Do performers need to analyse the music they play?

[counterpoint]

It seems, that many people here think, they have to "analyse" a piece before they can play it. I don't understand this approach. The pieces are already composed in a way that everything is at the right place in them (hopefully!), so the performer just has to play what is written (including articulation, dynamics etc.) Where does  this need to analyse music come from?

Do pianists, who have this analysing approach really play better than pianists with an intuitive approch? For example Schumann Träumerei: there are people, who can explain every note and the formal structure of this piece, but when they play it, it sounds... errm... clumsy.

[danny elfboy]

It seems, that many people here think, they have to "analyse" a piece before they can play it. I don't understand this approach. The pieces are already composed in a way that everything is at the right place in them (hopefully!), so the performer just has to play what is written (including articulation, dynamics etc.) Wherefrom comes this need to analyse music?

I don't think the dynamic gives enough information on how to play a piece.
Unlike the notes which are a rather straighforward and unchangeable information, dynamics is not. First of all in a piece each note has its importance and should be played in a certain way and yet we a sheet can't be covered in millions of dynamic marks over every note. On the other hand the very concept of piano, fortissimo, delicato, soffuso, sognate ... are just relative and not absolute. Analyzing a piece might help the performer to better make sense of the incomplete information that he/she can obtain from the score alone.

[bob3.1415926]

I rarely tend to analyse the music. In terms of interpretation, this probably sounds daft, but I just listen to what the music wants to do. Most of the time this agrees with the composer, but occasionally this involves adding in extra swells, dims, ralls, accels, etc, and very occasionally ignoring something written. I interpret by feel not calculation. I'm willing to accept that I'm prob in a minority. Most people who hear me play seem to think that interpretation is my strong point, although this is liable to just be an comment on my technique!

[counterpoint]

I don't think the dynamic gives enough information on how to play a piece.
Unlike the notes which are a rather straighforward and unchangeable information, dynamics is not.

Agreed. But many dynamic decisions cannot be explained by the structure of the piece, but depend on melodic and rhythmic needs, that could not be explained by logical consideration. It's often a decision of what "feels" right and what feels wrong.

[term]

Analyzing a piece might help the performer to better make sense of the incomplete information that he/she can obtain from the score alone.

Well there's hearing.
Analyzing is not necessary. Playing is, so that you can hear the music. Everything the music says is understandable by ear, and every decision you make is only heard.
So one would have to argue, the only way to make the right decisions is, besides hearing, by analyzing the score.
And that's just plain wrong. Because:

Do pianists, who have this analysing approach really play better than pianists with an intuitive approch?

This can be answered with no. There's a huge difference between knowing and doing. And i think that's part of this subject: By knowing your piece, you won't - at all- get around the problems you face when actually practising, perfecting and playing it, and you'll most probably change a number of decisions you have made before.
I know many people, who know exactly nothing about music theory, but if you hear them playing.... *hmmm
It just  shows: Music, and hearing, is a completely unintellecutal thing. If you don't have an intuitive connection to the music, analyzing won't help.

[zheer]

  Analyzing music helps us to understand music on an intellectual level plus other benefits.

   "You must forgive a composer who would rather hear his work just as he had written it,however beautifully you played it otherwise".  Beethoven speaking to Czerny.
   
 

[daniloperusina]

Between intellect and intuition, I think intuition wins.

When something moves us, a composition or a performance, I don't think we can rationally explain why. Actually, it might even be a contradiction. Looking at a beautiful lake scenery, it's hardly our intellect that's stimulated. Yet, there's a plethora of details to be admired, a tree here, a water reflection there. Some people will always be more prone to attempt rational analysis of what they see, others will simply sit quietly and sip it in.

Composers are usually very well trained, and know the 'rules' and mechanics inside out. That's part of their intellect. But I think they achieve greatness only when their intuition takes over. I think the same goes for performers. Know your stuff, but let your intuition flow freely.

I'm totally with Bob3.14159265358979323846... That's my approach too.

[leonidas]

The answer is no.

[viking]

Wrong again...

[leonidas]

Wrong again...

I really don't want to get personal, but if you died, I'd be quite happy.

As noted above, music has nothing to do with intellect, and cannot be 'studied'.

Listen to it, feel it, let it speak to you, and only then can you recite it back with authority.

[rc]

One practical use of analysis is that it helps with memorization.  Otherwise, I agree that intuition is the way to go - the craft of composition is what it is, but for performance all we need to do is make it breath.

...Still, I can't resist the urge to intellect up reasons for my interpretation and occasionally cook up some ideas by principle rather than feel.

I suspect intuition is really automatic reasoning, the results of past decisions that were thought through.  Whatever good that speculation is, I think music from the beginning was guided by principles and so there's nothing wrong with thinking things through...  So long as we don't lose perspective and forget why we're making music.

[thalberg]

It seems, that many people here think, they have to "analyse" a piece before they can play it. I don't understand this approach. The pieces are already composed in a way that everything is at the right place in them (hopefully!), so the performer just has to play what is written (including articulation, dynamics etc.) Where does  this need to analyse music come from?

Do pianists, who have this analysing approach really play better than pianists with an intuitive approch? For example Schumann Träumerei: there are people, who can explain every note and the formal structure of this piece, but when they play it, it sounds... errm... clumsy.

True--some analytical types are not good pianists, and some good pianists are not analytical.  But if a person has both elements, I think it sets them apart in a good way.  For example, knowing which parts of a piece are structurally significant can help with interpretation, and knowing which notes are harmonically important can help with voicing.  These are just two examples.
 

[viking]

As noted above, music has nothing to do with intellect, and cannot be 'studied'.

How might one go about playing a Beethoven Sonata properly without analyzing the structure??

Also, in the case of interpretation, it is essential to know how to analyze the harmonies of a piece.  For example, the Beethoven Op.57 Sonata begins in F minor.  The theme is then repeated in G-flat major, or the Neopolitain degree (bII) of the key.  How would you go about interpreting that passage unless you knew the significance of the Neopolitain chord?  Ok, you could let your intuition guide you, but granted your posts, your intuition is probably skewed.  I would recommend analyzing everything you play. 

I also agree that analyzing helps with memory, as does stucture. 

Needless to say, nobody likes an extremely calculated performance. 

And nobody likes you...

[leonidas]

How might one go about playing a Beethoven Sonata properly without analyzing the structure??

For most situations, theory is useless.

Analysing the harmonic context of a chord or the structure of a piece will only help if you haven't got a good ear.

You sound like you do not have sufficient musicality, but I assure you, I have.

[viking]

Whatever makes you feel good about yourself...

I'm not going to try to convince someone that structure is important.  Ask 100 major professional pianists.  If one completely dismisses structure, I'll buy you a Ferrari.

PS.  Maybe we should have a duel between us to determine who has sufficient musicality??

[dnephi]

If it's Bach, Brahms, or Liszt, the answer is in the affirmative.

[Kassaa]

I tend to disagree, some good analysing skills are useful for analysing the music while you play, so that you always know where you are going to, but to analyse it measure for measure just takes away the magic of a work imo. With Bach of course you can analyse the counterpoint and the polyphony so that you can play the voices clearer, but analysing for example the first movement of Kinderszenen just hurts the piece :\ .

[leonidas]

Whatever makes you feel good about yourself...

I'm not going to try to convince someone that structure is important.  Ask 100 major professional pianists.  If one completely dismisses structure, I'll buy you a Ferrari.

PS.  Maybe we should have a duel between us to determine who has sufficient musicality??

I am not suggesting structure is unimportant, I am suggesting that structure has a musical purpose, and not an intellectual, and is best studied musically.....but listening to , not 'analysing' chord progressions.

In time you will thank me for my wisdom.

[pianochick93]

I agree with bob3.1415962...etc
I just play the music, and play what sounds good with the right notes. dynamics, rubato etc.

The most analysis or background research I have done on a piece was to find out what the composer was going through when he wrote it, and that was only because my piano teacher thought that Rachmaninoff had to have been very depressed to write some of his pieces. So I proved it to her.

I am just good at hearing what I believe the details of the piece should sound like, and playing it.

[leonidas]

You've been Rach'd!

All his 'depressing' pieces were all just a joke, he wrote them with this expression on his face.

[lostinidlewonder]

Analysis strengthens your musical efficiency (i.e: learning a piece towards mastery). Those who neglect to see a piece of music in an analyzed form usually spend more time learning/memorizing a piece. Expert musical analysis are extremely good in sight reading and can usually play any piece with the music and with full expression.

Thus increasing your ability to see a group of notes, or even multiple phrases of music as one is increased with improvement to your musical analysis ability.

Expression of music is however not completely helped by analysis, this comes more from trial and error and what you believe is the ideal sound from examples. But with strong musical analysis skills you can see expressions used in one piece is also similar in others. Thus no ideas that you face in fresh pieces are really new, thus you have the capability to learn/master them very fast. This is because you can categorize and relate what you are seeing in the dots and you know it is not for the first time. This process is encouraged with strong musical analysis skills.

I know lots of professional musicians who no longer analyse music, simply beacause it all works in the back of their heads. But the thing is we all have to go through knowing simple things like a gruop of notes is a major or minor. How do you start using that to improve your rate of learning music? Most people can see chord progression or scale forms but don't have any idea how to use it to help them learn music, this makes musical analysis pretty useless. You cannot seperate musical analysis from playing your instrument.

[counterpoint]

You've been Rach'd!

All his 'depressing' pieces were all just a joke, he wrote them with this expression on his face.

Yes, and with the thought: haha, nobody will be able to play this!    I will make them suffer! 

[tengstrand]

At some point, you cannot think of what is needed to play better: either you are intellectually curious enough to want to know more of the structure of the piece, or you are not. And the things you analyze will become subconscious.

Let's say, hypothetically, that you wouldn't know the key of the piece you are playing.  Then someone would say "oh, don't analyze that, just feel it". OK, you say, "maybe this won't help me to play the piece better but I want to know".

Put that scenario into a less obvious analysis such as: in Rachmaninov's second Suite for two pianos (hilarious picture, I loved that!) second mvmt, the middle theme is very beautiful but starts with the first four notes of "Dies Irae". It says something (actually, a lot!) and is exciting if you are curious, but who can for sure say that it helps the playing with anything? Personally I am 100% sure such thinking helps me in keeping the piece together, but if someone doesnt think so, fine to me. The listeners are the judges anyway.

I do realise that too much analysis can block the imagination, but I'm not so sure anyone here has reached that point. Do we need it? Probably, but to me, the question is: do we want to dig a little, without being sure there is any gain?

[indutrial]

For most situations, theory is useless.

Analysing the harmonic context of a chord or the structure of a piece will only help if you haven't got a good ear.

You sound like you do not have sufficient musicality, but I assure you, I have.

I suppose all the possible chord voicings and melodic phrases in the world are catalogued diligently in your giant head. Though with all of that crammed in there and hard-wired to your pro-active brain, I wonder where you find room for the faux-spiritual bullshit you love to smear all over this site.

All your overemphasis on musicality tells me is that you either sucked terribly at studying theory (maybe all you want to do with music is show off or play a bunch of masturbatory note-vomit) or you had a bad theory teacher who never showed you that's a good side to everything. I don't mean to pick fights, but everything you post here sounds like a dodge.

[indutrial]

Analysis strengthens your musical efficiency (i.e: learning a piece towards mastery). Those who neglect to see a piece of music in an analyzed form usually spend more time learning/memorizing a piece. Expert musical analysis are extremely good in sight reading and can usually play any piece with the music and with full expression.

Indeed. It can't hurt to throw more intellectual weight behind anything in life and I wish assholes would stop interpreting this as a threat to the feeling of a piece. In jazz music, the musicians who learn how to analyze melodies and approach harmonies are generally the musicians who go the furthest, since the theory allows them to introduce a lot more ideas into their improvisational language. In the 1960s, Coltrane took an increasingly free approach, but that was after he had studied Slominsky and pushed his own music to the theoretical limits (Giant Steps and Countdown were so hard at first that pianists could barely follow it, despite all the internalized "feelings"). In classical music, theory is often very badly taught, so a lot of people come away from it with tons of bitterness and disgust. There are plenty of post-1950 curricula that have tried to remedy this trouble and I would suggest looking further for a theory that augments musical feeling before you dismiss it entirely. I'm just saying this because a lot of this forum reminds me of high-schoolers and college students who do something like read one existentialist book and use it to frame every single novel, movie, and document that crosses their path for the next four years.

[viking]

Well said.

[richard black]

As far as I can see, the answer to the original question is definitely 'no', but that said, most (probably all) performers with any talent at all will have done some sort of analysis, if only subconsciously, by the time they know a piece well enough to play it to an audience.

Exactly what kind of analysis will of course be different in practically every case.

[dan101]

The more you know the structure, dynamics and phrasing of a piece, the better. It also helps to know the history of the composer. This whole process is, of course, nothing to get obsessed with, but this really is information that helps with interpretation. Good luck!

[ramseytheii]

Indeed. It can't hurt to throw more intellectual weight behind anything in life and I wish assholes would stop interpreting this as a threat to the feeling of a piece. In jazz music, the musicians who learn how to analyze melodies and approach harmonies are generally the musicians who go the furthest, since the theory allows them to introduce a lot more ideas into their improvisational language. In the 1960s, Coltrane took an increasingly free approach, but that was after he had studied Slominsky and pushed his own music to the theoretical limits (Giant Steps and Countdown were so hard at first that pianists could barely follow it, despite all the internalized "feelings"). In classical music, theory is often very badly taught, so a lot of people come away from it with tons of bitterness and disgust. There are plenty of post-1950 curricula that have tried to remedy this trouble and I would suggest looking further for a theory that augments musical feeling before you dismiss it entirely. I'm just saying this because a lot of this forum reminds me of high-schoolers and college students who do something like read one existentialist book and use it to frame every single novel, movie, and document that crosses their path for the next four years.

Bravo!  It is true what you said, that those who speak out against learning feel that their emotions are threatened by knowledge.  These are people who are insecure about learning: they are afraid that learning will change them; they are terrified of change, and will not grow as artists, only deteriorate. 

Walter Ramsey

[indutrial]

Bravo!  It is true what you said, that those who speak out against learning feel that their emotions are threatened by knowledge.  These are people who are insecure about learning: they are afraid that learning will change them;

The insecure thing is more like an excuse than anything. I wouldn't so quickly attribute something like that to fear as I would attribute it to outright laziness. I've been to plenty of recitals at the local conservatories in the NJ area to see that the musicians are a bunch of jaded emo-ish brats who act as if nobody besides them knows better (since these days, very few people, including teachers, have the minerals to tell somebody their recital was terrible or that their musical outlook is weak).

[cforlana]

In my own opinion, I belive performers MUST analyze music they play, and not only they play but also have very good understanding of the style of a given composer. I think performers must be educated and well-rounded, and that includes theoritical analysis. Trust me, you can't go wrong by analyzing a piece and doing extensive research on it (that is, if you don't know HOW to analyze, that's a different subject matter).