After all the links, threads, detailed posts, examples... one question remains!

[mosis]

I haven't been here in a while, but it's nice to see Bernhard posting again. Maybe you can help me out, I'm sure you remember me.

I have absorbed most of the information on this forum about the multitude of practice methods, tricks, oddities, absurdities, and the like. I know of a detailed way to attack any technical problem, and have freed my mind from many unnecessary barriers. But one question still remains:

How does musical practice factor into the bigger picture? When one is breaking up the pieces into segments, does one continue when there is complete technical mastery, or when there is a decent musical interpretation as well? How does one know when it is ready to move on? (For example, different musical interpretations require different technique. I need different technique for soft scales than for fast scales, or for chord voicing and evenness). If, as has been stated many times, one never truly masters a piece in the musical sense, then when does one "move on" from a particular segment, or page, or whatever, and say it is "musically mastered"?

I don't know how to practice musically. I'm playing horrendously easy pieces, but I'm stuck on one or two pages, 16 or 18 bars, because I don't feel that my musical interpretation is to my mind's desire, and I don't know how to go about practising it. I don't know where musical practice fits in with all the other practice methods. I'm held back by my ignorance, and I simply don't know what to do!

[Motrax]

Here's a wonderful article on just that subject:
https://www.arbiterrecords.com/musicresourcecenter/moiseiwitsch.html

I found Moiseiwitsh's advice to be trmendously helpful. I walk around alot since I'm at college, so when I go from one building to another I play passages in my head that I feel dissatisfied with, musically speaking. Oftentimes, the "answer" to my frustrations will come rather quickly and easily when I'm not at the piano.

[pianistimo]

agreed with everything except changing the notes of chopin's hand.  but, never bad to experiment at home and play it the way you like.  guess once a conservative always a conservative.  maybe like political parties you have a similar thing going on with piano.  one says you can take more liberties as long as it sounds good.  for some reason - it seems like blasphemy to a more conservative pianist.  but, then again - it's good to get new perspective and it certainly wouldn't be from conservative pianists (playing within composer's intent? and exact notes).  so, there's a reason for all existing as they compliment one another and keep each other 'in line' - so to speak.  the conservative pianists keeping the liberals from too much liberality - and the liberals keeping the conservatives from killing off people from boredom.

[bernhard]

Yes, it is a very good article. But is it helpful in any way? Like much written by famous pianists, it only makes sense if you already know what they are talking about (in which case you will not need to read it).

You ask how to practise “musically”. But I ask you how “not to practise musically”. Whatever you play will be musical. It may be inappropriate music, but it will be music nevertheless. So our question now becomes, how to practise “appropriate musicality”.

Now, many people talk about “interpretation” as some kind of emotional involvement with the piece. According to this line of thought, you should cry when playing supposedly sad passages, and be overwhelmed with the desire to jump for joy when playing supposedly “happy” music.

I have a very different concept of “interpretation”.

The score is a “model” of the music the composer has in his mind. As every model, it will have distortions, deletions and generalizations. Interpretation is the reciprocal process to modeling, its reverse so to speak. When we model something, we simplify by leaving things out (think of a town´s map: it does not have trees or people or buildings in it, just streets), by distorting things (a map is two-dimensional, it is many times smaller than the town it models, although drawn to a precise scale) and by generalizing specifics (all maps of all towns are drawn following similar conventions).

Modelling is very useful even though its basic processes could be construed as “lies”.

The problem is when people start confusing the map with the territory. A map is only useful if the person using it knows how to supply the deletions, correct the distortions and move back from the general to the specific. A person who can do that, can “interpret” a map, that is extract from it the reality (the town) it models.

Likewise with music. Interpretation is the art of extracting from the score all the information that has been deleted from it, correcting the distortions and moving away from its generalizations to the specifics. As you would need to learn how to interpret a map if you had never seen one before, one needs to learn how to interpret a score, if one has never seen one before. It has very little to do with emotionalism in music and all this bla bla bla that certain musicians love to indulge in.

Consider also the professional magician. His/her job is to astound his/her audience and thoroughly convince them that a miracle has happened right before their eyes. To do that the magician must do one very important thing: never ever reveal how the trick is done. A magician may reveal the trickery behind a magic act either intentionally (by telling his audience how he did it), or unintentionally (by performing badly so that the trick is obvious). So these two things are very important: secrecy (not telling) and lots of practice in order to to hide the trick (“misdirection” and “patter” being the two main ways one does that). Do you really think the magician is surprised when he pulls a rabbit out of the hat? Of course s/he is not. S/he may act surprised, but it is all an act.

Likewise with piano “interpretation”. Emotional involvement with the music is for the audience, not for the performer. In fact, the sort of shallow emotionalism so much loved by audiences (crying when listening to Chopin´s Fantasy Impromptu) is sure to be a disaster for the performer, as much as it would be for the magician to start believing he is performing miracles, rather than prestidigitation.

Many people however, become interested in magic/piano for very wrong reasons: They want to perform because thy want to be the audience. So, they expect that by learning magic/piano they will have the audience´s experience tenfold. They do not understand that the enjoyment of the magician is not in being astounded by a seeing miracle, but in fooling people that they have witnessed a miracle. Unless you enjoy fooling people (and we are now well into conman´s and hoaxer´s territory here) you will never be a good  and effective magician.

Likewise, unless you enjoy manipulating people´s emotions with music, you will never be a good, effective musician. And if you want your music to go beyond shallow emotional entertaining (which includes not only pop, but also a lot of romantic period erudite music), then you must enjoy talking to people through music. You must not only learn music´s grammar and syntax (that is, the model since every language is a model of sensation) as you must learn the interpretation that is, to reverse the modeling process in order to get sensation back.

This, of course, is what music theory in general and decoding a score (reading music to its minutest details) in particular are all about.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.