even or uneven - what's better?

[counterpoint]

I found an incredibly interesting video on youtube, it's called
"Guide to Piano - Good vs Bad Playing"

In the video a friendly woman explains in nice words the difference between "good" and "bad" piano playing. She says that "bad" piano playing is "uneven" and "good" playing is "even".

Then she plays "Für Elise" to demonstrate "good" and "bad" playing.
In the "bad" demonstration she plays very even(!) and in the "good" demonstration she plays very uneven. So - what's better: to play even or to play uneven? 

[m1469]

Hmmm... well, actually, to my ears both did involve a slight unevenness (the first example in mainly one section) -- though the first one much was less.  Funnily, by trying to sound "uneven" she sounded more even and by trying to sound "even" she sound more uneven ... hee hee.  Sorry, mojo  .

Anyway, in order to achieve an even sound, sometimes uneven motions (some quicker than others, ect) are required.  Maybe she was relying too much on her mechanic experience than on her ears  :-.  She felt herself playing mechanically uneven, and it sounded even when in the second, where she was visibly a little more comfortable, perhaps it felt more mechanically even to her and she though it sounded less even. 

I guess whatever serves a person's aim is better.

[cloches_de_geneve]

Well, I think she's more concerned about opposing inexpressive to expressive play (than even vs. uneven). I think that both versions are actually good examples of bad piano playing, the first one being robotic as she says, the second totally overdone for a little piece like Für Elise.

[alhimia]

I think using terms like 'even' and 'uneven' can be very confusing. For me, I think, the main differences between the two ways of playing have very little to do with playing even or uneven, but rather with breathing, frasing, rubato, quality of touch and pedal.
In any case, you always must have control about what you play.

m1469, can you give an example of where to use uneven motions in order to sound even? and what kind of uneven motions are you talking about?
I ask because it sounds interesting what you are saying, and I would like learn about it more   

[opus10no2]

 

Evenness is - ALL THE SAME - time between notes, and the same dynamic.

This video doesn't do what it claims to, but it was funny.

[counterpoint]

I think using terms like 'even' and 'uneven' can be very confusing.

That's exactly what I'm feeling too! It's so disturbing to hear from a teacher, you should play "more even" - and then, when you do it, it sounds bad and the teacher says "that's not even enough!". After more than 40 years of piano playing I'm convinced "more even" does really mean "more uneven". All pianists who play "even" for the ear play uneven in reality!

[m1469]

m1469, can you give an example of where to use uneven motions in order to sound even? and what kind of uneven motions are you talking about?

Well, in a "finger crossover" -- like in a scale, for example.  It's comparatively a bigger motion than playing the other notes of the scale are, therefore it needs to be quicker than the rest in order to not break the sound of the line.

[opus10no2]

Octaves at the start of Liszt PC1 too.

People should try my legendary interp of SPEEDING UP as the octs get wider.

[zheer]

  She is demonstrating musical sensativity, something that can be tought.

[jlh]

She got more notes and rhythm correct by playing 'bad'... listen to the ascending octaves portion... 

[thalberg]

I liked the way she pronounced Fur Elise.  That was funny. 

[m1469]

Well, anyway, at least she has put something "out there" that is risked being devoured by sharks  .  I think that she is doing her best, and her American accent is surprisingly great even if her "Fur Elise" was a little French sounding ... hee hee.

[ted]

Surely sometimes we want evenness and at other times roughness. Both are choices and both part of our expressive vocabulary. In improvisation, I prefer roughness because the internal accents so generated lead to more ideas. Listening to very smooth passages tends to make me admire the player more than the music. Nothing wrong with that per se, but as Poe says, "True passion requires homeliness." There is something about glassy smooth, metronomic playing which is too close to a computer for my comfort.

In the end it is a personal option though.

[opus10no2]

Well, anyway, at least she has put something "out there" that is risked being devoured by sharks  .  I think that she is doing her best, and her American accent is surprisingly great even if her "Fur Elise" was a little French sounding ... hee hee.

She's making money out of it.

It's just so wrong!

[counterpoint]

Well, anyway, at least she has put something "out there" that is risked being devoured by sharks  .  I think that she is doing her best, and her American accent is surprisingly great even if her "Fur Elise" was a little French sounding ... hee hee.

She pronounced "Für Elise" perfectly well, as it is spoken in German 

And for the video itself: it's a very good demonstration. The only fault is, that she talks about evenness, when unevenness is meant. Most of the piano teachers and pianists do this! They are not aware, that they themselves play uneven and that's nothing wrong with playing uneven. They only think, they play even. It's a bit schizophrenic 

[lagin]

I think maybe what she meant by uneven could have also referred to tempo, cause in the first demostration she sped up in the middle quite noticably, whereas in the second demonstration, though she used rubato, it was metrically more correct.

[m1469]

She pronounced "Für Elise" perfectly well, as it is spoken in German 

At first I was tempted to think so, too. 

[furtwaengler]

Funnily, by trying to sound "uneven" she sounded more even and by trying to sound "even" she sound more uneven ... hee hee.  Sorry, mojo  .

Once in a masterclass demonstration, a teacher corrected a dotted rhythm I was struggling with Chopin's 4th Scherzo by asking me to play it correctly and then incorrectly...As this teacher was expecting, it was when I attempted to play the rhythm incorrectly that I hit it dead on!

I've no idea how that works, but there's obviously something to it.

[forester]

It's not really about even or uneven playing. It's about physical control or the lack of it.

Everything else is expressive rhythm or rubato. If you gain physical control (proved by playing everything with metronomic precision) then you have a broad pallette- choice from which to work.

[counterpoint]

If you gain physical control (proved by playing everything with metronomic precision) then you have a broad pallette- choice from which to work.

That's an interesting idea! So you say, if you can play absolutely mechanical, as it would be when playing "with metronomic precision"  - this proves your "physical control"?!?

For me this sort of "physical control" proves only one thing: the absolute lack of musical sensibility 

[forester]

Perhaps I haven't made it clear for you have misunderstood my point completely. First learn the notes with a machine-like proficiency and rhythmic accuracy. This is control and a part of the process of learning a work and developing the requisite technique. Then you forget all of that preparatory work and play, rehearse, with freedom, rubato, expressive rhythm, uneveness--whatever words you choose to call it--within the bounds of the style. Simple really.

[forester]

 Musical sensitivity comes from the mind. One trains the fingers to perform according to the will of the imagination.

[counterpoint]

Perhaps I haven't made it clear for you have misunderstood my point completely. First learn the notes with a machine-like proficiency and rhythmic accuracy. This is control and a part of the process of learning a work and developing the requisite technique.

I never play "machine-like". The idea, that a good technique needs the ability to play machine-like (even if one plays different in the end) is such a  weird idea to me. Control of sound intensity and control of the exact moment where a note is to be played (the factual exact moment, not the metronomic/mathematical exact moment) are the two main things, a good musician needs (besides some other qualities of course). And many "technically perfect" pianists lack these abilities.

[pianowolfi]

There are natural pearls and there are cultivated pearls. The natural ones are usually considered to be more valuable than the cultivated pearls. The former have some unevenness and irregularity in their shape.

[term]

Musical sensitivity comes from the mind. One trains the fingers to perform according to the will of the imagination.

exactly 

First learn the notes with a machine-like proficiency and rhythmic accuracy

I get your point...but i think it's not absolutely necessary to do that. You can just skip that and go right into playing it the way you want it.

[affettuoso]

I can see what the woman in the video is trying to convey, but her demonstration was a bit unclear.  When playing 'badly' she played mechanically, but evenly - sounding somewhat like composition software when it plays back notes - as many of you have stated which can be slightly misleading!  When she played 'expressively' she played unevenly but I can understand why she thinks it should "touch our hearts in a very special way." because it's more expressive.  I think she's mixed up her terms slightly and thus become slightly misleading. 

I don't particularly like terms like 'even' and 'uneven' like many have already stated.

[jinfiesto]

Term, I disagree. You have to know the rhythm at the very least, otherwise you lose rhythmic drive in your interpretation, which is a very important part. I don't mean to say that you should only practice with the metronome, but you should at least know it as it is written literally. Not doing so can produce some very undesirable results.