Debussy preludes - timings
Andy Evans
'alive' in the Preludes Book 1, I did remember preferring his playing by a
considerable margin and feeling that other pianists were seeming slow and
sonorous in comparison. When I checked the timings of four pianists I had to
hand, I could see why - Cortot is considerably faster over the whole twelve
Preludes, and notably so in numbers 2 (with Gieseking) 4, 6,8 and 10.
Cortot Giesek. Michel. Egorov
1 2.47 3.11 3.08 3.23
2 2.48 2.44 4.24 3.42
3 2.02 1.57 2.1 1.58
4 2.36 3.31 3.34 3.46
5 2.46 2.47 3.15 2.54
6 2.59 3.29 4.5 4.15
7 3.15 2.44 3.37 3.2
8 1.48 2.2 2.42 2.18
9 2.12 2.14 2.37 2.32
10 4.34 6.32 6.5 6.38
11 2.24 2.24 3.06 2.56
12 1.53 2 2.25 2.18
These timings, apart from being significant in themselves, suggest - if this
totally inadequately small sample were to be representative - something
else. The Preludes in these four cases get slower as we go through the 20th
century. I asked a concert pianist today if there could be anything in this
and he wondered if modern pianists were taking advantage of the sonorities
of the modern piano, whereas the French Pleyels early in the century had
light actions conducive to fast playing and a somewhat smaller sonority.
Now, I realise at this point that I'm not only right out on the end of the
branch in sheer guesswork, but probably dangling about in the air. What I do
continue to think, however, is that I subjectively prefer Cortot's Preludes
in direct comparison with the above (and also Arrau, Rev, Beroff which I
have no timings for) by just as much as when I first heard them. Part of my
explanation for why, is that the individual motifs that make up each piece
appear to relate more clearly when they are juxtaposed close together than
when they are drawn apart by slow tempos, i.e. the actual musical
construction of the Prelude (as opposed to the effect of its sonority)
appears to make more sense when played faster, or at least when Cortot plays
it faster. If anyone has these performances on CD and wants to see what I
mean, play the fourth prelude (Les sons et les parfums) by Cortot and then
by other pianists.
I've tried to express this as best I can, and would be grateful if others
could take over from here and either disagree in whole or in part, or maybe
help me understand why I find Cortot a quantum step closer to how I hear
these Preludes inside my own head. Andy
samir ghiocel golescu
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Andy Evans wrote:
>
> Cortot Giesek. Michel. Egorov
> 1 2.47 3.11 3.08 3.23
> 2 2.48 2.44 4.24 3.42
> 3 2.02 1.57 2.1 1.58
> 4 2.36 3.31 3.34 3.46
> 5 2.46 2.47 3.15 2.54
> 6 2.59 3.29 4.5 4.15
> 7 3.15 2.44 3.37 3.2
> 8 1.48 2.2 2.42 2.18
> 9 2.12 2.14 2.37 2.32
> 10 4.34 6.32 6.5 6.38
> 11 2.24 2.24 3.06 2.56
> 12 1.53 2 2.25 2.18
>
> These timings, apart from being significant in themselves, suggest - if this
> totally inadequately small sample were to be representative - something
> else. The Preludes in these four cases get slower as we go through the 20th
> century.
I'm waiting for Andy Evans' grandson to compare the timings in the middle
of 21st century. I bet a piano string against a putrid onion then will be
twice even slower (-:
Andy Evans
>of 21st century. I bet a piano string against a putrid onion then will be
>twice even slower (-:
I suppose if we extrapolated the four pianists in question literally we
would by then be listening to the first prelude in January and the last
sometime after Christmas. This might make it just a litlle harder to follow
the musical argument, e.g. during the Summer Holidays....
Benjamin Maso
Andy Evans wrote in message <36a7a...@news1.mcmail.com>...
>When I quickly, off the top of my head, remembered Cortot as being more
>'alive' in the Preludes Book 1, I did remember preferring his playing by a
>considerable margin and feeling that other pianists were seeming slow and
>sonorous in comparison. When I checked the timings of four pianists I had
to
>hand, I could see why - Cortot is considerably faster over the whole twelve
>Preludes, and notably so in numbers 2 (with Gieseking) 4, 6,8 and 10.
>
Zimmer.Immers.
>1 2.47 3.11 3.08 3.23 2.29 2.52 3.15 3.15 2.58
3.38 3.18
>2 2.48 2.44 4.24 3.42 3.33 3.42 4.26 4.25 3.30
4.28 3.36
>3 2.02 1.57 2.1 1.58 1.55 2.21 2.06 2.11 2.08
2.07 2.25
>4 2.36 3.31 3.34 3.46 3.08 2.42 3.36 3.52 3.16
3.55 3.21
>5 2.46 2.47 3.15 2.54 2.55 3.07 3.14 3.02 2.49
3.32 3.00
>6 2.59 3.29 4.5 4.15 3.20 4.45 4.59 4.03 4.27
4.25 4.52
>7 3.15 2.44 3.37 3.2 3.04 3.30 3.38 3.29 3.16
3.14 3.38
>8 1.48 2.2 2.42 2.18 2.08 2.09 2.48 2.47 2.20
3.09 2.40
>9 2.12 2.14 2.37 2.32 2.20 2.53 2.39 2.57 2.21
2.30 2.26
>10 4.34 6.32 6.5 6.38 5.15 6.04 6.47 6.44 6.54
7.27 6.07
>11 2.24 2.24 3.06 2.56 2.01 2.41 3.10 3.29 2.31
2.34 3.02
>12 1.53 2 2.25 2.18 2.28 2.01 2.29 2.19
2.05 2.28 2.05
Gulda:
1 2.31
2 3.16
3 2.00
4 2.54
5 2.58
6 3.46
7 3.01
8 2.06
9 2.30
10 6.38
11 2.49
12 2.00
>These timings, apart from being significant in themselves, suggest - if
this
>totally inadequately small sample were to be representative - something
>else. The Preludes in these four cases get slower as we go through the 20th
>century. I asked a concert pianist today if there could be anything in this
>and he wondered if modern pianists were taking advantage of the sonorities
>of the modern piano, whereas the French Pleyels early in the century had
>light actions conducive to fast playing and a somewhat smaller sonority.
>
>Now, I realise at this point that I'm not only right out on the end of the
>branch in sheer guesswork, but probably dangling about in the air. What I
do
>continue to think, however, is that I subjectively prefer Cortot's Preludes
>in direct comparison with the above (and also Arrau, Rev, Beroff which I
>have no timings for) by just as much as when I first heard them. Part of my
>explanation for why, is that the individual motifs that make up each piece
>appear to relate more clearly when they are juxtaposed close together than
>when they are drawn apart by slow tempos, i.e. the actual musical
>construction of the Prelude (as opposed to the effect of its sonority)
>appears to make more sense when played faster, or at least when Cortot
plays
>it faster. If anyone has these performances on CD and wants to see what I
>mean, play the fourth prelude (Les sons et les parfums) by Cortot and then
>by other pianists.
>
>I've tried to express this as best I can, and would be grateful if others
>could take over from here and either disagree in whole or in part, or maybe
>help me understand why I find Cortot a quantum step closer to how I hear
>these Preludes inside my own head. Andy
>
I couldn't resist to add some more timings. It confirms the fact that
preludes are played slower and slower. Casadesus and Gulda recorded the
preludes in 1953 and 1955 and their timings are closest tho those of Cortot.
Samson Francois, a pupil of Cortot's, is following the general trend in
1968. Benedetti Michelangeli in 1978 is setting with his ultra-slow timings
new standards, followed by Arrau in 1979 and Zimmermann in 1994, but not by
every pianist (cf. Egorov, Rev). Has the slowing down anathing to do with
the qualities of a modern piano? Jos van Immerseel is playing a Erard from
1897, but his timings are more or less the same as those of Samson Francois,
Livia Rev and Youri Egorov.
Modern pianists accentuate (or should I say overaccentuate? ) with their
slow tempo and pedalling the dreamy-like impressionism of Debussy's music,
and trend whic probably was set in by Gieseking. It's always difficult, if
not impossible, to say what kind of interpretation is ideal. But
Benedetti-M. or Zimmermann, beautiful as they may sound, are indeed loosing
some of the structure of Debussy's preludes. Cortot is from time to time too
fast to my taste, but the tempi of Casedesus or Gulda IMO reach a near
perfect ideal.
Benjo Maso
Luca Sabbatini
1. 2'22
2. 3'16
3. 2'02
4. 2'56
5. 2'55
6. 3'32
7. 2'52
8. 2'11
9. 2'23
10.5'46
11.2'48
12.2'04
These tempi are pretty close to Gulda's and Casadesus. There is still room
in the CD for the whole Book II. The playing of FJT is full of colors and
atmosphere, and nevertheless precise and well built. He plays a modern
grand. Maybe it's just that he's a musician with plenty of imagination?
LS
---
To e-mail me, please remove CAPS from reply address
Andy Evans
takes an average of 2'43 and Zimmerman an average of 4 minutes per Prelude!
The 'faster' school includes Gieseking, Casadesus and Gulda. The 'slower'
school includes Michelangeli, Arrau and Immerseel. When Cortot plays number
10 (Cathedral Englouti) at 4.34 and Zimmerman at 7.27 one wonders if they
are playing the same piece of music. Andy