Chopin's Op. 53...

Posted by: JordanS.

Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/25/13 03:52 PM

Anyone have any tips for the ornaments in measure 23 and later on in the piece???
I'm trying to come up with a way to play it with less hyper-extention...
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/25/13 04:09 PM

I think you need to recount the measures. There aren't any ornaments in m. 23.

I could guess which ones you mean, but I'm not sure I'd be right, and better if we don't have to guess. smile
Posted by: jeffreyjones

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/25/13 04:18 PM

I'm going to hazard a guess that it's the octaves with the trills. To which the answer is, don't stretch. Play the lower note then hop to a position where the trill is comfortable. It's so much easier than trying to hurry and killing your hands.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/25/13 04:27 PM

Originally Posted By: jeffreyjones
I'm going to hazard a guess that it's the octaves with the trills....

That's what I thought too, but I'd rather he let us know for sure, since there are other ornaments around there that have issues too.
Posted by: JoelW

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/25/13 04:27 PM

If in fact you do mean the octaves with the trills at the top, there is a really neat trick that Stanisalv Bunin does. Instead of playing the octave after each trill with the right hand only (which is where the difficulty comes from), ADD the bottom half of the octave to the left hand's chords. That way you free the right up while the left hand feels virtually the same.

Take a look.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUCFQlXeTuc#t=0m48s

Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/25/13 04:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Joel_W
If in fact you do mean the octaves with the trills at the top, there is a really neat trick that Stanisalv Bunin does. Instead of playing the octave after each trill with the right hand only, ADD the bottom half of the octave to the left hand's chords....

Cheater, cheater!! grin




(.......he says, as he runs to try it.....) ha
Posted by: JordanS.

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/25/13 04:32 PM

Yeah... I guess i counted too fast! smirk It's the octave trills! Thanks for the replies so far!
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/25/13 04:33 PM

Been trying to figure this out for the last 170 years, and you just solved it for me. But please don't tell anybody I'm doing it. Keep it real hush-hush. grin
Posted by: carey

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/25/13 04:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: Joel_W
If in fact you do mean the octaves with the trills at the top, there is a really neat trick that Stanisalv Bunin does. Instead of playing the octave after each trill with the right hand only, ADD the bottom half of the octave to the left hand's chords....

Cheater, cheater!! grin




(.......he says, as he runs to try it.....) ha


and the verdict is.......
Posted by: JoelW

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/25/13 04:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Been trying to figure this out for the last 170 years, and you just solved it for me. But please don't tell anybody I'm doing it. Keep it real hush-hush. grin


thumb


It's probably the best cheat I've ever encountered. I wonder who taught Stan that trick. (maybe he figured it out on his own...)
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/25/13 04:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Joel_W
I wonder who taught Stan that trick....

Probably Chopin himself! grin

(Y'know, 'channeling' and stuff....)
Posted by: ChopinAddict

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/25/13 04:55 PM

Yes, I had found that "trick" a long time ago too. (I mean as done by Bunin, not my idea).
Posted by: beet31425

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/25/13 05:00 PM

Two active threads now on "cheating" in the op 53. Must be the hardest piece ever... smile

-J
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/25/13 05:03 PM

Originally Posted By: beet31425
Two active threads now on "cheating" in the op 53. Must be the hardest piece ever... smile

Except the other cheat made it harder!
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/25/13 05:06 PM

....and when we get done with these 'cheats,' maybe we can talk about what we think of "helping out" with the right hand on those 'solo' LH octaves in the middle part.... grin
Posted by: bennevis

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/25/13 05:10 PM

...so obvious, why didn't I think of it before??
Methinks I'm going to cheat from now on and spare myself tenosynovitis playing that dratted piece the way it is written grin
Posted by: bennevis

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/25/13 05:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
....and when we get done with these 'cheats,' maybe we can talk about what we think of "helping out" with the right hand on those 'solo' LH octaves in the middle part.... grin


Doesn't everybody use two hands when the RH is free?
Don't tell me that's cheating......
Posted by: ChopinAddict

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/25/13 05:23 PM

Maybe we need a thread entitled Best Professional Cheats with embedded YouTube videos... ha
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/25/13 05:39 PM

Originally Posted By: bennevis
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
....and when we get done with these 'cheats,' maybe we can talk about what we think of "helping out" with the right hand on those 'solo' LH octaves in the middle part.... grin

Doesn't everybody use two hands when the RH is free?
Don't tell me that's cheating......

Hey, but it's "written" for just the L.H.! grin


(Good rule of thumb [as well as all the other fingers]: What is "written" isn't necessarily what's written. smile
And of course vice versa!)
Posted by: carey

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/25/13 06:13 PM

Originally Posted By: bennevis
...so obvious, why didn't I think of it before??
Methinks I'm going to cheat from now on and spare myself tenosynovitis playing that dratted piece the way it is written grin


Well - I just tried it - and yes, it is easier - and the trill is cleaner - although burying the lower octave note in the LH chord doesn't quite sound the same as when it's played by the RH thumb. But I don't know whether after playing the doggone piece for over 40 years now that I can make the change. grin
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/25/13 06:21 PM

Originally Posted By: carey
....although burying the lower octave note in the LH chord doesn't quite sound the same as when it's played by the RH thumb....

Part of the challenge of doing such a "swindle" (Seymour Bernstein's word, a bit preferable to "cheat") ha ....is to make it sound the same!
You can do it. smile

Quote:
....But I don't know whether after playing the doggone piece for over 40 years now that I can make the change. grin

I don't know either. grin
(I said you can do it, I didn't say I could.) ha

I just worked on it for a few minutes, which was long enough to see that this is a much better way for me to play it than any of the ways I had tried over the years -- and also long enough to see that it would take a lot of work (and a fair amount of passed time) to "make the change."
Posted by: fj_s

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/25/13 09:02 PM

For some reason I did not much trouble, but I use 1-4-5-4 then 1-3-5-3.
Posted by: Damon

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/25/13 10:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: bennevis
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
....and when we get done with these 'cheats,' maybe we can talk about what we think of "helping out" with the right hand on those 'solo' LH octaves in the middle part.... grin

Doesn't everybody use two hands when the RH is free?
Don't tell me that's cheating......

Hey, but it's "written" for just the L.H.! grin
what's written. smile
And of course vice versa!)


You must have fits with the first page.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/26/13 12:57 AM

Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Hey, but it's "written" for just the L.H.! grin
what's written. smile
And of course vice versa!)

You must have fits with the first page.

And you must have fits trying to quote a post! grin


But seriously folks.... ha do you mean you re-divide some stuff on there?
I might learn something else! smile
(Although, I suspect I wouldn't want to do it there. I like keeping those voices straight.)

edit: I think I only just got this. ha
(see later post)
Posted by: jeffreyjones

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/26/13 01:04 AM

Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: bennevis
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
....and when we get done with these 'cheats,' maybe we can talk about what we think of "helping out" with the right hand on those 'solo' LH octaves in the middle part.... grin

Doesn't everybody use two hands when the RH is free?
Don't tell me that's cheating......

Hey, but it's "written" for just the L.H.! grin
what's written. smile
And of course vice versa!)


You must have fits with the first page.


I've always had fits with the first page. What a pain!
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/26/13 01:07 AM

Originally Posted By: jeffreyjones
I've always had fits with the first page. What a pain!

Yes.
It's one of those pieces, like Beethoven Op. 2 #3, where you can tell in the first 3 seconds if someone is up to the piece.

And BTW of course for you in the Beethoven, the answer came up roses. thumb

I don't think the opening of the Chopin is any harder, even though the 'stuff' goes on longer.
Posted by: jeffreyjones

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/26/13 01:21 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: jeffreyjones
I've always had fits with the first page. What a pain!

Yes.
It's one of those pieces, like Beethoven Op. 2 #3, where you can tell in the first 3 seconds if someone is up to the piece.

And BTW of course for you in the Beethoven, the answer came up roses. thumb

I don't think the opening of the Chopin is any harder, even though the 'stuff' goes on longer.


I don't think the Beethoven is hard at all. Play on your nails and it takes away 99% of the difficulty. The opening of the Chopin is much harder for me.
Posted by: Derulux

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/26/13 01:22 AM

If you've ever played La Campanella, you would have this alternate fingering: 1343. There is an entire passage of this exact trill marked 1343 in Liszt's etude.

If you're going to split the hands (meaning the LH will pick up the tab on the bottom notes of the octaves after the trill), you can jump 1232 12.


I typically play 1454, but sometimes I play a combination. When I play the combination, this is what I do: for the first, I play 1343. I pick up the F in the LH (thumb), but play the G octave with the RH. This sets up the Ab better than picking up the G in the LH (IMO).

Hope it helps. smile
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/26/13 01:25 AM

Damon: I think maybe you were doing a joke that nobody got yet, including me.

Did you mean about it "looking" like all the notes should be played by the LH? ha

(That would be a pretty good trick!)
Posted by: carey

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/26/13 02:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Damon: I think maybe you were doing a joke that nobody got yet, including me.

Did you mean about it "looking" like all the notes should be played by the LH? ha

(That would be a pretty good trick!)


Hmmm - now that's something I haven't tried yet..... crazy

Of course, finding a fingering that works (using both hands) on the first page is a challenge. I keep changing mine from time to time with mixed results.
Posted by: Damon

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/26/13 08:14 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Hey, but it's "written" for just the L.H.! grin
what's written. smile
And of course vice versa!)

You must have fits with the first page.

And you must have fits trying to quote a post! grin


But seriously folks.... ha do you mean you re-divide some stuff on there?
I might learn something else! smile
(Although, I suspect I wouldn't want to do it there. I like keeping those voices straight.)

edit: I think I only just got this. ha
(see later post)




I wondered why nobody got that, but then realized that other editions had the hands split. On a side note, I play the octaves in the middle all with my left hand.
Posted by: Orange Soda King

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/26/13 10:08 AM

^ LOL ^
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/26/13 01:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Damon
....On a side note, I play the octaves in the middle all with my left hand.

I have too, when I performed it. (Because it wasn't any worse that way.) grin

But not when I'm just practicing it -- because why bother? ha
Posted by: Damon

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/26/13 01:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: Damon
....On a side note, I play the octaves in the middle all with my left hand.

I have too, when I performed it. (Because it wasn't any worse that way.) grin

But not when I'm just practicing it -- because why bother? ha


When I'm practicing that section, I start at the soto voce, ignoring those other bars altogether.
Posted by: carey

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/26/13 03:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: Damon
....On a side note, I play the octaves in the middle all with my left hand.

I have too, when I performed it. (Because it wasn't any worse that way.) grin

But not when I'm just practicing it -- because why bother? ha


When I'm practicing that section, I start at the soto voce, ignoring those other bars altogether.


Why????? Isn't that part of the challenge of playing the middle section??? crazy

And after trying both approaches off and on over the years, I still favor playing the opening measures with both hands. Although now that I've switched to playing the lower notes of the four note octave groupings with 5-4-4-5 I've found I have much less tension compared to using 5-5-5-5.

Whatever works - right ???? grin
Posted by: Damon

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/26/13 03:55 PM

Originally Posted By: carey
Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: Damon
....On a side note, I play the octaves in the middle all with my left hand.

I have too, when I performed it. (Because it wasn't any worse that way.) grin

But not when I'm just practicing it -- because why bother? ha


When I'm practicing that section, I start at the soto voce, ignoring those other bars altogether.


Why????? Isn't that part of the challenge of playing the middle section??? crazy
grin


Only in the sense that stamina is part of the challenge. If I can play the section, adding those two bars are hardly a challenge.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/26/13 04:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Damon
Only in the sense that stamina is part of the challenge....

ha ha

Now you're really blurring the line between sarcastic and straight, because I think you thought you were being serious there, but you can't be. grin

(Stamina is most of that challenge.)
Posted by: carey

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/26/13 05:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: carey
Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: Damon
....On a side note, I play the octaves in the middle all with my left hand.
I have too, when I performed it. (Because it wasn't any worse that way.) grin But not when I'm just practicing it -- because why bother? ha
When I'm practicing that section, I start at the soto voce, ignoring those other bars altogether.
Why????? Isn't that part of the challenge of playing the middle section??? crazygrin
Only in the sense that stamina is part of the challenge. If I can play the section, adding those two bars are hardly a challenge.

Actually, playing the two measures with the LH only along with the rest of the middle section two times through as required is one heck of a stamina issue for many.
Posted by: Damon

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/26/13 05:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: Damon
Only in the sense that stamina is part of the challenge....

ha ha

Now you're really blurring the line between sarcastic and straight, because I think you thought you were being serious there, but you can't be. grin

(Stamina is most of that challenge.)


Regardless, I can practice the octaves and the rest at the same time. There is no need to practice those two bars alone; there are plenty of repeats and it doesn't hurt to practice the right hand. I don't play the octaves with two hands, ever. So what is the point, is there some danger that I'll get to the last 4 bars of that section and run out gas? I don't.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/28/13 05:15 PM

Been practicing and playing it with the new swindle, and I think it's gonna work. But the reason I'm bringing it back up is, I have an amendment on it. grin

For the second squiggle, i.e. the mordent on the high A-flat, I'm trying 3 instead of 4 on the Ab, so the fingering up there is 3432 rather than 4543. It has disadvantages but I think the advantages outweigh them.
Posted by: Derulux

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/28/13 08:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Been practicing and playing it with the new swindle, and I think it's gonna work. But the reason I'm bringing it back up is, I have an amendment on it. grin

For the second squiggle, i.e. the mordent on the high A-flat, I'm trying 3 instead of 4 on the Ab, so the fingering up there is 3432 rather than 4543. It has disadvantages but I think the advantages outweigh them.

Really? Only on the 2nd and not the 1st? I tend to do it the other way around when I do play the 343.
Posted by: pianoloverus

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/28/13 08:53 PM

After years of study experimentation and consultation I have found that the opening octave of this piece is best played using 1-5 in both hands. (This is at least as important/interesting as many of the recent posts on this thread.)
Posted by: carey

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/28/13 09:03 PM

Originally Posted By: pianoloverus
After years of study experimentation and consultation I have found that the opening octave of this piece is best played using 1-5 in both hands. (This is at least as important/interesting as many of the recent posts on this thread.)


1-5 in the LH instead of 5-1 ???? Now THAT'S interesting !!! grin
Posted by: JoelW

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/28/13 09:25 PM

Originally Posted By: pianoloverus
After years of study experimentation and consultation I have found that the opening octave of this piece is best played using 1-5 in both hands. (This is at least as important/interesting as many of the recent posts on this thread.)


How is this important?
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/28/13 10:50 PM

I think he's just pulling our chains there. ha

And BTW that thing about the first chord is basically a subset of the age-old debate of "4th or 5th finger on black-key octaves?"

Everyone has his/her own answer, plus in general "the state of the art" comes and goes in fads and waves.

Current fad/state of the art: Dunno, I've lost track. ha

My view for me: It depends and varies according to context.
For those opening octaves of this piece: Whichever finger hurts less at the time. grin
Posted by: Damon

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/28/13 11:10 PM

Originally Posted By: pianoloverus
After years of study experimentation and consultation I have found that the opening octave of this piece is best played using 1-5 in both hands. (This is at least as important/interesting as many of the recent posts on this thread.)


I use the 4th and 5th fingers on the outer notes. How do you play that next chord?
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/28/13 11:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Damon
I use the 4th and 5th fingers on the outer notes. How do you play that next chord?

You realize you're risking being told that your post wasn't as interesting as his.... grin
Posted by: Dustin Spray

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/28/13 11:20 PM

I was thinking about trying to learn this piece. How brutal is it to learn? It may be beyond my league. I'm to the point of playing Prelude in C sharp minor by Rachmaninov and Prelude in D flat Major Chopin. I think it's about twice the difficulty of those pieces?
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/28/13 11:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Dustin Spray
I was thinking about trying to learn this song. How brutal is it to learn? It may be beyond my league. I'm to the point of playing Prelude in C sharp minor by Rachmaninov and Prelude in D flat Major Chopin. I think it's about twice the difficulty of those pieces?

First of all, let me apologize in advance for anyone who gets on your case for calling it a "song"! (We have some snobs about that.)

That said, anyone who calls this piece a song probably isn't advanced enough to play it. grin

But that shouldn't stop you from giving it a try and seeing what you can make of it! smile

BTW, it's not twice as hard as those other pieces. It's 1000 times as hard!
I'm serious. It's much harder.
Posted by: BruceD

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 02:02 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: Dustin Spray
I was thinking about trying to learn this song. How brutal is it to learn? It may be beyond my league. I'm to the point of playing Prelude in C sharp minor by Rachmaninov and Prelude in D flat Major Chopin. I think it's about twice the difficulty of those pieces?

First of all, let me apologize in advance for anyone who gets on your case for calling it a "song"! (We have some snobs about that.)

That said, anyone who calls this piece a song probably isn't advanced enough to play it. grin

But that shouldn't stop you from giving it a try and seeing what you can make of it! smile

BTW, it's not twice as hard as those other pieces. It's 1000 times as hard!
I'm serious. It's much harder.


Since DS is evidently planning to sing this "song," it may be only 500 times more difficult than the other works in his repertoire, particularly if he is singing those "songs" too.

Regards,
[One of the Snobs]
Posted by: carey

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 02:05 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: Dustin Spray
I was thinking about trying to learn this song. How brutal is it to learn? It may be beyond my league. I'm to the point of playing Prelude in C sharp minor by Rachmaninov and Prelude in D flat Major Chopin. I think it's about twice the difficulty of those pieces?

First of all, let me apologize in advance for anyone who gets on your case for calling it a "song"! (We have some snobs about that.)That said, anyone who calls this piece a song probably isn't advanced enough to play it. grin

Snobbery has nothing to do with it. It's just plain wrong. smile
Quote:
But that shouldn't stop you from giving it a try and seeing what you can make of it! smile

Sure, he can give it a try - but I'd strongly recommend instead that he take a look at the Military Polonaise Opus 40 No. 1 or the Polonaise Opus 40 No. 2 - both of which are worth learning and fun to play.
Quote:
BTW, it's not twice as hard as those other pieces. It's 1000 times as hard!

Well maybe 100 times as hard....... grin


Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 02:07 AM

Originally Posted By: BruceD
Since DS is evidently planning to sing this "song," it may be only 500 times more difficult than the other works in his repertoire.

Regards,
[One of the Snobs]

It depends. For me, it would be 500 times harder to try to sing anything than to play it on the piano. ha

Maybe not. Let's see how it would be to sing this piece....

BUH!!!
buh da da da da da DA!!
bum....bum.....bum
buh da da da buh da da da buh da da da buh da da da buh da da da DA!!

Huh....maybe it's not so hard to sing after all. grin

BY THE WAY -- would you believe, never in all my life did I realize (consciously) how the L.H. octave thing in the middle is derived from the opening, till I wrote out the "buh da da da" above. smile


QUESTION: Who DID realize it? Anybody?

P.S. Let's see how long it takes for Pianoloverus to say how uninteresting this is. grin
Posted by: Dustin Spray

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 02:11 AM

I apoligize and thank you for correcting me. I was totally in the wrong and I edited my post. blush I have always loved this piece and have wanted to play it. I knew it was a difficult but didnt know it was that difficult. eek I played thru the first 2 or 3 pages a few years ago, but thats probably the easier sections. Maybe the Chopin book should go back into the filing cabnet for a few more years......... frown
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 02:12 AM

Oh no!!! Now we have people apologizing for saying "song"? grin

(Hey Dustin, it's all good!)

Quote:
I played thru the first 2 or 3 pages a few years ago, but thats probably the easier sections.

The first page is probably as hard as anything else in the piece.
Posted by: Dustin Spray

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 02:21 AM

Military Polonaise Op 40 is a grand piece maybe I will consider that. Like I said I fumbled thru the first 2 or 3 pages. I just didnt dedicate any serious time to them. Im just starting piano again after a near 13 year hiatus. I started in 8th grade and played all the way thru high school and got busy with life. I was thinking a few weeks ago about all the fond memories I had thru high school playing piano. So two weeks I went out and bought a Kawai CA65. I am thrilled with it and cant stop playing it. I live in a apt so a real piano may be a trick. I was hoping to re-kindle the fire with the Kawai digital and look into something different if and when I move. Anyways, thanks for all the constructive feedback and I am grateful for such a wonderful forum.

-Dustin
Posted by: carey

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 02:26 AM

Originally Posted By: Dustin Spray
Military Polonaise Op 40 is a grand piece maybe I will consider that. Like I said I fumbled thru the first 2 or 3 pages. I just didnt dedicate any serious time to them. Im just starting piano again after a near 13 year hiatus. I started in 8th grade and played all the way thru high school and got busy with life. I was thinking a few weeks ago about all the fond memories I had thru high school playing piano. So two weeks I went out and bought a Kawai CA65. I am thrilled with it and cant stop playing it. I live in a apt so a real piano may be a trick. I was hoping to re-kindle the fire with the Kawai digital and look into something different if and when I move. Anyways, thanks for all the constructive feedback and I am grateful for such a wonderful forum.


And we're thrilled for you !!!! So good that you are getting back to playing !!! Enjoy your new digital and, above all, have fun !!!!
Posted by: JoelW

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 02:55 AM

Heroic polonaise? I love that song.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 03:02 AM

Originally Posted By: JoelW
Heroic polonaise? I love that song.


Posted by: Derulux

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 03:12 AM

Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: pianoloverus
After years of study experimentation and consultation I have found that the opening octave of this piece is best played using 1-5 in both hands. (This is at least as important/interesting as many of the recent posts on this thread.)


I use the 4th and 5th fingers on the outer notes. How do you play that next chord?

If you mean the rising 16ths, I've done it two ways: with one hand (the right), and split. When I split, I actually play the top two notes of each chord with my right hand, and the bottom chromatic note with my left.

And I apologize if I missed a joke. Sometimes I don't quite catch the subtlety when it's written out. smile


PS- I would think singing this song would be much harder than playing it. Especially since one person has to sing more than one pitch.. wink


PSS-
Originally Posted By: carey
Sure, he can give it a try - but I'd strongly recommend instead that he take a look at the Military Polonaise Opus 40 No. 1 or the Polonaise Opus 40 No. 2 - both of which are worth learning and fun to play.

I vote for Op 40 No 2. I love the military, but no2 is great fun. smile
Posted by: Dustin Spray

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 03:26 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: JoelW
Heroic polonaise? I love that song.




Thats what I was taking about all along! wink
Posted by: JoelW

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 04:05 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: JoelW
Heroic polonaise? I love that song.




I actually really enjoy this little hommage à Chopin.
Posted by: Damon

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 07:47 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: Damon
I use the 4th and 5th fingers on the outer notes. How do you play that next chord?

You realize you're risking being told that your post wasn't as interesting as his.... grin


I live on the edge.
Posted by: carey

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 09:55 AM

Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: Damon
I use the 4th and 5th fingers on the outer notes. How do you play that next chord?

You realize you're risking being told that your post wasn't as interesting as his.... grin

I live on the edge.

We admire risk takers. Go for it !! thumb
Posted by: pianoloverus

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 11:57 AM

Originally Posted By: carey
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: Dustin Spray
I was thinking about trying to learn this song. How brutal is it to learn? It may be beyond my league. I'm to the point of playing Prelude in C sharp minor by Rachmaninov and Prelude in D flat Major Chopin. I think it's about twice the difficulty of those pieces?

First of all, let me apologize in advance for anyone who gets on your case for calling it a "song"! (We have some snobs about that.)That said, anyone who calls this piece a song probably isn't advanced enough to play it. grin

Snobbery has nothing to do with it. It's just plain wrong. smile
I believe I'm correct in saying that usage eventually determines meaning. Anyone who is around people 25 years old or less knows that for virtually everyone in that group "song" means any musical composition whether sung or not. If it is already not defined that way in some dictionaries I have little doubt that within a few years it will be.
Posted by: bennevis

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 12:37 PM

Maybe someone will correct me, but I believe 'song' as a generic word for any musical composition only came into general use when MP3 players (which can only record 'songs', even if you load it with a 90 minute Mahler Symphony) came into general use, replacing the Walkmans that preceded them, because that's what the LCD display says, and as we know, computers are never wrong.....

I certainly don't remember anyone around me (not even teenagers) calling non-vocal music 'songs' before then.

Not even for Für Elise......
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 01:38 PM

Originally Posted By: pianoloverus
I believe I'm correct in saying that usage eventually determines meaning. Anyone who is around people 25 years old or less knows that for virtually everyone in that group "song" means any musical composition whether sung or not. If it is already not defined that way in some dictionaries I have little doubt that within a few years it will be.

I can't help agreeing with you. ha

I agree totally. While I'm with those who would sort of like "song" to be reserved for how we use it, we're fighting a losing battle. And really, there isn't much point to the battle. I think if anything, we should be glad that more and more people, including those not more heavily immersed in classical music training, are interested in classical music, including to the point of participating in a forum such as this. And language evolves. I'm sure there are hundreds of words and phrases that all of us pedants use, without a second thought, which were originally 'misuses.'

Speaking of which, there's another current 'misuse' which I would bet 99% of us pedants now use without a second thought, which bothers me a lot more than this song thing. In fact, I might even be the only one who considers it a misuse ha but that's my story and I'm sticking to it:

"Shipping," when no boat is involved. grin
I cringe a little every time I see the term. I call it "delivery." How it got to be "shipping," I don't know. But it is what it is. smile
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 01:41 PM

Originally Posted By: bennevis
Maybe someone will correct me, but I believe 'song' as a generic word for any musical composition only came into general use when MP3 players (which can only record 'songs'....

I'm happy to correct you. grin

We called them "songs" when I was growing up, in the '50's, and I continued doing it into the early '60's.

In fact, my first teacher did it, even though she was a formal type -- probably not because that was her usual way of doing it but to use the same vocabulary that her kid students used. There did come a time when she started getting on my case for saying "song."
Posted by: Derulux

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 05:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Speaking of which, there's another current 'misuse' which I would bet 99% of us pedants now use without a second thought, which bothers me a lot more than this song thing. In fact, I might even be the only one who considers it a misuse ha but that's my story and I'm sticking to it:

"Shipping," when no boat is involved. grin
I cringe a little every time I see the term. I call it "delivery." How it got to be "shipping," I don't know. But it is what it is. smile

But "delivery" is wrong, too, because it refers only to the act of actually turning the product over to the recipient, and not the actual process of transporting the product. wink

(Logistics people hate the term "delivery" where it means "transportation". Almost as much as classical people hate the term "song" when it replaces "piece" or "work". Although technically, "piece" would be wrong, too, because it would indicate that the thing itself is part of a whole. And "work" would be wrong, because the physical labor has already been done. What you have is not the "work" but the "product". See how futile this all gets?)
Posted by: beet31425

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 05:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Speaking of which, there's another current 'misuse' which I would bet 99% of us pedants now use without a second thought, which bothers me a lot more than this song thing. In fact, I might even be the only one who considers it a misuse ha but that's my story and I'm sticking to it:

"Shipping," when no boat is involved. grin
I cringe a little every time I see the term. I call it "delivery." How it got to be "shipping," I don't know. But it is what it is. smile


Then you'll love this use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipping_(fandom)

This term is actually used, vigorously and passionately, by certain kinds of people.

-J
Posted by: Damon

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 05:38 PM

Originally Posted By: bennevis
Maybe someone will correct me, but I believe 'song' as a generic word for any musical composition only came into general use when MP3 players came into general use......


Allow me. You're wrong. People, kids in particular, have been doing it all my life which unfortunately predates mp3s.
Posted by: bennevis

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 06:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: bennevis
Maybe someone will correct me, but I believe 'song' as a generic word for any musical composition only came into general use when MP3 players came into general use......


Allow me. You're wrong. People, kids in particular, have been doing it all my life which unfortunately predates mp3s.


Ah, I'd always suspected I live on a different planet.

My suspicions are happily confirmed..... grin
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 06:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Derulux
But "delivery" is wrong, too, because it refers only to the act of actually turning the product over to the recipient, and not the actual process of transporting the product. wink

"Delivery" doesn't exactly also mean transporting??

Huh......I guess you're right!
(Nice get!!)

That's one that I had gotten so used-to that it never occurred to me that it didn't mean literally what I thought.

So, from now on I'm going to insist on "transporting." ha

Until Derulux points out that it's not "transporting" unless PORTS are involved. grin

Originally Posted By: beet31425

Ha!!
(Didn't know that one!)
Posted by: BruceD

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 07:54 PM

Originally Posted By: bennevis
[...]
Ah, I'd always suspected I live on a different planet.

My suspicions are happily confirmed..... grin


It must be the same planet that I live on, because I had never heard "song" used in the context we are discussing until only a few years ago. None of the students I studied with over the years ever said "song" unless they meant "song."

Before you rush to remind me what a backward country Canada is when it comes to "hip" culture, let me remind you that I lived in the US from 1969 to 2005, and only began hearing "song" for "composition" (et al.) in the late 90's.

Regards,
Posted by: bennevis

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 07:58 PM

Originally Posted By: BruceD
Originally Posted By: bennevis
[...]
Ah, I'd always suspected I live on a different planet.

My suspicions are happily confirmed..... grin


It must be the same planet that I live on, because I had never heard "song" used in the context we are discussing until only a few years ago. None of the students I studied with over the years ever said "song" unless they meant "song."

Regards,


We must both be living on Alpha Centauri Bb (or is that B flat?). Great to meet a fellow Centaurian....... wink
Posted by: Derulux

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 08:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: Derulux
But "delivery" is wrong, too, because it refers only to the act of actually turning the product over to the recipient, and not the actual process of transporting the product. wink

"Delivery" doesn't exactly also mean transporting??

Huh......I guess you're right!
(Nice get!!)

That's one that I had gotten so used-to that it never occurred to me that it didn't mean literally what I thought.

So, from now on I'm going to insist on "transporting." ha

Until Derulux points out that it's not "transporting" unless PORTS are involved. grin

Originally Posted By: beet31425

Ha!!
(Didn't know that one!)

Hahaha you got to "ports" faster than I did, actually. If you hadn't said it, I might not have even made the connection. wink

To the wiki link.. that is both hilarious and disturbing at the same time.
Posted by: Damon

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 09:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Derulux
Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: pianoloverus
After years of study experimentation and consultation I have found that the opening octave of this piece is best played using 1-5 in both hands. (This is at least as important/interesting as many of the recent posts on this thread.)


I use the 4th and 5th fingers on the outer notes. How do you play that next chord?

If you mean the rising 16ths, I've done it two ways: with one hand (the right), and split. When I split, I actually play the top two notes of each chord with my right hand, and the bottom chromatic note with my left.


Yes the rising 16ths. The very first chord I play with 4-1 in the left hand and 2 in the right, then play the rest with single notes in the left and double in the right.

Originally Posted By: Derulux

And I apologize if I missed a joke. Sometimes I don't quite catch the subtlety when it's written out. smile


I was being waggish, but hey, why not take it apart note by note? shocked
Posted by: Scordatura

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 09:53 PM

Originally Posted By: JoelW
If in fact you do mean the octaves with the trills at the top, there is a really neat trick that Stanisalv Bunin does. Instead of playing the octave after each trill with the right hand only (which is where the difficulty comes from), ADD the bottom half of the octave to the left hand's chords. That way you free the right up while the left hand feels virtually the same.

Damn! I thought I was the only person ever to discover and use that trick (well,okay, doubtless it didn't escape the likes of Busoni and Friedman!). Cat's out of the bag now, well and true. No more gasps of admiration over my apparent faultless ease here... will just have to find something else to fake equally impressively.
Posted by: Derulux

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 10:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: Derulux
Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: pianoloverus
After years of study experimentation and consultation I have found that the opening octave of this piece is best played using 1-5 in both hands. (This is at least as important/interesting as many of the recent posts on this thread.)


I use the 4th and 5th fingers on the outer notes. How do you play that next chord?

If you mean the rising 16ths, I've done it two ways: with one hand (the right), and split. When I split, I actually play the top two notes of each chord with my right hand, and the bottom chromatic note with my left.


Yes the rising 16ths. The very first chord I play with 4-1 in the left hand and 2 in the right, then play the rest with single notes in the left and double in the right.

Originally Posted By: Derulux

And I apologize if I missed a joke. Sometimes I don't quite catch the subtlety when it's written out. smile


I was being waggish, but hey, why not take it apart note by note? shocked

Thank you for being so jocular, and for letting me down easy. smile

I tried to follow the progression of your fingering. LH, assuming 14-3 2132 1? RH, same as me (below), except for the distribution of the "E" on the first chord? This is what I use:

LH: standard chromatic (31 3213 1)
RH: 12-13 24-15-24-15 24


EDIT: And thank you. Because of this question, I went back and read through the piece in its entirety. Haven't touched it in at least four years, but it was manageable and enjoyable. smile
Posted by: Scordatura

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 11:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Derulux
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Speaking of which, there's another current 'misuse' which I would bet 99% of us pedants now use without a second thought, which bothers me a lot more than this song thing. In fact, I might even be the only one who considers it a misuse ha but that's my story and I'm sticking to it:

"Shipping," when no boat is involved. grin
I cringe a little every time I see the term. I call it "delivery." How it got to be "shipping," I don't know. But it is what it is. smile

But "delivery" is wrong, too, because it refers only to the act of actually turning the product over to the recipient, and not the actual process of transporting the product. wink


Well, "delivery" suits me just fine. Believe it or not, the idea of someone handing over a product I've ordered and taken it for granted would be transported to me, is exactly what I anticipate and intend to transpire on ordering it. And, moreover, I seriously believe my delivery address to be the place where that is most likely to transpire. Call me nuts or what?

What's the point of giving a shipping address, I ask. How the heck do I know what the ship's address is (er, "no fixed abode", "moved away", perhaps?)?

Likewise "transportation" address, except that would be even vaguer. At least your ship's address is likely to be somewhere on the seven seas. No such clues where the latter term is concerned.

Call me cranky, but I genuinely maintain it's helpful to use words that convey to others exactly what's meant, especially when they're trying to do something on my behalf.
Posted by: Damon

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/29/13 11:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Derulux

I tried to follow the progression of your fingering. LH, assuming 14-3 2132 1? RH, same as me (below), except for the distribution of the "E" on the first chord? This is what I use:

LH: standard chromatic (31 3213 1)
RH: 12-13 24-15-24-15 24


Exactly!

RH: 2---13---24---15---24---15---24
LH: 41----3----2----1----3----2----1
Posted by: Derulux

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/30/13 12:23 AM

Originally Posted By: Scordatura
Originally Posted By: Derulux
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Speaking of which, there's another current 'misuse' which I would bet 99% of us pedants now use without a second thought, which bothers me a lot more than this song thing. In fact, I might even be the only one who considers it a misuse ha but that's my story and I'm sticking to it:

"Shipping," when no boat is involved. grin
I cringe a little every time I see the term. I call it "delivery." How it got to be "shipping," I don't know. But it is what it is. smile

But "delivery" is wrong, too, because it refers only to the act of actually turning the product over to the recipient, and not the actual process of transporting the product. wink


Well, "delivery" suits me just fine. Believe it or not, the idea of someone handing over a product I've ordered and taken it for granted would be transported to me, is exactly what I anticipate and intend to transpire on ordering it. And, moreover, I seriously believe my delivery address to be the place where that is most likely to transpire. Call me nuts or what?

What's the point of giving a shipping address, I ask. How the heck do I know what the ship's address is (er, "no fixed abode", "moved away", perhaps?)?

Likewise "transportation" address, except that would be even vaguer. At least your ship's address is likely to be somewhere on the seven seas. No such clues where the latter term is concerned.

Call me cranky, but I genuinely maintain it's helpful to use words that convey to others exactly what's meant, especially when they're trying to do something on my behalf.


So, you'll hand a package to someone and say, "Delivery this for me"?

The term, "shipper" is extremely accurate. It means, "a person who ships goods or makes shipments."

However, the legal terms usually applied are "consignor" and "consignee". The logistics industry uses these terms interchangeably with "shipper" and "receiver". (I actually happen to have about a decade of experience in this particular industry.) smile
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/30/13 12:29 AM

Originally Posted By: Derulux
....The logistics industry uses these terms interchangeably with "shipper" and "receiver". (I actually happen to have about a decade of experience in this particular industry.) smile

No, not unless you used a boat.
(And perhaps a radio.) grin

But seriously folks....that's interesting. smile

Although I'm sure there's someone who's sitting there disagreeing and still not getting a word of it. ha
Posted by: SlatterFan

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/31/13 05:15 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Speaking of which, there's another current 'misuse' which I would bet 99% of us pedants now use without a second thought, which bothers me a lot more than this song thing. In fact, I might even be the only one who considers it a misuse ha but that's my story and I'm sticking to it:

"Shipping," when no boat is involved. grin
I cringe a little every time I see the term. I call it "delivery." How it got to be "shipping," I don't know. But it is what it is. smile

I find this digression interesting too! I will read Jason's Wiki link later today.

My view is that "ship" is seen by some as a generic term for "transportation vessel". Thus what is casually called a ship could be described more specifically as a seaship; hot-air balloons, zeppelins, and planes are different forms of airship; Armstrong et al traveled in a rocket ship (or rocketship) in 1969, which could also reasonably be called a moonship; and in science fiction it is natural to travel to the stars in a starship. In short, if we view ships as not limited to vessels that travel across the sea, the modern usage is logical and sensible.
Posted by: wr

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/31/13 06:11 AM

Originally Posted By: bennevis


I certainly don't remember anyone around me (not even teenagers) calling non-vocal music 'songs' before then.



I do remember it being used that way, prior to the age of iTunes, for very small children and others who might not be expected to be able make the distinction, or didn't have the working vocabulary to express it.

Actually, I first ran into the current form of misuse quite a while before it was popularized, way back in the 1980s. It turned up as part of the verbiage used to describe MIDI, maybe because the nerds responsible for creating that protocol didn't really care all that much about the linguistic aspect of what they were doing (but I don't know that for a fact). My old Yamaha SY77 synth even calls its MIDI recording mode "song mode".
Posted by: bennevis

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/31/13 06:35 AM

Originally Posted By: wr
My old Yamaha SY77 synth even calls its MIDI recording mode "song mode".





I don't know how long synths and digitals have been around for (I never took any notice of them until three years ago, when I, er, bought one....), but maybe they started the rot, rather than iPods and the like mad.

It annoys me no end that when I record myself on my digital, it insists on calling it a 'Song' - though there's no way I can record myself singing Schubert while playing the piano part. Though my digital is the most customizable on the (current) planet, that doesn't extend to allowing its user to correct its inappropriate use of English..... cry.
Posted by: Damon

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 01/31/13 07:35 AM

Originally Posted By: bennevis
Originally Posted By: wr
My old Yamaha SY77 synth even calls its MIDI recording mode "song mode".





I don't know how long synths and digitals have been around for (I never took any notice of them until three years ago, when I, er, bought one....), but maybe they started the rot, rather than iPods and the like mad.


We must find the culprit and make them pay!
Posted by: kapelli

Re: Chopin's Op. 53... - 03/13/13 05:26 PM

I know that this topic is old, but laugh

Having listened dozens of renditions, live, from CD's and on youtube I must say that:
- technically this is very demanding piece, and there are many of horrible places like octaves in the middle section
- there's dozens of recording on youtube, when people play it and you clearly can hear that this STATE OF THE ART PIANO MUSIC PIECE is immensly hard to play, both technically and musically even worse.

It's based on polish dance calles polonaise as you know, with the base rythm.

just listen to Blechacz - this is how this piece should be played smile
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0olrJAmX60

Perfect tone, style and tempo.
Non plus ultra? Perhaps.

I can also play the firt and second pages. They are easy compared to rest smile

Edit few hours later:
SAMSON FRANCOIS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ylB7TORrH4 - how is he doing this? It's immense.