Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
Sometimes I'll listen to a piece and hear a note in the melody that is simply not part of the melody. This is usually a note that is part of the accompaniment that is just very close to the melodic line, but a few times it has been something my brain just made up.
For example, in this part of Schubert Impromptu in G flat (measures 31-34), I always heard the G flat as part of the melody. When I started playing the piece, I was surprised to discover that it really isn't (at least it doesn't have an up stem...). It is just so close to the melody that it is extremely difficult to differentiate it with the fingers (and this is one of the biggest difficulties of the whole piece).
Anyway, even though I know it should not be part of the melody, it is so hard for me not to hear it as such in my head. This happens while I'm playing, too, which makes it even harder to bring out the actual melody correctly.
Does this kind of thing ever happen to anyone else?
It's happened with me many times, and sometimes when I realized what was the story, I still liked it better the way I'd been thinking it and playing it. In that case, what I'd do is look for some excuse to keep doing it.
And sometimes there really are other editions that show the non-melody note as a melody note. A good example is Chopin's Mazurka in D, Op. 33 #2. I think many people reading this will know the note I mean (it comes in many times). If anyone wants to me to point it out, no problem. I think that in the way-back past, almost everyone played it as a melody note, then some people started saying it's not really, and I think now the state-of-the-art is that it's not a melody note. But it's still hard for me to get my head around.
G Flat? Unless I'm missing something, you circled an F flat. It's okay, slip of the key? G and F are right beside each other on a computer keyboard (as well as a piano keyboard, too!)
But yes, this happened to me. Classic mistake many students make in the intro to Chopin's 2nd Ballade:
.....Classic mistake many students make in the intro to Chopin's 2nd Ballade.....
Hey, you puttin' me on?
(Huh, you're right -- that's not a melody note!)
I always thought of it as one.
It's not always necessary to make a distinction. Think of Bach on the organ - every note gets equal volume, and the result is more coherent (and complete) than interpretations on the piano that emphasize some notes over others.
Yup, I've done it, but I've seen others do it more than I do
My method for getting rid of playing the non-melody notes as melody is to just play the melody a few times separately, and then add the accompaniment back in again.
Probably the most common one is in the slow movement (Adagio cantabile) of Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata, in the second bar, where the accompanimental figure in RH goes up to B flat, after two A flats. That B flat almost always sound like a melody note, so that the whole tune becomes C, B flat, E flat, B flat then D flat followed by rising quavers in the third bar. (Sorry, I don't know how to post the music score itself on here, but I'm sure you're all familiar with the music ).
Even many professional pianists - consciously or otherwise - slightly emphasise that B flat just enough to make the listener think it's part of the melody, even though the way it's notated shows that the composer never meant it to be so. That is evident when the melody is repeated immediately afterwards (bar 10). But when the accompanimental figure turns into triplets (in bar 52), the temptation to emphasise that B flat is again almost irresistible......
Schubert Piano Sonata in B-flat, D. 960, 1st mov., measure 4. Two inner intervals on beats 2 and 3: E flat-G to D-F. Some pianists, including Brendel, play them as part of melody. However, melodic octave of B-flat on beat 1 has dotted half-note value. (However, Brendel justified it by talking about it in one of his lectures). (My apology, I have yet to learn how to cut and paste in this forum).
Last edited by asiantraveller101; 07/04/1301:09 AM.
Schubert Piano Sonata in B-flat, D. 960, 1st mov., measure 4. Two inner intervals on beats 2 and 3: E flat-G to D-F....
What a great thread this is already, with such great examples.
By which I mean, this is another example that I'd been mistaken about.
I've played the piece -- although never studied it with a teacher, or else maybe I'd have known those aren't 'really' melody notes. I'd be very interested to know how Brendel explained that they are (or sort of are).
Even if they're not part of the melody per se, I can see that they're sort of 'beats'....not really beats, but, there just isn't a word for what I mean here. I'm talking about a similar thing to what's going on with that Pathetique note that Bennevis talked about -- a note that's not part of the melody but which I think most of us would still 'sing' if we were trying to sing the piece with a single voice, and a basic aspect of how we think of the melody even as we realize fully that it's not a melody note. (That's how I've always viewed the Pathetique note.) When I 'sing' such stuff, or when I just think of 'how it goes,' some non-melody notes are such an intrinsic part of it that I'd never leave them out. When these ancillary notes are in the bass, it's more obvious that they are what they are, but when they're in middle voices, they're more easily confused as the melody, including to ourselves. If I do realize that such notes are inner voices (as in the Pathetique), I sing or think them in a subsidiary way -- but I wouldn't fail to include them.
Anyway, I wonder if the way Brendel justified it was something like that Schubert notated it this way simply to mark the B-flat octaves as the peak of the phrase (?) and to indicate that their sound should carry through as part of the continuing accompaniment as well as part of the melody. That is, Schubert never meant that those next notes aren't part of the melody; he just felt this notation would better emphasize those other aspects.
Sometimes I'll listen to a piece and hear a note in the melody that is simply not part of the melody. This is usually a note that is part of the accompaniment that is just very close to the melodic line, but a few times it has been something my brain just made up.
For example, in this part of Schubert Impromptu in G flat (measures 31-34), I always heard the G flat as part of the melody. When I started playing the piece, I was surprised to discover that it really isn't (at least it doesn't have an up stem...). It is just so close to the melody that it is extremely difficult to differentiate it with the fingers (and this is one of the biggest difficulties of the whole piece).
Anyway, even though I know it should not be part of the melody, it is so hard for me not to hear it as such in my head. This happens while I'm playing, too, which makes it even harder to bring out the actual melody correctly.
Does this kind of thing ever happen to anyone else?
How do you know it's not a melody note? Because of the way it's engraved? How do you test it? Exaggerated voicing? And who's to say you can't fudge it by ...mmm... say, subtle voicing? I mean, this one, especially, looks like a step stool in the melody phrase. I think there's a reason your mind's ear hears it as melody, and it's not just placement on the staff.
This comes up in hymns, and can be an organist's nightmare.
A good example: In measure seven (3rd system), the soprano melody (which most congregations will sing) is in quarter notes, yet how often does this end up sounding like a melody in 8th notes on the 2nd and 4th beats?
Slightly off topic, but have you ever wanted to actually change a measure in a piece? This is what my ear was expecting the first time I heard the piece:
Slightly off topic, but have you ever wanted to actually change a measure in a piece? This is what my ear was expecting the first time I heard the piece:
Slightly off topic, but have you ever wanted to actually chnge a measure in a piece? This is what my ear was expecting the first time I heard the piece:
This comes up in hymns, and can be an organist's nightmare.
A good example: In measure seven (3rd system), the soprano melody (which most congregations will sing) is in quarter notes, yet how often does this end up sounding like a melody in 8th notes on the 2nd and 4th beats?
Hey--if the congregation can sing it that way, applaud them for their virtuosity!
One of the best examples I know of this is the beginning of the Menuetto 3rd movement of Beethoven's D major Sonata op. 10 no. 3. The pickup A is tied to an A on the first beat of the first measure, but the accompaniment F# just sounds like melody. My OLD copy of this from high school has a significant "reminder" from my teacher of what is and isn't the melody here. The same pattern recurs throughout the movement.
Schubert Piano Sonata in B-flat, D. 960, 1st mov., measure 4. Two inner intervals on beats 2 and 3: E flat-G to D-F....
What a great thread this is already, with such great examples.
By which I mean, this is another example that I'd been mistaken about.
I've played the piece -- although never studied it with a teacher, or else maybe I'd have known those aren't 'really' melody notes. I'd be very interested to know how Brendel explained that they are (or sort of are).
Even if they're not part of the melody per se, I can see that they're sort of 'beats'....not really beats, but, there just isn't a word for what I mean here. I'm talking about a similar thing to what's going on with that Pathetique note that Bennevis talked about -- a note that's not part of the melody but which I think most of us would still 'sing' if we were trying to sing the piece with a single voice, and a basic aspect of how we think of the melody even as we realize fully that it's not a melody note. (That's how I've always viewed the Pathetique note.) When I 'sing' such stuff, or when I just think of 'how it goes,' some non-melody notes are such an intrinsic part of it that I'd never leave them out. When these ancillary notes are in the bass, it's more obvious that they are what they are, but when they're in middle voices, they're more easily confused as the melody, including to ourselves. If I do realize that such notes are inner voices (as in the Pathetique), I sing or think them in a subsidiary way -- but I wouldn't fail to include them.
Anyway, I wonder if the way Brendel justified it was something like that Schubert notated it this way simply to mark the B-flat octaves as the peak of the phrase (?) and to indicate that their sound should carry through as part of the continuing accompaniment as well as part of the melody. That is, he never meant that those next notes aren't part of the melody but that Schubert felt this notation would better emphasize those other aspects.
Exactly your thought. Brendel thinks the 2-note "G-F" forms the the basic germinal motive that becomes the unifying factor throughout the entire sonata. It is quite true that the 2-note motive is found all over, for example: the opening theme of the second movement also contains the 2-note motive, and also the opening theme for the 4th. However, my argument is that we can always find 2-note slur in virtually any music. Does bringing out the 2-note motive in the first place justify the compromise/distortion in the opening melody? Do audience recognize the importance of the 2-note motive as one of the unifying factor of the sonata?
"And if we look at the works of J.S. Bach — a benevolent god to which all musicians should offer a prayer to defend themselves against mediocrity... -Debussy
"It's ok if you disagree with me. I can't force you to be right."
![[Linked Image]](http://i39.tinypic.com/2u8b0hi.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://s198.photobucket.com/user/orange_soda_king/media/Notamelodynote.png.html)
![[Linked Image]](https://forum.pianoworld.com//gallery/42/medium/10968.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://s60.photobucket.com/user/Jason_Album/media/ScreenShot2013-07-03at233352_zpsf62c1612.png.html)
