You mention the rubato; I thought I had done it! Does it not come through?
Maybe you did one in some of the takes you didn't submit.
I can't hear one. You do pause on the fermata, before playing the semiquaver C in the 6th bar of the 2nd section, but in my score there is not only a rit
marked at the beginning of the 4th bar, but it is reinforced by ri_tar_dan_do
printed (on both staves, so you can't miss it) in the 5th and 6th bars. It is this rit
which I am not hearing. It seems to me your triplets are not slowing down until you've played the 6th triplet of the 6th bar, and then
I tend to mark the start of a repeat. It used to be worse, but I still need to master this point, to allow breathing time, but without losing the rhythm. Maybe a way to practice would be to copy the score out, copying the repeats, in such a way that there is no visual caesura to disturb the flow.
I suspect that this course of action would be pedagogically wrong. It might work for the piece you copy out, but you can't go copying out every piece like that. You need to face these demons instead of closing your eyes and making them go away. You need to retrain your brain to recognise the repeat sign as only
a repeat sign and not as an instruction to stop briefly. But doesn't it go beyond just being a cognitive issue? Isn't it also a matter of working out how
to achieve a noticeable phrase separation without making a gap?
Interesting point about the 3-1 and 5-1. ... Even if I am damning my own handiwork, I dare to agree with you and would say that if Schumann wanted 5-1 he would have used a double-dotted rhythm and not the one he wrote.
Except that simple double-dotting would make the rhythm 7+1 instead of 5+1. To write something which would give a 5+1 ratio would look pretty ugly: it would involve a crotchet tied to a semiquaver, followed by the other semiquaver, all three of these notes under the umbrella of a triplet symbol. Definitely worth abbreviating. But I guess one could argue that he would have written it out the ugly way at least once and then used abbreviations for the other occurrences.
Trouble is I'm not sure myself. If it's shorthand, who's to say it couldn't even mean that the semiquaver should fall on the 3rd triplet instead of halfway through it? That certainly seems pretty unlikely in this case, and I'm unaware of anyone actually playing this piece like that, but it is a form of abbreviation sometimes believed to be implied in certain contexts; I think I've seen the question discussed in relation to Schubert's Impromptu Op 90 No 1.
Now, if I were to count the triplets thus: 1,2; 3,4; 5,6 and where two equal quavers
don't you mean two equal crotchets?
fall on 1 and 4, where would the semiquaver after the dotted quaver fall?
It makes no difference whether you count the triplets as 1
,5,6 or as 1
,6, except that one way may be more helpful to you than the other in getting the semiquaver to come at the correct time. If a dotted quaver coincides with 1 or 4, then the following semiquaver should fall a quarter of the way through 3 or 6.
The way to demonstrate this is to subdivide each crotchet (quarter note) into twelve equal parts, which would hence be 48th notes, but since that's a bit of a mouthful let's just call them pips. Then clearly each triplet is worth 4 pips and each semiquaver (16th note) is worth 3 pips, and since a dotted quaver is worth three semiquavers that would be 9 pips. The question you're in effect asking is how many triplets the dotted quaver is worth. So how many lots of 4 pips fit into 9 pips? The answer is 9/4 or 2.25. It's a pity that playing it isn't always quite as easy as the arithmetic.