Tricky Rhythm in Rachmaninoff

BartK

I was looking through some music to play and stumbled upon Rachmaninoff's Elegie, which I always wanted to try. So, I was looking through the score to get a sense of it and then saw this in one of the final bars:

I don't understand the polyrhythm in the LH. In the bass there are 6 quarter notes in the bar (because of the triplet sign) and there should be the same number of quarter notes in the tenor voice but it seems there is more because of the eighth note rests that I highlighted.

KenBakerMN

BartK A beautiful tune, hope to hear you play it some time. I wrestled with the same bit. I think the way to read it is that the eighth rest you highlighted and the following quarter note make up an eighth note triplet that lines up with the eighth note triplet in the right hand. So the first highlighted rest lines up with the Eb with the up stem, and the following quarter note lines up with the Ab-Cb with the down stems.

When I played this I didn't exactly follow that rhythm, Instead I played the eighth rest and quarter note as two straight eighths, not a triplet, so the F-Cb-Eb in the left falls right between the Cb-Ab and Gb-Bb in the right. It's not strictly accurate but I think it's a more interesting rhythm and, frankly, slightly easier to hit.

BartK

Thanks for your comment. I don't know if it should be a triplet. My first intuition was that it should be played as eighth notes in a polyrhythm with the RH but then why is that chord a quarter note?

Emeton

BartK it’s a quarter note because it is a triplet. For me I think of Beats 1 + 2 and beats 4 + 5 as a 6 against 4 hemiola answered by beats 3 + 6 as unified triplets in both hands. The contrast between the hemiola’s and the straight triplet feel in beats 3 + 6 are the key to getting a grip on the measure. Two three beat patterns in a row: two beats of syncopation answered by a single beat of non-syncopation and repeated again.

ranjit

For spots like this, I would take a few recordings and play the rhythm by ear to see how people manage it.

BartK

ranjit For spots like this, I would take a few recordings and play the rhythm by ear to see how people manage it.

Yeah, I'm planning to do that but there is a lot going on in that bar and I don't know if my ears are good enough to hear it. 😉

BicBic

ranjit I think that’s exactly what I did with this bar when I learnt this - I’m thinking now I should probably also have taken the time to actually look at it properly and try and understand it!

eta - and it was already at the limit of my abilities and I can no longer play it! One day to be revisited properly, I hope!

ranjit

BartK Slowing it down on YouTube does the trick for me. 0.5x tends to work better than 0.25x -- otherwise, it tends to turn into unlistenable sludge depending on the recording.

PianogrlNW

I think I'm saying the same as Emeton but with a different explanation. Even though the piece is written in 4/4 time, think of this measure as having 6 beats. In the LH count1 triplet, 2, 3 and, 4 triplet, 5, 6 and. Most of the measure is a 2 against 3 polyrhythm except for beats 2 and 5 when you play the LH and RH together.

Emeton

Rubens that looks proper, for me, from the first example in retrospect, the bass triplet bracket seemed wrong and a confusing red herring.

PianogrlNW I’d try not to separate the ‘alto’ rhythm 4 1/8th notes followed by the triplet figure on the third beat(the same with 4 + 5 answered by 6) when trying to understand it. I don’t think beats 2 and 5 being together are the strength in the core of the measure. I think it’s Beats 1 + 2 answered by beat 3 and beats 4 + 5 answered by beat 6. Though I am just analyzing it theoretically.
Thank-you PianogrlNW for the mention.

Rubens

The piece is in 4/4 but that particular bar plays in 6 beats. Most editions show it in a different way from OP's edition. Here is how it is usually written:

There is no confusion in the tenor when written like that.

KenBakerMN

Rubens Yes, a 6/4 bar like that is the clearest way to notate it. This shows the eighth rest and quarter note chord as a triplet in eighths which is what I was trying to describe.

Rubens

There is actually a way to make the bar fit into the 4/4 time sig even though it sounds like 6/4, but very few editions mark it correctly. The one in the OP is an incomplete attempt at it and thus technically incorrect. Most editions are content with turning the bar into a 6/4 bar (such as the one I posted earlier), but I saw one edition that took the effort to make it fit in the 4/4 time sig:

You have to pause the video!

There are many '3's in italic to mark all the triplets (the small triplets AND the big triplets), but that is the most accurate way to notate that bar. Most editions don't do it because of the clutter.

Emeton

Rubens the forth of the descending thirds would be the second beat. If you count sixtuplets throughout the whole measure - starting on the 4th of the descending thirds which is beat two - 2 a da + a da: - the fifth of the decending thirds g+b - the beginning of the notated 1/8th triplets - would sound on the first ‘da’ of the ‘2 a da + a da’ sixtuplet and that triplet can be executed as a 3 against 4 hemiola on the remainder of that sixtuplet; beat three then lands on the f+a thirds - In that way the measure can be executed in 4 beats.

Rubens

I think that bar is super complex if you force yourself to make it sound like it's in 4/4. Thankfully I don't think it was intended to be played that way. I think it is meant to be played simply like a 6/4 bar, but at a slightly faster tempo, which makes sense because it is at the height of a musical climax. And then the 4/4 metric is reestablished from the next bar to the end of the piece. In that way that passage is not too complex.

Emeton

Beethoven also wrote things in his piano concertos that were so physically demanding to elicit a rapturous state in the performer - mentally a similarly rapturous effect could be gotten here.

Jane

I think that bar is super complex if you force yourself to make it sound like it's in 4/4. Thankfully I don't think it was intended to be played that way. I think it is meant to be played simply like a 6/4 bar, but at a slightly faster tempo,

Agreed. Rachmaninoff left a piano roll recording, which I'll try to ~~attach to this~~. link to below...
Rach piano roll of Elegie

Seeker

Jane

Jane Rachmaninoff left a piano roll recording,...
Thanks for posting that link. I remember listening to the Rach's performance when I first learned the Elegie.
In addition to what he does with the measure in question, it is instructive to hear the rubato that he uses. Try listening with a metronome, and you will find that his playing is anything but metronomic. Here, in addition to the notation, which as Bill Gates might have said, does not have the bandwidth to capture all of the composer's intentions, we need to rely on "performance tradition", specifically Rachmaninoff's own playing as well as those who heard him or studied with him.

BartK

Thanks everyone! I think it's much clearer now. The Henle way of showing the rhythm is just confusing.

Josephine

I'm looking forward to hear your interpretation of this piece. This is piece is the no 1 on my list of pieces I want to play one day, so I'm following your topic.

Jane

Seeker When I practiced this some years back I made a MIDI recording of it. Cleaned up my bad notes and rendered it. This was my effort (with much aped from Rach's piano roll 🙄 )
Jane's MIDI hack at it