The dangers of playing a piece too much

[opus10no2]

What dangers do you think there are?

From an interpretive stance, there is the danger of too much 'perfection' and not enough spontineity, also there is the danger of becoming bored with the piece.

When one is bored with a piece, one might play it in an exaggerated manner, perhaps warping it.
Could this also be a good thing? In general the more one plays a piece, the more it becomes individual and veers from metronomic normality.

Is it best to feverishly study a piece, and then let it mature, and don't play it again 'till you feel a real hunger and passion for it again? to give the playing more freshness..?

Also from a technical view, playing a single piece too much can waste time which could be spent on giving the fingers more 'food' to work with, beyond a certain point, isn't technical practice with a single piece unnecessary? (the exceptions being those pieces which use an area of mechanique which are seldomly used and should be practiced regular for development and maintenance - ie. Chopin 10/2)

[rach n bach]

Who was it who said, "The more you practice, the less the chance of something spontaneous happening in performance." ?

[opus10no2]

I'm not sure, but those spontanious things can be bad aswell as good.

Some prefer to live dangerously, some play it safe.

Someone like Cziffra is interesting. He practiced ALOT, and yet was almost always different, and I think this is because he was creative during PRACTICE aswell as on stage, he messed around and found many things which sound good in a piece, and in concert he may have picked and chosen from various possibilities on the spot.

[desordre]

 Dear Opus:
 There are two things to consider:

 - practice the piece as much as you need to have it perfect. If you play only live and it's flawless (or quasi), good to you; if you have to practice it two hours a day, one month straight, before a recital, do it or leave it. I think that you must know what you can handle and, paramount, how to do it. A bit of intelligence here is welcome: if you have a program made of Beethoven's 106 and Moussorgsky's Tableaux, and that's your first time around...well, 99% of chance that you have to born again to make it. So, when we talk about playing over and over, that's something we should take in account: the balance of the repertory (difficulty/not difficulty; new/old; short/long; etc).

 - keep the piece as fresh as new. My master used to tell me: "Try to surprise yourself every single time you practice". It always worked with me, and I never consider an interpretation finished. Of course, there are procedures of touch, dynamic, and so on that may ruin your solid ground, but that's up to the skill and wisdom of the performer to know where and how far s/he can go.
 
 By the way, I'm a member of the Living Dangerously Interpretation Society. 

 Best wishes!

[invictious]

Obviously the first danger is becoming bored with it, then everything might go sloppy from there.

That's for me anyway..

[counterpoint]

What dangers do you think there are?

The greatest "danger" might be, that there exists so much other music, which you're not aware of -  because your "main piece" catches all of your attention.

[franzliszt2]

Being bored of the piece is the main problem. A week before a concert or something one has to devote most time to the repertoire, but a few weeks before the piece can be in a state of experimentation. Theres so much you can do with a piece, but you have to set your self loads of limits. It's like an artist, you have to have a border, and a theme, and many other things. So you lose lots of freedom, but at the same time create the most freedom. I think that if you bear that in mind when playing, practicing, performing etc... the piece will always sound fresh. Inspiration to do something new always comes at the most unexpected time. If you play the piece too much it may sound practiced, which is boring, but at the same time you can play it so much that it sounds totally free becasue the understanding is deep.

There is always new stuff in good music. I find a lot of music slightly shallow, such as Alkan festin d'estope. That requires a lot of spontineity, and that is where the excitment comes. You could not sit for hours practicing the opening. A mozart concerto however, needs to be sooo carefully thought out. I don't believe you can ever practince Mozart to much. Theres just so much to do.

[opus10no2]

I find a lot of music slightly shallow, such as Alkan festin d'estope.

I dislike calling music like this shallow, it shows a misunderstanding of music.

The emotion in this piece is obviously not as 'serious' as that of other works, but then one can say the same of many Mozart works.

Do not confuse 'emotional' depth with musical depth.

[amelialw]

haha,talking about that. Last time I learnt Chopin's Nocturne in e minor Op.72 No 1 i think at 1st when I finally finished learning the piece i played it so well that my teacher made me play it for a recital. We decided that I would use it for my exam. In the end I had to take my exam like 1&a half year later cauz there was all the stuff to correct after switching teachers and the theory too. Only 5 months b4 the exam did my teacher realise that she should have taught me a new piece. By the time I went for my exam I got so sick of it that no matter what I did to make it better i just got worse and worse.

After that incident, the longest time i ever learn a piece for is 7 months.

[franzliszt2]

I dislike calling music like this shallow, it shows a misunderstanding of music.

The emotion in this piece is obviously not as 'serious' as that of other works, but then one can say the same of many Mozart works.

Do not confuse 'emotional' depth with musical depth.

Yes I don't understand E minor E minor B7 Eminor B major B7 etc...... massivlycomplex music. Now please tell me the depth of this piece? It's not a musically deepwork in any way shape or form. It's just a fun piece.

[mephisto]

Yes I don't understand E minor E minor B7 Eminor B major B7 etc...... massivlycomplex music. Now please tell me the depth of this piece? It's not a musically deepwork in any way shape or form. It's just a fun piece.

The climax at the end touches me deeply, and the rythm is transcendental. And the piece is EXTREMELY original. The dogbarking for instance is complex, so this piece should not be taken lightly. As with all great art this piece is great on more thna one level. It is funny, and it is emotional, it is simple and it is complex.

[gruffalo]

Yes I don't understand E minor E minor B7 Eminor B major B7 etc...... massivlycomplex music. Now please tell me the depth of this piece? It's not a musically deepwork in any way shape or form. It's just a fun piece.

A harmonic analysis like that does not prove whether a piece is shallow or deep in musical content. the earlier composers have less complex harmonic variations, yet they can still be very powerful and moving. Brahms isnt harmonically or orchestrally complex, yet he writes his works in such a powerful way through other devices and compositional genius.

[ted]

For somebody like me who never performs and who has only a small repertoire of pieces other than his own works and improvisation, "danger" is probably too strong a word. Whatever happens isn't going to matter that much because variety is built into my musical personality. However, I admit to cycling my playing of a particular piece, say week on week off, or something similar. I am inclined to try to fix a perceived fault all at once instead of working a little on it and leaving it to the unconscious for a day or two. That is the only time I tend to play a piece "too much".

[opus10no2]

Yes I don't understand E minor E minor B7 Eminor B major B7 etc...... massivlycomplex music. Now please tell me the depth of this piece? It's not a musically deepwork in any way shape or form. It's just a fun piece.

Mozart is just as simple harmonically...so?

The piece is incredible, it's fun and original, and as meph says, at the end it takes a serious turn and sends shivers down the spine, hardly shallow.

[franzliszt2]

Yes because opus10no2 is the most musical fellow. Lets all follow his lead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SPEEEED!!!!!!!!!!

[opus10no2]

Precisely.

[Bob]

The biggest dangers I can think of are getting bored with a piece and getting into a rut in your thinking where you keep doing the same things with the piece.

[mephisto]

Yes because opus10no2 is the most musical fellow. Lets all follow his lead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SPEEEED!!!!!!!!!!

Oh my God that was a good come-back......

[elevateme_returns]

Mozart is just as simple harmonically...so?

The piece is incredible, it's fun and original, and as meph says, at the end it takes a serious turn and sends shivers down the spine, hardly shallow.

i disagree. i think mozart is much more advanced harmonically than festin d'estope

[nicco]

Festin is a short theme with several complex variations. The complexity i feel does not lie in the harmonic progressions, but within use of rythm, dynamics and pianistic bravura. Dont dismiss something because of its simplicity. The simplest is most often the best.

[franzliszt2]

Mozart is just as simple harmonically...so?

The piece is incredible, it's fun and original, and as meph says, at the end it takes a serious turn and sends shivers down the spine, hardly shallow.

Mozart simple harmonically?? hahaha spot the person who has never ever attended his theory classes!!

[opus10no2]

Indeed, I can spot him a mile off 

[dnephi]

Haha da Moz unpredictable

[elevateme_returns]

Dont dismiss something because of its simplicity. The simplest is most often the best.

couldn't have put it better myself . bravo

[oscarr111111]

If its not Giant Steps, its too simple. Tbh.