• Pianist Zone

  • timed but untimed but timed trills (exploration/question)

I don't know if I'll manage to get my thoughts out in a first shot. I'll start with something related that I did master a few years ago. The 2 against 3 and vice versa in the Debussy Arabesque I, what did not work was counting 1 2 & 3, or "not dif-fi-cult" which had worked for slower music. It was too fast for that (as one teacher also suggested) and I found other ways. I played one hand, then the other for sections, counted one while letting the other flow; finally making it musical. Counting everything? The notes whizzed by too fast.

I'm looking at long trills in the Baroque period where things are more regular and more "counted". I've always done the trill the swells and drops off in more modern music, intuitively before I knew anything. I'm aiming for Baroque because I want to gain better control through the more "precise" or measured playing. I've been playing with this part of Invention 7 shown below.

I know that triple time is just a suggestion. The suggested tempo is (quarter) = 60-69; Wanda Landowska goes close to 50 and I might be happy with 40 or 45 first time round. If I try those triplets - for the higher and lower finger you go H,L,H - L,H,L which messes up my brain; but 6 of them as H,L,H,L,H,L means I'm starting each 'set' with the same finger. So I figured that focusing on the first of every 6 might be a way of staying on track. I don't know what people actually do.

Then I also wonder how "regular", regular actually is for this kind of music. If I "get it going", I'd start the first note a bit slowly and then settle into the triplets and then my fingers are just doing their thing while I'm focusing on making the LH notes even. I'm picturing the trill "doing its thing" until it gets near the finishing bit which has to end the right way in the right time. So if opting for triplet-speed trills, does it become "precisely triplets", or sort of "triplet-ish" (if you deviate, it's miniscule). If precise, do you aim to make every note precise, or make sure that the 1st (or 7th) of every set lines up? I'm kind of in the same place as the Arabesque, where counting everything didn't work at a faster tempo.

This is Wanda Landowska. I've tried to time stamp to that trill at 0:35. I thought she was playing totally evenly but am told she is using a free trill.

I'm far from an expert on trills and in fact once it gave up learning this piece which is quite easy except for the stupid trills

but I'll give you some advice anyway ha ha.

  1. I think you should definitely do a measured trill because I think they are much easier.

  2. Besides trilling on just two and three or one and three you could try something like 313232...or 313231...323131... 323132... When I do a non triplet trill I often use a fingering like13231323... In fact there's a special name for this fingering which I can't recall.

  3. Unlike the two verses three in the Arabesque, I don't think difficulty with trills as much to do with counting or not counting.

    Thank you for the music by Gulda, to start.

    pianoloverus think you should definitely do a measured trill because I think they are much easier.

    Except that I am finding unmeasured easier it seems, and it is keeping within strict 3's and knowing whether I am which is the problem if I'm going at a faster tempo.

    pianoloverus Unlike the two verses three in the Arabesque, I don't think difficulty with trills as much to do with counting or not counting.

    The problem I'm encountering is literally knowing whether I'm still in the 3's, and whether to count the 3's when going at tempo.

    pianoloverus esides trilling on just two and three or one and three you could try something like 313232...or 313231...323131... 323132... When I do a non triplet trill I often use a fingering like13231323... In fact there's a special name for this fingering which I can't recall.

    Yes, I saw different fingerings for trills. There is one which suggests alternating 13 and 24 saying that this is what Chopin did. I don't have difficulty with the tempo I'm reaching for while using 23. I'm not sure I can keep track if I'm still in strict triplets, and if that's not necessary then that problem isn't a problem. I might experiment with what you wrote, just to see what happens. So far my trills have tended to be short ones using two adjacent fingers. It's time to try things.

          I did two recordings yesterday. Neither of them were "slow practice" which would be a lot slower and overt counting. But the first is still fairly slow. I was able to count my trills. The 2nd is fast, or "fast enough". Here after setting what a triplet trill sounds and feels like, my hand simply "went into automatic" and kept going.

          I'm told the faster recording sounds better because the LH is solidly even. I can her slight jerkiness in the trill which may be the physical side of it (w.i.p.)
          (I'm not trying to be musical in either.)

          slower recording
          https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gueq89ck87vpyy5snjdl8/25.03.15a-Bch-trill-slower.mp3?rlkey=gphj4qu4vn74ksgv5jfwqw5sg&st=r2dejga3&dl=0

          faster recording
          https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/hna2s5xb93re1he0z559n/25.03.15b-Bch-trill-faster.mp3?rlkey=lwlbtc1kbe2wgimszj71ye3qf&st=b2u3c2rm&dl=0

          The main thing I'm focusing on is how the timing is handled mentally. I found that a focus on the main beats helped. When I was "able to keep a tab on' the triplets being triplets, that may have taken away from the LH making it less even. My tendency is to focus on the LH and let the RH trills "do their own thing" but feared the trills would run away like a freight train. How and where do folk here put or balance their attention?

          First off, I am not good at trills. They are not automatic for me. My approach to them involves starting slowly and counting--evenly counted triplets, in the case above, and matching to the left hand. But there is a tipping point where I have to stop focusing on the trill and concentrate on keeping the LH steady as the speed of the trill increases, which is what I think you are describing above. In discussions with my teacher, the take-away is that for longer, fast trills they will almost always be free trills, with the caveat that the ending of the trill must be dealt with properly. For shorter trills (e.g. in measure 6 in the first post), I would probably play that one counting more strictly than not.

          I am currently revisiting Chopin's C#m nocturne and spending most of my time getting the measures with18 vs 4 and 35 vs 4 (and others) to sound decent. I had to start slow, with counting, to teach my ear how to coordinate with the LH, but now I'm concentrating more on keeping the LH steady. However, I am never going to be able to play the RH of 35 vs 4 fast enough while still keeping a steady pulse. That measure will have to "breathe" for me.

            Stub First off, I am not good at trills. They are not automatic for me. My approach to them involves starting slowly and counting--evenly counted triplets, in the case above, and matching to the left hand. But there is a tipping point where I have to stop focusing on the trill and concentrate on keeping the LH steady as the speed of the trill increases, which is what I think you are describing above.

            Yes, I think so. This wouldn't occur in short trills, but it does for the long trill. If I play way below tempo, I'll also have slower trills as a consequence. The idea of "practise slow, then gradually speed up" doesn't work (I think) once you reach that tipping point.

            Stub In discussions with my teacher, the take-away is that for longer, fast trills they will almost always be free trills, with the caveat that the ending of the trill must be dealt with properly.

            This was helpful because I was surmising that this might be the case, even for Baroque music. In Landowska's recording, I had thought that her trills for that section were "even" and maybe as triplets, but my teacher said that they were free trills (but I think, close to even). I don't have the ears for that, even when I slow the recording down.

            I don't know if you heard my two recordings in my last post. In the slower one, the trills are probably quite even (what I was aiming for - could count) but I'm told the LH is unconvincing. In the faster on I had to "let go" once I got the trilling hand going, like a wind-up car that got wound up. The LH is convincing; the trills are a bit jerky and that may be due to the physical action (technique). There's a pause by the ending for the slower one; and in the faster one the ending got spliced in. I'd have to figure out how to do the ending and then segue into it. (As per your teacher).

            Stub am currently revisiting Chopin's C#m nocturne and spending most of my time getting the measures with18 vs 4 and 35 vs 4 (and others) to sound decent. I had to start slow, with counting, to teach my ear how to coordinate with the LH, but now I'm concentrating more on keeping the LH steady.

            I'm going to look at that piece. Your approach sounds on the money: start slow with counting, etc., then the 2nd stage. I did that too (the slow and counting) and have done a lot of that in music. I'm contending with the "tipping point" because I have a feeling you transition into a different type of mindset or listening or time-feel. Don't know if that is right, but I'm feeling my way into something.

            Stub However, I am never going to be able to play the RH of 35 vs 4 fast enough while still keeping a steady pulse. That measure will have to "breathe" for me.

            And even more so for Chopin than this Bach Invention.

            • Stub replied to this.

                      I experimented with another angle I was told. In a free trill you might accelerate and slow down, which is expressiveness in its own right, sort of like vibrato might be used in other instruments. I was told of a "timed" angle to this - I think so that if you have this, you can also reach for that in your toolbox to maintain control.

                      It consists of doing your trill in 2's, then 3's, then 4's etc. I went up to 6's. I could only get the 5-count via a Flintstone "yabadabadoo". Has anyone done something like that?

                      https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gvvf6toedktgvp5pu1ix7/25.03.158a-counted-accel-trills.mp3?rlkey=h4ghhhxb7633w5m5tt2uobn2a&dl=0

                      keystring Stub However, I am never going to be able to play the RH of 35 vs 4 fast enough while still keeping a steady pulse. That measure will have to "breathe" for me.

                      And even more so for Chopin than this Bach Invention.

                      JS Bach did not for the most part indicate trills, let alone how to execute them--they were "understood" at the time because people did them all the time. There does exist a handwritten table that JS wrote out for his son that sets out in detail how ornaments were to be played. This makes me think that trills and other ornaments are more regimented in Baroque era music than later era music (as you allude to). For Chopin, quite a bit of freedom. I doubt even Chopin himself played things the same way twice (even the same notes). So one needs to keep the composer and era in mind as well when deciding how free a trill can be played. Another one of those "it depends" rules. 🙂

                          Stub JS Bach did not for the most part indicate trills, let alone how to execute them--they were "understood" at the time because people did them all the time. There does exist a handwritten table that JS wrote out for his son that sets out in detail how ornaments were to be played. This makes me think that trills and other ornaments are more regimented in Baroque era music than later era music (as you allude to).

                          I'm on it (and agree), and there are a few aspects.

                          • We have the table that JS Bach did create. Quantz created one too, and I saw that one first in a recorder book. For the Inventions and Sinfonias, students copied these out since printed manuscripts were expensive and rare. The first versions (Friedeman) show no ornaments. Versions of later students have ornaments written in, but they may vary from student to student. One might surmise that a) Bach Sr. demonstrated differently, or b) it's what the student came up with and got approved.

                          • Historically conventions about how they ought to be played changed a few times. There was something like a romantic period of free interpretation, a "purist" period that had Bach played sort of mathematically, and various branches simultaneously since then.

                          • When Bach wrote out the ornaments chart, there were protests by musicians who said it killed the freedom of informed interpretation. I don't know if Quantz got a similar reaction.

                          • I've heard of, but did not read, the massive book that Quantz wrote - but listened to it being discussed, with played examples given. It seem to lay out the knowledge that musicians of the time used to choose their ornaments (or how to ornament) music which might be "simpler" but then get "filled in". That knowledge is probably not known or taught, except perhaps by period musicians who study such things. One thing that I can picture myself goes around the "cadential trill". If a passage "cadences" as in "the end", or "pause before we go on to the next thing", there will be a feel to that - and the cadential trill creates that feel - it just makes sense.

                          • In a talk I heard recently, the speaker was saying that once printed music became cheaper and accessible, composers did write out how they wanted a thing to be played --- for one thing, because they were tired of the fancy excesses of some performers trying to show off their ornamental capacities.

                          Stub So one needs to keep the composer and era in mind as well when deciding how free a trill can be played.

                          Totally agreed. It may not have come across because I was ultra-brief, but that is what I was thinking of.

                          Meanwhile, where I'm being super-mathematical atm, it is a means to an end - strengthening a weak ability for it to eventually merge into the other side of things.

                          • Stub replied to this.

                                keystring In a talk I heard recently, the speaker was saying that once printed music became cheaper and accessible, composers did write out how they wanted a thing to be played --- for one thing, because they were tired of the fancy excesses of some performers trying to show off their ornamental capacities.

                                😀 Reminds me of how operatic arias got out of hand. All the added vocal ornamentation and melismas became excessive. It served the divas' egos, but ultimately didn't go well with the audience or opera house powers-that-be.