What is the most important determinant of beautiful playing?

Asking simply that question might lead to a discussion without a definitive conclusion. So at some time later I will provide you with the answer given by Marcelina Czartoryska, Chopin’s student, which of course by no means limits your freedom to express your views instead of trying to guess what she (and presumably Chopin himself) thought about it.

Marcelina Czartoryska (1817-1894) was perhaps the most faithful disciple of Chopin. After his death, she acquired his handwritten notes, drafts for his planned book on the art of piano playing, never finished. She was known as a talented pianist who faithfully conveyed her master’s style. She was asked the above question on one occasion and the answer was documented.

It is not an exercise in research, so please don’t provide what you might have dug out from sources, but say what you think Chopin and Czartoryska might think about it. Or what you think even if it differs from their view.

Sure, this could be interesting.

My first thought was some spiritual quality, the appreciation of beauty and the imagination to bring it to musical life... Then I thought most people probably already have the seeds of that in some degree, if only they could have the ability to get it across - technique (though it seems a glib thing to say).

Then I got to thinking of what would best help develop the ability to communicate the spiritual beauty through music, and if I had to boil it down to one element I would say it's an attentive ear. An ear that can't abide with inadequate playing will sit there, whittle and polish until the music comes out right.

that the pianist should bring out of the piano a human quality, that it should sing as with a human voice

Tone and line.

The simple economy of truth.

A beautiful soul!

A beautiful piano?

That lets out some good but obnoxious pianists I know!

Documentation notwithstanding, who is to say that Ms. Czartoryska's "answer" is definitive? Moreover, beauty is in the eye (ear) of the beholder (listener); unless we agree on what "beauty" is in the context, the question can have a myriad of "correct answers." I'd be willing to wager that no one answer is a "correct answer."

Regards,

I think this is a very personal judgment that will different between individuals. Beautiful playing has to touch me in some way.

I think this is a very personal judgment that will be different between individuals. Beautiful playing has to touch me in some way.

The beauty within that can come out through your playing and shine...

When I first joined the forum, some wise soul suggested I try to play as if I were singing. Since that time, I try to approach my playing in just such a way.

I think first and foremost, one must develop the ability to hear oneself as one plays. Much more difficult than one would think.

Kreisler,



Can you explain what line means in this context for this beginner?

thanks,

Jim

Confession first....I watch American Idol.... there..

When I'm listening to the contestants, I'm constantly relating it to piano playing. Some sing beyond their capabilities, some just 'sing' the words, some sing over the top but then there are the few who sing like no one is watching....that's what gives me goose bumps and makes me wish I could play piano ( even the simplist of pieces) that way..... That would be beautiful playing....

BruceD, we are not talking about absolute, objective criteria of beauty. I don't think Czartoryska or Chopin himself would be so conceited and irresponsible to claim they have definitive criteria for that.

Rather, we are talking about the faculties, or necessary conditions, the pianist should have to be able to play beautifully however he/she understands it and however his/her listeners appreciate it.

As a clue: the answer given by Czartoryska, although perhaps somewhat surprising at that time, is not at all esoteric or amazing in our present understanding. In fact, from what I read here on these forums, pianists generally see that faculty in themselves, and in most cases rightly. And certainly it's a faculty seen in all well-known good pianists.

Kreisler's "tone and line" comment is good. To expand on that a little:

Any non-pianist can play a single tone, or even a chord. But it is the previous tone that defines it's context. Is it a different pitch? Louder or softer? Long or short?

In geometry it takes a minimum of 2 points to make a line, so it is with piano. It is the comparison of the two tones that make music interesting.

Practically, pianists have a collection of techniques to control these relationships. For example:

Not using the pedal when playing lines in the bass to avoid "mudd" i.e. excessive tone overlap
Using subtile rubato to avoid sound machine like.
Observing rests (to let the ear rest)
Accenting important beats to establish rhythm and movement.
Giving the last beat in a measure it's full value (often this last note provides tension leading to the resolution in the next measure)
Anticipation, tension, resolution, and suprize are our tools of the trade


Also understanding your instrument is helpful...when faced with an old out of tune upright, play a march or rag rather than a nocturne, whereas a fine grand gives your lyrical piece a chance to sing.

bump
JAS are you going to enlighten us?

Knowing how to listen

I was going to post "Play like you're singing, and listen to yourself." Well, I think you beat me to the punch.

A recollection by Prof. Stanisław Tarnowski, published in the Przegląd Polski quarterly:

[...] In autumn 1856, Ludwik Wodzicki asked the princess [Marcelina Czartoryska]: “What is the most important determinant of beautiful playing?”

She pondered a while and said: “Intelligence”. We were indignant: Intelligence? That cold faculty, so prosaic and non-spiritual? And what about emotions, inspiration, romantic mood?

The princess smiled indulgently and explained to us, young people: Real intelligence involves emotions, sometimes also inspiration, and then intelligence is in inspiration and inspiration is in intelligence. In regard to musical performance, intelligence is the most important determinant, because performance is not about the performer showing off his or her feelings or stimuli, but about properly representing the composer, so that the piece is conveyed as desired, thought out, and understood by the composer. [...] The performer needs intelligence to understand the ideas, intentions, and emotions of the composer, to have that insight.

I would agree with this and add the ability to execute what you are listening for.

There is a magic to a great artist's inner ear and purpose which transends all but a closed listener.

I was more thinking along the line of a consistent interpretation. It may not even be the line or intention of the composer but if it is consistently interpreted it might still be beautiful.

With consistent interpretation I mean that tone, line, breathing, dynamics, coloration, timing, all musical aspects, are all in line with the interpretation.

But I would like to add that a consistent interpretation is NOT ENOUGH for a beautiful play. I suppose it is personal whether you like an interpretation or not.