Embedded Files
Tempo Analysis and Recording Comparison on Schubert Impromptus Op. 90 No.2
Bairong Han
Introduction
In piano repertoires, Schubert's Impromptus No. 2 Op. 90 is considered to be one of Schubert's iconic clavier masterpieces. Current tools allow us to manually annotate beats from the frequency spectrum of a performance audio recording. By comparing the recordings of two renowned musicians—Horowitz and Zimmerman, an analysis of expressive performance tempo is undertaken, focussing on rubato and other variables of tempo/timing. The aim of the project is to discover the different performance approach from both musicians and reveal their intention through quantitive analysis of their performance recordings.
Schubert Impromptus Op. 90 No.2
Schubert Impromptus Op. 90 No.2 is a piece for solo piano, composed in year 1827. It is considered to be among the most important examples of this popular early 19th-century genre. The piece is in E-flat major and it is noteworthy that for tempo Mark in the piece, it is allegro throughout without ritardando indicated and only one accelerando indicated in the coda section.
The piece is formed by symmetric structure, A-B-A and Coda. The A-theme is a lovely melody where the composer indicated legato on the score, while marcato for the B-theme.The coda section is a variation of B-theme. There are three sub-section under each longer section and the usually the middle sub-section will occur key changes.
A - A1, A2, A3
B - B1, B2, B3
A - A4, A5, A6
Coda- B4
Two most popular recordings on YouTube are selected for this project, which are Vladimir Horowitz's recording on Jan 1973 and Kristin Zimmerman's video recording performance.
Methods
Manual onset through Sonic Visualiser
Statistical data analysis through MATLAB
Data Analysis
The first step is to annotate the bar/beat of the performance through Sonic Visualiser, then the tempo data can be sent to MATLAB for processing.
Horowitz's recording indicates a well-controlled tempo practice, the mean tempo between each section continuously sustained to some extent.
While in Zimmerman's performance, there are larger tempo contrast, the mean tempo value jumps between sections. And also noteworthy that there are very obvious ritardando approach (big drop).
Since the musical structure of the piece, A section repeated and some of the sub-sections are the same musical content, the tempo-section relationships were also studied and discussed.
The final part of the analysis is variance curve.
Conclusion and Discussion
Horowitz’s playing is more controlled regard to tempo. Constant tempo, moderate tempo variations, straight section changes. However, Zimmerman is good at using tempo rubato between sections to build the structure of the performance. Musically, it is more interesting from audiences’ aspect. His playing involves much more tempo variations and they are well-organised (rhythmical).
‘When playing, his (Horowitz) face always had a look of deep concentration, and he never moved his body. He hardly ever lifted his hands up high or made a show of his playing, even though his interpretations were powerful and flashy.’
However in Zimmerman's performance, things are difference, while he adopted the modern piano performance approach and add expressivity to visual performance. Does it affect they tempo approach in their performance?? Probably more recordings could be selected and compared.
References
Eric Cheng & Elaine Chew (2009) Quantitative Analysis of Phrasing Strategies in Expressive Performance: Computational Methods and Analysis of Performances of Unaccompanied Bach for Solo Violin. Eric Cheng & Elaine Chew. Journal of New Music Research.
Gilead Bar-Elli (2013) Schubert Impromptus: A lecture accompanying a home performance of the eight Impromptus.
Ham, Ina (2005). Franz Schubert’s Impromptus D.899 and D.935: An Historical and Stylistic Study
Walter Gieseking (1948) Sheet Music: 4 Impromptus, D.899. Publisher Info. : Munich G. Henle Verlag
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse