Questions about "musicality" and interpretation

[quasimodo]

What is "musicality" for you ? Wich criteria allow to say that a certain interpretation of a certain piece is more or less musical compared to another ?

Isn' t such an opinion always subject to be biased by a lot of factors (like media and critics influence, fashion, tastes) ?

Personally, I rarely find a recording from a pro pianist "non musical" and I am quite troubled when I read here and there that people don't like this or that pianist's interpretation for this or that piece... Am I dumb ?

[rafant]

When I lernt the Chopin's Prelude Op. 28-4 some years ago, a former teacher of mine used to say I played it without musicality. He was right, but he couldn't help me to improve what he criticized. I wasn't sure about what he meant by musicality, only I knew that playing the correct notes at the correct times was not enough and the piece sounded really bad. Therefore, although defining musicality maybe not so easy, lack of musicality is easy to recognize and is a term widely used to account for any bad interpretation.

As yourself, usually I find myself satisfied with almost any recording by any professional. But recently I was hearing carefully the Scarlatti's Sonata K208 (Naxos, Vol. 2) played by Michael Lewin. It's a piece I like very much and I know well. I'm still impressed! Awkward trills, banged notes, and lack of voicing control! Quite unexpected not only from the pianist but also from the recording house. I almost play it better, indeed! It's an example of what I also call lack of musicality. Fortunately the rest of the CD seems to me very good.

[pianonut]

dear quasi,

i agree with rafant about learning more by being taught (not just someone telling you that you play unmusically) exactly what to look for.  i used to look for things that i was taught by my last university teacher (who was very good - i thought- since he had graduated from the paris conservatory).  i listened for an interpretation that the composer would be glad to hear.  the tempos accurate, the dynamics at graded levels (and consistent), the virtuosity (he was a virtuoso player), and the interpretation to be understandable and not ramble or not go anywhere.

now, with more lessons, i am listening for a singing line.  my teacher doesn't stress this, but he plays this way.  he plays as though he were reading a facinating book and stressing the important notes as you would important words (in reading OR singing).  i never really imposed my will on a piece before (and it is going further than the composer a little bit) but i can see how a little extra expression makes a piece "go farther."  it's almost dwelling on single notes (as well as the line) and seeing how they can be individual players, yet singing together.  my previous teacher taught me to bring out held notes (louder) so they would last through the beats, but now i am also learning that quarter notes can be held out (louder) against eighth notes and eighth notes against sixteenth.  Basically, whatever notes are the fastest are played the lightest.  the impression is always that the dynamics are louder when more notes are played (so you don't have to exert so much effort).

[pianonut]

one last note... my latest teacher stresses the dissonance in a piece so that the resolution is more interesting.

[Torp]

Rhetorical questions…(to add fodder to the fire)

If you played all the right notes at exactly the right time with exactly the right dynamics as indicated by the composer would it not be the fault of the composer if the music were lacking in emotion?

If, on the other hand, the score is to be thought of simply as a guideline for playing the piece, then isn’t any interpretation valid, regardless of whether I like the artist’s interpretation of it or not?

What's a groove?  What's a feel?  What's soul?  What's heart?

Jef

[lenny]

musicality is subjective

a 'bad interpretation' does not inherently mean the performer has a lack of musicality

many people and critics hear performances they dislike - and dont just say 'oh it was good but i didnt like it', they often use the generic - 'oh it was so dull! he lacked musicality' or 'that tempo was ridiculous, he obviously lacks musicality
this is SUBJECTIVE , the performer's performance wasnt to the person's taste, but does that mean they lack musicality? no!

an unmusical interpretation - is defined by me as - 'an interpretatioon conceived and executed without musical quality as its prime intent'

an example would be to sacrifice the music to attain some kind of atheletic stunt - to deliberately play faster or louder, or even softer or slower - than is musically valid.

however - what is musically valid is also incredibly subjective in itself.

i, for one, have NEVER accused any pianist of a lack of musicality - as i believe this is possibly the most offensive thing you can accuse a musician of.

langlang would be an example - some of his interpretations are of questionable musical integrity, but what is obvious about him is that he is a very musical person.

[m1469]

I think "musicality" is not an end point in and of itself in the way that a person would look from the outside in and then try to achieve a certain goal, thereby either arriving at or falling short of an ideal.  I feel it, as the way that things fit together and "blend".  With this, and taking into consideration an individual performer or composer for that matter, it may appear to become whatever that internal outpouring is in proportion to one's level of being and highest understanding of Music as a whole.  As a person's understanding expands, the possiblities of musical refinement may also seem to expand, but into what it expands and from where, I don't rightly know.


The qualities an individual seems to possess as a person, will always seem to have some direct and determining factor on how one may express one's understanding.  And as many people as there are, there are even more interpretations of music as well as expressions of musicality.  At it's most fundamental level, I don't feel there is anything which is absolutely more worthy than another as far as it's existence within the world.  The decisions I would make with something will be different in some way than the decisions another would make, but ultimately who or what determines their fundamental worth or value?  What are worth and value?  How are they measured? 

I only have an inkling of what that is for me.  Consequently, my life reflects this in every way, including the desicions I make in music and my expression of it.  I appreciate certain timbres, a certain cohesiveness, a certain energy, a certain level of whole-hearted dedication, etc..  So when I hear and experience these qualities, whether in a performance from another individual or whatever else, I appreciate it as far as my own understanding of music and musicality allow me.  It can either reaffirm something within me or awaken something that may seem entirely new.

These thoughts are perhaps fairly cerebral and not at all practical.  I am going to continue thinking on this to great length.

m1469

[quasimodo]

Musicality vs. Technique

Isn’t what is called lack of musicality rather a lack of technical mastering of a piece? For example the pianist didn’t work enough on tone/dynamics nuances so the rendering becomes awful? I guess that is subject to happen with pro concert pianist who have to work on a bunch of pieces in the same time so they might not have enough time to properly polish everything…


"Understanding" a piece

It’s often stated that to play a piece properly, we should have a searcher’s attitude about the composer, the historical context, the piece’s specific context and so on. Then we should analyse the score in detail, theory-wise.

Personally, I’m eager to do the first part but it’s more a matter of being curious about things than really something in connexion to the playing. The second I try to do as far as I am capable of, but I am not that good in musical theory (though not that bad as well). Anyway I’m very intrigued, even dubious about how this kind of knowledge (historical, theoretical) could actually affect our playing. I tend to think it is rather something psychological and subjective than objectively musical.

I often wonder if there’s really something to understand inside a piece. Of course, the composer probably had something in mind when writing the piece: some spiritual or religious feelings (Bach’s sacred music), some emotion to communicate (romantics), something to depict musically (Beethoven, impressionists) and so on. But is it that important? I have this belief that musical works stand by themselves independently of what the composer intended to do, and independently of the historical and aesthetical context. A piece has its own “life” which is hardly connected to its genesis. It can just strike anyone, even a person without any musical background. Like Maria Joao Pires’s interpretation of Mozart “Rondo Alla Turca” stroke my 2 years old daughter who knows nothing about notes, chords, measures, scales and everything.


The role of the interpreter… - What is a piece?

When a musician decides to add a piece to repertoire in order to perform it in recital or to record it, he/she objectively kind of challenges all the past interpretations of the piece and maybe even the composer’s own conception about the work. Interpreting is a process of contestation. Otherwise there wouldn’t be any reason to (re-)interpret any piece.

Since a composer released a score, he brings it to public domain, of course not legally, composer need royalties to make a living and that’s fair, but in true facts since the score is released, the composer exposes himself to hear some interpretation he would dislike, even hate. To that extent, composing is an act of courage and generosity, like having and raising a child.

Bach certainly didn’t expect that one day a pianist named Glenn Gould would interpret his WTC or Goldberg variations in such a special approach, nor that another pianist named Jacques Loussier would play it jazz. Then, one could wonder if the Goldberg Variation’s are just Bach’s work: aren’t they actually the addition of Bach’s writing and the successive interpretations which have been made of it?

That’s quite probable, but I would go farther: a musical piece has a “life” beyond the composer and the various interpretations. It has a “transcendent” content which purpose is to modify space and time. Music intends to change the world, to some extent. What is important is not the context of the music, it is that “the music becomes the context in itself”.

Then the interpreter’s mission is to keep the musical work alive, and being alive means changing, growing. That’s probably what musicality is all about:  the process of nourishing a piece to make it grow.

[quasimodo]

  SOmetimes I'm quite amazed by my ability to think and write stupid stuff !!! 

[rafant]

a 'bad interpretation' does not inherently mean the performer has a lack of musicality

Of course, the lack of musicality I was referring to is with regard to the playing of a piece in particular, not to the pianist.

Isn’t what is called lack of musicality rather a lack of technical mastering of a piece?

Hardly an interpretation could have musicality if there is no technical mastering of the score.

[anda]

a 'bad interpretation' does not inherently mean the performer has a lack of musicality

indeed. also, one should not mistake truly bad for not-my-taste

Hardly an interpretation could have musicality if there is no technical mastering of the score.

yes, it could, and it's not that rare that i have seen such cases. main problem: no technical mastering means most of the audience will be disturbed by mistakes/flaws/etc. and thus, stopped from hearing the music.


as for interpretation, i see it as a two-part process: reading the score (everything written plus everything hidden behind the written signs) - resulting in a complete ansamble (preferably personal) image of the work; and playing the work - rebuilding the image with specific means.

all the above, imho.