link to the sheet music (several choices): http://imslp.org/wiki/18_Pieces,_Op.72_ ... sky,_Pyotr)

Recorded on Petrof baby grand, early 90's model (5' 10") with the lid down, H2 Zoom recorder.
I did not add reverb because of the amount of pedal in the piece. I *did* amplify it using Audacity.
The tags should be correct this time - turned out that my Audacity was 6 years out of date and did not do some of the tags the last time I uploaded a recording.

The very last note may seem odd; I tried to get the sound effect that the composer wanted, but it just would not show up on the recording. But I did not want to lift the lid because a lullaby should not be very percussive.

Comments and criticism are more than welcome, of course. I've never heard the piece other than my own rendition but figuring out a credible interpretation was not rocket science.


Tchaikovsky - Berceuse, Op. 72 No. 2 (6:17)

Hello, Stu,

I listened to this yesterday without score and today folowing it (though it is not to be found where you placed the link). It is in ways a strange-sounding piece I had never heard before, with its whole A section harmony consisting (not in the melody, of course) of an A major chord and the thumb (I imagine) alternating c with b natural. However, I have come to expect that from Slavic, principally Russian composers, of which Tchaikovsky is an example, maybe not as extreme as Rimsky-Korsakov, but much more Russian than the average critic will admit.

Yesterday it seemed to me agitated, but today, after listening with fresh ears, it seemed much better and any agitation is to be laid at Tchaikovsky's door, because there is so much happening all at the same time. It is an attractive piece, though I cannot imagine any babies sleeping though the middle section (though mine used to nod off during Chopin's c minor Etude) and I can detect no listeneable flaws. At times the right hand seems to fast, but, as the left is doing its job very well, I can only imagine this is how it should be.

I cannot detect what your problem is with the last chord. It seems to die off very soon. Is that it? I like the way it is written, with breves at bthe extremes and with quavers in the middle followed by rests. How does one play that as written? I have met the same thing in another score, but through a miracle I managed to strech my finger to reach a thirteenth, but here It will not work!

All in all a good one, this one.

It is if you supply the closing bracket yourself, this was a pasting accident (Stu's, not yours: the closing bracket is outside the link delimiter instead of inside).
or even Ab major
I agree, particularly those groups of arpeggiated chords which come hard on each other's heels, they just sound a bit "busy".
I get the slight feeling that Stu allows the piu forte section midway through the piece to excite him into moving the tempo up a notch or two, a temptation which I suspect ought to be resisted. There is also a bit of unevenness (not too noticeable) in the section later on, where the right hand has those triplet chords against the left hand duplets, but it seems to sort itself out once it gets going after the first bar or two. But this is difficult; triplets against duplets are hard enough to navigate when you're allowed to articulate all the notes, but here the triplets are tied to make the downbeats silent (well, not strictly silent, just not articulated); the only reference points (articulated downbeats) you have are in the left hand, and Stu is doing a great job of not allowing himself to over-emphasize them.
That's easy to answer, because "as written" also includes the pedal instructions, which indicate (at least in the version of the score I followed) that it is to be held for the entire length of the final two bars. That, in effect, makes the rests "impossible" and the final quaver equivalent to a semibreve. It reminds me of Eddy commenting on the impossibility of staccato in the piano's high undamped register. If there was a reason for writing it that way, perhaps it is that the articulation one uses to attack the last note would be a little different in the way one would choose to let one's fingers "land" on the them, between the two cases where the fingers would then stay put (as for a semibreve) or be soon lifted off again (for a quaver). I guess as written the effect would be to make the last quaver a touch more audible. It seems to me what is intended is that the final breves are to be held by pedal only, hands coming fully off during the first half of the second-last bar, you then play the last three octaves using both hands, and then most of the last bar is totally hands off.
Why would it not work here? No stretching is required: You could do it like this: In the 3rd-last bar, left hand plays Ab Eb using 5 1. In the 2nd-last bar right hand plays Ab C using 4 5, and then, during the 1st and 2nd beats, the left hand surrenders the Eb to right thumb (the key stays pressed, of course, the Eb is not re-articulated), and the left thumb then moves (also silently) to the Ab. You can then play the octave Ab chords using left hand 1 5. There is the complication, of course, that the upper note of the octave coincides with the 3-bar-long held Ab.
Indeed. Nicely played. I think the recording is too quiet, though. It should not have been necessary to amplify in Audacity. Was the input gain on the recorder high enough? If not, perhaps the playing was a bit too quiet too. Everything is relative, and given that the dynamic goes down to pppp, which must still be audible, then pp (which most of the piece is) needs to be robustly louder than pppp.

Thanks Richard and Rainer.
Sorry about the link. Let me try it again:

http://imslp.org/wiki/18_Pieces,_Op.72_(Tchaikovsky,_Pyotr)

Now that you have pointed out the agitation in the mid-section, I can imagine an interpretation without it. I'll try it in the future. I have a tendency to regard everything like a concert hall piece, and think that the audience needs a little "zip" now and then.

The way I think of getting the sound effect at the end is by re-depressing the keys without sounding and then releasing the pedal (contrary to the composer's marking). It's directed this way by Ravel when he wants that effect. (I think that's somewhere in in the Tombeau de Couperin.) For some reason it simply would not record, even though one can hear it "live" in my living room. Probably lifting the lid would help, but my piano sorely needs voicing and I did not want the percussive effect in a lullaby.

The tied triplets!! I recently dispensed advice to someone else on this board about that very thing and then failed to execute it at the beginning.

Hehe. Re-depressing keys without sounding them is a pretty cool trick, but in this instance there really is no need to resort to it because there is a much easier way to get the effect I think you're seeking. It involves using the sostenuto pedal, assuming your piano has one.

Do we know whether the pedal marking is the composer's or an editor's?

If it is the composer's, then we ought probably to presume that even though he wrote the rests, he did not intend them to imply silencing those notes. Actually it should be "that note" singular, not "those notes" plural, because only the lowest Ab can be silenced, as the other one coincides with one of the held notes.

On the other hand, if he did intend that note to be silenced, then perhaps the pedal marking in the last two bars should be re-interpreted as follows: When your left hand plays the Eb Ab in the 3rd-last bar, keep the fingers down until after the right hand has started its Ab C at the beginning of the 2nd-last bar. Then put down the sostenuto pedal (and possibly the normal sustain pedal too if you want a little more general resonance, or if you want to sustain sound inbetween re-articulations of the three octave Ab chords) and then take all fingers off. Then you can play the octave chords with ease, releasing the normal pedal (if used) as you play the third one, but keeping the sost ped down. The low Ab will then stop as soon as you lift the finger off it, and the other four notes will ring on. You may or may not then wish to re-press the normal pedal (if you were using it before) for a little more resonance than the sost ped will give on its own.

The problem, though, or perhaps it's the desired effect, is that the lowest of the four held notes will have the advantage over the other three of having been more recently refreshed.

But, Rainer, you seem to be reviewing my review!

A flat, as you say. I printed this out this morning and tried playing it (and notice other silly things I wrote about fingering ). Even easy to go though, after the Ismagilov prelude I am now practising! Mine is a Peters Edition and there is no medal marking, except for saying it must be used. It laso says the left hand must be pp, thought it seemed to me the accompaniment is divided between both hands, but let us not quibble.

About the last bar I have been taught that there is a difference between holding a note with the finger and holding the note with the pedal, releasing the finger. This must be the reasoning behind the way it is written, though if you can do it otherwise, so much the better!

Tell me, Stu, On bar 4, 3rd beat and a half, right hand, what fingering do you use from d flat/g/b flat to c/a flat?

Usually 4-2-1 to 3-1. The reason it works is that I strike the third beat with 4-2 but then substitute 5 for the 4. After that going to 4-2-1 can still be legato. (I believe this is usually notated by using "5-4" over the 2.)

As far as that last chord goes, no matter what I did the treble notes did not show up in the recording - completely drowned out by the bass. Too bad.

Why do you not simply slide your fingers from the black keys on to the white ones? You get an even better legato using less movement, diminushing any sensation of haste. Changing fingers at that speed can be tricky, adding to any tention already present. I instinctively did this and the passage comes out calmer.

Are we still talking about the second half of the fourth measure? The only black-to-white sliding available is the thumb in the right hand, and of course I did that.

Just a sanity check: This piece is in A-flat Major. An earlier comment that you made seemed like you were looking at a transposition in A.

Interesting piece and sympathetically played. No way would I have guessed Tchaikovsky! In fact, the maj/min alternation in the opening section sounded very like a precursor to Busoni's All'italia (no. 2 of his Seven Elegies).

I said A because I did not say A flat. Mine is just the same as yours.

I do not know about you, but fingering solutions after a time become so automatic it is hard to say which ones are involved unless one looks very carefully and has the piano at hand one is apt to say silly things. Of course you are right and it must have been what I had come up with too. You must excuse me, but not having had many teachers and that long time ago, I really do not know what is standard technique, what is a trick that only some know and which is my own technique.

I came across a recording of this on YouTube. Have you heard it (that is, after posting this?)

Thanks! For some reason it did not occur to me to look at YouTube for this. I still don't know who the artist is though, since I don't read Cyrillic. Then I notice that there are more - I'll have to listen to all when I have a chance.

There's also a recording of the entire opus 72 ("18 pieces") - unfortunately all in one mp3 file. I use youtube a lot for other things and just forget that it's there for classical.

I found one by an Italian pianist.

I think it may be for the best not to listen beforehand. That way one can ensure a new approach. If one listens before, one tends to model ones's performance on what has been heard (even if it is bad), wheareasd hearing after may help improve one's interpretation.

I use YouTube solely for classics. They have whole operas online, so I can watch and decide if I want to purchase.

Very well done Stu, and an interesting repertoire choice. Op.72 is a large set containing great riches and some fiendishly difficult piano writing. This one is a beautiful piece (though, as often with Tchaikovsky, a little repetitive). You handle it with great respect and care. I find little to nag about except that some of the bars marked pp are too loud, the triplet chords in the reprise are a little choppy, and the ending is not as quiet as it could be. But it's not an easy piece to hold together. Your arpeggios are very good in general, I am guessing you have fairly large hands. I'll put this on the site shortly.
If you'd care to write some text about the Op.72 set I would be grateful (I might add some lines of my own to it because I know this set well).

This one is up ! Do post more of this great opus.