How to change the way a standard piece is played?

[pianoman53]

Hello.

There are a few pieces, which are, somehow, to be played in one way. If one plays it differently, most people will say it's wrong. I watched the rubinstein competition this year, and quite many of them played Waldstein... exactly the same way. I've played it (in a different way) on a masterclass, and the teacher told me to play basically the same way as all the pianists in the competition.

It seems that if one wants to play a well know piece in a special way, one will, most probably, have loads of people telling that it's played in the wrong way.

I'm not talking about playing an Adagio piece in Presto, but like https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=42425.0
That's me playing Bach, and I think it should be played like that (apart from the wrong notes and hesitations and..., but you get the point), but I'm very sure that I will hear that I play it the wrong way.

What do you think of that? Any ideas how to change a standart piece, into a personal piece?

[ionian_tinnear]

I've hear much the same.  "Play it the same as ..".

I don't agree with that, mostly.  We're supposed to be performing an interpretation, putting into the performance how we feel.  If we "Play it the same as .." we might as well just by the recording on the piece and play that at our performances.

On the other hand, there still are some aspects of the piece we should respect.  We shouldn't play Largo on a piece the composer marked molto allegro, for instance.  We should be allowed to chose a tempo the works for how we feel about the piece.

I listen to, and play, a lot of Chopin.  It's amazing how different Horowitz plays than Rubenstein than Aschkenazy than Berstein, etc.  Obviously, they aren't all the same, and we should  not be expected to be 'the same', as long as we're reasonable.

If someone doesn't like our interpretation, that's fine.  Only snobbish types will say "we should have played it the same as".  The opionion of the snobs is like all other opionions, they are like a??h???s, everyone has one..

[quantum]

If you want to play it differently, then play it differently.  There will always be critics that don't like your playing - don't listen to them. 

I think it is much more important to be convincing in your interpretation than trying to make comparatives with other pianists.  If you are going to do something, you must present it in a way that confidently states your position and convinces the listener that it is a viable option in interpretation. 

There are people that listen with closed ears and boast of their academic intellect in knowing exactly how a piece should be played.  These people have already made up their mind about the music.  Don't bother with such things. 

[bachbrahmsschubert]

If you ever hear a teacher tell you to "play it the same as..." they are not worth your time and know little about music.

Do what you love as long as it stays within reason and is done with conviction.

Best wishes,

[nyiregyhazi]

If you have to ask "how" there's something wrong. Different ideas should simply come from how you feel the music anyway. Not by straining to think of a way of being different. Listen to plenty of historic recordings, like Benjamin Grosvenor does. He's one of few living players who has his own ideas- but he has very clearly formed those ideas with the aid of knowing how the greatest musicians sounded. The wider the range you listen to, the more likely you are to find something unique. The more you understand why great musicians did certain things in certain ways, the more you can find your own personality (rather than your own lack of personality).

[brogers70]

It's possible to play a standard piece in a way that artistically makes no sense, and that way of playing will certainly be different from the "standard" interpretation. There are many more ways to play a piece badly than to play it well. So you should at least be open to the possibility that the teacher in the masterclass was spot on, and that your interpretation wasn't really coherent. A lot of people have thought pretty hard about the Waldstein, and coming up with a new, and worthwhile interpretation is tough.

On the other hand, if you make an interpretation that makes sense musically, and that is motivated by something stronger than just a desire not to sound like everybody else, you may end up with something that's different, and beautiful, and, alas, unpopular with people who only like hearing it the old way.

[And don't bother performing the Brahms piano concerto at half the indicated tempo; it's been done already.]

[pianoman53]

We shouldn't, ofc, play a presto piece in Largo (even though Richter does that all the time, and then he becomes a genius) and maybe Beethoven wasn't the best example... But Bach, who didn't write anything, (Hell, who didn't even have a piano!). So there is no way we can know what he intended, or if he'd change a lot if he had our instrument.

And I don't mean that Aschkenazy and Gould plays Bach the same way, but it's really difficult, as a student, to play it differently from the "standard".

[sordel]

That's me playing Bach, and I think it should be played like that (apart from the wrong notes and hesitations and..., but you get the point), but I'm very sure that I will hear that I play it the wrong way.

You're quite a bit slower than the recorded versions I have of that work (even than Moroney on harpsichord, whose tempi are normally fairly restrained) but I think your tempo works quite well, even if you do use too much pedal. Bach does get rushed a lot by a great many performers: as though it's innately dull and can only be made interesting by playing it fast.

As for "personal readings", I think that piano performance is one of those areas where you have to learn the rules before you can break them, and it is correct for a young pianist to emulate other pianists' readings, which are likely to be based on more personal research or wider listening to recorded versions of the work.

Of course, you can play a piece any way you like, including badly, but if you hope to pass exams or win competitions you will have to conform to the expectations of those environments.

[lostinidlewonder]

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=42425.0
That's me playing Bach, and I think it should be played like that (apart from the wrong notes and hesitations and..., but you get the point), but I'm very sure that I will hear that I play it the wrong way.

What do you think of that? Any ideas how to change a standart piece, into a personal piece?

When we want to act against what the norm is in terms of musical expression we have to have a clear understanding what we want to present. We also have to have a good judgement as to whether it is an improvement in our minds over what traditional paths are generally appreciated. This link might help start you off or remind you of some basic principles interpreting Bach.
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=32232.msg376950#msg376950

I think there is no problem using more legato when playing Bach, how often do people forgive its use in the WTC Bk1 no 1 prelude in C? Tempo also is irrelevant to keep to strictly, Bach never wrote tempo markings in terms of speed but rather character of which the piece should be played.

[pianoman53]

You're quite a bit slower than the recorded versions I have of that work (even than Moroney on harpsichord, whose tempi are normally fairly restrained) but I think your tempo works quite well, even if you do use too much pedal. Bach does get rushed a lot by a great many performers: as though it's innately dull and can only be made interesting by playing it fast.

I acutally meant my use of pedal. He didn't even have pedal, so how can we know that he didn't wanted it? And if that's reason enough (that' he didn't have pedal), then we shouldn't play Bach on piano at all, since that's as incorrect as pedal. And if we're going there, how come so many people find it stupid to use rubato in Bach? If you listen go good harpsichord...ists, they use plenty of rubato. So that doesn't make any sense to me. Most of them also play way slower than most pianists.

As for "personal readings", I think that piano performance is one of those areas where you have to learn the rules before you can break them, and it is correct for a young pianist to emulate other pianists' readings, which are likely to be based on more personal research or wider listening to recorded versions of the work.

The rules change over time, and depending who you ask, and they are very different between piano and harpsichord.

Of course, you can play a piece any way you like, including badly, but if you hope to pass exams or win competitions you will have to conform to the expectations of those environments.

And that's my point, and my question. Why is it like that? What if I don't want to play the waldstein sonata in presto, or the Bbmajor prelude in prestissimo and ff marcatissimo in the left hand?



But the Bach piece was just an example, because I play it myself. And it wasn't a "Omg, no one understands me what should I do?!?!"-typ of thread, but more like a discussion about how to make personal interpretations in common pieces, without getting slaughted by jury members.

[sordel]

And that's my point, and my question. Why is it like that? What if I don't want to play the waldstein sonata in presto, or the Bbmajor prelude in prestissimo and ff marcatissimo in the left hand?

But the Bach piece was just an example, because I play it myself. And it wasn't a "Omg, no one understands me what should I do?!?!"-typ of thread, but more like a discussion about how to make personal interpretations in common pieces, without getting slaughted by jury members.

It's worth trying to see it from the perspective of your listeners. If an examiner has to listen to the same piece played over and over again, s/he has a choice when faced with any performer: either treat the next performer as a potential genius who has seen into the true heart of a piece or treat the next performer as a potential fool who has never bothered to listen to the way the piece is commonly played. What with the number of fools, as against the number of geniuses, isn't it fair for the examiner to think that an eccentric performance of a piece is evidence of folly?

In a top competition, you may be entitled to expect that your judges are looking for evidence of genius, but most of the people who listen to your performances at the piano will be asking themselves "can this person play at all?" before they are asking themselves "is this a pianist so secure in technique and taste that I should alter my view of this piece on the basis of his (or her) performance?"

Incidentally, this is not an obstacle only in the Arts. In any essay subject, for example, you are expected to know the previous arguments about a question before putting forward your own ideas. You have to be of proven expertise before people take you seriously enough to ask you what you think.

[pianoman53]

It's worth trying to see it from the perspective of your listeners. If an examiner has to listen to the same piece played over and over again, s/he has a choice when faced with any performer: either treat the next performer as a potential genius who has seen into the true heart of a piece or treat the next performer as a potential fool who has never bothered to listen to the way the piece is commonly played. What with the number of fools, as against the number of geniuses, isn't it fair for the examiner to think that an eccentric performance of a piece is evidence of folly?

I always think about what I want to tell and what I want the piece to "mean" when I perform it. And I always imagine they'd rather hear something special, than the same interpretation yet an other time. I highly doubt they'll call me a genius, but that's not the point of playing. And it doesn't have to change a lot to be a completely different piece.

[mcdiddy1]

If Bach or Beethoven were alive today, I doubt they would be as adamant as so many people are about interpretation. I also do not think they would say, " no do not play my music on piano, play it on a harpsichord instead!" . The composers were limited to the technology of their times and the idea Bach would not use the pedal just because it did not exist at the time seems quite silly to me. The pedal should just be used tastefully and sometimes like many other classical works not at all.

After all notation is just a blunt tool to describe the notes played, tempo , and general dynamics. They do not describe they way, they played. The only thing we have is the tradition  of playing Bach's music and written accounts. Playing without having a interpretation is a form of interpretation.  There is some music that should be played strictly in time and accurately without rubato and there should be some that allows more freedom depending on the insight into the music.

The difference between good interpretation and bad interpretation is insight, experience, and good taste. There may be a possibility you misunderstood the performer at the master class. The teacher may not have been asking to not have an interpretation at all but to have one and not have one in certain places. I sometimes perform a piece in different ways and levels of feelings depending on my mood to try and keep a sense of spontaneity to the performance. The problem with being interpretation focused is we lock into an interpretation and insist it is the right way without opening ourselves to a variety of different interpretations. I think that is a mistake and can leave the music played in way that is different just to sound different rather than an different based on logic and good taste.

Well those are just the though that come to my mind about interpretation.

[pianoman53]

Thank you for the comment, but.. It doesn't really answer anything I asked. I mean, come on, everyone knows you can't play debussy pedal in Bach, and that you can't play everything with a massive rubato...