Chopin - Waltz Op. 64 N. 2 - Nocturne Op.9 N. 2

Well done Thesimon!!!

I like it, even if... each of us might have different ways of conceiving this waltz and especially Chopin's "waltzes". I, for example, lean more towards the bass timings without letting the waltz become "one". But points of view. Especially the arabesque part. Good expression of the central part. It is a wonderful writing. I like to accentuate the rubato more, even and especially in the exposition. I feel this piece to be very "eloquent" and with deep cantabile. Perhaps with a bit more weight on the right hand.

Aside from points of view and ways of "feeling", Sei, as usual, very good!!!!!!

Compliments

ThePaolo

Eheh, I can't help but laugh because Paolo, you and I are in complete agreement on so many things, but we really don't see eye to eye on Chopin 😕 Let me clarify for everyone that it's not that we fight—heaven forbid—we often exchange different and constructive opinions on this subject.

But it is also right to explain to those reading us the reasoning behind certain liberties I take with the interpretation of Chopin...

I'll start by saying that Chopin makes me experience emotions that other composers do not, and I don't mean this to imply that I dismiss other composers like Debussy or Bach regardless (I am deliberately using interpretive extremes). In Bach, for example, I find another kind of charm, which is that of order, architecture, and perfection; Bach brings me closer to God. In Debussy, it's the images that his music makes you experience. With Chopin, I cannot find a comparison for the emotions he makes me live, because, from my point of view, he is much more personal than many other composers. I don't think I'm saying something stupid with this statement; I have listened to hundreds of interpretations of this and other waltzes, nocturnes... each one different from the next. Therefore, I believe that Chopin's interpretation is much more personal compared to other composers. Various interpretations may or may not be liked, but my opinion is that Chopin should be played for oneself. I could also interpret Chopin differently, but it would no longer be my way of interpreting him and I would lose the pleasure of playing him because he wouldn't evoke the same emotions in me. In this regard, I remember a phrase my teacher told me a few years ago: "Bach is more in the mind, Chopin is more in the heart (He used the word 'more' to suggest that it's not that Chopin isn't also in the mind and Bach in the heart)" but you cannot command the heart, and while for other composers I can follow the interpretative advice of musical aesthetics experts, for Chopin I don't feel like doing the same. Bach is placed in a certain era, in a certain "spiritual" sphere; it is right to interpret him thinking about what his works were intended for, and therefore it is right to have rules in execution; Bach is perfection because his music is directed toward God. Chopin is man; imperfect by nature, with all the attendant circumstances, with his problems that he translates into music, with his nostalgia; and it is precisely this imperfection that makes him more intimate to me; it is romanticism, he is a victim of the impossibility of returning to Poland due to the November Uprising, it is love, restlessness, positivism, and pessimism all mixed together in a smoothie of feelings. How can one impose rules on the term "emotion," which is already difficult to describe in our language? My idea, therefore, is to perform Chopin for oneself, to interpret him in a way that can cause the maximum emotion within oneself. Who cares if Zimerman or Horowitz or Cortot tell us how to perform Chopin... They interpret him according to their musical thought and their poetic vein; I, even if I am wrong, want to interpret him with mine, because in this way I live in his music and not otherwise.

Anyway, the discussion is very interesting... It would be nice if other people wanted to take part as well, even just to learn different opinions. Anyone who has understood my reasoning well must have realized that I do not judge those who interpret Chopin in a certain way or by following "rules"; I am only saying that music must do good to the body but above all to the soul, and if I obtain the best results this way, I will continue on my path even if it may seem wrong to someone else; it would simply mean that everyone has their own way of getting the most out of a composer, which is perfectly right.

The discussion is very long and would require multiple replies.

I would like to take the liberty of starting to talk about Chopin.

Rivers of ink have been written and thousands of hours of music have been carved out on this author.

We could also not care about Cortot and Rubinstein....but, for example, Cortot provides us with certain elements regarding how Chopin wanted his Music. Cortot was a pupil of Matthias, a direct pupil of Chopin, the only one, perhaps, truly gifted and professional. This is because it must be known that Chopin did not have "important" pupils. In his short life of 39 years, especially in Paris, he had to deal with his finances and strive, nonetheless, to maintain the "bon ton" of Parisian salons. His pupils were mostly "young ladies of good family" " who would place the envelope with the fee " while the Maestro, with his back turned, looked out the window". However, we have many certain indications from Cortot, precisely in his book (which I strongly recommend reading) "Some Aspects of Chopin". Two fundamental elements belong to this great Author: "rubato" and "the classical vein".

Let's start with the latter. Chopin was a classicist. I repeat: a classicist. He knew Bach's "well-tempered clavier" very well and knew several preludes and fugues by heart. Over time, he was extremely rigorous. It seems that during a lesson on his second scherzo in B minor, the pupil could not get beyond the first two triplets! At times, despite his frail figure, he would fly into a rage and demand temporal rigor (once he broke a chair).

In contrast to this, Chopin is the Master of "rubato". What is rubato? Rubato is an oscillation of rhythmic figures WITHIN time, a sort of "ebb and flow" WITHIN time. A sort of "controlled freedom" of the musical phrase that finds itself within time. Once, a pupil asked Paderewski what rubato was. He took him into the garden and told him to observe the tops of the trees which, swaying in the wind, returned to their position. "There—he said—that is rubato" (a beautiful poetic vision of a Great man,... who nonetheless did not want to deliberately explain to the pupil what they should seek and find!)

Chopin used to say: "think that your left hand is the conductor and play the right with great freedom. ...But how is it possible!!!?????" Rubato offers this possibility. It is very difficult to "understand" and perhaps takes years, but it is fundamental to playing Chopin.

Let's stop here for now.

You see, it is not so much a matter of "how we feel", nor even of rigorously following the precious indications of our predecessors. I would say that a philological vision helps us fulfill our "duty" as Musicians, which is certainly not to satisfy others, but rather to be able to "present" with "coherence" the Idea that the Author has left us in code, interpreting it beyond the "limited" signs" .....even discovering some "secret thought" (Chopin's words). But all within "stylistic respect". It is a matter of deciding whether to present the Music or to present oneself.

The "relative", which today is very inflated, encounters many narrowing boundaries, while still leaving our creativity a good margin for decision-making.

My idea, therefore, is not to fail to reward Simone's magnificent performances and/or Gennaro's profound considerations. I do not, however, agree when I hear Music and Art in general defined as a place where everything is possible, where everything can be right or wrong, where everyone can do everything. I could bring other examples here of my convictions regarding Theater and Painting. Instead, I invite you to find those "Values", those "points of reference" that we seek so much and find with difficulty. I am very afraid that "individual loss" will increase, generating confusion. I find increasing difficulty in marking "milestones" that increase the baggage, the well of knowledge, and lead us a little more by the hand toward greater objective discernment.

Do not be angry with me. I am an admirer of personality and a supporter of individualism. I do not want with these words to absolutely diminish or offend your precious and interesting point of view.

We will continue to develop the discussion, I hope........

Always with Music....in the mind and in the heart

Thank you for your patience

Paolo

Hi Paolo, I believe that the issue cannot be defined for the simple reason that, until now, neither you nor I have set any limits when talking about the space of Chopinesque interpretation, but above all, the destination of this interpretation has not been specified.

pianoexpert wrote:

Chopin was a classicist. I repeat: a classicist. He knew Bach's "well-tempered clavier" very well and knew several preludes and fugues by heart.

Absolutely yes, but one cannot disregard the romantic influence of the era on the Maestro, given that he is nonetheless placed in music history texts among the Romantics; in fact, he is even depicted as the greatest exponent of Romanticism despite, as you recalled, being strongly influenced by classicist aesthetics.

You see, here it is not so much about "how we feel," but also not about strictly following precious indications or our predecessors. I would say that a philological vision helps us fulfill our "duty" as Musicians, which is certainly not to satisfy others, but rather to be able to "present" with "coherence" the Idea that the Author left us in code, interpreting it beyond the "limited" signs... even discovering some "secret thought" (Chopin's words). But all within "stylistic respect." It is a matter of deciding whether to present the Music or to present oneself.

Exactly, and that is precisely what I am referring to! I see we are starting to understand each other and are reaching unanimity. This choice depends on the occasion in which one must "present." At an exam, I would play it like this (just a first-hand recorded snippet):

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/condivisione/chopinizzata.mp3

In private, I would play it another way because in that moment, privately, the music is for me, and I must enjoy it. This stems from the fact that at an exam or a concert, I must demonstrate to the masters listening to me that I am able to translate the "signs" while maintaining "stylistic respect," but instead of enjoying the music I am playing, my attention would shift toward the realization and the containment of my poetic vein, standardized to what is most widely recognized as the Chopin style and therefore most appreciated by most.

My idea, therefore, is not intended to fail to reward Simone's magnificent performances and/or Gennaro's profound considerations. I do not, however, agree when I hear Music and Art in general defined as a place where everything is possible, where everything can be right or wrong, where everyone can do everything. I could bring other examples here of my convictions regarding Theater and Painting. Instead, I invite you to find those "Values," those "reference points" that we seek so much and find with difficulty. I am very afraid that "individual loss" will increase and generate confusion. I find increasing difficulty in marking "milestones" that increase the baggage, the well of knowledge, and lead us a little more by the hand toward greater objective discernment.

I absolutely agree with you when you say that music and art in general are often defined as the place where everything is possible. This is obviously blasphemy!

Don't take it the wrong way. I am an admirer of personality and a supporter of individualism. I do not want with these words to diminish or offend your precious and interesting point of view in any way.

Of course not! And besides, the world is beautiful because it is varied. I think many misunderstandings arose from the fact that I had not specified that my reflection was aimed at a very private sphere, and often it is difficult to express such difficult concepts when responses are so latent; everything would be much simpler talking about it for 20 minutes over a good cup of your ginger tea! 😕 Rather, I must make a mea culpa: sometimes to explain certain concepts, I exaggerate examples which are often interpreted as such, when on the contrary I would like to express a much finer and more minute comparison...

....But in reality, in the end... we agree. Perhaps everything depends on our generational difference and therefore our way of approaching things. But this is the true wealth: having young friends and mature friends and speaking freely. The Forum.... and life are magnificent for this. The great opportunity we all have to connect and express our convictions "polishes" our reflections and fills us with experience. So ..courage.

I would like to say one thing.

I also believed, when I was taking exams, that certain things cannot be done... others can.... so it's fine for an exam.... then at a concert... then in private..

Someone used to tell me this. As if before a committee one had to be more prudent so as not to raise doubts or objections.

Later I developed other ideas. One must hope that in the committees sit "musicians," and a musician always rewards a good choice, even if personal and daring. (See Pogorelich, who never won a competition, but plays wonderfully)

I don't think there are different ways of interpreting depending on the context. Here, I invoke the conviction of personalism. I believe that we feel and mature a "right" choice: one that will always accompany us (With the due oscillations of nuance that from time to time make the execution never identical to the previous one)

I am pleased to quote two great phrases that have marked my way of seeing things.

Ferruccio Busoni: "Always play as if a great Artist were listening to you"

Igor Stravinsky: (this one is more ironic and witty). An orchestral player said to him: "Maestro, tomorrow we are going to New York... there you have to play well!!" and he replied: "...why, ...shouldn't one play well everywhere?" (Cute!)

Anyway, we certainly agree!

Perhaps the point lies precisely in "how" to understand things and how to feel them now, tomorrow, the day after tomorrow.

When I was a boy, I used to visit my grandmother accompanied by my father. There was an old C. OTTO piano from Berlin, out of tune and abandoned. But I always said hello to it, playing it a little. One day an uncle of mine passed by and heard me playing a slow Chopin waltz. With Jerry, his little dog, on a leash, he stopped and told me: "Bravo, but later you will hear it and play it differently". It made me a bit angry. I wondered why I should ever change what I felt so "strongly". Uncle was right. Now I wouldn't play that waltz like that. I played it in my last Chopin concert and remembered that episode with melancholy. I have changed, and perhaps today I "struggle" less with my way of feeling.

...Too many memories... I'm getting old!!!

Certainly, the pianist's musical (inner) thought never stops evolving. I listen to recordings from 5 years ago and criticize myself, saying that today I wouldn't play that way. Probably in 10 years the same thing will happen again...

...Too many memories... I'm getting old!!!

What are you saying... My father always tells me that "you become old when you feel like it!"

Congratulations Simone, you are very good, and furthermore you have given me a beautiful gift because I would like to try studying Nocturne Op.9 No.2! 😕

I won't interfere in the discussion because with only 9 months of study I would be ridiculous, but please know that your reflections are a gold mine of experience for me and something I can draw from and reflect upon... Thank you.

I don't have ready-made theories to give answers, only doubts.

Which, among the following performances, is more Chopin-esque?

Which, among the following performances, is performed by a woman?

Why do all of them except one (which one?) produce beautiful but different emotions in me?

Why, if I listen to them again in reverse order, does my ranking change?

Eheheh dear Gennaro, you're trying to fool us here; here's the catch, I noticed it immediately.

Number 7 is the sped-up version while maintaining the pitch of number 1; if you wanted to go unnoticed, it would have been better to compress it by lowering it to 8 bits so that the timbre of the entire file would be ruined, but you deceived us by keeping the first measure at the original tempo, may you... 😕

Anyway, let's move on by answering the questions...

Which of the following performances is more Chopinesque?

The most Chopinesque one, in my opinion, is number 3. From the touch and the simplicity it communicates to me, I would say it could be Rubinstein playing (I have always appreciated him because everything he plays seems simple).

Which of the following performances is by a woman?

I believe the woman is number 4. Slow performance, too much freedom with the tempo and too heavy both in the singing and in the bass; even the embellishments are excessively heavy, not to mention the heavy blows she gives on the weak beat...

Why do all of them except one (which one?) produce beautiful but different emotions in me?

I would say 4 or 7, which you modified. Personally, I don't like 4 at all. It's not chauvinism; it is enough for me to express my love for Argerich's performances to prove otherwise.

Why, if I listen to them again in reverse order, does my ranking change?

Mmmmm I wouldn't know, that doesn't happen to me...

Let me know if I was right, best regards,

@PianoScholar

I won't interfere in the discussion because with only 9 months of study I would be ridiculous, but please know that your reflections are a gold mine of experience for me and something I can draw from and reflect upon... Thank you.

Why shouldn't you interfere in the conversation? What does it matter that you have only been studying for 9 months, that is even more reason to build some character! Here, all opinions will always be respected by everyone, I guarantee it; perhaps not shared, but TRUE DEMOCRACY prevails in this space.

So go ahead and tell us your thoughts too. This prompt from dear Gennaro seems specifically designed to open the discussion up to everyone.

A big hello...

@TheSimon

Bravo, very good observer; ultimately an excellent result.

Trick discovered, but not the deception!

In fact, the road was paved with cobblestones.

These are the performers:

1. Valentina Lisitsa

2. Maurizio Pollini

3. Arthur Rubinstein

4. Annarita Santagada

5. Tzvi Erez

6. Yundi Li

The cobblestones:

No. 1) There were two women

No. 2) The tempo was altered, but not on Lisitsa, but on Pollini; in fact: 7. Maurizio Pollini (same pitch, tempo -20%). Anyway, well done! (you were surely in a hurry to reply to me, so it is clear that in your haste, you did not perform checks!)

No. 3) There was a cobblestone dedicated to our dear Paolo PianoExpert but, either he didn't see my message or he didn't take the bait! Here there are, in my opinion, at least two or three different styles/ways of perceiving, presenting and hearing. This is what I mean by relative: relativity is not arbitrariness, nor individualism: only different points of view of a unicum that must be reconciled.

In fact, and not without reason, you prefer the 3rd, which you rightly say is Rubinstein, for simplicity and touch. I also appreciate its variation in sonority and emphasis between the first and second.

Anyway, your quote about simplicity seems like a beautiful and essential thing to me! I believe that all of creation is simple and it is beautiful because it is simple, with a simplicity that we may never be able to reach. But music, made simple, can give us a hand in getting closer.

It's true, I don't even like Santagada. The 7th has almost nothing strange about it: it's just someone who wants to finish sooner!

Regarding the last question (it sounded strange to me too while I was writing it!).

If I listen to them again in reverse, Lisitsa plays after Pollini (who is more linear), and in the second phrase, you can distinctly hear the tremor that I missed going forward. Result: she comes in second after Rubinstein. This happened to me yesterday evening and also now while I was replying to you (of this sort, sensations vary over time and depend on experiences and the moment; another form of relativity).

Bye and thanks!

Fine, friends.

But we must keep in mind that there must be "substance" and substance emerges precisely with Rubinstein. Great simplicity, which seems as easy as fresh water. Remember the principle of the Duck: it moves on the surface of the water and it seems that its entire movement is light and simple......but under the water there is a great deal of work!!!!

The great work is to acquire over the years, over time, the great legato, the great phrasing, the great pressure.....the great expression. Above all, studying with concentration the relationship between sound intensity and its duration until the next note.....that which achieves the "cantabile".

In short, let's get to work and develop an intense sound. Only subsequently will we be able to find the "gentle" proportion between the intensity of the right hand in relation to that of the left.

Rubinstein was a Master of this. In all his recordings and even live, the left hand is much lower in intensity. When I met him, he made the participants of that meeting, including myself, feel the weight of his right hand in the cantabile. It was impressive. He played anything but piano when developing long Chopin phrases, especially in slow tempos (Nocturnes, Mazurkas, etc...). One can listen again to him in one of Gennarino's examples. It is extremely difficult to do this and one must looooong-attenuate the left hand....with much control!!!!!! I believe this.

@PianoExpert

Dear Paoletto, neither I nor TheSimon believe that substance can/must be missing without arriving at something else.

In fact, in Classical, Jazz, Light music (it might seem strange, but in Folk there seems to be a higher rate), there are things that are Music and other things that are nothing more than just things!

Furthermore, unfortunately for me, at least as far as "playing the piano" is concerned, my substance is far from the overflowing, magnificent and, let's be honest, SHAMEFULLY EXCESSIVE quantities that You and Simone have!

Returning to serious matters, I don't think this is about modern "relativism," which is nothing more than a position of unrestrained individualism that often lacks any ethical connotation (otherwise, how can I charge you a lot for something that is practically worth nothing?).

Simply put, it is said that no one possesses the truth, but that it is built progressively and laboriously by making different points of view part of a unitary (ethical and fair) framework.

That is why TheSimon adopts an intimate vision when playing Chopin, bending him to his need for relationship with himself. I believe that:

• Chopin is happy because there is an unforeseen use of something of his
• Chopin is happy because He wrote it for Simone and has (for years) pelted a lot of exegetes with stones!
• Simone is doing great
• You are not doing any worse
• I am doing better

A fraternal greeting

AHAHAHAH!! Gennarino, you are always funny.....and profound. How beautiful to have friends with whom to talk about topics....infinite......

Hello everyone ...

I also love Chopin very much as a "Pianist of feeling," as many have defined him. For this reason, I believe it is difficult to reach an agreement on Chopin, because his compositions are "of feeling," and as such they are free, fluid, without too many rigid patterns. In any case, I congratulate Simone on the splendid interpretation of Prelude op. 9 no. 2 which I adore; you played it truly in a ... "Chopin-esque" way 😕, as I already told you. I would also like to make a technical observation: I noticed how you hold your right hand in the final "long trill": compliments, it seems like a comfortable position, and one that moreover allows you to execute it in a fluid, non "mechanical" way.

You know, it is also difficult for me to reach an agreement regarding Chopin... in my opinion, he remains nonetheless always a piano genius, whom I admire and who I "put" in my list of the top five favorite composers.

For now ... Bye!!

Francesco 1797

PS: You know, your interpretation of Prelude op. 9 no. 2 made me want to study it ... I think I will look for the sheet music! Bye!

@Francesc1797

The Nocturnes Op. 9 are among the most intimate and romantic works of our Frédérick.

Be careful with the balance between the hands and the cantabile quality.

Hello and happy practicing.

@PianoExpert

THANK GOODNESS PAOLO!

I thought that to punish me you wouldn't let me in on Sunday anymore!

Unfortunately, I have been busy taking care of beautiful Giacomino, but from tonight I will start publishing some gems again.

Ciao

Gennarino wrote:

@Francesc1797

The Nocturnes Op. 9 are among the most intimate and romantic works of our Frédérick.

Pay attention to the balance between the hands and the cantabile quality.

Hello and happy studying.

Hey, gennarino ... that's incredible!! I haven't even asked for the sheet music and I already have it available !!! 😕 Thank you so much!!

Anyway ... it's true, the Nocturnes are among the most intimate and romantic pieces of "our Frédérick"... absolutely genius 😉! As soon as I have studied them (I am particularly drawn to no. 2), I will post my performance on the site.

Thanks again !!! Francesco 1797 😉

Hello, dear friends ... it's me again.

I would need some advice on the performance of Chopin's Nocturne op.9 no. 2 ... if I can say that I have almost no problems performing the right hand part, well, that left hand ... how can I "jump" 😆 octaves without making mistakes, given that the accompaniment of this piece "jumps" practically always from one octave to another, as it is similar to an arpeggio? Thanking you in advance ... 😆 Bye!!! Francesco 1797

PS Simone, there was no need for you to apologize for the speed of responding to messages ... I find you very fast!! Bye!!