Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Chopin's 4th Ballade: Those two measures

BTW.....I would have put "those two measures" in "quotes" but it would mess up the navigating through the thread.

I think Damon was the one who discovered that.


First of all I'm wondering if a lot of people will just KNOW which "two measures" I'm talking about.
I think yes.

What do you think of them? If you play the piece, what do you do with them?

To me they're maybe the most remarkable 2 measures in all the piano literature.

Perhaps the quavers marked FFF?

My vote is for mm 175-176, a breathtaking moment in the piece. I try to bring out the RH melody above the other RH notes. Also try to keep the LH steady and supportive of the RH without overwhelming it. Easier said than done. It's a tough piece.

mm. 1-2

Extremely difficult to pull off.

Absolutely fascinating when done well.

Should be played as notated, though I personally like the pedal extended a bit and fluttered out instead of stopped.

My vote also goes for mm. 201-202; this (including the following chords) is one of the most astonishing moments in all musical literature. I think it needs to sound as if time suddenly stops and everything is suspended in mid-air, and in my opinion this effect can be achieved without the pedal only in a large concert hall. In other environments I want the low C ringing as long as possible until the beginning of the coda. The fff chords themselves also need to have sufficient momentum to create this effect.

I don't have a score with measure numbers right here, but it sounds like you nailed it.

Doesn't mean the other people are wrong -- in fact, the piece is full of astonishing moments, and I agree that the passages with those chords and even just the opening measures of the piece are extraordinary. But I'm pretty sure that what you said is where I meant: In the D-flat major section with the rippling L.H. accompaniment, the two measures where the L.H. switches from triplets to regular 16th's and the R.H. has "cross-rhythms" where the melody notes aren't lined up with either 'the beat' or the L.H. notes. And I love your description of what you do. I try to do pretty much exactly the same, as well as (usually) getting suddenly softer (even softer than before) and doing a tiny slow-down/hesitation going into it.

P.S. There's one little aspect of it that's technically hard for me, for an odd reason: it's not anything about the fingers but (I think) about my ears having a mental block against what's going on.

Near the end of the first of those 2 measures, both hands play "Bb" at almost the same time -- a melody note in the R.H.*** [mistake -- see below] and an upper accompaniment note in the L.H. For a long time I didn't realize why I was tensing up a bit at that moment and sometimes even just not letting myself hit the L.H. note accurately (I would hit A-flat instead, which actually doesn't sound terrible) .....until I realized this probable reason for the problem. We might say this is an instance of 'psychoanalysis' actually being useful. Perhaps one of the few in history.

*** Edit: I made a mistake up there and Dale caught it. The Bb in the R.H. isn't a "melody note." I'm talking about the Bb that's the 4th-from-last note of the R.H. in m. 175.

Here's a link to a score with measure numbers: http://imslp.eu/linkhandler.php?pat...aderewski_No_3_Ballades_Op_52_filter.pdf

Measures 175 and 176 were the first ones I though of when I saw this thread. I love love measures 231 and 232.

For me, Ballade 4 would be more doable than Ballade 1. I really want to learn this piece in the near future, and then the 3rd. And then we'll see if I'm ready for 1...

I found those two measures, AHH they're SOO good!!

Thanks for that! Yes, 175-176 is it.

And about 231-232: I wouldn't have singled those out, but the fact is, years ago while I was hearing a performance of the Ballade, those measures were where it first occurred to me that this was an "impressive" piece from a pianistic standpoint. Before that, I considered it beautiful, great, and profound, but it never occurred to me until then that this was a piece that sounded hard or where people might think "hey, this person can really play"....

Don't expect this to make sense. I mean, as I think of it now, it doesn't even make sense to me.


Me too. I don't think anything is exactly "harder" than the 4th Ballade, but the 1st is "scarier."
If that makes sense.

I agree with everything said above about the fourth ballade (except possibly for its being harder than the first). To me, the part in Db is one of the most ravishing and exhilirating episodes in piano literature. The two measures the Mark refers to are pure magic, and four bars later, when the melody soars up to that high Bb, with C in the bass... man, it gives me chills just thinking about it.

Of course, speaking of the first ballade, that series of octave runs in its A major section is pretty darn thrilling too!

IMHO the fourth is more challenging both musically and technically. I think this is also evidenced by the fact that professional performances and even recordings of the fourth can include more prominent mistakes than the other Ballades, for example some of the finalists' performances in the 2010 Chopin competition or e.g. Rubinstein's (1959) recording.

And those two measures are great; that is actually the part I looked forward to playing the most when I started learning this piece.

Fitting that you'd post on this, because those two measures are about as "mathematical" as you can get.
Although in a math-defying way, of course.

I mean, look how many different simultaneous 'maths' you have going on at the same time, really in conflict with one another, yet (if we're successful) all fitting together.

-- The left hand suddenly changes from triplets to regular 16th's.

-- It is pitted against triplets in the right hand.

-- The melody notes of the R.H. are rhythmically cockeyed in relation to the beat of the R.H., not to mention in relation to the beat of the L.H.
It's cockeyed in relation to anything, except itself. Within itself, it's perfectly regular: every 4th note.

-- The harmony changes at slightly different times in the two hands -- at the beginning of the 2nd measure for the L.H. but a moment later in the R.H.

I've noticed this in competitions I've been in. I've been amazed at how I've been able to advance with the piece despite some 'mess-ups.' They're willing to cut you a lot of slack on things like accuracy and to look for other things. Actually, at least in the amateur competitions (and recognizing of course that the amateur ones are a different ballgame), I've been glad to see that contrary to the common reputation of competitions, in general there hasn't been as much emphasis on being note-perfect as we might think, but especially with a piece like this one.




Me too. And whenever I play it, it's a special 'treat' when I get to those measures.

Really? I've learnt the first one (not that i can play it amazingly but i'm a pretty poor pianist anyway!) but everytime i've tried the forth i've always given it up.

Right on all counts, of course! It models perfectly that quote by Francis Bacon that "There is no exquisite beauty without some strangeness in the proportion."

By the way, I've got to say that threads like this on Piano World have really inspired me to be more ambititous in my playing. My post count is miniscule, but I lurk a lot, and reading about the experiences of real people learning "big" pieces makes them seem so much more accessible. I posted a few months ago about dusting off the G minor ballade, and since then I've actually whipped it into pretty decent shape. This morning I played through the F minor - purely because of this thread - and once again found myself thinking "you know, this coda isn't that bad!" So I'm thinking of making a project of that one too. It's really nice to be progressing after playing for 48 years, and Piano World has a lot to do with that. (But please, can't y'all just let that Taubman thread expire? )

Yes! Yes! Yes! Remarkable indeed. I've never studied this piece (too advanced for me to seriously take on...) but have definitely played through these magical measures many many times. These measures require such vision and mastery to successfully pull off - how can you really balance the soft beauty of that melody line, while capturing the angst and agitation (note how deliberately complex the writing is.) Emotionally, it's the equivalent of going from a pppp to a ffff - you get that lump in your throat, the blood chills and you get goosebumps, then you have that rush of adrenaline and a sensation of triumph... all in less than 5-seconds. The heart can only stand so much!

Yes, it's really one of those moments that remind you just how awesome music can be. This is why we still talk about Chopin today.

Thanks for bringing this up Mark.

-Daniel

Mark,
I'm looking at the score and don't see this. My score has Bb in the melody twice: the 2nd melody note in m175 and the last melody note in m176. I see the upper accompaniment Bb in m175 but my score doesn't indicate the melody as you describe. Could the scores be different? Am I missing something?

By the way, I totally agree the dynamic should be soft. IMO these mm are often played too loud, which takes away some of the magic.

Great quote! (Although it's probably not 100% true, but what is.)
Didn't know it before.
And very applicable to these measures.



Yes -- and it's helped and inspired me a lot too, in a different way: Some of the discussions have gotten me more interested to look more closely at scores and try to make more of everything that's there.


LOL!
But y'know, I have to admit, even though I've been putting down that thread, some of the posts (not by the OP but by others) have made me give more thought to "rotation"!
And I think it will affect how I play some of my current pieces.

Quoted for truth!
Beautifully said!