We all know that Rimsky-Korsakov wrote very little for the piano, though he did use it in a number of works: the piano concerto, the piano trio, the piano and wind quintet and in all his songs. These seem to be unkown outside Russia (as his operas are also unknown). One of them, written quite ealy in his career and very popular in Russia, gives some idea of what was to come later on. While no solo piano version exists, it is not such a complex piece that it really requires transcribing, henc e I do not use that term. I simply took the score for voice and piano and reduced it while playing. I only needed to supress two quavers in the vocal part (one a repeated g which is also present in the undelying harmony, and a d, which again is part of the arpeggio, coming in a quaver later.

The recording setup is almost the same, only that I placed the recorder on the sofa and not on its back. It seemes to give a fuller sound and there are no peaks, even when playing ff. The piano is the same old groaner, the Gayer.

I hope the tags are acceptable, I am using my other computer and my version of Audacity does not allow me to edit the information without saving the MP3.

Rimsky-Korsakov - 4 Romances op 2 No 2 - The Nightingale and the Rose (3:03)

Hi Richard,
Nice to see you again. This is a pretty piece..it's got an exotic sound which appeals to me.
However, I'm listening to this on the train and also on a new phone...I hear quite a lot of hiss that comes in and out. But I will check this later on my home computer. Also, what is the meter for this piece? I can't really find the beat. Can you post the score or a link?

Hi Richard,

I had a listen to your recording of the nightingale and the rose. I have not heard it before. There should be more Korsakov on the site, looks like there is just one from The Tale of the Tsar Sultan. I think you do a good job of creating the characterful impression of a nightingale through your pedal usage and phrasing. For criticism, I would have liked more of a high point/climax somewhere in the piece dynamics-wise. Parts like from before 1:13 to the threshold and beyond 1:13 seem to require more forte playing. Granted, I have not seen the score, just what I think should be there. Nevermind what Korsakov wrote...

The tag is for the most part good, however, the one piano piece of korsakovs on the site (flight of the bumblebee) is written:

rimskykorsakov-piecename-lastnameofartist

also, for the title in the advanced tag editor I see you used his full name. Use this instead:

R.Korsakov - The Nightingale and the Rose, Op. 2, No. 2


Enjoyed listening to this! -- it's quite a salon piece

Ok, I just listened to this at home. The hiss still bothers me, but it may not bother anyone else. I wish others would listen and say what they think. It's maybe just my problem (as usual).

Regarding your playing, I think you play this very sensitively and the more I listen to this piece, the more I like it. However, I did find the score and your opening rhythm is off - that's why I thought things didn't add up right. Specifically, it's in the second bar...the RH should start on the third beat. And there are several bars in the middle that don't add to three beats either. I know you hate when people listen to your recordings with a score in their hand and then nitpick your playing to death, Richard, and probably you will say that you are playing this as you feel it, which is mostly fine, but I still can't put this up. If I felt that something was amiss with the rhythm, then somebody else out there could also. I'm sorry!!

Regarding your tags - Riley has it mostly right...

you should name the file: rimskykorsakov-2-2-willmer

This piece is part of set called "4 Romances" and it's the second piece.

but the title tag should be: Rimsky-Korsakov - The Nightingale and the Rose, Op. 2, no. 2

Hi Richard,

Thanks for giving us a lesser known work by Rimsky-Korsakov. I believe you play it quite well. Your playing, the piano and your recording protocol combine to give us a good overall impression in my opinion. I don't have the score, so cannot comment on Monica's observation on rhythm and counting, but you'll need to reexamine the places she indicated. Those suggestions can always improve a performance and have helped me on occasion too.

A note to Monica:

I listened carefully to Richard's recording and could not detect any hiss. Please don't take it that I'm contradicting you--I'm not. It might be that your ears are more sensitive and can hear something not apparent to me. Also I have a touch of tinnitus. All I can say about that is that the the hiss is not enough to overcome my tinnitus such that it jumps out at me. I listened through Sony Professional headphones. They're not the top of the line headphones, but better than many. Perhaps some other listeners here could comment on this aspect.

David

Thank you three for listening and for your comments.

Thank you for the clarification about the op 2 No 2. I had only got as far as the op number. Even though I have a DVD with this work, it made no rreference to the number and I am not sure my score does either.

I am happy you like this piece. I have liked it ever since I heard last year a recording of Anna Netrebko singing it. It had not, however, occured to me to try to play it solo until twoo weeks ago. Or maybe I may post a recording with the little gir (aged three) singing the melody , but then you might not put it up either . Actually, she was present, taking a nap, her head on a pillow propped up against the sounboard!


Anyway, I did not consider this recording final (hence the lack of precision in the naming and the tags). Maybe the first bars are not so much off rythm but perhaps too fast in relation to the rest of the piece. I noticed that too, but, being a trial piece (to see how you would have liked the overall performance in view to a definitve recording) I decided not to edit it (another take of the opening, that is).

So now I know I am on the right track, so I shall procede (without the little girl singing, I know! ).

This seems to work fine as an arrangement. The piano, as usual, doesn't do you any favours, but you can only play what's there in front of you! I don't hear any hiss, but am only listening through speakers. Comparing it to the orchestral version, perhaps your tempo is a little brisk: but then again I doubt your piano has the same capacity to sustain sound that an orchestra has, so it's probably best to be faster rather than slower.

Indeed, Andrew, Some of the orchestral versions last up to 3:30. I have tried that and I cannot say the result was all that wonderful, though slower I feel the piece better, but I would be alone there. The version I have with Olga Borodina and piano (A DVD only available in Russia) runs into 2:20, which is about what we have here.

If you turn the volume almost to maximum you will hear some pulsating hiss, a problem inherent to sound filter, I am afraid, as they tend to remove the hiss from the silent parts, while leaving it where there is sound. But then at a high volume you will also hear the page turn and the soft pedal at the end, which I did not cut, as they did not seem too invasive.

For the pp - ff that Riley raises ( ) I myself was surprised that the final result was not as contrasted as I had thought I had made it.

I will try correcting the tempo of the first bars, so I please Monica, being careful not to ruin all else

It's not the tempo, but rather the counting that will please me. There is no reason to play the first two bars at a different tempo than the following bars. Also, I think if you play the 32nd notes just a little bit faster, then the rhythm of the bars will sound better. A couple places in the middle too need to have a clear 3/4 beat. I know you what you're trying to do there, but I think one still needs to be able to tell what the meter is.

Regarding the hiss - I only have my volume up half-way, so I don't know what else to say. I do know that if I were to take this recording and transfer it to a CD and then played that CD on my home stereo system and/or my car, I would hear a ton of hiss. The hiss seems to get amplified, for some reason.

However, Richard, I wish you would have told me that this was a 'work in progress'. I would have listened differently.

All right, Monica, get ready for the new one, where you will hear loud and clear "ONE, two three, ONE two three UMpity dupmtity um and so on"!

Earphones tend, even at low volumes, to make all clear, so that in any recording (even comercial ones) all merits and demerits come out loud and clear and a pin dropped can sound like a cannon shot. This is not to justify the hiss, which is there and you can hear, but which I do not know how to supress, but rather to call attention to the pitfalls of earphones.

By the way, did you hear the clock? I did not stop it this time but maybe the new microphone position helped.

It is not a work in progress in that sense and I believe you heard it as it should have been heard, but a work that will benefit from criticism from others than I. After all, no one is a good judge of himself, as the Bible says.

All is quiet now. Maybe I shall try again to record.

That's funny..makes me laugh.

Very interesting piece. I agree with Monica on the rhythm of the first few bars being suspect. There's also a hesitance on the first few repeated notes, as if the beat comes in a sixteenth late, though at around 1:15 they seem to be better. I think you could also show a greater range of dynamics on the recitative-like passages (e.g you could start softer do a crescendo on the lead-in back to the A part at 0:57), otherwise it's good playing (I think you handle 1:16 onwards very well).

I have re-recorded it (do you hear the Umpity-dumpity-dum? ) and substituted it for the original file. I hope this one is better, though I must say when the "voice" comes in it seems to drag. Maybe this is why no one ever transcribed it.

The tags ought to be correct: I could use my main computer to do it (the other day it was ocupied by the little gir who was watching "An American in Paris" for the 30th time or so.

I'm going to be an american in Paris pretty soon! Also I'll be in your city but only for one day.

Anyway, I like this version better..although I can't look at the score from where I am right now. Still, I'm willing to put this one up. Your tags are fine but the file name is wrong. It's 2, not 12. Riley, if you read this maybe you can process the file and cchange it to 2-2-Willmer and then I'll do the rest.

Ok, Richard, I just replaced your file with a link. Check to see that it plays ok.