Preparation vs Spontaneity

[total_failure]

Hi everyone
I was always wondering when I heard a classical concert or a recording, what it is exactly that I am hearing:
a) Is it something that has been played over and over to reach a certain amount of clarity/perfection (meaning everything is fixed beforehand, tempo changes, dynamics, phrasing, even the slightest rubato) or
b) is it something more spontaneous (meaning that if the performer was asked to play again the exact same piece he would play it in a different way)

What do you think and how do you approach music?

[awesom_o]

It really depends upon the pianist and the type of performance that they are giving!

Personally, I am in favour of spontaneity.  For me, the more pre-planned/fixed beforehand an interpretation is, the less interesting I find it to be. Other people feel differently about this, however.

I like performances to be fresh each time! It doesn't matter for me if I'm performing my own compositions or the works of the Masters. Either way, it has to be unique and fresh each time, or I get bored.

[iansinclair]

Fascinating question.  With regard to performances (of classical), at least by the masters, it will be -- in my view -- a combination of both.  Each performance will be slightly different, of course, but with the real masters the overall shape and so on will be very much the same every time through; they will have thought through their interpretation and polished them.  Which is not to say there won't be subtle differences from performance to performance; there will be -- and it is these subtle differences which can make a tremendous difference in the end result, where the audience will sometimes come away with the feeling that wow this was really good playing to a feeling that they have been part of something really special and transcendent -- and never be able to figure out why.

In the case of jazz, though, within rather broad outlines spontaneity is far more important.

Now recordings are a different story altogether.  There are really two kinds of classical recordings, and it can be very hard to know which you are getting.  Almost all recordings today are engineered rather heavily, and put together from several (sometimes many!) takes.  In my humble opinion, while this results in recordings where genuine mistakes or bobbles just don't exist, the end result will lack that subtle spontaneity -- and be very good and worthwhile, but lack that little something.  There are, occasionally, recordings which are the result of a single take (they may be from a choice of several single takes, but the recording is all from one take; no editing).  These can be and often are really stunning.

[j_menz]

I think it takes a lot of preparation to be truly spontaneous.

[awesom_o]

I think it takes a lot of preparation to be truly spontaneous.

Excellent point!!

[total_failure]

I think it takes a lot of preparation to be truly spontaneous.

j_menz, your statement is interesting, but could you be a bit more specific?

It seems a bit contradictory to me
Preparation, beeing the process of preparing something, in this case, a piece of music, i guess is not only about which notes to play, but also how to play them. As the interpreter makes decisions on how to perform a piece, the less liberties he will have while performing (because he decided upon a certain way). So if study consists of this kind of work, then, the more you study, the less liberties you will have while performing.
Why should one work over several hours per day on a specific way to play a piece, just to ignore it when actually performing?

[ted]

Either way, it has to be unique and fresh each time, or I get bored.

I agree wholeheartedly, but as an improviser I suppose I could be expected to. I could not bear knowing everything that was going to happen when I sat down to play; in fact I couldn't imagine a more pointless exercise.

[awesom_o]

Why should one work over several hours per day on a specific way to play a piece, just to ignore it when actually performing?

You cannot have 'a specific way' to play a piece. Of course, you can have a sophisticated plan, but you have to be able to adapt in the moment. No two performances will ever be exactly the same, no matter how much you practice doing it the same way!

Therefore, it is better to practice doing it DIFFERENT ways, so that when the moment of live performance arrives, you have many options available at your fingertips, so that you can chart a plausible path through the work that is truly fresh each time!

[j_menz]

Preparation, beeing the process of preparing something, in this case, a piece of music, i guess is not only about which notes to play, but also how to play them. As the interpreter makes decisions on how to perform a piece, the less liberties he will have while performing (because he decided upon a certain way). So if study consists of this kind of work, then, the more you study, the less liberties you will have while performing.

Preparation is the process not of determining the answer, but rather the process of refining the question. There is of course the purely mechanical preparation, so that one is in a position to play a piece freely. But that aside, the musical preparation is not about deciding what must be done, but rather exploring what can be done. The result is not less liberty, but more.  Then, in performance, one solution will seem apt at one time, and another in another time.

The better one understands a piece, and the boundaries of a piece, the greater the freedom one has to play it.  That is making music.  Just repeating by rote a single (unconsidered) option is not making music, it's pretending to be an iPod.

[iansinclair]

Preparation, beeing the process of preparing something, in this case, a piece of music, i guess is not only about which notes to play, but also how to play them. As the interpreter makes decisions on how to perform a piece, the less liberties he will have while performing (because he decided upon a certain way). So if study consists of this kind of work, then, the more you study, the less liberties you will have while performing.
Why should one work over several hours per day on a specific way to play a piece, just to ignore it when actually performing?

It seems to me that what is missing here is the realisation that the preparation is what makes spontaneity possible.  Only when you have gotten to the point in preparing a piece that you are no longer thinking about any of the mechanics of playing it -- fingering, pedaling, etc. etc. -- do you then have the flexibility to begin thinking about your whole being interacting with the piece (at which point you may realise that it doesn't have anything to say to you, nor you to it, and you drop it -- but that's another story!).  That's when the spontaneity comes in.

[future_maestro]

Some pianists believe in playing a song the same EXACT way every time, with no changes in tempo or dynamics.

Others believe in playing a song a little different. They may make slight changes in dynamics and tempo between performances. They don't "Add" anything of their own, they just slightly modify it.

[total_failure]

Can you name a pianist for each approach? It would be interesting to have some audio or youtube examples of that.

[rmbarbosa]

Once I saw Arthur Rubinstein playing in Lisbon the same Concert one day and the next day. And the two performances were quite different. The first time, he almost did not take his hands off the keyboard. The next day, he played a gorgeous way, with big gestures and hands going down like birds... the first day, I felt a sense of depth of the music; the other day, a feeling of exaltation... It was the Concert in A, Chopin.
Why did he this? I dont know...
Indeed, when we have a piece of music well prepared, we can play it with different ways. But it depends also of the different composers: Chopin, Liszt versus JS Bach, for example...

[j_menz]

But it depends also of the different composers: Chopin, Liszt versus JS Bach, for example...

You clearly believe it is possible with Chopin and Liszt, but doubt so much with Bach?  Listen to Gould's two versions of the Goldberg Variations. That should remove such doubt.

[future_maestro]

Can you name a pianist for each approach? It would be interesting to have some audio or youtube examples of that.

Lang Lang would be an example of a guy who changes a little something every time, no two performances are exactly the same.

A more professional pianist like Rubinstein would try to keep the song the same way every performance, because he believes that he is playing it exactly how Chopin wanted it. (Sometimes I think he is wrong).