In this score (Danse Macabre, Saint-Saëns/Liszt) there is an arpeggiated chord across the two hands: should it be done simultaneously or done first with left hand, followed by right hand?
-
1Another similar example is Chopin Ballade No 1 Bar 7. There's a left hand arpeggio and a single note on the right hand. Some play it as a single arpeggio (RH note after the LH arpeggio) others play them simultaneously (RH note with the first note of the LH arpeggio).– galdinCommented Dec 25, 2023 at 14:26
Add a comment
|
3 Answers
It's a short accented chord and the the two arpeggio lines are separated so it would be logical to play both hands simultaneously. If the composer had intended the hands to be played one after the other he could have written just a single arpeggio-line.
On Horowitz's recording of the piece he appears to play the hands separately:
It probably doesn't matter either way: do what you feel sounds good.
-
sorry, I don't understand your answer : do you mean that : -from the score, it should be played the two hands simultaneously -Horowitz plays one hand after the other, so in disagreement with the "written score" Commented Dec 24, 2023 at 10:25
-
2@MathieuKrisztian Yes I interpret the score to mean simultaneously, but Horowitz seems to separates the hands. Either way works. Commented Dec 24, 2023 at 10:36
Since the wiggly arp. line is separated, both hands should be played simultaneously. Were it meant to be l.h. then r.h., the wiggly line would be joined, making it one continuous, a graphic illustration of what's intended. However, 'poetic licence' gives some leeway to the performer, which is why there are differing versions to be heard. (Ref. pg. 132 of 'Behind Bars', Gould).
Apart from the possibility of some typesetting constraint or error, and in addition to recorded performances by respected pianists, I would also look at the "function" of the notes. If played simultaneously, it'd give an arpeggio in parallel octaves (an interesting effect), while if played separately it would just be a repetition of the same blocky chord an octave higher. The latter is less interesting to me than the illusion (?) of an arpeggio in octaves. :) Also, the immediately preceding measures did not have the two hands echoing each other. But, not in parallel, either, so... it's hard to know the composer's intent.
