Playing tuplets on piano?

Question

Him
Any tips for playing these irregular tuplets (like 19ths) on piano?

Answer 1

There is usually a REASON for a composer indicating a weirdly irregular tuplet. All too frequently, I suspect that reason may be lack of genuine talent. Except for tempo ad libitum cadenzas, show me a nineteen note ligature in Mozart or Beethoven. Uh-huh. So, they lacked inspiration or creativity? I don't think so.



Listeners perceive multi-note groupings as multiples of smaller groupings. A grouping of eight is HEARD as four plus four. Even the four note groupings may be heard as two plus two.



A performer can turn this tidbit of auditory psychology around, and then use it. A performer can blast off a blistering group of twelve by contemplating it as two groups of six, and further thinking of each group of six as two groups of three. So, for the serious performer sincerely attempting to express the composer's dubious intention indicated by a grouping of nineteen, I would say the best method would be to contemplate three groups of six followed (or preceded) by the odd note. In other words, 19 = 6 + 6 + 6 + 1, or else 1 + 6 + 6 + 6.



This comes more naturally to wind players. They commonly articulate rapid passages with some combination of double and/or triple tonguing. So the nineteen note tuplet followed by a half note for a flautist would be



Ta-ta-ka-Ta-ta-ka-Ta-ta-ka-Ta-ta-ka-

Ta-ta-ka-Ta-ta-ka-Ta Taaaaaaaaaaa.



How to break up the note jungle presents a problem for the performer to solve. If it's a scale passage, where are the turning points? If it's an arpeggio, where does the harmony change, or where does the chord begin a repetition? Is there a rhythm pattern elsewhere in the piece suggesting a clue to interpretation?



As a performer, I believe in being respectful to the composer's intent, at least if the composer is respectable. However, the composer who notates a nineteen note tuplet will have a harder time appearing respectable to me. In such cases, I am more likely to "liberalize" my interpretation. It will be a rare audience that will have any complaint.



In fact, if it's a nineteen note glissando, I may even give the passage the back of my hand and let the pieces fall where they may. Is that evil? Sorry, but I don't feel bad about it. ///ADDED NOTE: Nerd bag commentary notwithstanding, I remain unremorseful. I have another name for what others may call “virtuoso repertoire.” I call it *trash*, and don’t play it. Maybe I can't, though that's irrelevant. DSFDF, I suppose.///



Good luck to you in your performance challenges.

Answer 2

I am a wind performer, so this may not map directly, but I have two approaches I use for complex tuplets:



1. Break the tuplet into smaller, more familiar groups. Similar to JohnnyCB's suggestion, I would take a 19-tuplet as 3 sextuplets + 1, or maybe as 4 fivetuplets -1. It would depend on the meter and adjoining tuplets.



2. Find a specific note in the tuplet that you will play at a given point in the beat. If the tuplet spans multiple beats, identify which note should be on which beat, or which off-beat if appropriate. This helps me prevent my tuplets from turning into mush because it forces me to lock in more notes than just the first and last.



Even if your tuplet is not evenly divisible, I'm usually inclined to just pick the closest rhythmically to the middle and decide that one is going to be on the offbeat. Now I have a 10-tuplet and a 9-tuplet, which is at least a little easier to wrap my head around.



You might also look at the surrounding notes and decide how evenly the tuplet must be played. If you are solo, you may consider taking some leeway with the tempo and going a little rubato in order to make your 19 fit properly (maybe it's 3+4+6+6).



Good luck!

Answer 3

Tuplets,the playing of, are always a matter of a well built up and practiced motor habit (from the simplest ratio of 3:2 all the way to 19ths spanned over a measure of 4/4.



[Taking the denominator and seeing where 19ths fit over a bar of four groups of 16ths would require a time out and graphic paper -- which is utterly useless in application to the ratio as a pianistic problem.]



Tuplets require apart practice so the entire group (whether simple triplet or nonedecateenths) become a physically felt and habitual SINGLE GESTURE which are then well and easily 'timed.'.



If that single gesture is over four quarters in one measure, the player will have to count the four enough to have the time sense of the length of the entire measure.

I recommend only making a mental marking of the mid-point of the group of 29. That is just enough to line it up with the opposed hand: it also helps you more sense its general speed over those beats.



Practice could be counting out loud, the 19ths only played, while in addition perhaps the opposed hand lightly taps the main beats on your leg, or silently in one place over the keyboard. Then of course, you put them together - this should be closer now to a speed where you can hear as well as feel how this 'fits' so you can play it accurately as well have it make musical sense.





Best regards.

Answer 4

This is not so vexed an issue as can seem to be made of, sometimes at great length.



Pianistically, when spans of 19, 27, 49, it doesn't matter the number, it indicates a sharply delineated arch, a gesture cluster as it is more properly indicated that only has a departure point and its corresponding point of arrival. However, and this is *crucial*, it is intentionally metricated to those numbers for articulation, to *preclude* the sloppy 'sweep' referred to elsewhere. That's the amateur's solution: a fixed '47' or your '19' is turned into 'lots of' for lack of technique, and that 'will do'.



In the virtuoso repertoire it is not uncommon to have juxtapositions in each hand of 23/18, or 27/31 (LH/RH or vice versa) the resulting 'clash' being a texture device. For that to work, each needs to be specifically articulated, and then hived off to a gesture cluster for each hand respectively. Two 'sweeps' in such cases merely produce impenetrable mud, however insouciantly as well as flamboyantly delivered, and that most definitely is NOT the point of the notation.



All the best,