Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Rachmaninoff Prelude C# minor hands uncrossed?

I'm learning Rach's prelude in C# minor and I just don't see the point in crossing the hands in the way he wrote it. I've been working on it for a couple of days now and want to get some good input before I get some long term muscle memory down. Would it be ok to rearrange the notes (switching bottom note of right hand with top note of left hand) or is there a deeper purpose in his arranging besides him just being Rachmaninoff? LOL

You can do whatever you want, but you will gain very little by switching.

As for a "deeper purpose," this Prelude is all about RH and LH octaves. Learn it as written - crossed hands and all.

It probably fit his hand better, or he wrote it that way for voicing. Do what you need to do to make it comfortable.

I asked myself the same question, but then I decided to cross hands because it was not difficult, just a bit uncomfortable (maybe) in the first phase of learning.

Unless you have really small hands, it will end up being easier if you play octaves.

So in a nut shell you think you have better ideas than Rakhmaninov himself on his own compositions?

Alrighty then!

Even if it is so... so what?

I do think that anybody has a right to experiment a bit. Especially if at first he's asking for advice in a pianoworld thread!

Experimenting is fine, but I think the way it's written is the far superior way. The most important notes in both hands are the octaves. By redistributing notes, you create more difficulties in trying to emphasise these octave notes. Besides, I think crossing the hands is quite fun, not that difficult, and certainly not harder than redistributing the notes.

I'm learning this piece now and the chord voicing makes more sense with the hands crossed. Plus, later, when the hands separate for the last section, the fingering scheme is more related.

Once you have the crossing worked out it actually is quite easy and natural. It was only strange for the first couple of days. After that it didn't bother me at all.

First of all, those chords really have no other way to play them. It is awkward no matter what, but what Rakhmaninov did is the least awkward.

It's completely fine to experiment, but don't make it sounds like "he did it because he's just because."

As a composer yourself, I believe you won't appreciate any performer tells you that you wrote that bit "just because," right?

You probably haven't got to the final section yet, where the themes are restated in big ff chords with the hands spread far apart.

When you start learning that, you'll understand the logic of the composer's earlier hand-crossing: the hand movements are the same, only with more notes in each hand.

Why learn two different muscle movements for what is essentially the same music? It just increases your risk of memory lapses if you eventually play it from memory. Learning the logic of the composer's written notation now will pay dividends in the long term.

I read this thread in bemusement. Are we talking about Op3 No2? Have played it (badly, in case you ask) for years. Where are the crossed hands? Looked at alternative score on the Net. Where does the RH reach over the LH, or the LH over the RH? Have I always had a simplified (!) score? Was thinking over hand over, rather than fingers crossed - needed when playing this!

So I realised "crossed hands" meant "interspersed" hands, which is quite commonly needed.

I am not being pedantic, but it shows how words can be misinterpreted.

In answer to the OP, as everyone else: use the original scoring. I looked at the music, mentally trying to visualise unscrambling the hands. Surely it's easier the way it was written. And unscrambling here won't help you play music where it just is not possible to play without intertwining the fingers, to use yet another term.

I have quite large hands (C-F# and middle notes) in which case this particular preludes comes rather easy to me...

I don't think it's awkward at all!

Personally I'm not. Or at least I didn't. Point is that the guy made a thread about it, asking why the cross-hands section is written like that and if he can alter it. The apparent reply from most is that no it's not ok, because:
a. This is how Rach wrote it
b. It's easier this way.
c. Voicing sounds better/correct this way.

I agree with all three sentiments, but I didn't get a vibe of "I'll do whatever I want just because" from the OP.

No, but I certainly get pointers (especially on other instruments) on how something could be written or notated better. In fact I do know that even Stravinsky would be altering his parts, after recommendations from performers.

This is one large reason why my scores lack pedal instructions and fingerings almost always (except in Sketch Music, where I didn't add them myself, btw): It's too personal and I find that I would be dictating things to the performer which may not work for them, as they do for me... My pedalling, my piano, my hands. Not theirs!

_______________________

But just to be clear: I think that this particular prelude works like this very fine, since it gets out the melody with the right hand and works fine for people with large hands! There's no reason to change it.

Excellent response !!!

As a few have already said, it was written this way for either voicing or ease of execution. I think it only makes sense to consider rearranging the chords if one has small hands or finds the original version too difficult. There are some editions(Alfred masterwork?) which show, in addition to the original, an alternate version with uncrossed hands and usually with the note "for small hands".

It seems like a bit of a shallow question on the surface, but there's a lesson to be learned from it. Most great composers for the piano were also great pianists, and based on his recordings, I feel Rachmaninoff was a greater pianist than a composer. So it's more safe to follow the score and assume that he knew better than you do, rather than second-guess him. In the case of the hand distribution, it's a subtle effect which emphasizes the emptier sonority of the open fifth in the right hand, rather than the thickness of the full chord. Subtle though it may be, though, it's key to the way Rachmaninoff conceived the opening.

It seems extremely common to disregard most of the directions that Rachmaninoff wrote in his scores. The editions of the C-sharp minor Prelude with "sffff" directions seem to sum up the attitude that people have towards a piece which Rachmaninoff himself recorded several times, but never slammed through. He wasn't after bombast - he was after the sound of bells ringing.

I do the hand-crossing thing only because it looks impressive when people see me do it. Tbt it actually fits quite nicely under the hands once you get used to it. The ending is still pretty tough, simply because of all the big block chords that you have to time 100% perfectly (while playing FFF) :P

Seriously????

Appreciate the responses.

Was given the original to learn when too young and hands very small. The "crossing" was no problem. The ff chords were. Think my hands grew a tad that year.

Come on, Nikolas.

You clearly know that is comparing apple to oranges. And you are talking about completely different things. You can't be serious in comparing the way you compose vs. Rakhmaninov's.



Glad you agree with me.