Criterior of Masterfull performance

[pianowelsh]

We so often debate and trash peoples playing. There must be an enormous wealth of critical listening experience on this forum with music college tutors college students and professional pianists amongst our ranks. I think it would be great if we could come up with a list of key things that we listen for in the playing of others.  We should be quite objective as far as is possible..because wooley phrases dont mean much.  Imagine we are to be a jury of an international competiton what criterior can we lay down that will ensure the right people go through. We must also allow some catch'all phrases (reflective) which will allow for the wildcard who may lack polish but has everything else in abundance etc.

Start here please: (I'll add some later)

[pianowelsh]

Ok since noone else can be bothered!
1. Accuracy of musical detail

Now your turn!!

[counterpoint]

No word to international competitions 


What does interest me in a piano performance most:


1. intensity of the musical feeling and atmosphere

2. understanding of the harmonical and melodical structure of the piece

3. clear articulation

4. originality

5. nice sounds (not all the time, but there have to be some)

6. a natural and easy way of playing

7. virtuosity does only impress me in combination with the previous points

[mephisto]

Live Performances:

1. Original, personal and convincing interpretations that are as spontaneous and creative as possibly.

2. Touch of the finest quality with the most varied range.

3. Dynamics of the widest possibly range.

4. Pauses in the propotions of the action of the hall; more is better than less.

5. Notes are emphazied is acording to their importance. Accompanying runs, passages and filling-in notes should be undeplayed; grace notes and derived notes shpuld be treated as complimentary ingredients.

7. No wrong notes, but beware of playing every right note in an overly articulated way.

[opus10no2]

[etudes]

genius

[pianowelsh]

oK! tHANKS FOR SUGGESTIONS SO FAR GUYS, LETS KEEP THEM COMING IN.
1.  What about an awareness of stylistic/period conventions - so often you here Bach and Mozart maulled in competitions  - otherwise well played but just out of context of its era.

[ramseytheii]

oK! tHANKS FOR SUGGESTIONS SO FAR GUYS, LETS KEEP THEM COMING IN.
1.  What about an awareness of stylistic/period conventions - so often you here Bach and Mozart maulled in competitions  - otherwise well played but just out of context of its era.

Often tiems I hear Bach played in a certain way, probably "sentimental" is the best word, and I just want to puke.  That being said, I feel that awareness of conventions is vastly overrated way to learn something.  It presupposes that every person playing the piece has the same duty, and that is to historically recreate a performance as it "would have been."  To my mind, no goal could be more ridiculous.

'Tis often been stated that one can prove inauthenticity, but anyone has yet to prove true authenticity.  This is an important point to keep in mind, when being critical of the above philosophies.

Why should the goal of performers worldwide be homogenous?  Why should they all be expected to produce the same thing?  To say that a performance must be informed by these conventions, no matter how much they are constructed from scant data, is to be in frank denial of the great performances we have from people that either did not know, or did not care about these conventions.

Landowska is the great paradox here, the woman who single-handedly revived the harpsichord, who researched more deeply into old keyboard music than anybody previous except perhaps Brahms, who probably can be credited with starting the historical-accuracy-in-performance creed.  And yet she played on this monster of an instrument, a cross-breed of harpsichord and piano, that had no relation to the instruments of her beloved masters.  And listen to her recordings - so free, inspired, dramatic, nothing like what we think of today.  She even wrote, and I paraphrase, if Rameau were to come back to life, and tell her to play his pieces differently, she would say, "No, thank you.  You have written beautiful music, but it is no longer yours."

Mastery in general in any field defines itself.  In the past, perhaps criteria from one person's mastery bled over to be applied to others (Beethoven comes to mind).  But there are also people who mastered composition, mastered piano, that only a small percentage of people would want to emulate.  When we become acquainted with something that is masterfully created, it is the sense of awe that inspires the poetic combined with the technical parts of oru knowledge, and inspires us to define, to identify, to recreate.  When the mysteries of the thing in question become open to us in our minds, that is how we can recognize the mastery.

And this may be partly the problem of competitions.  Everybody complains that the number of people who win major internatinoal competitions that go on to distinguished public careers is low.  At first I thought, well, this is because there cannot be so many great pianists as there are huge competitions (there is probably truth in that as well).  But when you have a jury of competition winners, trained to achieve a certain set index of categories that we might naively call "mastery," jugding others who emulate the previous winners, you get a perpetuation of imitation basically, imitation of what it would seem to take to be a master.

I have been told by experienced pianists that competitions tend to favor those who will not develop in the future.  One woman made a strong case that she believed jealousy among judges would prevent them from promoting someone with a strong personality or potential for huge development.  I have no idea if this is true.  It almost sounds too convenient.  But who can blame them, if there are set categories to be learned, and the person masters those categories?  Isn't it only logical that they award the prize to that person, rather than one who can seem to master music itself, but who just hasn't yet?

Walter Ramsey

[pianowelsh]

Thanks walter point taken. But the goal here is really so that we as listeners on pianostreet can develop 'taste' and an appreciation of fine pianism so that when we listen to pianists we can come out with a reasoned response to their playing rather than 'that sucked' or 'I liked her' but we can actually justify our positions and understand what it is that we like or dont like about a certain persons playing. I firmly believe that at he international level we can learn something form every single persons playing in competiton but sometimes we will learn what not to do. This is the goal really so that we can use ouur listening experience to really benefit our own playing and to develop and hopefully raise the standard our own playing and performance criticism.

[pianistimo]

i am extremely bothered by pianos themselves.  if you are playing on a bad piano - you're not going to sound good.  now, it can be bad in one of three -or ten - ways.

#1 makes some kind of sound - like a pencil on the string (which it might actually have)
#2 a string is loose or not tuned to the other one or two.
#3 everything is out of tune
#4 the pedals don't function properly (one or all three)
#5 the keys can be 'blown down'
#6 the keys are too stiff
#7 the piano is just trash - no matter how you try to fix it.
#8 the piano is so perfect that you are scared to play it
#9 the piano looks bad
#10 the piano looks good - so good - you just keep looking at it and walking around it.

ok. in terms of performance - i hate someone who is inconsistent in their own way of playing something.  you have to be able to explain why you chose that particular interpretation.  and, if you are a third year student - you shouldn't have problems with rhythm or notes.  this means carelessness in practice. 

i'm grateful for one teacher who showed me many elements of carelessness in the way i used to approach music.  he would write out the beats in increments of four (quarter divided into sixteenth notes in particular) and say - don't play a dotted quarter the same as a dotted eighth or make a dotted eighth sound like a TRIPLET.  big boo-boo.  this can happen in beethoven, schubert, mozart, etc.  a lot.  listen to performers and compare their 'rhythm' mastery.

that said - don't play like a robot either.  but, don't fudge on the 'elements.'

[pianowelsh]

I think we would agree though that a top notce pianist has to be able to create his/her own sound (which we assume will be good) on any instrument - even under difficult circumstances?!

[invictious]

Easy.