Is this possible on the piano? updated (once)

[Larry Rinkel]

5-6

[Larry Rinkel]

7-8

[Larry Rinkel]

9-10

[Larry Rinkel]

11-12

[Larry Rinkel]

13-15

[Maciek]

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

I'll do my best, though this looks like it might take more time than I really have at the moment. Also, you might want to know that I find the Leechkiss transcription extrememly difficult to play. But let's see:

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!

The parallel fourths are all in the l.h. but that's because the r.h. is playing your cello part.

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!

A bit simpler here: What is retained is your cello part and piano r.h. part (essentially all in the r.h.) and trills in the l.h. (a G# jumping around the octaves a bit).

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.

The trill starts with a quaver rest delay.

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.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)?

No double tonguing here. In fact the whole quintuplet is omitted. (Just the triplets plus a trill right in the middle.)

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!

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!)

Leechkiss has the flute here (well, I don't have the full score but there's a line marked "Fl.").

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.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?

Well, it's all in the left, of course - the r.h. has things to do, you know.

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.

Why, of course my pianist plays it all: both the r. and l.h. as you notated them AND the cello part.

After b. 57 there are some simplifications though...

That's all for now. I'll get back to you and continue when I have a moment.

[lukeottevanger]

OK, Guido, this is developing into an interesting little discussion! I have a few additions to make to what Larry has said, but first to your responses to my points:

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)?

'fraid not - it's the speed of the repeated notes combined with the quick movement from note to note that is impossible

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!)

I was thinking more of having the Bb-B as a single chord, held with the pedal, underpinning the middle parts and the flute line. I'll show you what I mean when I'm able to get to the Sib file.

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?

That's the kind of thing - I'm not at a piano so I can't check exactly. It's not a problem to read, I think.

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...)

Well, you could give the oboe line to the piano from the outset (b. 52) This would give the cello a little break, which is important not just for the player but also for sonic variety!

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.

I'll think about it; there were just some incongruities that occurred to me when I looked through a few days ago, but I doubt there can be a 'perfect' solution to this section!

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

Exactly. It sounds fine and it's very easy.

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!

No, the passage is basically impossible, octaves or not. And though it is possible to play it, and worth a try in a virtuoso solo piano transcription, I feel it isn't worth making it so incredibly hard when it is supposed to be 'behind' the cello, which is playing something relatively simple and thin here.

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,)

No, I think the sudden drop in texture would be a bit jarring. I don't think there's a problem with my solution - include all that you've written, and just play the left hand slightly early

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!

I'll see what can be done!

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...

Really? Are we sure he was responsible?! One of them was very bizarre, I thought - b. 149, where what in the score is written as a D major arpeggio (D A F# D) for B flat cl. is transposed down not to a C major arpeggio but to C G Fb C!

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.

Again, I'm not quite sure, because I haven't worked on this passage at a piano yet.

Turning to Larry's points - I agree with nearly everything he's said, in principle, but I have slight difference in approach which I'll note; then you can choose between them.

On Larry's scan of pages 1 and 2:

First note: I don't find this passage hard enough to warrant sharing the top l.h. notes with the r.h. I find keeping the r.h. to a single line here helps it stand out more. But either way works.

Second note: rather than use the grace note anticipation here, I'd give the r.h. the top B and let the l.h. take the bottom three notes

Third note: as I said, I didn't find this 'clash of the A#s' a problem to play in practice.

Fourth note: I found this impossible too. Larry's solution involves changing the octave of some of the notes, but you don't need the pedal; my solution (taking the C# with the r.h. initially, then passing the trill into the l.h.) keeps the notes at the right pitch, but needs the pedal to sustain the lowest note (or notes) through the three bars. I don't find this a problem personally (a little half pedalling helps) but the choice is yours.

On Larry's scan of pages 3 and 4:

Agree with both notes

On Larry's scan of pages 5 and 6:

First note: we've covered this. As I said, the red notes are playable, but I'd consider changing who is playing what here anyway.

Second note: agree, this is fine. But it is unusual and hard enough to need attention, thus hampering what the r.h. can do, I find.

Third note: I found this quite hard and lumpy - it is very fast, and the hand has to move quite a long way twice within the phrase. It is possible, but not really worth it IMO, given all the other difficulties around it . In the original score what one tends to hear here is the squeak of the high piccolo part of the passage, which is what I suggest you keep in.

Fourth note: agree

Fifth note: not sure about this; I quite like the idea of the lower octave, but not for the same reason - I don't think there's a problem sustaining the F#, butt he lower octave, though not in the original, might paradoxically make the transcription sound a bit more orchestral, give a bit more depth and resonance. What is a slight problem here is holding the F# through the chord change, as that needs a pedal change - however, this is perfectly possible and is for the pianist to worry about, not you.

On Larry's scan of pages 7 and 8:

First/second notes: I don't think the A flat (as I said, I'd revert to the original score and call it a G#) needs a 'sopra' because it isn't sopra at the moment of playing; the second recommendation is the same as the one I suggested.

Third note: agree, this isn't a problem.

Fourth note: agree with all this

On Larry's scan of pages 9 and 10:

First note (the bit that says 'easy'): agree

Second note (the bit that says 'not easy'): don't' quite agree. The misprint of a B flat for a B natural in the r.h. makes a big difference: as a B natural, with the splashy grace notes before notated as in the score (not with these strange enharmonic equivalents) this bar isn't a problem. The r.h. thumb comes inside the l.h., but because the l.h. is on the black notes and the r.h. thumb on a white note, there is no problem. The next bar, as Larry says (the one with the F flat) is hard. But a little juggling makes it easier: try swapping the last l.h. note (F flat - come to think of it, that should be an E too) into the r.h., and the r.h. trill down into the l.h. Then the only difficulty - and it is a minor one, easily overcome-able - is the last G-E in the r.h.

Third note: Easier for the pianist, but not the cellist! The option I gave (putting the l.h.'s high G at the top of the relevant r.h. chord) takes the difficulty away.

Fourth note: agree, this is hard. I suggested to swap the hands here, which makes it very much easier. The only problem then is the lap in the l.h. from the end of the previous bar down to the trill; I'd solve that by crossing the last l.h. note of that previous bar into the r.h.'s stave

Fifth note (saying 'easy'): agree

Sixth note: agree that it's hard; don't think Larry's solution would work too well, because you wouldn't hear the held D-E sounding as equivalent to the trem-ing C and F. My solution (CD-EF trill) changes the order of the notes, but I don't think that is really audible (and in fact the original score creates a nice ambiguity at this point because the bassoon part leads up to the initial F-E trill with a little c-d-e slide, meaning you do actually hear E-F starting the trill in one sense - my version fits with this)

Seventh note: agree, this one got me when I played through the score. It's possible, it just lies uncomfortably. Played with a 'proper' fingering it stretches the hand (because it's over the top of the r.h.). I'd be tempted to fudge it by giving both the top notes (G and A) to the thumb, making the stretch over the r.h. less problematic. But that's a bit of a clumsy solution. However, I wouldn't worry too much - what you've written can be played, though it is hard.

On Larry's scan of pages 11 and 12:

Agree with all Larry's written here. Where I simply suggested knocking out the top stave of the piano part on the last line (which we both agree is as-good-as impossible as written), he has suggested a more interesting redistribution of the parts here (and elsewhere on this page). I think those ideas are worth bearing in mind.

On Larry's scan of pages 13 and 14:

First and second note: this chimes with what I was saying.

Third note (the big chord): I agree that this could do with amplifying somewhat - and not only for more volume, but because as is, it sounds texturally and harmonically rather incongruous on a piano here, recalling, of all things, some kind of boogie-woogie major/minor/blues note harmony (just needs to be played tremolando on a honky tonk!). I'd be tempted to double both hands as Larry suggests (the l.h. down and octave, the r.h. up one); the only thing I'd differ from slightly is that I wouldn't do it as an arpeggio (which to me is a bit too redolent of romanticism, gesturally) but simply as two chords - both hands low, both hands high, the first written as a grace note. This is a bit crisper, and closer, IMO, to the visceral feel of the score.

Fourth note (the note about the Fs in the trill). In theory this is correct - the F is in the trill so it can't be played in the melody too. But Larry knows his Beethoven - finale of the Waldstein! - so he'll know that in practice this isn't a problem. To do so, the pianist will accent the relevant F and keep the trill quieter around it, giving the illusion of two layers - it will sound as if the melody F is sounding through the trill, even though in truth it can't be doing so. The pedal will be needed for this to work properly, however - you could consider writing 'con ped.' at the beginning of this passage

Agree with other notes on this page.

On Larry's scan of page 15: Larry's solution here is quite complex, and I'd like to give it a go at the piano myself. It partly depends on whether you're willing to change the cello part as he suggests. As a fairly good pianist and only a passable cellist, I'd much prefer to play the piano part as written than the cello part in thirds, but you are a much better cellist than me and will know better! So I will withhold judgement on Larry's idea here, except to say that doubling the bottom note of the l.h. (F G flat A flat) up an octave seems a good idea, and simulating timps (and bass drum and, of course, tam -tam) at this point by rolling the left hand chord (downwards, I would strongly suggest, to simulate that big roaring crescendo that the percussion give these beats) is a definite! Do it! I'd even be tempted - to imitate the unpitched crash of the tam-tam here - to add some dissonances down deep. You could just about get away with using both hands on these low chords, which increases your options. For instance, you could play the chord as written, but with the downwards roll, in the l.h., and the r.h. could cross over to play a booming chromatic cluster on the bottom three or four notes of the keyboard. You'd want the l.h.  to dominate for pitch, and the r.h. just to resound, not too loudly, for timbre. This necessitates the r.h. swinging down and up on these chords, but that's not too hard, and could add to the physicality of the music here.

[Larry Rinkel]

and simulating timps (and bass drum and, of course, tam -tam) at this point by rolling the left hand chord (downwards, I would strongly suggest, to simulate that big roaring crescendo that the percussion give these beats) is a definite! Do it! I'd even be tempted - to imitate the unpitched crash of the tam-tam here - to add some dissonances down deep. You could just about get away with using both hands on these low chords, which increases your options. For instance, you could play the chord as written, but with the downwards roll, in the l.h., and the r.h. could cross over to play a booming chromatic cluster on the bottom three or four notes of the keyboard. You'd want the l.h.  to dominate for pitch, and the r.h. just to resound, not too loudly, for timbre. This necessitates the r.h. swinging down and up on these chords, but that's not too hard, and could add to the physicality of the music here.

Or just a cluster with the left elbow . . .   

Of course, since nobody in their right minds is ever going to memorize this, which means you'll need a page turner, you could just adopt an Ivesian solution and have the page turner fill in wherever the pianist can't manage. (This might mean, of course, that the page turner is too busy to turn the pages.)

[lukeottevanger]

Or just a cluster with the left elbow . . .   

Or Stravinsky's own non-expressive nose...

Of course, since nobody in their right minds is ever going to memorize this, which means you'll need a page turner, you could just adopt an Ivesian solution and have the page turner fill in wherever the pianist can't manage. (This might mean, of course, that the page turner is too busy to turn the pages.)

A fine idea. Personally, I think the Ravelian combos of two pianos, five hands, and the Sellick/Smith combo of two pianos, three hands are both vastly underused, too...

[Guido]

Thankyou so much for all your time and effort that you're all putting into this.

Just before I forget - bar 101 - etc. - Would it be better if I gave the left hand the f and the c and the right the g and the d? the bottom fifth (i.e. the Bb) is not part of the 'fanfare' figure - just the ostinato, and I doubt it would be missed for a few beats. Originally, I had the cello playing part of the open fifths (the f and the c) but somehow I don't think the intended effect would come off, as it probably wouldn't blend well with the piano chords. It would be really nice to experiment and try all these ideas at some point with a good (great!) pianist. Might have to wait a few weeks or months for that though...

It wasn't an explicit decision to make the cello part 'easier' than the piano part - It isn't exactly easy in itself - alot of high lying lines, and the semis of the last section for instance, but I admit it never goes to the edges of possibility really. The cello is just not very good at chordal features, or smashing out loud rhythms, and as I'm sure you know it is very difficult to balance in cello concertos and sonatas (in loud sections).

In 276 onwards - the cello could play thirds in theory, but actually paradoxically, it usually is more difficult to hear double stops on the cello - the bow needs to push down at least twice as hard to get the same sound as its working against the tension of two strings(which usuallly just isn't possible without breaking either the bow, the string, the cello or your hand - probably in that order!) - so it's usually louder to play single notes (when accompanied at least). Also vibrato and general movement is severaly restricted with double stops, especially thirds, which further decreases the intensity of the sound. I will try it out though, but in general, thirds are the most taxing thing on the cello (I even prefer tenths or double stopped unisons!).

Most of the things that I haven't commented on here, I have incorporated into the score, so don't think I'm unnapreciative, just because I haven't mentioned all the other details - you know how it is - things that make good sense and everyone is happy eith accepting rarely get discussed.

I love your Ivesian idea! And the Timpani effect - I might produce two versions.   But then I suppose in that case, I might as well produce a version for four hands and cello.  

I heard recently of a version for 4 pianos - I'd love to hear that!

Thankyou very much Maciek for those contributions - I realise I shouldn't have asked you with your PHD to finish! Sorry. When you do have time, I would be most interested to see what Leechkiss does in bar 223 onwarsds and bar 276 onwards. Luke and Larry have made excellent suggestions though.

Luke at the front of the book it says its an exact reprint of Stravinsky's 1913 four hand rehearsal version.

Will write more responses when I read through again and see what I've forgotten.

[Larry Rinkel]

In 276 onwards - the cello could play thirds in theory, but actually paradoxically, it usually is more difficult to hear double stops on the cello - the bow needs to push down at least twice as hard to get the same sound as its working against the tension of two strings(which usuallly just isn't possible without breaking either the bow, the string, the cello or your hand - probably in that order!) - so it's usually louder to play single notes (when accompanied at least). Also vibrato and general movement is severaly restricted with double stops, especially thirds, which further decreases the intensity of the sound. I will try it out though, but in general, thirds are the most taxing thing on the cello (I even prefer tenths or double stopped unisons!).

Tenths are just as good, so long as the harmony is represented. It's just too much to ask of your pianist to carry all that texture single-handed. Or double-handed, as the case may be. Maybe triple-handed would do it, if you go the Ivesian route.

[lukeottevanger]

I love your Ivesian idea! And the Timpani effect - I might produce two versions.   But then I suppose in that case, I might as well produce a version for four hands and cello.  

Just to clarify - the timpani/tam-tam effect I described could be done with just the normal complement of hands.

[Guido]

Yeah I got that Luke - I am working on it now. 

Larry - sorry I meant technically I'd prefer to play tenths. But the sound of tenths is even more anemic than thirds... I fully understand the criticism - I will try these things out. Actually sixths might work - they're easier and easier to vibrate...

EDIT: OK - with the downward arpegiation for the timpani roll - do you think the gracenotes should be tied to the normal notes, or should there be downward arpeggiation, followed by a distinct chord on the same notes (if that makes any sense?). Also on my recording, the rising, F G A figure in the bass is really not very audible - maybe  reducing that dramatically - maybe only one note? It just sounds like a soft offbeat compared to the blaring brass and woodwind at this point... Just an idea (but actually maybe not a very good one)

b 325 onwards - the triplets in the left hand that intersperse the chords - neither of you have mentioned these but I imagine they arent that pleasant - thoughts?

[lukeottevanger]

EDIT: OK - with the downward arpegiation for the timpani roll - do you think the gracenotes should be tied to the normal notes, or should there be downward arpeggiation, followed by a distinct chord on the same notes (if that makes any sense?). Also on my recording, the rising, F G A figure in the bass is really not very audible - maybe  reducing that dramatically - maybe only one note? It just sounds like a soft offbeat compared to the blaring brass and woodwind at this point... Just an idea.

The former I think - tying the arpeggio grace notes, to give the impression of a crescendo on a single impulse, not two separate impulses.

b 325 onwards - the triplets in the left hand that intersperse the chords - neither of you have mentioned these but I imagine they arent that pleasant - thoughts?

No, they are neither easy nor difficult; they feel a little odd, and it's uncomfy having to rush up and down for them; also, you need to give them a different timbre to make it clear that they are a different layer - they do sound rather odd without some kind of extra input, I think. But at the same time, they are perfectly playable in themselves.

[Guido]

Cheers Luke - what do you think of the fifths chord bit 101 being more divided between the hands?

Sixths don't work - because the harmony sounds wrong (wrong note at the top) - Should have noticed that. Will try thirds now.

[Guido]

Thirds also dont work. Tenths actually might - I tried them with the cello playing the Bb above the stave and the Gb a tenth below - pretty difficult, but playable - I'll have to see if the sound cut accross the piano at this point.

[lukeottevanger]

Cheers Luke - what do you think of the fifths chord bit 101 being more divided between the hands?

That was something I was pondering commenting on originally.

The thing here is that the repeated-note nature of the passage is thematic. Larry's suggestion of taking the r.h.'s two fifths in turn (DG-GC-DG) is sensible, and I recommend it, but it isn't ideal simply because we really need to hear D-D-D above all. Because of this, I was originally tempted to recommend splitting the four notes into two-per-hand, as you have since suggested (D-G; C-F). In this arrangement, repeating the chords will be easier. But, as you've correctly noted, this would entail missing a note of the ostinato. So, it boils down to a choice which only you can make:

1) Larry's method keeps the ostinato but loses you the repeated note nature of the chord

2) Your idea, which had occured to me also, keeps the repeated notes, but loses a note of the ostinato

and I suppose, which has just occured to me

3) Keep it as you have it, but miss out the C from the second and third repetitions. You keep the ostinato and the repeated notes, and only lose an internal note. This is harder than either of the above alternatives, but easier than version you have at the moment.

Btw, you could renotate the l.h. here in two voices, with the ostinato in voice 2, so that it can be in quavers throughout and remain clearly a different part.

[Joe_Campbell]

Looking at your score reminded me of this one--another reduction of Stravinsky's music:

http://www.imslpforums.org/files/Stravinsky,%20Igor/Stravinsky-three-movements-from-petrouchka.pdf

Keep up the good work!

[Guido]

Thankyou Joe. If I could play piano I would play through that now! It's nice to see that Stravinsky used three staves at times, though I'm willing to bet that his was a leeeetle bit more pianistic than mine! Theres something often very beautiful about his scores.

I'm having a bit of a stravinsky phase at the moment - the concerto for two pianos is a new discovery of mine and is absolutely brilliant, and obviously I've been listening to the Rite a lot whilst doing this. I'm really fond of the late atonal works too - especially Requiem Canticles. The Nighingale and and the Symphony of Psalms has been playing a lot too. Apparently that was Shostakovich's favourite work by Stravinsky.

Next week I'm doing an orchestra course where we'll be rehearsing and performing both the Firebird and Petrouchka - I've played the former before (the most fun I've had in an orhestra) and never even heard the second. Should be an absolute blast.

[lukeottevanger]

[Re. Petruskha transcription...]

Ah yes, that one. Years since I last ploughed through it! This must be one of the most difficult 'standard' pieces out there - it's perfectly clear how one needs to play it, but its just so tricky under the fingers..  Makes Guido's Rite look like a five finger exercise!