Recommendations please - Chopin preludes

Hi Doug,

Awaiting the Blechaz recording and practicing the Db "Raindrop" prelude #15 ... what a profound little gem it is! That dark C# minor middle section is especially wonderful.

Just want to make it perfectly clear: Even though sound quality is very important to me, I'm absolutely able to separate it from the performance. My reaction to the Rubenstein Preludes has nothing to do with the sound and everything to do with the performance ... even if I had heard it live I assure you I'd still object.

All best,

Fred

Hi Mike,

I think we're largely debating semantics here. Aside from my point that our collective cultural notion of what is dissonant has evolved significantly over the centuries, the idea of melodic dissonance is somewhat of a misnomer to the extent that it has misled you to believe that "no second voice is required to demonstrate tension and release" ... yes, in the most strict literal sense there may be no second voice sounding at that very moment, but the reason that the major 7th (fourth note of I Can't Get Started, and, by the way, also the fourth note of Gershwin's I Loves You, Porgy) creates tension and is therefore considered to be dissonant, is that it's beating against the expectation produced by the preceding three notes, I-III-V, which spell the tonic triad, and, as you say, that tension wants to resolve a half-step up to the tonic, as major 7ths/leading tones are often expected to do by our ear.

Here's the thing: Whether or not those tonic triad tones are actually being sounded simultaneously with the raised 7th, whether they are being held by fingers or damper pedal (assuming they are played on piano or some other polyphonic instrument with sustaining capability, guitar, etc.) and are therefore still ringing under the raised 7th, or even if not being physically held by fingers or damper pedal but have excited overtones of the fundamental and those overtones are still faintly ringing, the dissonance comes from the juxtaposition between the raised 7th and the tonic whether it's stated or not ... even if the first four notes were played by a purely monophonic instrument in an anechoic chamber, the expectation created by the first three notes are retained in the memory of the listener's ear, and that's where the dissonance occurs when the fourth note is played.

My point remains that a single note, completely untethered to any context whatsoever, cannot be dissonant or consonant purely in and of itself ... there must be at least one other note, whether existing in actual sound waves or the listener's memory, against which the note in question is recognized as consonant or dissonant.

All best,

Fred

Thanks for the reply Fred. 

About two years ago I spent a year studying the Hindemith books on theory as a refresher, after 20+ years of not paying much attention to music theory.  He makes a huge deal of the overtone series and of the harmonic structure of melody.  I realize his books are old, and that his views on music theory do not represent the mainstream, but he makes compelling arguments.

One of the things I learned as a trumpet player was how to manipulate the loudness of the overtones, to make the sound darker or brighter.  Increasing or decreasing the airflow generally makes a note louder or softer, but some fraction of that increase or decrease in air flow will alter the loudness of the overtones without changing the loudness of the note itself, making the note brighter or darker.  So when moving from major to minor, the player might make the overtones less prominent to give the move to minor a darker character.  The best teachers I had made much of this capability, and it always put more life into the performance. 

That is the basic context in which I learned about harmony.

In reality, no musical instrument can play a note without producing overtones, so every played note has a harmonic context.  Wind instruments are able to affect the overtones in a manner unknown on a piano, and that is a major expressive device.  On a wind instrument, this is second only to articulation in shaping a phrase.

On second thought, I'm not sure of what could be done on a piano.

Yes, not only to make it darker but because one of the most prominent overtone is the major third, which obviously clashes with the minor third of the written music. In a very real way, minor keys are dissonant by default. One way to mitigate that is to play darker when playing in minor.

On a piano all the same mechanisms are in place save for being able to manipulate the sound after the key is struck. But the initial strike can give infinite shadings of overtones, darkest of dark to brightest of bright.

Just got the Blechacz disc ... wow, it's beautiful!

Doug, you're right about him taking the more Classical approach rather than Romantic, he cops to that without hesitation in the liner notes, saying he prefers a more "introspective" take, as do I. But make no mistake, there's still plenty of drama and passion.

My point about "no additional passion needed" isn't that the music should be played by emotionless robots, of course not, but that all too often musicians play the passion inherent in the music and then double it or worse, as though every composer in the Romantic era was some kind of drama queen. Blechacz cites a more "Mendelssohnian perspective," which is more Classical, and is something I've always enjoyed about Mendelssohn.

Haven't heard the whole album yet, but his performance of the Db "Raindrop" prelude is easily one of the most purely beautiful and deeply moving performances I've ever heard.

Fred,

How is the practicing on the D-flat Prelude coming along?  I’ve talked about the keys before and this is just another case in point.  D-flat major – C-sharp minor – D-Flat major:  this is just brilliant.  On the piano and in the range of pitches this fits exactly where it should be.  Higher or lower would change the character.  For those interested, on a piano, D-flat and C-sharp is actually the same note or the enharmonic equivalent, however, changing to the C-sharp minor key (lowered 3^rd, raised 7^th etc) allows the mood to become darker.  So the effect is a storm cloud between two relatively peaceful silver lining type clouds that offer some hope.

I’m glad you like the Blechacz.  I know he is a very strong player but his style as noted is very measured.  Again, this is a personal thing but I have a need for some flexibility in music no matter what period or style we are talking about.  What I mean is that I believe his playing works for perfectly in say two thirds of the Preludes or maybe even in Chopin in general.  For the other portions, I tend to feel this same style doesn’t work.  So in the pieces that call for beauty, subtlety or deal with any range of emotions other than like those that call for fiery passion then Blechacz is a perfect choice.  I do not mean this in a negative way or am not suggesting that Blechacz doesn’t work with the music or has in uninteresting interpretations.  Quite the contrary, actually. 

In maybe 5 or 6 Preludes though I believe his personality doesn’t allow him to go beyond a certain point in creating a more extreme effect.  I want to stress here that in saying this I am also assuming we can understand that this is all in the realm of good taste. 

For example, in the Raindrop Prelude and in the stormy inner c-sharp minor section, the score shows a range of pianissimo to fortissimo, at least twice.  Maybe Blechacz ranges from a 2 to 6.5 on a scale of 10 and maybe overall mainly sticks in say a 3-6 range period in his playing.  What is remarkable is his ability to provide 1000 different levels of subtlety within this middle range.  To me, this works brilliantly for most music but not every piece.  Judging by the musical instructions Chopin provided I would say that Chopin from time to time wanted to express something more impassioned too or express his rage or outrage.

Other examples are the g-sharp minor (12), b-flat minor (16), the f minor (18), the c minor  (20), the g minor (22), the d minor (24) etc.  (hmmm- they seem to mostly be the minor keys ).  Anyway, the contrast between pianissimo and forte, fortissimo and even in one case triple forte is not enough, in my opinion.  In fact, in most cases you would not note a perceptible difference.

In the b-flat minor (16) for instance there is a beautiful opportunity at bar 17 to change from forte to fortissimo like you mean business or like your life depended on it.  This prelude is extremely brutal to play and although the listener may only focus on the rapid activity in the right hand that weaves its brilliance, the real core that holds this piece together is the left hand bass doing impossible jumps.  Without it you lose the meaning.  At bar eighteen, Chopin returns to the beginning but now the bass note is double in a low octave.  Chopin is making a clear point here and you should feel like the music is taking you to some extreme edge of a cliff.  It needs to feels dangerous or like your challenge just got extremely large and maybe even like there is no way out of this.  Listen to Martha Argerich as she knows what to do with her left hand.  It changes the pieces that could merely sound like a technical study to one about something passionate and real.

I have to admit though that I am describing something that may sound tasteless to some or as you described it as taking the normal passion and doubling or tripling it.  I’m not recommending this but only stressing that the score does call for some more marked display of contrasts.

Also, I want to say that perhaps I am tainted a little by the fact that I play this music on the piano.  The feeling one gets when playing this music on the piano and that of just listening to it is very different.  Depending on ones mood, it is very redeeming to experience the effect one gets from trying to reproduce or create moods with your whole body (through the fingers).  Playing very physical works by Chopin, Beethoven or Brahms etc. leaves one at a heightened sense of pleasure; it is a very good work out and requires everything from you physically as well as mentally and it must produce some sort of chemical release in the body as I know how pleasing the effect is afterwards.  I know this as after about one or two hours of playing like this the stress of the day disappears or any headache I have goes etc. and your whole being feels light and glorious.  Probably what say a runner feels after running 10km.

All music is not written with the same goal in mind and so therefore I stress again that a player has to be aware of this and why I say Blechacz is perfect for most of the Chopin as his style fits perfectly for the bulk of it.

The only other comment I have to make about Blechacz and the Raindrop Prelude is that his interpretation of it strikes me as being a little rushed; more of a quick drip rather than a slow drip.  Marked Sostenuto (sustained or lengthened), I prefer taking my time with it and letting the atmosphere of a grey, melancholy, misty day and a soft, slow, random drip hypnotize me.  Chopin often got inspiration for his music by staring at a grey wall.  Reading about the period of time when Chopin wrote these Preludes and what he was going through is very informative.  I think that is why the Preludes are so effective is that the range of emotions is so varied and broad.

Other than this, Blechacz has one of the more controlled touches and bell like tone of anyone out there and this to me ranks him as one of the best.

I tend to like separating the Preludes into three groups (8, 8, 8); the f-sharp minor (8), the b-flat minor (16) and the d minor (24) being the crowning glory of each set of 8.

Regards,

Doug

Doug, your post made me go looking for the Blechacz for another listen.  I am printing out your post so my wife and I can play with it later today.  Personally, I wish you would write more on Chopin, and maybe give your thoughts on Mozart and Beethoven as well, as they are rarely discussed on the forum.

Or as you wish :-)

Mike,

If I could, I would love to write and discuss ideas about music all day long.  Unfortunately, I probably bore most people to death but I wouldn't take one second of my time to write something if I didn't have a genuine fire or passion for this music itself in the first place.  If anything, I simply want to be an ambassador of great music and spread the good news.  I want others who are interested to find the joy of music at a deeper or more significant level too and a lot sooner than I did.  It has been a lifelong process for me but little by little one gets to a point where occasionally you experience it at a heightened level and it is these times that one marks their life with significant memories.  Often, I find it difficult to express what I feel in words though.  How do you convey the feeling of goosebumps or electricity in the air under that perfect situation that happens only every so often?

Often, I find it difficult to express what I feel in words though.  How do you convey the feeling of goosebumps or electricity in the air under that perfect situation that happens only every so often?

It's nigh impossible as the emotions that are brought forward are not really well catered for in words. It is a feeling. When it comes to music, and particularly performances that seem great to me all I can do is recommend that others should investigate it for themselves. Discussing the finer details of a given performance always seems futile for me. Words cannot define the mystical aspects at all. It is just a state of mind ...

ATB from George

Doug, thanks for your thorough reply. I haven't digested all of it, but you do raise a point that piques my curiosity, namely, the use of C# minor in the middle section of the Raindrop prelude. Since, as you point out, Db and C# are enharmonically identical, why didn't Chopin just render the middle section in Db minor? It's the shift to minor that makes it darker, nothing else in the physical world ... the change is all on paper, theoretical. Just curious.

The other issue I'd address is that, as you know, dynamic markings are strictly relative by definition (i.e., there is no official scale of decibel-to-dynamic relationships). Which leads us right back to personal taste as to how extreme (or not) they should be. When I listen to Blechacz play the Raindrop, I absolutely hear what I consider to be a well-defined range of pianissimo to fortissimo, just exactly enough, neither too much nor too little.

I have come across a few of Blechacz's Chopin performances, and I though that they were a breath of fresh air. Unexagerated, and yet so deeply felt. Sublime would not be the wrong word to describe them, I would think.

They easily bring to mind the notion that Chopin was a profound romantic, but an early one. I almost think there is a stylistic parallel with Schumann rather than with the later romantics, and yet some performers really do not hesitate to bring a broad style to the music with massive dynamic shifts and modulations of tempo that seem to distort the music for me. So much so that I more or less became convinced that I did not like most of this music. It is surely to be remembered that Chopin was writing for the early piano, which was nothing like so powerful as those from later in the 19th century. Had he been writing for the later instrument, no doubt his music would have been composed differently to explore the possibilities of the more developed instrument, in the same way that if Bach had had in a mind a grand piano rather than a harpsichord his music would surely have been different as well. His music for the sustaining organ has a different style to his music for the harpsichord with its short sustain, and relatively small volume of sound.

But my investgation of Chopin will continue with young Blechacz's performance on records at least. Of course his way is not the sole valid way, but it is a very fine one in my fairly limited experience of it.

ATB from George

George,

Futile - yes! But I subscribe to the fact that this is a given and that the goal is not to assume that the subject is an objective one in the first place with black and white answers.  No one can assume to ever have the definitive answer but through discussion and investigation one ultimately has the best chance of coming a few steps closer to that elusive truth and understanding.

Fortunately (or unfortunately?) I grew up lucky enough to have constant interaction with my piano teachers, theory teachers and now even once in a while cello teachers.  The best teachers always were willing to discuss the possibilities from every angle and never would allow me to assume there is only one path to the finish line.  As soon as I thought I had it figured out they came at it from a different angle and brought new and wonderful perspective to the table.

Although ultimately I do have my own set personal taste and ideas that will limit choices in a way, I find value in provocative discussions with others and discussing the finer details.  This is how I learn or gradually broaden my musical understanding.

How did you learn what you know today if not by interaction with others or through in depth study of various books etc? 

Regards,

Doug

Dear Doug,

I was lucky on several levels though initially it was pure intuition.

At first I discovered the wonders of the then BBC Third Programme [464 meters, Medium Wave, remember that!] for myself with a tiny little transistor radio that I found in the attic and bought a battery for. Once it was realised that I was using the radio, I never had to buy a battery again!

Then I went to a school where all but the most junior boys were presented with Music Appreciation lessons last thing on Saturday mornings. I had zero understanding of, or liking for, the master, who was an old style sadist teacher, whose main method of imparting knowledge was to humiliate those who were not very quick to encourage brighter ones to keep up.

There is a funny story about him and he is dead so it no longer matters. He realised that I loved the music, and one day out of the blue came to me and asked if he could borrow my record of the Choral Symphony as the school library LPs had a scratch - as an eleven year old I had about ten LPs, which is quite early to start collecting music, and for each I had a pocket score. The school recording was the famous Klemperer set, and mine was the Paris Conservatoire recording under Schurich [spelling, sorry]. I asked him whether he thought that the scratch outweighed the much better performance on the Klemperer recording! Very brave, if I had considered the consequences, but not brave at all considering that all I spoke was what I saw as the truth! We never spoke on matters musical again.

Thus I continued my solitary path - listening to Radio Three, learning the scores [a self-taught skill, and I could imagine the music in my head straight off the page], and reading dry as dust [but fascinating to me] tomes on style, performance practice, and the old composers, whose music I already loved so much -  till I became friends with musicians when I took up the double bass in my twenties. I found that I could not only keep up with them most of the time, based on my known music and knowing the scores well also, but sometimes bring a [to me] interesting new facet to it, which they found interesting! Naturally the rate of development in my musical understanding rocketted at that time as the ground was well tilled for the seeds of knowledge of these musical people to take root.

But the problem for me in the Forum is that whilst I'll stick my neck out with a friend - one to one as it were -  is that once I am engaged in a discussion I am subject to serious passion about it. It is subjective in all but one area, and that area is stylishness. People blur that distinction and take the factual stylish element and then start to discuss taste as if it were the same as style.

I cannot risk it here.

It is possible that one Forum member may stick his head up over the parapet, and confirm that when the recipient is known [and though he may disagree with me here or there, and when I know that he would not ridicule my opinion or blur the boundaries], that I am fully prepared to delve into the very details of technique and how expression is formed from it. There are no accidents of intention with real musicians [though there can be taste that is not in accordance with our own], and their aims are made from an analysis of the music's technical methods blended with an idea of what the music is about. Then the player's technique - at least in the best players - is placed at the disposal of the composer in trying to bring out what is meant by the blueprint of the score, which states but a fraction of what is needed to make a living performance and interpretation.

So just as I would never [in future after the Libya fiasco a few weeks ago] discuss anything serious in the Padded Cell, neither could I ever bring myself to discuss the inner workings of music here in the Music Room, which is a public internet board where the wreckers can so easily destroy the effect of a serious post delivered with sincerity, with a troll-like interjection or seven, rather than a serious advancement of the discussion in hand. This once happened to me on an infamous thread on the Goldberg’s, back in 2003 or 2004, and I have never ventured into area on this board since, after 13 vitriolic pages where I was various called "elitist," snobbish, pretending to have knowledge that I did not and so on. Never again for that - to leave myself open to it. I can share by recommending recordings of great performances, and that is as far as I would go here now.

No. Sadly music is at best a fairly solitary experience that may be shared in our innermost thoughts with a few trusted friends. It is impossible on a board like this, IMHO.

ATB from George 

PS: My sincerely held opinions on a handful of famous musicians are such that I would never post them out of respect for others who do not share my view, and also that I find it is a barren pass-time to be negative in a public way.

Fred, first to the point about dynamic markings.  I agree 100% with you.  There are limits within good taste.  Where I would like to add to this is it is that I think the style and nature (not simply the composer/period) does lend some latitude here.

As for Blechacz, for instance, my feeling in his Chopin is that he is right on the mark for say the Nocturnes, Mazurkas, Waltzes, most of the Preludes etc. – basically the music that calls for that understated beauty.  It is only a small percentage of the pieces where I personally have a need to hear just slightly more emphasis on certain passages that I feel Chopin calls for himself.

For instance, in the b-flat minor (16) it is really only a few bars in that piece that I have in my head and imagine how it could be.  I think in a piece of this nature an ending or a one bar fortissimo in the middle to lead a listener is effective and called for.  However, I think what I am noting though is a philosophy that presumes Chopin can only be graceful or understated and this is misleading.

Whether the capacity of an instrument of certain time periods were greater or lesser is only relative.  When a composer has an idea which is marked pianissimo and eventually leads to fortissimo or even triple forte they are basically talking about an effect and not limited by the instrument itself.  You still need to go to the limits where called for.  If an older instrument doesn't have the ability as a modern Steinway concert grand for instance, then the effect can still be gained in toning down your pianissimos, for instance, so that the effect or various is relatively as effective.  

With what I wrote to you earlier I had be going by memory and also guided by the recent experience of actually seeing Blechacz live in February.  This morning I had another quick listen to the Preludes and can confirm that this D-flat major Prelude is very tasteful as far as dynamics.  There is nothing lacking here and his dynamic range is all it should be (and this is related to the piece in question).  Specifically, that section of the Raindrop Prelude going from pianissimo to fortissimo is still marked sotto voce (quietly or below the voice or in an undertone).  This, plus just the nature of how the score is written gives the clues of what is required.

What is even more impressive is Blechacz’s attention to the architecture of the piece.  I have heard very few who can phrase so beautifully as Blechacz but then in the concept of the whole piece he creates such a perfect macro phrase and this should not be ignored.  In other words, the individual phrases are the speaking parts and where you might take a breath in a sentence but for the concept of the piece you should think of the piece as a whole and build the structure that supports the story or the beginning, middle and end.

It should be noted that Chopin did not ascribe "The Raindrop" moniker to this Prelude.  It was given by Hans von Bülow and while it is quite apt this piece is so much more.  It reminds me of the “Marche funèbre (Funeral March) movement from Chopin’s b-flat minor Sonata.  Remember, many composers were interested in writing in music there thoughts and feelings about life and death.  This is prime material for the Romantic period composer just as it was for any other period before or after.

The other thing to note is that this “Raindrop” Prelude is the longest Prelude.  It is also the only one that has this transition from major-minor-major.  As I said earlier this is very important in understanding this piece.

So why D-flat major to c-sharp minor to d-flat major?  It should be pointed out that a listener really does not need to worry about this.  The effect is given aurally and it just makes sense; any other key change would make this an entirely different effect.

What you hear is the persistence of a note (a-flat or g-sharp) which is the same note in either case.  The pitch is the same so the listener does not know something is changing until the minor 3^rd or raised 7^th occur.  In this case it is in the first bar of the minor section.  This means a E and B-sharp, respectively.  Secondly, in the major sections, notice that the melody is usually above the relentless a-flats.  In the minor section the melody is mostly below the relentless g-sharps.  This is not only symbolic but fits with the image of life vs death or the cloud with the silver lining and the storm cloud, if you will.

In music, the lowering of anything when compared to that before it leads a listener in a certain way (getting darker).  Everyone from Bach to Prokofiev knew this and used it.  Quite simply when you compare the keys D-flat major to c-sharp minor you can see that the important notes are drawn down a half semitone – such as D-flat which is the tonic of the major to E which is the mediant of the minor key. 

Normally yes, going to the relative minor is the most usual way but Chopin knew what he was doing.  The key has to lend to this relentless repeating note and this is the only way to weave the light and darkness around that very essential heartbeat.  The repeating note is very much a basso ostinato and this lends itself to why Hans von Bülow connected this to repeated raindrops.  Changing the pitch of this heartbeat would change the concept of the piece entirely.

I would like to attach a copy of the score or even certain sections that I could easily mark up to make this explanation so much easier but I'm afraid I just do not know how to do this here.

George, I have to go now but hopefully I can respond later.  What you say is so true...

Regards,

Doug

Doug, thanks again for the reply, but my question wasn't why the major-minor-major shift ...  I wasn't wondering why he didn't use the relative minor; I understand perfectly well why he didn't. I'm not sure to whom you are explaining the darkness produced by the shift from major to minor, but I have known this since way back in the 1900s. In fact, the play of major against minor is a huge factor in my own compositions, and in the much of the music I most dearly love.

My question is solely this: given that enharmonic equivalencies are frequency-identical on the piano (as opposed to the cello, for example), why C# minor, why not just keep it in flats, Db minor? The difference (between Db minor and C# minor) is strictly on paper, with no resultant change in sound whatsoever.

Fred - sorry I misunderstood your question.  What you are saying is technically possible.  You can write a piece in any key and use accidentals to get you what you need but this becomes very complicated for the reader.  Chopin could have theoretically written the middle section in D-flat minor if he wanted to but Chopin wasn't a rebel (at least I didn't think he was?  .  By convention, Chopin is following the keys/key signatures as defined by the basic circle of fifths (and which his 24 Preludes is based on).  That is, C+/a-, G+/e-, D+/b-, A+/f-sharp-, E+/c-sharp-, B+/g-sharp-, F-sharp or G-flat+ / d-sharp or e-flat-, D-flat+/b-flat-, A-flat+/f-, E-flat+/c-, B-flat+/g-, F+/d-.  This would be the most logical explanation as to why Chopin chose the keys he chose.

So in the middle section, as you suggest, the key could be d-flat minor but then when this middle section moves from the dominant to the relative major this would then become f-flat major which is bordering on wierd.  Personally, I'd rather play in c-sharp minor and then move to E major.  Part of this is familiarity as everyone I usually play sticks to the conventional circle of fifths and part of it may be just psychological (you are trying to make it easy and minimize complexity).  In the end though, like you say, everything is equivalent so it really doesn't matter.  I could play the score written either way.

Hope that makes sense?

Regards,

Doug

Yes, of course, but the outer sections aren't in E major, they're in Db major. As we already established, this isn't a case of relative major/minor, so how does the circle of 5ths explain why Chopin used C# minor instead of Db minor? Why would it have been "rebellious" to do so? After all, we can cite thousands of musical works in which a phrase or section is played in major, and then repeated in minor (or vice versa), and the key signature stays the same, just adding or subtracting accidentals as needed.

In the middle c-sharp minor section, does it not move from the dominant into E major briefly?  This was my point in comparing the equivalent relative major of d-flat minor (which you proposed) of f-flat major.  Although I could play this music written in either key I have become accustomed to rather want to play in E major than f-flat minor.  I think, for example, that composers wouldn't use key signatures of d-flat minor or f-flat major because it is not as clean and straight forward as the alternative to write out.  Too many accidentals would be required as a result. 

How many classical pieces do you know of that were written specifically in f-flat major or even moved through a key like this?  My guess is that their are none (even though it is the equivalent).  I may be wrong but I would be surprised to see anything written specifically in f-flat major.  And this example can be extended to all equivalents to be found against the standard rendering of the circle of fifths which I gave already above.

My feeling is that Chopin is just abiding to the standard conventional way of using and calling keys (when to use sharps instead of flats and vice versa in a key signature) as dictated by the standard of the circle of fifths.  I believe most composers stuck to this with the only duality coming when you shift between the maximum number of sharps/flats and specifically around F-sharp+ or G-flat+ / d-sharp- or e-flat-.  In these keys I have seen music written in either key.  A good example for this is to compare Bach's WTC to Chopin's Preludes and you will see the choices made by either composer are not the same.

The point is that for certain keys a convention exists and classical composers stuck to it.  I was making a joke but to do otherwise really would have been considered "rebellious" or probably just silly.

OK, now I get it ... I had overlooked that there are a couple bars of E major, and yes, I agree it's much preferable to Fb, which, along with Cb, is bordering on obscene. It all makes sense now.

Even in my own compositions, which are tonal yet non-diatonic, I'll avoid Fb and Cb at nearly all cost, including using additional accidentals such as a B natural in the melody over an Ab minor chord.

By the way, Doug, I meant to answer your question as to how the Db prelude was coming along ... as is too often the case, actual practicing takes a back seat to composition, which, in the course of daily life trying to cobble together a living and raising an 11-year-old, already gets the short end of the stick.

Of course, the Db prelude is not difficult to execute from a technical standpoint, but the work comes in the shading and molding. Fortunately, the notes on the page tell me how to proceed ... I just need more time. Or a performance deadline!

Fred, I know what you mean about finding the time in amongst of the busyness of life.  I knew it was coming but I somehow have to finish learning and polish off the Franck Cello Sonata in A+ by June 5.  I keep telling myself that I do this for fun and enjoyment but I hate deadlines and the pressure.  On the other hand, forced deadlines are effective in pushing one to a higher level that wouldn't be achieved without the gun to head scenario.  That level isn't really achieved at the first performance for me though.  It is after the flurry of work and sweat and a treacherous performance and then shelving the work for 6 months or a year and then coming back to it.  It is at this point, after the mind has had the time to work on it subconsciously, that I find the real gain.  You can again approach it with some satisfaction and take it to the next level.

So, for your own good I will give you a deadlline of this June 19 .

Most of the Preludes, including this D-flat major, never sound too complicated but I don't know of an easy Prelude to play.  Not difficult in the sense of the f-sharp minor (8), b-flat minor (16), E-flat major (19) or d minor (24) which are THE most difficult of the Preludes technically but it takes as much skill as one has to impart meaning and understanding and make it sound simple.

It is difficult to keep the balance in this Raindrop Prelude.  The repeated a-flat/g-sharp has to be effective but subtly in the background. To do this over 6 or 7 minutes takes some doing and practice in order not to sound mechanical.  Also, once in a while this repeated note is lengthened and this is an interesting effect too.  To make this clear means trying to balance the pedalling.

Glad you are enjoying this Prelude.

Doug 

Yes, the Raindrop is fraught with its own challenges.

One in particular has me wondering ... in the ninth measure on the fourth beat, the left hand has a tortuous (for my hand, at least) spread of a major 10th, Db up to F, which is difficult enough in itself (a major 10th is the limit of my reach but only if they're both white keys, or even both black, but black-to-white or vice versa is beyond my reach), but is made even more difficult by the inclusion of the Cb between them, which could only be played with the second (index) finger ... but not mine!

I've seen one edition which indicates an arpeggiated chord at that point, which I should think would be the only way most mortals could play it with one hand, but the urtext edition has no such marking. My solution is to grab the F at the top of the chord with the thumb of my right hand, but it makes me wonder why Chopin notated it in the left hand ... was he known for an extraordinary reach? Or do I just have tiny hands?