Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner That last 10%

Very interesting post. I very recently participated in a discussion of how to convey the music for the audience vs. the pianist wallowing in the sentimentality of the music without projecting it. I think your comment about huge dynamic range and tonal range is spot on. My own teacher is a concert pianist and I have heard him do this and have been stunned by the beauty of it. During a lesson, I often think I am projecting and he keeps saying "You need more." I always seem to hear myself answer back "Really, even more? I thought I was projecting." So, indeed, it seems that part of what I am looking for is learning how to communicate with an audience and also how not to shy away from dramatic tonal and dynamic shifts.

Yes, thank you Damon. My teacher has made a point of this also.


I'm guilty of both. I forget to listen to the ends of notes and I get absorbed in the details rather than the big picture, the larger sweeping phrases.

So far, this thread is giving me what I was seeking. Please continue.

Oh, this brings to mind something I just learned at the VCM Summer Piano Academy. I was listening to Evgeny Kissen on YouTube playing Liszt's "Funeraille". His bass notes are positively frightening. He produces a sense of dread and inevitability that sounds like death approaching. I asked how Kissen was producing that feeling; was he playing the notes late? She told me about this subtle difference: you can play 1. right on the center of the beat, 2. in tempo but a smidge before the center of the beat and 3. in tempo but a smidge after the center of the beat. Kissen was playing after the center of the beat which produced the sense that time is unstoppable and death is inescapable. I'm learning Funeraille and trying mightily to do this. I guess we can add this to the list of techniques that separate us mortals from the immortals. Talk about hard!

This website has some interesting insights on what it is that actually makes a great interpretation:

The Craft of Musical Communication

An acute sense of rhythm (as well as tone color and dynamic gradation mentioned earlier) is definitely another distinguishing factor separating (some) professionals from amateurs, and the best professionals from the run-of-the-mill.

A great pianist doesn't play with rhythmic rigidity - you can't set a metronome to his playing even measure by measure, let alone over the whole piece. A minute delay ('agogic hesitation') - which may not even be perceptible to the listener - can alter the character of a phrase, by pointing up a climax, or a change of harmony, or a twist in the melodic line. Another 'trick' that is used - consciously or unconsciously - is actually to speed up slightly in passages with rapid runs, which heighten the sense of urgency and excitement.

Mikhail Pletnev is a master at manipulating rhythm - listen to his playing of Chopin's Funeral March, and note how he heightens the sense of foreboding and unease in the march rhythm by almost, but not quite, double-dotting it.

Another trick that's used is to slow down passages to convey relaxation - hear Rubinstein's playing of the triplets in the Scherzo's trio of Brahms's Piano Quintet: he broadens them out to convey a feeling of gemütlich, an oasis of calm in between the storm of the Scherzo proper.

Amateurs, on the other hand, are more likely to play strictly in rhythm (except when they encounter technical problems ), too afraid to push and pull for expressive ends.

One thing I always like when I hear it is when a musician has a great sense of a "live" voice.

There's tons of talk about how to make a piano "sing" but there's a specific thing sometimes that happens that reminds me so much of a voice. It's when there's a climax note and the pianist hesitates ever so slightly and reeeeaaaaaches for it. Now, the note is not geographically very far away. Nothing really is on a piano. I can push the highest and then the lowest note with no problem. But that's not how a voice works. It can't just do that. So it changes register more slowly. So that little hesitation and "preparation" for that note reminds me of a voice taking a breath and preparing for that note.

Anything, in a melodic line, that makes me feel as if there's a phrasing that corresponds to a breath or a voice, usually...speaks to me. (Pun intended). It's not often that I'm at the level of mastery of a piece where I can start thinking about those really subtle things, but when I am I like to really think about the phrasing in terms of integrating it with my body's own rhythms.

Or, when there are overlapping melodic lines, the ebb and flow of that really is wonderful to work on. I marked up my Brahms the first day on how I want the voicing/phrasing to go and because I'm not yet totally note steady on it, it's just killing me to not be able to work on that yet! It's also killing me that I'm not good enough yet anyway to do everything I hear in my head--or even most of it--but I can't dwell too much on that. I guess it'll come if I keep working hard.

This reminds me of a TED talk I heard a while back: http://youtu.be/r9LCwI5iErE?t=1m15s

[video:yahoo]http://youtu.be/r9LCwI5iErE?t=1m15s[/video]

Benjamin Zander goes through the difference between age groups, also of beginners vs. intermediate vs. advanced players. He discusses what he perceives as the main differences.

Oh, it's also very interesting how he interprets this seemingly simple Chopin piece. He really gives insight into how he interprets and how he crafts the emotional story behind his performance.

The entire talk is great too. Highly recommended.

In my experience, most amateurs do not have a good understanding of the musical structure of a piece. For example, when taking a repeat it should never sound the same as when it was played the first time. How it is varied is a matter of interpretation, but it should be done in a way that is fits in with the overall interpretation. When I was a child most of the pieces that I learned were for competitions. Most, if not all, competitions required that no repeats be taken so that all the competitors could play in a reasonable amount of time. As a result, I was never taught how to treat repeats. This deficiency is also manifested within phrases. Rarely do you hear amateurs create nuanced phrasing, e.g., slight variations in volume, tempo, and touch that really fit with the line.

I suggest you listen to recordings of, say, Kissin when he was a child and compare them to ones of him playing the same piece when he was an adult. I think this may illustrate things for you.

*sigh* So many things come into play. So many that it seems almost impossible to articulate it all.

First off, one needs an excellently developed mechanism, at least if they are going to play the large scale masterworks. If one doesn't have true physical ease and comfort with the instrument, it's nearly impossible to perform reliably.

Secondly, one needs an excellent technique. "Isn't this the same as number one?" Well, not in my reckoning. While number one might have to deal with the physical comfort and reliability of the pianist, this is entirely a matter of sound. One needs to be able to create whatever sound necessary to fulfill ones interpretative vision. So, this requires an incredible understanding of exactly what the instrument can do tonally. To me, this is why someone like Horowitz is incredible. No, he might not have had the physical ease that a lot of young pianist have today(or maybe he did, but was so focused on creating the sound he wanted that he'd compromise on number one in certain ways), but his understanding of timbre and textural balance and his application of them is something I've never heard duplicated. I'll also extend this to the realm of the "ear" which encompasses the ability to hear the most minute differences in tone.

Next off, is understanding of structure, form, and aesthetics. For me this encompasses the entire intellectual element of music. Theory, harmony, form, structure, history, performance practice, modern and past aesthetics, and anything else I might have forgotten. Like any other language, one must have an understanding of it before it can be spoken. The greater the understanding, the greater the level of excellence that can be achieved in speaking and in expressing through it.

For the sake of brevity, I'll end with vision. Here, one needs to be able to pull everything together to create something that is coherent, convincing, and compelling. Here things aren't so black and white. What exactly is compelling? Well, that's entirely subjective. Really, one mostly only has what they like to use as a steering well. Even with what input you get, there's also the issue of whether you can assimilate it and make it convincing to yourself and everyone else.

You know, I remember talking to someone who was around Argerich when she was practicing. She asked this person about certain passages and ideas. Mind you this isn't someone who would consider themselves of the same caliber, and certainly not of the same fame, but she would listen to the opinions and she would practice accordingly. There is, or was a clip on YouTube of her doing the exact same thing before a performance of Mozart 20th Piano Concerto, so I'd wager this is a common thing for her. To me that's amazing. Unbelievable! That one can constantly be taking in all of these ideas and understand and apply them at the drop of a hat. It's almost beyond belief.

I also recall two clips. One of Hamelin. One of Lisitsa. I'm sure some of you have seen them. Hamelin was practicing the Debussy Prelude General Levine, and he's having no apparent physical trouble. But yet, he playing passages over. Something isn't quite right. The left hand just isn't secco enough. Such small details! But yet he can adjust to get them to sound as fits his vision, and he go out night after night and consistently play the piece pretty much exactly as he wanted and in the process possibly discover something new. What incredible mechanical control that he can do it with apparent ease, but what an incredible ear, technique, and sense of vision that he can hear these small details realize that it doesn't fit his vision and then find the sound that does and consistently reproduce it.

Lisitsa does something very similar in a video where she's taking about Bosendorfers, and she comments about all of these really minute small differences that she finds she can better express to fit her vision. They aren't the largest of changes, yet they make all the difference between a polished interpretation and one that's just "meh".

There are other things that can be added or discussed more in depth(nerves for example) but for me this is a good start.

In general for amateurs I think it's a question of not even knowing what's wrong in their playing. This also applies to most "educated listeners". So their definition of "proficient" or "quite good" is far from a great professional's definition.

I've seen hundreds of masterclasses at Mannes and these have always been for conservatory students (and not necessarily undergrad conservatory students). In masterclasses, very often they are shown to have many specific to the piece and also more general problems in their playing THAT THEY WERE TOTALLY UNAWARE OF.

I saw one of the best masterclasses I have ever seen yesterday where the student played the Schumann Fantasy. The student was about to enter a doctoral program in piano performance. But the master class giver, the phenomenal Alexandre Moutouzkine, showed(in a very nice way) that there were an almost endless list of things the student was doing wrong. Of course, the student was not aware of these problems even though her playing was far beyond 99+% of amateurs.

So besides the obvious difference in technical ability between most amateurs vs. top professionals(and these differences can be apparent in relatively easy works), there is a degree of musical understanding that is far wider than most realize.

Technical problems are more obvious. If one cannot play the notes up to speed or with the sound one wants it is obvious to the person doing the playing. Musical deficiences are much less obvious because it's a case of not knowing what's wrong.

Are we talking objectively wrong or subjectively wrong though?

You can approach an objective evaluation by the sum of subjective perceptions as the mean subjective perception. This is how a "general opinion" is formed, even though it is still subjective.

Objectively wrong.

In other words, all things are subjective, yes? Well, that might be true, but I wanted an opinion with such distinctions even if they aren't necessarily solid.

Yes, do you see that as impossible?

Oh, excuse me. I did realize that wasn't in the form of a question?

Not at all. But you can evaluate something that is subjective such that the mean perception can be considered objective given a scope, though this does not mean that all things are subjective, which is false.

I was generalizing. Though you could probably consider such a perception objective, it's still subjective. Is it not?

I did fleetingly make such considerations before I asked.

I think that the missing 5% (or 10%) is the answer to the simple question: WHY?

I'll provide an example.

I've always been good at notating scores. Lovely little things came out of my computer, and previous to that from my trusty pen and manuscript. Up until finishing my PhD in composition, I've thought I was excellent with notating. And it IS a PhD people! Not some random degree... :P

Then came a work that included illustrations and is a "best seller" according to what I sell... And then a PM from amazing Kreisler (which is awesome).

Hitting the earth from that far high is really really hard, especially if you're as big as me!

What was wrong? In a word EVERYTHING! For those who might own an old copy of Sketch Music (in white cover) will notice how many errors are there: Errors in the metronome markings, errors in some notes, actual missing time signatures in at least 4 works!

Swallowed my pride and sent every client a new copy with everything corrected! Now that I look the corrected score I would've done the whole layout different!

_______________________________

First thing is that we learn as we go on. Ok, that's obvious enough.

BUT. The answer to the question WHY? was missing when I first published Sketch Music.

You see, up until that point I had only done non commercial scores. Scores for a university (at whatever high level). The answer to the question was "because the university requires me to". And my proof reader was my coordinators and supervisors. Yeah right... :P

Now I realize that they never bothered to correct anything!

Now the answer has changed to "for the general public". And this means that I have to be 100% prepared for any critic, for any bad mouthing, for anyone holding a grudge to me, or anyone else in EMF for that matter.

But, the scores we (<-notice the change?) now are very very good!

________________________________________________________

Same thing happening with a pro pianist, and ends up as a second nature! You may be the awesome amateur pianist, but the missing 5% (10%) is experience as a pro, and falling flat on your face at least once!

In Greece the access to decent concert hall is almost down to zero! There's only two, all in the same building, and they don't come cheap! So even if you DO own the best darn piano in the country, you won't be able to get the sound you want, or the experience you want, unless you're ready to play in the Megaron Athens Hall. And if you don't have audience in there you won't be able to get the same feeling and the same experience either.

There's no way around that, I think.

With certain things, yes. For instance, one can fall under the delusion that some genre of music is objectively "bad" and "distasteful", which is actually a subjective perception (not an objective reality).

We can describe this "polishing" topic like so:
Objective reality: "I play this piece in some way such that these notes are struck with this velocity at this time for this duration, etc."
Subjective perception: "The resulting music sounds 'unpolished'."

These are all great posts. Please keep them coming.

@bennevis, I finally had time to listen to the clips you suggested. Did you notice how Horowitz plays on the tail end of the beat? This gives it a lush quality.

@neuralfirings, the Ted talk was very interesting, (and amusing).

Sure, but this depends on taste, does it not? Hence it's subjective?