have you been playing Chopin wrong?
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 01. 2023
- These clips were taken from the wonderful and invaluable video series that David Stanhope made on both the Chopin études and Chopin-Godowsky studies. Please consider watching them to gain a greater understanding and appreciation of both Chopin and Godowsky's work.
David Stanhope's channel: / @chopin-godowskyetudes...
You can also buy David Stanhope's CD of the Chopin-Godowsky Studies at tallpoppies.net/
Videos used:
Chopin Godowsky Chapter 3: • Chopin Godowsky Chapter 3
Chopin Godowsky Chapter 6: • Chopin Godowsky Chapter 6
BuyMeACoffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/TheExarion - Hudba
Wim Winters is fuming at this video
Beat me to it 😂
@@leonlinton634at least he didn’t double beat you to it
@@Varooooooom you did not just say that
LOL
Wim Winters L
Wim Winters: "Double it, and give it to the next person."
Most classical musicians really be like "it's harder to play it slower with more feeling than fast without any expression" and then play slow without any emotion
Playing slow, with or without emotion, is usually much harder. It requires holding down the natural movement of fingers. Martha Argerich, who plays without controlling tempo, said that.
@@LuisKolodin Ok
for NO. 6, if played at that speed, it would explain how Scriabin came up with the idea for his etude op.42 no.5
The Scriabin does resemble that study; never had seen that!
I think that slow pieces lose their sense of flow if played too slowly. Many pianists play the Chopin Preludes op. 28 nos. 4, 6, and 7 at a speed that I find painfully slow. But Pollini plays the Etude op. 10 no. 6 at Stanhope’s “water torture” speed, and it brings tears to my eyes. In the end, music is not about numbers, but about emotion. Forget the metronome, and play at whatever speed sounds beautiful to you.
I'd say that, if pulled off, a slower tempo will often (maybe even mostly) sound much more beautiful than faster. But it's much, much more difficult, to keep the line going when you play it slower, so if you're not confident you can do it, you should just play it moderately slow.
If one takes a collection of notes, changes the tempo, and either adds rubato or flattens out the rhythms, the result will often be perceived as a different piece of music than what one started with, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. It would be unfortunate if people who might have enjoyed the original more end up only listening to an inferior version, but on the other hand sometimes a piece of music that would have been rather bland and forgettable can be transformed into something wonderful and enduring.
To me it's really important to play the piece as the composer originally intended, within reason though of course. Chopin didn't like to play his pieces the same way everytime and according to one of his students, he used to get upset with them when they would play a piece exactly like him. He adamantly stated to feel the music and not copy someone else's interpretation.
@@chainuser1774 A good etude is supposed to serve two purposes: 1. Assist someone in building up some particular skill, and 2. Reward the person who masters the skill with a nice piece of music. The tempo which achieves the first purpose most effectively may not be the most aesthetically pleasing one for the second.
Indeed, the most aesthetically pleasing tempo for a keyboard piece may depend upon the characteristics of the instrument being played, and sometimes even the acoustics of the room.
Whenever I write music people tend to play it much slower than what I consider a reasonable tempo, even when the marking is explicitly written down. Interesting bit of psychology that composers always seem to like it faster than how it is typically played.
I think part of it has to do with technique proficiency as well. I thought about this when I heard Hamelin play Kapustin Etude No.3 vs. hearing Kapustin play his own Etude No.3. Hamelin plays it much faster than Kapustin - and as we all know, Hamelin’s technique is godly.
I wonder if what ends up happening is that most people tend to slow down certain pieces because there’s some influence from their “practice” tempo. This is to say, most people practice pieces very slowly, and thus their perception of what the “normal” tempo should be has been slightly warped to be slower. Idek if I’m making sense at this point lol.
It’s like the opposite of speed limits
That’s certainly true. One reason might be because rubato usually slackens the pace more often than it quickens it.
This is actually really interesting. I already knew no. 6’s original tempo (and prefer its proper execution over the common tempo’s), but I never really looked into the tempo matkings enough to see it in no. 3, even though it also makes total sense.
David Stanhope provides some interesting interpretation on not just Godowsky's studies, but on several original Chopin etudes as well.
At some point I started to take metronome markings more seriously (i.e. at least thinking about it for some minutes instead of completely ignoring them) and I had the same thoughts concerning this etude and also Schubert pieces and so on. Many people will like the slow tempo and if it brings joy, it is good. To me, the fast tempo brings joy and sounds just right. It is admittedly hard to put away the known tempo and be open for something new, but in the context of an "etude" and of a joyful, spring like lively melody, it certainly makes sense. In contrast to some tempi of Czerny and so on, this certainly doesn't sound totally unreasonable or even non sensical. It would be of interest to compile a longer video of famous pieces that are played at a much different speed than actually written. There are definitely some examples for that
How I respect your informed and educated opinions! Thank you for sharing.
You’re welcome! Just a head’s up though, I am not David Stanhope (the speaker in this video). Please visit his channel via the link in the description of this video :)
SO MANY pianists and critics think they know better than the composers themselves! Look at how Beethoven's metronome marks are treated...
In my opinion the faster tempos sound much better on a playel piano of his time compared to on modern pianos. The pleyel has less sustain, and a softer more intimate character. It's also, incidentally, much easier to play at faster speeds on an early pleyel piano.
Yes you highlight Stanhope!!!
There's a method to Chopin's tempo markings. Today, with the metronome, it's common to call it just an "affect marker" and take it with a grain of salt. Back in the days before precision time keeping, often these markings had to assume a clear, more literal meaning based loosely on the pulse of a second, just so that it can be easily understood by those who didn't have the technology immediately available to them. 10/3 works both ways. If the reference beat is a quarter note, 50 (written 8th = 100) is slower enough than 1 BPS that it could be called "a bit slow". If the reference beat is an eighth note instead, which I prefer here, 8th = 100 is quite a bit faster than 1 BPS and can reasonably be called "fast". In 10/6, it might not be wrong to call a pulse of 69 moderate or slow; but it's interesting to note that the primary source for this Etude does _not_ include a tempo marking, and there are multiple secondary sources that offer alternative, slightly slower markings like 60 and 50.
I actually stopped paying heed to composers' instructions because every single recording of a composer playing his own work sounds bonkers to me. Stravinsky and Bolcomb come to mind but there are many others that left me scratching my head and lunging for my Yefim Bronfman or Martha Argerich.
wow i really like no. 6 speed
At the opposite end of the spectrum, I'd like to point out Ravel's tempo marking for "Pavane pour une infante défunte," quarter note=54. Has anyone ever taken that one literally, or is it just a product of Ravel's own (fairly mediocre) pianism?
EDIT: Because all the people in the comments don't seem to understand it, "writes really hard piano music" and "not really a great pianist" aren't mutually exclusive. It's entirely possible for both to be true (e.g. Tchaikovsky, Schoenberg).
wait, since when was Ravel a mediocre pianist?
@@mouf725 Multiple sources say so; consider that, for example, he refused to perform the third movement of his Sonatine, saying it was too difficult. His friends such as Casadesus and Viñes typically premiered his piano works, rather than himself.
Even if he was actually mediocre I doubt that would be the reason when you see the other stuff he's put out
Crotchet = 54 is pretty much the speed everyone plays it…so not sure what your point is? (The melody is mainly moving in quavers…)
@@SerpongeDash they must not have heard of Gaspard de la nuit ha ha
you should listen to Leopold Godowsky's arrangement of Chopin №6 etude for LH
Beautiful version. MAH did it justice.
Yo, Raptor :D Some say it's even better then the original, e.g. Anatol Ugorski... Although don't wanna decide, I'd still say it is a damn good piece. Definitely among the greatest reworkings of Godowsky
@@en-blanc-et-noir Wow! My favourite composer-pianist-arranger on youtube! Hello :)
Yeah, Among all Leopold Godowsky's works I like *this one* and also Study No. 34 in C-sharp minor (after Op. 25 No. 5.)
This is an interesting video, it's always great to look at what the original composer "intended", and I say that in quotes because I believe that many composers just want you to play it how you see fit so long as you don't butcher it. I personally think that a tempo marking like "andante" or "lento ma non troppo" can be interpreted however you like because its subjective. BPM numbers are different because they are specific, but at the end of the day, there is no point to conform to a number on a page, if it's something as creative as art. Specifically for Chopin's time, I think the metronome markings are inaccurate to present day metronome markings, which are based off an electronic system most times, which is always more precise. As time went on, our metronomes got more accurate, and I think that is why most editors of scores always make the tempo wildly different.
While this is all interesting, there are a lot more factors that I don’t think you’re considering. A lot of people in the past have been quick to tell me that Chopin was a perfectionist, so he may have well wanted the BPM to be adhered to as closely as possible. I agree that it’s more interesting to not conform to a BPM number, but a faithful Chopin interpretation must at least try to.
As far as metronomes go, while our metronomes are most likely more precise today, I can’t imagine they’re, like, drastically different from what they had back then. It’s not like 69 bpm back then is gonna suddenly turn into 85 or 37 bpm today. What might’ve happened is that various editors misinterpreted or defined the tempo based on how people gradually played these pieces over time. If a piece is marked at “lento” or “andante”, people are more likely to play them very slowly during practice and then not increase the tempo properly in actual performance. And then, once recording became standard, people would listen to popular recordings at slower tempos and try to emulate them. This is one of probably a few ways that these slower tempos were able to proliferate, but I can’t say it’s what happened with 100% confidence.
@@TheExarion Ok, that makes sense to me. I actually considered the last point you made about how due to people interpreting it slower overtime, it was just written in by editors based on how they have heard it. I didn't mention because I was mostly focusing on the metronome aspect. The perfectionism however, I did not consider. I think you make a good point in saying Chopin would want you to stick very close or exactly on the bpm. I don't know how different the metronomes were back then exactly, but most sources I have read from say they were "fairly" inaccurate, which tells me that they was a great difference. "Fairly" can be interpreted differently by each person, though. I notice that basically all of this is interpretation and theorization. It seems that no one really knows for sure, there's just a general idea. It's always interesting to talk about these things though. If only we had piano rolls of every composer so we could know for sure.
Yes, let’s keep trying to adhere to objectivity through subjectivity…
@@AlbertoSegovia. I know, right? It makes no sense, it is completely antithetical to what music itself is all about. It's creative human expression, regardless of what a metronome or composers says you should do.
@@surr3al756 It is, but at the same time it isn’t. The same way that CD’s were invented through precision by the most potent, BPM were in the cusps of society invented by the intelligent and precision seeking. One can play as pleases, but the aspect of deformation comes when one pretends to play Chopin when one is playing more “oneself” than what Chopin tried to preserve for posterity. Let’s think about it. None of what we have today would exist if there was no precision, exactitude, strive for a fixation. That happens since prehistory. They have determined what structures we have now.
The 'bravura' section is, to me, diminished sevenths rather than sixths. Is that incorrect?
I think you’re right! Stanhope may have just had a slip of tongue when saying “diminished sixths.”
EDIT: Wait, okay I just re-watched the video. He doesn’t say “diminished sixths,” but instead just says “sixths” which are, functionally, the same interval spacing as a diminished seventh.
Yes, but in terms of piano technique, they are the same as parallel sixths, and practiced along with parallel thirds, octaves, etc.
@@minirausch Right you are, and I thank you for sharing; I may be perplexed from a lifetime as reading a C dim. chord as C, E-flat, G-flat, and A. I always want to overcorrect that final note to B-double-flat.
Quarter note 45.op 10 n.3 Beljavan heavenly.
The relation that an interpeter has with a piece of music is absoluty personal. And the score is just a way to start, then one experiments with it until reach the really core of the piece....if it is faster, slower or whatever is irrelevant, all that matter is that the interpretation should be honest with the spirit of the piece itself 🤔
On one hand, yes, I agree with most of that (however, I will say, a piece's tempo definitely influences the "spirit of the piece"). However, the problem arises when someone claims "[Performer] is playing Chopin's works the way Chopin would've played them himself," but said performer ends up ignoring core elements of Chopin's works.
I think music and art is a great field for transformation and interpretation. However, a faithful interpretation of Chopin's works absolutely cannot ignore something as fundamental as the tempo.
@@TheExarion true....nobody know how Chopin played, it is all speculation and such. But it is true that the conception that you have of a Chopin's Nocturne is different that mine: emphasis of dissonances, inner voices, the shape of the melody, the nuances, etc. Our individuality, even events out from music, mark our approach to the music, some kind of plastic interpretation. But it is correct that we all have in mind that the core of the piece should not be delete, or it became a new composition that Chopin never imagined 🤔
I haven't 😁 I always played them at the prescribed tempo.
On CZcams you can also find the opposite - channels that claim that pieces are being played too fast, like the Appassionata (referencing Gould's recording, for example). In the case of the 2 Chopin Etudes here it makes sense to honor the originally marked speed if the purpose is to practice technical skills. In the environment of a Recital, it's probably best left to the interpreter and how it best fits in the context of other pieces being performed.
I think most performers take the finale of the Appassionata a bit too fast. It's Allegro ma non troppo, not just a straight Allegro. If you take it at a slightly slower tempo then the coda, when the tempo kicks up to Presto, really contrasts--and Beethoven's Prestos are always *really fast*. Time to hit the afterburners.
hopefully, our master Katsaris doesn’t do those mistakes :)
I remember a performance where he played Op.10 No.3 dreadfully slow. Willing to bet it was either because of a faulty edition or playing it at the tempo that everyone else played it. Katsaris is one of my heroes for piano, but he’s not perfect.
@@TheExarion that’s bizarre, i always remembered him saying to play it not too slow, especially in one of his masterclass (i think it is on yt btw). But since he can play many different versions maybe you’re also right
I don't like the tempo for no 6. It sounds rushed, and the melody doesn't breathe
Yeah, there’s an anxious feeling in it that encapsulates the “torture of the artist” that Stanhope describes. I personally like it, but I wouldn’t fault anyone who says it’s not their cup of tea, especially since most of us are aurally familiar with the “standard” slow recordings.
Regardless, whether one likes the tempo or not, it is what Chopin indicated. If one wants to make a faithful recording of that étude, then it’s up to the performer to take that tempo and make the piece musical.
@@TheExarion I'm an amateur but I studied this piece with an Argentine pianist, contemporary of Argerich who studied with the same teacher. Her agogics were quite pronounced, although I'm not sure the tempo was much different. Maybe Stanhope wanted to demonstrate the correct tempo without playing with full artistry. This little snippet doesn't engage me
@@TheExarion by the way, I can't remember where I saw this but I read a claim that op 10 no 5 was intended to be played much slower, more like half the usual tempo. That sounded crazy so I didn't read carefully
I don't love 10/6 at dotted quarter=69. I think most performers do perform it too slowly but 54 sounds like a good tempo. Stanhope's tempo feels too rushed.
2:22 I cracked up when I heard "dotted crotchet = 69". My sense of humor is beyond salvation.
I don't know if you're right or wrong, but I do know that you must be able to convince me through your playing that "this is the way it should be". I love your playing in general, but I must say that all of the examples here of a faster tempo leave me cold.
(This is not David Stanhope’s channel, just an FYI.)
Whether or not the performance convinces you is one thing, but conceivably, a musical performance should be tried at this tempo in order to make a faithful rendition of this Chopin etude. And remember, it is an etude, so whatever musicality that may be garnered from a slower tempo may in fact be exchanged for technique at a faster a tempo.
@@TheExarion oops, duh. Got myself mixed up because I hopped over to his channel and listened to some stuff 😬. But I totally disagree with you if you’re suggesting there is a necessary connection between “etude” and “fast”. I would say that, on a piano especially, sustaining a beautiful melody at a slower tempo is much more of a challenge.
@@TheExarion (and feel free to delete this whole thread since it really doesn’t belong here!)
@@mumps59 No worries! It’s fun to have this conversation regardless :)
And I’m not saying that an étude has to be fast in order for it to qualify as an étude. However, at the “water-torture” tempo that Stanhope describes, I’m not sure what technique anyone is building by playing it so slow. The performer has more to gain from the technique at Chopin’s prescribed tempo (which, of course, anyone could say that any piece is more of a challenge at a faster tempo; however, most pieces are also not so challenging at very slow tempos). I’m personally not surprised that some musicality may be lost by playing this étude at its rightful tempo.
No news to me. In concert I've played Op. 10 n. 3 at the indicated tempo several times. I also have a video by Francesco Libetta demonstrating the etude at a nice speed and with beautiful rubato on a Pleyel, but I can't share it.
I also usually play op. 10 n. 6 at the indicated tempo... Actually, I play it even slightly higher than what's indicated on average, but with proper rubato. Stanhope basically doesn't play rubato at all so it just sounds rushed in his recording.
That being said, the tempo is not what's interesting in these etudes. The first french edition of these etudes contain several different notes, which change the harmony significantly in a few passages, and Stanhope does not follow the first french edition.
Hey ciao, che sorpresa ritrovarti qui, posso farti una domanda? Cosa ne pensi della teoria secondo cui i musicisti del passato suonavano con molto più rubato e variazioni di tempo rispetto a quelli di oggi? Secondo questa teoria non solo Wim Winters ma anche i suoi haters che si ostinano a prendere letteralmente il tempo degli spartiti del passato non è che abbiano tanto ragione
Wim WInters: hold my beer
Would drop it with his feeble slow hands.
Do you play all pieces at the given metronome tempo?
1) The person in the video is David Stanhope, not me. You can visit his channel via the link in the description of this video, where you can see his excellent seminars and listen to his wonderful performances.
2) Someone who is attempting to make a faithful performance of Chopin (or any composer’s work) should at least strive for the prescribed tempo marking. There is a MASSIVE difference between the tempos Chopin assigns to these pieces and the tempo that most available recordings utilize. Now keep in mind, in my opinion, people are entitled to change whatever they want about a piece to make it fit their artistic expression. However, there comes a point where they will not play what Chopin intended in his writing, and that’s what’s actually being argued here: You are not playing Chopin *faithfully* if you don’t play at his tempo. One other thing being argued in the case of Op.10 No.6 specifically is that the technique does not get a chance to properly develop if the piece is being played at a “water torture” tempo.
Hope this addresses whatever point you were trying to make!
@@TheExarionno one will ever make a faithful performance of Chopin's works, even if we strictly follow his metronome markings. We know very little about Chopin's style of playing. We are only sure about two things: Chopin didn't play in strict time (that's what Berlioz and Ludwig Berger said) and improvised very much. That's why he often changed the markings to his pieces (and etude 10/3 isn't an exception). Otherwise, the etude 25/11 would be impossible to performe with Chopin's metronome marking. But Chopin wasn't the only one who made this kind of things: Mozart said that Clementi marked his pieces presto but he only played allegro. So don't pay too much attention to these small details on the score and feel free to find your own interpretation, that's the spirit of the classical music that today we lost!
@@cosimoleone9110 I just don't think that is reason enough to simply disregard what Chopin clearly wrote. There should be at least some consideration for what he put to paper.
@@TheExarion Chopin didn't write anything. There are only two manuscripts of the etude 10/3, none of them reports a metronome marking, just the tempo indication vivace in the first one and vivace ma non troppo in the second. Lento ma non troppo appeared in the french and german edition with two different metronome markings, quaver=100 in the french edition and crotchet=100 in the german edition. So why the german edition is wrong?
@@TheExarion I forgot, crotchet=100 is even the tempo in Julian Fontana's edition.
The slow interpretations are boring. Stanhope is a real chad
dude made 8th a 4th
A slow movement is supposed to be... A slow movement. Metronome marks are to be interpreted in whole beat. You have two ticks for one beat. One AND two AND three.
No they aren’t lmao
It's so crazy how the entire music community is wrong and you are right, please forgive us for correctly interpreting metronomes 🙏🙏
Ah yes literal centuries of music tradition is incorrect and you have found the one answer that is right and totally wasn’t utterly obliterated in the 90s 🙌
@@bradleyscarffpiano2921 Some traditions remain as precisely the op 10 nr 3 and nr 6 études by Chopin are often played in historical tempo! BTW how could it be that a book published in 2010 could have been 'debunked' in the 90s? Doesn't seem too logical to me.
Kid
This is an impatient man.
Chopin doesn't know what hes talking about
Metronomic marking should be completely neglected. There's substantial evidence that literally every composer abandoned it, simply because it is unmusical and they themselves didn't know what tempo choose. Tempo is mood, not speed.
BUT...
This Tristesse etude is VIVACE NON TROPPO in manuscripts. It was adulterated in editions. Besides that... The vivace tempo makes the rythms of left hand show off. Having said that... Chopin hated that people played his music sentimentally. Chopin is noble and frustrated, he's fake sentimental 🤣
I play it like garbage. I will change the entire piece and play the melodies B-A-B. I hope that annoys you. Still better than 99.9% of the population. It's a joy, not a job. It's going to sound bad to most Americans no matter how you play it. You can play as well as Chopin himself and people will still tell you to stop. You can play some pop melody and people will applaud like mad.
alright dude, just put down the gun
@@TheExarion yeah okay I play a piano. chill out.
lmao I was just joking dude, you’re the one who needs to chill out
I actually agree with you for the most part. However, when I posted a similar video for Katsaris’s rendition of Chopin Waltz Op.64 No.2, I got a TON of people saying he was disgracing Chopin and going against his wishes, etc etc. So I made this video (rather late) to see if those Chopin “purists” actually understood Chopin as well as they say they do.
@@TheExarion I can appreciate the replies. I'm going to go out on a limb and say he thought joy and passion were more important than technical accuracy.
If the purists want to complain about an interpretation then they can play it themselves. At least you do so I can respect that. Don't become those people. They ruin everything fun.
I respect this comment
Chopin metronome marks make no sense. This gentleman conveniently talks about two Etudes where the tempo marks don't get to be infeasible. Not even the best of the best pianists play the fast etudes at the tempo indicated by Chopin. Not to mention how absurd the nocturnes sound if you play at the tempo marked on the score.
Totally agree with you, we know very little about Chopin's style of playing. We are only sure about two things: Chopin didn't play with scrict tempo (that's what Berlioz and Ludwig Berger said) and improvised very much. That's why he often changed the tempo to his pieces (and etude op. 10 no. 3 isn't an exception: from vivace ma non troppo to lento ma non troppo). So I think that his metronome markings shouldn't be taken too seriously, otherwise the etude 25/11 would be impossible to perform. And Chopin wasn't the only one: Mozart said that Clementi marked his pieces presto but only played allegro. There are several examples of other composers too.
Anyone who makes faces at an opinion that counters their own gets skepticism from me. Disliked this video because this man is so conceited
that is ridiculous LMAO. I am disliking your comment because anyone who comments at a difference in opinion is conceited.
@@Varooooooom I just mean I tend not to take someone's word when they show two examples, one being " 🤤 right" and one being "EWW wrong!". Like in his second example of the two tempos.
He also claims there is one ONE right way to play Chopin. And anyone who has read what Chopin instructs of his pupils knows that is FAR from true.
@@loren8888 He’s just trying to be entertaining lol. It’s unwise to take that bit too seriously - after all, he’s talking about the Chopin etudes and Leopold Godowsky’s studies on those etudes; I’m sure he isn’t opposed to there being more than one way to play Chopin.
However, while there isn’t just ONE way to play Chopin, Chopin did designate tempos to these two etudes that are often neglected and have been bastardized by editions over the years. This is fact, not opinion. Anyone who cares about Chopin’s true intentions should at least pay some mind to the facts and what the etudes ought to sound like (or at least approach sounding like). There are a lot of ways to interpret a piece, but there are few ways to “interpret” tempo when there’s a designated BPM.
@@Varooooooom Chopin recognized two different ways in which one might play his etudes. He himself performed them on stage, and according to the period it's likely he took some romantic liberties in slowing the tempo, and increasing it beyond what the score called for. Secondly Chopin recognized a slower tempo for his etudes for his students to practice, as opposed to how one might play them faster.
In any case, tempo markings were significantly more subjective back then because of the inaccuracies seen in historical metronomes as they were a relatively new invention in Chopin's time. It wasn't unseen that composers indicated 60 beats a minute in reference to the minute, and adjusted the speed accordingly. This in my opinion is what makes this video pointless.
@@loren8888 “Secondly Chopin recognized a slower tempo for his etudes for his students to practice, as opposed to how one might play them faster.” I would like a source for this claim, please. Also, even if lento was the students’ *practice* tempos, that doesn’t necessarily mean that this should be these etudes’ *performance* tempos. Also, Stanhope acknowledges this discrepancy in the video (beginning at “Chopin himself seemed to be a bit confused as to what tempo this piece should be in”).
“It wasn’t seen that composers indicated 60 beats a minute in reference to the minute, and adjusted the speed accordingly.” I would like a source for this claim, too. Right now, that sounds like a mighty convenient excuse for someone to not pay an ounce of critical thought to the tempo - which is a shame because, as you suggested in a previous comment, we should care about Chopin’s intentions/goals when constructing these etudes. And if pianists perform these two etudes at such slow tempos, then I’m not sure what technique they’re hoping to build aside from replicating performances they’ve heard before. Any piece is possible at a slow enough tempo.
Also, out of curiosity, I went ahead and checked the first edition of the Op.10 etudes on IMSLP. It is, again, mighty convenient that most professionals play the other etudes pretty close to their indicated BPM respectively, but for some strange reason, No.3 and No.6 are the ONLY ones with tempos that can be left up to subjectivity. Can we please stop disregarding the facts? The tempo indicated is simply what it is. From what I understand (based on what musicologist, Artur Cimirro, has explained), the age of recording heavily influenced people’s interpretations over time. People would replicate their favorite performances of certain pieces and the composer’s intentions got lost in the midst of it.
whenever you play any piece you are always only interpreting it. those who cling to absolutism, which many who attribute themselves to the classical genre do, make me laugh from their snobby ignorance. the universe is relative. artistic works stand above subjective interpretation: they are to show the dedicated craftsmanship and creativity of the composer and controller; in this case chopin as composer and us humans as controllers.
Look at all these absolutists, who felt personally offended reading my words, finding themselves in their meaning, coming to try to explain their ignorant, snobby ways in the comment section below 👇 ⬇️
blah blah blah
@@nefarioustoast ok?
@@nefarioustoast I agree with you
These are etudes and are meant to develop a certain technique, so here it is imperative that it be played exactly as written. Otherwise it ceases to be an etude.
@@chasesutherland1168 playing them in a concert and practicing them at home are quite different things