Music choreograph for piano recital performance

[dora96]

Hi performers

I am just wondering many teachers teach students how to play the music, interpret the music, the techniques. I find that when students come to performance, they can play the music very well, and very good coordination and excellent technique, but I seldom see how students to express the music, their own style, characteristic, even choreograph. When I study other concert pianists like Lang Lang, Baremhoim, Maria Joao Pires, they have their unique characteristic with the music. I feel like so emotionally involved with their performance and their style. I mean Lang Lang is bits of overboard, but nevertheless, his style and presentation is so interesting and exciting. I know that people complain about  his showmanship is bit outrageous. I know play classical music should have right style and nobility. I think I can play my repertoires quite well, but I am lack of style and expression, even body movement. My teacher hardly mentions about this aspect. I mean I don't want to intimate others but I am sure teacher should inspire students. However, if you have piano teachers don't demonstrate very much for you, there will be hard to understand.  But I don't how and what is appropriate ? It is something that performers have to do by themselves or it is way that  I can be taught.  I want to do with genuine expression but not faking it.

[tsagari]

Hi dora
Allow me to comment even if I am not a performer
I love the pianists that you've  mentioned, I love to lisent and watch them playing. But I believe that this can not be taught, it comes from the deepest heart and soul. They are just not afraid to express their feelings while their are playing. To me is as if they are making love in public  .
It involves a great deal of narkisisms

[m19834]

I am a bit embarrassed to admit that I have been of various schools of thought regarding this topic.  I went through a particular "phase" where I became extremely self-conscious to move at all at the piano; and I mean *at all* as I was even embarrassed to breathe  .  From my impressions of other pianists, it seemed to me that in order to be "professional" one needed to get over being embarrassed about "moving" and making facial "expressions" with the music.  I explored different things that emotionally seemed to make some sense to me.  One thing I realized from that "emotional moving" phase, as I will call it, is that nothing I did in that sense ever made musical or technical sense to me, at least not in any kind of consistent way.  When I moved it was whimsical and fairly random and, sure, it seemed to have some kind of emotional purpose to me in the moment, but that is not the same thing as motions having musical purpose (as I have realized since that time in my life).

Being the type of person that I am, I guess it makes sense that I would have "grown out" of that phase of my life.  I am a pragmatist, and if something does not seem to be producing concrete results or have some kind of concrete principle behind it, I move on eventually.  There was never anything foundational about approaching pianistic movements from a strictly emotionally personal standpoint.  So I moved on (thankfully).

What I moved on to was a sense of inner balance from which all of my physical movements originate, and to a true sense of technique where each movement has a musical purpose as it relates to the music itself rather than my emotion about the sound (which is actually not the real gold anyway).  And this motion related solely to the music (rather than my emotion) is what I consider to be the best choreography and the most beautiful motion one can make at the piano (and that is what the instrument is for, it is for expressing music, not personal emotion).

If I were really honest, which I will be for a moment here, I will admit what dawns on me now.  In hindsight I can see that if I felt I had to create some kind of "show" with my bodily movements, I must have been insecure about my musical understanding.  I was, on some deep-seeming level, afraid to let the music truly speak for itself because I didn't really know what it was actually saying.  If I had known what the music was "saying," I would have known what kind of motion it needed and there would be no question as to whether it was real or fake  .

[ahinton]

I am not a pianist either but I have made quite an extensive study of pianism, piano performance and piano writing because of my interest, as a composer, in the instrument as an expressive force. I am very much inclined to think that as soon as the pianist starts to think at all in choreographic terms - i.e. consciously - problems begin. Pianists are not there to "express" anything as such but to reproduce in performance terms the expressions of the composers whose works they play; the same goes for all other instrumentalists. When one wants to see something that needs to be choregraphed, then one goes to a dance performance or some other stage performance where part of the actors' work involves movement that is germane to what they are doing. Instrumentalists need only to make the movements that are of practical necessity in order to negotiate the appropriate geography in getting around the instrument to produce the sounds that they wish to make. Overly demonstrative movement is more available to pianists than to some other instrumentalists, yet the rôle of all instrumentalists is the same; it would be hard, for example, to imagine a tuba or trombone playing equivalent to Lang Lang. The emotions are in the music and have no realistic place in the performance itself; at worst, they can distract the listener or encourage him/her to keep his/her eyes firmly shut!

Best,

Alistair

[counterpoint]

Movements follow the emotion. If there's no emotion behind the playing, there will be only very restricted, small and calculated movements - mainly from the fingers. Not every emotion will show in body motions, but many will.

I will not comment against Alistair's statement, since he is a composer and he has the right to prescribe how he wants his music to be played. But there are other composers, who seek for much more emotional envolvement of the musician.

Should body movement be taught in piano lessons? Of course. Every teacher does this!
But mostly there will be taught restricted and pseudomechanical movements - strictness before all. And that's a shame. The fun of playing piano comes from free movements and free emotion. That's what we should learn from the jazz musicians.

The theatralic "emotions" of some pianists (like Lang Lang) are not really a sign of natural emotion, but they are sort of pedagogical: "look/hear how nice this chord/ this melody is!"
Sadly it often doesn't give the intended effect. If it is too exaggerated, the beauty will be destroyed instead of intensified.

[ahinton]

Movements follow the emotion. If there's no emotion behind the playing, there will be only very restricted, small and calculated movements - mainly from the fingers. Not every emotion will show in body motions, but many will.

That doesn't necessarily follow. One has only to consider the contemporary reports of Rakhmaninov (whom, sadly, I did not hear live!) and Michelangeli (whom I did), not to mention quite a few other pianists who are extremely economical in their movements at the instrument, to realise that such restricted movement need not impede emotional communication.

I will not comment against Alistair's statement, since he is a composer and he has the right to prescribe how he wants his music to be played. But there are other composers, who seek for much more emotional envolvement of the musician.

Whilst I do indeed have a right to expect (if not actually "prescribe") how I want my music to be played, this would not extend to how the player goes about it in the specific terms that we're discussing here; that's for the player to decide, not me. I am not, however, one of those "other" composers that you mention here, since I most certainly do seek the emotional involvment of the musician, without which what I do would not get put across. All I am saying is that this involvement need not include anything that requires - or look as though it has required - choreography!

Should body movement be taught in piano lessons? Of course. Every teacher does this!
But mostly there will be taught restricted and pseudomechanical movements - strictness before all. And that's a shame. The fun of playing piano comes from free movements and free emotion. That's what we should learn from the jazz musicians.

What is vital to be taught in such lesson is the relationship between such movements and what the pianist is seeking to achieve sonically. One of my other arguments against undue moving around while playing is the sapping of physical energy involved; try playing, for example, Sorabji's Opus Clavicembalisticum with demonstrative Lang Lang-like movements throughout and you'll likely be knackered by Fugue III if not well before! My piano teacher once told me to try as often as possible to make no physical movements while playing that the listener cannot hear - note "hear" rather than "see"; in other words, conserve as much physical energy as possible and use movements that are solely necessary in order enable the production of the sounds that one wants.

The theatralic "emotions" of some pianists (like Lang Lang) are not really a sign of natural emotion, but they are sort of pedagogical: "look/hear how nice this chord/ this melody is!"
Sadly it often doesn't give the intended effect. If it is too exaggerated, the beauty will be destroyed instead of intensified.

I agree; it is also pointless in that the listener won't get any of this when listening to an audio-only recording, so it is pretty obvious that it contributes little if anything of any use to the performance itself.

Best,

Alistair

[guendola]

I don't think it is generally necessary to teach performance in this way. Playing classical music doesn't require show elements. Lang Lang, Maria Joao Pires and Vladimir Horowitz are good examles: I don't think any of them has or had a choreographer. It seems that Lang Lang wants to demonstrate music, Pires lives it and Horowitz "simply" played it - all with their natural sense for "show". But I think they common goal is to perform music as well as possible without any distraction.

But: Maria Joao Pires worked with an expert for body language, not for show but for playing even better by understanding your own body. However, this seems to be about understanding your own body and by this get involved into the music even more. You can find a documentary about some of her projects in Portugal on www.stage6.com that also talks about this (worth watching anyway!).

PS: If you could sometimes hear and see my organ teacher (allround church musician), you would get a good lesson about musical freedom. He doesn't seem to care about anything but the current music when he performs, sings or directs - and it even is a good show

[counterpoint]

That doesn't necessarily follow. One has only to consider the contemporary reports of Rakhmaninov (whom, sadly, I did not hear live!) and Michelangeli (whom I did), not to mention quite a few other pianists who are extremely economical in their movements at the instrument, to realise that such restricted movement need not impede emotional communication.

Rachmaninow and Michelangeli are good examples of the emotional restrictedness I'm talking about. I do not dispute, these pianists have strong feelings - to be honest: I don't know if they have them or if they don't - but I don't hear it.

What is vital to be taught in such lesson is the relationship between such movements and what the pianist is seeking to achieve sonically. One of my other arguments against undue moving around while playing is the sapping of physical energy involved;

The physical energy of the pure sound producement is near to nothing. So the expressiveness of music can't come from the "effort" of pressing some keys on the piano. Almost every other instrument has a physical power of restistance which the musician has to overcome. The physical resistance of the piano player does not come from the instrument, it comes from his imagination. And that's the reason for the (sometimes exaggerated) big movements.

try playing, for example, Sorabji's Opus Clavicembalisticum with demonstrative Lang Lang-like movements throughout and you'll likely be knackered by Fugue III if not well before!

This is out of doubt. The few clips from works of Soirabji I have seen are enough to say, that I never will be able to play any of his works. Besides that I'm not interested in monstrous virtuosity - neither hearing it nor playing it.

My piano teacher once told me to try as often as possible to make no physical movements while playing that the listener cannot hear

It's not the visible movement the listener can hear but the inner tension of the body.
Of course it's possible to reduce visible motions to almost nothing. Will the playing get better? I don't think so.

- note "hear" rather than "see"; in other words, conserve as much physical energy as possible and use movements that are solely necessary in order enable the production of the sounds that one wants.

A last question: is it possible to "feel" rhythm without moving or without seeing movement? I don't think so. Rhythm comes out of real movement.

I agree; it is also pointeless in that the listener won;t get any of this when listening to an audio-only recording, so it is pretty obvious that it contributes little if anything of any use to the performance itself.

An audio-only-recording is the last thing that I'm interested in. Music is not audio-only. Music is action. Human action.

[ahinton]

Rachmaninow and Michelangeli are good examples of the emotional restrictedness I'm talking about. I do not dispute, these pianists have strong feelings - to be honest: I don't know if they have them or if they don't - but I don't hear it.

OK - you may not do so, many but others (including me) do. Should I assume you nevertheless to be convinced that all pianists (and other instrumentalists) who consciously confine their physical movements at their instruments to those of bare practical necessity will inevitably turn out emotionally stunted performances? If so, you would be entitled to such a view, of course, but it would not be one that my experience leads me to support; furthermore, I've heard plenty of performances from physically demonstrative players that have struck me as emotionally stunted.

The physical energy of the pure sound producement is near to nothing. So the expressiveness of music can't come from the "effort" of pressing some keys on the piano. Almost every other instrument has a physical power of restistance which the musician has to overcome. The physical resistance of the piano player does not come from the instrument, it comes from his imagination. And that's the reason for the (sometimes exaggerated) big movements.

Not completely so, by any means; it is generally accepted that some works by Liszt, Busoni, Godowsky and Alkan, for example, make very considerable demands on sheer physical stamina as
well as other pianistic attrbutes.

The few clips from works of Soirabji I have seen are enough to say, that I never will be able to play any of his works. Besides that I'm not interested in monstrous virtuosity - neither hearing it nor playing it.

But we're not talking about your personal interests but about piano playing in more general terms. I am no more interested in "monstrous virtuosity" for its own sake than you are, but when that physical virtuosity becomes a vitally necessary factor in the production of certain performances, it has to be accepted as such. I am not only speaking of massive high-volume chains of rapid repeated chords or other noteful barnstorming passages, either; the physical stamina required to play works such as Sorabji's Gulistan and Le Jardin Parfumé that consistently explore relatively complex textures at low dynamic levels is also quite considerable. In both types of writing, the composer doesn't really even leave the pianist more than a minuscule amount of room to make physical movements extraneous to the matter in hand in any case!

It's not the visible movement the listener can hear but the inner tension of the body.
Of course it's possible to reduce visible motions to almost nothing. Will the playing get better? I don't think so.

What my teacher meant was no, of course, that the listener might be able actually to hear physical movements but that the pianist has no need to do anything at the piano that listeners cannot actually hear; the same advice seems to me to be appropriate for composers, since there's little if any useful purpose to be served by cluttering up one's scores with things that cannot be heard because they risk cancelling one another out aurally.

A last question: is it possible to "feel" rhythm without moving or without seeing movement? I don't think so. Rhythm comes out of real movement.

Not only is it possible but it is necessary; look at some of the rhythms in Ferneyhough, Finnissy, Sorabji, etc. - I'm not suggesting that no one could possibly "see" movement in his/her imagination when learning to play their pieces, but it would be hard to imagine that everyone would "see" the same kind of movement. Rhythm has become far more complex over the years and the extent to which it can all be physically "felt" has surely lessened; Elliott Carter has spoken of this in terms of how, for example, the kinds of rhythm associated with humans walking or horses trotting has been added to since we have developed more complex means of transportation (these are my words paraphrasing his, not his own, incidentally). Then there is the question of superimposed rhythms; how many simultaneous rhythm patterns can one "feel" physically?

An audio-only-recording is the last thing that I'm interested in. Music is not audio-only. Music is action. Human action.

Well, of course it is - and I'd be the first to express more interest in physical live performance than in audio reproductions, however brilliantly they may be made, but we must accept that audio recordings are a widespread means whereby music is heard, so must not be dismissed quite so summarily in this context.

Best,

Alistair

[counterpoint]

But we're not talking about your personal interests but about piano playing in more general terms.

You have proposed:

try playing, for example, Sorabji's Opus Clavicembalisticum with demonstrative Lang Lang-like movements throughout

and I've simply explained, why I will not do that 

[ahinton]

You have proposed:

try playing, for example, Sorabji's Opus Clavicembalisticum with demonstrative Lang Lang-like movements throughout

and I've simply explained, why I will not do that 

That remark was intended to be addressed to anyone interested, not to you alone - and I had in any case not the remotest expexctation that you would play that work with or without gestural exaggerations à la manière de Lang × 2...

That said, to return to the subject(!), what chance for the organist to do this kind of thing when what is required simply to achieve the desired musical results occupies so many physical movements in itself that, as in the most virtuosically demanding piano music, there's practically nothing left over for anything else? (not that audiences would even see it in any case other than by video link)...

Best,

Alistair

[guendola]

I wonder if seeing and hearing emotion is sometimes the same or, to be more precise, that seeing the excitement in the body of a pianist has an impact on hearing the music. Human perception depends a lot on relativity. But that's not important for this subject.

The point here is: Does moving like Lang Lang helps playing with more expression or is it a waste of energy? I think it depends very much on the person and the cultural environment. Someone who is used to talk "with his hands" will be more likely to add extra movement to piano playing than someone who is seemingly untouched even when he has extreme emotions. On the other hand, emphasizing emotion with movement can make it more intense also for the "actor". If I was a music teacher and I had a student who couldn't add expression to his playing, I would make them move around to the music, dance, stomp their feet with the rhythm or whatever seems appropriate and I think it would help (unless the student was emotionally disturbed). But I don't think that it is necessary to enhance music with movements. Movements rather enhance the emotional "acting" of the performer, and not every performer needs to do that.

[counterpoint]

That remark was intended to be addressed to anyone interested, not to you alone - and I had in any case not the remotest expexctation that you would play that work with or without gestural exaggerations à la manière de Lang × 2...

That said, to return to the subject(!), what chance for the organist to do this kind of thing when what is required simply to achieve the desired musical results occupies so many physical movements in itself that, as in the most virtuosically demanding piano music, there's practically nothing left over for anything else? (not that audiences would even see it in any case other than by video link)...

Best,

Alistair

Are you talking about this video link? 

https://de.youtube.com/watch?v=iWD6uEKYOOY


Okay, seriously:

I think, the more technically demanding a piece is, the less extra "choreography" is needed 

[ahinton]

Are you talking about this video link? 

https://de.youtube.com/watch?v=iWD6uEKYOOY

Er - no - but if you want to go down that route, try and imagine what went on when Kevin Bowyer played all the Alkan études for pedals alone...

Okay, seriously:

I think, the more technically demanding a piece is, the less extra "choreography" is needed 

Methinks we're now beginning to get somewhere towards a realistic understanding of this one, not least in terms of your wisely and informatively illustrative use of the word "extra"...

Well, Karli, since you've perhaps had the most input on this, what do you make of it all so far? I ask only because (a) your response in this thread seems to have been one of the more considered ones so far and (b) you do seem to ask lots of questions yourself, to the extent that I might even surmise that you've been taking lessons in this from m1469!...

Best,

Alistair

[dora96]

The reason I post this subject, last week I have taken video for my piano playing. When I was playing the music ( Chopin Nocturne op 9 no.1, Beethoven pathetic, and Mendelssonh ), I thought I played really well and very expressive. However, I watched the video, it is just total different story. The sound is quite good and I am very happy about it. The body movement, and posture is pooring. I feel like I was drunk or half asleep, even the tempo when I played Nocturne, I took my time, played it slow and as smooth as I can. When I heard from the video, even the tempo seemed it faster than I thought. I look so seriously and ridge.

When I see international concert pianists, or the well known pianists perform they are huge different. There must be way that their  expression and body movement have to gain from their master coaches. I know the feeling and expression can be obtained through lives and performance experiences, the understanding of the music. Like Glenn Gould playing the piano, he swings from side to side, I feel like dizzy watching him, but I love it. or even Lang Lang I just can't stop admiring  after seeing him in carnegie  hall concert. The choreograph and characteristic are belong to them, that what make them so special and the confident to be able to express.


Someone in Youtube comments that when Horowitz played Morzart sonata 330  3rd movement, he is doing knitting or playing the piano. I feel bit like that, but I don't expect his age to do any fancy stuff. Most often, in interstate piano competition, I have noticed that the piano students play the repertoires very well, but I often see hardly any expression or body laugage with the music. I am talking about virtuoso music like Moonlight sonata , how do you not move with such virtuosity and sensibility ?

[guendola]

...how do you not move with such virtuosity and sensibility ?

Play with that virtuosity and sensibility and it will be reflected in your movements. And remember, music is communication. Have an imaginary audience, it will help.

[m19834]

I might even surmise that you've been taking lessons in this from M.!...

Oh, well, actually, I have been M.'s teacher, she has been my student.  So I guess she has been taking lessons from me  .

At any rate, I still need to catch up in more detail with this thread !

[ahinton]

Oh, well, actually, I have been m1469's teacher, she has been my student.  So I guess she has been taking lessons from me  .

OK - my mistake - but has she been a piano or a singing student of yours? and, as a matter of interest, what have you taught her in either capacity about the issues raised in this thread?

At any rate, I still need to catch up in more detail with this thread !

We await...

Were I to try to summarise my take on the issues here, it would be to encourage the pianist (or other instrumentalist) to do away with the unnecessary motions and leave us with the necessary emotions.

Best,

Alistair

[m19834]

Okay, well, since you have asked, Alistair, I will offer more thoughts on this subject.  This thought about "extra" movements brought some interesting images and ideas for me.  For one, I would like to suggest that there is a strong distinction between "feeling the music" vs. feeling one's personal emotion about the music.  I think that feeling the music and expressing the music comes from an intense inward focus that requires a constant, deep calm and quiet in order to truly play from and express outwardly (and I think this is one of the great disciplines of not just the art, but of life).  Also, I think this is infinitely different than human emotion, and I will even say that I believe it is a mistake to assume that music is about human emotion.  If it were about human emotion, then of course it makes sense that one must express this in whatever ways it seems possible to express !

My take on it though has something to do with an analogy that has come to mind in reading over this thread.  It is generally accepted that a runner, for example, must streamline his/her motions in order to be as efficient in those motions as possible and essentially, the more streamlined, the more pure the act is and the more it represents what running is.  This kind of streamlining allows for the expression of running to become as effortless as possible.  I think it would be fair to say that most people would find it quite silly to expect a runner to incorporate extra motions in order to adequately express his/her emotion about the act of running while doing it.  Not only would it not make any sense physiologically, it wouldn't make any sense artistically either.  Running is about running, not a person's feelings about running.  When I watch somebody run, or an animal run, what is beautiful to me is the absolute pure expression of the activity.  The kind of mental focus that drops from being sheer intellect to a complete and all-encompassing body focus, well, that is special !

Yes, musical expression and running expression have different cultural expectations attached to them.  Even so, my thoughts on how these relate is that the point of the motion should be completely oriented to the actual task at hand.  Ultimately, in both cases (music and running), they are to me a sheer expression of life itself, and that is what I would want my personal expression of either one to be.

One could argue that life is about emotion, and I would actually state that it is not.  I bring this up to give a better insight into my particular remarks on this subject.  I think that people equate a performance that is devoid of emotion as being a performance that is essentially devoid of life.  And of course, if a person equates emotion with life, well, then it is true for them.  I suggest that there is something deeper taking place in life as well as all of life's expressions, including music.

To take it from a slightly different angle, I think that equating musical life/interpretation with personal emotion is similar to equating solutions to mathematical equations with something like human tears, springing from a death in the family; emotion is just not related, or at least not the ultimate point of such things.  Yet, I believe the art forms and principles we are talking about are fundamental in the fabric to all of life.

As far as what I have worked on with somebody like M., whom (to answer your other question, Alistair) I have been working with in both voice and piano (as well as other things), we focus on complete alignment.  Inwardly and outwardly.  We work on moving away from emotional reaction and distraction, and moving closer to the voice of life, which will guide her artistic expression.  In a very real sense, this is a study in intense ear training and is an ongoing practice.  We work to align all thoughts and actions with what the ear tells us.  We listen for ultimate harmony and act on harmony.  We gain composure, balance, confidence, grace, and artistic freedom in harmony and alignment.

[m19834]

Running is about running, not a person's feelings about running.  When I watch somebody run, or an animal run, what is beautiful to me is the absolute pure expression of the activity.  The kind of mental focus that drops from being sheer intellect to a complete and all-encompassing body focus, well, that is special !

As I have re-read my previous post, I found myself thinking about the part that I quoted just above.  M. asked me about this particular part as well, 'most certainly you love what you do and that is why you do it ?  Aren't the two actually quite related ?'

I realized that yes, the two are quite related.  I have chosen to be a musician because I love it and I have made a decision long ago to fill my time on earth with activities that I love to do.  In a way, music *is* about my feelings about music, and in a sense the act of playing the piano *is* about my feelings about playing it.  Just as I have felt similarly about running at different times in my life. 

What I love about it though is expressing the pure act.  So, I love the feeling of expressing running in its purest form.  I love the act of running without anything extra and when I experience it, I am in love with it.  At some point my love for it and the pure act align and become one and the same.  Ultimately, the same is true for musical expression.  When I have put the music first and express myself from the kind of inward focus that I am speaking about, I experience some kind of euphoria that goes way beyond happiness or sadness or whatever human "emotion" one may be tempted to portray.  I have never gotten there through human emotion; I have only gotten there through the kind of calm and quiet that I am speaking about.

In a sense, expressing music is connected to my "feelings" about it, but my "feelings" about it are such that I love it most when I have gotten emotion out of the way and can enter that place of euphoria.

Perhaps another post of pure jibberish  .

[ahinton]

Not gibberish at all. OK, you're making quite a effort to think around these things and it's not easy, but the running analogy may be more pertinent than some may at first think. Let's take the composer as first party, the performer as second party and the audience as third party; the point about performance of someone else's music is that the second party, as a kind of intermediary, is supposedly trying to convey to a third party (the listeners) the thoughts and emotions of the first party. If this is borne in mind, the entire issue surely becomes simpler to address. OK, one part of that loop is cut out when the performer plays or sings some of his/her own music, but the principle remains the same, in the the object of the performance exercise is to convey those thoughts and emotions that first translated from mental processes onto the page to those people on the receiving end - the listeners - and anything that might get in the way of that is inevitably counter-productive, whether it be extraneous physical motions or lapses in mental concentration or whatever else.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

As far as what I have worked on with somebody like m1469, whom (to answer your other question, Alistair) I have been working with in both voice and piano (as well as other things), we focus on complete alignment.  Inwardly and outwardly.  We work on moving away from emotional reaction and distraction, and moving closer to the voice of life, which will guide her artistic expression.  In a very real sense, this is a study in intense ear training and is an ongoing practice.  We work to align all thoughts and actions with what the ear tells us.  We listen for ultimate harmony and act on harmony.  We gain composure, balance, confidence, grace, and artistic freedom in harmony and alignment.

As I have re-read my previous post, I found myself thinking about the part that I quoted just above. m1469 asked me about this particular part as well, 'most certainly you love what you do and that is why you do it ? Aren't the two actually quite related ?'

I hope that your teaching of m1469 isn't getting TOO intense, however valuable it is; I cannot help but note that she never seems to find time to post on the forum these days...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Clearly, this topic concerns the performances of soloists first and foremost and, to a lesser extent, possibly chamber musicians (orchestral musicians rarely if ever have either opportunity or space to do the kinds of thing discussed here). Looking at this issue from the perspective of the non-performer (i.e. from the other end of the telescope, as it were), it occurs to me that no performer of my work has ever, to my knowlege, done a Lang Lang - in other words, I have never witnessed any musician making movements other than those strictly germane to the sound production when performing my music; I wonder if anyone might conclude that this fact says anything about the music itself? The reason I pose this is not to draw attention to my work so much as to bring into the arena the wider question of whether some pieces of music might be seen to encourage such extraneous movement more than others.

Best,

Alistair

[m19834]

I hope that your teaching of M. isn't getting TOO intense, however valuable it is; I cannot help but note that she never seems to find time to post on the forum these days...

Best,

Alistair

I think M. has basically graduated from her study with me , and as far as her posting here, I believe she is probably done ... at least as far as I know.

(...) I have never witnessed any musician making movements other than those strictly germane to the sound production when performing my music; I wonder if anyone might conclude that this fact says anything about the music itself? The reason I pose this is not to draw attention to my work so much as to bring into the arena the wider question of whether some pieces of music might be seen to encourage such extraneous movement more than others.

I think that in some sense this is true in that, there is probably some music that "takes up" all of a person's attention on just physically playing it and focuses all of one's attention (in every way) directly into the act.  And then there is some music that people believe -- I think -- does not need the same kind of attention because it is slow and lyrical (or whatever).  My opinion though is that slower and more lyric music is by no means the cue to weave around and cause motional drama !  If a person feels this way, I believe the piece is being misunderstood or at least misrepresented, or both.   

The fact is, no matter what the style of musical writing, there really is not any "extra" room for added affects.  Sometimes I have struggled with this idea because as an opera singer (and with the Opera's overall movement to be more expressive as actors), extra motions are actually asked for when the music permits (and if it is appropriate to the musical drama).  However, if I have a bunch coloratura runs, large leaps and notes in the upper areas of my range (like "come scoglio" for example), you can bet your lot in life that during those times I am "reduced" to merely standing and delivering !

I believe piano playing (and instrumental playing) is a bit different than vocal music (with text) though.  In some sense, I think that music without text can be more pure.  What is being portrayed within great instrumental music is more in relation to just the music itself and the grammatical language of music, vs. the music being linked to the grammatical language of a text, as with most vocal music (though there are similarities between it all).

In any event, I agree that of course the actual writing will have an effect on how much "extra" room a person may believe they have .

[m19834]

Wouldn't you know, I have more to add  .  I want to point out a few things.   I think that the main idea behind "extra" movements, beyond what the music is actually demanding of us physically to use, is based in the idea of "artistic" and personal freedom as a performer.  Well, artistic and personal freedom on the fundamental level are actually great ideas !  And, this kind of freedom is ultimately, at a fundamental level, best for expressing the music, too.  So, in that sense, the more free the performer feels as a musician, as an artist, as a person, the better the music's/composer's intent is expressed.

However, what I want to point out is that the concept of using only the motions required to play the piece is *not* built on an idea of artistic and personal restriction.  Actually, the idea of using only the motions required by the music serves very fundamental purposes in these matters.  It actually allows a person to better focus on what the music is "about" and it actually is meant to be freeing for the performer !  I think that is an area that is misunderstood with regard to these conversations.

Artistic freedom should ultimately be best for musical/composer intent.  Streamlining motions should ultimately serve artistic and personal freedom.  Alignment  .