(03-24-2013, 06:41 AM)Chronofox Wrote: I listened to a number of Arrau's interpretations of the nocturnes. While he does excel at rubato, I find his cantabile to be worse than Rubinstein's. Take this playing, for example:
Arrau starts off the piece a bit too loud, and follows the rest of the nocturne with somewhat confusing variations in dynamics. The cantabile tone demands clarity but also needs consistent shifting from louds to softs, as a singer is never monotone. I felt that Arrau lacked Rubinstein's tenderness in playing this nocturne, as the beginning of this piece is supposed to sound flitting and ephemeral but is rather presented in too solid a manner. Now, this nocturne has a doppio movimento section at 1:47 which is supposed to be very light, but requires a sudden crescendo at 2:06 reminiscent of one with a high temper bursting into violence. Because the beginning is already quite loud, Arrau fails to deliver the necessary softness at the start of the doppio movimento to make this crescendo noticeable, where as Rubinstein is more successful.
Arrau does, however, surpass Rubinstein in a few other nocturnes through his rubato alone, especially in the popular op. 9 no. 2. But his main downfall is a somewhat faulty articulation of cantabile.
Not invalid points in their own right, but I want to point out a few things:
1. Nowhere in Nocturne no. 5 did Chopin ever write "cantabile". Only Nocturne no. 4, which is a part of op.15 is marked cantabile (adagio cantabile). To say that all of Chopin's works should be played like a singer is absurd.
2. The crescendo you're referring to in the doppio movimento is less noticeable because that is what Claudio Arrau wants, not because of less sensitivity to dynamics. I have the score right in front of me, and immediately preceding the crescendo marking are numerous large hairpins without accompanying dynamic markings, making them completely up to the performer. I have a CD-quality version of the nocturne and the crescendo is not only noticeable, it is exciting in its subtlety. Not to mention, to compare two performer's degree of expression to such a degree is just ridiculous and I want no part in it. We are talking about a piece of music here, and a Romantic one at that; exactly how the performer wants to express it is in this case completely up to the performer. As long as he respects the "sotto voce" marking, as Claudio certainly does.
Also, I'm listening to Rubinstein's version, and while it is excellent there are quite a few similar "errors" in his playing, if you seriously want to say Rubinstein is better than Claudio because he follows the score more closely. For example:
completely ignoring all of the marcatos
playing slurs non-legato
playing a note with a marcato sign and marked con forza at mf/f
I could go on, but frankly I find it disgusting to list off errors in a freaking Chopin performance. I find Claudio's use of dynamics to be perfect and the most representative of what Chopin's music means to me. Obviously it does not to you, so let's leave it at that.
EDIT: I want to make one thing abundantly clear: I don't hate Rubinstein. He is a fantastic pianist and to call him overrated would be absurd. I just don't think he plays Chopin well. He understands Chopin in his own way, and I in my own way (Hell, I think Arrau has many missed opportunities that I would key in on in my playing). That, to me, is the beauty of Chopin. Just because I don't like Rubinstein's playing doesn't make him a bad pianist, I just don't like the way he plays Chopin. Period. His really strict and reserved style lends itself incredibly well to, say, the Beethoven piano sonatas, which seem to me to be incredibly well done. I'm listening to Op. 8 mvt 2 right now and his playing there is simply stunning.
(This post was last modified: 03-24-2013, 11:37 AM by Bridge.)
(03-24-2013, 06:41 AM)Chronofox Wrote: I listened to a number of Arrau's interpretations of the nocturnes. While he does excel at rubato, I find his cantabile to be worse than Rubinstein's. Take this playing, for example:
Arrau starts off the piece a bit too loud, and follows the rest of the nocturne with somewhat confusing variations in dynamics. The cantabile tone demands clarity but also needs consistent shifting from louds to softs, as a singer is never monotone. I felt that Arrau lacked Rubinstein's tenderness in playing this nocturne, as the beginning of this piece is supposed to sound flitting and ephemeral but is rather presented in too solid a manner. Now, this nocturne has a doppio movimento section at 1:47 which is supposed to be very light, but requires a sudden crescendo at 2:06 reminiscent of one with a high temper bursting into violence. Because the beginning is already quite loud, Arrau fails to deliver the necessary softness at the start of the doppio movimento to make this crescendo noticeable, where as Rubinstein is more successful.
Arrau does, however, surpass Rubinstein in a few other nocturnes through his rubato alone, especially in the popular op. 9 no. 2. But his main downfall is a somewhat faulty articulation of cantabile.
Not invalid points in their own right, but I want to point out a few things:
1. Nowhere in Nocturne no. 5 did Chopin ever write "cantabile". Only Nocturne no. 4, which is a part of op.15 is marked cantabile (adagio cantabile). To say that all of Chopin's works should be played like a singer is absurd.
2. The crescendo you're referring to in the doppio movimento is less noticeable because that is what Claudio Arrau wants, not because of less sensitivity to dynamics. I have the score right in front of me, and immediately preceding the crescendo marking are numerous large hairpins without accompanying dynamic markings, making them completely up to the performer. I have a CD-quality version of the nocturne and the crescendo is not only noticeable, it is exciting in its subtlety. Not to mention, to compare two performer's degree of expression to such a degree is just ridiculous and I want no part in it. We are talking about a piece of music here, and a Romantic one at that; exactly how the performer wants to express it is in this case completely up to the performer. As long as he respects the "sotto voce" marking, as Claudio certainly does.
Also, I'm listening to Rubinstein's version, and while it is excellent there are quite a few similar "errors" in his playing, if you seriously want to say Rubinstein is better than Claudio because he follows the score more closely. For example:
completely ignoring all of the marcatos
playing slurs non-legato
playing a note with a marcato sign and marked con forza at mf/f
I could go on, but frankly I find it disgusting to list off errors in a freaking Chopin performance. I find Claudio's use of dynamics to be perfect and the most representative of what Chopin's music means to me. Obviously it does not to you, so let's leave it at that.
EDIT: I want to make one thing abundantly clear: I don't hate Rubinstein. He is a fantastic pianist and to call him overrated would be absurd. I just don't think he plays Chopin well. He understands Chopin in his own way, and I in my own way (Hell, I think Arrau has many missed opportunities that I would key in on in my playing). That, to me, is the beauty of Chopin. Just because I don't like Rubinstein's playing doesn't make him a bad pianist, I just don't like the way he plays Chopin. Period. His really strict and reserved style lends itself incredibly well to, say, the Beethoven piano sonatas, which seem to me to be incredibly well done. I'm listening to Op. 8 mvt 2 right now and his playing there is simply stunning.
(03-24-2013, 02:22 PM)Naked? No Wrote: Too many.. weird... words...
What a great chance to learn:
cantabile = Italian for "singing" (can be adv. or adj. depending on context) - it means to be played in a singing style
nocturne = a piece of music inspired by, or representative of night
op. = opus, Latin for "work", an artistic effort
adagio = Italian for "slowly"
crescendo and dynamics = a steady increase in note intensity over a designated period of time - the intensity of any given note, ranging from ppp (sometimes more p's) which stands for pianissimo possible (as soft as possibile) to fff (sometimes more f's) which stands for fortissimo possibile (with as much force as possible)
doppio movimento = double the tempo
score = sheet music, all of the instructions followed by the conductor or player
sotto voce = I believe it means something like "below the voice" in Italian. In vocal music it means to whisper the notes or half-sing very quietly and in instrumental music it means essentially the same thing only referring to the notes being played softly
marcato = a sign written above individual notes (or writing marcato over a passage) that tells the performer to play with more intensity, louder
slur = a line written above a passage to indicate that it should be played smoothly or legato
tempo rubato = Italian for "robbed time". The original idea was to rob some duration from one note and give to another, retaining the tempo (or BPM), but it often means to play as freely as you want while keeping the basic tempo in mind (aka, not playing lightning fast through an entire piece marked adagio)
Have fun with your newfound knowledge. These terms are not meant to confuse people, they are just ordinary Italian words that developed out of tradition. Nowadays people use them because they are instantly understood by musicians worldwide and so convenient.
Search
Member List
IRC
Help
The "What are you listening now?" thread
it's one of my favorite metal songs.
![[Image: indiedb_88x31.png]](http://media.indiedb.com/images/global/indiedb_88x31.png)
