The Craft of Expressive Playing

[iumonito]

Hi,

Sorry if this would fit better in "performance."  I think of it as a teaching question, hence my posting it here.

Teaching piano mechanics, theory, reading and practicing are all quite concrete and ascertainable.  I have gotten the idea of writing a little paper on how to teach the subtler aspects of musicianship, such as phrasing, aesthetic interpretation, rubato and generally expressive playing.  This goes along the line of Neuhaus' emphasis on the development of an artistic image of the musical work at hand.

I am wondering whether this would be a topic you would find interesting to discuss, in anticipation of my outlining my paper, which at the moment is very much just a concept.

To get things started, I have always taught this simply by singing a lot during lessons, sometimes demonstrating (including over-emphasis) and directing the student to listen to certain recordings (not necessarily of the piece, but without excluding it either) and to read certain materials (mostly biographies or literary sources of inspiration of the piece, but occasionally simply contemprary writings or materials in creativity or psychology).

This does not seem very methodical, although may the best method is, a la Letchetizky, no method.

Thoughts?

[pianistimo]

yes.  i hear lechetitsky was quite creative as a teacher.  'it was paderewski who put leschtitsky securely on the map as a teacher.  paderewski, however, was by no means the best product of the leschetitzky atelier, though certainly the most famous.  there were ernesto berumen, fannie bloomfield zeisler, alexander brailowsky, richard buhlig, severin eisenberger, annette esipoff, frank la forge, ignaz friedman, ossip gabrilowitsch, katharine goodson, mark hambourg, helen hopekirk, mieczyslaw horszowski, edwin hughes, annette hullah, bertha jahn, ethel leginska, benn moiseiwitsch, elly ney, john powell, ernest schelling, artur schnabel, arthur,shattuck, martinus sieveking, josep slivinski, paula szlit and paul wittgenstein.' 

nearly all these students were romantic pianists.  they 'specialized in the literature from beethoven on, seldom playing mozart or schubert, and playing bach generally in transcription by liszt, tausig or d'albert.  they were exponents of the big line, the grand effect, the tempo rubato...

not that they were very sure of what rubato really...sternberg believed, correctly, that no artist from bach on - or before, for that matter - could play in strict metronomic tempo even if he wanted to.  years before writing his book, sternberg had studied with moscheles, the classicist, who once sat down to show him how to play a beethoven adagio in strict time, yet with expression. "and then he sat down at the piano and played a most beautiful rubato, for he was a consummate artist. and when he finished he commented upon how strictly he had kept time."

sternberg's idea of rubato was 'balance.'  what is added in one place is to be taken away in another.  what is stolen is to be restored. (the word 'rubato' comes from 'rubare,' to rob) but paderewski, the great polish master of rubato playing, thought that the concept of stealing followed by restoration was nonsense.  "we duly acknowledge the high moral motives of this theory, but we humbly confess that our ethics do not reach such a high level...the value of notes diminished in one period through an accellerando cannot always be returned in another by a ritardando.  what is lost is lost."

page 277 of 'the great pianists' by harold schoenberg (of which the above quotes came)

'much was also written about the 'leschtitsky system.'  it must have been quite a system ...he was a romantic who had little interest in music before beethoven.  of the well-tempered clavier he once said: go ahead and play it if it interests you, but why waste time on it when there is all of beethoven, schumann, chopin, liszt and brahms to master?'  his own repertoire was based on those composers, and he was a most able executant...

unlike the genial liszt, leschetitsky was a despot as a teacher.  his pupils never knew what to expect.  he could be quixotic, generous, kind, choleric, sweet, sarcastic, and explosive:  a dangerous package.  when he took pupils he entered into their private and spiritual lives, wanting to know everything about them and wanting them to consider him a second parent.  he took only advanced pianists.  if a prospective student had less that what leschetitsky considered a minimum of preparation, the student would have to work a year or more with a vorbereiter - an assistant who would prepare the pupil in leschetitsky basics.  those basic included a good deal of technical drill, a curved hand position and a relaxation of the muscles.  pupils would eagerly submit themselves to a heavy preparatory drill because of leschetitisky's prestige.  one of his students came to the conclusion that the secret of his success was, simply, authority.  'because of the position of authority which the adulation of hundreds has enabled him to assume, he can insist on an amount of technical drudgery that would appall the average student."

this is what i learned from my college prof at uni of alaska, anchorage.  i had a lot of self confidence because he was deeply involved in each of his students lives and we could communicate very quickly and effectively with him.  but, it also fosters a certain amount of dependence, i guess - as to precise interpretations (that wouldn't make him scowl).  maybe a little bit too much control?  i don't know.  i always enjoyed him explaining 'why' he did the things he did and what made one way better than another.  i would never outgrow his teaching in a million years.

but, i was forced to when i came to west chester uni.  this prof (much younger) seemed to have a much more 'you're on your own' outlook.  i mean, he guides you - but if you really want to learn something you have to be motivated to pursue it and not expect that all knowledge will miraculously drop in your lap because of some teacher's good nature to just hand it to you.  of course, it was somewhat appalling at first, because i was paying way more than i did in undergraduate work and i thought that when you pay -- you get.  what's more likely is that when you pay - your brain should go into top gear and you should ask a thousand questions.  basically, not let your piano teacher get up to go to the bathroom - and sit on his porch until you get that make-up lesson.  pursuit is half the fun, now.  i realize that he really helped me to think of myself as fully 'grown up.'  to pursue what i am interested in and to ask questions and remember better.  my last prof was very good to help us with our memories - but this prof kinda expected us to do a certain amount of osmosis and didn't always explain how he memorized tons of music.  but, little glimpses and patterns started coming to the fore.  one was - the amount of practice time.  yikes.  the second - not to assume anything (which is also what my first teacher taught).  actually the two teachers are very similar, yet different. 

my first teacher wanted perfection.  the second, also wanted a certain amount of perfection.  one way is good to start - to drill and to have the neurons firing appropriately, the second is to have a certain amount of 'nervous' energy that causes the fingers to exhude a sort of mysterious energy of their own without a lot of technical drills.  very flat fingers.  perhaps it is a mystery of the brain and how each students work. to get into the 'mind' of each student and find what makes them understand the music the best and obtain the best results.

[quantum]

Local booksales can be really fun, and there are a lot of great finds if you have patience to look through piles of books. 

I have one here you may be interested in:
Novello's Music Primers No. 25
Musical Expression
by M. Mathis Lussy, translated by M. E. von Glehn

Sorry, I can't find a date but from the notation examples I'd guess early 20th century. 

[lostinidlewonder]

There is definately a logic you can follow in the music. I am lucky to be gifted with a very high visio/spatial IQ so I can see sound patterns in pretty much everything I see/hear, I try to transfer this logic to my more advanced students (who can actually put finer touches to pieces they learn).

We should logically understand how a piece is to be expressed without even pressing one note. We should be able to explain why is it louder here, softer there, faster here or there. We can put this into words which make sense and support our argument with the sound produced with the logic in mind.

For example today we where taking a part a Bach 2-part Inventions (no 13) and trying to put character into it. I was trying to get my student to hear how notes gravitate towards another note (that is there are notes which are playing but basically play so they can reach a particular note which is begging to be drawn out).

For example in bar 1 in the RH we see it starts with semiquavers then hits quavers. I tell the student can you see that there is a pattern throughout the piece, the last two notes of the semiquavers leading towards the first quaver have gravity, that is, there is sorta an increased legato touch when we play the last two semiquavers and a sharps push off when we hit the first quaver. I also get them to notice what pattern three notes cause, like in the first couple of bars it is down up middle, then later on it is middle up down. I get them to observe how this pattern moves in both hands. I give an idea of a sin wave function against a step wise wave motion. In Bach with the piano it is nicer (in my opinion) if changes from legato to staccato are done with a smoothness, not an abrupt change. So by increasing the legato touch of the last two semiquavers just before you play shorter quavers stretches the contrast of note quality.

Another thing we came across was the quavers tied to semiquavers, which we find in bars 3,4 and increasing in frequency in bar 5. In the piano we must act against the decay of sound, so these tied notes must have extra energy behind them, they must be accented so that their sustained vibration in the strings do not die away as they naturally do on the piano. Also the semiquavers that follow the tied notes must not enter too loud otherwise we make it obvious that the sustained note has decayed in sound. The entry of the following semiquavers after the tied note must balance with the volume the tied note has decayed to. This is how we make our piano sound like it never loses sound, and is a real magical touch excellent players have in their playing, especially of Bach.

Also I ask them to consider a tenuto touch of the LH Quavers following after bar 18, the final climax of the piece. Why do these quavers beg to be played tenuto? It is because it emphasises the final climax of the piece, we never heard quavers played with such length before so now when it happens it increases the overall excitment of the piece.

This logical statement is confusing if we do not use the piano as well to describe what we are talking about. So just reading a statement is not good enough, it is only half of the way, you must do this study with a piano......

Music is so complicated, it is hard to say something general that will cover everything. But I think that there is a logic to all music which is discovered. Once you can understand the whys of the sound of the piece you play then you can start working on yoru craft of expressive playing in my opinion. Pianists know why sounds go this way or another, but many do not! Some cannot understand it, some need to see other peoples examples before they can make their decision. I think the longer you try, the better you get at it.

[quasimodo]

Lostinidlewonder, your post is very interesting and insightful. However, I am somehow reluctant to your suggestion of approaching the question in a purely logical approach. Maybe it's just a question of wording, though...
My point is that there is not a unique best way to create "expression" on a given piece of music. The "logic" is always balanced by a lot of instant inspiration, not to say randomness. A pattern, IMO, has no specific meaning in itself.
Most important to me is the "atmosphere" that a given performance of a given piece intends to build. Obviously that intention needs to be based on a decent knowledge of the piece's backround, the composer, the period and also on the performer's individuality.
Expression first comes from a global understanding of the whole piece (which may be different from one person to another; and even for the same person at different moments).

[lostinidlewonder]

Quasimodo you are right that the pure logical approach will not work. You must have these logical statements but at the same time observe these laws you find out by experimentation and actually playing them on an instrument. What I want to sorta reveal (even though I only gave a miniscule window, it it too laborous otherwise) is how I help my advanced students look at music and make decision.

I am not one to say that the emotion of a piece is etherial and not something measureable (that is you only find it by playing a piece for years and years). I can most definatly change the feeling of a piece by my own command, I can make something that should sound pretty and calm, sound furious and agitated and vice versa and etc. But HOW do you do this? There are particular notes which effect how we observe sound, there are particular emphasis we place on particular things to produce our desired sounds. I cannot write in words to make everyone understand what I mean here, because we are always faced with unique (but similar) desision for each piece, the logic behind notes is something you discover the more you experiment with them, you will understand it when you look at a piece you have studied for many years but yuo might not realise it when you first look at a piece! It is something that is revealed to us (through our experimenting), but must search for it, not just sit on a fence and wait for it to hit us.

Once you learn say 100 pieces you generally understand the general way to play anything in my opinion. Of course each peice has its own character but pieces definatly have similaries about them, and you get a general idea of how to play everything for the piano and how to change this and that. I think playing experience plays a huge role in to our expession of sound. Listening experience is also essential, listening to masters of the piano play the same peice in different ways is invaluable learning material.

[pianistimo]

yes.  i vaguely remember some kind of computer analysis of some of the greats - and it was very telling.  little 'tricks' that they use that noone really thinks of themselves, usually.  sometimes it's the opposite of what most other pianists do.  for instance.  most go fast when moving up towards a peak note (with scales or scalular type passages) - and yet, one pianist slowed down and sort of waited a bit before the top note.  to give it some distinction.

i think violinists usually surpass pianists by a mile.  i don't know why this is so.  but, i think if one is to be a top notch pianist - you SHOULD listen to vocalists and violinists.  they have that 'connectedness' that lostinidle is talking about.  and, your idea, quasimodo, of using vocal examples.  for instance, you can say to a student - if you were singing this passage - you wouldn't suddenly take a break there...etc. 

also, the idea of the 'long line' is sometimes overlooked by beginners/intermediates.  they are so worried about the details that when they get to performance, you still hear the little slurs outweighing the line.  accents where they should not be so loud.  and a lack of refinement.

refinement is hard to put into words.  in my own words it would be knocking things down a few notches.  if you hear a person playing fff - does it mean he/she plays the piano better?  no.  if the fff is causing a backfire of chaotic vibrations and buzzes in the bass - it's much better to refine the sound and not play quite as loudly.  of course, this means that you have to also refine ALL the other dynamic levels accordingly.  same with tempos.  there are things that can be played slightly slower with a more excellent sound than at a random presto and no real distinction of notes (unless debussy or ravel - in which case - go at it).  for me, chopin is not to be jumbled up. i like that 'honesty' in playing. 

[quasimodo]

  and, your idea, quasimodo, of using vocal examples.  for instance, you can say to a student - if you were singing this passage - you wouldn't suddenly take a break there...etc. 

Not me, Iumunito 

[iumonito]

 

OK, a little bump.  Anyone familiar with Adolph Christiani's "The Principles of Expression in Pianoforte Playing" and Edna Golandsky's "The Art of Rhythmic Expression"?  Or in contrast, you can consider the imagery of Cortot's "Cours d’interprétation"?

Hmm.

[pianistimo]

will look up these books!  cortot's imagery helped me a lot.  although, i've learned that i was expressing myself using visual images 100% of the time and not my own personal feelings.  when i learned that - i was somewhat stunned that the effect was not as good as i thought.  perhaps personal feelings need to be verbalized so one knows what they are.  i don't think it works for bach's preludes/fugues.  i can't say i personally feel anything except for the first one in C major where i definately visualize light coming in through stained glass windows.  a certain feeling of awe.  the fugues are just mathematical to me.

[quasimodo]

the fugues are just mathematical to me.

The slow fugues are material for expressivity, for example BK I N.4, BKII N.5, 7, 9 nad a lot of others.

[pianistimo]

i suppose.  somehow, having a bit more of an actual 'development' - as with beethoven - turns me on more.  with bach - you have a statement (subject) and counterstatement (countersubject) and then it goes on to repeat them right side up and upside down and then come to a conclusion.  it reminds me of a professor who hasn't had his morning cup of coffee.