Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum Classical Sonata Analysis

I don't write things into the score either. I do not practice in the way you do. Practising with the score also does not involve what you described practising with the score to be like. The POINT is that practising can be done in various ways, and this is a very important point, so that nobody comes away with the idea that memorizing is imperative, or that memorizing is bad.

Can you give a link to what you'd like us to listen to?

Here's mine. I think you'll find that it has musical qualities and feeling such as you describe. My main handicap atm is getting at technique because I have just begun learning this side of it. It is important for members to know that memorizing is just ONE avenue to playing, because this is a site for people learning.

a piece played not memorized - Tchaikovsky

How do you know how to play it? Do you work it out at the keyboard as you're playing it or memorise it beforehand or something else?

I doubt anyone practises the way I do. I'm describing here how I go about practising. I hope I don't give the impression that this is how everyone does or should go about it. Every piano instruction site I see has a different method and/or varieties of methods. Our methods must be tailored to our own ways of making progress. Mine has evolved over time and is still evolving (faster since joing PW than at any time in the past).

The giant strides I've made in the last year all stem from reading how others go about practising, trying those methods out and recording the results.

Yes it does. Maybe not for you but it does for me. I'm not lying and I'm not trying to deceive anyone here. I'm exacty the same reciting poetry, lines from a play or reading from the Bible at Mass.

When I read, whether I know the lines or not, I go too fast and with less expression. I also miss lines when my eye jumps to the wrong one, I recognise the words and say them before I realise I've jumped a line. Many actors/people suffer this trait.

Is this what you mean?
Twice I've noted that it pertains specifically to me.


Chopin Nocturne in Eb, Op. 9 No. 2 (5.5 MB)

Liszt Consolation No. 3 (5.5 MB)

This is the piece in the latest ABF Recital, #35 of 55, but here is alternate link.

Grieg Notturno, Op. 54 No. 4 (4.1 MB)

Richard, a quick one first:



This is important. I did suspect that some people might think this is how everyone should go about it. That's why I posted. I can actually relate to some of the things you described, such as staring off (at a squirrel snoozing on a tree branch) on some occasions for some playing - the important thing is for people to realize that this doesn't have to be what they end up doing. I can remember when I was a beginner, I would take what "seniors" wrote very seriously, and more precisely than they intended.



Yes. Thank you for highlighting that. I think that it is good in forums to note, "This works for this person. Let me see if it works for me." As, in fact, you have been doing yourself.



About this


That is quite interesting. I have to think about that. My mind made a jump to bedtime stories, though my children are grown now. Since I also used to teach, and reading skills is part of primary school material, I am suddenly intrigued. What is it that we process when we read out loud, and how is it for other people. As I am writing this, I actually "hear" a rising tone at the end of a question. Do others hear words as they read or write?

Not sure what or whether I hear when reading to myself silently. But I feel pretty confident that I do a good job reading aloud from text. I do observe from preachers giving sermons that they invariably sound different when reading vs. extemporizing, but that's not entirely comparable because extemporizing doesn't involve memirized words so much.

Two years ago at a training I gave a riveting reading, from the text, of the Athanasian Creed.

Not quite sure what that all adds up to, except that I think there may be different experiences for different people at using text (or score) vs. not using iit. For example my weaker ear compared to Richard I think means that certain aspects of playing from memory are much harder for me than they are for him, and that may tilt the balances in favour of a more expressive rendition from the score, at least unless I've put in a truly huge amount of time on memorization, and maybe even beyond that.

If we were in person I wonder if some of this would get discovered more easily. For example if we were in a lesson Richard might say "sing m. 55" and I would comply. Then he'd say "ok now play it" and I'd reach for A or G or B instead of Bb at the end. And he'd say "you know how the passage sounds, why did you play that note?" and I'd say "knowing how it sounds doesn't tell me hardly anything about which notes to play." And then right there we'd have discovered this difference, instead of having it lurking in the background unsuspected for months.

It doesn't mean I can't work mostly the way Ruchard does (which I am truly interested in trying), but it does mean that I'll experience parts of the process differently from how Richard experiences them.

Thank you for sharing this. I especially enjoyed the Consolation. I can feel the passion that you write about. Something that I liked in particular is that the expressiveness is not just in the melody where we expect it, but there is a certain ebb and flow in places in the RH as well, which colours the whole.

Answering Richard (sorry - took a while)



Like you, I've been working on how to work on things. I'll share the whole process.

This piece was actually different than most recent pieces. For example, I did a Guaraldi, which is an unfamiliar genre, and I did not have a feeling for that piece so I had to do things deliberately such as "this phrase repeats 3 times - how can I make it interesting? How about with dynamics and rubato?" (and get help with that.)

The piece I posted (and reposted here for reference) was lyrical, and as a singer I had immediate impressions. It's within my sight reading level so I played through part of it to catch whatever raw impressions were there, right or wrong. This is part of that first play-through of a section. (exploration)
first ever playing, to explore

I could draw out what I was hearing for phrases and high points, but it was all exaggerated.

This is the actual score:
link to score

The next step was to analyze it and work with it. The phrases were clear. I had to get technique for the LH because you are playing the off beat eighth notes softer than the quarter notes, but with the same hand. I had to work with this specifically.

In analysis, it is ABA, and in the B section, the LH takes over, the melody. The LH quarter notes create a countermelody to the melody, and have to be brought out. It should have a steady pulse (so the weird slow-downs of first playing had to go). A problem in interpretation is the fact that the first theme starting C,D,E repeats four times, totally the same. How do you make it interesting? Answer: use the soft pedal the 2nd and 4th time. Pedal was important.

For practicing, I'd need to get the basic notes, easy movement, steady pulse, correct timing before interpretation, like an underlying skeleton. That is how I am working these days.

practice (stage 1) In sections chunked into smaller sections. I worked especially on moving the LH well. My goal was to have it solid technically, so I was going mechanical. If this is solid, then when you had musical things, you don't lose other things.

When that was done, I recorded again. Here the pulse is stead, the notes are there, pedal is correct or mostly correct, and no tension in the LH. This is the same section as before.
recording - basic pulse & notes stage

analysis for music - and practice (stage 2)

Now it went into details. Phrase 2 will insist more than phrase 1. Linger on the first note of the phrase, the others become shorter because you want to keep the pulse. The poco ritardando in m. 6. Use the soft pedal when the phrase repeats. At m. 16, go ultra-soft in the LH because you really want the melody in the LH to stand out in m. 17. Linger on certain notes. If LH and RH are melody and countermelody, bring out the same dynamics in both hands, but a bit louder in the main melody.

Again I worked in small sections on these details and then brought them together. I borrowed my son's microphone for this, because the iPod was "equalizing" the dynamics.

Ok - now about READING... As I looked at the score, certain notes associated themselves with the interpretation. If I look at mm 1 - 2, I see a phrase, I see the notes arch to a high point. I see the 3/4 beat and the C that I want to make linger. I associate the eighth notes with a softer sound. Because of how I practised, the notation "picture" is full of landmarks and reminders.

This is the final result from this process. I used a microphone instead of iPod to record this last time.
recording - final - performed with score

In this instance you've predetermined the phrasing and associated it with the sight picture of the score. What do you do when the score is not so conveniently laid out? Do you write in then or do you desperately try to use the sight picture as a reminder and how is this different, fundamentally, to writing it in? I still think you're memorising it.

You're practising playing it using phrasing that's worked out independently of the score and memorised even if the score itself is used to generate reminders.
_____________

Also with apologies for tardiness. I've been away with relatives for St. Patrick's while the boys enjoy a long weekend without school.
_____________

So, where are we now? We can go on to the last movement of the Haydn though I don't think there's much there that adds to our knowledge of his musical language or the progression of sonata form.

We can look at the Dvorak Humoresque as our 'easy' piece, move onto the Mozart sonata or try something completely different!

Any voices?

We all start out that way. It's a piece of music and it has a recognisable tempo. Slow it down as much as half speed and it may lose much of it's purpose.

But that's not it.

Speed isn't important. Not in any practical exercise we do. Mechanical success is all we start with. You need to be going slowly enough that you know what hand and finger movements are required to get to the next note correctly and accurately. Nothing else matters. Once you've done it enough times you can do it without having to prepare every note of a chord or a run but you still need to consider the group, no longer as unfamiliar notes now but as a known pattern/group/chord-shape.

Still there's conscious thought behind each section/subsection and this (the conscious thought) needs time.

Eventually, after enough repetitions, there's no need to make conscious decisions to play it. The right notes come almost of their own accord. At this stage half-speed is a realistic target. The additional time required for mentally ensuring accuracy heretofore is immense and simply cannot equate to rhythmic work or be constrained to metronomic assistance. Slow doesn't begin to describe it.

The difference between half-speed and full tempo is minuscule. Half-speed seems very slow - but it's rocket speed compared to thinking time.

Begin without rhythm, only sequence: <thinking time> - <mechanical action> - <thinking time> - < mechanical action>. Only when thinking time is short enough can you begin to introduce any recognisable form of rhythm and only when it can be replaced by nervous impulse can half speed be viable. It sounds slow and maybe unmusical but all the work is now done. It is not a starting speed. It is the last step but one on the journey of which mere repetition is the final requirement.

Richard, I went into detail and in steps, in answering your question, and I went beyond your question. It includes some valuable things that I have learned along the way the past 5 or 6 years from teachers and musicians, and what I do is a blend of all of these things. Since you are as interested in new ideas as I am, I hope that some of it might be useful.

In this particular case I did not associate with a sight picture. For this kind of music I have audiated for decades. I look at the score, and either I hear the music instantly, or it flows into my fingers in some way I can't describe. I have had to learn an entirely different way of reading music which is more conventional, and am fortunate in the guidance I got. One "inconvenient" score I am working on longterm is Debussy's feuilles mortes. Technical weaknesses are holding me back from completing it.


What is it that I would write in? (This is an actual question).


No, and to answer this I must also go into how I have learned to practice and how I practice now. That would be too long.

OK, I get that and relent.

The dynamic level relative to the surrounding notes and the quality of touch but it's irrelevant now in light of the above.

Why are we all assuming that Richard is some genius who can play a piece perfectly after reading the score or hearing the music once? How do we know he's even qualified to give lessons? He's never even claimed anything people are assuming about him.

Richard, you have again taken small bits of what I wrote. My process is more multifaceted than that. If you try to reduce it to any one thing, you won't get it. The "either I hear.... ", that is PART of something much larger. I don't want to re-explain everything. You really do have to go through it.
The dynamic level relative to the surrounding notes and the quality of touch ...
[/quote]
What I do is not "memorize" - but I do process it. For example, something to which you might relate - If you see a cadence, does that not make you want to emphasize the V7 and then settle and relax into the I? Does the very appearance of a cadence not set up that kind of reaction, even in prima vista pieces?

We have been doing all this analysis. What is it for? Do you, yourself, use it when you work on a piece? For example, you isolate a phrase. Phrases usually have an ebb and flow to them - high points etc. Well, look at the sentences here. Capital letter..... words ........... period. That complete structure of a sentence tells us to drop our voice at the end of the sentence, and that there is a complete thought. We see it in one swath. In part, it is like this.

I don't think any assumptions are being made.So, not sure where you are getting this idea.

This thread has over one half year of history now. Many of the active participants throughout this duration I believe have a fairly clear understanding about knowledge and expertise levels of others on the thread, and due respect for same. I don't believe there is any more to it then that.

I did go through your process, keystring, several times, but I quoted only what was a key point in my understanding of the whole.

Yes, I analyse my pieces. What I can't do at a brief look at the score, and certainly not while I'm trying to play it, is get the fine details and work up a phrase as a coherent whole that makes sense to me. There's too much that I can overlook or mis-read. Quick examples in the Chopin Nocturne are the break in legato in the middle of M9 as it goes to PP or the careful phrasing of M29.

I can't remember those kinds of detail without working out what is being said and how. It's like finding the subtext in Shakespeare. I have to look beyond the text if I'm to understand what the intent is behind it and mean it instead of simply speaking it.

Goodness, no! I at least have to try twice and it helps if I sleep in between.

Thanks, Richard. One thing to keep in mind is that we cannot actually understand a process in words, or transmit it in words. That is why teachers want some instructions to be followed as given, so that the experience itself will teach what is underneath it. When I try to understand something I read, I cannot help but imagine it from wherever I am coming from. I do know that what I described did not come across, given your conclusions, and will just have to leave it at that. I already know the inherent problem.

Cantata 147 – Bach / Hess

Andante moderato (walking moderately)

My initial observation in listening to a choral presentation is that it is like a question (or statement) by the orchestra and a response from the choir. Further research reveals:

“It is two separate pieces spliced together.  What is done, is part of the prelude is played and then a line of the choral, then part of the prelude, a line of the choral, and so on.”

“Contrary to the common assumption, the violinist and composer Johann Schop, not Bach, composed the movement's underlying chorale melody, Werde munter, mein Gemüthe; Bach's contribution was to harmonize and orchestrate it”

“Bach did not want the accompaniment to overwhelm or take anything away from the choral's lyrics.  In fact, a video on Bach stated that he didn't want his church music to overwhelm the words of worship”

They had video ?

“The prelude ... is very majestic and stately.  But, since it doesn't want to take away from the lyrics, it truly, doesn't give the complexity of Bach's other works, but for this piece it fulfills its purpose.”

To try and label the sections I would call it ABA with a coda. It is difficult to identify the start and end of these sections as there is so much repetition and not much variance in the sections.

In the key of G major and I believe we move through D major on page 3. There is perhaps a little more going on here though as the G# has me a little bothered. I haven't ventured this far in the piece to figure out the chords here. The modulations (if any) may make more sense when I get to playing this section. Otherwise the chords are not very complex and there is a typical V-I (D major to G major) to close the piece.

That's what I think. No need to linger here though. I'm working on it slowly and I don't think the greatest selection for analysis.

Is this a piece that everyone is already working on? If so, do you know around what date it was introduced? I'm assuming that there is a link to the piece since we have been spoiled that way in the past. Atm I cannot follow the analysis, without this basic information.

No, just me I think. I started working on it and had a couple of questions about it. Richard said if you want to analyze and post your findings to go ahead. So, I finally did.



The discussion started (with score download and performance) on March 1st with post # 2041315

Ok, I'm up to speed now. Thanks. If I remember history right, there were chants, and they needed to be harmonized. When the Protestants broke away from the Catholics in their various forms, church music had to be created, and Bach essentially harmonized existing melodies - both religious chants and melodies taken from popular music. That gives us the chorales. It seems this is what was done with "Werde munter, mein Gemüthe" by Johan Schopp, as you wrote.

I was hoping to find Schopp's work, but what I found instead was something by Pachelbel. I've been listening back and forth.

Here's a Bach version
Bach

Here's Pachelbel
Pachelbel

One on organ
organ

none of them your Bach / Hess version - but it might give us some historical background.

For that one - here is something astounding - organ and trumpet!
organ and trumpet
This is how I heard it first; orchestra and choir
choir and orchestra

Not that this is at all helpful for your playing it. But what you wrote made me curious.