A NEW KIND OF STYLE

Hi guys!

I am currently learning m. clementi sonatina op 36. no 5. I don't actually like its dynamics so i changed it became more expressive and legato, more of chopin I think. But I feel I am disrespecting clementi because of it.

do you think its fine?

In my opinion, unless you are playing in public or for exams or something, you can play it any way it makes YOU happy.

I don't think Clementi will care.

+1

I tend to agree, but I will also say this: if your goal is to become a better pianist and musician, then one of your focal points should be on learning to play as many styles of music as you can, from baroque through modern. To do that, you must learn the style as the style was intended to be played. Otherwise, it would be like learning the words of a foreign language, but not the pronunciation. You're really only learning half of what you set out to learn.

This, with one caveat:

It's okay to change certain things in pieces...that's why we have many different interpretations for every piece out there.

However, I want to point out that this is for INTERPRETIVE purposes. It shouldn't end up being a crutch to play pieces that are too hard for you, which is what a lot of people end up doing. I don't think that's necessarily the case for the OP (as who in their right mind would choose Clementi Sonatina #5 for a piece to learn as something beyond their level?), but it is something to think about.

So always ALWAYS be able to play it the 'right' way first. If you can't play it right, then you can't actually play it. If you can play it right... well, the old adage goes something like "First learn the rules. Then break them."

At first this seemed a little harsh, but I assume what you mean is that until one can play something the right way, one cannot claim to be able to play it. (One can, however, perform it for themselves and other consenting adults?) The reason I'm interested is because I'd like to understand what level of perfection is necessary before I can claim, "I can play ...". How do I know when I am "playing it right"?

Yes, that is what I meant - as in, one can't claim to be able to play it.

Of course, one can choose any song and play it at whatever speed/quality they want to. But that's not really 'playing' it, often. Can't pick up the Winter Etude as your first piece and play it sixteenth note mm=50 and say you're playing it.

I don't think there is one answer to when you can claim whether you know something. If you think you know it, ask someone who will know whether you know it if they'll take a listen and let you know if you know it. Know what I mean ? I don't mean for it to be as clear-cut as it sounds, of course, but there are definitely varying levels of being able to play something that all count as being able to actually play it.

ETA: Remember, my post was directed to people who just grab a piece and change it IN ORDER TO ENABLE THEIR ABILITY TO PLAY IT. It doesn't have to do with interpretative changes or decisions, or even not having a piece perfected.

I think it's perfectly OK to play something wrong as long as you know it's wrong and not thinking that's how it's written and doing it wrong...if that makes sense. Chances are you're not playing for a bunch of stuffy music professors (apologies to all the stuffy music professors out there ), so play it how you like. If you ever play it for someone, just call it your own "arrangement" of a popular classical piano piece.

thanks guys and this clementi sonatina if actually fun to learn especially mvt 1. I will almost master the sonatina and ill give a beep when it's done.

Its quite a busy month I have.

Do as you please really in private... But make sure you understand how the 'right' way sounds and should be (like others said). Then do as you please. Learning the piano means being able to decipher the information in a score in front of you. If you can do that you're fine to do whatever you want with it later on. If you can't then you should focus on learning that first and the doing as you please...

I don't know that my teacher is aware of this actual quote, but if he were, it would be by far his favorite in his teaching method.

Thanks, everyone. As I considered my question over night, I came up with a definition that seems to agree with the responses you have given me.

You are playing a piece the right way if you can perform it for your intended audience and they don't laugh at you.

And of course, you can only claim to be able to play the piece to this audience of suitably impressed and somber people.

Well .....I think I would modify that just a bit ...

You are playing a piece the right way if you could perform it for the AUTHOR and he/she would not laugh at you.


After that, play it for any audience you like and you won't worry about what their reaction is.

Ouch! Now that is really setting the bar high.

Play the notes as printed with dynamics, articulation and phrasing that don't disagree with the score and then you'll hear what the composer is telling you. Then you can decide if you can say it a better way.

well said.

So until I can play a piece exactly as indicated by the score, I can't claim to be able to play it. OK. Got it. Thanks.

Still not quite there!

Until you can play a piece exactly as indicated by the score you can't claim to be able to play it exactly as indicated by the score.

The point is you should read or play what the composer wrote and understand what he's saying before you change it.

You can change it to make it easier if you like. You can change it because you don't like the way it's written. But you shouldn't change it before you've got the message.

I appreciate your patience in explaining this. I think I've now got the correct message.

Yes, I do think it’s fine.

There are countless ways of being a musician or being musical and the most important of these is to provide pleasure for yourself. If someone had dropped me a fiver every time I was persuaded to learn the rules before breaking them I’d probably by now be able to take a week’s vacation in a resort of my choice. It’s a principle I’ve consciously rejected without, I believe, coming to any harm.

Of course, there are countless musical objectives also and arguably the best route for some of these (e.g. 'excellence') would entail the systematic and disciplined approach discussed here. I can’t disagree with that (because I simply don’t know and I’m not nor will I ever be, nor am I aiming to be, ‘excellent’) but curiosity and experiment are parallel pleasures which can only be effectively served by doing one’s own thing. Not forgetting that doing one’s own thing can be a pleasure in itself. In any case, a destination can often be reached via several paths. An entirely formalised one might be unsuitable or less efficient for those with maverick instincts.

The inspectorate charged with examining the claim “I can play this” is another matter entirely – and not a particularly interesting one. I’m fairly sure Mrs. Tonic sets the bar quite low.

dire tonic,

What's "bad" about what you say is that you can get people grabbing a bunch of very difficult pieces, plunking through them, and then saying "They can play them and I don't know if you don't like it because I like it and this is all subjective and NYAHNYAHNYAHIAMAWHINYBABY."

Because, really, that is what happens. They don't have to say those exact words to sound like a whiny baby, but chances are, they will sound like one.

Which is okay. I never think people shouldn't try to play hard pieces just because they want to; but it shouldn't be done with the idea that just ANYTHING is okay and peachy. There are standards; disregarding them in practice is one thing. Disregarding them in principle is another.

With all this, the idea is, you can't improve if you don't try. Having that crutch is what holds people back and they'll never really get to the level they hope to. If you think "Learn the rules before you break them" isn't a smart idea, then I'm going to guess you really haven't improved much in any area of your endeavors.

Wow.

Cathy

- not even in an itsy bitsy teenie weenie area of my endeavours?

Maybe a itsy bitsy teenie weenie area.

My point is, you shouldn't strive for never bettering yourself (whatever that may mean). And you can't improve if you never have goals or an idea of how something can be made better. Part of that is not just the subjective "anything I like is better" because people fall into the trap of playing the Winter Etude at sixteenth note = 40 mm, one-handed forever, just so they can say they "played" it.

Of course, I think this applies to everyone, including myself. It wasn't meant to be an attack on you personally. "You" as in the general you, and all that.

Of course, but that has diddly squat to do with my point which is about eschewing rules, not descent into sloth.

Like I said in my post, it's one thing to do something because you cannot vs. being able to and choosing another sound. Which is it for you?

Some tasks look to me like the vertical face of the Eiger so I don't even try. Others I might attempt then give up as it dawns on me that it will be time wasted for the level of satisfaction achieved. Then others are borderline.....but I’m not sure I've understood your question, Morodiene. I don't know what you mean by "choosing another sound".

The OP talked about playing in a new style, meaning making something sound the way they want it to rather than a more traditional approach might be - at least that is what I got from the OP. So if you are making a sound that is different on purpose, I'm all for that. But if you make it because you are not able to od otherwise, then I think perhaps you are short-changing yourself.

But doesn’t that lead to a paradox of opportunity where those who have the skills to play a piece as intended needn’t do so while those who lack the skills to play as intended can do nothing?

For the aspiring virtuoso it perhaps makes sense to do things ‘properly' in a coherent order and to be patient, but if it’s all for personal pleasure, why impose a regime? As I remember it, the sheet music industry had a profitable sideline turning out easy arrangements of most of the tricky well-known classics just for those who wanted to play for the fun of it. Even serious students must have played some of these on their way up.

In any case, whether we are deadly serious or just it in for the fun, we can still make leaps and bounds while engaging in music recreationally. Such leaps may not always be in approved directions but if they lead us to focus our minds on tasks which we deem important for ourselves I see no evidence that it matters.

This is from a self-taught perspective. I can see how it might not correspond with that of a teacher.

Well, obviously you can play things any way you wish to.

The problem with doing that is that it may tend to keep you playing things at a very comfortable level which may prevent growth as a player.

You've heard of "no pain, no gain" ?

It applies to almost anything in which there is some level of effort required in order to achieve various levels of skill.

When you play things "the way you want" or "with your style", you have basically decided to bypass the effort required to gain the skill needed to play it the way the author intended.

That is fine but it also may rob you of the joy of playing with a higher level of expertise.

If that does not matter to you ... have at it.

I'm in two places with this. I spent a lifetime playing music as I imagined it since I was untaught, though this was influenced by the "classical" music that I heard on the radio. Late in life I discovered the formal bits. Knowing that there is such a thing as meter, the general nature of Baroque vs. Romantic, that "dance form" originally had a dance to it, those things allowed me to use these elements to bring out more in the music. It was still a creative process. I also learned that opinion can also swing to a rather rigid direction. There are purists who insist that Baroque must be played in only one manner, or that tempo or dynamic and phrase markings must be adhered to, to the letter. One hears such "perfect" playing which is also devoid of life.

What I prefer (and am getting) is to understand what is beneath music and use it. That includes understanding style and periods, but not in a strict formulaic way, and definitely not just through dynamic markings.


We don't know how Music-P is playing it, or what dynamic markings s/he means. I remember that the phrase marks were discussed in the teacher forum a while back, something about them being unnecessary or getting in the way, preventing a better playing of the piece. There was also something about the student thinking about and working with the piece. But that would also be guided thinking and working. That goes full circle to the idea of knowing what is underneath it.

The OP said they wanted to change the dynamics of a Clementi sonatina to sound more like Chopin, so that is what I am addressing. It sounded to me like the OP was saying they are choosing to make the dynamics more Romantic and dramatic than perhaps a Classical sentimentality would allow. I was stating that is not a problem so long as the conscious decision was being made to do so by the pianist because of a desire to make that kind of sound, rather than say someone who ignored dynamic markings because they were too lazy to work them out.

edited to add: as a teacher, I have yet to encounter someone who is incapable of doing dynamics. It may be harder for some than others, but every student I've had is capable of them.

First problem: are the dynamics, articulations, and phrasing the ones that the composer put in there? Or are you seeing something put in by an editor, or could it even be an arrangement to make it easier for a student?

In fact, if you have a musical vision then you have become capable of fulfilling it. You will need to get the technical ability - technique - to carry out what imagine. If self-taught, you will also discover that there are musical principals beneath what you are imagining, which you have to get. All of this will go full circle toward serious and sometimes painful study. That study might actually be heavier than any preconceived traditional route.

People are talking about the student who takes shortcuts and bends to music to be able to play it effortlessly. I think that is a different thing.

Yes, of course, to all the above but I’m not in any respect advocating an easy way out, nor am I talking about what matters to me, rather I’m trying to get across a more general point about priorities.

That those who approach music recreationally are just as capable as those who approach it 'seriously' of being assiduous in their efforts but that their focus (in recreation) is oftentimes diverted to other aspects of their musicianship which they see to be important and which they are passionate to pursue. This could be true, for example, of any of the outstanding rock or jazz musicians of our time. It could also be true of any of the members of ABF who want to become ‘good at something’ other than playing a classical piece exactly as was intended.

Music consists in more than just gaining the specific skill you outline. It consists in more than one expertise.

I agree. There are many varied ways to pursue music and to become very knowledgeable and skilled with whatever you enjoy doing.

I guess this discussion revolves around your opening statement ...



I guess I would say that if you are not playing it at least close to the way the author intended, you are not really learning "IT".

You are learning something of your own creation. To be sure, you may be using the same notes, or most of them, but it is not the same piece.

So, it is all about the meaning of "learning" a particular piece. Most will consider "learning it" to mean learning to play it in the manner intended by the author. If you wish to learn a different way to play it, fine ... but you will be misleading most others if you say you are "learning" the piece or have "Learned" the piece ... when in fact, you have not.

Bottom line: We have not heard the OP play, so we don't actually know what s/he is doing. We also don't know what the OP thinks the music is calling for. It is possible that the "deviation" might actually be close to how it should be played, and the "correct version" imagined is something that is way too dry and mechanical. We don't know.

Absolutely True.

Why can't someone make a sound that is different on purpose from one he doesn't like as much as the one he imagines when he hears it (or even haphazardly discovers trying to play it as written) and still not be able to reproduce a sound he's not particularly interested in making? And who are you to judge whether a person is shortchanging themselves? Maybe they are serving themselves better than they (or any pedagogue) could any other way, by having found an occasion and perhaps the most direct path (for them!) to hearing what they need to hear and creating what they need to create?

People draw inspiration and find their muse from all sorts of arbitrary external sources. As one poet put it, a lot can depend on " a red wheel barrow glazed with rainwater beside the white chickens." Why not on a piece of music they never found themselves motivated to play as written?

Look to Morodiene's and dmd's post to see exactly what it has to do with your point.

In fact both dmd and Morodiene have drifted away from the issue which interested me but in any case neither of them has claimed that the rejection of formalized (i.e rule-based) study is an impediment to self-betterment.

You’ll have to make your own case.

I think you are misconstruing what I'm saying because I'm a teacher. Please read what I've said. I am perfectly OK with someone doing something because they like the way it sounds (whether discovered by mistake or on purpose). What I'm saying is if they don't know HOW to play piano or don't want to bother it, I think they are missing out on finding even more satisfaction and capability of expressing themselves. So I JUDGE they are shortchanging themselves. Judging isn't a bad word, and it condemns no one. It's an opinion.

How you miss this, I won't understand, but I guess I won't hold it against you: rules come from practice which in turn sets a standard. Standards, of course, can be broken. But if you can never play the standard, what claim do you have to say you're playing it? More so, if you're enabling yourself by changing something only so you can 'play it,' how are you ever improving? You aren't. You'll be stuck in a trap of enabling yourself to adjust everything else to your own level instead of pushing your level.

And you bring up simplifications as if that's the point - that just sounds thick-headed to me. You can play something simplified badly just as you could with anything difficult. We're talking about what's on the page.

If you still don't understand, I'm afraid you never will.

By the way, you sound like a troll.

You know, over in the teachers forum someone called you on your tone of voice. It wouldn't hurt, kayvee, IMHO, if you thought about the same issue here in the ABF.

Just sayin' -

Cathy

Nowhere in this discussion has anyone talked about playing music differently out of an inability to play it in an expected manner. Nor can you or any of us here know the abilities of anyone posting here, unless we have actually heard what these people can or cannot do.

This is the second time you have attacked a member of ABF (who by the way has been here quite some time.)

Remember the words of thumper: if you can't say something nice don't say nothing at all.

As a supposed teacher could you not refrain from personal attacks? Poor professionalism.

You seem to have really knotted yourself up. What could you possibly mean by:-


Do you mean rules are derived from practice? Surely rules precede engagement?
Can you cite just one example of a rule which 'comes' from practice?



As I hinted earlier, I leave it to others to argue the claim “I can play this”.
There's a difference of opinion? Who cares?

It’s an idle discussion and doesn’t interest me.



You're begging the question by inventing a trap which doesn't exist.

Today I (hypothetical) want to play my Chopin for beginners, but that's just a snapshot. I intend to improve over the passage of time. After a few years I'll have a crack at the real thing.

Do you see how that works?


I was addressing Morodiene’s point, not yours - you've evidently failed to comprehend that too.

But here is the crux, where you gaily toss out this threadbare cliché:-


I told you that it was an idea I rejected. I think it's a myth and in the unlikely event that you and I have any worthwhile discourse in the future I’ll explain why.



Funny you should say that. I was curious about your history so I took a look at some of your other posts and quickly noticed you’re given to making snide remarks, and that in only a few short weeks. Now that is rapid progress....

I am sorry if I misconstrued what you meant. I guess I was more focused on what the OP meant, which I construed as his not liking the sound of the piece as written. This is what he said:



I think its fine. My opinion.

Good...me too

I suggested it in the third or fourth post on the thread. However, what I said was that one should avoid playing differently specifically because they can't play it "as intended" or "in the correct style" (however you would care to word that). I never suggested that the OP specifically could not play as written, but rather, all I suggested was to ensure that one makes a distinction between conscious choice and a lack of ability.