What a great choice ! I love the neglected 4th Scherzo dearly, more so than the other scherzi. There is something Italianate and luminous to it, reminding me of the 3rd Sonata, the Barcarolle and the late Nocturnes. Your performance is convincing and there are many good things. The relaxed conception works although sometimes it's just a little sedate. Where Riley mentioned good dynamics and snappy dotted rhythms, those are precisely my main points of critique. A lot of the continuous ebb and flow seems to be missing, and these dotted rhythms often sound forced and murky (though some are good). There are at least two ugly cuts I heard, you may want to take a bit more care when splicing.
I know you are not a stickler for note perfection, and there are a fair amount of mistakes throughout the piece. Most are inconsequential but some I would personally have corrected. Let me just point out some that I think are read errors rather than slips:
Thanks Chris for your accurate listening, with the usual amount of criticism, sorry, objectivity
. I was just kidding, I really like to be challenged (at least in this matter !). Regarding the general tempo, I would like to be able to play the piece more rapidly. It is just my technical limits which makes me adopt this 'relaxed' way...
- Bar 42, d should be d# (same mistake repeated twice later on)
Sorry, here I vote non guilty ! I've played d# and it sounds so (at least to my ears...)
- Bar 122, those 3 RH notes should be one tone higher
Again, non guilty. We may have different editions? Mine is the Paderevski's one.
- Bar 138, you don't play the G in RH, making the harmony very bland
True, but it is so difficult to catch, and so fugitive...
- In the transition from the Piu Lento to the recapitulation, you omit to repeat some chords/octaves. Maybe an editorial thing?
Oups, there are three octaves missing !
You got me this time
- At 11:37 (sorry, given up counting bar numbers by then) you again play d instead of d#
It is a natural D in my score.
I think the Piu Lento could have been a bit softer and more varied, it's nice but a bit monochrome. In the coda I miss a sense of urgency and there seem to be more slips than before. The double octaves are not very accurate but the final run is impressive. It seems to be divided in octaves, which I am not quite sure I like.
I hope all this sounds objective rather than negative. It's a strong performance despite the flaws. Shall we put it up like this of do you want to have another try ?
As for naming and tagging, it's almost OIK but please use the opus number in both filename and Name/Title tag.
I have changed the tagg. For the music... it's another story ! I agree with all your last remarks. But I have worked on this piece for something like 8 months now, and I am a little bit tired with it. And owing to my technical limitations, I doubt I am able to do globally a better work... As I wrote, it was a challenge for me to mount a big Chopin's piece, but I know this one is very close (maybe slightly beyond ?) my level...
Thanks for posting this beautiful work! I think you have done a most credible job of performing it. Personally, I think you stand at the precepice of a truely masterful performance, but this performance is very worthy of posting for listeners to enjoy around the world. It seems to me that your execution has a slight bit of a governor placed on it. By this I mean that IMO this piece requires times of great abandon and elan to bring it off in its true spirit, and though you are certainly playing it all, there are times of mild reservation in the runs. In my opinion, you should continue to pursue this work until not only you can play the piece (which you can do now), but until you can play "with" the piece as a cat does with its capture before it kills it! In otherwords, to continue to pursue a more transcendental command of the technical aspects so as to allow for play at the emotional level. If I have to object to anything, I would also indicate the playing of D instead of D# in the two areas cited by Chris. In the manuscript/original edition commentary provided in the Paderewski edition, there is no mention of variant readings on this matter, so it would appear that it was a read/learning error on your part. Despite this, I think this should be hosted because for the great majority of listeners this slight error would not be appreciated.
Again thanks for the hard work and fine playing!
Thanks Eddy. As for the D vs. D# issue, there is a # on the score, and this is really what I play ! For the rest, as I wrote before, I am not doing what I would like to do in this piece, but to rise the level, it is not a matter of working more, but rather to change of lifestyle (e.g. playing 6 hours of piano a day instead of 1-2 !).
When you talk about precepice, my problem is not to sleep and to fall in, which is not an easy task... Anyway, thank you for your encouraging advice. When I retire, this could motivate me to make a come back toward this beautiful piece.