Recorded today, the next installment of my Mazurka cycle :

Chopin - Mazurka Op.6 No.1 in F Sharp Minor
Chopin - Mazurka Op.6 No.2 in C Sharp Minor
Chopin - Mazurka Op.6 No.3 in E Major
Chopin - Mazurka Op.6 No.4 in E Flat Minor

Comments welcome...

What a coincidence. I was just playing these first two yesterday. On second thought, it's probably not a coincidence.

#1 - You play staccato (or more like that kind of staccato that has the symbol like a tiny upside down triangle) on the 1st eighth note following the triplets (measure 5, the b#) and all other measure like it. Not that it sounds bad, but I don't have this in the score.

last line, first page (right before repeat) phrase marks go across the entire measure on 2nd and 3rd from end.

Next page, after repeats - the both hands octave c-sharps. I couldn't hear the top right hand one. I know that's the pinky, but maybe you can tilt your hand more to the right to get the sound out more.

Good job on the section with all the grace notes.

#2 - All good - One little thing - On the leggiero line, 5th measure - You should hit octave g-sharps in left hand. It sounds good this way. Maybe your score doesn't have it.

#3 - Left hand should come down more in volume when the right joins in on measure 5 thru 8. Your balance was better on the similar subsequent passages.

First attempt at legato thirds a little shaky, but you got better later on.

4th measure from end - last RH top note should be a g-sharp.

#4 - All good.

I like these nice youtful mazurkas of Chopin and played them in a rectial...22 years ago .

Overall, I noticed that you do not make very much changes in the dynamics. There are pp as well as ff in these mazurkas but I also know that the Edirol unfortunately neutralizes much of the dynamics. This is probably what you gain most with more professional microphones when making recordings.

1. Really good and note perfect from what I can hear! As Monica said, you play some notes staccato and I do not have that in my score either. I guess this is your way of interpretation and I don't have anything against it. I can hear the top notes of the C-sharp octaves but perhaps would like them even louder, marked ff as they are.

2. Very good and almost perfect. At bar 23, I too have a G-sharp deep octave with left hand in my score. Also, in the next last bar of the second part, you play an E instead of D-sharp but at the repeat (as well as in the end), you play the D-sharp so that was for certain a slip.

3. Also very good but a couple of times, as in bar 11, the two fingers chord comes out a bit ugly but for most of of the other times (it exist 8 times), it comes out well.

4. You play this mazurka a lot faster and more distinct than I expected you to do. I play this softer, calmer and slower and let it fade in, continue as a melancolique low voice conversation and then fade out but it is your choice to interpret as you want of course. Notwise, it was perfect.

Well done!

Thanks Robert and Monica for your comments. About G# octaves in nr, 2, I play exactly what is in my Peters score but I seem to hit the bass note in bar 21 inaudible. Playing notes too soft so they can't be heard seems to be my biggest problem now. Yeah, damned double notes in nr.3... always have trouble with them, just like in Op.67 Nr.1. And dynamics, yes partly me, certainly partly the Edirol.

Listening back I am not very satisfied with these, but otoh they're not bad enough to need re-recording any time soon.

Monica, I don't see what you mean here:



Listening back I hear not mistake with a top note. However I see that I play the middle voice wrong in the penultimate bar - never noticed that before...

Here's how it looks in my score. You must not have this in yours, since it's pretty obvious. However, I have to say that I like your way better because it creates more interest at the end.


It goes by too fast for me to hear. Don't know how to slow down the player.

They absolutely do not need to be re-recorded. They are really well executed!

Well that is stretching the limit a bit... They're no worse than the others though, and one has to leave well enough alone even if there always seems to be something to be unsatisfied about.

Ok, that's my first listening in the new year at PianoSociety. And to put it in advance, I did not get disappointed by your interpretations!

6/1: I especially like your tempo, the middle part and your rhythm playing on the dotted notes. Some notes in the left hand are missing here and there, especially in the first part (in the repetition other notes were missing in the left hand), but no big deal. It could be played more lyrical however.

6/2: It is good played, but I think this piece diserves a more dynamic playing. Do you hit the sostenuto pedal in the sotto voce sections? I would give it a try in order to change the sound color towards a more mellow sound here. Did not found any slips, however in bar 31 rh d# sounded like another tone (in similar places and repetition it was a d#).Overall I like your interpretation, especially the joyful mood.

6/3: Strong beginning with that accents and without loosing groove. I like your interpretation much, and have nothing to niggle beside what Monica alreadys said concerning rh bar11 and bar 87 rh f# instead g#. Some lh notes in the section after the repetition tended to get unaudible maybe.

6/4: Can't say something useful beside that nothing sounded wrong to me. I don't get really warm with the composition itself. My score says, Presto and as tempo hint 76 for a complete bar. That means much faster. But don't know whether it would sound better...




What? The Edirol reduces dynamics? How can that be? If you have the recording level set to a fixed value instead that the level readjusts in every phrase (I expect that you use fixed level), the Edirol will capture everything!? If you play soft, why should the Edirol that not record accordingly? Of course it is a phenomen that everyone including me thinks that only 80% of the expression put into the keys come out, not 100%. However that is a fallacy. The Edirol captures everything, of course within the limits of the frequency range and signal to noise ratio. It will not have problems with that, let's say 50db difference between the loudest and softest note we can play, really!

Thanks Olaf. Yes I know about some missing notes, it's that bastard Edirol thing swallowed them And a couple of ugly slips rather than read errors. I'm sure they could be played more lyrical, but I guess that's just not me - I like my Mazurkas a bit snappy. I will be interested to hear what you'll think of my Nocturnes to come.

Yeah, nr 4 is a strange little thing. Not one of his most inspired. My score has Presto ma non troppo, but no metronome marks anywhere. 76 to the bar is a bit faster though not really all that much. It just does not feel like a Presto piece to me, and actually I wonder whether that "Presto" is original.

About reduced dynamics - we've been through that before. It definitely comes out flatter than it goes in, strange as it may be. I think these are just not the most sensitive of microphones. Which is not to deny that I still have a lot of work to do in improving dynamics. Can't go wrong, as I have you to remind me of it

Since there seem to be different opinions about the dynamic behaviour of the Edirol, we certainly still are not "though that". So, you think it comes out flatter than it goes in? How did you proof that?
Maybe one could proof that via direct comparision of a simultanous recording with Edirol and another recording tool and check the result via CoolEdit. To use the ears is doubtful since our awareness is different when we play the piano as when we listen to a recording. This awareness difference has the reason that we are not completely objective, during playing we are busy with playing and we are not truely 100% free for total listening, and next, the acoustics is drastically different if we play behind a notestand on the keyboard or listen at another place the Edirol or other recording tool is located.

Next, even if it would have been objective proofed that the Edirol flattens the dynamic (I doubt that it does noteworthy if the recording level is set to a fixed value), this would mean that the dynamic difference between loudest and softest part is reduced. This is technical speaking a dynamic compression. This however would not lead to your occasionally voiced assumption that the Edirol also swallows soft played notes and makes them unaudible. With a supposed dynamic flattening just the opposit would happen. Since the Edirol cannot perform a dynamic flattening and a dynamic expansion at the same time, something seems strange in your theory.

Say what? I personally have no problems in blaming myself completely for lack of expression, no need to accuse the recording equipment, nor piano, nor full moon or whatever. It is more or less solely me who is responsive.

Let's better be glad to have the possibility to listen to own recordings, something what pianists in the 19th century and earlier did not have. A recording tool is like a mirror, and we come closer to the truth if we carefully analyze the result we get in order to improve, instead feed the illusion that other things beside us are responsible in the first rank for the recorded result.

I just listen to an old Cortot recording. Even the poor recording equipment from 1935 can't rob the beauty from his playing, especially from his expression. Please don't say that the Edirol is worse than that.

Sorry for coming off topic, but i needed to drop a statement on that.

A good craftsman never blames his tools, right ?
Well you may be partly correct, but I have no desire to discuss this ad nauseam. I certainly do take part of the blame (and am amused you seem to have bought that joke about Edirol swallowing the missing notes). I will try to do better next time. It's never going to sound like Cortot, I'm afraid.

To let the "Edirol swalloing note tool" a joke you repeated it too often on different occasions, not only regarding this recording, so I did not refer solely on that joke.

Of course you are right regarding comparing to Cortot. I only liked to point out that even the worst recording equipment can't hide if someone pulls his full heart out on the piano like Cortot did.

And also, no recording tool or piano is perfect, there is always room for improvement, so far I agree. I am too not completely happy with my recording quality (it sounds a bit dull in comparison) and I like to analyze the signal chain for the reason (I ogle with a tube preamplifier instead the cheap mixer for providing the phantom power and signal gain for the mics).