Appassionata 1st movement--help with trills and 5-tuples

[Christopher A. Mejia]

Hi,

I'm trying to learn Beethoven's Appassionata Sonata. The 2nd and 3rd
movements seem pretty straightforward, but a couple of points in the 1st
movement are giving me trouble.

1. Do the trills start on the upper or lower note? Is there a difference
whether there is a grace note (e.g. measure 3) and whether there is no grace
note (e.g. measure 11)? Beethoven shows how to "get out of" these trills,
but how fast should the trill be (sixteenths? triplet-sixteents?) and how
does that match up to the supplied trill endings.

2. How can I get the feel for the 5-tuple sixteenths, which start on page
four of my edition (I don't have measure numbers)? Can I cheat and play
these as 2+3 or 3+2 or 2+2+1 etc. such that it won't matter when I play up
to full speed?

Any performance tips would be appreciated.

--Chris

[YYZ]

Post by Christopher A. Mejia
Hi,
I'm trying to learn Beethoven's Appassionata Sonata. The 2nd and 3rd
movements seem pretty straightforward, but a couple of points in the 1st
movement are giving me trouble.
1. Do the trills start on the upper or lower note? Is there a difference
whether there is a grace note (e.g. measure 3) and whether there is no grace
note (e.g. measure 11)? Beethoven shows how to "get out of" these trills,
but how fast should the trill be (sixteenths? triplet-sixteents?) and how
does that match up to the supplied trill endings.
2. How can I get the feel for the 5-tuple sixteenths, which start on page
four of my edition (I don't have measure numbers)? Can I cheat and play
these as 2+3 or 3+2 or 2+2+1 etc. such that it won't matter when I play up
to full speed?
Any performance tips would be appreciated.
--Chris

am glad the 2nd & 3rd seem pretty straightforward; then why ?s re 1st?

any particular reason(s) why you have chosen "to learn" lvb's opus 57?

perf tip # 1: timing & rhythmn *always* matter .. no matter the tempo.

[Christopher A. Mejia]

YYZ,

Thanks for the response. By "straightforward" I mean that there is no
ambiguity about how to execute the notes on the page for the 2nd and 3rd
movements. But the trills (for example) in the 1st movement do seem to
have several different possibilities for execution. I chose the
Appassionata after hearing a Horowitz recording of it. I like the rise and
fall of the 2nd movement, and the running excitement of the 3rd movement.
But the 1st presents several problems for me--for example the trills and
5-tuples, also how to musically play the chords banged out alternately by
the left and right hands.

--Chris

Post by YYZ
am glad the 2nd & 3rd seem pretty straightforward; then why ?s re 1st?
any particular reason(s) why you have chosen "to learn" lvb's opus 57?

[Cc88m]

Post by Christopher A. Mejia
1. Do the trills start on the upper or lower note? Is there a difference
whether there is a grace note (e.g. measure 3) and whether there is no grace
note (e.g. measure 11)? Beethoven shows how to "get out of" these trills,
but how fast should the trill be (sixteenths? triplet-sixteents?) and how
does that match up to the supplied trill endings.

The first trill is played 12323232etc; ie, play as written. Same (as written)
for the 3 trills around measure 45; the first is played as above, but the next
2 start on the upper note, and this upper note should be clearly audible.

Post by Christopher A. Mejia
2. How can I get the feel for the 5-tuple sixteenths, which start on page
four of my edition (I don't have measure numbers)? Can I cheat and play
these as 2+3 or 3+2 or 2+2+1 etc. such that it won't matter when I play up
to full speed?

LVB's idea here is fiendishly clever! Each note here should be played at
EXACTLY the same speed as the 6 note sections. Since there is one note missing,
the bar ACCELERATES by almost 20%. He has told you EXACTLY how much to
accelerate!

Post by Christopher A. Mejia
Any performance tips would be appreciated.

The most important concepts in this 1st movement are explained at the end of
section IV.4 in link below. I present only the barest schematic, but it is all
there if you read carefully. Unless you understand LVB's construct, you cannot
play this piece correctly, and many famous pianists make mistakes because they
view it from a melodic point of view instead of trying to understand what LVB
had in mind (a very clever and deep phsychological ploy).

The banged-out chords near the beginning are played in a special way that you
can "get" only by listening to performances (not as written). Your Horowitz
recording should do fine.

The 3rd movement is technically much more difficult than the 1st movement.
C. C. Chang; more on piano practice at

http://members.aol.com/chang8828/contents.htm

[Marvin Wolfthal]

Post by Cc88m
LVB's idea here is fiendishly clever! Each note here should be played at
EXACTLY the same speed as the 6 note sections. Since there is one note missing,
the bar ACCELERATES by almost 20%. He has told you EXACTLY how much to
accelerate!

And what is your authority for this?

Marvin Wolfthal

[Cc88m]

Post by Marvin Wolfthal
And what is your authority for this?

Why do you need authority? Who certifies authority? Can you define authority?
Did God speak to someone about music?? Can't you THINK, LISTEN and DECIDE for
yourself? Why do you always have to depend on someone else? Do you have a
brain?

If you don't agree for good reasons, say so!
C. C. Chang; more on piano practice at

http://members.aol.com/chang8828/contents.htm

[Marvin Wolfthal]

Post by Cc88m

Post by Marvin Wolfthal
And what is your authority for this?

Why do you need authority? Who certifies authority? Can you define authority?
Did God speak to someone about music?? Can't you THINK, LISTEN and DECIDE for
yourself? Why do you always have to depend on someone else? Do you have a
brain?
If you don't agree for good reasons, say so!

You made an assertion about the first movement of Beethoven's op. 57:

"LVB's idea here is fiendishly clever! Each note here should be played at
EXACTLY the same speed as the 6 note sections. Since there is one note missing,
the bar ACCELERATES by almost 20%. He has told you EXACTLY how much to
accelerate!"

Your claim is that this is Beethoven's unequivocal intention. My question about the authority
for this assertion was intended to give you the opportunity to provide a justification for
an idea which is not supported by the text. Although you may be enamored of this
wonderful and original idea, perhaps you should refrain from giving advice that you cannot
substantiate. Further, if you believe that the notion of authority in musical matters is in
itself nonsensical, then the most consistent thing for you to do would be to stop giving
advice altogether.

Thanks.

Marvin Wolfthal

[Cc88m]

Post by Marvin Wolfthal
Further, if you believe that the notion of authority in musical matters is in
itself nonsensical, then the most consistent thing for you to do would be to stop giving
advice altogether.

I don't claim any "authority". Someone posted a question so I presented my
interpretation with explanation. I was hoping that such an idea will encourage
others to explore similar ideas (see below) that would help them play.
Absolutely nothing to do with authority; just extending free knowledge and
empowerment. Even you figured out that it was my original idea, so your
statement about my "authority" is self-inconsistent. That is the kind of
illogical approach to piano pedagogy that has caused untold misery and failure
(depending on "authority" right or wrong) which was the basis for my previous
post. You imply that my idea is wrong, without any supporting arguments. That
doesn't help anybody, because in a free, open internet, you have no authority.
The only authority that exists here is logic, ideas, and knowledge. Your post
is another example of the shortcomings of people who quote "authority" without
logic or supporting arguments or useful knowledge. Now you know why I made
such strong statements.

LVB was a great intuitive mathematician and psychologist. He knew that you get
the greatest effect if you controlled someone without his knowledge. Thus in
this case of the missing note creating acceleration, the audience feels the
acceleration, yet has no idea how it came about, because the notes are still
coming at the same rate. LVB was also a master of writing "deep" music which
no normal human being could figure out while listening to it in real time. He
did this by combining many elements in a single passage, too many to figure
out. In this particular passage in question, he combines many things
simultaneously. We just saw the acceleration; then the 5 note beat has no
sub-beats; 5 is a prime number, and the feeling of a 5 note beat is somewhat
mysterious and unsecure. In addition, the 5 note beat is a miniature of the
main theme played very fast. The first notes of each beat also create an
arpeggic series, going down; meanwhile, the right hand plays a similar series,
going up; thus he is using the same thing, played simultaneously in three
different ways. He certainly made sure that nobody was going to figure all this
out, listening to it in real time.

Note, also, how he inserts his favorite theme from his 5th symphony at the
beginning, which he later uses to introduce the fantastic ending to this
movement, by applying group theory in which he uses time as his variable
dimension.
C. C. Chang; more on piano practice at

http://members.aol.com/chang8828/contents.htm

[Marvin Wolfthal]

Post by Cc88m
I don't claim any "authority". Someone posted a question so I presented my
interpretation with explanation.

An interpretation of what? Certainly not the text.. Your idea is an arbitrary
imposition which, whatever thought process it derives from,
reflects a lack of understanding or, worse, lack of interest in the facts.
When Beethoven wants a change of tempo as significant as the one
you propose he indicates it. There is no indication of a tempo change.
There is no indication that the quintuplet is anything other than a 5-part
subdivision of a constant beat. There is no indication of the equivalence
of the sextuplet sixteenth with the quintuplet sixteenth or a change in tempo.
Perhaps you will reply that you need no justification, that you are "empowered".
Good luck to you.

Post by Cc88m
I was hoping that such an idea will encourage
others to explore similar ideas (see below) ...

Such an idea and the attitude that it represents encourages others to an
irresponsible approach to the text.

Post by Cc88m
That is the kind of illogical approach to piano pedagogy that has caused
untold misery and failure (depending on "authority" right or wrong) which was the
basis for my previous post.

This has nothing to do with piano pedagogy. It has to do with literacy.

Post by Cc88m
You imply that my idea is wrong, without any supporting arguments.

The burden of proof is yours, not mine. The numerical mumbo-jumbo
in remainder of your post proves nothing, it merely assumes the correctness
of your initial assertion, for which there is no textual support: that the sextuplet
16th becomes the quintuplet16th. You still need to tell us how you know
this to be true.

Could it be that you really just don't understand the notation?

Marvin Wolfthal

[Tak-Shing Chan]

Post by Marvin Wolfthal
When Beethoven wants a change of tempo as significant as the one
you propose he indicates it.

Beethoven once said that his metronome was broken. ;-)

Tak-Shing

[Grunt]

Post by Tak-Shing Chan

Post by Marvin Wolfthal
When Beethoven wants a change of tempo as significant as the one
you propose he indicates it.

Beethoven once said that his metronome was broken. ;-)
Tak-Shing

Is this not R. Schumann to which you are alluding?


-- G

[Cc88m]

Post by Marvin Wolfthal
An interpretation of what? Certainly not the text..

It CERTAINLY is. I already explained that, so PLEASE read it. If the metronome
number at the beginning says a certain note has a certain time value, you keep
it, and where there are five notes, the measure has the corresponding time; but
if LVB puts 6 notes, the time changes. I am just following instructions, and
as others noted, LVB was very precise and exacting. You can't be any more exact
than the exact value of a single note -- this is not even tempo rubato.

Your idea is an arbitrary

Post by Marvin Wolfthal
imposition which, whatever thought process it derives from,
reflects a lack of understanding or, worse, lack of interest in the facts.

It is NOT arbitrary; as described above, I was just following the text, using
the metronome indicated timing. I have NEVER seen a metronome timing indicating
the measure; it is always with respect to a note.

Post by Marvin Wolfthal
When Beethoven wants a change of tempo as significant as the one
you propose he indicates it.

OF COURSE he did. He deleted one note and thereby told you EXACTLY by how much
to speed up. He did not give a wishy-washy "accel. . . . .", but a precise
value given by the missing note. Genius!

There is no indication of a tempo change.

See above.

Post by Marvin Wolfthal
There is no indication that the quintuplet is anything other than a 5-part
subdivision of a constant beat.

That is your arbitrary conclusion. My discussions above indicate the contrary.
If you choose to ignore all evidence, then, there clearly is none.

There is no indication of the equivalence

Post by Marvin Wolfthal
of the sextuplet sixteenth with the quintuplet sixteenth or a change in tempo.

Likewise, there is no indication that every measure MUST have the same value.
So we have a choice. What choice to make was indicated by LVB's instructions
which come out loud and clear in the unusual missing note.

Post by Marvin Wolfthal
Perhaps you will reply that you need no justification, that you are "empowered".
Good luck to you.

No. The justification is as follows. If you follow all rules, the passage is
impossible to play because if you follow the metronome indication strictly in
the LH, then the metronome indication is violated in the RH, or else the RH
will lag behind the LH one note with each bar, which the bar markers will not
allow. And vice versa if you follow the metronome indication with the RH, then
you will have to lengthen the LH notes, otherwise you run into another similar
conundrum. Therefore, we must make a conscious choice as to which hand to
violate. This is exactly what LVB wanted. However, according to the most basic
music reading (this is not even musicology 101 -- it's something you should
have learned in the first few years of lessons), when there is only a few or no
notes in one hand and lots of notes in the other, the time length of the bar is
determined by the hand with lots of notes. This makes it easier and more
accurate, especially when practicing slowly. LVB obviously new this and made
use of it to tell us how fast to play the bar. This happens all the time in
Chopin's music. If you played Chopin with every measure of equal length, it
wouldn't be Chopin. This is nothing unusual. I have seen countless metronome
indications of time values of notes, but NEVER a time value for a bar. My
conclusions were based on this simple fact, that I followed the metronome time
value. Since you are so set on authority, what authority do you rely on to
justify your statement that the time value of a bar must remain constant? And
is that a stronger authority than the one that says the time value of a note
must remain constant? Again, please tell me your source of authority (not that
I believe in any authority -- I prefer rational reasoning and simple basic
knowledge).

Post by Marvin Wolfthal

Post by Cc88m
I was hoping that such an idea will encourage
others to explore similar ideas (see below) ...

Such an idea and the attitude that it represents encourages others to an
irresponsible approach to the text.

Is it irresponsible to try to understand and interpret the composition? ALL
interpretation must be done by some "authority" and NONE by the pianist? I,
for one, don't intend to become such a pianist. And I would expect teachers to
encourage students to be creative artists, not robots.

Post by Marvin Wolfthal

Post by Cc88m
That is the kind of illogical approach to piano pedagogy that has caused
untold misery and failure (depending on "authority" right or wrong) which

was the

Post by Cc88m
basis for my previous post.

This has nothing to do with piano pedagogy. It has to do with literacy.

It has EVERYTHING to do with pedagogy because these "authorities" can be so
unreal that intelligent students would rather quit than follow instructions
that obviously don't result in any rewards and kills artistry. That was the
WHOLE basis of why I initially objected to your question on my source of
authority.

Post by Marvin Wolfthal

Post by Cc88m
You imply that my idea is wrong, without any supporting arguments.

The burden of proof is yours, not mine.

All the proof you want was given above. You just didn't know it.


The numerical mumbo-jumbo

Post by Marvin Wolfthal
in remainder of your post proves nothing, it merely assumes the correctness
of your initial assertion, for which there is no textual support: that the sextuplet
16th becomes the quintuplet16th. You still need to tell us how you know
this to be true.

All I assumed was that a 16th was a 16th everywhere in the movement. What law
have I violated? And if this is not true, how do YOU know that it is not?

Post by Marvin Wolfthal
Could it be that you really just don't understand the notation?

Good question! I was just going to ask you the same thing!

Post by Marvin Wolfthal
Marvin Wolfthal

I like your comment about the numerical mumbo jumbo. I've just started reading
about string theory and how quantum gravity might be the answer. They are
mostly mumbo jumbo to me, but that doesn't mean that they are all wrong.

You don't seem to understand that I wasn't trying to prove anything with the
"mumbo jumbo"; I was just adding more content because I didn't want the thread
to degenerate into a meaningless tassle -- I try to add something useful with
each post, but this one is long enuf, so I'll stop here. PLEASE let me know if
you find anything wrong with my arguments; I am always happy when others can
correct me, because that will be one less error I will make in the future.

C. C. Chang; more on piano practice at

http://members.aol.com/chang8828/contents.htm

[Marvin Wolfthal]

If the metronome number at the beginning says a certain note has a certain time value, you keep
it, and where there are five notes, the measure has the corresponding time; but
if LVB puts 6 notes, the time changes. I am just following instructions, and
as others noted, LVB was very precise and exacting. You can't be any more exact
than the exact value of a single note -- this is not even tempo rubato.
the metronome indicated timing.
...
I have NEVER seen a metronome timing indicating
the measure; it is always with respect to a note.
...
OF COURSE he did. He deleted one note and thereby told you EXACTLY by how much
to speed up. He did not give a wishy-washy "accel. . . . .", but a precise
value given by the missing note. Genius!
...
Likewise, there is no indication that every measure MUST have the same value.
So we have a choice.
. . .

I was under the impression that this gentleman had a serious reputation as
a teacher. Is it possible that his email address has been hijacked by a troll?


Marvin Wolfthal

[Doogle333]

Post by Marvin Wolfthal
I was under the impression that this gentleman had a serious reputation as
a teacher. Is it possible that his email address has been hijacked by a troll?

You can better understand Mr. Chang's ideas on musical rhythm if you study the
instructional materials he has published on the web. Regarding the music of
Beethoven I found the following passage quite arresting:

"In fact, [LVBeethoven] used what crystallographers call the Space Group of
symmetry transformations! This Group governs many advanced technologies, such
as quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, and crystallography that are the
foundations of today's technological revolution. At this level of abstraction,
a crystal of diamond and Beethoven's 5th symphony are one and the same! I will
explain this remarkable observation below.
The Space Group that Beethoven "used" (he certainly had a different name for
it) has been applied to characterize crystals, such as silicon and diamond. It
is the properties of the Space Group that allow crystals to grow defect free
and therefore, the Space Group is the very basis for the existence of crystals.
Since crystals are characterized by the Space Group, an understanding of the
Space Group provides a basic understanding of crystals. This was neat for
materials scientists working to solve communications problems because the Space
Group provided the framework from which to launch their studies...... That is
how we perfected the silicon transistor, which led to integrated circuits and
the computer revolution...."

There, *now* do you understand?

Regards,
Doogle

[Marvin Wolfthal]

Post by Doogle333

Post by Marvin Wolfthal
I was under the impression that this gentleman had a serious reputation as
a teacher. Is it possible that his email address has been hijacked by a troll?

You can better understand Mr. Chang's ideas on musical rhythm if you study the
instructional materials he has published on the web. Regarding the music of
"In fact, [LVBeethoven] used what crystallographers call the Space Group of
symmetry transformations! This Group governs many advanced technologies, such
as quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, and crystallography that are the
There, *now* do you understand?

Well, it is certainly an ...arresting ...development of ideas.

Marvin Wolfthal

[ptooner]

Post by Doogle333
There, *now* do you understand?
Regards,
Doogle

ROFLMAO!! Perhaps you'll appreciate this, it's been a family joke for many
years. My mother-in-law was building a new house twenty odd years ago. In
describing it to me she said; "It will have a hip roof." I said "HUH??"
She said "It will have a HIP roof. You know, a hip ROOF. A HIP ROOF.. You
KNOW, a HIP ROOF." I said, "No matter how often you repeat it, I will not
magically acquire the knowledge of what you mean by a 'hip roof'".

Gerry

[Richard Schultz]

In article <***@mb-m13.aol.com>, Doogle333 <***@aol.com> wrote:
: Marvin Wolfthal asks:

:> I was under the impression that this gentleman had a serious reputation as
:>a teacher. Is it possible that his email address has been hijacked by a
:>troll?

: You can better understand Mr. Chang's ideas on musical rhythm if you study
: the instructional materials he has published on the web. Regarding the
: music of Beethoven I found the following passage quite arresting:
:
: "In fact, [LVBeethoven] used what crystallographers call the Space Group of
: symmetry transformations. . . ."

: There, *now* do you understand?

I understand that if Mr. Chang knows as much about music as he does about
Group Theory (the branch of mathematics that deals with symmetry and
its consequences), then his students are in *big* trouble.

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You go on playing Bach your way, and I'll go on playing him *his* way."
-- Wanda Landowska

[Cc88m]

Post by Richard Schultz
I understand that if Mr. Chang knows as much about music as he does about
Group Theory (the branch of mathematics that deals with symmetry and
its consequences), then his students are in *big* trouble.

We can argue about that since I spent a large fraction of my career as a
crystallographer (but not as a mathematician), but we aren't here to study
people's histories. Rich is correct in pointing out that, just because I talk
glibly about a wide range of topics, doesn't mean that I am a real expert in
any of them. My IQ is barely over 100. So PLEASE do not hold me to too high a
standard. I wasn't trying to teach group theory, I was just presenting enough
material so that the reader could understand the comparisons of musical
structures to group theoretical concepts.

But, coming back on topic, I do not want to give the impression that LVB used
group theory in the mathematical sense or that my presentation is a complete
description of group theory. What I was pointing out was how LVB's intuitive
understanding of symmetries and dimensions resulted in musical structures that
were so close in many ways to group theoretical concepts, that he must have
been thinking in terms of these symmetries. Tho I am sure that many others have
had similar thoughts, nobody has written about it; perhaps they were smart
enough to figure out that if they did, they would be immediately crucified by
mathematicians. At least for me, when I think in terms of these structures, it
makes the analysis/interpretation of his musical structures easier and makes
them easier to memorize. And, of course, there is always the question of
whether such structures are related to music.
C. C. Chang; more on piano practice at

http://members.aol.com/chang8828/contents.htm

[Richard Schultz]

In article <***@mb-m03.aol.com>, Cc88m <***@aol.com> wrote:
:>I understand that if Mr. Chang knows as much about music as he does about
:>Group Theory (the branch of mathematics that deals with symmetry and
:>its consequences), then his students are in *big* trouble.
:
: We can argue about that since I spent a large fraction of my career as a
: crystallographer (but not as a mathematician), but we aren't here to study
: people's histories.

If you spent your career as a crystallographer, then you must know that
Beethoven could not have been using "the Space Group" -- he must have
been using one of the 230 possible Space Groups (assuming that his writing
was three dimensional).

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You go on playing Bach your way, and I'll go on playing him *his* way."
-- Wanda Landowska

[Cc88m]

Post by Richard Schultz
If you spent your career as a crystallographer, then you must know that
Beethoven could not have been using "the Space Group" -- he must have
been using one of the 230 possible Space Groups (assuming that his writing
was three dimensional).

You expect such detail in a book on piano? Give me a break! I was even afraid
that it was too much detail as I had written it. I majored in Physics in
graduate school and only minored in math, though in math you do at least go
formally thru the definition of groups. But in Physics and especially in
Quantum Mechanics, they give you a nice chapter on group theory that is much
more satisfying. Just to give the readers some flavor of to what extent I was
exposed to these subjects, here is a story.

Immediately after getting my PhD from Cornell (1967), where my thesis was the
study of the 211 face of a tungsten single crystal, I tried to publish a paper
on the discovery of an electron diffraction pattern that is not a Bravais
lattice (don't worry if you don't know what a B-l is). I found that the sum of
Bravais lattices is not necessarily a Bravais lattice; using this, I solved the
diffraction pattern by subtracting a subset of points that DO form a Bravais
lattice -- Lo and Behold, the remaining points formed another Bravais lattice!
In Science, someone has to review your paper and approve it before it can be
published; my reviewer had doubts that a non-Bravais lattice was physically
possible and concluded that something was wrong with my experiment, and I ended
up not publishing that article. TEN YEARS LATER, a bunch of Japanese
scientists made the same discovery with the same analysis, and published it!

That is the kind of exposure I had to space groups. Just using them to solve
problems for 20 yrs. Not a specialist in it; never liked the field. However, a
working knowledge is valuable; I find that a lot of piano techs have a better
working knowledge of physics than some PhD physicists.
C. C. Chang; more on piano practice at

http://members.aol.com/chang8828/contents.htm

[Cc88m]

Post by Marvin Wolfthal
I was under the impression that this gentleman had a serious reputation as
a teacher. Is it possible that his email address has been hijacked by a troll?

I am so sorry that I caused you such worries. Please! don't lose any sleep over
it. I get hundreds of emails, many from teachers with dozens of years of
experience who tell me how well my methods work on their students, from all
over the world. Perhaps, you should wake up, smell the coffee, and take a
closer look at yourself and your posts and compare their information content to
those of so many nice posts in this thread?

Also, don't worry that you don't initially understand my viewpoint. People
also objected and some even ridiculed me (sounds familiar?) when I initially
posted that relative humidity exceeds 100% practically everyday. The most
important thing is for each of us to learn, especially from our mistakes, which
obviously includes me. That is one characteristic that separates good piano
teachers from bad ones, imho.

Why do you think there are so many posts in this NG that start with, "Is there
a method on the web or book so that I can learn by myself????" One of the main
reasons is that too many piano teachers have given the impression that piano
learning is just a bunch of authoritarian rules that teach you nothing.
C. C. Chang; more on piano practice at

http://members.aol.com/chang8828/contents.htm

[Mizz Marcia Ryder]

Post by Cc88m
Why do you think there are so many posts in this NG that start with, "Is there
a method on the web or book so that I can learn by myself????" One of the main
reasons is that too many piano teachers have given the impression that piano
learning is just a bunch of authoritarian rules that teach you nothing.
C. C. Chang; more on piano practice at

Odd. In the last 46 years I have studied with 9 different teachers
and not a single one of them thought (nor gave the impression to me)
that "piano learning is just a bunch of authoritarian rules that teach
you nothing". Gee, how could I be so lucky?
Marsha

[Marvin Wolfthal]

Post by Cc88m
Perhaps, you should wake up, smell the coffee, and take a
closer look at yourself and your posts and compare their information content to
those of so many nice posts in this thread?

Sir,
I treated the discussion with you in a serious manner, because I thought that,
whether I agreed with you or not, whether I thought your idea was idiotic
or not, you took your own thought seriously. And perhaps you actually do.
However, you are the last one who should be recommending critical
self-evaluation to others.

Marvin Wolfthal

[Radu Focshaner]

Post by Marvin Wolfthal
I treated the discussion with you in a serious manner, because I thought that,
whether I agreed with you or not, whether I thought your idea was idiotic
or not, you took your own thought seriously. And perhaps you actually do.
However, you are the last one who should be recommending critical
self-evaluation to others.

Perhaps you should be aware that mr. Chang is not a teacher and he never
taught a single student.

Moreover, he writes:

Chang, Chuan C., "Fundamentals of Piano Practice", 1st edition. 1994, 130P,
no references.
Teaching lineage: Long-Combe

In the first edition he wrote "Teaching lineage: Liszt, Long- Combe". Mlle
Long Combe was the teacher of Chang's daughters. He DID not study with that
lady. Mr. Chang has an history of "mis representing" himself.

[Marvin Wolfthal]

Post by Radu Focshaner
Perhaps you should be aware that mr. Chang is not a teacher and he never
taught a single student.
Chang, Chuan C., "Fundamentals of Piano Practice", 1st edition. 1994, 130P,
no references.
Teaching lineage: Long-Combe
In the first edition he wrote "Teaching lineage: Liszt, Long- Combe". Mlle
Long Combe was the teacher of Chang's daughters. He DID not study with that
lady. Mr. Chang has an history of "mis representing" himself.

Thanks. Yet another confirmation that "on the Internet nobody knows you're a dog."


Marvin

[Cc88m]

Post by Radu Focshaner
Perhaps you should be aware that mr. Chang is not a teacher and he never
taught a single student.

That is NOT correct. If you claim to want accuracy, please do so yourself. In
addition, there are now thousands of "students" learning my method, and we
constantly exchange emails on learning piano. I wonder how many piano teachers
can claim thousands of "students" all over the world?
C. C. Chang; more on piano practice at

http://members.aol.com/chang8828/contents.htm

[H. Emmerson Meyers]

I would like to get a copy of Mr. Chang's book and read it. The portions
that I have read are extraordinarily thoughtful. The fact that he did not
acquire a virtuoso technique early in life probably makes his insights more
valuable then 90% of the technique books out there and 99% of the teachers!!

They say the proof is in the pudding. Don't knock him until you have heard
him play. I, for one, would like to hear him play. Perhaps he has solved the
riddle of the Sphinx!!

Post by Radu Focshaner

Post by Marvin Wolfthal
I treated the discussion with you in a serious manner, because I thought

that,

Post by Marvin Wolfthal
whether I agreed with you or not, whether I thought your idea was idiotic
or not, you took your own thought seriously. And perhaps you actually do.
However, you are the last one who should be recommending critical
self-evaluation to others.

Perhaps you should be aware that mr. Chang is not a teacher and he never
taught a single student.
Chang, Chuan C., "Fundamentals of Piano Practice", 1st edition. 1994, 130P,
no references.
Teaching lineage: Long-Combe
In the first edition he wrote "Teaching lineage: Liszt, Long- Combe". Mlle
Long Combe was the teacher of Chang's daughters. He DID not study with that
lady. Mr. Chang has an history of "mis representing" himself.

[Cc88m]

Post by H. Emmerson Meyers
They say the proof is in the pudding. Don't knock him until you have heard
him play. I, for one, would like to hear him play. Perhaps he has solved the
riddle of the Sphinx!!

I am still an amateur pianist. My playing is decent but nothing to write home
about. However, putting some video and audio onto my web page is a high
priority that I plan on as soon as my higher priority items are complete and I
set up a decent facility for recording, because things like thumb over and
parallel sets are more easily explained with video/audio than clumsy human
languages. The only thing I can say about my playing is that I now play at
levels that I never even dreamed of before I started using these methods.
C. C. Chang; more on piano practice at

http://members.aol.com/chang8828/contents.htm

[H. Emmerson Meyers]

Fascinating. Have you tacked the mind-body connection problem yet??? Young
children have a way of learning this stuff and it is not as elaborate as
your system makes it out to be!!

Post by Cc88m

Post by H. Emmerson Meyers
They say the proof is in the pudding. Don't knock him until you have heard
him play. I, for one, would like to hear him play. Perhaps he has solved the
riddle of the Sphinx!!

I am still an amateur pianist. My playing is decent but nothing to write home
about. However, putting some video and audio onto my web page is a high
priority that I plan on as soon as my higher priority items are complete and I
set up a decent facility for recording, because things like thumb over and
parallel sets are more easily explained with video/audio than clumsy human
languages. The only thing I can say about my playing is that I now play at
levels that I never even dreamed of before I started using these methods.
C. C. Chang; more on piano practice at
http://members.aol.com/chang8828/contents.htm

[Cc88m]

Post by H. Emmerson Meyers
Fascinating. Have you tacked the mind-body connection problem yet??? Young
children have a way of learning this stuff and it is not as elaborate as
your system makes it out to be!!

They can benefit from any improved learning method just like us older folks.
And it IS mostly in the brain, IMO. It is mostly actual brain growth; that is
probably why they learn so much faster -- because their brains are still
growing, while they are shrinking for us old folks.

Many people misunderstand my book as another book on a set of rules for
learning, rules like you shouldn't do this or that. They are wrong, even if
they think that these are some of the best rules. This is because my book is
all about empowerment, freeing the student or teacher to do whatever they want
and is the opposite of the old school of teaching with strict rules and
procedures perhaps best exemplified by what some people call the "russian
method". My book just consists of a list of methods, knowledge, and
explanations, and the student must choose what s/he wants to use. I clearly
describe the intuitive method and Hanon negatively, but that doesn't mean that
you can't use them. Here is an excerpt from an email I sent someone:

"Hanon is not harmful by itself. It is how most people use it, that is
harmful. There is nothing wrong with learning Hanon, if you do it right, it can
be fun, tho not as useful and fun as learning almost anything else. But if you
must learn it, then learn it right! You already know how, if you read my book
(HS, get up to tremendous speeds, then slow down, make sure everything is
right, then make it musical). Yes, if you try, you can even make Hanon musical
if you are a musician. Since the first 20 or so are so easy, you can get them
to incredible speeds, so you can have fun with it that way. You might surprise
your teacher with how fast you can play them! The thing you must not do is
overpractice it and repeat it many times, especially HT. Suppose that you want
to play Hanon at 2 times recommended speed. Then, once you get to your speed
using the correct methods, there is nothing more to do. Once in a while play
it fast, and if you can do it once, that is all you need to do."

Therefore it is a mistake to think that you can "follow the rules" in my book
and learn piano -- it is a mistake because you are STILL thinking that you must
follow rules. What you have to do is to use knowledge to design your own
practice routines. So many people have been brain washed all their life into
thinking that piano learning is a set of strict rules (that you must follow
whether you like it or not), that they can't imagine that there is any other
way. I believe that, if you learn the correct practice methods, you never have
to do anything you don't want to do.


C. C. Chang; more on piano practice at

http://members.aol.com/chang8828/contents.htm

[H. Emmerson Meyers]

Thanks! What I had more in mind was something analagous to "Zen and the Art
of Archert". Don't know if you have read this book. I recommend it.

Post by Cc88m

Post by H. Emmerson Meyers
Fascinating. Have you tacked the mind-body connection problem yet??? Young
children have a way of learning this stuff and it is not as elaborate as
your system makes it out to be!!

They can benefit from any improved learning method just like us older folks.
And it IS mostly in the brain, IMO. It is mostly actual brain growth; that is
probably why they learn so much faster -- because their brains are still
growing, while they are shrinking for us old folks.
Many people misunderstand my book as another book on a set of rules for
learning, rules like you shouldn't do this or that. They are wrong, even if
they think that these are some of the best rules. This is because my book is
all about empowerment, freeing the student or teacher to do whatever they want
and is the opposite of the old school of teaching with strict rules and
procedures perhaps best exemplified by what some people call the "russian
method". My book just consists of a list of methods, knowledge, and
explanations, and the student must choose what s/he wants to use. I clearly
describe the intuitive method and Hanon negatively, but that doesn't mean that
"Hanon is not harmful by itself. It is how most people use it, that is
harmful. There is nothing wrong with learning Hanon, if you do it right, it can
be fun, tho not as useful and fun as learning almost anything else. But if you
must learn it, then learn it right! You already know how, if you read my book
(HS, get up to tremendous speeds, then slow down, make sure everything is
right, then make it musical). Yes, if you try, you can even make Hanon musical
if you are a musician. Since the first 20 or so are so easy, you can get them
to incredible speeds, so you can have fun with it that way. You might surprise
your teacher with how fast you can play them! The thing you must not do is
overpractice it and repeat it many times, especially HT. Suppose that you want
to play Hanon at 2 times recommended speed. Then, once you get to your speed
using the correct methods, there is nothing more to do. Once in a while play
it fast, and if you can do it once, that is all you need to do."
Therefore it is a mistake to think that you can "follow the rules" in my book
and learn piano -- it is a mistake because you are STILL thinking that you must
follow rules. What you have to do is to use knowledge to design your own
practice routines. So many people have been brain washed all their life into
thinking that piano learning is a set of strict rules (that you must follow
whether you like it or not), that they can't imagine that there is any other
way. I believe that, if you learn the correct practice methods, you never have
to do anything you don't want to do.
C. C. Chang; more on piano practice at
http://members.aol.com/chang8828/contents.htm

[pepper]

Post by Cc88m
No. The justification is as follows. If you follow all rules, the passage is
impossible to play because if you follow the metronome indication strictly in
the LH, then the metronome indication is violated in the RH, or else the RH
will lag behind the LH one note with each bar, which the bar markers will not
allow. And vice versa if you follow the metronome indication with the RH, then
you will have to lengthen the LH notes, otherwise you run into another similar
conundrum. Therefore, we must make a conscious choice as to which hand to
violate.

Mr Chang, this is a simple case of 5 against 6 with the last "6" note
of the measure coming just after the last "5" note in the measure.
It is no more impossible than the 2 against 3 of Chopin's
Fantasie-Impromptu.

[Cc88m]

Post by pepper
Mr Chang, this is a simple case of 5 against 6 with the last "6" note
of the measure coming just after the last "5" note in the measure.
It is no more impossible than the 2 against 3 of Chopin's
Fantasie-Impromptu.

You are certainly right if the "5" marking is in the original manuscript. I
had assumed that it is not in the original manuscript (ie, an editor's
addition) because there is no inter-relationship between the RH and LH as there
is in FI, and I could not see a justification for decelaration the LH, but I
have not seen the original. I had assumed the editor's addition because I first
practiced this piece using a Schirmer edition which is full of additions and
suggestions. Has anyone seen the original, or does the Urtext version have ALL
the original markings and ONLY the original markings? I have only the Dover
edition now (the Schirmer having disintegrated from age), and it has the "5"
marking. According to my Dover edition, I am wrong, but I would like to see
the original.

Are you saying that the 5/6 relationship is essential to correctly playing this
part? I ask because in all the recordings I have heard, such a relationship is
not audible. What kind of effect does it produce?

I initially heard a recording in which there is noticeable acceleration (many
yrs ago) and liked it so much that I have played it with acceleration ever
since.
C. C. Chang; more on piano practice at

http://members.aol.com/chang8828/contents.htm

[Richard Schultz]

In article <***@mb-m26.aol.com>, Cc88m <***@aol.com> wrote:

: Has anyone seen the original, or does the Urtext version have ALL
: the original markings and ONLY the original markings? I have only the Dover
: edition now (the Schirmer having disintegrated from age), and it has the "5"
: marking. According to my Dover edition, I am wrong, but I would like to see
: the original.

Let me get this straight: you are trying to draw sweeping conclusions
about Beethoven's intentions, and you don't even have access to an
Urtext edition?

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."

[Marvin Wolfthal]

Post by Richard Schultz
: Has anyone seen the original, or does the Urtext version have ALL
: the original markings and ONLY the original markings? I have only the Dover
: edition now (the Schirmer having disintegrated from age), and it has the "5"
: marking. According to my Dover edition, I am wrong, but I would like to see
: the original.
Let me get this straight: you are trying to draw sweeping conclusions
about Beethoven's intentions, and you don't even have access to an
Urtext edition?

Dover should be the Schenker Urtext.

Marvin

[Cc88m]

Post by Marvin Wolfthal
Dover should be the Schenker Urtext.

Apparently, there are "urtexts" that precede Schenker. The real urtexts that
we refer to came after Schenker (Dover), and are apparently minor improvements,
so Dover should be OK for most purposes. The Introduction in Dover refers to
the existence of the original for Op. 57, so what we want exists, but does
anyone know how to get hold of it? Tho Schenker criticizes the editorial
changes/additions in other editions, he himself made many changes. In fact,
LVB himself made many changes; apparently he completely rewrote sections of the
last movement at least once. If the 5-tuple (as a whole beat) marking was
missing in the original, Schenker would have added it; otherwise he would get
into the same trouble I am getting into in this thread. From what everyone is
saying, I am probably wrong, but I would still like to see the original because
if I am right, that would be a great discovery (although it still wouldn't
prove that I am right -- just that I may not be wrong). According to the
Urtext (Authority!!!!), I am wrong. But, if we don't dig deeper, how would we
ever make new discoveries?
C. C. Chang; more on piano practice at

http://members.aol.com/chang8828/contents.htm

[Marvin Wolfthal]

Post by Cc88m
last movement at least once. If the 5-tuple (as a whole beat) marking was
missing in the original, Schenker would have added it; otherwise he would get
into the same trouble I am getting into in this thread. From what everyone is
saying, I am probably wrong, but I would still like to see the original because
if I am right, that would be a great discovery (although it still wouldn't
prove that I am right -- just that I may not be wrong). According to the
Urtext (Authority!!!!), I am wrong. But, if we don't dig deeper, how would we
ever make new discoveries?

Look, what you are talking about simply doesn't exist in Beethoven.
Off hand I can't even think of a real metric modulation, but wherever there
is a significant intentional tempo effect it is unambiguously marked. Even the
subtle ones: why do you think the words "a tempo" occur in the middle of the
second movement of op. 109? Here, in any case the dotted quarter beat is constant
until the speedup at the end of the movement, again, clearly indicated.

Further, what you are suggesting would make no musical sense whatsoever -
you have to ask why Beethoven would change the tempo here, where it
would destroy the continuity of the primary rhythmic motif that connects this measure
with the previous ones. Even if the quintuplet is not in the manuscript, there is absolutely
no question about this. Quite the contrary - the excitement of this passage is an effect
of counterpoint: the accompaniment emerges and is intensified by being suddenly slightly
slower and melodically more intense, while the other voice is unchanged.
The search for new meaning is laudable, but you have taken a single notational detail that
has struck your fancy and assigned it a meaning that contradicts everything else in the passage.
Yes, from the point of view of our proprioceptive experience maybe Ptolemy was actually
right, but it makes everything else very hard to understand.

For the record, what you are suggesting here is actually the basic rhythmic technique in
the music of Elliott Carter, who modulates from one tempo to another by regrouping the
smaller subdivisions, thus relating all possible tempi in a way that was never before
done systematically. You might find his music interesting.

Marvin Wolfthal

[pepper]

Post by pepper

Post by Cc88m
No. The justification is as follows. If you follow all rules, the passage is
impossible to play because if you follow the metronome indication strictly in
the LH, then the metronome indication is violated in the RH, or else the RH
will lag behind the LH one note with each bar, which the bar markers will not
allow. And vice versa if you follow the metronome indication with the RH, then
you will have to lengthen the LH notes, otherwise you run into another similar
conundrum. Therefore, we must make a conscious choice as to which hand to
violate.

Mr Chang, this is a simple case of 5 against 6 with the last "6" note
of the measure coming just after the last "5" note in the measure.
It is no more impossible than the 2 against 3 of Chopin's
Fantasie-Impromptu.

Actually 3 against 4 of course.

[Richard Schultz]

In article <***@mb-m21.aol.com>, Cc88m <***@aol.com> wrote:

: It CERTAINLY is. I already explained that, so PLEASE read it. If the
: metronome number at the beginning says a certain note has a certain time
: value, you keep it,

The only problem: at least in my Urtext edition of the Beethoven sonatas,
there is no metronome marking. I suppose it's possible that he added
the metronome markings later, as he did with the symphonies.

: and where there are five notes, the measure has the corresponding time; but
: if LVB puts 6 notes, the time changes.

If Beethoven *had* indicated the timings via metronome markings, he
almost certainly would have indicated the value of a dotted quarter (or
possibly a dotted half if a dotted quarter was too fast for the metronomes
of his day). That is the basic pulse, whether it is divided into six notes
or into five.

: It is NOT arbitrary; as described above, I was just following the text, using
: the metronome indicated timing.

Which text are you using, and what is the metronome indication?

: I have NEVER seen a metronome timing indicating
: the measure; it is always with respect to a note.

And in this case (a fast 12/8), the note would either be a dotted quarter
or a dotted half, not a sixteenth note.

:>When Beethoven wants a change of tempo as significant as the one
:>you propose he indicates it.

: OF COURSE he did. He deleted one note and thereby told you EXACTLY by how
: much to speed up.

You don't speed up at all, since there is no indication that the length of
a dotted quarter is expected to change.

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You go on playing Bach your way, and I'll go on playing him *his* way."
-- Wanda Landowska

[Daniel G. Emilio]

Post by Cc88m

Post by Marvin Wolfthal
Further, if you believe that the notion of authority in musical matters is in
itself nonsensical, then the most consistent thing for you to do would be to stop giving
advice altogether.

I don't claim any "authority". Someone posted a question so I presented my
interpretation with explanation. I was hoping that such an idea will encourage
others to explore similar ideas (see below) that would help them play.
Absolutely nothing to do with authority; just extending free knowledge and
empowerment. Even you figured out that it was my original idea, so your
statement about my "authority" is self-inconsistent. That is the kind of
illogical approach to piano pedagogy that has caused untold misery and failure
(depending on "authority" right or wrong) which was the basis for my previous
post. You imply that my idea is wrong, without any supporting arguments. That
doesn't help anybody, because in a free, open internet, you have no authority.
The only authority that exists here is logic, ideas, and knowledge. Your post
is another example of the shortcomings of people who quote "authority" without
logic or supporting arguments or useful knowledge. Now you know why I made
such strong statements.
LVB was a great intuitive mathematician and psychologist. He knew that you get
the greatest effect if you controlled someone without his knowledge. Thus in
this case of the missing note creating acceleration, the audience feels the
acceleration, yet has no idea how it came about, because the notes are still
coming at the same rate. LVB was also a master of writing "deep" music which
no normal human being could figure out while listening to it in real time. He
did this by combining many elements in a single passage, too many to figure
out. In this particular passage in question, he combines many things
simultaneously. We just saw the acceleration; then the 5 note beat has no
sub-beats; 5 is a prime number, and the feeling of a 5 note beat is somewhat
mysterious and unsecure. In addition, the 5 note beat is a miniature of the
main theme played very fast. The first notes of each beat also create an
arpeggic series, going down; meanwhile, the right hand plays a similar series,
going up; thus he is using the same thing, played simultaneously in three
different ways. He certainly made sure that nobody was going to figure all this
out, listening to it in real time.
Note, also, how he inserts his favorite theme from his 5th symphony at the
beginning, which he later uses to introduce the fantastic ending to this
movement, by applying group theory in which he uses time as his variable
dimension.
C. C. Chang; more on piano practice at
http://members.aol.com/chang8828/contents.htm

I have been following this thread, and while I generally agree with
your practice techniques, I must disagree with your interpretation of
the text in this occasion. I haved played this sonata from the
Craxton/Tovey edition for many years and have listened to many
recordings. I have never heard any performance or any suggestion that
the overall beat must, or even may, speed up or change in any fashion.
On the contrary, in reading the Tovey commentary it is clear that he,
at least, maintains that a very strict beat must be maintained. "In
both hands the quintoles must exactly fill the beats; and in order
that the beats may fall punctually, you must train your fingers to
mark them as normal accents...." Beethoven gets the speed changes he
wants through strict maintenance of the overall beat. The first
movement of the Appassionata has the drive of a locomotive - with
momentum and inertia that cannot be altered. I must agree with Mr.
Wolfthal. If you intend to tamper with the beat as you suggest, you
simply must have some authority for this. If you honestly believe
that the notes, and not the beat, must be maintained, you must tell us
your authority. Otherwise, under your theory, players would be
allowed to do whatever they want, whenever they want, at whim. You
centainly cannot be suggesting this, can you?!

[Richard Schultz]

In article <***@posting.google.com>, Daniel G. Emilio <***@earthlink.net> wrote:

: If you honestly believe
: that the notes, and not the beat, must be maintained, you must tell us
: your authority. Otherwise, under your theory, players would be
: allowed to do whatever they want, whenever they want, at whim. You
: centainly cannot be suggesting this, can you?!

While I believe that the notion that the notes are supposed to remain
constant rather that the beat is a truly idiotic one, why *shouldn't*
performers be allowed to do whatever they want? If they do something
that is agreed to be stupid or that does not work, then people will stop
listening to them, give them bad reviews, etc. Now if I were a teacher,
I would certainly counsel my students to prove that they can play
Beethoven conventionally before attempting something bizarre, but that's
just me.

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
It's a bird, it's a plane -- no, it's Mozart. . .

[Marvin Wolfthal]

Post by Richard Schultz
While I believe that the notion that the notes are supposed to remain
constant rather that the beat is a truly idiotic

Thank you, thank you, the word was on the tip of my tongue, I just
couldn't get it out.

Post by Richard Schultz
one, why *shouldn't*
performers be allowed to do whatever they want?

Depends on whether you think that professionalism in
music is devoid of the responsibility, answerability, ethics, etc
that we expect of other professions..
Do you really want to start this thread :-) ?

Post by Richard Schultz
If they do something that is agreed to be stupid or that does not work,
then people will stop listening to them, give them bad reviews, etc

So go ahead and shoot up whomever you want until someone stops you.
Oh, wait, you think this is a "victimless" crime, right? You aren't a composer,
are you?.

Post by Richard Schultz
Now if I were a teacher, I would certainly counsel my students to prove
that they can play Beethoven conventionally before attempting something
bizarre, but that's just me.

Be careful: "conventional" and "bizarre" could use some definition
before we get into this too deeply.

O.K., let's cut the Gordian knot. Assuming we adopted a practice of full
disclosure, at what point would you be obliged to announce
to the audience that you were not playing what the composer wrote? This
is actually an interesting question.

Marvin

[Richard Schultz]

In article <FEfKb.291413$***@attbi_s54>, Marvin Wolfthal <***@comcast.net> wrote:

: You aren't a composer, are you?.

That depends on how you define "composer." I tend to think so, but not
everyone who has listened to my compositions agrees with me.

: O.K., let's cut the Gordian knot. Assuming we adopted a practice of full
: disclosure, at what point would you be obliged to announce
: to the audience that you were not playing what the composer wrote? This
: is actually an interesting question.

The question is, IMO, not well-enough phrased to be interesting.
There is a reasonable argument to be made that if you play Beethoven
on a modern Steinway, you are not playing what he wrote. That he might
have preferred a modern Steinway had there been one available to him is
actually beside the point. Note the quotation in my .sig file and
ask yourself if a modern HIPster would agree with it.

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You go on playing Bach your way, and I'll go on playing him *his* way."
-- Wanda Landowska

[Marvin Wolfthal]

Post by Richard Schultz
There is a reasonable argument to be made that if you play Beethoven
on a modern Steinway, you are not playing what he wrote. That he might
have preferred a modern Steinway had there been one available to him is
actually beside the point.

Not at all. Instruments have developed historically in large part to satisfy the
demands that composers make on them. And Beethoven was constantly
dissatisfied with the instruments of hiis time. It is not far-fetched to state that
you are actually playing "more" of what Beethoven wrote on a modern instrument.
Let's leave aside Schubert, who apparently never even owned a piano of his own.
Besides, the instrumental medium is not the only area of realization that is
subject to historical change.

In any case, if we restrict the discussion to the composer's intentions as
expressed by his notation and other reliable sources, the question is, it
seems to me, perfectly well-phrased. It does not have to be amenable
to a scientific approach to be a valid or worthwhile question to pursue.

Marvin Wolfthal

[Tak-Shing Chan]

Post by Marvin Wolfthal
O.K., let's cut the Gordian knot. Assuming we adopted a practice of full
disclosure, at what point would you be obliged to announce
to the audience that you were not playing what the composer wrote?

How could one *know* what the composer really wrote? I
mean, not in the autograph, but the actual auditory image in the
composer's mind?

As we know, as good a teacher as Chopin was, he was not
always able to transmit his auditory image to his students. In a
famous episode (see Eigeldinger's Chopin: Pianist and Teacher),
Chopin demonstrated a piece to a student, but the student was
merely imitating mechanically. Knowing that the student had
missed the point, Chopin demonstrated it again, played it a bit
differently this time. But the student missed the point again.
This pattern of interaction was repeated a couple of times before
Chopin finally gave up. Alas, to this day, we still do not know
what Chopin had really wanted...

Tak-Shing

[Marvin Wolfthal]

Post by Tak-Shing Chan
How could one *know* what the composer really wrote? I
mean, not in the autograph, but the actual auditory image in the
composer's mind?

In some cases we know a great deal about the composer's intentions,
in others less.

Post by Tak-Shing Chan
Alas, to this day, we still do not know
what Chopin had really wanted.

This is precisely why we are talking about how to get as close to the
composer's intentions as we can, and about the limits of
interpretation.

Marvin Wolfthal

[gregpresley]

"Marvin Wolfthal" <***@comcast.net> wrote in > This is precisely why
we are talking about how to get as close to the

Post by Marvin Wolfthal
composer's intentions as we can, and about the limits of
interpretation.
Marvin Wolfthal

Well, we know for sure that performers of Chopin's time were MUCH freer in
their interpretation of composer's notes, dynamics, tempi, etc, than any
performer of the 20th century. How do we know this? From the few surviving
turn-of -the-century piano-rolls etc, which show startling uses of rubatos,
doublings of notes (extra octaves, etc), additional notes, alterations of
note values, trills, etc etc etc. We also have documentary evidence in the
form of letters by composers, etc, either praising, or more often,
complaining about the freedoms that performer x.y, or z took with their
music.
However, Beethoven, of ALL composers, was probably the most determined
to try to record his exact thought. Hence the notebooks where themes are
worked, reworked, and reworked again and again before being committed to
score. Also, the printed editions, marked and crossed upon to make
corrections. However, Beethoven was also a product of his time. There is no
doubt that he would have been horrified if a performer came to a repeat sign
and played the repeat EXACTLY the same way he played things the first time
through. Everyone of the period knew that a repeat was an indication to make
small variations the second time around - an extra trill here, a turn there,
a scale passage joining two widely separated intervals here, or a very
different dynamic scheme. EVERY composer improvised as well as performed. It
was an accepted part of musical culture. Those of our time who make no
changes whatsoever when they repeat sections of music are playing absolutely
UNFAITHFULLY to the intent of the composer - with all the best intentions in
the world.
As far as composers' interpretive marks, it is best to try to
understand the "why" of them, whether they make the music more beautiful,
more dramatic, ask a question, make an affirmation, whatever. Then they are
internalized and the music begins to make sense, both to performer and
audience member. The performer who slavishly follows the composers'
indications without ever having investigating their "whys" is going to give
a very dead, unconvincing performance. There will be times when a composers'
indication makes no sense to the performer. At those times, the HONEST
performer will do what makes internal sense to himself. In time, he/she may
come around to the composer's point of view - but until that time, it is
his/her responsibility to make the music live and breathe - not the
composer's..

[Richard Schultz]

In article <btdvcu$5tspr$***@ID-153412.news.uni-berlin.de>, gregpresley <***@iea.com> wrote:

: Well, we know for sure that performers of Chopin's time were MUCH freer in
: their interpretation of composer's notes, dynamics, tempi, etc, than any
: performer of the 20th century. How do we know this? From the few surviving
: turn-of -the-century piano-rolls etc, which show startling uses of rubatos,
: doublings of notes (extra octaves, etc), additional notes, alterations of
: note values, trills, etc etc etc.

Actually, piano rolls are not a very good source for drawing conclusions
about the way the piano was actually being played. There were simply
too many ways to doctor them.

: We also have documentary evidence in the
: form of letters by composers, etc, either praising, or more often,
: complaining about the freedoms that performer x.y, or z took with their
: music.

In the case of Chopin, all one has to do is to contrast the edition done
by Mikuli -- one of Chopin's pupil's -- with a modern Urtext edition.
There were at least two occasions on which Chopin played one of his mazurkas
for a visiting pianist and got into an argument about whether the piece
was in three (as notated) or in four (as Chopin appeared to be playing them).
Even after the visitor counted while Chopin was playing, Chopin continued
to insist that he was playing in three. In one case, he threw the visitor
out, and in the other he more or less laughed it off, explaining that
it was a Polish thing. (Guess which visitor was the Jewish one.)

: However, Beethoven, of ALL composers, was probably the most determined
: to try to record his exact thought. Hence the notebooks where themes are
: worked, reworked, and reworked again and again before being committed to
: score. Also, the printed editions, marked and crossed upon to make
: corrections.

We also have documentary evidence of people who listened to Beethoven play
his own music and reported that he frequently did things that weren't
indicated in the score. He apparently pedalled far more frequently than
he indicates in his scores, and he played with far more rubato than
the scores indicate. The reworking of themes in his notebooks is not
his preparation of a score for publication -- it is his trying to work out
which notes he wanted to write down in the final product.


-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You go on playing Bach your way, and I'll go on playing him *his* way."
-- Wanda Landowska

[Marvin Wolfthal]

Those of our time who make no changes whatsoever when they repeat
sections of music are playing absolutely
UNFAITHFULLY to the intent of the composer - with all the best intentions in
the world.

I feel this is too strongly worded. Schnabel, for one, would have disagreed with you.
His attitude was, "the music is the same both times, why would I play the repeat
differently?" Of course, Schnabel considered himself first and foremost a composer.

There will be times when a composers'
indication makes no sense to the performer. At those times, the HONEST
performer will do what makes internal sense to himself. In time, he/she may
come around to the composer's point of view - but until that time, it is
his/her responsibility to make the music live and breathe - not the
composer's..

I strongly disagree. If the composer's indication makes no sense to the performer,
the honest performer will renounce playing the piece until it does.

Marvin Wolfthal

[Daniel G. Emilio]

Post by Marvin Wolfthal

Those of our time who make no changes whatsoever when they repeat
sections of music are playing absolutely
UNFAITHFULLY to the intent of the composer - with all the best intentions in
the world.

I feel this is too strongly worded. Schnabel, for one, would have disagreed with you.
His attitude was, "the music is the same both times, why would I play the repeat
differently?" Of course, Schnabel considered himself first and foremost a composer.

There will be times when a composers'
indication makes no sense to the performer. At those times, the HONEST
performer will do what makes internal sense to himself. In time, he/she may
come around to the composer's point of view - but until that time, it is
his/her responsibility to make the music live and breathe - not the
composer's..

I strongly disagree. If the composer's indication makes no sense to the performer,
the honest performer will renounce playing the piece until it does.

Precisely. And this is why concert pianists (and other musicians)
will not play a particular piece for years until they really "feel"
the music. To recommend a student particularly that they can do their
own "thing" is simply irresponsible. They must remain as true to the
composer's intentions as possible. If the composer's intentions are
unclear, then one should look next to well-known editor's and
commentator's opinions.

[Marvin Wolfthal]

Post by Daniel G. Emilio

Post by Marvin Wolfthal
I strongly disagree. If the composer's indication makes no sense to the performer,
the honest performer will renounce playing the piece until it does.

Precisely. And this is why concert pianists (and other musicians)
will not play a particular piece for years until they really "feel"
the music. To recommend a student particularly that they can do their
own "thing" is simply irresponsible. They must remain as true to the
composer's intentions as possible. If the composer's intentions are
unclear, then one should look next to well-known editor's and
commentator's opinions.

Of course, this opens a very large can of worms. One can benefit
tremendously from good commented editions, but there are still in
circulation some whose only goal was to make classical works
accessible to a rising middle class that was trying to get "cultured."

It seems to me that the real issue we are discussing here is the
historical decline in compositional and theoretical training among
performers. I have not encountered many performers able to make
sense, with or without commentaries of, say, the subtleties of Beethoven's
notation (to recall our original thread), who have not themselves
had the experience of sitting in front of a blank page and figuring out what to
do next.

Marvin Wolfthal

[Cc88m]

Post by Daniel G. Emilio
To recommend a student particularly that they can do their
own "thing" is simply irresponsible. They must remain as true to the
composer's intentions as possible. If the composer's intentions are
unclear, then one should look next to well-known editor's and
commentator's opinions.

I disagree, and I agree completely with Greg's viewpoints. No one should
dictate to another musician how to play. Greg said a lot of correct things (as
he always does) without explaining all the details which can lead to
misunderstandings. Saying that one can play in any manner does not imply that
they should be able to get away with mistakes. But if a musician can play the
"conventional" way and "his" way and prefers his way, there is nothing wrong
with playing what he prefers. The reason for insisting that the composer's
indications or intentions be followed is to train the student to be able to
perform to that composer's standard. Once that technical level is attained, the
pianist can do anything he wants, and even BEYOND the composer's intentions.
This happens all the time, in fact. Otherwise we would make no progress. To
restrict the student to playing only what was previously approved is also
ridiculous. What if the "established" editor had made a mistake? Does
everyone thereafter have to make the same mistake? Is it NEVER possible that a
hundred years after a composer died, someone would finally figure out what the
composer had in mind? Or even to improve on the composer'[s product? This is
why I am so opposed to authoritarian piano pedagogy -- too many incompetent
musicians can hide behind "authority" and end up teaching either nothing or the
wrong thing. In addition, it is part of a teacher's job to encourage
experimentation, originality and above all, use of the brain. I don't
subscribe to the school of thot that classical music is a rigid militaristic
adherence to some arbitrary set of rules with everybody marching to the same
goose-step. The student is not a slave of the teacher; in fact the teacher is a
hired hand who is paid to provide the student a service. This is not to imply
that there aren't correct and wrong ways to play and that wrong ways should be
tolerated; just as wrong as that is, it is equally wrong to insist that there
is only one way to play correctly (which, by the way, is an impossibility -- no
one can play the same thing twice in exactly the same way, let alone two
different people).
C. C. Chang; more on piano practice at

http://members.aol.com/chang8828/contents.htm

[Marvin Wolfthal]

. No one should dictate to another musician how to play.
..
Saying that one can play in any manner does not imply that
they should be able to get away with mistakes.
But if a musician can play the "conventional" way and "his" way and
prefers his way, there is nothing wrong with playing what he prefers.
..
The reason for insisting that the composer's
indications or intentions be followed is to train the student to be able to
perform to that composer's standard. Once that technical level is attained, the
pianist can do anything he wants, and even BEYOND the composer's intentions.
.. etc

Yes, well, on this side of the barricade we think that the great composers
know what they are doing, and if we think we can do better we should be
writing our own music, not altering theirs.

Marvin Wolfthal

[Daniel G. Emilio]

Post by Cc88m

Post by Daniel G. Emilio
To recommend a student particularly that they can do their
own "thing" is simply irresponsible. They must remain as true to the
composer's intentions as possible. If the composer's intentions are
unclear, then one should look next to well-known editor's and
commentator's opinions.

I disagree, and I agree completely with Greg's viewpoints. No one should
dictate to another musician how to play. Greg said a lot of correct things (as
he always does) without explaining all the details which can lead to
misunderstandings. Saying that one can play in any manner does not imply that
they should be able to get away with mistakes. But if a musician can play the
"conventional" way and "his" way and prefers his way, there is nothing wrong
with playing what he prefers. The reason for insisting that the composer's
indications or intentions be followed is to train the student to be able to
perform to that composer's standard. Once that technical level is attained, the
pianist can do anything he wants, and even BEYOND the composer's intentions.
This happens all the time, in fact. Otherwise we would make no progress. To
restrict the student to playing only what was previously approved is also
ridiculous. What if the "established" editor had made a mistake? Does
everyone thereafter have to make the same mistake? Is it NEVER possible that a
hundred years after a composer died, someone would finally figure out what the
composer had in mind? Or even to improve on the composer'[s product? This is
why I am so opposed to authoritarian piano pedagogy -- too many incompetent
musicians can hide behind "authority" and end up teaching either nothing or the
wrong thing. In addition, it is part of a teacher's job to encourage
experimentation, originality and above all, use of the brain. I don't
subscribe to the school of thot that classical music is a rigid militaristic
adherence to some arbitrary set of rules with everybody marching to the same
goose-step. The student is not a slave of the teacher; in fact the teacher is a
hired hand who is paid to provide the student a service. This is not to imply
that there aren't correct and wrong ways to play and that wrong ways should be
tolerated; just as wrong as that is, it is equally wrong to insist that there
is only one way to play correctly (which, by the way, is an impossibility -- no
one can play the same thing twice in exactly the same way, let alone two
different people).

Let me try this once again. I completely agree that one should
constantly look for and experiment with subtleties in music. Each
player should ultimately find his own way and performances between
players will certainly vary. If all we were looking for were
identical clones, then music would become boring indeed, and we could
live with recordings and do away with live performance altogether.
This is not what I am saying. I am speaking of how beginning (and to
some degree, intermediate) students should be taught. Beginning
students have no concept of what is and what is not a correct path.
That is the reason we suggest that beginning students take lessons and
not learn on their own - because the teacher's job is to nudge the
student back on the path as they begin to veer. As the student
progresses to the intermediate to advanced level, only then will he be
able to appreciate what is and what isn't acceptable. I remember as a
student I started out on piano for a few years and then switched to
violin during junior high and high school. I continued playing the
piano on my own and when I started again with a piano teacher at 16, I
played a Chopin Polonaise for her. I remember her comment was that I
was all over the board with tempo. It sounded fine to me but when she
turned on the metronome I began to realize what I was doing with the
piece. I simply believe that beginning students should be closely
controlled to follow the score strictly until they have the ability to
recognize what they are doing.

[gregpresley]

Post by Marvin Wolfthal
I strongly disagree. If the composer's indication makes no sense to the performer,
the honest performer will renounce playing the piece until it does.
Marvin Wolfthal

Well, I can do no better than quote from Aaron Copland, one of the foremost
composers of the last century in our country, in his essay "Music and
Imagination".
"All questions of interpretation sooner or later resolve into a discussion
of how faithful the performer ought to be to the notes themselves. No sooner
do we ask this than a counterquestion suggests itself: how faithful are
composers to the notes they themselves put down? Some performers take an
almost religious attitude to the printed page: every comma, every slurred
staccato, every metronomic marking is taken as sacrosanct. I always
hesitate, at least inwardly, before breaking down that fond illusion. I wish
our notation and our indications of tempi and dynamics were that exact, but
honesty compels me to admit that the written page is only an approximation;
it's only an indication of how close the composer was able to come in
transcribing his exact thoughts on paper. Beyond that point, the interpreter
is on his own. I know that there are some composers who have been
exasperated by the extreme liberties taken with the notes by romantic
artists. As a result, they have gone to the other extreme and said: "Stop
concerning yourself with interpretation, just play the notes". That
attitude blithely ignores the insufficiencies of musical notation, and thus
refuses to take into account the realities of the situation. The only
sensible advice I can give a performing artist is to ask that a happy
balance be found between slavish adherence to inadequate signs, and a too
liberal straying from the clear intentions of the composer."

[Marvin Wolfthal]

Post by Marvin Wolfthal

Post by Marvin Wolfthal
I strongly disagree. If the composer's indication makes no sense to the

performer,

Post by Marvin Wolfthal
the honest performer will renounce playing the piece until it does.

Well, I can do no better than quote from Aaron Copland, one of the foremost
composers of the last century in our country, in his essay "Music and
Imagination".
The only sensible advice I can give a performing artist is to ask that a happy
balance be found between slavish adherence to inadequate signs, and a too
liberal straying from the clear intentions of the composer."

Perfectly reasonable. We all know that certain aspects of notation are inherently
approximate, although in the specific work, taking them
in relation to one another, they often condition one another in ways
that make them more precise - for example the relation between
articulation and tempo. I believe this is the prime area
of creativity for the interpreter.

However, I don't understand why you feel the quote supports the idea that
a performer who doesn't understand the composer's intentions should
feel free to substitute his own. Quite the contrary, it seems to me..

Marvin Wolfthal

[gregpresley]

Post by Marvin Wolfthal
However, I don't understand why you feel the quote supports the idea that
a performer who doesn't understand the composer's intentions should
feel free to substitute his own. Quite the contrary, it seems to me..
Marvin Wolfthal

Although I suspect we wouldn't be that far apart if we could demonstrate
what we are talking about at the piano, I can assure that I have listened to
many a great pianist - Horowitz, Rubinstein, Arrau, Bolet, and others -
while looking at the scores of the piano pieces they were playing, and have
seen and heard many things which run contrary to the composer's indications.
(Crescendos where there were decrescendos marked , accents where none were
marked, momentary distortions of rhythms, changes of articulations, pianos
where fortes were marked, etc). Nonetheless, I have never felt that these
pianists ought to have refrained from playing this repertory until they
could understand the composers' intentions. Each alteration had its own
logic within the framework of the entire performance, and was obviously
deeply felt by the performer at the moment of recording. I'm not advocating
a wholesale disregard of the score. It ALWAYS needs to be consulted and
exhausted in the course of the study of a work. But it has limitations, and,
in the end, it is out of the composer's hand and in the hand of the
performer to make the music live. Shakespeare survives very well when done
with an American accent and in modern clothes. Likewise, Bach, Beethoven,
Chopin, and Debussy are not so fragile that the thoughts they communicated
via their written compositions are lost whenever a performer discovers an
alternative way of phrasing a passage or sculpting the dynamics of a phrase.
The effort to understand the style of a composer and his period, the
examination of the score to see if the notes, dynamics and articulations can
be rendered with clarity and passion, and the total involvement of the
performer in the process is COMPLETELY sufficient to honor the composer.
Anything beyond that is a kind of adoration which properly belongs only to a
god, not to a human being.

[Marvin Wolfthal]

Post by gregpresley
Although I suspect we wouldn't be that far apart if we could demonstrate
what we are talking about at the piano,

I'm certain that is true.

Post by gregpresley
I can assure that I have listened to
many a great pianist - Horowitz, Rubinstein, Arrau, Bolet, and others -
while looking at the scores of the piano pieces they were playing, and have
seen and heard many things which run contrary to the composer's indications.
(Crescendos where there were decrescendos marked , accents where none were
marked, momentary distortions of rhythms, changes of articulations, pianos
where fortes were marked, etc). Nonetheless, I have never felt that these
pianists ought to have refrained from playing this repertory until they
could understand the composers' intentions.

I was a student of Arrau and I can assure you he would not have agreed with you
on this point. And the great contribution of Rubinstein to the history of
music was his precisely his detoxification of Chopin interpretation.

Post by gregpresley
Each alteration had its own
logic within the framework of the entire performance, and was obviously
deeply felt by the performer at the moment of recording.

I think one can argue endlessly about the general problem of interpretation
and about specific cases without arriving at a definitive answer and
I think such discussions are a better expenditure of time than a lot of
what we do. However I believe that the real issue here is the decline in
compositional training among performers, and their almost complete lack
of preparedness to participate, or even interest, in this discussion.

Marvin Wolfthal

[Daniel G. Emilio]

Post by Richard Schultz
: If you honestly believe
: that the notes, and not the beat, must be maintained, you must tell us
: your authority. Otherwise, under your theory, players would be
: allowed to do whatever they want, whenever they want, at whim. You
: centainly cannot be suggesting this, can you?!
While I believe that the notion that the notes are supposed to remain
constant rather that the beat is a truly idiotic one, why *shouldn't*
performers be allowed to do whatever they want?

Because it's like a builder changing the design of the architect, or
the chef changing the quantity of certain ingredients of a recipe -
because, at best, it isn't what the designer intended and at worst
could destroy the whole structure. Classical music is the same -
although too many feel they can "improve" on the composer. No student
should ever be advised to alter the plan of the composer, and it is
generally best for the student to follow very closely the editor or
commentator notes.

[gregpresley]

A good edition for practical considerations such as yours might be the
Schnabel edition. For some of your questions, I'm not sure there is a
"right" answer, only a matter of taste. Usually in music of Beethoven's
time, trills automatically start on the upper note, unless there is some
other indication. Sometimes composers wanted to make sure that it did, hence
an appogiature to start off with. Likewise, in Mozart's music, appoggiaturas
at the eighth in an eighth sixteenth sixteenth passage were usually there to
prevent an over-ambitious soloist from adding even more appoggiaturas to
that spot and instead just play 4 even sixteenths.

Post by Christopher A. Mejia
Hi,
I'm trying to learn Beethoven's Appassionata Sonata. The 2nd and 3rd
movements seem pretty straightforward, but a couple of points in the 1st
movement are giving me trouble.
1. Do the trills start on the upper or lower note? Is there a difference
whether there is a grace note (e.g. measure 3) and whether there is no grace
note (e.g. measure 11)? Beethoven shows how to "get out of" these trills,
but how fast should the trill be (sixteenths? triplet-sixteents?) and how
does that match up to the supplied trill endings.
2. How can I get the feel for the 5-tuple sixteenths, which start on page
four of my edition (I don't have measure numbers)? Can I cheat and play
these as 2+3 or 3+2 or 2+2+1 etc. such that it won't matter when I play up
to full speed?
Any performance tips would be appreciated.
--Chris