Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Another Chopin 10/1 Thread

Actually I have my hands full right now putting the finishing touches on Opus 25 No. 1, 2, 9 and 12. At my age I gotta pick my battles !! There are several other etudes in Opus 10 and 25 that I'd like to learn before attempting the Opus 10 No. 1.

Ask this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVC9ESsA3Go

Your interpretation is indeed valid- as an INTERPRETATION. It is not valid to say that Chopin DEFINITELY intended to signify very literal accents throughout the etude. Neither is it valid to dimiss alternative ways of interpeting accents THAT HE DID NOT WRITE- or to refer to it as if he DID write them in. I would very much like to hear your source for the "convention" that he intended every beat to be very literally accented, that you state as if it were fact .

hahaha! I love that video and am pretty sure I've posted it here elsewhere before. Kills me every time I see it.

Chopin did no such thing. He wrote accents in the first two bars. He did not "ask" for this to continue. It is entirely down to the person reading what he wrote to make up their own mind whether he is likely to have intended for the entire piece to consist of accents (or whether he failed to continue writing them in order to prevent excessively pronounced accentuation).

It is entirely unreasonable to attribute YOUR extrapolations of what you think Chopin meant to what HE "asked for"- in fact it is simply dishonest to make such a statement as if it were fact. He did not ask for accents on every beat in this piece and neither does any "convention" I know of make this an acceptable statement of fact to make. It is a personal extrapolation of what he MIGHT have meant, not what Chopin asked for.

He did!
He didn't!
He did!
He didn't!
He did!
He didn't!
He did!
He didn't!
He did!
He didn't!
He did!
He didn't!
He did!
He didn't!
He did!
He didn't!
He did!
He didn't!
He did!
He didn't!
He did!
He didn't!
He did!
He didn't!
He did!
He didn't!
He did!
He didn't!
He did!
He didn't!
He did!
He didn't!
He did!
He didn't!
He did!
He didn't!
He did!
He didn't!
He did!
He didn't!
He did!
He didn't!
He did!
He didn't!
He did!
He didn't!
He did!
He didn't!
He did!
He didn't!
He did!
He didn't!
He did!
He didn't!
He did!
He didn't!
.
.
.
ad nauseum.

Hey look, it's Phillip Glass again!!

So, again that just shows your knowledge of notational convention to be quite poor.

Folks this is really quite simple. Instead of silly posting look at the score - you'll realize there are accents throughout. For anyone to claim they disappear after two bars or that something can be inferred from their absence is is not only nonsensical, it's nonmusical. But then, I suppose, this is the internet.

Does anyone know Chopin's telephone number so that we can settle the hash? ... my guess is Pearly Gates Poland Etude 10-1 ... that's of course if St. Peter let Fred in ... and liked his rattling Studies.

But some people like to have “the last word” (27 pages later) ... and OP klutz should know better than to goad the piano teacher to endlessly rancour correction with ...

“I can't believe you are still claiming Chopin requires ACCENTS,
rather than MILD EMPHASIS.”

It’s enough to make my dog howl...such crass pigheadedness is inevitably rewarded with unimaginative thinking.

I have to admit that was quite funny...I would love to call Fred but my ATT plan is crud and I couldn't even begin to imagine the astronomical fees I'd incur with a call to the 'nether.

So, MILD EMPHASIS eh?


And these too?


Thanks for pointing that out Sir b.

Here's a guy who can do the 'downs', can't manage the 'ups' though.



And of all youtubes only one who can do the accents in no 8:

Even easier...can't someone just friend him on facebook and ask?

While I am just learning the piece I will say repeating each 4 measure section to my wife's quiet never let him see how tired I am of him doing those same 4 measures, until the motions are really ingrained has helped my speed and has allowed my to free myself of unwanted tension. But I think you are right...one I fall in the B camp of your A or B and secondly, I think if I can play this piece at a tempo that is acceptable for me, that will please me to know end.

Not sure about his number, but there's that person over in the Chopin forum who claims to converse with him regularly (or something like that).

Hmmm. So this time Chopin could be bothered to write them out rather than rely on the "convention" that says they are supposed to be repeated. Not so lazy this time. Or then again, maybe it is not necessarily within the realms of possibility that in one piece he wanted the reader to see something that looks rather smoother, whereas in this dramatic work he wanted the visual nature of the accents to be at the forefront. Purely an opinion of course- as is your interpretation of what his notations in op. 10 no. 1 signifies.

How many times are you going to have to be asked to stop being such a hypocrite as to ignore my requests for a source regarding this "convention"? If you are not going to either provide one (or admit that your view of the accents is a singular interpretation of what Chopin MAY have meant, among other valid ones) then please change the footer that appears in your posts.

If you sincerely feel you are in command of proven facts here (allowing to accuse anyone who disagrees with your view as being unable to read a score) please demonstrate that. Alternatively, is it so hard for a person to admit that their interpretation of an ambiguous score cannot be proven as a singular "correct" one?

I regard the character of Op.10 No.12 as very different from that of Op.10 No.1. With No.12 I interpret the accents as "with as much emphasis as possible without jeopardizing flowing execution" -- far more insistent and fiery than No.1. And, as Nyire observes, the accents are written in more extensively too, almost in full every time the "fiery" theme returns.

------------------------------------------------------------------

With No.8 I see accents to show the desired articulation. Measures come in three main varieties:

1. All four beats marked (pom pom pom pom)
2. 1st and 3rd beats marked (pom --- pom ---)
3. 1st, 3rd & 4th beats marked (pom --- pom pom)

Getting the "pom"s correct gives the piece good shape and adds to its sparkle and verve, but I don't consider it necessary to bring out the accents to the point, say, that they are very noticeable to almost any listener who doesn't know they are written into the music. I'd say that mild-to-moderate suggestion is fine. And I certainly don't consider strong accents crucial to a good performance of the piece, which seems to be your perspective.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding No.1, I don't see why Chopin would use accents to illustrate where the music deviates from the convention you cite of increased volume when going up in pitch and decreased volume when coming down in pitch, rather than broader dynamic marks. I regard the "convention" as a very natural impulse in humans for thousands of years, not just the 19th century, but in a subtle way, in other words, where poco or pochissimo would need to be written if the instinct/convention were to be notated. The use of accents this way just about makes sense if one regards Op.10 No.1 having a "tune" in the RH, but that would be one assumption, one subjective interpretation, being used to support another (in turn, the belief in accents of a certain kind applying throughout the piece supports the notion of a "tune" - a chain of assumptions). Chopin uses opening and closing hairpins in pairs of bars on the last page (71-72, 73-74, 75-76, and 77-78), which seems to support my view that any rising and falling in volume prior to that was of a subtle kind.

Here are bars 32 to 37 as printed in the first impression of the French first edition (Schlesinger, Paris, June 1833), which was corrected by Chopin:



Note the Cres in the middle of bar 33 (which according to the convention you cite is redundant because the performer is already getting louder on the way up); the absence of any dotted line into bar 34 to tell the performer to go against the convention to get quieter on the way down; the F at the beginning of bar 35; and Dim. during bar 36. And here are bars 73-74 as printed in the same French first edition:



Opening and closing hairpins, with an accent on the D flat at the beginning of the 3rd beat of bar 74, while at the same time the overall dynamic is quietening. This goes against an interpretation of additional accents beyond bars 1-2 illustrating deviations from convention dynamic shaping of "the tune" as you call it.

and this?

Yes, it's certainly an interesting divergence- after he notated accents for that part the first time around. However, after Chopin write all the individual ones in the left hand for a few bars immediately before that (just as in the first time, when he continued to write them), the reader will have to make their own mind up as to whether Chopin wanted a more uniform execution, or wanted them to continue. Who can honestly know what he meant? I've heard pianists who do indeed make this part different to the first time and it can work.

What I know for a fact is that I cannot divine an answer that is anything more than my own opinion.

Julian, thanks for actually supporting your points with scholarship rather than just invective. I'd have to say the hairpins are between the cres and dim marks. The cres and dim marks create a larger dynamic rising and falling section within which Chopin doesn't want to lose the conventional two bar rise and fall units - so marks it. As he's marked it there, he must also mark it in the last two bars in case any assume those two are to be different as they're unmarked.

Would you mind doing the same regarding this "convention"? Or are you going to keep changing the subject when I ask for the supporting evidence that enables you to state things as fact and to be dismissive of all alternative interpretations?