At first #17 didn’t seem to me to have much to recommend itself except that in a collection of mostly quite difficult studies it’s rather easy, especially in an obvious shortcut arrangement that uses only Czerny’s first page. But then I noticed that when you tweak the LH, Czerny’s RH scales become a delightful little tarentella.
Op 740 #17, 1st Version: light tarantella, 16 sets of 8
This is my performance of #17 in a shortcut one-pager and recast as a light tarantella. I re-notated Czerny’s 4/4 as 12/8, his RH sextuplets as regular 8ths, and his LH quarters as dotted. Then I rebarred in 6/8. To keep the ternary structure very clear, I created full stop cadences, and I rewrote m 12 for a turnaround. I supply a score to show my ideas for the LH accompaniment. It will be seen (and heard) that I’ve kept the LH extremely simple. This isn’t because I think this is the best solution to the challenge of creating a tarantella LH for the arrangement, but as a demonstration of how sparing you can be in class depending on the tempo and character of the combination.
A tarantella arrangement of #17 is useful and effective for ballet class, and things get even more useful when you pair #17 with its close relative #41 (which itself readily pairs with other studies).
This is my performance of my combined “one pagers” of #17 and #41. Though it is built on my 1st Version, here I rebarred #17 in 2/4 to bring it in line with #41, and recast Czerny’s sextuplets as two triplets (and counted "one-and"). I made Czerny’s LH more emphaticly rhythmical. I provide a score of the arrangement of #17 only, with a measure showing how I link to #41; a score for #41 will be found with the commentary to that study.
I always want to get double use from studies I arrange, so, as usual, I’ve created a quick 6/8 version of Czerny’s 2/4 material.
This is my performance of my 2nd Version recast as 6/8, for which I provide a score. Getting my 2nd Version into 6/8 calls for nothing more than projecting Czerny’s sextuplets in both studies as regular 16ths, but it should be pointed out that the pattern of #41’s 16ths resists that projection. So in #41 I’ve given Czerny’s “supporting” hand (RH) a very rhythmic melody line so as to lock in the 6/8 groove.
When I first began pairing particular studies of Op 740 I discovered that the pair #17 and #41 were so closely related in key, note value, meter and to a certain extent harmonic rhythm that sections of them could be played simultaneously in (generally) consonant counterpoint with one another. (Godowsky, in his gigantic way, does this in his 53 Chopin Studies.) This was the start of my looking for ways of combining studies in “hybrid” form. I’ve described the simplest, first stage of this process in my commentary to Op 740 #7, #8 3rd Version. As I explored “hybridization” in later studies I came up with a basic rule for fitting one study to another: one study is “dominant” in that the other “subordinant” study is tweaked where necessary to fit it’s own melodic lines and harmony to the dominant’s. But I preserve the “subordinant” study’s identity by keeping it’s distinctive note pattern and any other identifying features as might be realizable
This is a DAW realization of my “Hybrid” pairing of #17 and #41, for which I provide a score. In this case #17 (RH) is the dominant study and #41 (LH) is the subordinant. I’ve barred the arrangement in #41’s 2/4 with the note patterns in #41’s triplet 16ths, and I preserved #41’s distinctive note pattern (the neighbor-tone + octave figure). A note on the score: as I’ve said earlier, I’ve not worked these hybrid arrangements up for class; they are study and entertainment for me.
Going back to my 1st Version I wanted to create something on a grand scale.
This is an idealization of my 1st Version of #17, now combined with #41 as a tarantella using DAW software to create a 2-pianos version.