Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner When interpretation varies greatly?

Please be kind with my ignorance, I post in an attempt to learn all that I can in order to help my very musical kids that this non-musician has been blessed with. My teenage daughter is currently playing Chopin's Polonaise, Op. 53, in A-Flat. She asked her teacher if she could play it after hearing it on a Van Cliburn CD that we have. Her teacher had her wait a year before attempting it but finally, in May, she got the green light to begin practicing it and has done a good job of getting through it over the summer.

Her desire to play it was based on Van Cliburn's interpretation. Yesterday I picked up a CD of Horowitz playing the piece. It was so different from Van Cliburn's. It left us with a host of questions. How do you know who is correct? Is it a matter of preference? Etc. She plans to discuss it at her lesson, but they use up every second of lesson time for working on her pieces. Should she decide to pursue a music degree, I am sure she will gain greater insight, but we would love to be able to have a more educated discussion now. Any recommendations on other interpretations to listen to would be much appreciated.

There is often quite a wide "stretch" between very conventional interpretations and extreme ones, all the while remaining within acceptable limits.

I would suggest that your daughter not be too swayed by interpretations of others, for, as you remark, even among the so-called greats, there can be a wide range of interpretations possible of the same piece. As your teenage daughter comes to know more about Chopin, about his times and about his composing style, when she understands better what a "polonaise" is, she will undoubtedly develop a personal feeling for the work in question and develop her own interpretation. That, really, is what the learning process is ultimately about.

For me, when I'm learning a new work, I intentionally do not listen to the interpretations of others, preferring to develop my own sense of the work first before hearing what others might have to "say" in their interpretations. That said, I am not a teenager, I have considerable listening experience over many years, so my case is certainly very different from your daughter's.

In the meantime, I think that your daughter should work with her teacher who best knows what she can accomplish within the limits of her current abilities and not spend too much time fretting over how Horowitz or Cliburn or Rubinstein all differ from one another.

Regards,

Both interpretations are correct. The more correct one is the one you like better at the moment you are playing or listening to it.

Okay, what your daughter's teacher is experiencing, along with Youtube downloads, is something the average piano teacher never expected to have foist on them. This same question was broached by a piano teacher and his wife (on the other piano website) who had never experienced this phenomena. And, they were beside themselves with grief.

However, to take it to the next level, I list a link to my video regarding the accurate performance practice of the 19th century, as well as a link to a recording of a man whose piano teacher (Emil Descombes) was a student of Frederyk Chopin.

Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VPgg3armCI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXBz5SLsMw

Thank you Bruce. Very helpful. She is not fretting, nor am I. It just brought up interesting discussion--one that intrigued me more than her, I believe.

Thanks! It was interesting to me that when we listened to the Horowitz version again today, I liked it better than when I heard it for the first time tonight.

Thank you Louis. You video was very interesting! My son will like this because he loves to roll his chords. Thanks also for Cortot's interpretation. My ear is still so unrefined, but I think that Horowitz's version was similar.

A few scattered thoughts.

Interpretation from recordings: As BruceD said, I also don't usually listen to a recording of a piece while I'm practicing a piece, because I want the piece to be mine. Sometimes when I do listen to a recording of a professional, I don't even like what they do because it is "different" than how I play it. That's not to say mine is better. But I do think we should not copy what someone else has already done.

There are things in professional recordings do that amateurs/students could learn from. When listening to other interpretations of the "greats", ask yourself how did that performer achieve that magical effect? Listen to shadings of tone, dynamics, and rubato. The more you know about these details, the more you can add to your own performance.

I've also, when choosing my next teacher, asked them how they deal with different interpretations. Some teachers will tell the student to play a phrase a specific way, while others are more flexible with interpretation. One of my college professors took lessons from a famous concert pianist. This concert pianist would only come once a month, and his lesson consisted of telling his students exactly how to play a piece. Another teacher I had taught three of her students Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue for a competition. Each of them sounded completely different and had their own style, and were so different that everyone was surprised they all took lessons from the same teacher. That, to me, was an example of great teaching.

Some of how teachers deal with interpretation could also depend on the how musical the student is. For those with less musicality, it makes sense that the teacher dictates how something should be played if what the student proposes doesn't work.

Hello 3times2,

It is natural for musicians to 'fall in love' with the approach of other artists and wish to emulate their better virtues. What your daughter could do is to sit with a well educated and empathetic musician and listen to those recordings to assess what it is, exactly, that she likes. Is the way certain phrases are shaped? The use of tempo and rubato? Is it the generally welter of sonority? - every great pianist has their particular 'sound'.

What could be constructive for your daughter is to use comparative analysis of recordings to understand how better to listen to them, and by extension, to herself. Learning to listen to details is very much at the core of a musician's education and development. For instance, if both the Cliburn and Horowitz recordings were played back to back, it would be informative for her to detect how one pedals certain passages in contrast to the other artist in the same passage. This will 'sharpen' her ears enormously.

Here's another perspective on this topic:
The Strad: Personality is no longer encouraged in musical performance

Here's one part of the article:

No harm to listen to the same piece played by Rubinstein, Horowitz, all the previous Chopin Intl Competition winners, other major competition winners, etc. It is, however, essential that student can be guided and explained how and why a particular pianist played in such a way.

Hi 3times2, It is like theatre, no two actors' Hamlets will be the same, although we hope they both remain within the purview of Shakespeare. It is the art of taking a magnificent classic text and making it your own. Cliburn and Horowitz are just the beginning. Listen to lots of pianists on the same piece and let it feed your student's creative imagination. Have fun!

There are some performers with real individuality around today. A few are well-known, others much less so. It's not really surprising that those with individuality - unless they're already famous, like Pletnev (and another pianist who cannot be named ) - decide that discretion is better part of valour, for the sake of their careers. They get criticized frequently - including in this forum.

Here is a young violinist with an individual streak - how many here have heard of her?
http://youtu.be/OF9fneQ50Us

Very interesting article. I wonder if Suzuki training of string players could be part of the reason for such strict observance of the score? I notice the article was originally published in 1983 so I don't know how many string players were Suzuki trained then??

My kids have spent the past several years studying with a wonderful, trained by Suzuki, violin instructor. He is the reason that we try to listen to many recordings of the music the kids are working on, as he encouraged listening to various recordings. Ultimately, however, the Suzuki recording was the holy grail. At Suzuki workshops and institutes, there were hundreds of kids able to perform in concert with little or no practice together and sound beautiful. It seems to me that the outcome of many years of Suzuki training, would be a lack of personality when interpreting the score.

The kids are taking a break from violin this year to focus solely on piano. Their natural talent allowed them to get to a pretty advanced level without much effort, but at least for my oldest, there were not enough hours in the day to practice both instruments at the level necessary to excel on both instruments...and pursue interests beyond music. It has been fun to watch her learn the Polonaise this summer as it is the first piece to force her to really learn to practice.

I can only speak about Suzuki piano, but in my experience imitating the recording is the goal only in the early years. That's to help get basics correct. Even then they're encouraged to make up stories, be more or less dramatic with fermatas and ritards etc. At a more advanced level they listen to varying interpretations.

Make it sound best in your ears. The way you play it has to make sense. Do your own analysis of the piece. But also listen to the recordings and determine what you like and analyse how they do it.

I think the 'don't add personality' approach is nonsense. Unless you play like a robot, you always add something personal. And why bother about playing like a robot: robots can do that better and IMHO robot performances are not worth listening to anyway.