharp minor Prelude with "sffff" directions seem to sum up the attitude that people have towards a piece which Rachmaninoff himself recorded several times, but never slammed through. He wasn't after bombast - he was after the sound of bells ringing. I've heard it debated before about what Rachmaninov was best at, piano, composition or conducting. I find it hard to believe that this would ever be up for consideration. Being a composer at the level of a Rachmaninov is an achievement far beyond that of any conductor or pianist Yes it is debatable. I used to think Rakhmaninov is a great composer. However, the more I listen to other composers of his contemporaries, such as, Scriabin and Medtner, the more I believe Rakhmaninov is a greater pianist and conductor than a composer. I know some of you guys will reply in rage, but let me finish: this is in no way disrespecting Rakhmaninov nor his compositions in any way. Of course it is; you're claiming that Scriabin and Medtner are greater than Rachmaninoff. Of course, IMNSHO, this is absolutely wrong. Scriabin and Medtner never reached the level of depth that Rachmaninoff reaches in, say, the second movement of the second concerto, or the Preludes 32/10 and 13, or the third or fourth movements of the second symphony. Rachmaninoff was a great pianist and conductor, but when it comes to composition I count him among the titans. How many works of Scriabin and Medtner have you really listened to?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328
9000 Post Club Member
|
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328 |
It seems like a bit of a shallow question on the surface, but there's a lesson to be learned from it. Most great composers for the piano were also great pianists, and based on his recordings, I feel Rachmaninoff was a greater pianist than a composer. So it's more safe to follow the score and assume that he knew better than you do, rather than second-guess him. In the case of the hand distribution, it's a subtle effect which emphasizes the emptier sonority of the open fifth in the right hand, rather than the thickness of the full chord. Subtle though it may be, though, it's key to the way Rachmaninoff conceived the opening.
It seems extremely common to disregard most of the directions that Rachmaninoff wrote in his scores. The editions of the C-sharp minor Prelude with "sffff" directions seem to sum up the attitude that people have towards a piece which Rachmaninoff himself recorded several times, but never slammed through. He wasn't after bombast - he was after the sound of bells ringing. I've heard it debated before about what Rachmaninov was best at, piano, composition or conducting. I find it hard to believe that this would ever be up for consideration. Being a composer at the level of a Rachmaninov is an achievement far beyond that of any conductor or pianist Yes it is debatable. I used to think Rakhmaninov is a great composer. However, the more I listen to other composers of his contemporaries, such as, Scriabin and Medtner, the more I believe Rakhmaninov is a greater pianist and conductor than a composer. I know some of you guys will reply in rage, but let me finish: this is in no way disrespecting Rakhmaninov nor his compositions in any way. Of course it is; you're claiming that Scriabin and Medtner are greater than Rachmaninoff. Of course, IMNSHO, this is absolutely wrong. Scriabin and Medtner never reached the level of depth that Rachmaninoff reaches in, say, the second movement of the second concerto, or the Preludes 32/10 and 13, or the third or fourth movements of the second symphony. Rachmaninoff was a great pianist and conductor, but when it comes to composition I count him among the titans. How many works of Scriabin and Medtner have you really listened to? More than you think. All Scriabin's sonatas, most of his preludes, his piano concerto, all Medtner's sonatas (several times, and I think they're amazing works), a couple Medtner concerti and some smaller pieces.
Regards,
Polyphonist
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 309
Full Member
|
|
Full Member
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 309 |
It seems like a bit of a shallow question on the surface, but there's a lesson to be learned from it. Most great composers for the piano were also great pianists, and based on his recordings, I feel Rachmaninoff was a greater pianist than a composer. So it's more safe to follow the score and assume that he knew better than you do, rather than second-guess him. In the case of the hand distribution, it's a subtle effect which emphasizes the emptier sonority of the open fifth in the right hand, rather than the thickness of the full chord. Subtle though it may be, though, it's key to the way Rachmaninoff conceived the opening.
It seems extremely common to disregard most of the directions that Rachmaninoff wrote in his scores. The editions of the C-sharp minor Prelude with "sffff" directions seem to sum up the attitude that people have towards a piece which Rachmaninoff himself recorded several times, but never slammed through. He wasn't after bombast - he was after the sound of bells ringing. I've heard it debated before about what Rachmaninov was best at, piano, composition or conducting. I find it hard to believe that this would ever be up for consideration. Being a composer at the level of a Rachmaninov is an achievement far beyond that of any conductor or pianist Yes it is debatable. I used to think Rakhmaninov is a great composer. However, the more I listen to other composers of his contemporaries, such as, Scriabin and Medtner, the more I believe Rakhmaninov is a greater pianist and conductor than a composer. I know some of you guys will reply in rage, but let me finish: this is in no way disrespecting Rakhmaninov nor his compositions in any way. Of course it is; you're claiming that Scriabin and Medtner are greater than Rachmaninoff. Of course, IMNSHO, this is absolutely wrong. Scriabin and Medtner never reached the level of depth that Rachmaninoff reaches in, say, the second movement of the second concerto, or the Preludes 32/10 and 13, or the third or fourth movements of the second symphony. Rachmaninoff was a great pianist and conductor, but when it comes to composition I count him among the titans. How many works of Scriabin and Medtner have you really listened to? More than you think. All Scriabin's sonatas, most of his preludes, his piano concerto, all Medtner's sonatas (several times, and I think they're amazing works), a couple Medtner concerti and some smaller pieces. But no Scriabin's Symphonies? Let's agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328
9000 Post Club Member
|
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328 |
I've heard it debated before about what Rachmaninov was best at, piano, composition or conducting. I find it hard to believe that this would ever be up for consideration. Being a composer at the level of a Rachmaninov is an achievement far beyond that of any conductor or pianist
Yes it is debatable. I used to think Rakhmaninov is a great composer. However, the more I listen to other composers of his contemporaries, such as, Scriabin and Medtner, the more I believe Rakhmaninov is a greater pianist and conductor than a composer. I know some of you guys will reply in rage, but let me finish: this is in no way disrespecting Rakhmaninov nor his compositions in any way. Of course it is; you're claiming that Scriabin and Medtner are greater than Rachmaninoff. Of course, IMNSHO, this is absolutely wrong. Scriabin and Medtner never reached the level of depth that Rachmaninoff reaches in, say, the second movement of the second concerto, or the Preludes 32/10 and 13, or the third or fourth movements of the second symphony. Rachmaninoff was a great pianist and conductor, but when it comes to composition I count him among the titans. How many works of Scriabin and Medtner have you really listened to? More than you think. All Scriabin's sonatas, most of his preludes, his piano concerto, all Medtner's sonatas (several times, and I think they're amazing works), a couple Medtner concerti and some smaller pieces. But no Scriabin's Symphonies? Let's agree to disagree. Yes, that was just piano music. I've heard his 1st and 2nd symphonies, and I liked them a lot. But they do not move me in the way Rach's 2nd does.
Regards,
Polyphonist
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,562
6000 Post Club Member
|
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,562 |
Let me ask you guys something: Does it matter whose opinion you're reading? Would a composers opinion matter more than a pianists, in this (rather silly if I may add) debate? Just wondering if I should join or not... EDIT: Polyphonist: music does not exist to move you. There are other reasons as well... 
Last edited by Nikolas; 10/31/13 12:48 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328
9000 Post Club Member
|
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328 |
Let me ask you guys something: Does it matter whose opinion you're reading? Would a composers opinion matter more than a pianists, in this (rather silly if I may add) debate? Just wondering if I should join or not... I am a composer, and yes, feel free to join. I have no problem having this discussion as long as it doesn't escalate into a flame war.
Regards,
Polyphonist
|
|
|
|
Forums43
Topics223,385
Posts3,349,185
Members111,631
| |
Most Online15,252
Mar 21st, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
