Is it okay to not follow the sheet, 100% ?

[gleeok]

Hello everyone!

I have been practicing some pieces at the same time recently, due to their sizes (3 pages or more). Unlike my previous method which I used to learn piece by piece, which has proved to be a somewhat tedious and monotone method, because these are just so bigger.

Between them, I have been trying "Bokura no message", its a very beautiful anime theme and I also love the show of which it was composed for. Since its not from the "Classical" world, I guess this automatically counts as a "pop" piece, right? You can see it here: https://lindestinel.vgmidi.com/en/transcriptions?get=61

I'm felling a little tempted to (and I did) play around with the left hand and sometimes right hand at some parts, not exactly following the notes in the sheet, just using them as reference. I don't get this felling with Classical pieces, so its been quite a surprise. I never thought I could do this without making it sound weird (at least for myself).

Is this okay? How far can I go? Do you usually do this with the pieces you practice?

Thanks for the comments!

[j_menz]

You can do it as much as you like, and it's actually probably good for you.

One caveat, though. In the "classical world" if you say you are going to perform a particular piece, the audience will expect it to be stricltly in line with the written score.

[ajspiano]

Agree with J_menz. Do it, its good for you.

Don't do it in front of classical snobs unless you want trouble. There will be trouble, outrage, disdain, horror..

[lloyd_cdb]

There will be trouble, outrage, disdain, horror..

...possibly leading to glove slaps and even fisticuffs.

[gleeok]

Haha, your comments are the best xD. Okay I get it. I never felt like messing around with Classical pieces anyways, I think the fun in them is to perform as close as possible to the original (or your) interpretation while, naturally, playing with your own "musicality".

Thanks ^^

[ajspiano]

I never felt like messing around with Classical pieces anyways, I think the fun in them is to perform as close as possible to the original (or your) interpretation while, naturally, playing with your own "musicality".

In the baroque period the ability to improvise on a basic theme was compulsory. Pieces were sometimes not even necessarily written out in full, just structural, performers were expected to fill in the blanks with their own ideas - use their own ornamentation.. etc. etc.

[gleeok]

In the baroque period the ability to improvise on a basic theme was compulsory. Pieces were sometimes not even necessarily written out in full, just structural, performers were expected to fill in the blanks with their own ideas - use their own ornamentation.. etc. etc.

I saw somethings about that when I made a research about the "mordent" (even asked about it here). I found it pretty interesting how this approach changes from time to time. In some periods improvisation is considered an abomination while in some periods it is encouraged. From what you guys said here so far, I guess we are in a period where improvisation is not well received haha. Or maybe it depends of the audience 

[austinarg]

In the baroque period the ability to improvise on a basic theme was compulsory. Pieces were sometimes not even necessarily written out in full, just structural, performers were expected to fill in the blanks with their own ideas - use their own ornamentation.. etc. etc.

Do you happen to know what caused improvisation to disappear completely from the world of classical music, despite arrangements (Horowitz on Liszt's HR No. 2, for instance)?
Perhaps if improvisation would still be taught, we would all be better artists, don't you think?

[ajspiano]

Do you happen to know what caused improvisation to disappear completely from the world of classical music, despite arrangements (Horowitz on Liszt's HR No. 2, for instance)?
Perhaps if improvisation would still be taught, we would all be better artists, don't you think?

Yes I do think that, J_menz included.

Just speculating here, but it seems like use of improvisation/composition (both of them, since they are essentially very similar I think) has stayed generally prominent in whatever is the "pop" music of the time. Where as a lot of people study past music as it was written - except in the case of jazz where improvisation is the essence of the entire genre.

Perhaps another factor, and again a wild speculation - in bach's time for example, there was far less piano music (or perhaps music in general) and what there was was not say, freely accessible in both written and recorded form at the click of a button (luxury of our time). I suppose it may have been reasonable to require improvisation and composition from any performer simply because if that didnt happen the performances would get very old very quickly..   remembering that in earlier centuries far more people would have seen pianists perform live far more often than does happen now.

On top of that, the sheer quantity of stylistically varied material available now means that the majority of pianists can spend a lifetime learning and never run out of challenges both musically and technically.

And, ..far too many teachers don't know anything about composition or improvisation and lack interest in it, perhaps a result of piano teaching being completely unregulated. Its disturbing.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

You can do it as much as you like, and it's actually probably good for you.

One caveat, though. In the "classical world" if you say you are going to perform a particular piece, the audience will expect it to be stricltly in line with the written score.

I disagree slightly

Only in competitions and auditions you're supposed to play strictly to the score.

[ajspiano]

Only in competitions and auditions you're supposed to play strictly to the score.

Yeh, naaa. My teacher gave me a full lesson length lecture reprimanding me for altering notes in a competition. She probably wouldn't have been so annoyed if I'd done it just in lesson, but I don't think she'd have let it go.

[outin]

In the baroque period the ability to improvise on a basic theme was compulsory. Pieces were sometimes not even necessarily written out in full, just structural, performers were expected to fill in the blanks with their own ideas - use their own ornamentation.. etc. etc.

Many romantic era composers also improvised all the time.

My explanation to the disappearance of improvisation from the classical piano playing is that after the 19th century players were not composers anymore. So they didn't really need the skills and it disappeared. Other things took over (playing technically perfect and excatly as it's written). And after a while the audiences and critics started expecting this too.

[alanteew]

Do you happen to know what caused improvisation to disappear completely from the world of classical music, despite arrangements (Horowitz on Liszt's HR No. 2, for instance)?

I've got a better answer: It hasn't. It's only stopped if you think of "classical" music as being stuff that was written long ago that needs to be regurgitated verbatim. Yuck. Hamelin is a great example of a classical pianist/composer who often does his own cadenzas. Or consider some of the crazy creative work Hilary Hahn is doing. There are also great examples on other instruments, of course.

Where improvisation has really disappeared is at the local level. There is little real classical improvisation for the same reason high schoolers are taught never to start a sentence with a conjunction or never to use "ain't". Because those are the rules? Why? Shut up and play the notes.

The ugly fact is that there are very few extraordinary piano teachers, just as there are very few extraordinary science teachers or English teachers. Present company excepted, hopefully. I am so profoundly grateful for my wonderful first teacher who got me off to a great start--by rigorously sticking to the sheet. By teaching me that it wasn't good enough for my hands to know my music--I had to truly memorize it to the extent that I could sit down and transcribe it away from a piano. Yes, I appear to be contradicting myself. But I'm not. Here's what I mean: You have to walk before you can run. Classical improv--like jazz--doesn't come from nowhere.

I've been amazed, frankly, to see all the debate here and elsewhere about how metronomes or scales are evil.   Or how Czerny is a relic. These things aren't evil. They're necessary to learn. One might not need exercises later, but anything--anything--that helps you identify weaknesses in your skills and understanding and forces you to address it is necessary. Maybe it's not Czerny and scales, but it needs to be something systematic and challenging.

Improv isn't a feeling. It's something that extraordinary musicians can do consistently if they're well taught and disciplined in skill and theory. (Of course it doesn't hurt if they're supported by listeners who have a clue what's going on.) The giants of the past--those known for improvisation and for taking off from "the sheet"--were also the exact same pianists known for the very things that I've seen disputed or regarded as optional on this forum.

Competitions and auditions are precisely the places where improvisation should be most welcome as a measure of someone who's mastered discipline and the basics. But that would require the judges to be musicians (and for competitions to be about music). Competitions are to music what standardized testing is to real learning. (FWIW, my first two teachers never even mentioned that there was such a thing as "levels". I only discovered them to my dismay when I had to find a different teacher later in life.) Levels are useful, I suppose, to motivate the unwilling (or to convince unmusical parents that their $$ is well spent), if you see music as having anything to do with a certificate on the wall, or if you have to quantify being a pianist as if it were like being an athlete. ("I hear Goode is currently pegged at #7 in the male individual rankings. Let's review his stats...hmm, it looks like his next big game competition might lower his ranking if he doesn't score well.") What complete rubbish.

Where did THAT come from!   ... I guess this touched a nerve. I'm sorry if I offended, I'm not thinking of anyone on this forum. You're all wonderful human beings and the most musical and good-looking people in the world.   Screed over.

To answer the original topic question: IMHO it's okay not to follow the sheet--it can even be a wonderful thing. But try, please, try to understand the sheet and have as your goal only to stray from whatever arrangement you're playing after you've mastered it. Master it--then go nuts. It gets easier. The more time you spend thoroughly learning pieces the easier it gets to learn them.

(Unless, of course, you're just fooling around at home and this isn't about performance.)

[chadbrochill17]

Many romantic era composers also improvised all the time.

My explanation to the disappearance of improvisation from the classical piano playing is that after the 19th century players were not composers anymore. So they didn't really need the skills and it disappeared. Other things took over (playing technically perfect and excatly as it's written). And after a while the audiences and critics started expecting this too.

Improvisation was a key in the Romantic era, but it's also good to note that when Liszt embellished on one of Chopin's pieces, Chopin was furious and told him to stick to the score or not play it at all. And Chopin was a master of improvisation.

I think improvisation can be great, but to do it on every piece is not the point. I think Chopin's anger stemmed from the fact that the piece he had composed was to capture a specific mood and feeling, and deviating from that makes the piece worthless. I would say improvisation on your own themes is much more advantageous than taking someone else's composition and screwing around. Just MO