I mean intentionally or in case they forget some part or for pleasure?

Absolutely. In fact, I was recently reading about Geoffrey Tozer who recently died. Apparently some conductors hated working with him because he would add improvisations to some concerto's which made it difficult for the orchestra. I am not sure if they were intentional or not though.

Marcus

Yeah, of course. It's a real shame that improvisation is so solidly linked to just jazz these days. I improvise as a way of warming up, trying out techniques (when I was just starting, I'd do real simple scale exercises out of chord progressions, not unlike Czerny I suppose, although I didn't even know who Czerny was), and sometimes, if I'm feeling particularly imaginative, to express something that none of my repertoire pieces fulfill. I also do variations, usually to make people laugh, and regretfully, sometimes if a motive in music catches my attention I'll doodle with it for quite some time, totally destroying my concentration.

I get a lot of my improvisatory idioms from Cziffra, who was one of the better known improvisers in the classical world, but there were--and are--many out there. I also learn a lot from studying compositions I'm learning, improvising in, for instance, the style of Sorabji or Villa-Lobos.......well I'm not going to claim I "nailed" it but it did help me to think about improvisation in a new way, exploring different harmonies, rhythms, and so forth in a totally free and liberated way. It helps me concentrate on the sound and not on notes-as-written. And conversely, going back into the repertoire, it helps me to develop freer, more organic approaches to interpretation.

Classical organists are expected to improvise; as an organist I find it easy to improvise at the piano. It can be very rewarding too.

If I ever get lost in the music I could theoretically improvise my way back to familiar territory, however that is unlikely to happen as I typically perform from a score.

Here's a performing classical artist who is known for her improvisation:

http://www.gabrielamontero.com/

Rich

good to hear all these, I thought probably most pianists today play mostly written music not by ear. Yeah somehow improvisation is attributed improperly to jazz only while the classic music got it first. I know Bach improvised a lot.



http://ericbarnhill.wordpress.com/facts-about-improvisation/

Here is a sample of classical improvisation at Notre Dame de Paris performed by the late Pierre Cochereau, perhaps the most brilliant improvisateur of the 20th century.

It begins as a fugue based on the theme of Adeste, Fideles (O Come, All Ye Faithful). The music starts shortly after the 1'30" point in the video. Many other Cochereau improvisations can be found on YouTube.



The art of Improvisation still flourishes in French churches. Many of these organists would no doubt be able to improvise brilliantly on the piano.

Very nice, whippen boy! (I know that recording well.) But Cochereau was very much a law unto himself, and his gloriously outrageous muse tended to lack discipline, and IMO he never approached his contemporary Dupré for the focus required to actually notate this music for posterity. Perhaps it didn't interest him, though I suspect his attention span was relatively short.

Perhaps you are right...

But fret not: the 'Cochereau transcribers' have certainly made an industry of writing it all down!

Thank you for the link, DragonPianoPlayer.

Actually, I'd like very much to improvise in a "classical" way but ... my teacher don't do that so I'm on my own- that is, lost .
Goldberg, could you detail a little bit how you improvise? I'm *very* curious about your post


Are you sure ? I should check it out then :p

I'm mainly a classical player,
and my daily practice session
is still taken up primarily with
3 monster pieces, the Chopin op. 14,
the A min. mazurka op. post. (the
mindbogglingly difficult one
with the middle octave section--
if you think this ordinary-
looking, 3 page piece is
easy, try playing it like,
say, Cortot), and the Trois
Nouvelles Etudes no. 1 (several
kids play this on YouTube, but
this is light-years from easy).

I've tried to study theory, jazz
and classical, in order to be
able to improvise, but I finally
figured out that that is doing
it backwards. You improvise
first, to train the ear. Only
then will theory study have
any real meaning.

So I chucked all the theory
books and just dug in and improvised
purely by ear with no consideration
of any theory. This was a revelation.
This is the proper way to improvise,
purely by ear, like an illiterate
or uneducated person would do it.
You don't need any theory to
improvise, because all of your
musical experience will be
subconsciously drawn on when
your play by ear like this and
will influence what comes out
of the instrument.

My improvisation is, quite naturally,
heavily influenced by the 3 classical
pieces mentioned above, and what
comes out tends to have what
might be called a neo-classical
flavor, but the synthesis is
my own and other influences
are also present, jazz, rock,
popular, country, etc. And in
any case, I'm always trying to
not sound like anything in
particular, since I want to be
original when I improvise.

This has been a revelation. I've
only recently started improvising
like this, and it is now the most
enjoyable thing I do at the piano.
Before this, I used to be exhausted
after working on my classical
repertoire, and could barely get
up off the bench afterwards. But
now I save improvisation for
the very last thing in my practice
session, and I eagerly look forward
to it, and then just dig in and
play purely by ear, full of
energy that I never used to
have previously. I improvise
until I can't play anymore, through
exhaustion.

I learned to improvise because when I was a teenager I got a job as an accompanist at a local ballet school, and they got tired of the same music over and over again so the teachers started requesting for me to make stuff up in the same style.

It was frightening at first but it really made me grow quickly, and I am grateful for the great opportunity they threw my way. This improv was mostly classical style.

Now that I'm older, I improvise all the time, playing keys in a large church band. Anywhere from rock sound to just playing "pretty" background music for interludes. Because of my earlier exposure I can now sit and pretty much improv on a theme or a chord progression for hours if I needed to.

It's definitely a skill, not a talent, although I think it is helpful to have an ear and some musicality.

Because this skill I accidentally acquired has served me so well in life, I make sure that my own piano students are learning it, too.

couldn't agree more and I did the same thing,
in classic music school theory was the most boring class
for me. Later i switched to jazz because I got impression
in classic world nobody uses the ears so started studying
Mark Levine jazz book and again couldn't tackle through.
I've come to conclusion you don't study music you play it.

Of course! If you live in one of the larger cities you should visit the cathedral for a church service; throughout the service you will hear improvisations. Many organists will improvise a brilliant Toccata at the conclusion of the service.

If you are in Paris I can tell you specifically which churches to visit.

Sparkler - I was also a ballet pianist. I got tired of lugging my entire music collection back & forth to class, so I started improvising.

I completely disagree with the concept that you just "make stuff up". Meandering around the keyboard for ten or fifteen minutes might feel good, but most people would find it quite tedious to listen to it.

A good improvisation has structure and is based upon a sound knowledge of music theory. The best improvisations are concise and to the point.

so, next question comes to mind - do classic pianists swing sometimes?

I know I'm pushing...

Well, since you're curious...

I don't really know what else to add about "how" I improvise. Sometimes, my "work" sounds the same, when I'm doing something that's stylistically comfortable anyway--as I've said, I was influenced early on by Cziffra's rather flashy style (though it is by no means nonsensical! Talk about someone who has a firm rhythmic sense, as well as a wonderful, if a little naive, harmonic flavor, and a control of musical structure...) and learned initially by imitating his recorded improvisations, copying his flourishes by ear. I am by no means half as accomplished at the art as he was, although I'm pleased to say that over the years I've learnt quite a bit about moderation and cohesion. When I first tried this style, it was mostly as a way to educate myself about various aspects of music and, mostly, technique. Instead of just playing arpeggios up and down, which got boring quickly, I'd make a little piece, like an arpeggio "etude", and transpose it. Over the years, this process became somewhat second nature for me and I was able to develop a more complicated musical voice of my own. I'm not wonderfully original, though, so I don't think highly of my improvisations as musical inventions, but they continue to be interesting exercises in imagination and technique (although I will also say that I don't recommend this approach exclusively...I have always, and continue to, study the Liszt exercises exhaustively)

I don't really know "how" I do it although I think anyone can do what I do. It just takes a fair amount of familiarity with the musical language and, perhaps, some degree of inspiration. Possibly the best way to start is to do variations. Sometimes I see how many melodies and figurations I can play with just i-iv-V-i progressions over, say, 5 minutes. Nothing complex at all. And it doesn't have to be...but it is a fun way to rest in between technical exercises.

Another way to approach it is to try to "write" a polonaise, for instance, or to "compose" in the style of a composer. I mentioned Villa-Lobos above...once I saw an all-Villa-Lobos piano recital and went right to the piano afterwards and improvised for more than an hour on different ideas I had. I won't say it was "in the style" of Villa-Lobos in an academic sense, but the music had spurred my imagination so sharply that for more than an hour, I improvised music like I had never played before, and I have to say, it wasn't half bad. Not anything I'd put on a CD and sell, but certainly not boring! (and for the love of God, you have to know when it's boring, and if it is....just do the polite thing and stop!)...the same thing has happened multiple times after listening to Sorabji's music. And the key is not to just bang around randomly...you have to feel confident and conscious of every note, and play with conviction, so that nothing sounds haphazard. Then you start expanding your sense of music.

So, to summarize, I either play in a very safe, familiar style, or do something totally new and exciting. But if I bore myself, I just go back to real music...or exercises.

I should mention that you can actually study improvisation - if you don't mind studying with an organist.

I studied Improvisation with a prominant American teacher and have coached with several very fine teachers in France... which is of course where AlexDreamer is located.

Didn't know that . When I will have more free time, I will try to find a teacher in music theory and improvisation


I've only seen one impro from him on youtube but that was impressive !


Where did you find these ? I've only found some of them in his 'Complete Studio Recordings' - but quite expensive for just his improvisations
Anyways thanks for detailing your approach

The American composer Vincent Persichetti was an amazing improviser (and a very good pianist). He would do lecture/demonstrations that involved getting a few notes suggested by the audience, and then he would improvise a full-scale sonata-allegro movement on them. I think in various tape archives there exist recordings of some of these; I really wish someone would compile some of the best of them and release them on CD.

The book "After the Golden Age: Romantic Pianism and Modern Performance" by Kenneth Hamilton has a lot of very interesting information about piano improvisation in the 19th century (and much more).

I often think that all classical piano playing is improvisation, although more or less closely based on a score, with the degree of closeness highly dependent on who is playing.

If my completely-by-ear, theory-less
improvisation sounds bad to players
who "improvise" using set progressions
and theory-based structures, that's
just great. I would be very concerned
if they started to like what they
heard, because then I'd know I was
playing by-the-book and was no longer
being original. What my improvisation
sounds like to others is of absolute
zero concern to me. I'm creating, being
original, really learning about the
instrument and how to play it, and that's
what matters. I already do enough
note-perfect classical repertoire work.
Improvisation is a chance to cut loose
and do some real piano playing for a change.

i'm not a classical pianist.. i play classical music and have put a fair amount of effort into learning how to improvise.. i do that ALL the time with my choir/ensemble - suddenly finding myself having to be tenor at times for instance. i have found so much early church music with no piano accompaniments so to speak.. i play these for pleasure on my piano.

it's difficult actually to play thru something and not improvise or change the music to suit my hands and inadequacies. i don't to have to perform for the purists tho.

all transcriptions are improvisations.

I love improvisation, though I'm garbage at it on piano, don't work at it often enough. I was under the impression that classical musicians are largely non-improvisers. Have heard some stories from friends about excellent musicians who fell apart when asked to do some basic improv.



This attitude is completely alien to me. I believe music is made to be heard, and consideration of the listener to be of core importance to a practicing musician. IMO.

I love his technical exercises, though some of them are so difficult to learn that I don't spend a whole lot of time on them. One of the best is the one in minor thirds.

Well, certainly Cziffra is worth checking out for more than just his improvisations! While I don't admire him as an interpreter for ALL the repertoire he played (for example, you can skip his Beethoven, and his Chopin is highly uneven), his Liszt is indispensable, and his Schumann is underrated, if not on the level of, say, Argerich (though it's worth noting that Cortot enthusiastically endorsed Cziffra's Schumann and Chopin interpretations...which encouraged me to revisit them after previously discarding them; and for that matter I believe Argerich has mentioned Cziffra as an influence). A huge part of why his studio recordings fall flat, sometimes, is because 1) he was really a LIVE performer, and 2) the engineers he worked with just didn't know how to capture the sound, and as a result the piano sounds dull, tinny, bangy...but he really did know what he was doing!

The studio "improvisations" like the William Tell Overture transcription or Valse Triste, were actually more like transcriptions because they had been part of his life for many years and he had developed a fairly standard way of approaching the pieces (though each time he played them it was, of course, somewhat different). The William Tell Overture was worked out after a few hours in a studio, for instance. Also, it uses the Liszt transcription as a loose base, although obviously it is greatly expanded technically (and shifted a half-step down; in my opinion the Eb-minor key signature actually eases the demands a little). This doesn't diminish the impact of the piece, though. It's amazing, to me, how clearly he was able to articulate his thoughts, maintaining an electric disposition and never faltering for a moment--and creating intricate, but not overblown, technical figurations and still controlling the melody. Works like this, and the Fantasie Roumaine (which is a much more original work, despite taking heavily from Enescu's A major rhapsody) really show what he was capable of, whereas the BBC improvisation, while not garbage, is much more chaotic and more about testing the sound and warming up his fingers.

Apart from these studio improvisations (this also includes the Sabre Dance, the Hungarian Dances, the Flight of the Bumblebee, etc...) there are a number of live improvisations available on the internet (and possibly Youtube these days?). Look for his Il Trovatore (which is actually a studio rec, just not as widely available...and extremely good, for the record), Die Fledermaus, and Dvorak improvisations. There's are two, far rarer improvs based on "Carmen" and a few other odds and ends out there that I know of. Also, a 30-minute recording made by his son of some of the strangest jazz improvisations you'll ever hear (Art Tatum meets Liszt, meets Duke, meets...Taraf de Haidouks...).