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!
Those of use who have lived through the better (?) half of the last century may have difficulty with this tempo, having been brought up as we were with the more "traditional" tempo from the likes of ... well, just about every concert pianist I can mention.
So many significant details, harmonic and decorative, seem to be tossed off as inconsequential. I have difficulty appreciating this Nocturne at this tempo. I find the sound of the piano very interesting and even quite appealing, however.
Regards,
Hi, Thanks.
A lot of the technical details of Chopin's music were intentionally there to give color but not to be in the foreground. I say this because Chopin did say that 1) 'it is up to the listener to complete the picture' 2) People who heard him say he sounded like an Aeolian Harp (a harp played by the wind), or a glass harmonica 3) people described his playing as being 'like water' or 'like waves' 4) Chopin insisted that his friends witness his concerts from as far away as possible from the piano.
As a result of the above information, and the overall softness of the sound, I am inclined to guess that he played very quickly and legato, as if to form flurries of notes with only a few 'lead' or vocal.like tones standing out, so that he would create separation between foreground and background.
The kind of detail he brought to the picture, was therefore, probably inferred and not stated outright, much like Impressionist painters did years later.
Needless to say, he must have been a very confident pianist to be content not to show all his work, because indeed, under these circumstances, incredibly difficult and speedy arpeggio work sounds like a blur of notes, which can sometimes pass unobserved to everyone but trained musicians.
Perhaps one of the principal reasons why Chopin and a lot of other composers are played at a fraction of the speed that they were conceived at.
Which other Chopin pieces are usually played much slower than the composer's indication? The only other one I know if is the Etude in E flat minor.
Most of the great pianists could play the D flat Nocturne significantly faster than they do if perhaps not quite as fast as on the posted recording. I think they choose not to do so even though most would be familiar with Chopin's tempo marking because they don't think it sounds good at that speed.
This is a recording, done with a small handheld Tascam digital recorder of an 1844 Pleyel I restored years ago, which belonged to me for a while.
The reason I am posting this is because of the sound, which most of you will think is quite odd, and not quite pianistic, but more like a Piano Shaped Object.
The sound is the way it is because the hammers are covered with the 1840's grey felt which was applied on the piano when it was new, and the felt wore out after a couple of years use, so it is extremely rare. I have plenty of documentation that proves that this veiled, dark sound is actually the sound that Chopin heard, so if anyone is interested, I can send you a PDF with all the information.
The tempo is 50 BPM for each dotted quarter note, which is the tempo indicated by Chopin. This makes it so that the left hand plays groups of 6 notes every BPM!
I am quite sure most of you out there would not like to play on this kind of piano, because of the muffled sound, but I have collected proof that this dark sound was what was in fashion from at least 1830 to 1850! Strange indeed!
The softer sound does have an effect on the overall interpretation, in my opinion.
I have never heard any professional pianist play this piece nearly as fast as the video even though the Chopin tempo marking is cannot be a secret. IOW they apparently reject Chopin's tempo marking and play it much slower. Are there any YT recordings by any great pianist playing it as fast as this video? I also think the extreme use of asynchronization of the hands ruins the piece,
Actually, this was my intro to the piece. Of course a lot of recording sound like paint drying to me comparatively, and it's often a bit frustrating for me to sit through some of the really ponderous tempi.
Originally Posted by acortot
A lot of the technical details of Chopin's music were intentionally there to give color but not to be in the foreground. I say this because Chopin did say that 1) 'it is up to the listener to complete the picture' 2) People who heard him say he sounded like an Aeolian Harp (a harp played by the wind), or a glass harmonica 3) people described his playing as being 'like water' or 'like waves' 4) Chopin insisted that his friends witness his concerts from as far away as possible from the piano.
It's fascinating to me to learn of this because I always find myself striving for a similar effect. I just think a piano sounds nicer when played with these aesthetics in mind. Of course, I've had a lot of complaints about my tempi being too fast, but hey. I like it.
I always got the sense that Pollini was in a big hurry to be elsewhere with that performance. Some of the runs are executed so fast I couldn't help but focus on his pure fingerwork, which in my opinion shouldn't be the center of attention for this music. This recording that he did earlier with a conventional tempo is infinitely more attractive to my ears.
I'll be the minority and say that I love the nocturne played this way. I prefer the faster tempo, and the disjuct of right and left hand is incredibly expressive to me.
+1 I’ve spent a lot of time reading about Chopin and I’ve been recently obsessed with listening to some old masters such as Alfred Cortot (himself a student of a Chopin’s student), Ignaz Friedman, Josef Hofmann, Raoul Koczalski (student of Mikuli, the most dedicated student of Chopin, his first big editor) and to my understanding this is how Chopin used to play himself. I thoroughly enjoyed this interpretation and the sound of the piano.
The sound is the way it is because the hammers are covered with the 1840's grey felt which was applied on the piano when it was new, and the felt wore out after a couple of years use, so it is extremely rare. I have plenty of documentation that proves that this veiled, dark sound is actually the sound that Chopin heard, so if anyone is interested, I can send you a PDF with all the information.
Sure, I'm interested in that! I'll send you a PM with my email. Great job, everything, really! 👏🏻
Perhaps one of the principal reasons why Chopin and a lot of other composers are played at a fraction of the speed that they were conceived at.
Which other Chopin pieces are usually played much slower than the composer's indication? The only other one I know if is the Etude in E flat minor.
Most of the great pianists could play the D flat Nocturne significantly faster than they do if perhaps not quite as fast as on the posted recording. I think they choose not to do so even though most would be familiar with Chopin's tempo marking because they don't think it sounds good at that speed.
If you look at Chopin's first editions, and browse through some of the earlier works, that usually had the metronome, you can find some examples.
Also, a lot of pieces have entire sections without the pedal, which works better at faster speeds, and with the smaller dampers of the old Piano Shaped Objects he composed on.
Perhaps one of the principal reasons why Chopin and a lot of other composers are played at a fraction of the speed that they were conceived at.
Which other Chopin pieces are usually played much slower than the composer's indication? The only other one I know if is the Etude in E flat minor.
Most of the great pianists could play the D flat Nocturne significantly faster than they do if perhaps not quite as fast as on the posted recording. I think they choose not to do so even though most would be familiar with Chopin's tempo marking because they don't think it sounds good at that speed.
If you look at Chopin's first editions, and browse through some of the earlier works, that usually had the metronome, you can find some examples.
My point was that unless there are many pieces where pianists usually play much more slowly than Chopin's metronome marking, the situation with the D flat Nocturne is essentially a one off. Do you know of any other examples?
If the great ,with possible a few exceptions, basically all choose to play it much slower than Chopin's indication despite undoubtedly know what he marked, doesn't that mean something?
If the great ,with possible a few exceptions, basically all choose to play it much slower than Chopin's indication despite undoubtedly know what he marked, doesn't that mean something?
Absolutely. But I’d think that what it means is that the established tradition for interpretation of this piece is to play it more slowly than the composer’s tempo instruction. I think it would be a bit of a leap to go so far as to say it is wrong to play the piece at the tempo indicated by the composer.
I think there are many examples of pieces played at a faster tempo than the composer’s intention due to technical showboating. Scott Joplin was unhappy that pianists played his pieces at fast tempos to show off their technique despite instructions that might read “Not fast” or “Not too fast”. He eventually resorted to including the following with some of his published compositions: “Notice! Don't play this piece fast. It is never right to play 'rag time' fast.”
At least the present case with the Nocturne would be motivated by artistic intent.
Reading Piano World with Javascript turned off (no logins, no ads, fast response times). I will receive PMs.
If the great ,with possible a few exceptions, basically all choose to play it much slower than Chopin's indication despite undoubtedly know what he marked, doesn't that mean something?
Absolutely. But I’d think that what it means is that the established tradition for interpretation of this piece is to play it more slowly than the composer’s tempo instruction. I think it would be a bit of a leap to go so far as to say it is wrong to play the piece at the tempo indicated by the composer.
My point was that great pianists chose to play it slower and that has not changed for a long time. And they chose to play it much slower than Chopin's metronome indication. So yes, there is an established tradition, but that tradition represents the thinking of great pianists and probably not just not unthinking following. They consciously did not follow Chopin's marking which is probably quite infrequent.
My current score for the nocturnes is Edition Peters. It shows Lento Sostenuto and Chopin’s metronome marking in parenthesis. Before recently viewing the PDF of the original manuscript, I always assumed the parenthetical metronome mark was a suggestion of the editor and that most pianists disagreed with the editor.
I assume nobody is advocating for a culture where a performer lacks the license to interpret a piece according to their artistic preferences as long as it is defensible. And I do think following a composer’s instruction is defensible. Listeners of course also have the right to dislike an interpretation or point out that it bucks established tradition,
When I have more time, I will try to post a new thread about a lecture I heard live through an interpreter of Lazar Berman describing the research he did regarding Tchaikovsky’s 1st Piano Concerto and why he believed that established traditions of interpretations went against the composer’s artistic intention.
Reading Piano World with Javascript turned off (no logins, no ads, fast response times). I will receive PMs.
Some, particularly those who veer towards the tempo in the acortot's video, may even find this version "cringe-worthy." That said, and while I find it too slow, I do admire the control of phrasing that LL is able to achieve at this - what shall I call it? - rather slow tempo? Six minutes plus, as opposed to acortot's four- minute version.
Of course on Youtube, once can always increase the playback by 1.25 or even 1.5 times the video speed...
I think most of the YouTube videos are around 6:00 so it's only a little slower than most(or at least the ones I looked at when this thread first appeared).
I have told a story about when I heard LL played this at Carnegie Hall quite a long time ago but I will repeat it because it's so funny. On the last line of the piece with the ascending sixths in the RH, LL started leaning further and further back with his eyes closed until he was almost at an angle of 45 degrees beyond vertical. Then, he paused in that position with his eyes closed at the end of the piece for so long I really wanted to yell "Wake up!" but did not have the nerve to do it.
Lang Lang's tempo sounds ok to me, especially since I've played it myself at the same speed before, although now I prefer it slightly faster. For a truly broad tempo, I don't think you'll find any performance more extreme than this.
Acortot sent me the PDF with his analysis of hammer felting around Chopin time and not only it was very interesting and thorough read but also a real eye (and ear) opener! I think I’m totally convinced that Chopin really used to play on a piano with very soft and mellow tone. I’ve heard period Pleyels before but they were disappointing in that they sounded too honky-tonky. However this particular restoration with research about the hammer felting and the linked video are nothing short of stunning! I’m in love with this tone! It’s a pity the piano evolution in the last century and a half gradually went into bright concert instruments whereas I would have loved a mellow salon instrument with this velvety and almost aeolian harp-like quality.
My greatest respect to acortot for letting me experience this wonderful piano!
On a side note, I’m wondering (besides of course hammer voicing) which modern upright/grand has the least bright and powerful sound?
Because high frequency audio attenuates over distance much more so than lower frequencies, a piano designed to be played in a large hall would be well designed if it has a brighter rendition of tone that will sound natural at expected listening distances. The brighter sound of a modern piano reflects the larger halls in which they are played. Pianos smaller than concert grands may still be played in a church, small hall, theater etc. Even full-sized uprights may be used in that way. It is a design decision for the piano.
Reading Piano World with Javascript turned off (no logins, no ads, fast response times). I will receive PMs.
I have Moravec's recording of the Nocturnes on Elektra and I had forgotten his tempo on this Nocturne since I hadn't listened to it in some time. He "clocks in" at 7:23 on the recording which is consistent with this video. While it is slow, he does carry it off well, I think.
![[Linked Image]](https://www.pianoworld.com/forum/gallery/42/thumbs/2529.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://forum.pianoworld.com//gallery/42/medium/9342.png)
