In a thread about the different levels of student achievement, Kreisler said:

In the discussion of "Intermediate" he alluded to developing a repertoire, which for classical "includes the greats Haydn, Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Grieg..." in addition to developing technique.

These statements intrigued me. How does a teacher teach or a student learn "interpretation." Doesn't interpretation mean the exposition of artistry. If so, how does one transmit how to do that? Let me use a poetic metaphor. Most people can read "The Night Before Christmas." But if someone recites it in such a way to bring laughter, tears, wonder and dreams of reindeer on the roof, then that person has transcended the words, focused the artistry in their voice and touched the hearers on levels deeper than the audible.

I understand about training someone to use their voice. Breathe. Engage the richness. For those of us who speak "il basso profundo," create reverb. But isn't it the individual, from a "non-intellectual" standpoint that pulls all this together to speak, or recite, in such a way as to evoke emotion or even to incite the hearers to emotional responses?

Isn't the same sort of thing true of the piano? I'm currently working up Rachmaninoff's "Elegie" (Op. 3, No. 1) and have found a large number of interpretations, including the composer himself, on YouTube. The notes are the same, but the music sounds differently. Some, I've listened to only once. Others, I've listened numerous times.

So, if a student says, "How do I play this more longingly?" Or, how do you teach, "I want you to play this more longingly."
How do you respond to, and teach, "I don't feel this music as longing, I feel it as demanding."

I think I'll try some of these types of questions on my teacher at the next lesson and see what happens, but I'd like to hear other thoughts too.

You can lead horses to water.

I think that sums it up nicely.

You can introduce students to repertoire, suggest performances for them to listen to, make them a part of a community to hear and be heard, but ultimately, the student has to take the ball and run with it.

This is about like asking how to teach genius, inspiration, creativity, innovation.

As teachers all we can do is to attempt to show students possibilities, but we have almost no control over what that leads to.

Well, I try to justify every artistic choice I make when I mark up scores. Most of the time I can justify my choices in terms of phrasing contour, compositional techniques, and harmonic analysis. But there are some spots that I just cannot justify via any rational means.

I tell my students to listen to recordings, especially since Youtube makes virtually every known piece available. Imitation is part of the learning process.

Worst comes to worst, I just tell my students to copy what I do. I have a couple of shape-shifters in my studio. It's scary how well they copy.

Hi Farmer Dan,

I'm not a teacher - and not even an advanced student at this point but I had an experience last year that, I think, touches on what you're asking about.

I went to observe a masterclass with Murray Perahia (awesome experience, btw, highly recommend it!)

He had a student playing something by Chopin (sorry can't remember the exact piece).

His first critique was that she was playing it as if it were "personal" - when in reality - it was BIGGER, "national" music. He then demonstrated a different way of playing it, and it DID indeed sound BIGGER, more oomph to it, etc.

Even my little beginner ears could hear the different! Then, he worked with her on technical ways to change the sound (again, not being advanced, most of this was lost on me) - but he was able to get her to play it different.

It was a really neat experience. For me, it was helpful to have someone explaining it (rather than just listening by myself to several CDs). I wish I could remember exactly what he was having her do, but it was nearly a year ago... and since I was not on stage with them...

One thing I do is play their piece several different ways. I read somewhere that Mozart spent a large part of the lesson playing for his students. (Can anybody corroborate this?) I first play the piece just as they did, exaggerating at times for humorous effect. Then I change things and play it my way. I suppose the biggest stumbling block to an original interpretation is the student's fears of being all they can be. So, sometimes, talking with them can help. Another thing you can do is record the student at intervals of several weeks apart.

You have to play the piece as how you interpret it and the thoughts, moods, feelings it invokes in yourself when you hear it. Take a step back and listen to the song many, many times, like 50-100. Sing it in your head so that it becomes a part of you.

This is very common with jazz standards, where each pianist has the freedom to play it how they like. Miles Davis, Bill Evans, Keith Jarrett and Herbie Hancock are masters of this. They can play the same song and change the texture to make it sound completely different.

Play the song as if YOU wrote it.

That's what Mozart says and is the real key. Ask yourself, what do you know about the harmony, counterpoint, melody and social context of the composer whose work you're playing?