Chopin Nocturne Op48, No 1 in C Minor

[faulty_damper]

For anyone who is interested in how to achieve the reserved, deep tone:

1) octaves in the LH bass should be understood as the upper note is the double, not the bass. Thus, the bass note should be louder, the upper much softer.  This produces a deep tone necessary to express the anguished character.

2) middle chords needs to be voiced similarly to the octaves to achieve the reserved tone.  For example, on beat 2 of the first measure, playing the upper note major 3rd softly and making the 6th more pronounced sounds deeper.  And on beat 4, making the open 5th more pronounced has an empty quality that helps enhance this character.  This principle of carefully coloring the tone of these chords is what you can do to achieve an anguished, almost sobbing, tone.

3) the melody is not to be played softly, but moderately loud, but not so loud as to be shouting (though there are places where this interpretation may be acceptable to enhance that anguish.)   The melody is not to be understood as pure legato, as in a singing manner as with many of the other nocturnes, but it should be understood as expressing anguish.  As such, it should be performed slightly percussively and mostly non-legato.

Performed it this manner, the character of this piece, one of sadness and anguish, will be expressed clearly.  Any other interpretation, is simply wrong.

[cabbynum]

Performed it this manner, the character of this piece, one of sadness and anguish, will be expressed clearly.  Any other interpretation, is simply wrong.

I respect your opinions on the interpretation of this piece and you have obviously put a lot of thought into it and that's very important. The interpretation you described would be quite nice. However I do not agree with that last little bit. There is not one single way to interpret this piece.

[faulty_damper]

If the intent is to express the character, communicate these intense feelings, then you are left with very few musical solutions capable of expressing it, especially on the piano.  If, however, the pianist's intent is just to make it sound 'pretty', then by all means make it sound pretty.  However, that is not music and you will be nothing more than pianist, not a musician.

[mjames]

What do you think about this rendition?

[outin]

Performed it this manner, the character of this piece, one of sadness and anguish, will be expressed clearly.  Any other interpretation, is simply wrong.

There were some really great moments in Mislav's recording and I liked it a lot. It's a pity that this thread too turned to silly arguing...

But anyway, thanks for taking the time to go into details on what you mean. It makes me think that you are prone to provocation, and your earlier posts and the above quote reflect just that. I find it hard to believe that you really have such a black and white view on things. I may not agree on what one should try to achieve here, but I see this as a matter of personal preference more than correctness. I don't like too much emotion in playing Chopin, not when expressed in an underlined way.

The idea of an interpretation being wrong is difficult for me. I don't think it really even matters that much how Mr. Chopin wanted the piece to be played. In fact all accounts say that he wasn't always that consistent himself, in playing or in writing down his music. What matters is that the player has made intelligent decisions on how to interpret the score and have enough skill to make it sound the way he wants. As far as I know that used to be the norm when these pieces were composed, not seeing the score as the bible and trying to go into the composers head or arguing about who reads the score in the most correct way.

Since this is such a lovely piece I took the time to listen through all the recordings I happen to have on this computer. 10 in all. Some of them are live or historical recordings (one from a piano roll) and one is played on a fortepiano. The variation is huge and as expected on some of the older recordings the chords are rolled a lot. And I got so many different but rewarding listening experiences. And some more boring. I can hear some merit in doing it differently than what most modern pianists would do.

The thing is, maybe for you there's a right and a wrong way to interpret a piece like this, while IMO the greatness of the piece makes it possible to interpret it in countless of ways, still achieving a result that makes it important for the listener. I see no point in listening to copies of pieces played by different pianists all trying to express what they have been told Chopin wanted them to express. That would bore me to death.

[faulty_damper]

There are countless ways you can make a piece of music sound nice.  However, this kind of music isn't about sounding nice.  It's about communicating ideas.  This is the difference between musicians and those who enjoy it for its aural aesthetics.  A performer-musician must try to express those ideas in a manner that is most convincing.  Sounding nice is incidental.

Classical music interpretation is exactly the same as reciting Shakespeare. There are many ways you can read the words but very limited ways to come off as if you are actually speaking them yourself.  If certain things are exaggerated, it becomes comical or distracting.  If it's recited too slowly, or too quickly, it ruins the mood or worse, prevents communicating the idea completely.

For these reasons and more, there is a right and a wrong interpretation.

[outin]

There are countless ways you can make a piece of music sound nice.  However, this kind of music isn't about sounding nice.  It's about communicating ideas.  This is the difference between musicians and those who enjoy it for its aural aesthetics.  A performer-musician must try to express those ideas in a manner that is most convincing.  Sounding nice is incidental.

Classical music interpretation is exactly the same as reciting Shakespeare. There are many ways you can read the words but very limited ways to come off as if you are actually speaking them yourself.  If certain things are exaggerated, it becomes comical or distracting.  If it's recited too slowly, or too quickly, it ruins the mood or worse, prevents communicating the idea completely.

For these reasons and more, there is a right and a wrong interpretation.

I don't know what you mean by "sounding nice". I would certainly not use that word to describe my favorite performances. Good music for me does not have to be beautiful (whatever that means) at all.   

I cannot agree with your ideas about classical music in general. And you think you know exactly what music written over 150 years ago is supposed to communicate? That to me shows lack of judgement more than deep understanding of music. Sometimes people get ideas in their heads that seem so great they completely forget they are fabrications of their own mind instead of universal truths.

Chopin didn't bother to give descriptive names to his pieces, so obviously he didn't think it was so important for the performer to know more than what was in the score. At the same time he came from a certain tradition and probably assumed that some things would be interpreted in a certain way even if not notated exactly. He also wrote his music for the instruments of those days, which sounded very different.

There are certain musical ideas that cannot be changed without ruining the piece, so yes, I agree that sometimes an interpretation can be more wrong than right. But there are still many things left entirely to the performer to decide.

[faulty_damper]

I don't think you understood my point.  Music is a language.  Most people who listen to classical music do so not for its communicative properties but for it's aural aesthetics.  You can like how it sounds without any understanding of the ideas it conveys.  Analogous, I like the way Persian sounds but have no idea what is being said; it just sounds nice.

To be a musician is to be a native Finnish speaker.  You can tell a foreigner simply by the way he speaks with the odd accents and all.  This is the same as it applies to music.  If you speak with an accent, you are not a musician.

[outin]

I don't think you understood my point.  Music is a language.  Most people who listen to classical music do so not for its communicative properties but for it's aural aesthetics.  You can like how it sounds without any understanding of the ideas it conveys.  Analogous, I like the way Persian sounds but have no idea what is being said; it just sounds nice.

To be a musician is to be a native Finnish speaker.  You can tell a foreigner simply by the way he speaks with the odd accents and all.  This is the same as it applies to music.  If you speak with an accent, you are not a musician.

Native speakers speak differently as well. That's why there are countless of dialects in most languages.

In Finnish the foreigners' accents are a minor issue, since they hardly ever speak correctly. The grammar seems to be too difficult to learn. People are not less musicians because they have an accent as long as they know the grammar well enough. To not have an accent would require a purist scholar approach to performance pracitices and only accepting period intruments... Or maybe the analogy to language simply isn't that successfull?

[faulty_damper]

I think you're taking the analogy further than what I mean and twisting it to suit your purposes.

I never liked Chopin's music for the longest time.  I assumed it was something wrong with the music because it didn't communicate anything other than pretty sounds.  I've recently discovered that it may not be the music but with the performances.  For example, Mario Joao Pires' recording of the Nocturnes is absolutely dreadful - where's the music?  There is a mood or idea that Chopin intended to capture in the notes but this escapes most performers because they do not understand the music.  They only like the pretty sounds.  Pretty sounds is not music.

[gyzzzmo]

I think you're taking the analogy further than what I mean and twisting it to suit your purposes.

I never liked Chopin's music for the longest time.  I assumed it was something wrong with the music because it didn't communicate anything other than pretty sounds.  I've recently discovered that it may not be the music but with the performances.  For example, Mario Joao Pires' recording of the Nocturnes is absolutely dreadful - where's the music?  There is a mood or idea that Chopin intended to capture in the notes but this escapes most performers because they do not understand the music.  They only like the pretty sounds.  Pretty sounds is not music.

Maybe its its the performances, but maybe its also YOUR lack of understanding. Consider this: Many musicians (including me, probably including you) change their views about music over the years, and therefor also how they play the music. I dont know who your idol musician is, but no doubt he/she plays music differently now then he/she did when at young age.

That is because people change, and therefor you can also never say that one view (or your view) is the right one. You might have a -different- view, thats fine, but just claim it as that.

Gyzzzmo

[j_menz]

You can tell a foreigner simply by the way he speaks with the odd accents and all.  This is the same as it applies to music.  If you speak with an accent, you are not a musician.

I just bet you don't think you speak with an accent. I equally bet the vast majority of native English speakers would think you do.

[faulty_damper]

I just bet you don't think you speak with an accent. I equally bet the vast majority of native English speakers would think you do.

I was referring to foreign accents, where certain sounds are missing or included, not native ones.   And yes, I do speak with a regional accent when I'm speaking colloquially.  Much less so when I speak academically.

Maybe its its the performances, but maybe its also YOUR lack of understanding. Consider this: Many musicians (including me, probably including you) change their views about music over the years, and therefor also how they play the music. I dont know who your idol musician is, but no doubt he/she plays music differently now then he/she did when at young age.

That is because people change, and therefor you can also never say that one view (or your view) is the right one. You might have a -different- view, thats fine, but just claim it as that.

I'm pretty certain it's not an issue of my understanding.  It's clear to my ears that very few actually hear very well.

As well, it's important to understand the structure of argument.  I'm making my position very clear and supporting it with evidence for why I believe what I do.  There's no need to say it's "my opinion" because that's already a given.  This is what should have been taught in writing classes.  You can't graduate from college not knowing how to write a thesis.  I don't treat PF as a texting forum.

[j_menz]

I was referring to foreign accents, where certain sounds are missing or included, not native ones.   And yes, I do speak with a regional accent when I'm speaking colloquially.  Much less so when I speak academically.

I know quite a lot of non native English speakers whose accent is far ;less pronounced than some others who have spoken English all their lives.

And whether you speak academically or colloquially, you will still sound American, not English, not a New Zealander, nor any other.

JFK and Winston Churchill were both eloquent native speakers of the English language, but their accents are quite different.

[faulty_damper]

When an American says he speaks english, he means American english.  Not the stuff they speak in England nor any other current or former British territory.  Those people just sound wrong and really need to get rid of their ridiculous accents.

[j_menz]

When an American says he speaks english, he means American

You could have left it at that. You lot think "American English" is a tautology, the rest of us think it an oxymoron.

[faulty_damper]

That's why we're American.  Suck it!

Anyway, I had a recollection of a memory during a time when I was in choir.  Now, this was a school choir filled with mostly music students so superb music-making and musicianship was not a given.  However, there was once, during rehearsal, when we, as a group, sang a movement of a piece at a very precise tempo.  Somehow, at that tempo, we were making music, and everything clicked in place.  The director did not need to give dynamic signals or anything else.  We were making music.  And it was the first time ever, in all the semesters I was in choir, that I was moved by it.  I understood what the music was about (not really, it was sung in Latin) and really felt like I was part of the music, not just a voice in the bass section.  It was ephemeral and turning around to look, it seemed the rest of the choir felt it, too, as their faces were glazed with a kind of serenity.  Of the dozens of pieces of music we sang, it was only this once, during rehearsal, that we made music.  This moment could not be subsequently repeated, neither during rehearsals nor in performance.  The issue, I was certain, was the choice of tempo that allowed this emotional expression to be expressed.  The director never had us sing at this precise tempo again.

Everything must click into place for music to be expressed in such a way as to elicit the intended emotional reaction.  Too fast or too slow, or just slightly too fast or slightly too slow, misses the mark.  There are other aspects of music that follows this same path.  Too soft or too loud may give off the wrong character.  An ill-timed crescendo loses the excitement.  And so on.

[outin]

I think you're taking the analogy further than what I mean and twisting it to suit your purposes.

Certainly not in purpose, I was simply experimenting with it and cannot see that analogy having much value for this case.

I never liked Chopin's music for the longest time.  I assumed it was something wrong with the music because it didn't communicate anything other than pretty sounds.  I've recently discovered that it may not be the music but with the performances.  For example, Mario Joao Pires' recording of the Nocturnes is absolutely dreadful - where's the music?  There is a mood or idea that Chopin intended to capture in the notes but this escapes most performers because they do not understand the music.  They only like the pretty sounds.  Pretty sounds is not music.

Of course pretty sounds is music. That's just a dumb comment. Pretty sounds may not be what you or I look for in music, but they are still very much music. When we hear the sounds as pretty, we hear music. Individual pretty sounds may not be music, but how often does one perceive an individual sound as pretty?

I am curious: Are you thinking that your opinions are totally objective and anyone who disagrees with you must have their opinions clouded by subjectivity? It certainly sounds like you do. As someone who has studied psychology you must be aware of how that sort of a thinking pattern could become a real problem.

You may be just presenting your opinions, but the way you do it does not sound like you really accept they are just that. Saying someone is not a musician because they don't play Chopin the way you want it to be played? Trying to justify that by your own ideas about the meaning of the music, based on no evidence at all?

There are some famous and highly reagarded pianists that play certain composers music in a way that I don't like (Rubinstein with Chopin and Horowitch with Scarlatti as two examples). Their interpretation is simply too far from my own ideas of how the music should sound and as such it is "wrong". But I would never say they are not musicians because of that (they must have studied the music  longer than I have been alive). The fact that you do such a thing (and taking Pires as an example??) just makes one question whether you can even be serious or if you just get a kick out of provoking people. Such insane comments certainly does not give the impression of someone with knowledge and understanding of culture.

[dima_76557]

When an American says

Let's get this straight right away: you are NOT an American by birth and after all these years, you still haven't made the Western culture your own. This clearly shows in many aspects of what you write.
P.S.: The topic is again about you. The OP seems to have given up all hope of a decent discussion here.

If your line of behavior continues like this ("Play a wrong note and you die". (c)), then people will have no choice:
1) either avoid/boycott the audition room
2) or avoid/boycott you and your messages.

[faulty_damper]

Let's get this straight right away: you are NOT an American by birth and after all these years, you still haven't made the Western culture your own. This clearly shows in many aspects of what you write.
P.S.: The topic is again about you. The OP seems to have given up all hope of a decent discussion here.

Only because you make it about me.  Have you seen my birth certificate?  As well, you've failed to even follow this thread because the OP is not the pianist but the father whom happens to be a singer.  You're just spiteful for whatever personal reasons you hold.

[dima_76557]

Have you seen my birth certificate?

Birth certificates are strictly formal documents and do not hide the underlying cultural info I was talking about. 

As well, you've failed to even follow this thread because the OP is not the pianist but the father whom happens to be a singer.  You're just spiteful for whatever personal reasons you hold.

I don't have to follow this topic to know that it is about you again. All OP's in the audition room have been giving up on you lately, faulty. Get a life will you?

[outin]

@faulty:
Whining about all those other pianists doing it wrong won't take you anywhere. If you really believe in your ideas about the music and that something important is lacking in all the recordings and performances, I really think you should start working towards getting your own interpretations out there. These days it's entirely possible without having the connections or money. You also seem to have all the technical skills to do it. So please do. I will promise to listen with an open mind and hopefully will see something that has been missing for so long. Or you could present some new groundbreaking scholarly evidence about Chopin and his musical or extra-musical ideas. Until you do something concrete about it, your opinions will just be that, not worth more than anyone else's.

[faulty_damper]

Birth certificates are strictly formal documents and do not hide the underlying cultural info I was talking about. 

I don't have to follow this topic to know that it is about you again. All OP's in the audition room have been giving up on you lately, faulty. Get a life will you?

This isn't about me. Since you're the one throwing insults, it's actually about you.  You have insecurity issues that is being uncovered by the things I write.  I have incredibly high standards for art and you probably feel that you can't live up to them.  That's fine, but you should acknowledge that it's your issue, not mine.

For reference, artists whose works I like are William Bouguereau, Leon Perrault, and modern artist Dirk Dzimirsky.  You'll notice that the quality of their works are incredibly high.  Works by Jackson Pollack et al is not art, no matter what critics and art dealers claim.  BTW, I was at an art gallery recently and I asked the woman if that was a monkey, referring to a pen and ink drawing of some city scene.  I then asked her how much it was.  "Fifteen thousand dollars."  To which I immediately thought, "Are you f***** kidding me?  It's a piece of sh*t."  She then asked if I collected art, to which I replied, "I draw my own things."  She slowly walked away because she knew what real artists know: what she was selling was overpriced crap.

@faulty:
Whining about all those other pianists doing it wrong won't take you anywhere. If you really believe in your ideas about the music and that something important is lacking in all the recordings and performances, I really think you should start working towards getting your own interpretations out there. These days it's entirely possible without having the connections or money. You also seem to have all the technical skills to do it. So please do. I will promise to listen with an open mind and hopefully will see something that has been missing for so long. Or you could present some new groundbreaking scholarly evidence about Chopin and his musical or extra-musical ideas. Until you do something concrete about it, your opinions will just be that, not worth more than anyone else's.

I won't share my playing/music-making here on PF even after I get something to record it on.  This is a deeply personal matter that has much more baggage than all the years I've been a member here.  I've learned to only share such things with those who I'm closest to.  The ones I'm closest to don't say nice things unless they mean it because their opinions carry weight.

I already made a comment about how to write an argument but I'll repeat: it's not necessary to say, "I think" or "my opinion is" etc.  It's already established that since I am the one posting, it is my own thoughts/opinions.  Unless someone is cited, it's not necessary to state the speaker.

[kerryblue]

Maybe it s better to lock this theme because it s going in wrong way.
faulty_damper, I think that you have a right for your own opinion, but the truth is that you have very,very negativ attitude s  most of the time.
You are trying to covince whole world that you are right, and that is ok.  The way you writeing covinced me that you are naughty person, maybe I am wrong, but it s such an impression.
As you are irritated by Mislav s accents ect in his interpretation of Nocturne we are, as you see, irritated with your style of writeing fact s. Please try to change that and everything ll be ok.

Your coment s are not encouraging at all.

[outin]

I won't share my playing/music-making here on PF even after I get something to record it on.  This is a deeply personal matter that has much more baggage than all the years I've been a member here.  I've learned to only share such things with those who I'm closest to.  The ones I'm closest to don't say nice things unless they mean it because their opinions carry weight.

I didn't mean you should share them here. There are other channels. Even though you wouldn't want to share with anybody on this forum, if something revolutionary comes out I will probably hear about it sooner or later

I already made a comment about how to write an argument but I'll repeat: it's not necessary to say, "I think" or "my opinion is" etc.  It's already established that since I am the one posting, it is my own thoughts/opinions.  Unless someone is cited, it's not necessary to state the speaker.

We obviously have different ideas on how an intelligent conversation is carried out. Just stating one's opinion is not worth much, it's the facts or new ideas behind them that are interesting. So if you say all those people who's whole life has been about making music are not musicians at all, I expect to be presented with the logic behind that idea or some evidence. You are able to list artists that you appreciate, but I don't think you've ever mentioned any pianists that you think ARE real musicians? What you write could make some sense if you would present us with such examples. Or is it really so that there really are no other musicians in the world, the only people who might have qualified were the dead composers that we never even heard play? What is the value of this kind of a thought process for you or anyone else? I expect to read such things from teenagers who feel they need to shake the establishment, not from educated adults in a serious conversation.

[dima_76557]

Since you're the one throwing insults, it's actually about you. 

I worded my posts very carefully in order not to insult you, at least formally. If the truth still strikes you as an insult, then you should perhaps find the reason within your dear self.

[faulty_damper]

Maybe it s better to lock this theme because it s going in wrong way.
faulty_damper, I think that you have a right for your own opinion, but the truth is that you have very,very negativ attitude s  most of the time.
You are trying to covince whole world that you are right, and that is ok.  The way you writeing covinced me that you are naughty person, maybe I am wrong, but it s such an impression.
As you are irritated by Mislav s accents ect in his interpretation of Nocturne we are, as you see, irritated with your style of writeing fact s. Please try to change that and everything ll be ok.

Your coment s are not encouraging at all.

That is your opinion, of course.

But objectively, that's exactly what it is and I don't need to state the obvious.  Stating the obvious wastes time and momentum in this kind of writing, an argument.  I make very convincing arguments because no one bothers to argue against the presented ideas.  Instead, they attack the arguer because they have no response.  That's fine.  It's not my problem but theirs.  The idea is still left intact since no one wants to touch it.

So far, no one has even argued against the idea that this Nocturne expresses anguish and sadness.  Thus, it's implicitly accepted that this is true.  If this is true, then the musician-performer must do his best to express this in music.  I've already given specific instructions for how to best express this at the piano.

If, however, you disagree that this Nocturne expresses anguish and sadness, then state what it expresses and your reasons for thinking so.  If possible, provide a pianistic execution of the interpretation of it.

[pianist1976]

To be a musician is to be a native Finnish speaker.  You can tell a foreigner simply by the way he speaks with the odd accents and all.  This is the same as it applies to music.  If you speak with an accent, you are not a musician.

And of course the only one who can speak natively is you... I've met a few people who thought this way. All of them thought that everybody was wrong except them, that only they had the truth about music interpretation. I'd wish they could see how ridiculous and delusional looks this attitude seen outside. BTW, this people was so closed mind that couldn't appreciate others' interpretations, not even from great pianists, and they lose the opportunity to learn and grow as long as they didn't accept new views, ways or inspiration from others. They though their playing was already perfect, and the world was very cruel by not recognizing them. Of course only they thought they were that great... Generally other musicians labeled them as mediocre.

It's easier to criticize than doing the work. I wonder how many people is now discouraged to post a recording here. Thanks, faulty.

[outin]

So far, no one has even argued against the idea that this Nocturne expresses anguish and sadness.  Thus, it's implicitly accepted that this is true.  If this is true, then the musician-performer must do his best to express this in music.  I've already given specific instructions for how to best express this at the piano.

Here's the problem in your reasoning: You think anguish and sadness are something that can be felt and expressed in the same way by everyone. But it is not so. We have different personalities and everything is filtered by our experiences and temperament. YOUR anguish and sadness are not necessary the same thing as Chopin's anguish and sadness. Or mine. To try to ignore this is not what makes one a musician IMO. Instead it's all about letting your own personality come through in what you do.

[gyzzzmo]

Here's the problem in your reasoning: You think anguish and sadness are something that can be felt and expressed in the same way by everyone. But it is not so. We have different personalities and everything is filtered by our experiences and temperament. YOUR anguish and sadness are not necessary the same thing as Chopin's anguish and sadness. Or mine. To try to ignore this is not what makes one a musician IMO. Instead it's all about letting your own personality come through in what you do.

And as i mentioned before, a person even often changes how he expresses his feelings in music through life. So musicians have to be very careful in claiming 'right and wrong'.

[faulty_damper]

Here's the problem in your reasoning: You think anguish and sadness are something that can be felt and expressed in the same way by everyone. But it is not so. We have different personalities and everything is filtered by our experiences and temperament. YOUR anguish and sadness are not necessary the same thing as Chopin's anguish and sadness. Or mine. To try to ignore this is not what makes one a musician IMO. Instead it's all about letting your own personality come through in what you do.

You're right but only so far as to what motivates that anguish and sadness.  However, emotions are universal: happiness, sadness, joy, fear, are all universally understood.  If we take your direction, then seeing someone crying and sobbing would mean nothing because that person's sadness is just different.  You wouldn't be able to empathize and what binds people together no longer exists.  This simply isn't the case.

And as for that, this discussion is far too linguistic.  There's a reason why Chopin wrote music, to capture what he could not express in words.  And yet, here we are, discussing it using words and falling into linguistic fallacies that can only exist in language, not reality.  It would be far better if you just listened to the music, and really heard what's going on, what's being conveyed.

I didn't even know what was being conveyed for almost a decade since I first heard this piece simply because no one performed it in a manner that clearly expressed its emotions and feelings.  And when I tried learning it, following the manner that others played it, I didn't understand it; it didn't sound like anything meaningful.  It was a piece with a long and boring introduction with a tragic ending.  But, as I've realized in the past few days, that what Chopin actually intended was far more powerful, tragic, anguished than anyone has ever captured.

[faulty_damper]

And as i mentioned before, a person even often changes how he expresses his feelings in music through life. So musicians have to be very careful in claiming 'right and wrong'.

That's like expressing your anger by reading Hamlet loudly and angrily.  Or expressing your love for someone by reading Hamlet really gently and tenderly.  That's simply wrong on both counts.  To really express it, you'd write your thing, not recite someone else's revenge tragedy.  That would be silly since we no longer use daggers but automatic machine guns.

[faulty_damper]

It's easier to criticize than doing the work. I wonder how many people is now discouraged to post a recording here. Thanks, faulty.

Actually, it's not easier to criticize.  It actually takes time, effort, and thought to listen and hear, and the unnerving guts of going against the praise-everything-mentallity.  It's easy to say "great" or "that's wonderful" but it isn't easy saying what you actually mean.

About that praise-everything mentality, you imply that's the reason people post, not to get genuine feedback.  If they didn't want genuine feedback, they wouldn't post in the first place.  The number of people who post to get kudos is probably the minority.

[dima_76557]

It actually takes time, effort, and thought to listen and hear, and the unnerving guts of going against the praise-everything-mentallity.

Yeah, it really must have taken extremely deep thought to write some of the "constructive" comments you have posted recently. Example:

It really was that bad that it irritated me to no end.  I already expressed that I felt I was being attacked that I just wanted it to stop.  You don't have to be so defensive, and then offensive, because I gave my honest opinion.  It really was that bad that I couldn't continue listening.  Would you continue to eat something that tasted disgusting and made you vomit?  You probably wouldn't unless you were being forced at gunpoint.  The same holds here.

If that is what you understand as genuine, useful, and constructive comments and this is supposed to be the standard, then I'd rather see a simple "Like"/"Dislike" feature in the audition room for everybody with comments blocked. People who want to explain why they like/dislike something could give the details through PM, so nobody gets embarrassed in public in a similarly disgusting fashion. That is certainly the last thing people expect from posting their efforts here.

[pianist1976]

Actually, it's not easier to criticize.  It actually takes time, effort, and thought to listen and hear, and the unnerving guts of going against the praise-everything-mentallity.  It's easy to say "great" or "that's wonderful" but it isn't easy saying what you actually mean.

First of all, it takes an effort and courage to record and post publicly, exposing to critics. Just doing that deserves respect and recognition. Of course playing and recording it's a greater effort than critique. What are we talking about...? Also a constructive critic must highlight what is well done and the qualities of the interpretation, not only what may be wrong or prone to improvement. Otherwise is not a constructive critic, it's garbage. It's not useful to bash a complete rendition made by a beginner. But is even more absurd to bash an advanced pianist's work, because behind there are strong criterias, countless years and hours of work, thousands of dollars spent in classes and masterclasses... All this must be respected on the critic. I think these advances pianists deserve a better thing than telling only what is supposed to be wrong (which sometimes look to be everything on your view), based only on subjective points of view.

About that praise-everything mentality, you imply that's the reason people post, not to get genuine feedback.  If they didn't want genuine feedback, they wouldn't post in the first place.  The number of people who post to get kudos is probably the minority.

I don't think there is a praise-everything mentality on this forum at all. There is admiration when an interpretation is good and there are tons of good, constructive critics and great advices. I agree that there's people who post asking for advices but there's another people who don't. Just a random example: I think Ariel is a terrific pianist who, although very young, has worked a lot on music and the instrument. Of course there are improvable things, everybody has. Ariel has received masterclasses of great masters such as Jasinski or Richard Goode. What made you think that he wanted an "advice" like the following from an anonymous nobody at the Internet?

Introduction is too slow.  Dwelling way too much on the notes so the music is not coming through and does not match the opening subject line.  Sounds like different pieces spliced together = lacks musical uniformity. Melodically, lacks shape; i.e. rising melody should get louder, descending should get softer.

Was that an useful advice? The same happened with another pianists. Useful advices are always welcome. The other ones, don't.

[faulty_damper]

Yeah, it really must have taken extremely deep thought to write some of the "constructive" comments you have posted recently. Example:

If that is what you understand as genuine, useful, and constructive comments and this is supposed to be the standard, then I'd rather see a simple "Like"/"Dislike" feature in the audition room for everybody with comments blocked. People who want to explain why they like/dislike something could give the details through PM, so nobody gets embarrassed in public in a similarly disgusting fashion. That is certainly the last thing people expect from posting their efforts here.

Again, you should realize that this is your personal issue, not mine.  I've already stated what I thought of your antics so I need not repeat them.  As well, this is a public forum and people are allowed to state their opinions.  I'm not being the high and almighty here.  You are by directing your anger at me.

[faulty_damper]

First of all, it takes an effort and courage to record and post publicly, exposing to critics. Just doing that deserves respect and recognition. Of course playing and recording it's a greater effort than critique. What are we talking about...? Also a constructive critic must highlight what is well done and the qualities of the interpretation, not only what may be wrong or prone to improvement. Otherwise is not a constructive critic, it's garbage. It's not useful to bash a complete rendition made by a beginner. But is even more absurd to bash an advanced pianist's work, because behind there are strong criterias, countless years and hours of work, thousands of dollars spent in classes and masterclasses... All this must be respected on the critic. I think these advances pianists deserve a better thing than telling only what is supposed to be wrong (which sometimes look to be everything on your view), based only on subjective points of view.

I don't think there is a praise-everything mentality on this forum at all. There is admiration when an interpretation is good and there are tons of good, constructive critics and great advices. I agree that there's people who post asking for advices but there's another people who don't. Just a random example: I think Ariel is a terrific pianist who, although very young, has worked a lot on music and the instrument. Of course there are improvable things, everybody has. Ariel has received masterclasses of great masters such as Jasinski or Richard Goode. What made you think that he wanted an "advice" like the following from an anonymous nobody at the Internet?

Was that an useful advice? The same happened with another pianists. Useful advices are always welcome. The other ones, don't.

I hate it when people say nice things, blah blah blah.  I already know what I'm doing right.  What I want to know is what I'm doing wrong.  This is what I want to hear, not nice platitudes.  However, I am at the very edge of the curve so very few people understand this perspective.  I doubt many here would understand as has been the norm.  Treat others as you'd like to be treated.  Well, I want people to tell me the truth.  I want to know that my breath stinks.  Don't you?

And yes, there is a praise-everything mentality: e.g. your post is against critical comments.  If you can't see the subtext of it, then you are seeing very narrow-mindedly.

[pianist1976]

And yes, there is a praise-everything mentality: e.g. your post is against critical comments. 

No, it isn't. Please, re-read it.

not only what may be wrong or prone to improvement.

[faulty_damper]

No, it isn't. Please, re-read it.

Here's what you wrote:

It's not useful to bash a complete rendition made by a beginner. But is even more absurd to bash an advanced pianist's work, because behind there are strong criterias, countless years and hours of work, thousands of dollars spent in classes and masterclasses... All this must be respected on the critic. I think these advances pianists deserve a better thing than telling only what is supposed to be wrong (which sometimes look to be everything on your view), based only on subjective points of view.

[pianist1976]

Here's what you wrote:

I know what I wrote  

[faulty_damper]

Okay, responding to what I quoted of you above:

It's the teacher's job to correct a students' playing.  However, even amongst teachers, there are vastly varying degrees of musicianship and pianistic skill.  What may be obvious to some can be completely oblivious to others.  E.g. tension>resolution is normally performed mp>p (or f>mf, etc.)  Failure to do this results in the music losing its tension and character.  You say Hap-py, not Hap-PY!  But this is a very common mistake in music..

A beginner (or even advanced students) should always be provided with precise and accurate feedback even if it's unexpected/unwanted.  Saying "good" to everything is counterproductive to the results. Psychological research indicates that this is true as well as my own experiences.  If you want pianists to perform badly, tell them everything is "good" because they think playing badly is good.  (This has fueled the narcissistic epidemic of todays young generation, btw.)  If you want them to perform at high levels, you must provide more specific feedback than that.

[pianist1976]

Saying "good" to everything is counterproductive to the results. Psychological research indicates that this is true as well as my own experiences.  If you want pianists to perform badly, tell them everything is "good" because they think playing badly is good. 

Yes, I completely agree. I never said the opposite. But the other extreme is also harmful, that is, telling only what is wrong. Talking about psychology, that attitude may discourage the student as s/he thinks everything s/he does is wrong. In my opinion, the virtue is in the middle. What is good must be recognized and reinforced, and what is wrong (or prone to improvement) noticed and corrected.

But IMHO it's also wrong to label as "wrong" something that is subjective or subject to different interpretation or point of view.

[faulty_damper]

The attitude is actually heavily culturally biased.  In the western world, they desire praise.  In asian cultures, it's actually saying what's wrong.  Asian countries outperform almost all other countries academically.  That's not a coincidence.  If getting a B is "good", that's implicitly saying that it's okay to be ignorant or less skilled.  In actuality, a B is failing because you don't know something or can't do something.  That's like playing the Moonlight sonata and not being able to play the arpeggios.  It would sound terrible if all the pianist did was play the octave bass notes and the rhthmic motive.  But that's okay because it's still "good."

[pianoman53]

To call music sad or happy, or whatever, is simply very primitive. It's obviously a sad piece, but it's not only sad.

And yes, feelings are somewhat universal. But sadness over losing a close friend, or having being dumped, or failing, or feeling hopeless. All those have something to do with sadness, but no one would say that they feel the same way.

The teacher's job is also not as simple as "correcting the students mistake". His/her job is to make the student into a better human and musician. Saying what's wrong does nothing for that.

There is also different ways of saying what's wrong. You can do what you do, and say "It's wrong because I say so". The teacher could also try to change the students attitude to the piece, and make the student "want" to change the piece.

How the Chopin nocturne should start is obviously a personal opinion, but very primitive and simple ideas why it should start forte, is not the way.
Octaves is not "loud" and chords are not loud. It's perfectly possible to play both of them soft, which makes your argument of "It makes more sense" completely invalid, and this whole thread a big waste.


Why can't you stay on topic?

[dima_76557]

Again, you should realize that this is your personal issue, not mine.  I've already stated what I thought of your antics so I need not repeat them.  As well, this is a public forum and people are allowed to state their opinions.  I'm not being the high and almighty here.  You are by directing your anger at me.

Anger? That must be wishful thinking on your part. I'm completely relaxed. I neither smoke nor drink anything funny, and I am also in good mental health.

P.S.: It's not your opinions people react against. It's the way you vent them with an almost alien kind of "logic" that doesn't hold under scrutiny. Besides, you simply insult people and then start whining when they openly object against being raped in public. Keep in mind that nobody has any rights here. We only have privileges. They last as long as they last until we start stepping out of line (that is: breaking the rules for what is considered a decent conversation within the boundaries of Western culture).

[dima_76557]

The attitude is actually heavily culturally biased.  In the western world, they desire praise.  In asian cultures, it's actually saying what's wrong.

I think you have everybody's blessing to return to wherever your roots are, faulty, and leave Westerners with their own dignity in their own culture. Also, if you choose to live among the wolves, you have to howl like a wolf or suffer the consequences.

P.S.: Why don't you try and enter a good Conservatory (Paris, for example) and have your misguided perception of the so-called Western "praise-all-mentality" crushed?

[cometear]

It sounds better louder, not softly as most pianists play it.  Address the way it sounds as a real musician would.

I like it softer :/

[cometear]

That is your opinion, of course.

But objectively, that's exactly what it is and I don't need to state the obvious.  Stating the obvious wastes time and momentum in this kind of writing, an argument.  I make very convincing arguments because no one bothers to argue against the presented ideas.  Instead, they attack the arguer because they have no response.  That's fine.  It's not my problem but theirs.  The idea is still left intact since no one wants to touch it.

So far, no one has even argued against the idea that this Nocturne expresses anguish and sadness.  Thus, it's implicitly accepted that this is true.  If this is true, then the musician-performer must do his best to express this in music.  I've already given specific instructions for how to best express this at the piano.

If, however, you disagree that this Nocturne expresses anguish and sadness, then state what it expresses and your reasons for thinking so.  If possible, provide a pianistic execution of the interpretation of it.

You need to be banned from this forum.

[faulty_damper]

You need to be banned from this forum.

Considering the way you butchered the A minor sonata, you should be banned from playing the piano.

[schwartzer]

Considering the way you butchered the A minor sonata, you should be banned from playing the piano.

It's not like a person is born playing Rach 3 out of their mother's belly, you know? You've been defending constructive criticism through all this thread. This last comment was hardly any of that.