Not feeling the music

[bonjing]

I went to a piano performance lab for the music major and i was frustrated to see some musicians didn't know how to play emotionally. that bothers me really. some of them focus too much on the music sheet because maybe they don't want to make mistakes. They played very well but the music was dead. 

[viking]

What do you mean by that accusation?  It could mean:

1) Their playing was lifeless, void of dynamics, spontaneity, interpretation, etc...
 
or

2) They didn't make happy and sad faces while playing, therefore there is no emotion.

I hope it is the former, and not the latter.  However, many people seem to think that the pianist must show some sort of facial emotion while playing.  I tend to view this as dangerous in a way, as some pianists focus moreso on making funny faces than actually producing something pleasing to the ear, ending up in a dry performance filled with weird faces that make no sence whatsoever.

[pianochick93]

Apparently I make faces like I want to kill the music, but that is definately not how I feel.

[amelialw]

I can't stand watching people who play with musicality.

Last year, after my teacher got back from the ARCT graduation ceremony in toronto, I asked her how it was. Her few words were that so many students played like they were banging the piano, just a few stood out to her.

[ganymed]

you mean who play without musicality ?

[dan101]

A key to feeling the music is trying to understand the composition at hand from the eyes of the composer. This means that a performer should study the history of the composer and the structure of the piece. Every little bit of information helps with respect to emotional interpretation.

[amelialw]

you mean who play without musicality ?

the students who played with a sense of musicality and awareness stood out to her...the rest well she did'nt think much of them

[liszt-essence]

What do you mean by that accusation?  It could mean:

1) Their playing was lifeless, void of dynamics, spontaneity, interpretation, etc...
 
or

2) They didn't make happy and sad faces while playing, therefore there is no emotion.

I hope it is the former, and not the latter.  However, many people seem to think that the pianist must show some sort of facial emotion while playing.  I tend to view this as dangerous in a way, as some pianists focus moreso on making funny faces than actually producing something pleasing to the ear, ending up in a dry performance filled with weird faces that make no sence whatsoever.

Neither point one, or point two litterly means FEELING the music.

FEELING the music, is a litterlal sensation, and if a player is in contact with his feelings, if he feels the piece, then as a listener, you will feel it to. This is the bridge, the communication, the primary mover.

Judging by your understanding of it, you really have got something to learn about feeling. Also, the face thing.. If you have sex, your face looks funny because you are so moved by your feelings, the same thing can happen when making music!! Some may be actors, fake this, but if its because of their feelings, I dont see whats wrong with it.

[danny elfboy]

I went to a piano performance lab for the music major and i was frustrated to see some musicians didn't know how to play emotionally. that bothers me really. some of them focus too much on the music sheet because maybe they don't want to make mistakes. They played very well but the music was dead. 

I know what you mean.
Some pianists just play like they're robot.
The performance is flawless but devoid of humanity.
On the other hand there are pianists who are not perfect but put a lot of humanity and passion in what they sound and I prefer millions of time listening to a piece with imperfections and inaccuracies but emotions, than a pianist that plays like a midi.

[chopininov]

I've stopped looking at pianists when they play. Lang Lang ruined it for me. But it also helps me hear the music better.

[gerry]

I think that far too many teachers of the young emphasize exercises and mechanical etudes and don't balance them soon enough with simple lyrical pieces that begin to develop a sense of phrasing and and inherent qualities of a piece, i.e., playing a march like a march, a nocturne like a nocturne, a joyous folk song joyously, etc. I've actually heard some theachers say something to the effect that these concepts can't be introduced prior to age ## or before reaching grade ##. I firmly believe that all young students should have at least one simple piece separate from the technical exercises that is exclusively dedicated to introducing the concept of emotion an phrasing.  We see the tragic consequences of the absence of this far too often at student recitals. It's a little like the parent who never wants to go to the trouble to discuss certain aspects of life with their kids hoping that they will just acquire them somewhere along the way.

[lostinidlewonder]

Also realize that a lot of them are practicing. They might be only interested in the notes for now.

[gerry]

That's why I emphasized that it be a SIMPLE piece dedicated to introducing them to this aspect of their musicality - it could be nothing more than a simple folk tune.  Musicality and phrasing, too, is practice.

I confess that I'm not a teacher but I'm interested in hearing from more of the teachers on this forum on this subject. My interest is tweaked by the observation that many students are arriving as medium technical levels and beyond but playing robotically so to speak. I also realize that this touches on that etherial aspect musicianship that "can't be taught" - I'm just curious if teachers attempt to introduce their students to more than just technical proficiency and how they do it (or do you even care). Is there a point where you feel that they just haven't got IT and go on with just emphasizing the mechanical.

[lostinidlewonder]

Musicality and phrasing, too, is practice.

It is, but unless you are the teacher of the students you cannot really know the procedure in which they work on their music. You are only getting a small window into their ability. Ask them to play something they know well then you can judge their musicality better.

I have advanced students who are uninterested in notes fingering, technique etc and are solely interested in being able to express a piece at a masters level. Although even with beginner students I teach how to express the music well, but you cannot expect them to produce master control over "emotion" in a piece. That comes from many years of listening/playing experience with your instrument. You surely teach them baby steps towards  it.

The problem is that most teachers believe playing musically is something you can simply switch on. That it is an instant realisation which it is not. It is many years of hard work before a student can make proper musical decisions as to how a peice should be expressed and many more years before they can hear themselves effectively and make adjustments to the sound they produce. Most students when they start have the ideal sound of the peice in their head but they are very much caught up over the technical side of playing. This is not to say it is wrong and bad and they will never play with good expression. It is just that they are more interested to train their technique, once they find more effortlessness in their technique when playing they can focus more freely on the sound.

I've played piano practically my whole life and when I practice pieces i sometimes find myself playing it without expression simply because I am only interested in memorising the procedure I have to learn. I usually play in the P region constantly even if it asks for F because I know I can produce the sound by will but I don't want to waste my energy since I know I'll be sitting down for multiple hours I can't afford to tax myself like I would in performance.

There are instances where there are simply bad teachers and students who don't practice. What can you expect from that type of commitment to music?

[viking]

Neither point one, or point two litterly means FEELING the music.

FEELING the music, is a litterlal sensation, and if a player is in contact with his feelings, if he feels the piece, then as a listener, you will feel it to. This is the bridge, the communication, the primary mover.

Judging by your understanding of it, you really have got something to learn about feeling. Also, the face thing.. If you have sex, your face looks funny because you are so moved by your feelings, the same thing can happen when making music!! Some may be actors, fake this, but if its because of their feelings, I dont see whats wrong with it.

Hmm, so you're judging me now?  What do I have to learn about feeling?  All I can say is it doesn't matter if you feel sad or not, unless your sound actually reflects sadness, or any other emotion for that matter.  What a performer may do with his or her face is up to them, but I personally find it distracting.  My main point is that too many people fail to use their ears, and decide to rely on a performers acting for entertainment.  If these ideas of mine cause you to think I have something to learn about feeling, go ahead.  I really don't care what you think.  I only post to help others learn the right and wrong of music, and when uneducated people start spouting their rediculous ideas, I'll be there to set things straight. 

[invictious]

Why not start from the primitive first:

What does it mean to play something musically and with emotions?

[gerry]

Ask them to play something they know well then you can judge their musicality better.

Hence my suggestion that it be a simple piece dedicated to just this purpose...

I have advanced students who are uninterested in notes fingering, technique etc and are solely interested in being able to express a piece at a masters level.

This seems oxymoronic - how can you call them advanced if they're uninterested in notes, fingering, technique, etc.?

Although even with beginner students I teach how to express the music well, but you cannot expect them to produce master control over "emotion" in a piece. That comes from many years of listening/playing experience with your instrument. You surely teach them baby steps towards  it.

I would never expect that beginners produce master control, or make complex interpretative decisions, I'm merely suggesting that it might be a good idea to have one simple piece dedicated to introducing young students to concepts of phrasing, thinking about the general emotion of the piece, i.e. is it happy, sad, etc.  Like planting the seed of musical interpretation so that it can grow alongside the technical aspect.  I'm sorry if my earlier posting was unclear. I'm curious as to what extent teachers are doing this if at all.

There are instances where there are simply bad teachers and students who don't practice. What can you expect from that type of commitment to music?

I'm assuming this is a rhetorical question.

[lostinidlewonder]

Hence my suggestion that it be a simple piece dedicated to just this purpose...

The piece doesn't necessarily have to be easy, it just has to be a piece they have known for a while. The random people you might listen to are probably practicing new stuff so you have to suffer the imperfections.

This seems oxymoronic - how can you call them advanced if they're uninterested in notes, fingering, technique, etc.?

My more advanced students already know how to teach themselves the correct fingering and have good grasp of their technique to control what they have to play (thus they are uninterested in me teaching them this aspect of piano, this was my point). It is the decision making and the logic behind the control of notes that they like to improve. This decision making is what I find I am teaching to my advanced students.

.. suggesting that it might be a good idea to have one simple piece dedicated to introducing young students to concepts of phrasing, thinking about the general emotion of the piece, i.e. is it happy, sad, etc.

Yes this is a good idea but it is always multiple pieces used to piece together musical ideas. And lots of listening. I think there is more lack of listening to music than playing, if you do not listen to greats playing the pieces you're missing out. Although its hard to get say Hamelin playing a grade 1 piece

[ahkow]

I think that nowadays people seem to think that technique is the best. Look at pianists like Alfred Cortot, Rubinstein and Horowitz. All of them had their own distinct interpretation coupled with fine technique.

There are pianists like Maurizio Pollini and Kissin that play with hardly any feeling at all, but with extremely good technique. in this case i think that it would be better to put a Computer onto the piano of the concert hall and let it play. Especially if people only want to see technique. Of course the downside is that you dont see any hands doing dangerous jumps, long trills and quick runs up and down the keyboard(To name a few).

We are also influenced by this word "Technique". Any decent music university will not let you enter simply by just playing Cramer or Mcdowell etudes with other less technical pieces, which in this case makes the student want to improve only their technique.

Sometimes musical playing comes from experience. as you grow older and experience more in life, you may be able to understand what the composer is trying to say (E.g.: Revolutionary Study).

[drjames]

I wonder if some of the pianists referred to above have any idea they are playing mechanically and without any musicality or emotion.  I was playing Chopin's nocturn Op posth. in C sharp minor (personally my favorite) last night and when I finished I thought back and realised I had played it like I had a metronome going.  It was mechanical and too slow but technically OK. Just like a robot playing.  I replayed it focusing more on the interpretation, sped it up a bit but with more variation in tempo. I made more mistakes but enjoyed the piece much more.  In fact I didn't even finish it the second time because I had a memory lapse which frequently happens when I am really listening to how I am playing.  Mabe this is what accounts for the emotionless performances that are being referred to.  People are afraid of makiing mistakes which then detracts from the musicality.  But isn't that also a mistake?  Jim

[ahkow]

It all depends on what is your objective of playing. Some of this pianists actually learn for their technique. Kissin, for example is clearly doing it. Liszt Feux Follets he has been keeping in his active repertoire and appears in many CD recordings. Pollini seems to record whole sets of things (Beethoven Concertos, Sonatas, Chopin nocturnes, etudes). People who want to listen to "Authentic" interpretaions that only follow those in the score can listen to him. Much as i admire his technique and his recording of the etudes, his Op.10 No.1 sounds too murky for me. I think he didn't press to much into the keys, using too much of the wrist instead.

[richard black]

Let's not get drawn into this 'these days' mentality about mechanical playing. A friend has a very large collection of piano rolls (all of which date from before about 1935 when rolls pretty much vanished from the scene) and he can pull out _plenty_ of examples of empty, mechanical playing, alongside some really lovely stuff from, well, the pianists whose names have lived, frankly - Paderewski, Busoni, Godowsky, Backhaus.... Some of the 'mechanical' players were probably very successful in their day but their names are only known to dedicated collectors of historic recordings, and known rather than revered!

Pianists with brilliant fingers and no brain (soul, heart etc.) are not a 21st century invention.

[rc]

That's a good point.  I was flipping through CPE Bach's essay and he had similar complaints...  Here I'll go dig it up:

"keyboardists whose chief asset is mere technique are clearly at a disadvantage.  A performer may have the most agile fingers, be competent at single and double trills, master the art of fingering, read skillfully at sight regardless of the key, and transpose extemporaneously without the slightest difficulty; play tenths, even twelfths, or runs, cross the hands in every conceivable manner, and excel in other related matters; and yet he may be something less than a clear, pleasing, or stirring keyboardist.  More often than not, one meets technicians, nimble keyboardists by profession, who possess all of these qualifications and indeed astound us with their prowess without ever touching our sensibilities.  They overwhelm our hearing without satisfying it and stun the mind without moving it."

This was first published in 1753.

[gerry]

That's a good point.  I was flipping through CPE Bach's essay and he had similar complaints...  Here I'll go dig it up:

They overwhelm our hearing without satisfying it and stun the mind without moving it.

This was first published in 1753.

Great quote. That last line really says it all. Thanks for sharing it.