The Question of Interpretation

[jgallag]

This is in response to the topic about bland pianists by omar_roy:

Above all, in my playing, I strive for creativity.  I ask myself "How can I make this piece my own, a part of my being, but still have it be Bach or Chopin or Rachmaninov." It's never an easy thing to do, and I work very hard at it.  This is not just for the sake of sounding different, but because I truly believe that when you play a piece of music, it should clearly be personal experience.  It should be played in a way that reflects not only the composer, but your insights as well.

I believe this is the heart of the question. Not an examination of the playing of others, but the search for individuality in our own. So my question is what do we do about it? How do I make conscious choices in my playing that will hold the interest of the audience, while still adhering to the composer's instructions? I attended a masterclass with Frederic Chiu on this subject, well, he wasn't too incredibly keen on following the composer but what he said was useful. According to my notes, he's very interested in the emotional history of a piece. He starts by asking its history: Where did you first hear it? Why are you playing it? How did your last performance go? What's bad about each run through? What's great? What was your first reaction to hearing the piece? When did you truly start to want to work on it and share it? My notes show an intense focus on the emotional connection to the piece, taking our feelings toward a piece and amplifying them so that it is not just the pianist that experiences them but the audience as well. He gave an exercise where the pianist was instructed to stop at a random point in the piece and take stock of his/her current feelings and thoughts. He also gave a little process to developing interpretation: 1) Identify your feelings towards a piece, 2) Validate those feelings and expand upon them, and 3) Exaggerate the gestures in the music (not physical gestures) that spark those feelings. He also stipulated that you must follow this process with the parts you don't like as well, and that you must not reconcile these negative emotions, merely accept them and communicate them (not by playing poorly, mind you).

So the question is: Is this an acceptable process for finding our own individuality in a piece? Will this help us communicate with the audience? I modify this procedure to have the emotions not just reflect your first encounter with the piece, but also your reactions to what is actually written in the score. The performance he gave was very impressive, although my friend and I were mostly impressed by the extreme clarity in his playing.

What do you do when you've learned the notes and it's time to make music?

[neardn]

,

[go12_3]

What do you do when you've learned the notes and it's time to make music?

A simple answer:  play with passion, insight and joy of making music....       

best wishes, 

go12_3

[ramseytheii]

This is in response to the topic about bland pianists by omar_roy:

I believe this is the heart of the question. Not an examination of the playing of others, but the search for individuality in our own. So my question is what do we do about it? How do I make conscious choices in my playing that will hold the interest of the audience, while still adhering to the composer's instructions? I attended a masterclass with Frederic Chiu on this subject, well, he wasn't too incredibly keen on following the composer but what he said was useful. According to my notes, he's very interested in the emotional history of a piece. He starts by asking its history: Where did you first hear it? Why are you playing it? How did your last performance go? What's bad about each run through? What's great? What was your first reaction to hearing the piece? When did you truly start to want to work on it and share it? My notes show an intense focus on the emotional connection to the piece, taking our feelings toward a piece and amplifying them so that it is not just the pianist that experiences them but the audience as well. He gave an exercise where the pianist was instructed to stop at a random point in the piece and take stock of his/her current feelings and thoughts. He also gave a little process to developing interpretation: 1) Identify your feelings towards a piece, 2) Validate those feelings and expand upon them, and 3) Exaggerate the gestures in the music (not physical gestures) that spark those feelings. He also stipulated that you must follow this process with the parts you don't like as well, and that you must not reconcile these negative emotions, merely accept them and communicate them (not by playing poorly, mind you).

I think the crux of the problem is described, but inadvertently, in this approach.  First an analogy: when Brahms was alive and writing music, the canon that we know today, the symphonic, and stage repertoire had been largely cast into stone.  Inevitably, anyone who was to write a symphony would be compared to Beethoven.  The easiest way to avoid this daunting example, was to align yourself with the "music of the future," and write totally subjectively.

In other words, it was a conscious choice that Brahms made to compose in the old, Classical style - or to at least take that style as a fertile starting point.  He often complained that he wished he could be Mozart, just dashing off a piece at the cafe.  But that approach was no longer possible, because of the cultural situation.  The culture didn't allow that - it only allowed masterpieces.  In some ways, it was very stultifying towards creativity - and we think that of our current climate!  Think of it back then, when Beethoven had been dead only 30 years.

Now the approach of objective analysis has taken such hold, that it is a conscious choice for a pianist to be individual.  There is so much cultural pressure exerted on us, from all institutions, and from most peers, that to be individualistic, in the terms we understand it from pianists of previous generations, takes a forceful act of the will.

For them, for pianists like Cortot, and Friedman, and Paderewski, and de Pachmann, and Friedheim, and Siloti, and whomever, it was just the way they did it.  There wasn't any conscious deliberation - do I do what seems objectively correct, or what I feel to be right?  

That has two major consequences, in my view - the first is, their interpretations came from a certain cultural perspective.  They played with nuance and inflection that could be used to define their milieu.  They were nationally, culturally, individualized.  The second is, they can't be criticized from that point of view.  Since there was no choice, they never made a conscious decision to play like Paderewski with the left hand anticipating the right hand, or whatever mannerisms they used, it's not something that can be truly held against them - the focus is somewhere else.  Imagine criticizing Beethoven for not composing like Schoenberg.

By contrast, today's pianists have to make a choice.  They are forever being strangled by institutions, who tell them they know nothing in comparison with composers of the past - which may or may not be true, but in my opinion doesn't matter either way - and should not be creative for that reason.  They should only follow directions.  That is drilled into people of all musical cultures now in the West.

So they have to make the choice to be individualistic - it's why some young pianists who go that route sound so willful and mannered.  Because it is not natural, it comes first and foremost from opposition and the desire to contrast.  And on that note, it is very easy to criticize in a competition setting.  You can say they are being eccentric, or pointless, or willful, or whatever adjective to complain that they are making the choice to be individual.

And I believe there is some truth in those criticisms.  But what choice do we have?  The nature of education in music, is not to be creative, it's to follow directions.  Until there is a sea change in the way we approach music, that will be the case.  We will continue to have tragedies like Pogorelich, or to some extent Pletnev, and even to some extent Gavrilov.  We will be unable to balance rationality and individuality.

Education needs to change, and the institutions connected with education - likec ompetitions - need to change.  Competitions, in particular, need to start being more like organ competitions - they need to emphasize improvisation and composition.  This will knock out, I would guess, at least 80% of the bland competitors we see today.  It would replace them with much more creative and interesting people, and provide much more of a challenge for those contestants - therfore being much more interesting to the audience, and providing more credible results.

We have to start imagining music less as following a set of directions, and more like inventing.

I believe the example of Godowsky will only grow in importance in the coming years of self-introspection of the classical world.  For one, he added the left hand in a huge way to the pianistic tool-box, and he also showed composers how to use both hands in the most developed way.  For another thing, he was able to reinvent standard repertoire, showing us a new way forward.

I am a big proponent of Godowsky's life work, and I mean not only the fact that he wrote 33 studies on Chopin etudes, but the very impetus that started that project, his creative approach.  In my opinion, that is the way forward for music; as his recognition grows, it will become more and more clear.

Walter Ramsey

[jgallag]

Walter,

Thank you for your post. It has given me a lot to think about. However, I'm trying to drive at something which I think might be a simpler matter. What do we do when we're done learning what is on the page? I mean, for me a large part of my development during the semester has to do with technique because I am very far behind where I should be. But that doesn't mean there aren't pieces where I can play what's on the page, perfectly, from memory. So the question is, what happens after? I'm certain it isn't merely maintenance that keeps us practicing a piece long after we have the notes and the rhythms and the dynamics.

There's some very basic ideas that I've discussed with my professor: the rule that if there is a two-note slur the first note is emphasized and you back off of the second, that you taper the ends of phrases in dynamics and tempo, and the obvious issue (that may not be a matter of interpretation at all) of voicing in Bach. But I'm looking for what others do, and I'm looking for something more. One of the comments I got on my first jury was that I need to breathe and not drive towards the end of the piece. But when do we drive forward, and when do we back off? Do we merely "feel" when a piece is building, or do we consciously decide that we want to give more here, less there? Obviously the piece cannot remain static (though sometimes it does when I'm barely able to pull off the notes at the right times). Also, I got a comment on this jury saying that the professor saw improvement in my "emotional gestures". I have no clue what he was talking about, because my primary emotion was fear, and I don't think that was appropriate for any of my pieces. I wanted so desperately to show them that I had improved from last semester, and now I want to show my teacher when I return that I have improved. I want to show her that I have progressed beyond just playing the right notes at the right time. I'm sure there's something in my playing that suggests me, but I want to find what it is and I want to allow more of it to come through and I want my audience to hear me and not just the piece. I don't understand how to address practice once a piece is learned as written. Why do we keep going, and where are we going?

[iroveashe]

So the question is, what happens after? I'm certain it isn't merely maintenance that keeps us practicing a piece long after we have the notes and the rhythms and the dynamics.
[...] I don't understand how to address practice once a piece is learned as written. Why do we keep going, and where are we going?

I think one of the wonders of great pieces is that you never stop learning them, and in fact, the actual learning and true practicing of a piece begins just once you know it inside out, by heart perfectly; everything before that is just preparation and investigating, figuring out the patterns and movements involved in playing every single note and silence.

About interpretation and the subject of 'objective' vs. 'subjective' playing, one following everything in the score while taking no, or a minimal amount of liberties; and the other playing simply how you feel - about this topic I have contradictory thoughts. On one hand I do not believe in changing the score, after all, does anyone consider the notes more valuable than tempo, dynamics, accents or any other kind of indications? So if you change for example the tempo of a piece because you think it sounds better, would you for the same reason change notes?

On the other hand I'm a huge fan of Gould and I think that kind of fresh interpretation has a lot to offer, but he had his reasons for playing for example a Mozart Sonata incredibly slow. Sometimes his reasons were silly, but he made a point. I don't like the idea of being different for the sake of it (if you go north simply because everyone else is going south, then if everyone were going south you'd go north, so you are in a way being conditioned by other people's actions) but at the same time when someone critics Gould or any other pianist who takes that many liberties, I think "What's lost if he plays it his way? Is it illegal to change the tempo or dynamics?". I don't know who was it that said Gould isn't much of a pianist but rather a composer paying respect to other composers, and I feel you have to have that kind of status to be able to change a piece drastically, not just for the sake of it, but because you actually have something to say.

In conclusion I think the ideal and at the same time the most difficult thing to do is to keep balance between both, not being dull by just following the composer's indications and not over-changing the piece because you can't respect the score while sounding fresh and original.

[iroveashe]

I want to add something since I like metaphors so much:

When I was a kid I had this drawing books that consisted on pages with  clouds and the sun on top, the grass at the bottom and a blank space in the middle with a bunch of little black dots, each numbered. So I just grabbed a pencil and started connecting the dots from the first to the last number. By the time I finished I had a picture of a boy playing with a ball that looked more like an octagon than a circle. So if I wanted it to look more decent, I had to first connect the dots with a soft line, and then do a more defined line on top of it but with the correct shape, based on the knowledge of how the finished picture should look like. This lines wouldn't be exactly free but they wouldn't be strict either (one can make subtle changes to it, color, thickness, etc.; this is where I consider interpretation lays). I could however simply ignore some dots but in order to do that I should know beforehand which are important and which not so much. Remove an important dot and it could be the difference between a plateau and a mountain; remove or add a non essential dot and it could be the difference between a mountain with 1 or 3 peeks, but the mountain is still there. So it's not just a matter of connecting dots (or connecting notes, dynamics, rhythms and accents), and it's not a matter of ignoring the dots to make a statement against those who just make straight lines; it's about drawing the music having a clear idea of the whole.

[theodore]

There is much that can influence a soloist, even at very unlikely places and times. I was in the orchestra for the performance of the Schumann A minor piano concerto. The pianist was a rather speedy performer who liked to take his his tempos briskly.

As you probably know, the piano begins this concerto completely alone with a very brilliant and forceful solo exclamation. This is continued with an orchestral interlude, featuring the oboe, but minus the piano.

During the actual performance the oboist played his solo part so lyrically and expressively that the piano soloist played the remainder of the movement in the style what he had just heard from the oboe. The conductor caught on quickly and immediately changed his interpretation and conducting style there and then.

From then on everything was quite relaxed and easy because we were all listening to each other. The whole ensemble onstage was almost playing chamber music.

Theodore

[lostinidlewonder]

I do not find there is a seperation between musical interpretation and practice. When we practice a phrase of music we already have an idea in our heads what this should sound like. The sound memory within our head is controlled by past listening experiences. When I was a child with little listening experience however, I still understood how music should be played. It is a language, a speech, some of us understand this musical speak and do it fluently no matter which style we come across, others however must be more meticulous and measure everything out.

I find measuring everything too carefully ends up producing something too contrived, too sorted out and ultimately too slow. Musical speech has a natural flow which if it is always consciously measured can cause inefficiency in ones musical progress. For example, it is a waste of time to try and express one page of music at its optimal by investing countless hours trying to improve the sound of something you can play without effort. It is almost a security blanket, a cousin to that of those who are insecure to move on and memorize a new phrase of music when the current one is not mastered completely.

Altering speed, volumes, rests inbetween notes etc are all tools used to express phrases of music in our own way. But how much does one need to alter to sound like themselves? I would have to say I do not hear one recording and consider it the same as someone else, everyone is unique! There are subtle differences in everyones playing whether they intend it or not or even hear it or not! So forcing the issue to sound different sometimes can be unneccesary because you already sound different! However, how do we edge towards our "ideal" sound that is in our heads? Is this ideal sound in our head a fact or a delusion of granduer?

Some people have some delision that to play completely differently and unique is good and something that audiences didn't know that they needed. Sometimes we are right, more often than not however we are wrong. If we play what the score asks for more often than not the intention of the compser is revealed. Sometimes pianistic effectiveness makes parts which should not be climaxes, climaxes, this is especially true for interpreting Bach. We should always consider a piece as a whole, I find for those who force their expression, when we consider their piece as whole it sounds unbalanced. The playing does not lead us to climactic points just goes up and down, up and down, not bringing music to a climax when it reaches it most exciting parts or most emotional parts, they also do not calm down the music effectively enough, parts that follow or preceed climaxes. Their playing is a perfect sinusodial wave of expression level instead of a more complicated wave that grows at different levels and develops its peaks with good musical language.

Good music playing is like a good speech. It is not melodramatic and over the top, it presents the information in an interesting way AND also in a convincing way. It makes you believe what you listen to, it makes you think about what you hear, it gives you consideration when you are to absorb the most important points. "I have a dream!" in the Martin Luther King voice always? It's not always tasteful. To know what is tasteful we should have a broad listening exprience of music as a whole. Even then some of us will have peculiar tastes and want to bring out certain things more than others, just look at Gould for example!

[jgallag]

I think one of the wonders of great pieces is that you never stop learning them, and in fact, the actual learning and true practicing of a piece begins just once you know it inside out, by heart perfectly; everything before that is just preparation and investigating, figuring out the patterns and movements involved in playing every single note and silence.

This is a nice idea, but it is too vague. I'm looking for something concrete here. From what you're saying I don't know if you're feeling this "learning" that occurs once you have what's on the page or if you're investigating and strengthening selected aspects of the piece. Do you just sit down and play it and let it wash over you and see if something new you didn't pick up before comes along? Your analogy is nice too, but it just doesn't come all the way for me. I don't want generalities. If you feel it's necessary to provide a piece as an example, go ahead, but I want concrete ideas. What are you doing?

About interpretation and the subject of 'objective' vs. 'subjective' playing, one following everything in the score while taking no, or a minimal amount of liberties; and the other playing simply how you feel - about this topic I have contradictory thoughts. On one hand I do not believe in changing the score, after all, does anyone consider the notes more valuable than tempo, dynamics, accents or any other kind of indications? So if you change for example the tempo of a piece because you think it sounds better, would you for the same reason change notes?

The problem here is, the notes are normally only the absolute markings on the page, which the exception of the tempo markings in later music. Forte means strong, yes, but how strong? Stronger than mezzo-forte? What's mezzo-forte then? How much of a rallentando? How much of an accelerando? Accents can be dynamic or temporal, so how do we decide which, or both, and how much? If there are no metronome markings, how fast is allegro? When do we play 3/4 in three, and when do we play it in one? When do we play 6/8 in six, and when do we play it in two? So, it is very possible that two pianists may follow all the directions on the page, and yet not to the same degree, and therefore differently.

Theodore, of course such things happen. However, I would like to exclude those, because I'm asking these questions to investigate what happens during practice. To me, running through your pieces just to hear yourself play them is wonderful, but it's not practice. Practice has a purpose and an aim. What is that purpose when your piece is memorized, and you have learned all markings on the page?

lostinidlewonder, you come closer. I am not asking for everything to be measured out. As I've said above many times, I'm mainly wondering what the h*** we're doing with all that practice time! I understand what you say about coming to understand the piece as a whole and knowing where it is to climax, where it must be calm and let the audience relax. This is the closest to what I'm asking for. So good, we decide we have a climax somewhere. How is best then, to convey that climax to the audience? Also, we can't just let the rest of the piece fall away, so that the audience could just hear the climax and be done with it. How do we build to the climax? How do we keep interest during a 14 minute piece when the high point isn't until we reach 10 minutes? How do we keep them listening after if the piece climaxes a while before the end? The goal is not to sound different, the goal is to know and to understand what we are doing. To not just "let it happen". I would say that the "let it happen" approach is fine for the concert hall, but only if the practice has entailed attention to the musical content of the music, and the practice should consist of making conscious decisions about our work. What kinds of decisions are we making though, besides placement of the climax? And what do we look for in a climax? I know it isn't always the fastest, loudest part, so what makes a climax a climax? I will not accept "It sounds like the climax" or any variation thereof. Why does it sound like the climax? What about it makes it characteristic of a climax and what aspects should be exploited?

[lostinidlewonder]

...we decide we have a climax somewhere. How is best then, to convey that climax to the audience?

I will have to talk in general terms because it is impossible to give an instance which will work for all situations.

Pin pointing climaxes in pieces are important to understand the layout of a piece as a whole. These points stick out as moments in the pieces which should cause a change in the audience, make them sit up in their seats and pay more attention. How do you bring them to this point? If before a climax your playing is at too high of a level, trying to push it further when the climax does come can be difficult and ineffective. Also if everything before climaxes are played boringly when the climax does come the audience might just shrug their shoulders because you cannot rouse them out of their sleeplike state

Interpreting Bach is keystone to interpreting all styles of music in my opinion. Bach is compsed with no dynamics, his tempo markings are of character of sound rather than speed, he also never wrote for the modern piano in mind. Learninng to express part writing, without giving bias to one voice or the other, but maintaining those that have most risk of failure of tone, will reveal to those who simply play the notes of Bach the natural rises and falls of music and the exceptional climactic points of music. When we play Bach we do not give bais to one note or the other, the polyphony created by the part writing is the soul of  Bach music and it reveals all the climaxes of the music (not the monophony that weak interpretations give it, making one voice stick out supported by the rest).

Studying Bach we can see how his influence extends to other music. Thus we see a connection between interpreting Bach with interpreting say Beethoven, Chopin, Liszt etc. Of course things are different and not so simple as saying, master interpreting Bach and you master interpreting every other composer. Each one has characteristics which reveals their own particular voice in music. However Bach somehow  binds them all together, Bach is almost like a dictionary, the others use his words but in their own way and also create their own words out of his devices. You can develop your overall piano interpretation sense very well with Bach.

Also, we can't just let the rest of the piece fall away, so that the audience could just hear the climax and be done with it. How do we build to the climax? How do we keep interest during a 14 minute piece when the high point isn't until we reach 10 minutes? How do we keep them listening after if the piece climaxes a while before the end?

When a long piece is presented we are setting out more elaborate scenes for the audience. How you present the main ideas of the music, the characters, the emotion attached to the pieces (do you think about a story in your own head when you play? Do you feel human emotion when you play a particular part? What exact emotions do you go through as you play through different phrases?) When I play Ondine from Ravels Gaspard de la Nuit I am always thinking about the heart break love story in the poem. You can hear shy the Ondine spirit darting into the water when she first sees this mortal man, then you can see how she becomes more confident, then takes him under water to her underwater castle, we can hear how they both decend into the water and then the massive grand climax as the view of the underwater kingdom is revealed. Then they go back up to the top and the man says he loves another woman, you can hear her tear drops drip one by one in the water then you can hear her laugh it off and dive back down into the lake, deeper and deeper, fading away. Its just a delicious mind journey as well as a playing and listening experience. Very soulful.
     Chopins Ballade no 1, doesn't the modere section sound like an old man reminiscing about old times, "how good was it back then but its not like that now" type emotion. I have crazy thoughts which attach to emotions of a piece, I find it help me connect to a piece and allows me to express it in the right way. If you have an emotion in your head it can control how you play, I find this is better than considering mechanically what you need to do. This is the best I can do to explain in a generalistic way.

[mike saville]

It's been touched upon, but I would realy recommend study of early music to assist with interpretation. From a keyboardists perspective something like the Fitzwilliam Virginal book might be suitable. In musics such as these there are only notes - all matters of speed, dynamics and interpretation are left to the performer.

I spent several years playing with some professional period ensembles in London and this experience now colours all my playing. You become much more attuned to shaping and phrasing when required to do it for yourself.

Once you have learned notes I would advise the 'exaggeration' techniques and this does help to draw out the composers intentions. More than that though I would encourage you to scrub all markings except the notes from the pages and try entirely different styles and dynamics.

[jgallag]

lostinidlewonder, thank you for your thoughts. Let me still go further, because I promise I'm not looking for something "mechanical", or at least it doesn't seem to be mechanical to me. I was performing Handel's "V'Adoro Pupille" from Julio Cesare for my Pianist as Collaborator class. My teacher suggested that it could either be seen as a very lyrical aria, or a royal procession, as this was Cleopatra singing, I'm certain. The question was rather about the dotted rhythms throughout the piece. He said I could choose either to have each sixteenth note lead into the next beat, giving it a more flowing and lyrical effect, or I could detach the sixteenth notes and make them separate entities of their own, creating a more processional effect. Here I have done nothing to change what's on the page, and yet they're two very different approaches. I don't want general anymore, I want enough specifics to give people several factors to examine in their music to create different effects. Here I'm talking about examining the lengths of the notes, whether or not to hold them out for their full value, and the dynamics, as dynamics are most effective for creating motion in music. What "effects" can we create by manipulating these and other elements of the music?

Also, you talked about longer pieces in terms of "scenes", which I think is a good term. Would you then go on to say that each "scene" has its own individual climax? Would there be a hierarchy of scenes in terms of emotional tension?

---

Let me ask another question of you: When music repeats, what do you do? Do you follow the same interpretation/emotions for both repetitions, or does something change? I'm thinking of classical forms, where repetition is key. A rondo, for example. How would treat each return of the A section? Or perhaps the repetition of the exposition in Sonata-Allegro form?

Mike, I will try your advice, though not in a performance. I've read several of the articles on your site, and I have mixed feelings about some, but overall I see it is worth investigating.

[omar_roy]

Jgallag,
I just wanted to address your pondering on the Recapitulation in the Sonata-Allegro form.

Think of it as a standard essay.  You have your thesis/introduction, your body, and your conclusion.

What do you do in the Conclusion? You restate your thesis, and tie everything together.  However, you don't restate your thesis word for word, do you? You change little parts of it, reword it, but it still means the same thing.

That is how I would address the recap.  It's the same message, said differently, but heard with new meaning because you now have more  background (those "body paragraphs" that brief you on the subject and provide you with insight).

[jgallag]

omar,

I'm rather referring to the repetition of the exposition, not the recap. Part of standard sonata-allegro form is that the exposition is repeated, and then the development and recapitulation are repeated as a unit. Is this more clear?

[omar_roy]

Oooh hahaha I apologize. I misread your question then.  in which case I have to say that that's a very good question.  I play the repetition of the exposition a bit less assertively.

[lostinidlewonder]

....about the dotted rhythms throughout the piece. He said I could choose either to have each sixteenth note lead into the next beat, giving it a more flowing and lyrical effect, or I could detach the sixteenth notes and make them separate entities of their own, creating a more processional effect. Here I have done nothing to change what's on the page, and yet they're two very different approaches.

Phrasing? It is a matter of taste how we phrase our music, more often than not the score is clear as to how we should phrase, however when you play rhythmic patterns from say Spanish or Latin music, often the phrasing is expected to be known and not so clearly labled (with legato ties for example). Misconstruing phrasing can very much change a composers intention even though it is a very subtle device to apply. In your instance determining what to do has to be based on knowledge of the composers intention in the piece itself, which can boil down to subjectivity. If it is interesting do it, if you believe it enhances your playing then you should do it.

I don't want general anymore, I want enough specifics to give people several factors to examine in their music to create different effects. Here I'm talking about examining the lengths of the notes, whether or not to hold them out for their full value, and the dynamics, as dynamics are most effective for creating motion in music. What "effects" can we create by manipulating these and other elements of the music?

Holding notes for their full value is more often than not the right thing to do. Releasing them too early puts question to the value of the note that the composer used. If they didn't want it held then why didn't they specify it? I find that many fail to give length to deep bass notes, that is in phrases where the Lh plays a low deep note it does not accent itself out enough and have full length. The same applies for melodic lines, if they are not connected with good legato ties then the playing can sound disjointed. In phrasing Chopin melodies for instance it is often good taste to hold back the very top note of a phrase, don't play it immediately but hold it back ever so slightly. I can rattle off many other general situations but in the end it comes to our understanding of each composers individual musical voice and their use of it in a given piece.

What do you mean "motion in music"? I don't think dynamics necessarily creates motion but rather intensities of sound. Motion in music is controlled by our tempo control and phrasing. Use of rubato for instance can alter motion in music a great deal more than any volume changes. Accelerations or decelerations at the end or start of phrases also effect motion in music. Chord choices, harmonic changes etc also influence motion, for instance cadences can make us feel like we are slowing down or coming to the end.

If one wants factors to look out for when interpreting their music there are three axioms I believe that they should follow:

1) Who is the composer, what do you know about them, what/who influenced their music, what type of music do they compose, what other music of theirs do you know, what other music of theirs is similar to what you play now, what other music from other composers is similar to this music? etc etc A listening experience of music is extremely important to develop good interpretation of our own playing. We should know what the norm is, we should NOT aim to tangent from the norm as much as possible just for the sake of unique interpretation. Knowing the piece as a whole and always considering it in this way is also very important for good interpretation.

2) Are our technical abilities enhancing or hindering our ability to express what we hear in our minds eye? How can we promote good technique to ensure we have the facility to express what we desire without physical constraints.

3) Cultivate an ear which can listen to what we produce when we play and make adjustments to our playing through this instead of considering it in physical terms.

Although these points are clear, how we gather information from each is very complicated and unique to the individual. 1) is important because it allows us to understand the work the composer comopsed, this allows us to understand the types of sounds that they used, understanding the musical period in their life also may highlight factors that influenced their musical voice. 2) is logically important because without good technique our expression will suffer. 3) is a matter of efficiency of approach to our musical work. If all changes we make are based on mechanical alterations which are consciously observed and measured, then how we play becomes very robotic and unbending.

It is far too tedious to go through every single expressive device that we can use in music. To put this in words is somewhat silly, it would be trying to describe in words how a professional hits a tennis ball (and they all do it slightly differently). One has to have a piano as well as words to direct them. And the words given will be unique depending on the needs of that person.

Sure we can give points to expression that have a general all encompassing effect on music. Such as, Liszt suggested that when we reach a cresendo we should start softer than we would normally play at the start of it and grow louder, the opposite applies for descres. Slow down at the end of a slow phrase that leads into a fast. Ensure that you define contrast in a piece with more intensity etc etc. But these things are fairly useless things to say if there is no specific musical context to them. This requires us to talk about specific pieces, thus when we talk about this specific piece we are neglecting others, anything that we say can only be relative to this work and a few others.

Thus we learn interpretation of pieces by knowledge of many pieces, there is no recepie to follow to cultivate a great interpretation, but strong technique and ear, following the score and undertanding the composer often will yeild good results.

...Would you then go on to say that each "scene" has its own individual climax? Would there be a hierarchy of scenes in terms of emotional tension?

In larger pieces we have a hierarchy of emotional intensity. Sometimes it is an excitement emotion from lots of notes and loud sound, sometiems it is a beautiful quiet melody played delicately and soft. Each of these can be the most expressive part of a larger piece. But a well thought out performance always considers the piece as a whole when making interpretive decisions. Maybe a particular way will suit if that part was the only part in the whole piece, but does it work with the rest? Do you lead the listeners to new levels through a long piece or do you just drone away at the same level? Some aspiring pianists do bring the level up but it is just a simple sine wave. They bring it up to the same peak every time and drop back down the same way every time. Although their playing has that elevation of intensity it is fake sounding and just a routine. There is no connection to the rest of the piece, what they play is played in context to the phrase being played, not what surrounds it.

Let me ask another question of you: When music repeats, what do you do? Do you follow the same interpretation/emotions for both repetitions, or does something change?

It depends. With Classical music usually repeats mean repeat without music difference, I do catch myself doing things very slightly different maybe one note here broadened, add or whatever, but nothing too far out. With other music like say traditional Spanish, repeats often call for a hightened emotional intensity. But this question is relative to the piece we consider. There is no response to it that could apply for all music.

[jgallag]

lost,

Thank you for your insights. It seems, then, that a large part of what happens after a piece is learned is further investigation. A consideration of what we do know about the composer and style, and a search for what we don't know. The purpose of my questions is not to be original for the sake of originality, it is so that the less experienced don't sit there at the piano playing the same piece over and over again without doing anything with it. I would venture to say that it takes just as much work to discover and emphasize the characteristics of a composer as it does to try and create originality. It seems listening is a big part of this investigation. To find as many performances of a piece as possible (and credible) to understand the standard mode of performance and to listen to other pieces by the composer to understand what makes the composer sound like him/herself.

One question: you mentioned "good taste", and my teacher has used it before, and I've learned a couple small things about it, but how to we go about discovering good taste if we have no real reference for it. For instance, in the case that a student studies a piece not required by his/her teacher and not by a common composer (in my case, Poulenc). Is it just a matter of listening, too, to many Poulenc pieces and the composers that influenced him?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[cloches_de_geneve]

I don't really get the point of this thread. It all boils down to musical intelligence, defined as the ability to see what most others fail see in a score. And persuasively communicating your insights without regard for the conventions of the moment are the complementary pianistic and characterial skills.  You have these or you don't. It's totally useless and even counterproductive to "strive" for creativity. If you strive to be creative it is tantamount to saying you are not.

Asking what to do after you have learned the score of a piece is a bit like imagining Einstein asking himself: Now, I have studied the basics of maths and physics -- what do I do now? Obviously, he never had to ask this question. He saw things others did not see, and was interested and able to formalize these insights elegantly without regard for the conventions of his time.

[jgallag]

cloches,

Contrary to Mozart, who rattled off music like it was nothing, Beethoven is said to have kept extensive notebooks of his themes, constantly varying them according to all standard methods of variation, and to have made many, many mistakes. Is he any less of a genius? Personally, I prefer Beethoven's music.

Much thanks for your condescending implications that we must all be geniuses or else our musical forays are futile.

[cloches_de_geneve]

cloches,

Contrary to Mozart, who rattled off music like it was nothing, Beethoven is said to have kept extensive notebooks of his themes, constantly varying them according to all standard methods of variation, and to have made many, many mistakes. Is he any less of a genius? Personally, I prefer Beethoven's music.
Much thanks for your condescending implications that we must all be geniuses or else our musical forays are futile.

I said musical intelligence not genius. And musical intelligence can of course be cultivated, if it is there to start with. It was clearly implied that the my example with Einstein was metaphorical.

[anda]

This is in response to the topic about bland pianists by omar_roy:

I believe this is the heart of the question. Not an examination of the playing of others, but the search for individuality in our own. So my question is what do we do about it? How do I make conscious choices in my playing that will hold the interest of the audience, while still adhering to the composer's instructions?

i don't think there is such thing as an "objective" interpretation, and i don't understand why should anyone need to search for "originality". a simple, honest approach of the score will always be influenced by the pianist's own personality, life experience, feelings (and not just those towards that particular work or composer), which are all unique.
so, i guess my answer (that is, how i make choices) is that i read the score, trying to read both the lines and between them.
best luck

[soitainly]

 There really isn't an answer to the question of interpretation. Jgallag seems to be trying for concrete ways to come up with a unique personal way to play a piece and mentions a few mental exercizes that lead one to this goal. There are lots of good ideas in this thread on how to interpret the music. They are all good but there is no way that we could come up with a comprehensive list.

 There as many "tricks" to interpreting as there are pianists. Cloches hints at this by putting it down to musical intellegence. This is really the sum of all our experiences, both musical and otherwise. You can play a piece in so many different ways, whether its "good" is more a matter of taste or even fashion. What works for you and your audience will be one thing at one stage in your carreer, and most likely be different later on.

 I guess what is so fascinating about some of the truly great artists is that they could from day to day play a piece any number of ways on a whim and they would all be great. I suspect they all have thier own bag of tricks, but there is also the intangible ability to live in the moment and create something new, even if it is a structured piece of music.

 It is fine to discuss and study interpretation. The more insight we can get into how we get inspiration can lead to better playing. Being different just for the sake of it is somewhat annoying though. Unless there is a real sensitivity and understanding about what the piece should sound like we can come up with versions that just sound odd or silly. As much as I like Glenn Gould, some of his experiments just seemed to take away from the music rather than present it in an artistic way. In the end, use whatever means you have to play music as you think it ought to be heard, try some off the wall interpretations but use some judgement as to how you think it is creative yet still appropriate.

[musicismylifeee26]

Interpretation is unavaoidable... and there really is no perfect answer to the question.

[epilate]

Inside every musician is a certain musical potential.  Your intepretation of a piece is dicovering this potential.  Every time you practice, you should try to move toward this potential. 

Here are a few guidelines I like to use while interpreting a piece:

1.  Find some conception of every phrase of the piece in your heart.  Is it somber, joyful, angry, content, noble, brash, ect.  Also think of a conception of the piece as a whole.

2.  While playing, always listen carefully to make sure you are producing the desired effect.

3.  Look for the composers or editors indications - fingerings, tempo markings, dynamics, articulations, and moods.  These will often help you move toward discovering your inner potential.  If one of these indications does not work for you, simply ignore it.  Always play with integrity to yourself.