Piano Society
Free Classical Keyboard Recordings
It is currently Thu Nov 27, 2014 2:37 am

All times are UTC - 1 hour




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:57 pm
Posts: 24
Hello, everyone. I'm new to this site, and although I have made an effort to understand the rules, if I do violate some protocol, please assume it's just because I'm a newbie.

First, let me start by thanking the members of pianosociety.com for exposing me to some corners of the piano repertoire that I found so compelling, I just had to learn them, with a special thanks to the überperformers like Chris, Monica, and John. My life has been greatly enriched as a result of your efforts.

A few years ago, I downloaded a few nocturnes of John Field from the web site and liked them so much, that I asked for CDs for Christmas, which I got. Then I discovered that I absolutely adored all of them, so I decided to learn the complete set. After doing an informal recital last month for my family and noticing that there are only recordings of 4 of them available here, I decided to record them and share them so that others can become familiar with these unaccountably neglected pieces. So I guess my initial audition is to present the complete set of the nocturnes. Even if my submissions are not accepted, I will feel I have accomplished something if others who are more advanced than I are motivated to learn the pieces. I may re-record some of them later, but for now, I have a piano concerto to learn (see my bio for context).

This is the first time I've ever tried to record myself, so it's possible that I haven't mastered the physical mechanics yet, but I think that the recording quality sounds pretty good. As for the performances, well, let's just say that none of them is flawless, but I'm not desperately unhappy with any of them either. Recording is really hard!

I'm also attaching a text file with my biographical information.

Enjoy!
--Mark


Attachments:
field-nocturne-1-nodine.mp3 [3.09 MiB]
Downloaded 127 times
field-nocturne-2-nodine.mp3 [3.49 MiB]
Downloaded 119 times
field-nocturne-3-nodine.mp3 [2.91 MiB]
Downloaded 126 times
field-nocturne-4-nodine.mp3 [4.53 MiB]
Downloaded 114 times
field-nocturne-5-nodine.mp3 [2.38 MiB]
Downloaded 120 times
field-nocturne-6-nodine.mp3 [4.13 MiB]
Downloaded 120 times
field-nocturne-7-nodine.mp3 [4.42 MiB]
Downloaded 113 times
field-nocturne-8-nodine.mp3 [3.57 MiB]
Downloaded 124 times
field-nocturne-9-nodine.mp3 [2.7 MiB]
Downloaded 118 times
field-nocturne-10-nodine.mp3 [2.95 MiB]
Downloaded 119 times
field-nocturne-11-nodine.mp3 [3.97 MiB]
Downloaded 111 times
field-nocturne-12-nodine.mp3 [2.43 MiB]
Downloaded 122 times
field-nocturne-13-nodine.mp3 [3.25 MiB]
Downloaded 108 times
field-nocturne-14-nodine.mp3 [7.1 MiB]
Downloaded 125 times
field-nocturne-15-nodine.mp3 [2.77 MiB]
Downloaded 123 times
field-nocturne-16-nodine.mp3 [3.49 MiB]
Downloaded 117 times
field-nocturne-17-nodine.mp3 [7.73 MiB]
Downloaded 124 times
field-nocturne-18-nodine.mp3 [4.36 MiB]
Downloaded 126 times

_________________
--Mark
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 11:27 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:45 am
Posts: 9600
Location: Netherlands
Wow, that is a real barrage of Field recordings :shock:

First of all welcome to PS, and great that you find many things of interest here.

I have to confess that I have zero affinity with Field's music. Probably my loss, but I can't bring myself to listen to all of this. So I sampled nrs. 1, 10
and 18. Assuming these are chronological it does not seem like there was much evolution in Field's music. It all seems the same to me, much RH note spinning over simple (dare I say trite) melodies, accompanied by standard LH figurations. Mind, this is just one person's narrow perception. Perhaps
there's much more to Field than meets the (my) eye. There must be, should be, if Chopin admired and took his clue from them.

Both the sound quality and playing seem quite acceptable to me, although in no.18 there are rather too many fumbles in the tricky-sounding RH passage work. This would normally be reason to ask for a re-recording. This puts me in a difficult position. I can't properly judge whether to admit
all of these pieces as they are without listening to them all in detail. Which I cannot do as it goes in one ear and out the other. I hope that some more
Field-minded people here will help out by reviewing these on a technical level. One general comment I can make is that you could employ a firmer touch
and create more dynamics and contrasts. And that the passage work should really be more fluent and glittering (that being where this music most relies on).

_________________
Nothing is always absolutely so -- Sturgeon's law
Chris Breemer


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 12:11 am
Posts: 750
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Hello, an interesting set of recordings. I'm probably more temperamentally attuned to these than Chris, so I'll have a little look at a few them (I don't have time to listen to all just now). I've listened to the ones Chris has plus a couple of others.

From what I've heard I think there is no reason not to put them on the site - the playing is clearly competent and, without having recourse to the scores, sounds accurate. I have a few general concerns about the presentation - there is a slight "sameness" within the sound. The playing is a little introverted, which is fine, one wouldn't want to be overly melodramatic with such music. However I think it would benefit from more dynamic variation and shading - I think particularly at the p/pp end of the spectrum which would also make the fortes more effective. Whether this is a piano issue, a microphone position issue, or a general issue of touch, I have no idea. These seem like pieces with some charm if played delicately enough and they come across as slightly humdrum - with music not of the first rank I feel one really has to put in that little bit of extra effort to get the character across.

There is a tendency to force some louder treble notes, for example the high Bb at 3.08 in the first piece (the high Gs c 2.20 in the second are slightly out of tune and I have a few concerns about nearby notes). Also there I heard a few marginal evenness/articulation problems in scalic passages and some ornamentation but it didn't trouble me all that much.

Despite my concerns, this is a worthy effort and to put a set like this together is an achievement in itself. I'd like to reiterate my opinion based on what I've heard so far that these should be on the main site.

_________________
My transcriptions cd


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:45 pm
Posts: 383
Location: New Jersey, USA
I just downloaded all of them and noticed that there are several that had not yet been downloaded.
Can we agree to wait until members have listened to all of them - I'll commit to doing just that over the next couple of days.

It would be great if they were put up; they're of real historical importance (at least I think I remember that from my music history course some decades ago!) and a complete set.

I'll report back soon. Perhaps others will too, and include in their comments which they've listened to.

_________________
stu kautsch


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 2:31 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:45 am
Posts: 9600
Location: Netherlands
A complete set like this is indeed quite an achievement, and a worthwhile addition to the site. yes, the playing is indeed competent and accurate.
What I need to know is whether some of these should be re-recorded, as we often ask people (including ourselves) to do, if we feel that there are
too many flubs. I really have my doubts about no.18 here but maybe we've gone overly picky over the years.

_________________
Nothing is always absolutely so -- Sturgeon's law
Chris Breemer


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:45 pm
Posts: 383
Location: New Jersey, USA
I've listened to the first six and will post my comments later, although I'll point other members so far to #3 for their opinion.

However, I have a request to make now for Mark.
In my edition (the Liszt), what you have indicated for #7 is #13. I listened to the beginning of what you have as #13, and it corresponds to #15 in my score.
Could you take a little time and double-check that you have the numbering right (at least according to your edition)? At least start with #7 and #13.
And tell us what edition you're using.
Thanks.

_________________
stu kautsch


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:45 pm
Posts: 383
Location: New Jersey, USA
And, while I'm at it, here's my notes for the first six (the numbers of which agree with the Liszt edition):

#1 on the turns, notes can get lost. One would like more rubato, IF this can be judged in the same way that a Chopin Nocturne is. I feel it could be a bit slower - "Molto Moderato" suggests that it should never feel rushed. A few notes get lost in fast passages (that might be faster than they need to be), but otherwise accurate.

#2 - the sixths on the first page demonstrate the tuning problems in the treble mentioned by andrew. However, this is played much more expressively than #1 and is quite acceptable as a performance. There are differences between the edition used and the one I'm using (the Liszt).

#3 - could use just a little more space at the beginning - I doubt that the silences is more than a half second. (We recommend one second.) This is for future reference. The little section in E Major does not sound very confident.
At measure 9, my edition's phrasing marks make it look like the E-flat's in the RH are part of the melody. I.e, the melody in the first 3 beats is A-flat E-flat E-flat. Perhaps using only the A-flat is tradition?? Difference in editions?
The 2-hand arpeggio at the end is very good.
But this, so far, is the best candidate for a re-recording IMHO. Hopefully other members will comment on this one.

#4 - much better, if just a touch too fast IMHO. However, again we have turns which have not been "worked out" in practice and sound like they're being "thrown away". Right after the 3-minute mark there are several measures in which the only melody is in the LH but it's getting lost - don't be afraid to bring this out more.

#5 - nice tempo. Nicely played, too. Be sure not to go any faster than this, though - could get clunky.

#6 - possible reading error at measure 4: Instead of A-G-F in the melody, my edition has A-A-F. Not a big deal, IMO. The 32nd notes in this piece come off sounding like they have not been practiced enough - very uneven. It's possible that this piece was not meant to go quite this fast. Not sure I like the mic placement here - we're hearing the jangling in the upper treble.

More to follow, perhaps after we look at the numbering problem (?!?)

_________________
stu kautsch


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:13 pm
Posts: 220
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
I listened to the first three. No2 is by far my favourite. I can understand what Chris means but wouldn't go that far myself, they have some charming qualities, but to listen to all at once is a stretch. If you want to inspire people to listen and comment you might consider commenting on other members' efforts, that's how this place works.

Not knowing the music at all I'm with Andrew, if we don't have these before what I heard is good enough for the site. It will take some time before I listen to all of them though.

Joachim


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:57 pm
Posts: 24
techneut wrote:
Wow, that is a real barrage of Field recordings :shock:

First of all welcome to PS, and great that you find many things of interest here.


Thanks, Chris.

techneut wrote:
I have to confess that I have zero affinity with Field's music. Probably my loss, but I can't bring myself to listen to all of this. So I sampled nrs. 1, 10
and 18. Assuming these are chronological it does not seem like there was much evolution in Field's music. It all seems the same to me, much RH note spinning over simple (dare I say trite) melodies, accompanied by standard LH figurations. Mind, this is just one person's narrow perception. Perhaps
there's much more to Field than meets the (my) eye. There must be, should be, if Chopin admired and took his clue from them.


Sorry, there's not much I can do about that. As they say in my native tongue: De gustibus non disputandum.

techneut wrote:
Both the sound quality and playing seem quite acceptable to me, although in no.18 there are rather too many fumbles in the tricky-sounding RH passage work. This would normally be reason to ask for a re-recording. This puts me in a difficult position. I can't properly judge whether to admit
all of these pieces as they are without listening to them all in detail. Which I cannot do as it goes in one ear and out the other. I hope that some more
Field-minded people here will help out by reviewing these on a technical level. One general comment I can make is that you could employ a firmer touch
and create more dynamics and contrasts. And that the passage work should really be more fluent and glittering (that being where this music most relies on).


I think 18 is one of my worst entries. The hardest ones, in my opinion, are 17, 18, and 14.

_________________
--Mark


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:57 pm
Posts: 24
andrew wrote:
There is a tendency to force some louder treble notes, for example the high Bb at 3.08 in the first piece[/quote/

I guess I overdid the sf.

andrew wrote:
(the high Gs c 2.20 in the second are slightly out of tune and I have a few concerns about nearby notes).


True. I just checked and the E,F, and G are all about 4-5 cents flatter than the surrounding notes. My piano was tuned last month, but it goes out of tune very quickly, sometimes a few cents within a day or two. According to my piano technician, Baldwin was cutting corners about the time I bought my piano and was saving $0.02 per piano by installing an inferior grade of wire for the strings. I'm strongly considering having my piano restrung next month.

Thanks for your comments.

_________________
--Mark


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:57 pm
Posts: 24
techneut wrote:
A complete set like this is indeed quite an achievement, and a worthwhile addition to the site. yes, the playing is indeed competent and accurate.
What I need to know is whether some of these should be re-recorded, as we often ask people (including ourselves) to do, if we feel that there are
too many flubs. I really have my doubts about no.18 here but maybe we've gone overly picky over the years.

I don't disagree with you about the flubs. 18 is probably the hardest one to get a complete recording of. I'm assuming that the standard is to record each piece from start to finish without any patching or splicing. It has a fast tempo with very little let-up technically. It was also impossible to play it at speed and still be able to turn the pages reliably on my iPad, so for this piece only, I printed out the 7 pages and splayed them all across the music stand.

Perhaps you could give me some recording advice. I've adjusted my mechanics a little bit since I started recording, and I have three+ recordings of each piece, not to mention many false starts. What I eventually settled on was to practice the piece I intended to record at about half speed, making sure that I had every note right first time, but not doing much with dynamics. I would then gradually increase the speed and expressivity until I felt ready to record. However, I found that it was easy to hit a plateau after a few hours where it actually got worse with additional practice. So many times, the recording I wound up with was one where I had almost all the notes right, but there was unevenness in the passagework because of fatigue. I also found that many of the wrong notes were just after navigating a difficult passage, where there was a let-down in concentration (mental fatigue, I suppose), sometimes in places I had never played wrong before. Perhaps I just need to spread my recording out over a longer period so that fatigue isn't as much of an issue?

I'm aware of where I've hit wrong notes and where there is unevenness. The frustration is knowing that I can do much better, and that for every wrong note in the recordings, I played that same passage correctly countless times. I'm happy to try rerecording some of them, in fact, I probably will do so, even if the current set is accepted. However, realistically, I think I need a break from them, and it will probably be better to wait until after my piano is restrung to resume.

Thanks, Chris, for sacrificing to listen to three of them. For the record, my personal favorite is 12.

_________________
--Mark


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:57 pm
Posts: 24
StuKautsch wrote:
I've listened to the first six and will post my comments later, although I'll point other members so far to #3 for their opinion.

However, I have a request to make now for Mark.
In my edition (the Liszt), what you have indicated for #7 is #13. I listened to the beginning of what you have as #13, and it corresponds to #15 in my score.
Could you take a little time and double-check that you have the numbering right (at least according to your edition)? At least start with #7 and #13.
And tell us what edition you're using.
Thanks.

Stu, I'm really thankful for your comments! I'll have to wait until tomorrow to respond to your detailed comments on 1-6, but let me address your issue on numbering. I was aware soon after I started working on the pieces that there is an inconsistency in numbering in different versions. I honestly don't know who was the publisher of the version I used; it can be found here: http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/09790. However, I do note that the numbering in this edition matches the numbers used by John O'Conor in his recording. For the record, here's how my version corresponds to the Liszt numbering:

My Liszt
1-6 1-6
7 13 Liszt is missing arpeggiations in LH
8 7
9 8
10 9
11 11
12 14
13 15
14 16
15 17
16 18
19 10, similar, but Liszt is missing 1st page and has other differences
18 12

--Mark

_________________
--Mark


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:45 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:45 am
Posts: 9600
Location: Netherlands
I've listened to some more of the nocturnes that were mentioned here. No.3 seems a little clunky, a borderline candidate for a re-recording.
The ones you say are most difficult, 14, 17, and 18, indeed sound hard on account of all the RH passagework, and it is here that quite some
accidents happen. If you promise to re-record these in the none too distant future we can put this complete set on the site. Indeed it seems wise
to take a little break for now before digging into them again. Perhaps by that time the piano will stay a bit better in tune, too :)

_________________
Nothing is always absolutely so -- Sturgeon's law
Chris Breemer


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:43 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:45 am
Posts: 9600
Location: Netherlands
BTW - I did not see that attachment with your bio !?

_________________
Nothing is always absolutely so -- Sturgeon's law
Chris Breemer


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:53 am
Posts: 14
techneut wrote:
I have to confess that I have zero affinity with Field's music.

Have you listened to any of his piano concerti?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:45 pm
Posts: 383
Location: New Jersey, USA
A few more notes... more tomorrow

#7 (#13 in the Liszt) - in the RH obligatto, I wish there was more of a rhythm - the listener loses the sense of the triplet. I was also losing some of the high G's on the first page, but then it should be pointed out that I listen through speakers (so I may be the only one making this comment).

#8 (#7 in the Liszt) - there is much to like in your rendition of this. The delicacy is handled as such and it's really a charming piece. In the passages where the composer is trying to fit as many notes as possible per measure in the RH (second page), it would help if you brought out the LH more. The listener would at least be fully informed that the tempo has slowed down a little but that "I **meant** to do that", instead of sounding a little muddled.

#9 (#8 in the Liszt) - this was fine until the last page. Your ornaments need to sound more authoritative, as if you know exactly what's going on. The little cadenza 12 measures from the end is pretty - let the listener hear all the notes. It does not have to be *fast*, just *pretty*. At the end of the third measure from the end, there is an unnecessary break between the A and the B-flat at the beginning of the next measure. Slow is down if you have to, but let the leading tone lead to the tonic. (My humble opinion).

_________________
stu kautsch


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:57 pm
Posts: 24
StuKautsch wrote:
#1 on the turns, notes can get lost. One would like more rubato, IF this can be judged in the same way that a Chopin Nocturne is. I feel it could be a bit slower - "Molto Moderato" suggests that it should never feel rushed. A few notes get lost in fast passages (that might be faster than they need to be), but otherwise accurate.

I agree about the rubato and the turns, and there were some parts where I was rushing. I'm not hearing any dropped notes in the fast passages, though, with the possible exception of the final F in the middle measure on the bottom of the second page of the Liszt edition, just before the turn. The Liszt edition also has an extra grace note before the fortzando Bb in the last line of the piece that's not in my edition.

I've experimented with different tempi on this piece, and I think you're right about its being better at a slower tempo.
StuKautsch wrote:
#2 - the sixths on the first page demonstrate the tuning problems in the treble mentioned by andrew. However, this is played much more expressively than #1 and is quite acceptable as a performance. There are differences between the edition used and the one I'm using (the Liszt).

Sigh. That's one of the reasons I was pushing to do the recording over such a short period of time that I couldn't get everything to the standard I wanted: because every day of delay was one day the piano got farther out of tune. Maybe it comes from playing so many years on a piano that loses its tune quickly, but my ears are unfortunately (or fortunately?) not sensitive enough to pick up on the tuning issue you noticed in the sixths. Yes, the Liszt edition seems to have some extra turns in it.
StuKautsch wrote:
#3 - could use just a little more space at the beginning - I doubt that the silences is more than a half second. (We recommend one second.) This is for future reference. The little section in E Major does not sound very confident.
At measure 9, my edition's phrasing marks make it look like the E-flat's in the RH are part of the melody. I.e, the melody in the first 3 beats is A-flat E-flat E-flat. Perhaps using only the A-flat is tradition?? Difference in editions?
The 2-hand arpeggio at the end is very good.
But this, so far, is the best candidate for a re-recording IMHO. Hopefully other members will comment on this one.

I could probably add an extra half second at the beginning easily enough. I see what you mean about the E major section: there is a noticeable flub there, the crescendo is missing, and there's a spacing out just after the forzando. This last is an artifact of having to execute a half page turn with the left hand here. I should probably bite the bullet and print out all the pages for this one so I'm not distracted with turning pages.

As for measure 9, that is indeed a difference in edition. The Peters Edition (which is identical to the Russian one I pointed you to) has all the eighth- and sixteenth-note stems going down (i.e., joined at the bottom), with an ascending dotted quarter note stem on the A and Bb.

Both you and Chris say this one is a good candidate for re-recording, but I'm not sure what I'd do differently except for fixing the missed notes in the E major section. Help me understand what the main issue is. Evenness? Dropping the volume of the non-melody notes?
StuKautsch wrote:
#4 - much better, if just a touch too fast IMHO. However, again we have turns which have not been "worked out" in practice and sound like they're being "thrown away". Right after the 3-minute mark there are several measures in which the only melody is in the LH but it's getting lost - don't be afraid to bring this out more.

The really hard part about the LH melody is synchronizing with the RH. In fact, John O'Conor stretches the tempo way out before the down beats, presumably to achieve synchrony.
StuKautsch wrote:
#5 - nice tempo. Nicely played, too. Be sure not to go any faster than this, though - could get clunky.

Thanks.
StuKautsch wrote:

#6 - possible reading error at measure 4: Instead of A-G-F in the melody, my edition has A-A-F. Not a big deal, IMO. The 32nd notes in this piece come off sounding like they have not been practiced enough - very uneven. It's possible that this piece was not meant to go quite this fast. Not sure I like the mic placement here - we're hearing the jangling in the upper treble.

Yes, that was a reading error. I noticed it when I audited my recording. It's not a mistake I normally make; it's probably because I had just been practicing another part of the piece where the melody did go A-G-F. I notice that I tended to swallow the 5th note in the 32-note quintuples; is that what you're referring to as unevenness?

Once again, thanks for the detailed comments!

_________________
--Mark


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:30 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:38 pm
Posts: 8532
Hello Mark, and welcome to Piano Society. It's nice to see more Field up here! I have only played three of them, and they are the ones I listened to here.

Overall, I think you play nicely and have a firm grip on the notes. However, to me your playing is a little hard around the edges. I think a more gentler and elegant touch would make a world of difference. Also, I don't hear hardly any dynamic changes, and there are plenty in these nocturnes. It could be your recording gear...I noticed that you used a compression rate of only 128. Most of us here use 192 which gives a better sound.

As far as specifics on the three of your recordings I listened to: No. 1 - In my opinion, it's too fast. But that could just be me. No. 5 - bar 24--I show the F in the RH is tied. It sounds funny when you played to F's. Probably a difference in editions. Which brings me to no. 15 - which in my book is no. 17.

I see now there are some discrepancies in the Field books. If it helps you any, my book is a Kalmus edition and I attached the table of contents so you can see how my book numbers them.

Regarding re-recording - I think we could put your entire set up on the site, provided you re-record those that the other members think need improving. Maybe we could give a member something like a month or two to do re-do, but if they don't, then the set is taken down. We just don't want someone out there randomly landing on a recording that has several mistakes and then thinks that ALL our recordings are like that. I hope you understand. :) Or we'd just take down those files with the mistakes. Just thinking aloud here...


Attachments:
Field.jpg
Field.jpg [ 137.76 KiB | Viewed 1202 times ]

_________________
"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

my videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/monicapiano
my personal website: http://www.monicaalianello.com
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:57 pm
Posts: 24
techneut wrote:
BTW - I did not see that attachment with your bio !?

True. I don't see it either. Strange, it said it was uploading it. Ahh. There was an error message "The extension txt is not allowed." that I hadn't noticed.

Okay, I'll just past the text in below.

--Mark

-----------------------
Mark Nodine

Mark was born in 1956 and started piano lessons at age six at the Bryn
Mawr Conservatory of Music in Pennsylvania, where he continued until
age 18, first under the tutelage of Mme. Baroni, and later under
Taylor Redden. He applied to, but was not accepted to Oberlin
Conservatory and Northwestern University, and went to college at
Tulane University. It was his intention his freshman year to get a
Bachelor of Fine Arts in piano performance and a Bachelor of Science
in mathematics. However, in talking with some of the upperclassman
music majors, he discovered two alarming facts: (1) the music majors
had come to be so critical about performances that they could only
hear the mistakes after a while, and no longer could enjoy music, and
(2) there is an inherent trade-off between being a musician and
earning enough to be able to eat. Accordingly, Mark dropped the piano
major and instead did a triple major in mathematics, physics, and
chemistry. He eventually went on to get a Ph.D. in Computer Science
from Brown University, and has worked in the semiconductor industry
since 1995. He has been living in Austin with his wife and children
since 1996.

It is actually a good thing that Mark decided not to pursue music as a
career, because, frankly, he was not very good at it when he was in
college. Although he had been practicing 6 to 8 hours per day in high
school, nevertheless he had poor technique that led to his having a
very heavy, wooden touch.

When Mark was in his 30s, his grandfather passed away, and left him
enough inheritance money to buy a new Baldwin baby grand piano. At
that point, he decided to take some lessons, and engaged the services
of Robbert de Vries in the Boston area. During his first 90-minute
lesson, his teacher talked about Mark's posture, his shoulders, his
elbows, his wrists, and his thumbs. Fingers were not even mentioned
during that first lesson. Essentially, Robbert took a bulldozer to
Mark's technique and started from the ground up, teaching him how to
keep the tension out of his hands and to play with minimal effort. As
a result, Mark was able to develop the light touch that had eluded him
up until then.

Although Mark only took lessons from Robbert for a couple of years, he
has continued playing the piano for fun. Over the last decade or so,
Mark has learned all the Mozart sonatas, most of the Beethoven
sonatas, most of the Chopin repertoire, Ravel, Rachmaninoff, Glinka,
Franck, Fauré, and most recently Field. He also has season tickets to
the Austin Symphony, and has a hobby that whenever the orchestra plays
a piano concerto, he learns the piano part prior to the concert. The
concertos so far are the Grieg, Liszt #2, Beethoven #2, Rachmaninoff
#2, Tchaikovsky #1, Brahms #1, Prokofiev #4, and now Schumann.

_________________
--Mark


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:57 pm
Posts: 24
pianolady wrote:
Hello Mark, and welcome to Piano Society. It's nice to see more Field up here! I have only played three of them, and they are the ones I listened to here.

Overall, I think you play nicely and have a firm grip on the notes. However, to me your playing is a little hard around the edges. I think a more gentler and elegant touch would make a world of difference. Also, I don't hear hardly any dynamic changes, and there are plenty in these nocturnes. It could be your recording gear...I noticed that you used a compression rate of only 128. Most of us here use 192 which gives a better sound.

As far as specifics on the three of your recordings I listened to: No. 1 - In my opinion, it's too fast. But that could just be me. No. 5 - bar 24--I show the F in the RH is tied. It sounds funny when you played to F's. Probably a difference in editions. Which brings me to no. 15 - which in my book is no. 17.

I see now there are some discrepancies in the Field books. If it helps you any, my book is a Kalmus edition and I attached the table of contents so you can see how my book numbers them.

Regarding re-recording - I think we could put your entire set up on the site, provided you re-record those that the other members think need improving. Maybe we could give a member something like a month or two to do re-do, but if they don't, then the set is taken down. We just don't want someone out there randomly landing on a recording that has several mistakes and then thinks that ALL our recordings are like that. I hope you understand. :) Or we'd just take down those files with the mistakes. Just thinking aloud here...

Thanks, Monica. Big fan here.

The Kalmus edition seems to be the same as the Liszt edition referred to by Stu, which I've downloaded from IMSLP for reference. Mine is identical to the Peters edition.

The .m4a files that GarageBand put into iTunes were at 192, but when I converted them to .mp3 for submission, I downsampled to 128. It'd be easy enough to leave them at 192. In fact, I could easily resubmit them all at higher bit rate before they go live.

Yes, the tie in bar 24 of number 5 is different in my edition: it shows a phrase ending on the downbeat, with a new phrase starting on the upbeat (as in your edition. I appreciate your comment about a more delicate touch, though Chris commented that I should have a firmer touch, so I'm not quite sure what to make of it.

As far as re-recording goes, there's nobody who wants more than I do to have my recordings reflect the highest possible standard. I'm happy to do more recording, but realistically I'm not sure I can quite make the two month deadline. I'm planning to have my piano restrung next month, which will give much better sound quality and hopefully better stability in the tuning. I'd rather not tune it now before sending it out and I don't want to record more with the currently out-of-tune piano. I believe the entire restringing takes about 3-4 weeks, most of which is waiting for it to settle while repeatedly tuning it. So it may not be back until the first week in March, after which I have to have it tuned once more before I can start working up the pieces again for recording. But I will do the recording as soon as reasonably possible. In fact, I'll probably redo some that aren't required.

I don't know what is the practice of Piano Society when there are competing numberings for pieces. I see that all the numberings of the pieces that are already there are according to the Kalmus/Liszt edition.

Thanks for your observations.

_________________
--Mark


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:35 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:38 pm
Posts: 8532
mnodine wrote:
Thanks, Monica. Big fan here.

You're too kind, but thank you! :)



mnodine wrote:
The .m4a files that GarageBand put into iTunes were at 192, but when I converted them to .mp3 for submission, I downsampled to 128. It'd be easy enough to leave them at 192. In fact, I could easily resubmit them all at higher bit rate before they go live.

It certainly can't hurt, and may improve the dynamics.

mnodine wrote:
Yes, the tie in bar 24 of number 5 is different in my edition: it shows a phrase ending on the downbeat, with a new phrase starting on the upbeat (as in your edition. I appreciate your comment about a more delicate touch, though Chris commented that I should have a firmer touch, so I'm not quite sure what to make of it.

I just mean that to me these pieces should be liquid and sparkling...like little gems with sharp points trickling down onto a warm, soft, fuzzy fur blanket. I'm not explaining this very well....

mnodine wrote:
As far as re-recording goes, there's nobody who wants more than I do to have my recordings reflect the highest possible standard. I'm happy to do more recording, but realistically I'm not sure I can quite make the two month deadline. I'm planning to have my piano restrung next month, which will give much better sound quality and hopefully better stability in the tuning. I'd rather not tune it now before sending it out and I don't want to record more with the currently out-of-tune piano. I believe the entire restringing takes about 3-4 weeks, most of which is waiting for it to settle while repeatedly tuning it. So it may not be back until the first week in March, after which I have to have it tuned once more before I can start working up the pieces again for recording. But I will do the recording as soon as reasonably possible. In fact, I'll probably redo some that aren't required.

Ok, waiting until your piano is restrung and settled is a reasonable request. I just know that in the early days, I was impatient and uploaded recordings that were not that great, and now I am sorry I did so. And embarrassed! I've had to do a lot of re-recording myself, and still doing so today. Another thing, just be aware that recordings you have on the main site might end up on other sites as well, which is another reason why we insist on high-quality recordings.

mnodine wrote:
I don't know what is the practice of Piano Society when there are competing numberings for pieces. I see that all the numberings of the pieces that are already there are according to the Kalmus/Liszt edition.
Looks like I'm the one who started the system on the site. I'll do a little checking around....we want to use whatever system is most common. Meantime, can you please send me your photo and then I can at least start making your artist page. My colleague will be happy to add your recordings to the site once you've submitted the new batch.

_________________
"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

my videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/monicapiano
my personal website: http://www.monicaalianello.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:43 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:45 am
Posts: 9600
Location: Netherlands
pianolady wrote:
My colleague will be happy to add your recordings to the site once you've submitted the new batch.

Sure, but please also correct the ID3 tags in accordance with this post viewtopic.php?f=12&t=5115

The file names are already compliant, that is good.

_________________
Nothing is always absolutely so -- Sturgeon's law
Chris Breemer


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 12:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:45 pm
Posts: 383
Location: New Jersey, USA
Hate to criticize and run, but I have a big evening. I'll try to get back to any replies I need to make over the weekend.

I'll post the 3 I listened to today to assure the administrators that someone covered these:

#10 (#9 in the Liszt) - what a strange piece. Very lovely, and you play it nicely. In measures 15 and 16, the ends of the little turns get lost.

#11 - fine job, and generally good dynamics in the interior of phrases which helps move the piece along. IMO, the dynamics and tempi on the last page could have been stretched more (the Liszt edition has a 'ppp' at one point).

#12 (#14 in the Liszt); very nice. There are obviously differences in editions here, so I don't want to make detailed comments.

_________________
stu kautsch


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:45 pm
Posts: 383
Location: New Jersey, USA
Had time this morning for three more movements:

#13 (#15 in the Liszt); fine. The ornaments are generally better here than elsewhere.

#14 (#16 in the Liszt); This is the least nocturne-like of them so far, and about twice as long as it should have been. (Field's fault, not yours.) That said, the performance is generally good, and the articulation in this is better than many of the other recordings. It's not likely that many artists are going to rush to record this one, so it should stand as is.

15 (#17 in the Liszt); this needs to have a second of silence at the beginning - there is almost no pause. Is your software equal to patching a second of "nothing" to the beginning? The Liszt edition has an A-natural at measure 15; you play an A-Flat. When the hands play 16th's together, it sounds very uneven. And the 16th note passages in the RH that include ornaments sound very uncomfortable. The rest of the piece is fine; if you concentrated a little practice on the 2 or 3 problem spots you could get a good recording. This is a candidate for a do-over: a little work would go a long way.

I'll try to get the last 3 by the end of the weekend. Whether this goes up now or in a few months, this is an important offering and deserves attention.

_________________
stu kautsch


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:21 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:45 am
Posts: 9600
Location: Netherlands
jontyl wrote:
Have you listened to any of his piano concerti?

It randomly tried the 2nd and 5th. They do have their moments, but there's just too much note spinning, endlessly milking a couple of ideas and formulas.
I guess this music is just not for me. I generally dislike Mendelssohn's piano music too, with a couple of exceptions.

_________________
Nothing is always absolutely so -- Sturgeon's law
Chris Breemer


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 12:11 am
Posts: 750
Location: Edinburgh, UK
I have had a listen to a few more of them. I'm listening without score, and Stu has already provided copious notes, so I'll stick to general impressions.

4. Again the upper treble sounds a touch harsh. The filigree ornamentation is mostly clear and convincing; a couple of rough spots (3.15?) but nothing too bad. In a perfect world I think it would me slightly lighter. What was it someone said about Liszt's playing of such ornamentation? "a string of gossamer pearls in the morning dew"? I'm somewhat paraphrasing the quote, I think. 2.50 - slip? Some nice poetic moments.

5. The downward intervals in the rh opening were put across rather nicely. My favourite of the pieces so far, and some good dynamic control. Bravo for the shaping of the ending.

6. Tuning issues on the high F# and elsewhere, but I've already mentioned this earlier. 1.25 the ornamental notes sound rough (and overall they are too "foreground"). I'd suggest your tempo is maybe a touch too fast, but I think that gives the wrong temperamental idea - I'd prefer to say it should be more relaxed. I don't know how the score is printed, but again Liszt was very astute in how he often notated such things - with the ornamentation in a smaller, grace note font - gives a visual and psychological cue to interpretation.

7. In the opening, I assume the melody lies in the tenor - if so it's a rather uninteresting melody! It's a bit lost with the other things going on. I'm not sure I understand the musical point of this piece.

8. Nice phrasing around 1.00. Around 2.10 it sounds like you are pushed for time getting all the ornamental notes in; I completely agree with Stu's advice. Nice observation of the rests (no messy over-pedal!), complementing the delicate little notes around them.

In general I haven't changed my overall impressions. The upper treble is a little harsh/brittle, yes there are a few little imperfections but I don't see that they are sufficiently damaging to prevent the recordings being put up. I'm not sure I see the need for re-recording of individual pieces: my hunch is that that's just tinkering with a project that has already been satisfactorily completed.

_________________
My transcriptions cd


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:45 pm
Posts: 383
Location: New Jersey, USA
I can complete my notes on individual pieces today. Tomorrow I'll read the entire stream and make appropriate replies.

#16 (#18 in the Liszt); not a terribly inspiring piece of music but played all right. There are differences in the editions but I was able to follow along just fine.

#17 (#10 in the Liszt); First, one of the editors was taking a lot of liberty! I was able to get along, but just. Second, this one needs to be redone. There's a lot of good playing here, but too many of the fast passages lose too many notes and are too uneven. A piece like this requires many 'takes'; it will also require more practice. Unfortunately, it does not look like the piece affords the pianist any way of cutting and pasting from various takes. By the way, the last page is very nice.

#18 (#12 in the Liszt); as others have noted, there are problems with this recording and it should be redone. Actually, I think most of it is in better shape than #3 or #17.

_________________
stu kautsch


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:45 pm
Posts: 383
Location: New Jersey, USA
A general observation:

Keeping 18 pieces under your hands is a huge undertaking for an amateur. I know - I'm in the middle of an 18-piece set myself. The only way I could conceivably handle it is by giving up all other music for a year or two, and I cannot do that. So I work on one or two of them at a time. There are many in this set that you could record pretty well with minimal rework, then you'd have them 'out of the way' and tackle the others that require more work. If you do not intend on performing the entire set, there's nothing wrong with this strategy.

That said, I understand the hardware issues and would understand any approach that the administrators want to take. I do believe that 3 or 4 re-workings are called for; whether they want to wait 2 or 3 months and then have to pool all of Mark's recordings into a 'complete set' box, or just put it up that way now probably involves technical issues with which I'm not acquainted.

It would be nice to have the complete Field Nocturnes, though...

_________________
stu kautsch


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:20 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:38 pm
Posts: 8532
Thank you, Stu and Andrew, for taking the time to check all these out.:D The other administrator and I would never have time to do it all AND put it on the site. Now, I wonder where Mark is?
Mark, I hope you understand that we are not always so nitpicky with submissions. But you are new, so therefore we don't know your playing very well yet. :)

_________________
"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

my videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/monicapiano
my personal website: http://www.monicaalianello.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:35 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:45 am
Posts: 9600
Location: Netherlands
Actually we ARE that nitpicky by default here, whether someone is new here or not. It's character building :)

Mark, if you provide the 192Kbs versions with correct ID3 tags I'll put this set on the site and leave it to you whether you want to re-record some.
I guess the value of a complete collection (somewhat) outweighs the flaws in some of the individual items. I'll need to re-listen to no.3 and
specifically state what bones I had to pick with it (though I had far more trouble with no.18).

_________________
Nothing is always absolutely so -- Sturgeon's law
Chris Breemer


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:53 am
Posts: 14
This was an interesting read: http://theoryofmusic.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/on-john-fields-nocturnes-by-franz-liszt-1859/

Liszt was very complimentary!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2014 10:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:35 am
Posts: 1418
Location: Gulfport, MS, USA
jontyl wrote:

Field, on the other hand, was apparently not! My friend Piotrek helped me translate this letter from Edward Wolff to Józef Nowakowski (both were Polish pianists and acquaintances of Chopin). Only this excerpt survived:

Wolff wrote:
[...] Chopin is already very well known and appreciated here [in Vienna]. Nb. Field is here, and making his acquaintance was required. I was at Graff's, as usual, and I played my Concerto: suddenly enters Field; I immediately guessed that it was he, because Graff said to me that he was expecting him any moment. Of course I got up right away, though he asked me to keep playing for him; it goes without saying that I did not want to play and excused myself by saying it was because I wanted to hear him first; he too began to play. You and Chopin have it right that he plays like some kind of beginner; no skill, no style, and no ability to conquer any difficulties; in a word, a poor player. But he has his advantages, steady German playing, slow, eins, zwei, drei, slow trills, but always with four fingers. He played the b Concerto [?]; he played cleanly, sure and steady. Here you have Field, and do not be surprised that I never liked him. He rants a lot about Paris and Italy. He praised Chopin, Kalkbrenner, Moscheles, and especially Hummel, and greatly disapproved of Herz and Liszt. Today he is giving a concert in the theater, and I am to have lunch with him today. A very polite and kind-hearted man. At the end he begged me, so I played him something. I was a little daring; I fired off with the Allegro and Rondo, which I've done and finished here. He very much enjoyed it, and in the end I played the Chopin Etudes and my Mazury. He said to me in French: "Those youths are truly diabolical." I had to play him passages of the Rondo several times. I did a few mazurkas à la Chopin, but increasingly more eccentric. [...]

Of course, that was in August 1835, not exactly the pinnacle of Liszt's career, though it was fairly close to the pinnacle of his career as a performer; he had already dissociated himself from the likes of Herz in Paris, but perhaps not yet in Vienna (or in Field's and Wolff's estimations). Field died less than two years later.

This letter is really most interesting because it gives a glimpse of what the second tier of Romantic virtuosi thought of themselves.

_________________
"Z Czernym poznałem się na panie brat—na dwa fortepiana często z nim u niego grywałem. Dobry człowiek, ale nic więcej..." - Fryderyk Chopin


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 9:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:57 pm
Posts: 24
Sorry; I've been busy the past couple of nights.

Thanks for the offer to post my recordings as long as I resubmit them at 192kbps and fix the ID3 tags. I know how to do the former, but I don't seem to be able to control (or even see) what's in the ID3 tags. Could someone please tell me which tags are not set properly?

In light of what Monica said about the recordings developing a life of their own once they're posted, I'm inclined to wait until my piano gets back from being restrung and trying to rerecord most if not all of them before going public. In addition to the obvious blunders, Stu and Andrew have given me some great ideas for reworking parts of the pieces. H/T to them.

Waiting will also give me a chance to return the favor by commenting on the auditions of others.

I'm still stumped by one thing, though. Both Stu and Chris have said that #3 is high on the list of items to be re-recorded, but I've listened to it with my most critical hat, and I'm still overall very pleased with it. Granted I lost concentration for a moment during the E major section, but other than that, I don't hear very much objectionable in my recording. Chris called the playing "clunky", but I'm wondering if that's not just the nature of the piece. If I'm going to re-record, Id like to know what to focus on doing differently! (As for the silence at the beginning, I'm pretty sure I can add that without re-recording.)

_________________
--Mark


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 3:46 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:38 pm
Posts: 8532
Ok Mark, we will wait until you re-submit the set.

_________________
"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

my videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/monicapiano
my personal website: http://www.monicaalianello.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 4:09 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:45 am
Posts: 9600
Location: Netherlands
mnodine wrote:
I know how to do the former, but I don't seem to be able to control (or even see) what's in the ID3 tags. Could someone please tell me which tags are not set properly?
Please refer to this post viewtopic.php?f=12&t=5115
In the section ID3 TAGGING it explains how the various important tags must be set. The Name/Title, Album, and Composer tags do not comply here.

mnodine wrote:
I'm still stumped by one thing, though. Both Stu and Chris have said that #3 is high on the list of items to be re-recorded, but I've listened to it with my most critical hat, and I'm still overall very pleased with it. Granted I lost concentration for a moment during the E major section, but other than that, I don't hear very much objectionable in my recording. Chris called the playing "clunky", but I'm wondering if that's not just the nature of the piece. If I'm going to re-record, Id like to know what to focus on doing differently!
I listened to it again and there is nothing really objectionable about it. Just a little laboured and uneven, it does not have the elegance that it could have. I could mention many specific points but I'm sure you hear it yourself, and if
you love these pieces you'll undoubtedly want to have another go at them later. Or so I hope :)

_________________
Nothing is always absolutely so -- Sturgeon's law
Chris Breemer


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 4:43 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:38 pm
Posts: 8532
Wow, this is so weird....I just turned on my internet radio station and Field's 1st nocturne is playing! :shock:

_________________
"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

my videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/monicapiano
my personal website: http://www.monicaalianello.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:45 pm
Posts: 383
Location: New Jersey, USA
My apologies to all for being absent for a few days. Glad to see that things are moving along.

Mark, I don't know what software you're using, but on Audacity, the opportunity to control the bit rate is upon exporting; when the filename dialog box appears click the "options". For editing tags, either hit 'OK' on the filename dialog box (after choosing a name), and the Metadata dialog box will appear, or choose "Edit Metadata ..." under the "File" menu.

If you're using a different editor, my first try would be exploring "Properties", the "File" menu, or maybe the online Help.

To all: Perhaps the "box" that Mark's set is put in could include the name of the edition? This would clue the user about numbering and the other differences with the Liszt.

My main problem with #3 is that it does not sound confident, particularly the passage around 1 minute in (the brief voyage into E Major before returning to A-flat. In the Liszt, this portion is marked "Piu Moderato" with a ritard into it and then shortly after the return to A-flat. So the composer is giving the performer plenty of leeway (tempo-wise) to make this otherwise-awkward passage sing a little. The other members do not feel that warrants a re-recording, and I'll go along with that. (The other objection I had was the difference in the apparent melody, which is a phenomenon of editions.)

_________________
stu kautsch


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Field Nocturnes
PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 2:55 pm
Posts: 33
Location: Chester
Hi, I listened to nocturnes 1, 4 and 5. Completing the whole set is quite an achievement, so very well done.

I liked nocturne 1, you have quite a nice, solid sound, which suits the piece. You played accurately, though there could be a bit more sensitivity and rubato. Nocturne 4 is one of my favourites (and also probably the hardest to play well). You have some of the rhythm slightly wrong in the A section, giving it an almost jaunty feel sometimes. It was also a little quick for me, and again could do with some more rubato. A good effort, though. Nocturne 5 could do with more phrasing and rubato.

My piano teacher at university used to tell me do try to go for a "dreamy" feel when executing the ornaments in the Field nocturnes.

I really hope you polish these nocturnes and re-record some of them, as it would be good to have the whole set on the site.

Mark


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group