Do performers need to analyse the music they play?

[counterpoint]

It seems, that many people here think, they have to "analyse" a piece before they can play it. I don't understand this approach. The pieces are already composed in a way that everything is at the right place in them (hopefully!), so the performer just has to play what is written (including articulation, dynamics etc.) Where does  this need to analyse music come from?

Do pianists, who have this analysing approach really play better than pianists with an intuitive approch? For example Schumann Träumerei: there are people, who can explain every note and the formal structure of this piece, but when they play it, it sounds... errm... clumsy.

[danny elfboy]

It seems, that many people here think, they have to "analyse" a piece before they can play it. I don't understand this approach. The pieces are already composed in a way that everything is at the right place in them (hopefully!), so the performer just has to play what is written (including articulation, dynamics etc.) Wherefrom comes this need to analyse music?

I don't think the dynamic gives enough information on how to play a piece.
Unlike the notes which are a rather straighforward and unchangeable information, dynamics is not. First of all in a piece each note has its importance and should be played in a certain way and yet we a sheet can't be covered in millions of dynamic marks over every note. On the other hand the very concept of piano, fortissimo, delicato, soffuso, sognate ... are just relative and not absolute. Analyzing a piece might help the performer to better make sense of the incomplete information that he/she can obtain from the score alone.

[bob3.1415926]

I rarely tend to analyse the music. In terms of interpretation, this probably sounds daft, but I just listen to what the music wants to do. Most of the time this agrees with the composer, but occasionally this involves adding in extra swells, dims, ralls, accels, etc, and very occasionally ignoring something written. I interpret by feel not calculation. I'm willing to accept that I'm prob in a minority. Most people who hear me play seem to think that interpretation is my strong point, although this is liable to just be an comment on my technique!

[counterpoint]

I don't think the dynamic gives enough information on how to play a piece.
Unlike the notes which are a rather straighforward and unchangeable information, dynamics is not.

Agreed. But many dynamic decisions cannot be explained by the structure of the piece, but depend on melodic and rhythmic needs, that could not be explained by logical consideration. It's often a decision of what "feels" right and what feels wrong.

[term]

Analyzing a piece might help the performer to better make sense of the incomplete information that he/she can obtain from the score alone.

Well there's hearing.
Analyzing is not necessary. Playing is, so that you can hear the music. Everything the music says is understandable by ear, and every decision you make is only heard.
So one would have to argue, the only way to make the right decisions is, besides hearing, by analyzing the score.
And that's just plain wrong. Because:

Do pianists, who have this analysing approach really play better than pianists with an intuitive approch?

This can be answered with no. There's a huge difference between knowing and doing. And i think that's part of this subject: By knowing your piece, you won't - at all- get around the problems you face when actually practising, perfecting and playing it, and you'll most probably change a number of decisions you have made before.
I know many people, who know exactly nothing about music theory, but if you hear them playing.... *hmmm
It just  shows: Music, and hearing, is a completely unintellecutal thing. If you don't have an intuitive connection to the music, analyzing won't help.

[zheer]

  Analyzing music helps us to understand music on an intellectual level plus other benefits.

   "You must forgive a composer who would rather hear his work just as he had written it,however beautifully you played it otherwise".  Beethoven speaking to Czerny.
   
 

[daniloperusina]

Between intellect and intuition, I think intuition wins.

When something moves us, a composition or a performance, I don't think we can rationally explain why. Actually, it might even be a contradiction. Looking at a beautiful lake scenery, it's hardly our intellect that's stimulated. Yet, there's a plethora of details to be admired, a tree here, a water reflection there. Some people will always be more prone to attempt rational analysis of what they see, others will simply sit quietly and sip it in.

Composers are usually very well trained, and know the 'rules' and mechanics inside out. That's part of their intellect. But I think they achieve greatness only when their intuition takes over. I think the same goes for performers. Know your stuff, but let your intuition flow freely.

I'm totally with Bob3.14159265358979323846... That's my approach too.

[leonidas]

The answer is no.

[viking]

Wrong again...

[leonidas]

Wrong again...

I really don't want to get personal, but if you died, I'd be quite happy.

As noted above, music has nothing to do with intellect, and cannot be 'studied'.

Listen to it, feel it, let it speak to you, and only then can you recite it back with authority.

[rc]

One practical use of analysis is that it helps with memorization.  Otherwise, I agree that intuition is the way to go - the craft of composition is what it is, but for performance all we need to do is make it breath.

...Still, I can't resist the urge to intellect up reasons for my interpretation and occasionally cook up some ideas by principle rather than feel.

I suspect intuition is really automatic reasoning, the results of past decisions that were thought through.  Whatever good that speculation is, I think music from the beginning was guided by principles and so there's nothing wrong with thinking things through...  So long as we don't lose perspective and forget why we're making music.

[thalberg]

It seems, that many people here think, they have to "analyse" a piece before they can play it. I don't understand this approach. The pieces are already composed in a way that everything is at the right place in them (hopefully!), so the performer just has to play what is written (including articulation, dynamics etc.) Where does  this need to analyse music come from?

Do pianists, who have this analysing approach really play better than pianists with an intuitive approch? For example Schumann Träumerei: there are people, who can explain every note and the formal structure of this piece, but when they play it, it sounds... errm... clumsy.

True--some analytical types are not good pianists, and some good pianists are not analytical.  But if a person has both elements, I think it sets them apart in a good way.  For example, knowing which parts of a piece are structurally significant can help with interpretation, and knowing which notes are harmonically important can help with voicing.  These are just two examples.
 

[viking]

As noted above, music has nothing to do with intellect, and cannot be 'studied'.

How might one go about playing a Beethoven Sonata properly without analyzing the structure??

Also, in the case of interpretation, it is essential to know how to analyze the harmonies of a piece.  For example, the Beethoven Op.57 Sonata begins in F minor.  The theme is then repeated in G-flat major, or the Neopolitain degree (bII) of the key.  How would you go about interpreting that passage unless you knew the significance of the Neopolitain chord?  Ok, you could let your intuition guide you, but granted your posts, your intuition is probably skewed.  I would recommend analyzing everything you play. 

I also agree that analyzing helps with memory, as does stucture. 

Needless to say, nobody likes an extremely calculated performance. 

And nobody likes you...

[leonidas]

How might one go about playing a Beethoven Sonata properly without analyzing the structure??

For most situations, theory is useless.

Analysing the harmonic context of a chord or the structure of a piece will only help if you haven't got a good ear.

You sound like you do not have sufficient musicality, but I assure you, I have.

[viking]

Whatever makes you feel good about yourself...

I'm not going to try to convince someone that structure is important.  Ask 100 major professional pianists.  If one completely dismisses structure, I'll buy you a Ferrari.

PS.  Maybe we should have a duel between us to determine who has sufficient musicality??

[dnephi]

If it's Bach, Brahms, or Liszt, the answer is in the affirmative.

[Kassaa]

I tend to disagree, some good analysing skills are useful for analysing the music while you play, so that you always know where you are going to, but to analyse it measure for measure just takes away the magic of a work imo. With Bach of course you can analyse the counterpoint and the polyphony so that you can play the voices clearer, but analysing for example the first movement of Kinderszenen just hurts the piece :\ .

[leonidas]

Whatever makes you feel good about yourself...

I'm not going to try to convince someone that structure is important.  Ask 100 major professional pianists.  If one completely dismisses structure, I'll buy you a Ferrari.

PS.  Maybe we should have a duel between us to determine who has sufficient musicality??

I am not suggesting structure is unimportant, I am suggesting that structure has a musical purpose, and not an intellectual, and is best studied musically.....but listening to , not 'analysing' chord progressions.

In time you will thank me for my wisdom.

[pianochick93]

I agree with bob3.1415962...etc
I just play the music, and play what sounds good with the right notes. dynamics, rubato etc.

The most analysis or background research I have done on a piece was to find out what the composer was going through when he wrote it, and that was only because my piano teacher thought that Rachmaninoff had to have been very depressed to write some of his pieces. So I proved it to her.

I am just good at hearing what I believe the details of the piece should sound like, and playing it.

[leonidas]

You've been Rach'd!

All his 'depressing' pieces were all just a joke, he wrote them with this expression on his face.

[lostinidlewonder]

Analysis strengthens your musical efficiency (i.e: learning a piece towards mastery). Those who neglect to see a piece of music in an analyzed form usually spend more time learning/memorizing a piece. Expert musical analysis are extremely good in sight reading and can usually play any piece with the music and with full expression.

Thus increasing your ability to see a group of notes, or even multiple phrases of music as one is increased with improvement to your musical analysis ability.

Expression of music is however not completely helped by analysis, this comes more from trial and error and what you believe is the ideal sound from examples. But with strong musical analysis skills you can see expressions used in one piece is also similar in others. Thus no ideas that you face in fresh pieces are really new, thus you have the capability to learn/master them very fast. This is because you can categorize and relate what you are seeing in the dots and you know it is not for the first time. This process is encouraged with strong musical analysis skills.

I know lots of professional musicians who no longer analyse music, simply beacause it all works in the back of their heads. But the thing is we all have to go through knowing simple things like a gruop of notes is a major or minor. How do you start using that to improve your rate of learning music? Most people can see chord progression or scale forms but don't have any idea how to use it to help them learn music, this makes musical analysis pretty useless. You cannot seperate musical analysis from playing your instrument.

[counterpoint]

You've been Rach'd!

All his 'depressing' pieces were all just a joke, he wrote them with this expression on his face.

Yes, and with the thought: haha, nobody will be able to play this!    I will make them suffer! 

[tengstrand]

At some point, you cannot think of what is needed to play better: either you are intellectually curious enough to want to know more of the structure of the piece, or you are not. And the things you analyze will become subconscious.

Let's say, hypothetically, that you wouldn't know the key of the piece you are playing.  Then someone would say "oh, don't analyze that, just feel it". OK, you say, "maybe this won't help me to play the piece better but I want to know".

Put that scenario into a less obvious analysis such as: in Rachmaninov's second Suite for two pianos (hilarious picture, I loved that!) second mvmt, the middle theme is very beautiful but starts with the first four notes of "Dies Irae". It says something (actually, a lot!) and is exciting if you are curious, but who can for sure say that it helps the playing with anything? Personally I am 100% sure such thinking helps me in keeping the piece together, but if someone doesnt think so, fine to me. The listeners are the judges anyway.

I do realise that too much analysis can block the imagination, but I'm not so sure anyone here has reached that point. Do we need it? Probably, but to me, the question is: do we want to dig a little, without being sure there is any gain?

[indutrial]

For most situations, theory is useless.

Analysing the harmonic context of a chord or the structure of a piece will only help if you haven't got a good ear.

You sound like you do not have sufficient musicality, but I assure you, I have.

I suppose all the possible chord voicings and melodic phrases in the world are catalogued diligently in your giant head. Though with all of that crammed in there and hard-wired to your pro-active brain, I wonder where you find room for the faux-spiritual bullshit you love to smear all over this site.

All your overemphasis on musicality tells me is that you either sucked terribly at studying theory (maybe all you want to do with music is show off or play a bunch of masturbatory note-vomit) or you had a bad theory teacher who never showed you that's a good side to everything. I don't mean to pick fights, but everything you post here sounds like a dodge.

[indutrial]

Analysis strengthens your musical efficiency (i.e: learning a piece towards mastery). Those who neglect to see a piece of music in an analyzed form usually spend more time learning/memorizing a piece. Expert musical analysis are extremely good in sight reading and can usually play any piece with the music and with full expression.

Indeed. It can't hurt to throw more intellectual weight behind anything in life and I wish assholes would stop interpreting this as a threat to the feeling of a piece. In jazz music, the musicians who learn how to analyze melodies and approach harmonies are generally the musicians who go the furthest, since the theory allows them to introduce a lot more ideas into their improvisational language. In the 1960s, Coltrane took an increasingly free approach, but that was after he had studied Slominsky and pushed his own music to the theoretical limits (Giant Steps and Countdown were so hard at first that pianists could barely follow it, despite all the internalized "feelings"). In classical music, theory is often very badly taught, so a lot of people come away from it with tons of bitterness and disgust. There are plenty of post-1950 curricula that have tried to remedy this trouble and I would suggest looking further for a theory that augments musical feeling before you dismiss it entirely. I'm just saying this because a lot of this forum reminds me of high-schoolers and college students who do something like read one existentialist book and use it to frame every single novel, movie, and document that crosses their path for the next four years.

[viking]

Well said.

[richard black]

As far as I can see, the answer to the original question is definitely 'no', but that said, most (probably all) performers with any talent at all will have done some sort of analysis, if only subconsciously, by the time they know a piece well enough to play it to an audience.

Exactly what kind of analysis will of course be different in practically every case.

[dan101]

The more you know the structure, dynamics and phrasing of a piece, the better. It also helps to know the history of the composer. This whole process is, of course, nothing to get obsessed with, but this really is information that helps with interpretation. Good luck!

[ramseytheii]

Indeed. It can't hurt to throw more intellectual weight behind anything in life and I wish assholes would stop interpreting this as a threat to the feeling of a piece. In jazz music, the musicians who learn how to analyze melodies and approach harmonies are generally the musicians who go the furthest, since the theory allows them to introduce a lot more ideas into their improvisational language. In the 1960s, Coltrane took an increasingly free approach, but that was after he had studied Slominsky and pushed his own music to the theoretical limits (Giant Steps and Countdown were so hard at first that pianists could barely follow it, despite all the internalized "feelings"). In classical music, theory is often very badly taught, so a lot of people come away from it with tons of bitterness and disgust. There are plenty of post-1950 curricula that have tried to remedy this trouble and I would suggest looking further for a theory that augments musical feeling before you dismiss it entirely. I'm just saying this because a lot of this forum reminds me of high-schoolers and college students who do something like read one existentialist book and use it to frame every single novel, movie, and document that crosses their path for the next four years.

Bravo!  It is true what you said, that those who speak out against learning feel that their emotions are threatened by knowledge.  These are people who are insecure about learning: they are afraid that learning will change them; they are terrified of change, and will not grow as artists, only deteriorate. 

Walter Ramsey

[indutrial]

Bravo!  It is true what you said, that those who speak out against learning feel that their emotions are threatened by knowledge.  These are people who are insecure about learning: they are afraid that learning will change them;

The insecure thing is more like an excuse than anything. I wouldn't so quickly attribute something like that to fear as I would attribute it to outright laziness. I've been to plenty of recitals at the local conservatories in the NJ area to see that the musicians are a bunch of jaded emo-ish brats who act as if nobody besides them knows better (since these days, very few people, including teachers, have the minerals to tell somebody their recital was terrible or that their musical outlook is weak).

[cforlana]

In my own opinion, I belive performers MUST analyze music they play, and not only they play but also have very good understanding of the style of a given composer. I think performers must be educated and well-rounded, and that includes theoritical analysis. Trust me, you can't go wrong by analyzing a piece and doing extensive research on it (that is, if you don't know HOW to analyze, that's a different subject matter).

[indutrial]

In my own opinion, I belive performers MUST analyze music they play, and not only they play but also have very good understanding of the style of a given composer. I think performers must be educated and well-rounded, and that includes theoritical analysis. Trust me, you can't go wrong by analyzing a piece and doing extensive research on it (that is, if you don't know HOW to analyze, that's a different subject matter).

Exactly. I think the reason a lot of piano kids scream and whine about theory is because they don't know how to apply it and decide that it's easier to ignore it or accuse it of sucking the soul out of their precious performance piece (which is a smug, overly self-assured gesture at best). The problem certainly has a lot to do with rusty musical education, since a lot of performance teachers are likely washed-up musical failures (or more accurately, neutral non-success jobbers) who don't know how to transmit anything except nasty attitudes and dated technical criticisms. The average theory teachers are worse, and they make learning theory about as painful and stodgy as learning trigonometry or physics (other subjects that are more fascinating than the average learning experiences would suggest). Lousy institutions (and of course, decadent brattiness and post-gen-X laziness) will always make a student look for an excuse to not go beyond the expectations of learning a piece.

[bob3.1415926]

I've been thinking about this a bit lately, and I'm going to totally contradict my previous answer. Your definition of analyse is important here. Lots of people are talking about a historical review, a thoroughly in depth analysis. I have never gone this far. I don't have the time or easy access to the required resources. I can't say whether I would find it beneficial or not.

However, minor analyses are very important to present a piece properly. For me, the most important part of a good interpretation is balancing the volumes between the fingers. Whenever I look at the music and think 'which part has the melody in this passage?' that's a form of analysis. Choosing to use quieten the inner voices and bring out the outer ones (for example) is a result of analysis. Even if the melody is just the uppermost notes, the fact that you're aware of that is because you have performed v minor analysis. Playing without any analysis is probably impossible.

Btw, I'm in the process of moving house at the mo, and my internet access is v limited, so if you reply to me and I ignore you, my apologies!

[pianogeek_cz]

Let's see what a really in depth analysis can do...

I think this is one of the definitive pro-analytical arguments.

[dnephi]

ANd he does it for all of them...

I recommend looking at the b flat minor Bk. 2 analysis.  This, my friends, is a fugue where Bach shows everything he's got.

[rachfan]

I'm a firm believer in the benefits of analyzing a piece.  By spending some time away from the piano analyzing the score before sitting down to actually play it can avert numerous problems and make practicing much more effective. 

I start with the tempo.  (You say that's a simple given?  Then talk to me about andantino, for example, a marking that even baffled Beethoven.  Whenever I see that marking, I give it a lot of thought.)  Next I look at the overarching structure of the piece.  Is it A-B-A or something more complex?  I look for transpositions, bridging passages, the nature of the coda, etc.  The figuration of the passagework, phrasing, agogics, etc. determine touch, possible hand shifts/fingerings, articulation, pedaling, and even practice methods.  I pay very close attention to dynamics and expressions of mood changes.  The more I look at the music, Ill spot some inner lines or important harmonies that clearly need to be emphasized.  There might be an unusual  rhythm that will need to be tested against the metronome.  Voicing of melody horizontally through chords is paramount, as is voice leading.  Distinguishing foreground from background  and etching what is truly important is a constant concern of the musician.  In some instances I'll check one or two alternate editions of the music if I believe something is edited in a questionable manner, and read the commentary on it in an urtext.    I might also look up an Italian term not often seen to get a more precise feel for it.  Or I might consult a book about the composer and his music that discusses the piece, including the composer's stated intentions.  You get the idea.

Then when I sit down at the piano to start practicing, I have developed a wealth of information and ideas about the score, my tentative interpretation, and efficient practice approaches.  There is a danger of analysis to be avoided--that is, having the resulting rendition sounding too "academic".  There needs to be a balance between analysis and spontaneity.  In my opinion, anyone who does not first analyze a piece short-changes himself and cannot do justice to the piece or serve the composer as well.

[slobone]

rachfan, that was superb! But I'm sure you'll agree that after you've taken a piece apart you have to put it back together again, and this is where many performers go wrong. I think for the truly great ones, something happens at the moment of performance that is beyond analysis. And it could easily be something different from one performance to the next.

[indutrial]

rachfan, that was superb! But I'm sure you'll agree that after you've taken a piece apart you have to put it back together again, and this is where many performers go wrong. I think for the truly great ones, something happens at the moment of performance that is beyond analysis. And it could easily be something different from one performance to the next.

I find that after one picks apart a work (or memorizes it or whatever), that last portion of magic that acts as the lynch-pin in a well-done performance has everything to do with relaxation and shedding anxieties that may or may not have anything to do with the piece. A lot of bad performances turn to the dark side when a pianist can't relax his mind enough to enjoy playing the piece and they just end up muscling through it like a bull in a china shop.

[rachfan]

Hi slobone,

I agree with your point.  After the analysis, the pianist has to meld the performance of the work into a unified, cohesive, intelligent and aesthetic whole that will be acceptable and pleasing to listeners.  The analysis still forms the baseline of performance striving for perfection (which we never attain, but still must remain as the goal).  Spontaneity in performance serves to co-create the work with the composer.  Sometimes the impulses of spontaneity will cause some deviation from the analysis in some way, and often means taking a risk in the moment.  The degree to which the deviation will be judged as successful or a failure will be how much it comports with the composer's intention, fits with general performance practices, and shows musicianship through the analytical work that was done.  And, of course, the fact remains that no matter how much we plan, we never play a piece exactly the same way twice, whether it be in our living room or a recital hall.  One last point: We need to recognize that over time, a pianist might arrive at a far deeper understanding of the work than its composer.  Those insights ought to be included in the performance, so long as there is convincing justification for them.   

[forester]

...a lot of this forum reminds me of high-schoolers and college students

Says it all really. I thought it was a forum for professionals!

[forester]

I just play the music, and play what sounds good with the right notes. dynamics, rubato etc.

The most analysis or background research I have done on a piece was to find out what the composer was going through when he wrote it, and that was only because my piano teacher thought that Rachmaninoff had to have been very depressed to write some of his pieces. So I proved it to her.

I am just good at hearing what I believe the details of the piece should sound like, and playing it.

Sounds like "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like." Such naivety and arrogance to dismiss over 200 years of scholarship and pianistic tradition in favour of your fourteen year old uninformed and still raw intuition. It's a phase you are going through; you'll get over it.

[counterpoint]

Says it all really. I thought it was a forum for professionals!

So you are a real professional...? 

[forester]

So you are a real professional...? 

Correct!

[indutrial]

Sounds like "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like." Such naivety and arrogance to dismiss over 200 years of scholarship and pianistic tradition in favour of your fourteen year old uninformed and still raw intuition. It's a phase you are going through; you'll get over it.

Hopefully, they will, but judging them based on lots of conservatory kids aged 17-30, they probably won't. The problem is that too many people here (and in the music world as a whole) are just hedonists. They piss and moan whenever someone invites them out of their comfort zone (because in these dainty days no one can ever force someone to do anything) and they mold their aesthetic ideology around self-centered and half-formed ideas. As a guitar instructor, I see numerous students jumping in and out of playing music simply because they didn't expect it to be any work and refuse to fit practice into their busy schedules of copying people's homework, texting and IMing friends, watching TV, and playing three hours of video games a night (oftentimes Guitar Hero!).

At the collegiate level, these kids are willing to work. Fine. But usually only enough to get good marks. The social atmosphere of most colleges is almost always counterproductive to the academic environment, which is why so many of these people will probably end up filing sh*t in some relative's office after they graduate or some other cubicle job they can sneak into that requires no experience or expertise.

The way education and colleges work these days offers more independence in thought than ever before (because it is easy and even idiots can be shoehorned into the loop if they have enough $$$), yet people seem hooked on taking easy street whenever it's available. The "I know what I like" attitude is a perfect example of this kind of passive mental inertia. It may as well be, "I shouldn't have to work that hard because I'm special."

[counterpoint]

Hopefully, they will, but judging them based on lots of conservatory kids aged 17-30, they probably won't. The problem is that too many people here (and in the music world as a whole) are just hedonists. They piss and moan whenever someone invites them out of their comfort zone (because in these dainty days no one can ever force someone to do anything) and they mold their aesthetic ideology around self-centered and half-formed ideas.

Oh yes, the end is near. We know it! 

[indutrial]

Oh yes, the end is near. We know it! 

You should know better than most of us. With every annoying anti-intellectual post you make, we edge a bit closer towards brainless oblivion.

[mcgillcomposer]

(since these days, very few people, including teachers, have the minerals to tell somebody their recital was terrible or that their musical outlook is weak).

This is very true, and I have noticed the same thing in the field of composition (at least as it exists in the university setting). It is the norm to come across students who have, for example, taken 3 years of harmony and still cannot compose a solid and convincing bass line.

Also, their notion of counterpoint is often very weak - I remember one of my professors describing it as something that we must do but will never use...yes, a university professor said this.

In terms of composition, many professors (in my experience) suggested nothing more than 'weirdifying' by adding random special effects and cutting a 16th off of, otherwise, square measures. I would be hard pressed to find someone in my faculty who could do a simple and effective orchestration of 10 bars of a Beethoven piano sonata. We are not talking about wonderful artistic orchestration, like Ravel, I mean something simple and elegant...like Mendelssohn. If they don't have the basic materials of music down pat, no wonder they can't compose anything that is coherent and convincing.

This applies to performance in a slightly different way. If a performer has no notion of harmony (what specific chords imply in terms of accent and voicing) or counterpoint, they will never achieve anything beyond a so-so performance in which they play all of the right notes. Just as an example, I was listening to Michelangeli playing Beethoven's Op. 2 No. 3 - he is so sensitive to changes in colour and subtle differences (a new counterpoint to the main melody, for example), and as such, his playing has incredible depth to it.

[ramseytheii]

This is very true, and I have noticed the same thing in the field of composition (at least as it exists in the university setting). It is the norm to come across students who have, for example, taken 3 years of harmony and still cannot compose a solid and convincing bass line.

Also, their notion of counterpoint is often very weak - I remember one of my professors describing it as something that we must do but will never use...yes, a university professor said this.

In terms of composition, many professors (in my experience) suggested nothing more than 'weirdifying' by adding random special effects and cutting a 16th off of, otherwise, square measures. I would be hard pressed to find someone in my faculty who could do a simple and effective orchestration of 10 bars of a Beethoven piano sonata. We are not talking about wonderful artistic orchestration, like Ravel, I mean something simple and elegant...like Mendelssohn. If they don't have the basic materials of music down pat, no wonder they can't compose anything that is coherent and convincing.

This applies to performance in a slightly different way. If a performer has no notion of harmony (what specific chords imply in terms of accent and voicing) or counterpoint, they will never achieve anything beyond a so-so performance in which they play all of the right notes. Just as an example, I was listening to Michelangeli playing Beethoven's Op. 2 No. 3 - he is so sensitive to changes in colour and subtle differences (a new counterpoint to the main melody, for example), and as such, his playing has incredible depth to it.

That's really a shame.  I think the lowering of basic music standards (counterpoint, harmony, analysis) is a political victory for musicians of a certain style, who don't believe that such standards should be elevated over others as being of true technique.  Going to composer forums these days, one is often surprised that those who choose to identify themselves with classical music have the harshest and most political criticisms of it.  I lament this identity crisis, and try my best to keep political considerations out of music.

I optimistically believe that someday people will return to the true techniques of writing music, and a new era can dawn.  I believe this of a lot of things, though; I also believe that churches should maintain what are today traditional liturgies, in spite of the massive success of non-denominational mega-churches.  Churches too go through an identity crisis, and often seem to be their own worst enemy.  One should love who one is, and what one does, and if one does not love oneself, one should do something different with themselves, and not try and change the world that many others love.

Or take dancing.  Recently there has been a surge in young people interested in ball-room dancing, that is, dancing with technique.  Why?  Because if you go to the clubs, and see the way they dance there, you will realize right away that that is not the way one will be dancing at one's 50th wedding anniversary.  Or hopefully not the 5th either. 

This is why I am optimistic: society loosens its bonds, and people try and disdain the old in favor of the "new," whch is never really new anyways - then society collectively seems to realize what it is missing.

I leave you with a quote from Steve Reich, one of the most "modern" composers of our time:

===
"Another thing you learn at a conservatory is to study the music of the past, and to imitate it yourself. And that is a worthwhile activity. To come up with an original style while you are still a student may occasionally happen, but generally speaking, what happens when you're a student is that you are imitating older styles.

Also, you may be doing exercises in formal disciplines like four-part harmony or species counterpoint, and you may wonder to yourself, what possible use will this have for me? Well, I would like to say that I remember being about 35 years old and writing Music for Mallet Instruments, Voices and Organ, thinking to myself, "My gosh! I'm 35 years old and I'm writing four-part harmony."...
===

Walter Ramsey

[indutrial]

In terms of composition, many professors (in my experience) suggested nothing more than 'weirdifying' by adding random special effects and cutting a 16th off of, otherwise, square measures. I would be hard pressed to find someone in my faculty who could do a simple and effective orchestration of 10 bars of a Beethoven piano sonata. We are not talking about wonderful artistic orchestration, like Ravel, I mean something simple and elegant...like Mendelssohn. If they don't have the basic materials of music down pat, no wonder they can't compose anything that is coherent and convincing.

I agree with this inasfar as it conforms with my general idea that students in pretty much anything are not pushed hard to develop a rigorous background or grounding in composition before they are told some hippie b.s. about how they need to be themselves. Hence, there are composition students out there who are being about as indulgent as possible with experimental tendencies yet couldn't write a decent instrumental sonata or suite to save their lives. The reason I'm tempted to cite is that the latest crop of composition students are generally people from relatively privileged backgrounds who have never been told "no" by anybody. While I'm generally an ardent supporter of new music, I sense that a lot of composition students are complete quacks who have not been hardened in any way. A colleague of mine got a degree in composition almost 5 years ago and I have not yet heard a work that resembles anything with musical tradition. Everything is some pretentious combination of electronic noodling, pre-recorded tape, drone notes and scrapes by the instruments, and other sonic effluvia. I can respect a composer like Ligeti or Xenakis exploring electronics, synthisizers, and experimental sounds, because they've at least stretched conventional formats (string quartets, solo piano pieces) as hard as they can be stretched. I'm a little less convinced when 'composers' are releasing one crap experiment after another in the absolute beginning of their 'career.' I've even met some composers who are so cocky about their experimentation that they don't even pursue commissions.

This may seem a tad contrary to my normally-tolerant view towards music and new composition, but my issue is not so much with the new music produced as with what I perceive as a major slackening in composers' work ethics and respect for the past. The old is as important as the new, but some people definitely like to nurture a ahead-of-my-time swagger, which to me just says they're too lazy to actually work on something and that everything is play-time.

[guendola]

What do you do before throwing a ball? You examine it, weigh it in your hand and consider how to best throw it. The better you do that, the better you will be able to throw the ball exactly the way you want to. It might take you a split second only, but you do it. This is the same principle as analysing a piece of music before playing it, though analysing music takes a bit longer. If you want to do a good performance, you have to know exactly what you want to perform. So you have to look at the special "features" of the piece, understand how they work (or don't) and figure out, how to deal with them. This is your musical gear, your tools and the material from which you create the performance. The sheet music is just a blueprint and the piano is the emitter.