I am a new to this forum and must admit to not knowing yet how to insert an attachment!

Would respondants therefore please look at the following site and download the pdf file attachment


http://www.chopinmusic.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=1

Frederic Chopin
Prelude Op28 No24


Would appreciate help with bars 14 and 18, that is top left hand bar(14) and the middle right hand bar (18).

1) In bar 14 there are 28 1/32nd notes which equates with 7 1/8th notes not 6 1/8th notes in the time signature.

2) In bar 14 the first half of the LH starts by showing alignment with the RH for the first 4 1/16 notes, with two RH 1/32 notes to each LH 1/16 notes: but this relationship falls down with final LH 1/8th aligning with five RH 1/16th notes - not four as I would expect.
For the second half of bar 14 LH, the 'alignment' which I thought was somewhat established in the first half does'nt work.

I have three versions of this prelude and in each case these bars seem to be all over the place, ( I'll get to bar 18 if someone is kind enough to help me with 14).

Please, I don't want to be told this piece is too hard for me, or, play slowly at first and it will come etc., etc.. because although self taught, I can cope; it is the theory I am after both carefully and succinctly explained.

Thank-youmistral170

It is in 6/8 so the basic pulse is 2 dotted crotchets per measure.
There are 28 notes in the RH, so that is 14 in each pulse
The whole point of the little notes in the RH is that they do not fit neatly into the time signature. That is why they are written as quavers - which taken literally would be nonsense - because to fit 28 of then in one bar they have to be faster than demi-semiquavers.


The correct "alignment" is as follows:
Divide the RH in groups of seven
Divide the LH in groups of 3 semiquavers length (3 semiquavers, or semiquaver + quaver)

The first note of each RH group aligns with the first note of each LH group.. Apart from that there is no alignment - they are out of phase.

In learning this part of the piece it is useful to practice 7 in the RH against 3 in the LH, but when you put it all together you have to establish the feeling of two beats in the bar (and not four)

Similar analysis will sort out the many similar passages later in the piece.

Hi MT,

Sent a PM ealier to thank you but can't see a record of it, so this is to reiterate my thanks. Your reply was very clear and very helpful.

I have posted on other forums but have always felt their was something missing in the replies I got. Just when i was about to dispair it now makes sense.

Kind regards,

M170

Thanks for the thanks. it is nice to be appreciated.

I learned this prelude about 25 years ago and it took ages to get it fluent (about 6 months!) I jst tried it again and suspect it might take another 6 months to revive it!

If you are looking for a good recording Martha Argerich's version is the best. But there are some good versions on YouTube.

Vladimir de Pachman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSay00MuWmU
(scratchy old recording - but superb playing)

a very young-looking Marizio Pollini:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKQi4GeE6FQ
(it is good - he is so much better now that he us probably embarrassed by it)

Artur Rubinstein:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUMxEzIrXuA...feature=related

and Evgeny Kissin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKIe7ti-Z_8...feature=related
(No. 24 is at 7:04)

Amazing how the same piece can sound so different under different hands

MT,

Very interested to hear about your experience with this piece. And thankyou for the links.

I would be pleased to have your comments on the pianist in the link below because it is this performance which have been using as a model to imitate. Not of the same standard as those you have recommended but not so fast either. I have it on my mp3 player and listen to daily before I practice.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRY-2f8AHK4

M170




Second message

MT

I hope you don't mind me troubling you with just one more question relating to this piece.

I perfectly understood your answer to my original question. It has enabled me to start practising with both
hands on some of the measures which had been a problem.

However I am still in difficulty with a problem common to all the measures 17,35,36,63 and 67, which is that they all have an extra semiquaver, to what I would expect,in the RH second half of the measure.

For example, measure 17 on the score I am using, shows the first half comprising a crochet followed by a quaver (=3/8) but the second half has 13 semiquavers which is one too many??!! A significant point, I think, is that there is a Tie between the last note of the first half and the first semiquaver of the second half. But again, how to align LH and RH is my problem!

Would be be extremely grateful if you could find the time to answer this but if not, thanks again for what you have already done.

Kind regards

M170

Aaaargh!

As a performance it is rather poor. Speedwise it is nowhere near the speed that is needed to make sense of the musical lines. It is a good speed for slow careful daily practice, but as a performance it is way too slow. You don't have to play as fast as Argerich, but it eventually needs to be quite a bit faster than this.

Also: the touch is heavy, the quality of tone is harsh and unattractive, the phrasing is atrocious, and it is swamped in too much pedal. It is a shame because the guy obviously has a lot of ability, and with the right guidance he could probably become an excellent pianist. He needs to stop posting sub-standard performances on YouTube and find a good teacher.

I don't play this piece especially well myself, and would not dream of inflicting it on anyone in a public performance or releasing a video of it, but I play it ten times better than this.

If you want to adopt a model for the sound - especially the wonderful phrasing and balance - I would go with the de Pachman video - despite the crummy recording quality. If you want to study good finger technique then it is a toss-up between Pollini and Kissin, but I would go for Pollini. They are both magnificent, but Pollini is probably more classically corect, and a better role model

Incidentally here is a much older Pollini playing it even better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZrxWmOtKTw...feature=related


In general, if you are going to adopt a role model, it is better to watch and listen to the best, rather than other amateurs that are struggling with the material. We all learn a lot subconsciously, so it is important to avoid watching and listening to sub-standard performances.


You are absolutely right that the odd number of notes is a problem. I think you need to stop thinking about alignment. Basically the RH is only guaranteed to align with the LH part on the first note of the group. This is called a Prelude, but in reality it is an etude in rhythmic independence of the hands.

With many polyrhythms it is useful to calculate the exact mathematical placement of the notes, and use it in slow practice. For example with 5 v 4 you can subdivide into 20 "mini-beats"

But with most of these runs of Chopin's (he has similar ones in his Nocturnes) You simply have to practice them in the RH until they are fluent and automatic, and practice the LH part until it too goes by itself. It is just too difficult, and not especially productive, to work out the exact placement of the notes of one hand relative to the other. When you have mastered the parts separately, then you put them together. Eventually, when you know the piece inside out, it all comes together.

MT

Thankyou for your lucid and prompt reply.

I shall take everything you said on-board and remain for ever grateful to you. You have helped more than you can imagine


M170