Is this possible on the piano? updated (once)

[lukeottevanger]

Not in themselves, but it depends what else you have your poor pianist doing!

[lukeottevanger]

You mean the horn triplets, I assume - so I'm guessing you have your cellist taking the parallel semiquaver fourths/fifths in the violin/viola parts?

[Guido]

Yes you guess right, although not much parralleling (some) in the cello part - rarely comes out well on a string instrument. The parralels fine then? (with the left hand playing the ascending scale in the bases, but only playing quavers - not semi quavers!)

[lukeottevanger]

Well, no, if you're doing it this way - as I was imagining you would - then it's pretty much impossible. However, if I was you I'd write in what you ideally want and then I will give you my take on what you need to  change to make it workable; presumably Larry will do likewise.

Alternatively, take the Schoenberg tack - 'your violin concerto requires a player with six fingers' 'I can wait' (or some version thereof, such as 'I am delighted to add another unplayable work to the repertoire. I want the Concerto to be difficult, and I want the little finger to become longer. I can wait' which is one I hadn't read before)

[lukeottevanger]

Guido, thanks for the scores; both versions open fine. First things first:

1) thank you for giving me a chance to  bash my way through part of The Rite - I've never played from a transcription of it before, and the best I've had to make to with is my own score-reading! For some reason the printer I wanted to use this evening wasn't responding, so I had to play the thing using a laptop balanced on the stand of an upright piano! There's an image for you....

2) you've done a remarkable job for a non-pianist - there are some really idiomatic moments, in fact. I haven't edited any of the Sibelius version of the score yet, but I have a few ideas and suggestions. I can post them here - they are written and ready to go - or via PM if you prefer. I guess if they are posted here then there can be an easier exchange of ideas with Larry, for starters.

[Larry Rinkel]

Guido, thanks for the scores; both versions open fine. First things first:

1) thank you for giving me a chance to  bash my way through part of The Rite - I've never played from a transcription of it before, and the best I've had to make to with is my own score-reading! For some reason the printer I wanted to use this evening wasn't responding, so I had to play the thing using a laptop balanced on the stand of an upright piano! There's an image for you....

2) you've done a remarkable job for a non-pianist - there are some really idiomatic moments, in fact. I haven't edited any of the Sibelius version of the score yet, but I have a few ideas and suggestions. I can post them here - they are written and ready to go - or via PM if you prefer. I guess if they are posted here then there can be an easier exchange of ideas with Larry, for starters.

There is a whole range from easy, gratifying, idiomatic, challenging, he's got to be kidding, near-impossible, to impossible parts throughout! It will take me a few days to go through it all, but then we can talk.

[lukeottevanger]

I think most of it is possible - there are a couple of impossibilities, of course. The question sometimes is 'is it worth the transcription sticking so closely to the score?'; IOW 'is it worth making this section as hard as this?'

But most of my points are about redistributing notes, clarifyng notation etc. This sorts out quite a few difficulties.

[Guido]

I'm glad that you both enjoyed playing through it (or parts of it).

Yes post it here. I am eager to hear anything you might have to say. I'm guessing that the bits that qualify as 'almost impossible' are the three stave bits?(!)

The red bits in the three stave section are for deletion I think (unless you think the bass notes are less important?).

Post away.

[Larry Rinkel]

I'm glad that you both enjoyed playing through it (or parts of it).

Yes post it here. I am eager to hear anything you might have to say. I'm guessing that the bits that qualify as 'almost impossible' are the three stave bits?(!)

In some cases, but not invariably.

The red bits in the three stave section are for deletion I think (unless you think the bass notes are less important?).

Post away.

You don't want to omit anything essential to the harmony, and certainly not the bass. I have some suggested solutions to some of your textures, and doubtless Luke will have more.

But do you want all of this on the forum, or through email?

[Guido]

Well as Luke suggested it might be more convenient here as we can all see suggestions that have been made. I suppose we could send the emails to both other people each time. I don't really mind.

[karlhenning]

I'm not contributing aught, but I am enjoying the lurk here.  I'd be glad to continue to look in on the discussion.

[Guido]

Can pianists be trusted to do their own pedalling, or should that be written in?

Sibelius gets alot of the playback very wrong as all the piano notes are very percusive. (eg the double trill). Is there a way of making trills play back whole tone trills, rather than always semi tone?

[Maciek]

I've been lurking around too but thought I'd de-lurk to mention this: I happen to own a ONE piano TWO hands transcription of The Rite done by someone going by the name of... Leechkiss

Anyway, Guido, could you send me the pdf too? I promise I won't contribute, just want to take a peek.

[Larry Rinkel]

Can pianists be trusted to do their own pedalling, or should that be written in?

Generally not necessary to write it in. If you want a special pedalling effect, you can write it. If you specifically don't want pedal used, you can write senza pedale.

[lukeottevanger]

OK, my thoughts so far, such as they are:

b. 16 you could give the top line of the parallel fourths to the right hand. It's not hard as written, though it feels a little unusual, especially extended for some time as here, but it seems a little fiddly when the other hand has nothing to do!

b. 20 this bit works well; the player will [need to] be aware of the A# required in both the trem. and the l.h. line, but it's not a problem to negotiate. You could clarify that the middle stave is l.h., I suppose, but it ought to be obvious!

b.25 It is easier for the r.h. to take the C# with which the trill starts. Then the left hand can take over the trill itself immediately after. It's up to you how to notate this - it's rather fiddly but there are ways around it.

b. 40 the 'double-tonguing' in the quintuplets is to all intents and purpose impossible; I'm afraid you'll have to be content with straight quintuplets here.

b. 42 and 44 - the grace note in the l.h. is a misprint, I think - should be an A (of course, it might be the PDF misleading me - they do that sometimes with Sib files I find)

b. 47 I think I'd leave this fragment of the alto flute line out, as you can't continue with it beyond this point, so it makes little sense IMO. If you decide to keep it in, why not give the impression of the bar of D that precedes it in the original by tying its first note to the last D in the preceding bar's l.h. ....if you follow me!

Instead of that alto flute line, personally at this point I'd be tempted to try to fit that low double bass/double bassoon Bb in somehow - it is quite significant, I think, because it is the first really deep note in the score. You could actually put it in the r.h., crossing over the l.h, every two bars - 46, 48, 50, in the last two treating it as a grace note to the flute line (perhaps it would work if you only put it in at b. 46 - I didn't try this). The pedal would sustain it through. Perhaps it could even be a Bb/B natual dyad, to suggest the way the double bassoon alternates between these two notes. The slurs in the 'flute' line at this point aren't what I have in my score, and as you have them they would mess up the Bb suggestion I've just made, but if you restored them to the simple one-slur-per-bar of the original there would be no problem.

b. 52 the '12'-let figure is easier in the r.h., but I know you need it in the left for what comes later. Easiest of all is to split it between the two hands (left hand takes the C and D, for instance), at least at this point.

b. 54 your optional red notes are such a great line (and in the orchestra they dominate over the line you have in the l.h. here), you need to leave them in. Though the '12'-let is obviously harder here, layering the oboe line on top is in itself not too hard as, lucily, the notes don't clash.

However, I think it would be even better here to let the cello continue with the oboe line, as it was already playing it; it seems a little strange to break it off for the D clarinet line, especially as you are moving that down an octave. Personally I'd let the cello continue the oboe line and give the piano the D clarinet line at its original pitch (this would also be easier for the piano than juggling the oboe line)

b. 57 from this point to the end of this dense section the parts must have been very hard to distribute. I think I would have made some different decisions to you, but I don't think I'll detail them as I haven't really thought them through and, in any case, it is partly a matter of personal taste what to put in and what to leave out.

b. 59 Those demis aren't going to be easy!! You could limit them, for instance, to the six notes that are under the 8va line - the hand stays in one place, so there's no hassle. Or just to the five notes that the picc. plays, for that matter.

b. 71 perhaps the cello doesn't need that first C - it isn't in the score. Just alter the piano part slightly so that its trill continues through the first triplet quaver, as in the score.

b. 72 r.h. why not call that a C, not a B#? It's a B# in the score for voice-leading reasons, because the 3rd viola is moving up from it to a C#, but here, all things considered (a pianist sees this as an unconventional chord in a basically atonal context, so the voice-leading aspect is less important here) it just makes things look confusing here. Btw, you've missed the # sign off that C# in the next chord, which was what made me originally think the B# was so odd!

b. 83 This is one of the bits you already asked about. I can see you've taken my suggested distribution up, but a couple of things: 1) I'd call the l.h. Ab a G# even though it makes for more accidentals, because it makes the simple arpeggio basis of the passage clearer. 2) in the next bar (I made a mistake last time) give the first two semis to the r.h. and leave the l.h. clear for a quaver. You might want to consider some cross-staff nonsense to clarify the movement of the parts - this solution means that all of Stravinsky's notes are here, and it's easy to play, but the sense of the original is not clear in the transcription.

b. 101 Hard, but possible. b. 101 itself is tricky because of the repeated notes and especially the repeated chord; b. 103 et seq. is also hard at this fast speed, but will probably be OK with practice.

b. 148 The Bb in the r.h (second crotchet) clashes with the l.h.'s a quaver later; however, I think this is a misprint - in the original score this is a B natural. I'd get rid of the enharmonic notation on the second crotchet's grace notes here - they make something pretty easy look hard (and Stravinsky doesn't use this notation anyway) - essentially this a dominant seventh on E!

In the next bar you've gone enharmonic where you don't need to - just an E natural, not an Fb will do. Will make the thing less confusing to read - just a C major arpeggio.

b. 154 this passage will be no problem with a little redistribution. I'd give the high G in the l.h. (b. 155 et seq.) to the r.h. (include it in the chord.). I'd also swap the hands over in b. 157 (trill in l.h. etc.)

b. 162 this is the bit we started out with! I see you've used Aquarius's neat solution; however, in context I think it a little hard, in the end - there's no time to get the hand into this unusual position. In any case, the way the score works makes the solution I originally thought of probably the best. We start with the C-D trill and then, simply, turn it into a CD-EF trill, with the CD taken with the thumb. This actually parallels the little run of grace notes in the full score at this point. At speed, this solution is easy and sounds fine - you won't notice any major difference with the original.

b. 223 in theory this is just about possible (l.h. jumping around like crazy, though), but I'm afraid it just won't happen! You have to decide which line is least important, and I guess that would be the top one, because the cello is taking it too.  At b. 239 you have a problem because the cello starts playing something else; I'd keep the cello on the melody and add the dotted rhythm into the piano r.h. (i.e. doing something to what are presently the crotchet chords)

b. 276 - your instincts are right - those 'red' chords will need to be dropped, unless, that is, you can cope with them played just before the beat (as grace notes tied to the main chord) - a common compromise in piano transcriptions, but not a very neat one in this case.

b. 286 Personally I'd want to keep those lovely meaty chords in the middle stave here if nowhere else - the pianist can fudge this, playing the lower stave fractionally before the middle one, if you want (notate the lower stave as grace notes just before the beat, tied to the main notes). The rit. at this point (in the original score - I'm assuming your going to put it in when you come to add such things) makes this both easier to play and less of a stylistic jolt.

b. 287 give the lower of the Gs in the octave to the l.h.; then neither hand needs to make a risky and cumbersome jump (they are rather in each others' way here)

b. 288 - nifty solution and very pianistic! However, there is probably a way to get even more of the texture in without making things more difficult. I'll get back to you on this when I'm able to give you a Sib file to show what I mean.

b. 296 I think there's a missing E natural in the l.h.

That parallel fifths bit  towards the end will need more work, as you know. I'll get back to you about that too - it's probably quite complex.

Hope all this is some help.

[Guido]

Thankyou very much Luke.

A few comments on your suggestions:

b.40. I know I want to have my cake and eat it - would the 'double tonguing' be possible if I didn't include the first lower G# (possibly adding a G# to the left hand on the beat)?

b.46-47 - I have the right hand crossing over the left here now, playing oscillating semiquavers Bb-B. I can't get sibelius to do a clef for just a grace note in bar 50 - and there doesn't seem to be a miniature bass clef symbol thats often used for such things (I'm thinking in the Kodaly solo cello sonata actually!)

b.52 - 53 attatched is an updated version of just these two bars. Is this what you had in mind, and is it really easier to read?

b.54 The reason I gave the clarinet line to the cello is that it's the most dominant part here, and I just assumed that the cello would be easily able to dominate melodically as it can sustain, but you're probably right. (I really want to play that part! Maybe I should take the plunge and try and play it at pitch? But you're also right about the continuity thing. hmmm...)

b.57 to end of the section - I used the lines that Stravinsky used in his two piano reducton, so I assume that he thought that they were the most important. There are probably 100 ways of doing this bit though. If you have any strong thoughts though, do tell.

b.83 Thanks for the clarification. I tried to do some cross staff stuff, but it just makes it confusing.

b.162 So are you suggesting essentially a 'normal' trill, just with two notes playing each time, instead of one? as in:

   ef   ef   ef   ef
cd  cd  cd  cd

b.223. That's a shame! Would it help if the left hand didn't have to do octaves in the bass? *desperately tries to cling to what's written* *fails*. I suppose it wouldn't be so bad that way, as the right hand could then play the alternate quaver chords instead (from the horn) or the dotted rhythm (from the trombones), though I am worried that the cello playing the melody on its own would just get completely swamped here - I suppose the only way I'll find out is if I try!

b.286 - I agree that the middle chords are gorgeous and the most important things here - thats why I put the first two right hand chords in red - do you think this could work? (as the cello is playing the Bbs,)

b.295 - I can't take credit for that - It's Stravinsky's own idea again. If you can add more detail that would be great!

Thanks for spotting all the misprints and enharmonic stuff that I'm too dim to notice. oddly all of that enharmonic stuff is in Stravinsky's own piano score...

Some fifths at the end would be very nice. But I think the texture is enough that it sounds fine without (at least on Sibelius). Maybe just adding the fifth to any 'Bb's as that is the most common note, and often comes in repeated threes. Not ideal, but it might work... Definitely needs some more thought.

[Guido]

Maciek - that would be interesting to see what Leechkiss makes of the mentioned 'problem areas'. Would you check for me?

[Guido]

I can't believe it - I just found the Rite of Spring for solo piano on youtube:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8Wau1Y2AcN4

It appears that the pianist plays bars 223 onwards almost exactly as I wrote them - but they look really reall REALLY difficult - I can't expect to play with a virtuoso of that calibre every day!

A superb performance by him!

[Larry Rinkel]

I got through the first three parts. The last part has its difficulties, but once you get the basic pattern down I think the rest will fall into place. The last page is in fact easy. Glissando for both hands is a bit cruel.

Overall I sense you're making things easier for the cellist than the pianist - nu? In one spot piano's jumping all over the place busting his guts while cellist just has one line. 

I didn't look at Luke's comments. I couldn't save Sib 4 to 3, so I converted the PDFs to JPEGs and annotated them. Here goes:

[Larry Rinkel]

3-4