my piano book (on recordings etc)

[Tash]

i was thinking yesterday, when i was thinking about how i should go and listen to more than 1 or 2 recordings of the pieces i'm playing and get some info on my pieces to make my development of interpretation more effective and 'accurate' (whatever that means) and so i thought of making a book, writing down comparisions between recordings and which one i like the best, as well as info about the piece- like how other people see it to be played and to get some more insight into the piece. and then maybe write down the things i need to think about more when i'm playing them, and noting bits i should give more time to in order to master them.
has anyone tried doing something like this? and can you think of anything useful i could add in it?

[g_s_223]

I don't know at what stage of learning you are at. However, most mature pianists are not interested in other's interpretations. Isn't there a risk you will end up with a patchwork interpretation made up of bits of other people's interpretations?

[Tash]

i'm in some kind of uni level and am not planning on becoming a professional. but i do want to know something about the pieces i'm playing and how others have approached it because i like the whole different interpretation compared to my own etc. and i find that the more i listen to the more likely i am to develop my own interpretation, compared to only listening to one where i tend to get stuck with that...hmm i think this could be the result of writing an essay on baroque performance practice and bach's magnificat...oh well yes becak to my original thoughts...

[brewtality]

Isn't there a risk you will end up with a patchwork interpretation made up of bits of other people's interpretations?

And what exactly is wrong with that?

[Kassaa]

And what exactly is wrong with that?

That the interpretation won't make any sense because it isn't a whole piece but bit's of the piece from other pianists. It won't make it logical anymore. And, people will shout OMG HOROWITZ WANNABE AHHAHHAHAHHAHA and things like that.

[brewtality]

No, to be a Horowitz clone you would have to listen to nothing but Horowitz. Your argument is flawed because you assume that you can't make it work. This is wrong, there is no reason why you can't "borrow" details from pianists and incorporate them in your own interpretation. I think it's better to learn this way than have a teacher tell you "do this here and that there etc". Of course individual creativity is better but this can be bland if you are unaware of what can be done with a phrase etc.

To Tash, I think its very important to be able to hear what each pianist does differently, only by hearing what has been done can one understand certain traditions and hear creativity in action. I find that for me personally, it fires up my own imagination when it comes to interpretation. Also, it allows you refine your own musical taste. So in short, it's a good idea.

Also this only works well if you listen to great pianists. I'd recommend listening to pianists of the golden age, since they all played so differently from each other, which gives you more variety in interpretation.

Btw, check out this site: https://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/8618/
he writes about alot of different pianists and recordings. When I was a beginner listener, I found this very helpful.

[Tash]

cheers brewtality that's exaclty where my thoughts were! thanks for the link it's quite interesting reading someone's opinions on pianists

[Kassaa]

No, to be a Horowitz clone you would have to listen to nothing but Horowitz. Your argument is flawed because you assume that you can't make it work. This is wrong, there is no reason why you can't "borrow" details from pianists and incorporate them in your own interpretation. I think it's better to learn this way than have a teacher tell you "do this here and that there etc". Of course individual creativity is better but this can be bland if you are unaware of what can be done with a phrase etc.

I agree on the part that you should listen to recordings, but I don't agree on that you can cut and paste. From listening to recordings you get an idea of what is possible in interpretation, and from that idea you can get your own interpretation of the piece, which is way better thanc/p-ing some measures from Gilels, and some other ones from Horowitz or something. And IMO, it's very wrong if your teachers tells you how to play a piece, without having a chance to explore your own creativity.

[AvoidedCadence]

Interesting topic, which has come up at my school ... my teacher recommends listening to lots of recordings of stuff that you are playing, while one of the other teachers is adamant that it's a betrayal of artistic integrity to listen to anyone else play something which you're currently working on.  That's a strange view, in my opinion - perilously close to arguing that having a teacher (at least one who will be artistically useful, rather than just a technical advisor) is a cop-out.

I don't know at what stage of learning you are at. However, most mature pianists are not interested in other's interpretations. Isn't there a risk you will end up with a patchwork interpretation made up of bits of other people's interpretations?

Not for nothing did Richter listen to Michelangeli when he was learning the Paganini variations...  not for nothing did Horowitz play the Benediction for the mature Halim... and to my knowledge, no Horowitz student has become a Horowitz clone - look at Janis. etc, etc.  Also see some of Bernard's posts on recordings (I can't be bothered to dig them out right now, but one thread is called something like "Should we listen to recordings?")

Not for nothing are the concerts of the greatest artists filled by pianists of all levels ...

Personally, I think the most dangerous thing is absorbing phrasing.  This isn't really a big problem unless you only listen to one recording a lot, or deliberately try to copy the rubato (I mean the rhythmic shape of a phrase, not, for example, one particular slowing down) of another artist.  This is like trying to copy someone's breathing, or their speech.   I think it can result in an artificial, unnatural sound.  What we SHOULD listen for is the overall naturalness of the great masters' phrasing.  Then recordings cease to be creative "blocks" or "hindrances" but instead sources of inspiration.  Other than this problem, I'm all in favour of listening to recordings - as many good ones as possible.  My teacher says there is something to be learned from bad recordings, too.  What is the artist doing wrong?

In some cases, an artist's unique flash of insight can introduce creativity into one's playing.  I think this is especially true for composers such as Liszt.  Example:  Cziffra's Liszt is filled with countless inspirations, like in a passage he will suddenly accent certain notes or use rubato in a uniquely Lisztian fashion.  While I don't advocate "copying" what Cziffra does, listening closely to his recordings will certainly improve your arsenal of tools for playing Liszt, even the pieces he hasn't recorded.

And so on.

As to the original question:  What you are proposing could be useful - writing down critiques of recordings, especially great ones, is a good exercise, although this could become very time-consuming.  You also seem to suggest keeping a "practice log" which I don't do for time/concentration/laziness reasons (possibly a gross stupidity on my part)....

Other than that I can really only suggest the obvious:  analysis, and, especially for vocal melodies such as found in Chopin, Schubert, ... singing / conducting the line.   

Sorry this post is so long.  And that I'm responding to a relatively old thread.

[gruffalo]

in the event of doing this, Tash, even if you arent intending to, you will probably (without noticing) have other peoples characteristics put into your pieces. and people may be able to hear this. even if it is a mix of other peoples interpretation it is still sort of copying in a way and no matter what level you are, you shouldnt really copy. but its always good to hear recordings just to get the general idea of a piece but nothing more.

[Tash]

Ok how about i'm just doing this for purely scholarly reasons and my own interest in comparing different interpretations- people there is no copying or attempting to rip off other people's interpretations!

[brewtality]

in the event of doing this, Tash, even if you arent intending to, you will probably (without noticing) have other peoples characteristics put into your pieces. and people may be able to hear this.

This argument is redundant.

1) most people do not listen to more than a handful of recordings of an individual piece.
2) Even if they do, chances are they lack the sophisticated listening skills to clearly differentiate between the versions.
3) Even if they can hear each pianist's individuality, they will not notice nuances of phrasing, colour, rhythm, pedalling etc.
4) The 'copier' would not be able to perfectly imitate the pianist, rather get a general shape of what they were doing.

and you never explained what is wrong with having "other peoples characteristics put into your pieces". I can only see gains to be had from studying recordings.

even if it is a mix of other peoples interpretation it is still sort of copying in a way and no matter what level you are, you shouldnt really copy.

To be honest I'd rather listen to a cut and paste midi than most of today's pianists. Most pianists (amateurs and professionals) would BENEFIT from 'copying' the great masters. To think that you couldn't learn anything from listening to the recordings of pianists is ludicrous. Also, borrowing details etc is only a temporary measure until you find your own voice.

Btw, all this is secondary to the fact that IT"S FUN TO LISTEN TO RECORDINGS.

[Tash]

yeah i agree with that, and also in the attempt to 'copy' artists, in order to successfully do it you'd have to watch them perform it and study it intently or you're not going to get the same effects. i personally don't believe that unless you try really hard you're not going to obviously sound like you're copying someone else, and the whole individuality thing is so strong that no matter how hard you try it's going to result from your own ideas anyway.

what i was more thinking of in this was for example, listening to haydn or bach or someone, and working out why some pianists do some part more staccato or legato, and my choice against that. sure it doesn't matter what they do in the end, but it's cool to listen to