You mention the rh D. I have heard it otherwise, with the accent not on the e, as i do it, but on the d, becoming da daaaa. Which is right I do not know, but the e seems to nme so much like an appoggiatura that I did it that way.
I think accenting either the Eb or the D is OK, it seems to work both ways, but that's not what I meant. I thought that the LH G-Bb was too weak (the first time only), and this made me hear the G-Bb as a beat 3 and the D as a beat 1.
I deb to differ a little from your comments. In bar 13 the phrase ends in a very short a and then, without any pause or anything, the melody starts again on the d. I did count to perfection on previous times, only to feel the phrase cut off too abruptly, this is why I have "miscounted": in order to make a smooth break.
But that's the thing, you say "without a pause or anything", and that's how it should be. But your break isn't smooth, the pause you are inserting results in a jarring rhythmic discontinuity. If you want to bring out the separation between the phrases, do so by means of dynamics or perhaps the tiniest bit of rubato, but not by major messing with the timing. In any case, there is nothing to say that the A should be "very short". There is no staccato on it, it is beamed together with the following notes, and notice that the LH D-F# lasts a full quarter, deliberately helping to cover up any unintentional break you might make in the RH between the A and D. But you are making too much of the break and are playing bar 13 almost as a 7/8 bar by playing the D nearly an 8th late, where the 3rd beat should be.
I think there should be no more of a break before the D here than in bars 7, 23, and 29, or, with different notes, in bars 15 and 31. In all these places your recording brings out the phrase or sub-phrase separations well enough without the help of deliberate special effects, and so bar 13 should basically likewise be properly in time.
at bar 41 you are right; it was noticeable to me, but I did not think it merited a whole rerecording, as there seemed to be much here that was good. I did not want to cut the break and I did not want to edit it with a second take. While I am not against stopping and repeating a passage which goes wrong, I am yet to record in pieces and then glue them together and call it a recording.
I agree that a piece as short as this should not need to be broken down into smaller bits to be recorded separately and then spliced together.
The low g is late and it is late because the first time I pressed the key, on time, no note came and I had to press again!
Then I thought, does it really matter?
It's the last note of the piece, and the root of the chord. Of course it matters. If it were only a little late, that would be one thing, but it's still so quiet that I had to turn up the volume to convince myself it was really there at all.
In the other three instances I must say I did not notice anything amiss. Are they that obvious?
They are to me.
These may all just seem little things, but there are enough of them, I suggest, to make it worth having another go.
I was wondering how you feel about bars 19 and 35. Do you see the RH D-Bb as ending a phrase [so that, counting from the middle of bar 34 we get da-DI-da-DI-da], or do you see the LH 2nd beat chord as in a way extending the melody by one note [so that we get da-DI-da-DI-da-DA]? If the former, the RH might benefit from being phrased off a bit more, and the LH chord from being voiced down a bit. It's strange how the ear can sometimes manufacture phantom notes, here it almost sounds as if the RH were playing 3 notes D-Bb-G (the G in question being an octave above the one the LH plays); I'm sure I'm just imagining it, and that you aren't really playing that RH G, but sometimes it sounds almost as if you were. Do you know what I mean?