How do you feel confident your practicing gives the results you´re striving for?

[Petter]

I´m fairly new to the concepts of practicing and nursing every single tone and shape a final result. I´ve been playing piano for almost 20 years but I´ve never had any classical training (yes Im a "jazzpianist"). I recently acquired a classical teacher which I´m ready to trust since I´ve already made progress that pleases me after just a few lessons.
 
 But I still have no real basic ground to stand on. I have the dexterity in my fingers but thats it. When it comes to playing a piece (we´re doing a bürgmuller etude and a bach prelude) I always get the better result if I just let go on and play it like I heard her play it. But if Im alone and practice I´m just not sure I´m practicing correctly. I have a feeling that if I would just let go of thoughts like that and play it musically I will make more progress. But then I end up thinking I missed the point she was trying to illustrate.  Anyway, how do you go on about practicing in a manner where you feel that you´re concentrated and confident you´re making progress? Or is it something you just do naturally without giving it much thoughts?

I know this might sound quasi meta physical over the canyon x2000 and that everyone probably has indiviudal strategys and all that. But personally I can´t really "inspire" myself to focus and let go of the ankwardsness at all times.

[gyzzzmo]

My inspiration is when i manage to play something as i want to play it.
You're problem seems to be that you dont know how to handle classical music(?). Maybe you could start listening to classical music alot. Technical approaches, or by trying to explain it often doesnt really work. You have to start getting your own opinion about something, based on a mixture of experiences. My gues is that you can only get those 'experiences' by listening to alot of music.

Not copying them, but getting to know the feeling and THEN give it your feeling.

Good luck,
Gyzzzmo

[guendola]

Experience is the clue. In the meantime, while at home, just play in a way that you think is appropriate. If it is totally out of the range, your teacher will tell you and you will probably remember that.

Of course, when your teacher wants you to play something in a different way, you should always ask why. There are many clues between the lines of sheet music and you have to learn about them. By the way, This is the moment where you might get interested in music theory

Music is a very personal matter and a good pianist has his personal interpretations. Your teacher can tell you the general rules (not laws) and one or more ways to play it But in the end you have to find your personal way, which might even vary from performance to performance.

[Petter]

Thanks for the responses. I think listening and getting acquainted with different pianists, styles and composers is the way to go. Im working on that. 
 I have a very good conception about chords and the relation and where they strive but I know almost nothing about the implied dynamics. (how they are executed). But I realize there´s a connection I didnt think about until now. It´s just hard to grasp all this and alter my technique(since mine is vastly obscure) at the same time while trying to achieve something that sounds like music. 

[guendola]

As a simple guideline: In a piece you find developments: Melodies go up or down, chords get closer or further away from the tonica etc. These developments usually imply dynamic changes. At the end of a phrase, you could add a small ritardando or decrescendo and ALWAYS think about how to play the notes that lead into a new part, they are the door, the introduction!

Reading (without playing) sheet music is a good help by the way. You might not hear the music correctly but you can see the structure much better.

[rc]

I think I know what you're going through, I came to classical music from a rock background so I knew absolutely nothing...  Allegro? Fugue? sonata form? sequence? structure?

It took time. I've read a lot of books, listened to a lot of recordings, watched videos, gone to performances and took lessons.  I came to have confidence in my interpretive decisions.

In listening I remember taking an intuitive -> analytical approach.  I would listen to recordings until something struck me emotionally, then I would try and analyse objectively what was happening that gave me that response and recreate it.  I think it was a useful habit in developing a sense of what the music is communicating.

Listening to recordings is good, we can all taste the best, but eventually we must be able to discover the meaning of the music on our own.  It's not like every musician just listened to prior recordings, there's a certain logic and meaning in the notation to be deciphered.

I'll second guendola's advice: everyone has their personal preferences and tendencies, but the one thing I judge the quality by is the REASON behind the interpretation.  "Because I want to",  "because I was told to",  "because I like to be different" are weak reasons.  Good reasons add up to a conceptual whole, they clarify the music to the listener: "because I wanted to decrease the intensity before the next climactic section",  "because I wanted to seperate the musical ideas".

Anyways you got the idea, listen to music and just go for it.  It's no big deal to practice a less effective interpretation, a lot of the greats change their ideas and interpretations as they grow.

But personally I can´t really "inspire" myself to focus and let go of the ankwardsness at all times.

It´s just hard to grasp all this and alter my technique(since mine is vastly obscure) at the same time while trying to achieve something that sounds like music. 

Maybe a part of your problem is that you don't have the notes down cold?  It's very hard to execute interpretive considerations when the mind is busy just trying to get the notes right.  The better the notes are drilled into the hand, the more bandwidth the mind has to focus on interpretation.  You sort of have to alter your technique with every composer, they all had their own idiosyncratic techniques, so at first meeting it may all seem awkward.

[Petter]

Thanks Rc for the detailed response.
 Lesson tomorrow 

[slobone]

My advice would be to be a little more patient. If you've only had a few lessons, you shouldn't expect an overnight transformation.

If you like your teacher, and you feel like you're making progress, I think you should try to do what he/she tells you as much as possible. It won't always sound like you're making progress every day or even every week.

The idea of imagining what the music should sound like in your head, and then trying to create that sound on piano, I would say has limited value for the stage you're at. The problem with following that approach is that you might end up doing something different every time you sit down at the piano. Jazz musicians do that successfully, and so do very well trained classical musicians, but I think at this stage it's more important for you to be consistent in your technique and stick with the fundamentals.

But again, talk to your teacher. One of my grievances against piano teachers is that they often don't really tell you what you're supposed to be doing in your practice time. Tell your teacher what you told us, and see if you can get some practical pointers.

[Petter]

The lesson went over expectations. Im still unsure the praise was well deserved though hehe.
Im starting on the C invention now and I have a simple question about dynamics when the motif is inverted. Is the inverted phrase inverted in dynamics like this
or does it stay the same?
It feels better to play it with the same dynamics even if the phrase is going downwards.
Whats the standard "rule"?

[slobone]

The lesson went over expectations. Im still unsure the praise was well deserved though hehe.
Im starting on the C invention now and I have a simple question about dynamics when the motif is inverted. Is the inverted phrase inverted in dynamics like this or does it stay the same?
It feels better to play it with the same dynamics even if the phrase is going downwards.
Whats the standard "rule"?

I'm not sure what you mean by inversion -- I don't have the music for the whole piece handy. But generally you want to keep dynamic changes low-key when playing Bach on the piano. Do a little cresc and dim as feels natural, but keep it mostly in the middle.

[Petter]

I mean that the motif in the 1st bar comes again in the 3rd bar but backwards. I dont know the correct term in english.


Anyway, Im picturing a slow raise in dynamics in the two first bars and a diminuendo in bar 3 and 4. But within the motif phrase I still think of the dynamics as this:



(I hope those pics are showing)

My question was if Im thinking "correct" by playing this motif phrase the same way throughout the piece or if the "inner dynamics" change if the motif phrase is descending.

 

[slobone]

Oh I see now. That was very alert of you, I never noticed that that was an inversion before.

My gut instinct agrees with yours, but not because it's an inversion. The default (or lazy) way to shape a phrase is to get a little louder as it goes up and a little softer as it goes down. You could certainly do it the opposite way here if you wanted to. But as I said, with Bach it's usually better not to do too much, especially with a simple piece like this one.

[counterpoint]

The default (or lazy) way to shape a phrase is to get a little louder as it goes up and a little softer as it goes down.

This is one of these rules that are only correct in 50 % of all cases 

If a melodic line gets louder or softer depends on many things, not only on up and down. First of all search for the accentuations. Will the first note be accentuated, one of the middle notes or the final note of figuration? In the 1st Invention it's common to accentuate the 4th note of the main figure. But it would be possible as well to play "through" this note and accentuate the last note (note #9).

When the figure is mirrored, the accentuation should be the same as in the original shape of the figure.

[rc]

petter: I think you have a good sense for the overall dynamics in these 4 bars (the red markings).  This I've heard called 'macrodynamics', the overall longrange dynamics.  Within that you can manipulate the undulations of the 'microdynamics' (your black markings).

You used the term 'inversion' right.  I generally follow the rise and fall in pitch with the dynamics as well, and did with this invention.  So I also inverted the dynamics.

What we have in bars 3-4 is a sequence, every 2 beats the inverted theme is being played a 3rd lower.  In your last image I find the microdynamics odd for bars 3-4, two of the themes have inverted dynamics but the other two have the same dynamics, what's the reason for this?

Usually, I would play each theme with the same microdynamics and each time the sequence repeats it a 3rd lower I would play the whole theme quieter than the preceding one....

Something like this for bars 3-4 (I wish I knew how to make an image, hahah):

| >< >< | >< >< |     <- micro (non-inverted dynamics would be fine too: <>)
   f    mf   mp   p          <- macro

My reasoning is that by keeping the microdynamics the same each time it's easier for a listeners ear to recognize the theme and overall pattern (the descending sequence).  I would keep it the same every time that particular theme appeared throughout the piece, for the same reason, I want to make it easier for a listener to grasp what's going on.

Hopefully this makes sense .

[guendola]

To me, the original theme includes the g in the next measure and that should be the "peak note", dynamic leads there. (cdefdecG). Without the g, the theme is a bit meaningless, ondulating away into nothingness. Same for the counter theme, that ends on d in the following measure (cbcD).

Measure three and the following are the same way, a to g, f to e etc. However, the last note doesn't need to be the loudest one. It is a relaxing point dissolving the tension of the previous note. So relax at this poing and build up new tension in the next theme. The left hand opposes that, going up continuously until the end of the theme.

Now, finally don't ever forget the left hand while playing music like this. It plays a second voice which is as meaningfull as the first one (well, almost). The interaction and counteraction of the voices produce the magic of this music.

Apart from that I like your reasoning and I think you are on the right way!

[Petter]

What we have in bars 3-4 is a sequence, every 2 beats the inverted theme is being played a 3rd lower.  In your last image I find the microdynamics odd for bars 3-4, two of the themes have inverted dynamics but the other two have the same dynamics, what's the reason for this?

Oh I see now. It was a typo hehe. I meant it to remain the same as in the other bars. Maybe I unconsciously drew it like that because it looked prettier, god knows  .
 And if you want to take a picture from a pdf file you can press print screen (prt sc) and then open paint, chose /edit and then /paste.
 Thanks again everyone for taking the time to answer.

[rc]

and thansk for the tip on how to write on the images, it'll be a great help!

[Petter]

Does anyone have any advice on litterature to read if you´re interested in knowing more about different piano techniques? Like different staccatos or how to approach practicing scales etc. I´m aware it´s all over these boards but it would be nice to reduce the numbers of resources.
 I´ve been reading Neuhaus but it tends to get too abstract. I think I need something simple and more illustrative. Perhaps pictures of different muscles groups that are used for different techniques and examples when they are used in different pieces.