Interpretation -- How to, and fast?

[Bob]

Does anyone have a quick and easy method for interpreting a piece of music?

Not the 30-year version, the 30-second version.


Scan form
Find phrases and shape

[Bob]

I guess I'm thining, "How do I get that now?"  Right now, even if it's wrong, as long as it sounds like something, sounds right, complete.  Although not necesssary "correct."

Sounding like one interpretation.

[thalberg]

Okay, so you're sightreading or what?

My old piano teacher was a master at split-second interpretations.  She called herself an "instant reactor to sound."

So....I suppose just react to the sound.  Before you play it, of course.

[Bob]

Maybe like a 10 minute tops interpretation.  Something where you now very quickly what the final result is.  How can I get that?

[desordre]

 Dear Bob:
 What are you talking about?
 Best!

[Bob]

How can I look at a piece and quickly develop an interpretation?

Say technique is not a limitation.  Don't worry about learning.

The next challenge is interpration, getting a concept of the piece as quickly and accurately as possible.

Say a brand new piece.  I want to have a definite idea of things in say... 10 minutes?


I suppose start with the entire piece.  The entire character.  Then break it down to sections -- What's each section doing? 

Then I should know "what's right" phrase by phrase in each section. 


Another way to look at it -- If you start at the end of the piece and are working toward a polished final sound from the start (as opposed to working out notes and rhythms, then adding artic/dynamic, etc)... how do you know you're working toward the right endgoal?  How do you get an idea of that final endsound?  And the right sound on the first try -- not playing it, changing things, playing it, changing things.

[desordre]

 Dear Bob:
 OK, I got your point now. There is one answer: you must know in depth each language, each style, each composer. Because the question is not whether you can realize the interpretation of a piece, but if you can control your options in the given limits.
 One example: when I work a new piece by Mozart, I have a very good idea about what to do at first sight. Why? Because he is a composer that I am very deep into, and not only his piano music: his chamber works, symphonic, vocal, operatic and so on (what is sometimes neglected by some students/performers).
 In the other hand, if I start a piece by Mr. AlphaBeta, I need more time to get acquainted with what he is doing, and probably would be highly welcome some background research (other pieces and influences throughout) and a complete analysis of the score to have a proper notion.

 (It's important to tell you that I think that free invention, inspiration, imagination, "mood", and the like, are framed and controled by style and historical knowledge about it. Taken that for granted, you must consider how much is important to create an interpretation without elements to do it. Yes, I know that a lot of performers do it, but they are normally known for the fact that they play anything, from Bach to Liszt, in the very same way. I recognize that works sometimes, but now-a-days it's not a serious option anymore.)
 
 Finally, let me write some words of warning. Some of the best insights and most of the worst mistakes are product of the first contacts with a new work. Thus, you must keep your mind open. Interpretation is something that grows naturally, even when you work with a very well known style, composer and, for that matter, piece. It seems like a contradiction, but it's not: even when you are able to have a very good idea of the interpretation at glance, it will develop through time.

 Now, there is a problem (that is the topic of another thread up here): it's easy to loose the freshness or intuition after a couple of months of daily practice. My antidote is simple, and I wrote it before: keep your mind open and try always to surprise yourself. Furthermore, it is near impossible that anything above average that you play will be 100% ready in the first try. Normally, you start and keep working for five or six months. Then, it's good to quit. A year after, resume: it will be much better. Play again for a couple of months; quit again. And so on. Some pieces take one cycle, other two, and another you carry through your life until you have your perfect rendition done.

 What do you think about this?
 Best wishes!
 

[thalberg]

Yes, Desordre is right.  You have to have an in-depth knowledge of style in order to do a quick interpretation.  And preferably a GREAT knowledge of theory.

The first question to ask is what's the character of the piece.

From there, most of what you need to know is written right there in the score.  Just play soft where it says soft, staccato where it says staccato, match the tempo that's indicated, do all the ritards and crescendos and such--and you'll end up definitely in the ballpark of a good interpretation. 

[Bob]

I'm thinking a few days tops on a piece.  From first view to finished performance.

Set the interpretation.  Set the rough form.  Polish it up.  Record.  That idea.

[counterpoint]

I'm thinking a few days tops on a piece.  From first view to finished performance.

Set the interpretation.  Set the rough form.  Polish it up.  Record.  That idea.

You can't "set" an interpretation.
You have to explore the possibilities of every single piece and every single phrase.
What's the meaning of it. How to make it sound understandable.
This can take years.

If you only want to play a piece in short time, it's unlikely, that you will get a good interpretation.

[Bob]

Doesn't have to be great.  Good is fine for this.

I suppose I could just copy someone else.  Find a recording.  Steal the tempo, dynamics, etc.  That's an idea.

[counterpoint]

Doesn't have to be great.  Good is fine for this.

I suppose I could just copy someone else.  Find a recording.  Steal the tempo, dynamics, etc.  That's an idea.

 

But then why learning the piece?
Just copy the CD, new label and send to the shops 

[Bob]

Just to know it.  To have played it.  Be familiar with it.

[jlh]

I suppose I could just copy someone else.  Find a recording.  Steal the tempo, dynamics, etc.  That's an idea.

You stole my idea for a response! 

[pianistimo]

several here have mentioned the ultimate.  just taking your time.  why eat something musical like it is mcdonald's.  what's the point of that?  people might say 'wow, you're a great sightreader.'  but, it's unlikely they will say - 'that was a really great interpretation' - unless you happen to be a freak about mozart or whatever composer you love the most.  but, even then - i don't believe i've ever had a good rendition without learning some ideas of how to present it.  it's like food.  presentation is everything.  learn from others and not CD's.  some Cd's are worthless.

here's what you do bob...separate your practice time from sightreading time.  put a folder together of everything you want to sightread.  only call it sightreading. but, do not tell people who don't play the piano.  use it for performance for them.  they may never know.  pianists will stop you after the first two bars and 'say what?'

[Bob]

(gets the sense he's touched a nerve)

But if those are the constraints...  Time.   The 6 month/30 year thing is not what I'm getting at.

[teresa_b]

Doesn't have to be great. 

It won't be.

I suppose I could just copy someone else.  Find a recording.  Steal the tempo, dynamics, etc.  That's an idea.

That's probably your only choice here, unless you know the composer's music so deeply you can do it in a relatively short time.  I agree completely with Desordre's post above. 

I've just started working on my 6th Mozart piano concerto.  I'll be performing it in the spring--that's how long (at least) I need to get to know it well enough that I feel I can do it any justice.  I know Mozart pretty well, and I can do some passages quite musically even at this early point because of experience.  But Mozart in particular wrote very few dynamic indications, so as I work on it, I sometimes don't know what I will do with many passages!  I worry about it!  But after a few months I always have a much clearer picture of where I want to go. 

Sorry, but that's the only way.

Teresa

[rc]

I've been reading 'With Your Own Two Hands' by Seymour Bernstein (great book btw, best description of memorization and sight reading I've found yet), and in it he talks about having total relaxation in order to have a natural intuitive response to the music.  Sitting down, reading through a piece and letting it affect you, not analysing or anticipating, just reacting to the notes.  He uses the analogy of a negative in a camera.

I can't sightread well, but there have been times where I've learned a piece and I knew the feeling behind it immediately, without analysis.  Come to think of it, our initial enjoyment of the music had nothing to do with analysis, it was inutive, indefinable.

Interpretation isn't an exact science, but I think we can generally do a good job based on experience playing and listening, off the bat.  Might as well just accept the initial interpretation, it will probably be pretty good, and will develop and refine with time anyways.

I do like the idea of just allowing it to flow.  For a first experience with a piece, trying to force an interpretation is more likely to screw it up than help.