Technique VS emotion

[ponken]

Some pieces appear to be easy just by looking at the notes but when you start playing them you will notice that the required emotion and phrasing actually makes the pieces very hard. From my experience an emotionally hard but technically easy piece is often harder than the opposite. I use to listen to other pianists and play like they do. Do you have more advices on how to add phrasing to your playing?

PS. Hope my english is ok.

[pianisten1989]

Do what the composer writes in the score, and you'll be fine

[ponken]

Thank you! So that is enough? I have always worried that I play some pieces too "technical". 

[pianisten1989]

The problem is to accaully to what the score tells you, and not "Kind of what it says". Ofc, sometimes you need a bit of rubato and timing and such, but you'll get there

[gyzzzmo]

Technique is your tool to express 'emotion'. And to be able to do that, you also need alot of technique to get that emotion properly out of a piece, i tend to call that 'finesse technique' myself.
That involves things like pianissimo fingercontrol, playing chords with your shoulders, perfect pedalling etc. And ofcourse you have to do a musical observation of the piece: What is the melody, where is it going..... You naturally should do that with any piece, but with slower music you can't get away with it like students tend to do in faster pieces.

Gyzzzmo

[ramseytheii]

The problem is to accaully to what the score tells you, and not "Kind of what it says". Ofc, sometimes you need a bit of rubato and timing and such, but you'll get there

"People take up extreme positions in interpretation.  Some say: I shall only play what I see on the page... Sviatoslav Richter belonged, or tried to belong, to that group - and confirmed it in words... It is absurd to think that what is present on the printed page is, of itself, sufficient.  There are many compositions, not to mention Bach, that are virtually devoid of expression marks.  Great composers such as Beethoven and Brahms emphasized in their instructions the essentials but sometimes need completing in matters of detail.  Then there are later composers such as Reger and Alban Berg, whose instructions are highly detailed to the point of over-marking.

There is one thing I'd like to make clear, and it seems to need some explaining.  Observing a composer's markings is not a simple, automatic matter that a computer could do as well or better.  Rather, they need to be understood - and that requires a great deal of imagination, the ability to concentrate on every single work and continually question what the markings mean in each particular context.  They often confirm what the structure already says.  But sometimes they are more than that.  Some of them are directly linked with the heart of the piece, as is often the case with Beethoven.  Others are quirky, as with Mozart in his piano works.  One's critical faculties really come into play here.  One interpreter who tries to do justice top the composer's markings will often differ greatly from another, whose aim is the same.  There is always something personal involved.  it is utopian to assume the spirit of the composer might descend from above if unimpeded, although in the fifties that was what a number of performers strove for."

--- Alfred Brendel



Walter Ramsey

[go12_3]

After you learn the technical aspects of a piece, such as tempo, fingering, phrasing, dynamics,  etc, then the emotional and intellect is important for the interpretation of any piece you're learning. It's needful to learn about the piece as you practice it, and when you become more familiar with the whole piece in itself, then you can understand what the composer wants to convey in the piece and then let the flow of the notes and music comes from within you.  It's hard for me to explain....I practice to learn and then I play with feeling so that the pieces I play are colorful and  not one note should sound the same.

[lostinidlewonder]

For me there is always a line you have to walk with composed pieces. They have a general path that everyone has to take to play the piece well, however there are certain points which we may put our own ideas in, perhaps over exaggerate dynamics, tempo, note quality, add notes, detach notes etc. To me it is what makes playing classical music somewhat organic and different every time you play. Yes you must present a standard interpretation but at the same time you must be able to craft your voice around the music. If I play a piece for say 20 years I do not want to play it the same way for the rest of my life, all the time the same way every day?? No thank you..... It would make me somewhat insane. Thus we should know where we may deviate from the standard line, but always keep contact with it.

The more music you learn the more you get to understand the way in which music is communicated. If you listen to a lot of Bach for instance you find that as notes of a scale go up the keyboard things generally get louder, when it comes down things get softer. When semi quavers are played against quavers usually the quavers are staccato against a legato semi quaver, when we play a cadence sometimes it is nice to slow down slightly etc etc. From experiencing many pieces and developing your listening skills (which is a life long task) you will naturally connect emotion to your technique.

[thalbergmad]

Do what the composer writes in the score, and you'll be fine

Agreed, but i would add the words "you feel" inbetween what and the.

Thal

[ponken]

Some pieces I can play with no or very few mistakes but still they don't they don't sound as good as I would like. Feels like something is missing. Maybe it is just the quality of the sound or the piano? I don't know.

[pianisten1989]

Don't blame the piano... So many students are unable to play on anything but a steinway D, and that really ruins it for them. Record yourself, and be very critical. Look into the score while you listen. I'm quite sure you skip some of the things the composer wrote, like phrasing and dynamics.

Good luck

[pianoladywong]

It takes a lot of practice and experience to perform a piece of music technically perfect and with the right phrasing and emotions. In my opinion, technique can be achieved by practicing of scales, rhythm, arpeggios, sight-reading, etc. These are the exercises that you would practice everyday. It is more difficult to practice emotions and connection to the piece.

It takes experience and being able to translate the notes on a piece of paper to music what the composer was trying to express. It’s more than just phrasing to bring out the emotions. There’s also dynamics, articulations, grace notes, rhythms and slurs. It seems to help when I am able to sing the notes when I am playing. I will try to perform the piece on the piano in the same way my voice is projecting. Singing tends to help me connect to the piece of music.

[rachfan]

Considering the elements of technique and emotion, technique is a means to an end, but not the end in and of itself.  Technique embodies abilities in regards to executing touch using the entire playing mechanism; beauty in tone production; phrasing and slurs; melodic voicing of chords; following voice leading within a line; breathing spaces; accuracy in meter and rhythm; articulating repeated notes; devising workable and reliable fingerings; observing dynamic changes; musical styles appropriate to musical periods; playing figurations such as scales, arpeggios, broken chords, trills, double notes, appogiaturas, tremelos, counterpoint, etc.; balancing the hands to differentiate foreground and background; achieving a seamless fluidity in the playing; knowing the characteristic idioms of composers; employing pedaling techniques--and so much more.  Technique plays a role in imposing structure. Technique alone without emotion might sound "perfect" but would also sound dry, academic, lifeless, and perhaps even robotic.  Technique is the means to attain musicality and artistry and must aim at it constantly.

Emotion and feelings are the poetic elements of performance.  This becomes an important part of interpretation, firstly, in abiding by the mood intended by the composer, then being aware of performance practices, while not being a slave to them, and trying to decipher how the composer truly wanted the piece to sound in all of its structure and details.  We can make some determinations about the composer's intents from his markings on the score--terms such as cantabile, dolce, agitato, etc. But often we need to search for the composer between the lines in the score too.  Once we sense the gist of it, then we need to rely on our own imagery from our life experiences to conjure those same sentiments and emotions, to then form musical intentions, and finally to realize those intentions in the playing.  In so doing, we can offer a rendition that comports with the will of the composer, but is also not devoid of some of the individuality of the artist.  The clear danger of biasing a performance toward emotion and feeling, is that the discipline and boundaries of technique, meter and rhythm as one example, becomes so free that the music takes on a vagueness wherein liberties, rubato and nuances become the rule rather than the very effective exceptions, and all structure collapses into an inferior and unsatisfying performance.
    
Thus, there must be a collaboration between technique and emotion and its expression to maintain a healthy and effective balance between the two at all times.    

[magio]

Emotion>technique
because
heart>mind
 

[keyboardclass]

Emotion>technique
because
heart>mind
 

Not for Plato it wasn't.

[chris_goslow]

For me there is always a line you have to walk with composed pieces. They have a general path that everyone has to take to play the piece well, however there are certain points which we may put our own ideas in, perhaps over exaggerate dynamics, tempo, note quality, add notes, detach notes etc. To me it is what makes playing classical music somewhat organic and different every time you play. Yes you must present a standard interpretation but at the same time you must be able to craft your voice around the music.

This is a very good point, and I agree.  Both loyalty to the composer's vision and the originality of your own inner ear and sensibility work together to create a new synthesis.  Although the path may be predetermined, it is still your interpretation and musical sensibility which makes the music what it is.

[ask_why]

Record yourself, and be very critical.

This is exactly what I was going to say -- changing your perspective can be very helpful.  You can't focus your full attention on the sound coming out of the piano while you're playing the piece, and sometimes important notes don't stand out to everyone else as much as they do to you.  Your listening can easily be biased while playing because you're naturally focused on the notes you want to emphasize, but it helps to check a recording just to make sure they'll come through to the audience.

[magio]

 

[keyboardclass]