I believe you can more prominently etch with the RH thumb the inner scalar line, G, A, B, C and C#.

In measure 17, I suggest that you maintain forward motion in tempo. Then when you play the slentando in measure 18, it will occur as written and will be much more differentiated, meaningful and effective.

You've made an "emendation" to the score in measure 17 by playing the B octave one octave lower than written with a fairly big crash as well. The problem as I hear it is that the effect is simply too much given the character and context of the rest of the piece.

Hi Eddy,

Interesting analogy, though frankly it seems a bit vague to me (I never was one for applied science ). I'll zero in on the primary musical statement:



Again, I don't think this is quite right, or at least an oversimplification. The rhythm with a uniform pattern is not really being substantivelyaltered because its internal pulse is consistent and the same and you can't completely alter that when applying rubato, just change its internal consistency. It's different than playing an entirely different rhythm that indeed would result from one's negligence in keeping time. The end of the exposition of the late Haydn E-flat Major sonata is one example that popped into my head; I've heard several professional pianists incorrectly play the last two shakes as rests followed by sixteenths rather than eighths, which mathematically and unambiguously alters the duration of the measure. That, in other words, is a completely different rhythm. You're correct in saying that the effect of rubato is one of overall tempo, but in altering that, one cannot help but make slight to moderate alterations in the rhythm of a consistent figuration, for indeed even if we mechanically follow the traditional definition of the term, the speedings up and slowings down do just that to both the tempo and the rhythm. In other words, tempo and rhythm are inextricably linked and rubato by necessity affects both (which is why your "except in the context of said tempo" doesn't really make sense to me -- because rubato always affects both tempo and rhythm to some degree, however small). The notion of whether you find the rubato repetitive is, I think, irrelevant. Speedings up and slowings down that occur repetitively change the tempo, and internal rhythm to some degree, the same mathematical amount as speedings up and slowings down that occur with greater variation (assuming we could replicate the same amount of change in both places in the passage). You can argue that you don't find it aesthetically pleasing or that you would want to hear it applied in a different way, but "rhythmic freedom" is in fact part of the universally accepted meaning of the term.

Joe

Joe, specifically, what precisely is the musical justification in your rendition of the Op.28 no.4 for hurring only the second half of the first beat (3rd and 4th 8th-notes in cut-time) in the first four measures? Except for those four isolated pulses, your interprestation is very nice. But given that there is nothing of interest on those four selected time-keeping pulses (no harmonic change, no melodic change, no dynamic change) its hard to see what the purpose of rubato is on such "empty" pulses. In fact what happens is that you draw attention to the up-beat of beat one repeatedly. Why 1 & 2 & 1 & 2 & , etc. when the work is structured: & 1 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 1, etc.?

It's the reason I don't delight in pointing out a note mistake or spending my time craning my eyes for an infaithfulness to the score.

But then there's the other story about Chopin playing his own mazurkas in 4/4 time (sorry, can't remember the source)...

The pseudoscience that has grown up around rubato does get ridiculous sometimes. If we start trying to give precise definitions of "tempo" and "rhythm", we'll soon find that the two can never be entirely separated. We can analyse as much as we like, but in the end it still comes down to a matter of taste.

I like the Paderewski Edition for playing the preludes, but just now looked in the Schirmer edited by Joseffy (one of the finest editors of all time). There the slentando does occur in measure 17, unlike the Paderewski.

By nature it must be more the exception than the rule [snip]

That is very true. You sometimes hear players who continuously distort the music by not playing any two bars, in the same rhythm and tempo. Rubato must indeed be applied judiciously or it will become a bad habit.

Sort of like the way pop singers sing these days. Horrible...they hardly stay on the melody...I hate that!