Mephisto Waltz

Just tried playing this through yesterday. While it's a hell of a long way from Horowitz (to put it mildly) I was actually quite pleasantly surprised by the overall result. Last time I tried playing it through the bits that didn't feel good were especially audible and many things that seemed okay at the time sounded really bad too. This time there were far fewer surprises and the even the bits I wasn't happy with don't actually stand out too much- even the minor memory lapse. However, to look at the right wrist half of the time shows just how badly I'm still lapsing into the problems with aligning both the hand itself and the whole arm. When I practise with a mirror I've been pleased at just how much this has improved. There are few sections that I'm not now capable of playing individually while keeping high knuckles and a low wrist. However, put the whole piece together and it goes as bad as that! It still doesn't "just happen", no matter how much time I spend doing it. It's encouraging that I'm falling to a level where it doesn't completely screw things up (and the wrist at least looks relatively loose and free much of the time rather than truly fused into that needlessly high position) but it's rather frustrating so see just how deep the problem with aligning the arm goes. Although I can spot these things in practise and immediately stop and work at doing it better, it's still extremely hard to break out of this in the heat of the moment. I've been doing a lot of work on feeling how proper use of the thumb (coupled with an arm that hangs back to keep the wrist aligned) stops the fifth finger from slumping at the knuckle and keeps it primed. However, once I get slightly out of position the 5th is left with minimal chance of activating properly and I'm left in a position where I have little choice but to press further still- sending the wrist further forward and further up and screwing up the ability to hang at the shoulder. While I no longer feel like my arms rigidify, it's still a self-perpetuating cycle- where the wrist gets so far out of position that the hand can't activate productively enough and where the hand isn't interacting with the keyboard well enough to let the wrist hang back. A lot of the time in repeated chords and split octaves I can see how the fifth is genuinely activating a lot better than ever before (rather than just being pressed by the arm)- but it's activating from such a crap position that it's awkward and doesn't access the keys well. Somehow I need to be sure it starts from a high knuckle and low wrist in the first place- or it's almost impossible to get back into that position. Instead it just keeps getting worse and worse. Any thoughts on this? I suppose the only real solution is just to keep going with great care in practice and hope that the final product continues to get closer and closer to what happens in my best work by section. I do find it very pleasing that the results are getting better, but it's extremely frustrating to realise quite what a gap still exists between what I'm becoming capable of and what actually comes out.

Hi, It is difficult to give a close analysis but here are some of the details I noticed about the performance. Compliments 1. Beautiful color of the D-A-E rolled chords 2. I liked the transition at 3:40-to 3:55 3. On the whole I thought the lyric idea was very well done though I lost the variety of characters and the interactions between the lines. 4. The repeated notes with octave leap were excellent 5. Generally some very beautiful singing tone and pianissimos. 6. I liked the recitative near the end but maybe a little more structure. The irresolution of the recitative near the ending has to be more persuasive. Criticisms and Questions: 1. The drumroll sixteenth note triplets didn't have much character or drive 2. The opening motif E-A-E was swallowed up a little bit. Maybe it is a problem with the audio. 3. The arpeggios circa 2:30 seemed unclear 4. The double note trills around 6:00 didn't sound sinister or funny enough 5. The arpeggio splashes with the right hand around 9:30 could have more shape and character. 6. I lost some of the excitement around 10:00-11:00. The structure could be articulated more clearly and that would add to the excitement. 7. The leaps were excellent but the repeated chords should respond in some way. I think of it as a comic juxtaposition of gestures and a grotesque variation on the original lyric idea. 8. Why did you play the left- triplets so heavily? Could you explain why you follow Horowitz in thickening the chords? I know this is still a work in progress but these are some of the things that interest me. I want to understand your interpretive decisions better. Have you seen the Sebok demonstration of the Mephisto Waltz? What are your thoughts on it? What do you think of Clifford Curzon's interpretation?

Cheers for your thoughts! I'll just go through a few of them: "1. The drumroll sixteenth note triplets didn't have much character or drive" Yeah, certainly agreed. They could be a lot more energetic. "2. The opening motif E-A-E was swallowed up a little bit. Maybe it is a problem with the audio." Horowitz adds some grace notes here- although they weren't executed very precisely. Also, my rather subdued piano combined with an in-built camera microphone does take a lot of the clarity and character away. "4. The double note trills around 6:00 didn't sound sinister or funny enough" Yeah, this is a place where the high wrist was definitely screwing things up. I need to get the 5th aligned much better to act into the key. "6. I lost some of the excitement around 10:00-11:00. The structure could be articulated more clearly and that would add to the excitement." What do you mean, exactly? What aspect of the structure? "7. The leaps were excellent but the repeated chords should respond in some way. I think of it as a comic juxtaposition of gestures and a grotesque variation on the original lyric idea." Yeah, I want to make the leaps a lot lighter and chords far more explosive. "8. Why did you play the left- triplets so heavily? Could you explain why you follow Horowitz in thickening the chords? " I just prefer the explosion he makes there, with a completely new sound. When catching up on the arpeggio after the two handed chords it can make for a great surge of sound (although sadly the arpeggios here are probably the most cumbersomely executed part of the whole piece) Also, it would be odd to play his version overall yet go with the normal version for this passage.

Hi, Thanks for the response. Regarding the trills, I love the way Curzon plays them. Sebok's explanation of the lyric waltz theme is also very interesting because you perceive the multi-dimensionality more clearly. For example, you see how the vocal leap of the fifth to the D flat over the half diminished chord initiates the falling chromatic line in octaves and how behind the lines has to differ. Regarding structure I just mean the phrase construction. My take on this section is as follows. So the first part consists of a four bar phrase that grows out of the rising three note shape and then two two bar phrases that compress the idea. This is sequenced through the circle of fifths, the bass line being C#-F#-B-E. Then when the bass hits the B flat, is an important harmonic event one four bar phrase is repeated and that F to E gesture becomes more and more insistent. Then you have a compression into bar sequence. The bass line moves up a diminished chord and you end abruptly. I hope this is intelligible. I am sure you already understand how the section works. I just feel like this compression process and the settling on the the diminished chord with the Bb in the bass needs to come through. Of course you dont have to while playing but the excitement is already there in the design. Regarding the fattening of the triplet chords, I understand the need for consistency but I am not sure that it would be inconsistent to play that part like Liszt's original. After all Horowitz mixed up the original with the Busoni version and you added some things also. Anyway I would be interested in your response.

"Sebok's explanation of the lyric waltz theme is also very interesting because you perceive the multi-dimensionality more clearly. For example, you see how the vocal leap of the fifth to the D flat over the half diminished chord initiates the falling chromatic line in octaves and how behind the lines has to differ." Yes, what he suggests makes a lot of sense. "I hope this is intelligible. I am sure you already understand how the section works. I just feel like this compression process and the settling on the the diminished chord with the Bb in the bass needs to come through. Of course you dont have to while playing but the excitement is already there in the design." I see what you mean, but I don't really follow specifically what this would suggest about the actual execution. Could you just clarify what you think should be done to reflect that? I don't personally feel the B flat should be either "settled" nor a notable point arrival. I think it the music should simply come down at that point and build up again. I personally I think I landed too hard on the first B flat. "Regarding the fattening of the triplet chords, I understand the need for consistency but I am not sure that it would be inconsistent to play that part like Liszt's original. After all Horowitz mixed up the original with the Busoni version and you added some things also." My main reason is quite simply that I prefer the violent explosion of Horowitz's more brutal texture and the surge of catching up with the arpeggio after. The original version takes phenomenal strength not to sound rather light and comfortable, by comparison. That's not the character I want there.

The diminished chord is obviously unstable but it lasts for a long time, the sense of harmonic movement is lost. The Bb signals the beginning of the third part of the section and the phrases become more concentrated. As far as execution goes I think that the motivic unit has to have more character and consistency. The rising three note shape is a synthesis of the opening E-A-E motif and the leap of the fifth. If you play the first or second note too heavy then the gesture doesn't really work. It has to move straight to the high note but with some emphasis on the large intervallic leap. By consistency I mean that the way you render the gesture should remain the same, otherwise the intensity and manic forward movement is lost. The whole section has a very clear and even hierarchical arrangement and the bass line sequence needs to be more precisely delineated. When you pause too much to hit the B and then the Bb I think you fragment the bass line. Also the bass notes have to be sharper but shorter in duration I think. The eighth note rest is very important. This might be difficult because of the left hand leap. Anyway, the connection of the sequence could be stonger. The breaths might be better placed you hit the bass note of the new sequence. I think the sense of timing that comes from thinking about this way is very different. It doesn't even have to be a real pause, just a distinction between the lines. Do you agree? Actually on second listening I think you do sense the proportions of the section clearly. Maybe it was the bass movement that caused my perception. The long diminished sequence uses that half step motif and I the sense of climbing and compressing is essential. So I structure it as F FEF, FEG# .. etc. This is all very difficult to describe but I hope this was more specific and informative. I am also curious to hear your thoughts in more detail on Sebok's conception of the piece and Curzon's interpretation.

"As far as execution goes I think that the motivic unit has to have more character and consistency. The rising three note shape is a synthesis of the opening E-A-E motif and the leap of the fifth. If you play the first or second note too heavy then the gesture doesn't really work. It has to move straight to the high note but with some emphasis on the large intervallic leap. By consistency I mean that the way you render the gesture should remain the same, otherwise the intensity and manic forward movement is lost." I can't really agree, to be honest. If it were basically the same every time I'd find that monotonous. I like for some to be relatively straightforward, while others are more tortured and stretched out. Obviously the theme has it's roots in the original motif, but I'm more interested in the change of character than in making it similar. In thematic transformations, the similarity is already largely inherent in the writing. I'm much more interested in illustrating what has changed than in making an effort to show similarity. I believe it's much more about the transformation than the common root. I'm not saying nothing should ever be unified, but I don't subscribe to the modern idea that structure is all about bringing things together. I'm more interested in difference than in unification. "The whole section has a very clear and even hierarchical arrangement and the bass line sequence needs to be more precisely delineated. When you pause too much to hit the B and then the Bb I think you fragment the bass line. " With the pause before the B, that's exactly what I want to do. I don't personally want the movement to sound completely straightforward and continuous. I want two completely different statements. "Also the bass notes have to be sharper but shorter in duration I think. The eighth note rest is very important." I'm not convinced here. Liszt made pedal marks that make it clear that it's an ongoing bass note. I believe the rest is little more than a notational convention. Regardless, I prefer a big resonant sound for many of these- rather than a rapid stab. "I am also curious to hear your thoughts in more detail on Sebok's conception of the piece and Curzon's interpretation." What Sebok says makes sense. A slightly "flowery" description perhaps but certainly interesting. Curzon sounded good, but didn't really stand out to me, to be honest. Not that it wasn't good, but once you've heard a certain number of performances there are few surprises left from the vast majority of even great performers. It's pretty rare to hear someone who has something truly unique to draw you in, without going doing down much the same road as what you've heard in countless other performances. I find much the same when listening to the majority of performers in the Sonata. I've heard so many that simply being good doesn't really interest me much unless there are some truly personal ideas that I could not have anticipated.

1. Well it isn't a dichotomy between sameness or differentiation. It is more about showing the precise relation things have to one another. If you render that three note motif differently every time without each one building off the other in a specific way it just doesn't sound coherent. I would think that interpreters are striving to make coherent and complex and varied statements. The surface is differentiated but there are underlying symmetries that hold the thing together. That is the ideal, while monotony and incoherence are the bane. 2. Of course there has to be breath and distinctness in music. My point is about the particular way you choose to delineate the lines. It doesn't make sense to me to break that line the way you do. 3. I guess you have a rationale for playing the sf octaves. My interpretation is that he wants to color the bass line without weighing down the texture. The sforzando seems to me a comic element. 4. Sebok does say at the end that Liszt wouldn't care for his own explanations and I don't think he means to interpret THE meaning behind the piece. The allegories and metaphors just help him think about and explain to students the quality of gesture and rhetoric. And the results are excellent, just look at how spontaneous and insightful his playing is. 5. Curzon's performance impresses me because of its finely worked out conception and the pianistic command. I almost feel like the need to have a unique or personal vision of the piece can be restrictive. He is content to grasp the inner workings and character of the work and to polish every interpretive idea until the performance does it justice. There is nothing derivative or generic about this, neither is there any striving for "originality." While I think the kind of approach that Gould or Horowitz took was admirable I find the other approach equally interesting. Certainly in Curzon's case there is no lack of nervous energy or communicative intensity.

"1. Well it isn't a dichotomy between sameness or differentiation. It is more about showing the precise relation things have to one another. If you render that three note motif differently every time without each one building off the other in a specific way it just doesn't sound coherent. I would think that interpreters are striving to make coherent and complex and varied statements. The surface is differentiated but there are underlying symmetries that hold the thing together. That is the ideal, while monotony and incoherence are the bane." My point is that it's all relative. If I listen to Brendel's piano playing, I hear monotony. Some may hear differences, but all I hear is sameness. The pianists who I admire are regarded as completely incoherent by many, but to my ears anything less is just too constant and inadequately characterised. I do take your point, but I suspect that your take is vastly more geared to similarity than mine. Personally, I think that simply to make the notes of a motif audible is more than enough to show where it's roots lie. I don't see why a pianist should be making an effort to show how something that's already the same is the same. I'm more interested in what's not the same and in trying to reveal the distinctions. I don't see why everyone should have to be more geared to unification than differentiation- especially in a composer who invented the concept of "thematic " Of course there are countless things that could be executed better, but nothing would persuade me to change my basic attitude. I'd sooner be guilty of excessive difference than similarity. "2. Of course there has to be breath and distinctness in music. My point is about the particular way you choose to delineate the lines. It doesn't make sense to me to break that line the way you do." I respect your opinion, but I think it's the same what I said above. To my ears, to make it continuous is too much a case of simply doing the same thing twice. I prefer to leave it hanging before proceeding into the second statement- making the continuation a surprise rather than an ordinary extension. It's not a place where I would personally care to change to the standard straight-up approach. In fact, seeing as you mention structure, can you think of any other place where this basic idea reappears in a downward sequence like this? Why make it seem normal to go there- when it ought to be a big surprise? From my point of view, ploughing straight on reveals far less about the structural significance, compared to making an issue of the downward key shift. "Curzon's performance impresses me because of its finely worked out conception and the pianistic command. I almost feel like the need to have a unique or personal vision of the piece can be restrictive. He is content to grasp the inner workings and character of the work and to polish every interpretive idea until the performance does it justice." It's not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just that it's a piece that has been played by so many fine performers. Aside from a few moments, just about everything falls into a range that I could have expected from what I've already heard elsewhere. Nothing really frightened me. I'd appreciate such playing much more in a concert hall than as a recording. Having heard Cziffra, Richter, Kapell etc. however, Curzon just didn't particularly grab me or stand out from the crowd.

One more point about trying to unify repetitions of a motif- I think it can be very limiting to interpretation and particularly to rubato. If a motif is to be executed in basically the same way, there's a limit to how much rubato you can use to start with- otherwise any repetition could easily sound like an annoying mannerism. I'd far sooner hear a a motif played with a whole range of different characterisations than played either repeatedly straight up or repeatedly with the same mannerism. Frequently that which would be a mannerism when done twice sounds extremely interesting when only done once. If similarity is too high up in the priorities you're stuck with mannerism or literalism. How successful I am in achieving it is a whole other issue, but similarity that exists by very nature is rarely something that I make it my intention to display (beyond how it displays itself). It's what I willfully seek to avoid as much possible. I think there's a big difference between how you'd expect to approach a fugue subject, compared to motific strands in the romantic era.