Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Musical Maturity

Have you ever noticed how some pieces don't require just excellent technique but also something else to play well? Something that comes only after years of experience. I think it's what separates the geniuses who can play technically demanding pieces from the artists who truly understand the music.

Some pieces that come to mind are

Clair De Lune, Debussy
Moonlight Sonata, Mvmt.1

Have you observed this, or is it just my odd thinking?

I believe that what you say is true, but putting Debussy's "Clair de lune" in the category of music that requires depth of understanding is certainly ignoring great music for pretty music. "Clair de lune" a lovely piece of musical impressionism, if you like, but it certainly doesn't aspire to greatness.

For works that need life experience and understanding to be interpreted, not just played, I would talk, instead, of the late Beethoven Sonatas, much of Brahms, the Bach Goldberg Variations, the Schubert B-flat major (posth) Sonata along with many other works long before I would consider much of Debussy as profound music demanding maturity of interpretation.

Regards,

Technically demanding pieces played badly may fool the hoi polloi, but musical sensitivity and experience (not geniuses per say) separate the artists from the mechanics.

Edit: I think I posted at the same time as BruceD. But after reading his post, Clair de Lune, like many other massively popular classical pieces, suffer from overly beautiful, catchy melodies that lack depth and texture. Still a great piece, non-musical girls seem to love it, so....

If you take a musically immature individual (whatever that means) and provide that individual with a very detailed road map of dynamics and tempi and that individual successfully follows that road map, you, as a listener hear what?

I think 'Clare de lune' is pretty great. Are you saying 'pretty music' can't be great?

Nothing, if he played on an N3. Just kidding..

On a serious note: To successfully follow a road map of dynamics and tempi needs maturity because no amount of dynamic marking can fully convey what the composer really wants out of it. It takes a mature musician, well versed in the tradition, to execute those dynamic markings in an "authentic" fashion. What "authentic" is, is a judgment for the informed audience to make. The audience, according to you, I think is anybody who listens to you play. If I played Bach with jazzy chords on the left for accompaniment instead of contrapuntal lines, I'm sure there would be a huge appreciation for it by an audience like that but I don't think that reflects musical maturity by any means unless the audience is equally mature.

As Horowitz says: But the score is not a bible, and I am never afraid to dare. The music is behind those dots. You search for it, and that is what I mean by the grand manner. I play, so to speak, from the other side of the score, looking back. That requires maturity. It is the same roadmap given to you and me but he sees it differently from you or me.

To successfully follow a road map of dynamics and tempi needs maturity because no amount of dynamic marking can fully convey what the composer really wants out of it.

Royalties ... ?

I am not at all concerned what is in the mind of the performer, I just listen to the music. I suppose that's why most auditions for major orchestras are held with the performer behind a screen.

Have you ever noticed how some pieces don't require just excellent technique but also something else to play well?

It's very difficult to discuss something that can't be defined or quantified. What is ... something else? You ask ten people and you'll get different answers ... and that makes it difficult to communicate.