Discussion in 'Submission Room' started by Didier, Jul 1, 2007.
I'm still swearing....
See? One dot. And there is only one explanation....(aliens!)
Yes, they're out to get you again. But that's ok, you're not really paranoid :wink:
At least I am right! (ok, end of discussion - I win - sorry, Didier)
There are two rules on PS:
1) Monica is always right.
2) In the unlikely case Monica has it wrong, rule 1) applies.
wow, that´s sounds much better than all your versions before. You are improving more and more. Your rhythmic steadiness is quite perfect now!!! :!:
There only stay a few things to do, which you also will master, I´m sure:
bar 6 and 7: you play e-flat-major instead of e-flat-minor. (I know it´s only here e-flat-minor, at the parallel passages it´s always e-flat-major. The devil seems truely to be in the detail, isn´t it? :wink: )
bar 7 with pickup in the second as-major-part: you play a couple of wrong notes here respective you let out some notes of the chords.
bar 17-20 of the second as-major-part: you drop sometimes the e-flat in the bass-voice.
bar 5 of the second f-sharp-minor-part: the last sixteenth has an a in the upper voice, which is an important part of the melody. It´s not audible in your recording. I just mention this, because the melody sounds so unusual at this place (for those people, who know it very well).
Again in the last four bars you drop sometimes the e-flat in the bass voice.
If you would like to use your vacations for to do further improved versions I will give you some detailed tips on them.
You play this with a great musicality. I´m deeply impressed and I love this as much as the wonderful sound-quality of this recording. Did you choose any effect of Bricasti M7, btw?
Thanks. It's lovely to look at and listen to! :wink:
I love this piece and I can tell that you do too.The return of the second subject is one of the most desperate moments in the piano repertoire for me and I can never resist the temptation to play it fortissimo even though my edition has it marked forte.I feel inspired by your playing here to make a recording of it just as soon as I have some spare time.
My God! I've played a so long time this major chord instead of the minor one...
Thank you very much Andreas for detecting this mistake.
I took care on trying to play all the notes in the chords, but there are so many.... :wink:
Many thanks for your very accurate listening, your kind words and your help proposal. I worked hard on this piece during several days. I can't proceed any more for the moment. For changing, I just started a piece from Bach, the score of which I received on yesterday, from USA because I found it on Internet only here despite it is from an European publisher. Don't ask which one, it's a surprise. :wink:
For the reverb, it's set from Acousticas M7 Berlin hall, less opulent, so clearer, than Vienna, Amsterdam, Worchester, etc. In SIR, the stetch is set to 67%, the predelay to 20 ms and the wet level to -25 dB.
I did not see your post when I posted my answer to Andreas. Yes the return of the second subject is poignancy. My score also incates f. I may have listen too much Radu Lupu here. Arrau, Fischer,Nat, and Serkin for instance did not play a so large dynamic contrast. Thank you for this comment that will make me think further to my interpretation while waiting with much interest for listening to your one.
I came back to this piece 2 months ago. Here attached the result of my work. I think that it is better than my previous version currently available from PS and I hope that you will enjoy it.
I'm not sure this is better than the existing version. This new one seems more rhythmically distorted, with tempi fluctuating wildly and bars made longer or shorter for no apparent reason. Have you ever tried playing this with a metronome, if only to get a feel of how long the notes should be ? Alternatively, listening back whilst tapping out all the nine eights in a bar ? I believe that one should be able to first play in strict time before applying rubato. Both
versions suffer equally from inaudible/missing notes in the RH chords.
I am really sure that it is better, especially rhythmically. For instance, the pattern dotted quarter - eighth - quarter - long, which is much present this piece, is much better as shown by the attached clip 1 where I have juxtaposed the first two bars from the old version, the new one and the recording by Koroliov for Tacet.
In my first version, the quarter is too short with respect to the eighth.
The attached clip 2 shows an instability at the beginning of the second theme in the old version, which has disappeared in the new one.
Did you note also that I maintain the tempo in the f passage while there is a rush in the old version where the eighth chords are replaced by quarter chords ?
Yes these dotted figures are better now, at least most or many or them. However I found the rhythm and tempo distortions here far more worrying than in the previous. There is just no pules to it. Please do me that favor, try play it once with a metronome. Forget about interpretation and feeling, just focus on keeping in sync with it. It will be tedious and confronting but I believe you need to go through this torture before you can get a piece right. Any teacher
would tell you the same.
Also, I would not replace the existing recording until you also make all of the RH notes audible.
For this second version, I paid more attention to make sound all the notes in the choral parts.
I do not understand what this means. Perhaps that it is too slow ? I agree that my 7'10" performance is on the slow side, but only 15" longer than Koroliov, within a few seconds on par with Arrau in 1956 or Uchida, and much faster than Feltsman (8'37").
Haha pules, I meant pulse
No I don't mind it being slow. That's an interpretational choice. What I was trying to say that it is very irregular, as if Schubert had written bars of different meter and indicated different tempi, both of which he did not. But you have listened to a number of performances which I haven't. If these fine pianists do something similar then you are excused. Still seems to me you are studiously avoiding the metronome though
Not at all. Please, could you listen to the attached recording ? Does it sound so different from what I am submitting ? :wink:
Sounds a lot better actually But you still need to count... You play bar 5 as if it were a 12/8 bar, and in the last but one bar you drop a beat. Some of the dotted figures near are awkwardly rushed, the last note played as if it were a sixteenth. Can your metronome count groups, i.e. give a stronger tick on every first beat ?
I don't seem to hear much difference. Maybe my ears are on the way out, and you play them so delicately that I just can't hear them.
The rhythmic distortions are the same always, I don't think you are going to improve here, or else this is maybe just your style and/or the way you want it to sound. I would not bother with it if you didn't play so beautifully otherwise. I believe you invest a lot, and successfully, in a beautiful tone, but you seem take your rhythm and tempi just as they comes. Perhaps you don't want to be in control of that, I don't know.
I guess you want to replace your recording on the site with the latest one and leave it at that for the time being ? I don't want to get into regularly replacing recordings with only marginal improvemnts.
Sorry, it is a reading mistake that I have been doing for a long time...
I detected this recurrent error during my work and corrected it. It came back during the recording sessions. There is the same error in the last exposition of this theme in my recording.
Thank you for your proposal. I am correcting the above errors first.
That was a beautiful performance and range of expression.
Separate names with a comma.