Rachmaninoff Prelude in E-Flat Major, Op.23, No.6

You're welcome, and thank you Andrew. I will be working to improve the sound, ... somehow

 

David,
Thanks for the ideas. I'm so partial to anything with "Renner" on it (both the SD and SF have Renner actions, as do the Bechsteins and Bosendorfers) that I would be reluctant to get otherwise, but I would definitely discuss it with a technician. I understand that my piano was made in 1995. Believe it or not, there is a former Baldwin factory (Cincinnati, not Conway) technician living here in NW Arkansas! If I want to consider a voicing job, I'll bring him in and test his hearing (of the piano not in general). I will try some of your ideas in my coming recordings.

Regards,
Eddy

 

Thanks David for your excellent information regarding recording technique. I don't fully understand the XY vs the A-B configurations for the mics in question, but I assume it has something to do with the shape of the pickup range - wide vs narrow. With my setup, I settled on the close-in option because it avoided picking up the external noises I myself was making (foot on the pedal, fingers on the keys, heavy breathing etc.) And I do understand what you are saying about the mechanical sounds from inside the piano body, though I haven't noticed that to be particularly audible with my setup. There is however another disadvantage to close-in placement that is worth mentioning. All microphones have their own sensitivity characteristics, and with closer placement, a particular piano's own overtones can cause exaggeration of some higher frequencies in the microphone causing a sort of ringing. Using a microphone placement further out can help to ameliorate this problem.

As for room ambience, I mean that there is always a quality to the sound determined by the size of the room, how much furniture, rugs, etc are in it to absorb the sound, how close to the walls the piano sits, how high the ceilings. I don't mean dogs barking or kids playing, that sort of thing - an issue no matter the placement of the mics. But listening to Eddy's recordings, I was able to guess the distance his mics were from the piano and that it was a space small for the instrument - a conclusion I reached by the ambient sound of the room. Before I moved to Denver, my piano sat in my small Victorian living room in San Francisco, a room with 10 foot ceilings, but only 14 ft square, really much too small for a 6'1" grand. But it's what I had. However, I hosted a soiree for one of my local piano performance groups, and there was no way 20 people would fit in that room. So I rather than have people out in the hall, I opened the double french doors into my bedroom, which were directly behind the piano to make more room for seating. The piano didn't move, and the room didn't change, but adding that extra airspace around it (doubling the size of the room) completely changed the sound quality. I couldn't believe the difference. Not only did it not sound as overpowering, the whole tonal perception changed. Placement of the mics does increasingly register those differences the further they are from the piano.

I will try again putting more distance between the piano and the mics as you suggested to Eddy to see what can be achieved. In the end, though, it all just depends on what gives the best result.

Thanks again for your insights! Dave C

 

Hi Dave C,

What I meant by A-B configuration is that XY forms an X if one mic is crossed over the other. Or the heads can come to a point like a V as seen in small portable recorders. A-B is completely different. There the two mics (a matched pair is best) placed on mic stands that are set farther back from the piano than with XY. The mic cylinders are absolutely parallel at all times with a 12 inch separation between them. Because they're farther back from the instrument, the mic heights will be about 4 1/2 to 5 feet. Some like to place a Jecklin disk between the mics to enhance stereo effect, although I I've never bothered with it. Instead of angling and pointing the mics down toward the soundboard as with close-in recording, I've found a better sound aiming them at the edge of the the raised piano lid either on the full prop (mics angled upward) or the shorter singer stick (mics angled downward to the edge). Intuitively, some people aim the mics straight ahead at the center of the raised lid when fully opened--not a good idea, as there is too much sound wash reflecting from that area. There's much more clarity as it rolls off the edge of the lid.

What you call room ambiance I call room acoustics, but I believe we're thinking about the same phenomenon, just different terminology.

I agree with Monica that we need to let discussion return to Eddy's Rachmaninoff piece, but I just wanted to answer your question.

David

 

Ah, what a gorgeous piece! Even among Rachmaninoff's output, the soaring transcendence of the melody of this prelude IMHO ranks up there with the very greatest tunes of the composer, alongside the concluding bars of the 2nd movement of the 2nd concerto and the celebrated 18th (?) variation of the Paganini rhapsody.

You seem to feel the music's ebb and flow quite well -- I am convinced by your strong musical intention at the peaks of the music's expansive phrases. There is, however, one fundamental issue that's distracting me: the rhythm of the LH. I would tend to view the lefthand here as an undulating, almost barcarolle-like accompaniment, so in my opinion it needs a bit more flow and regularity. While your internal rhythm from note to note is quite even, to my ears you're breaking up the flow at the tops and bottoms of phrases with a somewhat unseemly pause that almost lengthens the 16ths into an 8th (it might also help to be just a bit more transparent and quieter). That is, I like your general idea of romantically expanding here (and some nice squalling crescendos too btw), but the lefthand in general sounds a tad jerky to my ears. You might try playing just a slightly more leisurely overall tempo and then these hesitations might come into place all on their own. IMHO they should sound like expansions of the rhythm through rubato rather than hesitations (at least that's how I'm hearing them).

Dynamics are nice overall, though there are perhaps a few places you could be more attentive to the pianissimos. Toward the end, I thought I heard a few passages where you were less certain (from, e.g., measures 28-32 when the RH takes over). Some very nice phrasing on the last page, though the closing duo passage seemed slightly awkward in places and could use a bit more legato and, possibly, pedal (I know that's a tricky one). Maybe the ending ritard is a bit too much (you almost seem to temporarily stop, which, for me, interrupts the flow before the closing arpeggiando).

Regarding the sound, I don't think it's too bad (I'm no audiophile by any means), but perhaps just a bit tinny as others have noted. It has an overly high EQ feel to it (IMO).

Even with my reservations, though, I'm glad to hear a performance in which someone has the courage to experiment with his own personal voice and sense of phrasing. My general opinion is that if you temper a few of the rhythmic issues and smooth out a few passages, this will be a very fine performance indeed. I hope you find some use in my comments. I enjoyed listening.

Joe

 

Joe,
Thanks for listening and commenting. I will consider your suggestions. I can play this piece with the metronome, but really wish to use rubato throughout. I don't know if you've played this prelude but for those who haven't, let me say that it is a real challenge to keep the LH subordinate given all the activity given to it. In fact, since the LH is roughly 2-to-4 times or more as active as the right, all rubato is expressly manifest through the LH. For me, the tempo is determined by the melody, and the LH has to match it.

After listening carefully to both preludes that I submitted, I definitely prefer the sound to the No.4 instead. I will be trying some new ideas provided by listeners with way more experience than me in the recording side when I submit No.5, hopefully this week.

Regarding the "less certain" section, you're hearing it correctly, though it is not less certain with me. You're hearing an interpretive feature that evidently you don't care for, but I would like to explain. The cadence on the down beat of measure 23 is the large formal ending, with everything that follows a formal "after glow." (Essentially a song with a coda as long as the song itself.) Consequently, from that cadence to the end I am intentionally letting off momentum and energy. In measures 28-30, I actually want the RH subordinate to the LH, where the main melody appears repeatedly in sequence. This then shifts to the RH in m.31. In summary, I see the piece slowly building in the first two pages, achieving the main climax and the "main" ending with the authentic cadence to m.23. From there to the end it is running downward, with a secondary and subdued 2nd climax right before the codetta. Having said all that, my performance evidently wasn't thouroughly convincing to you, but I know that I still have significant room for acquiring mastery. (This stuff is for fall 2012)

As for the ending final flourish with a significant ritardando (perhaps too much for you), I believe I was subconciously trying to channel the spirit of the Rach 2, ii ending that you mention. Anyway, again, thanks for your thoughts. I can imagine that I may play this differently almost anytime I play it. Hopefully my Beethoven will hold together better for you. (That will be several weeks from now).

Regads,
Eddy

 

Thanks David for the clarification between XY and A-B. I did notice when I looked up Eddy's mics on the Shure website, it showed the mics on a single stand at 90 degrees to each other, i.e. crossed over each other. I had never seen that before, but I'm no expert on what all the newer options are. The technology is always changing and getting better! Great for we home recording musicians.

Since I am obviously using the A-B configuration (I have two separate and mismatched mics on separate stands), I will examine more of the possibilities for placement that you describe. And yes, you are right about the terminology. I've heard it described as both room acoustic or room ambience. I suppose ambience is more often used to describe room lighting or atmosphere, or in the case of sound as "ambient noise," so "room acoustic" is probably a better term.

Dave

 

Hey Dave,
How about a review of the 4th prelude of the set? :wink:
http://pianosociety.com/new/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4938&p=49608#p49608

 

Thought this was me, but probably SFDave.

 

Yep David. I call you David, and SFDave I call Dave (so far anyway)