Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
I'd like to talk a little bit more about the intangibles of interpretation.
Interpretation is the art of conveying what you find meaningful in a performed work.
A good way to figure out how to interpret a piece of music is to listen and pay close attention to as many different recordings of it as you can. Study the score closely when at the piano.
The most important thing is to get the piece fundamentally down- that is, under your fingers. Of course, interpretation occurs while you are learning, but you can't truly give a good interpreted performance without mastering the technical details of a work.
As you study, you'll naturally find elements of the piece that you like, things that you take joy in. Figure out what little details, and what overall grand structures, you like, and determine how (within the guidelines of the written score) you want those elements to sound. Do you want to bring them out? Do you want them mixed in with the texture of the work.
Perhaps you'll find you appreciate a particularly beautiful melody. Play with it in isolation and figure out how to make it sound as beautiful as you can and then work on folding it back into rest of the piece. Or maybe you'll find a lovely counter-melody, hidden in the harmonic texture, something that seems amusing or unexpected. Maybe you might want to use subtle dynamics to draw it out.
Ask you work out what you like ask yourself questions: Do you like the piece light and delicate or lush and Pedal-y? Should the whole piece be that way? How would others play this? Should I follow their lead (usually a good idea) or strike out on my own? Should I just add a few small touches of my own to another's interpretation?
The possibilities are endless.
There have been, historically, certain ways of interpreting certain music that have been considered "tasteful" or "correct". It's always a good idea to learn what the great pianists and piano teachers of the past have thought about a work and how they thought it ought to be played. However, I don't think you have to play exactly like them for a work to sound meaningful or interesting. There's always room within a work to play around and "make it yours."
Also important is to >listen< to yourself play. Does what you're playing sound good to you? Or, when you hear your teacher or a recording of the work, do you like that sound better. There's nothing wrong with imitating someone else, especially in your formative years. There's an old saying "good artists borrow, great artists steal!" Since no one is exactly like anyone else, however, no matter how much you borrow or steal, there are always going to be elements that sound "like you."
Don't worry about what others think to a certain extent. Glenn Gould, for instance, was often criticized for his idiosyncratic "non-standard" manner of interpreting the piano literature (Bach, in particular, but pretty much anything he played was rather different than what had been done before). But I think that style was his greatness. Whether or not you liked how he played a given work (Brahms' Concerto at extremely slow tempo?) what he was doing had meaning >to him< and was certainly worth paying attention to. Better to be yourself, and express what you love about a piece of music, than to unhappily conform to what someone else thinks you >ought< to do.
THAT ^^^ was a beautiful post, Brad!
And THIS:
Originally Posted by Brad Hoehne
[...] Interpretation is the art of conveying what you find meaningful in a performed work.[...]
Thank you so much everyone for the valuable advices & recommendations for videos/books/websites. I've read all of them, and I appreciate it a lot. Also, sorry for the confusion Andy and Derelux; I meant no offense.
First, I'd like to give an update on my situation. I've decided to focus on two questions while playing:
1. (when a musical idea is repeated) how should I contrast this idea with the previous one? eg: same chord but spread on a wider range -> more resonating timbre
2. what effect does it have? eg: a piece with many non-chordal notes -> playfulness, original, coquettish
*Along this line, I became interested in the effects cadences have. For example, it is said that perfect cadences have a feeling of "conclusiveness" and "definiteness", while a plagal cadence evokes a more "peaceful" sense. What effects do other cadences, or chords in general (such as the Neapolitan 6th or the diminished 7th code) have? I know it ultimately depends on the context, but speaking generally, what am I supposed to feel for this chords?
Anyways, following Derulux's advice and listening to my recording, I *think* it sounds less flat than I had. I realize that previously I was only guessing at the "right" sound. Now I think for myself, from reading the score, what effect it has on the ears, and how I should bring out that effect. And I also realized that this is a step towards relating analysis with performance.
@Brad
Quote
Ask you work out what you like ask yourself questions: Do you like the piece light and delicate or lush and Pedal-y? Should the whole piece be that way? How would others play this? Should I follow their lead (usually a good idea) or strike out on my own? Should I just add a few small touches of my own to another's interpretation?
The possibilities are endless.
This was especially valuable advice for me, thank you very much. I think one of my problem is that "my possibilities" are limited, which I hope to remedy by listening to recordings.
My problem is that I don't know what exactly "interpretation" is. I don't know at I'm supposed to do. Is it to make subtle changes in dynamics, articulation, and timbre which are not explicitly written in the score? What goes on in the process of interpretation? How do you relate your analysis to your playing?
My teacher says my playing is too "flat". While I don't notice that I'm listening directly from the piano, I do see something is wrong (eg banging on chords) if I listen to a recording of my own playing. But I don't know how to remedy this blandness. So I think one question I have is what methods of interpretation there are, i.e. how to vary the quality of the sound.
I'll post a recording later.
Right now I'm playing Beethoven's 11 Bagatelles and Haydn's Sonata in g minor (Hob. XVI-44). If it's possible, could I have an example of interpretation for one of these pieces, so I can understand interpretation better?
Interpreting should be something like, playing a piece and making it the most special thing in the world for you (and for others too, but first for you). Special like the sea, a waterfall, or a beautiful baby animal. The score and all the markings are very important, they lead you to the beauty that the composer once idealized and felt when composing it. The interpretation is natural once you play the music like something you love. Music with interpretation is like the world with the light of the sun. If you only play the notes like a machine, everyone, including you, will only see the world through artificial light, cold and unnatural when compared to daylight. It's very simple actually....
*Along this line, I became interested in the effects cadences have. For example, it is said that perfect cadences have a feeling of "conclusiveness" and "definiteness", while a plagal cadence evokes a more "peaceful" sense. What effects do other cadences, or chords in general (such as the Neapolitan 6th or the diminished 7th code) have? I know it ultimately depends on the context, but speaking generally, what am I supposed to feel for this chords?
You know, putting more labels on those chords like that might be like intentionally putting on rose-coloured glasses.
Just go with it. Don't ask other people what you're supposed to feel, just feel what you feel and ask yourself about it.
Yes, the context matters a lot. But after a while, you hear the same chords over and over again, and sometimes you get the same feelings from hearing them.
That's not the same as telling yourself you "should" feel peaceful at plagal cadences and in turn that makes it feel peaceful.
Sticking preconceptions onto the chords isn't good for your own sake, because psychologically, you'll start to hear certain moods with those chords when it doesn't necessarily exist.
I'l confess that I haven't read the whole thread, but--
I think of interpretation as finding what I love about the piece. What makes you want to play it, what do you most love to hear? As I think others have said, I would experiment with different ways of playing. You're not looking for rules, but for things that bring you delight--and these might change with different iterations of the same piece.
The advice to listen to classical singers is good advice - if you can bear to listen to them. Personally, I have problems along those lines (e.g., Pavorotti's voice makes me want to go hide under some piece of heavy furniture until it is over).
But, luckily, listening to string and wind players is just as good for learning how to make artful musical lines that are expressive. In one way, the strings are even better than singers, because they don't have the physical limitation of needing to breathe, and neither does the piano.
It is also useful to listen to music played on the keyboards that have little or no note-to-note dynamic variation, such as harpsichords and organs, because the good players are extremely adept at using rhythmic inflection (agogics) to convey musical meaning. And that skill is certainly transferable to playing the piano.
The advice to listen to classical singers is good advice - if you can bear to listen to them.[...]
Fortunately, (I guess) this obtuse remark has left me speechless!
Originally Posted by wr
But, luckily, listening to string and wind players is just as good for learning how to make artful musical lines that are expressive. In one way, the strings are even better than singers, because they don't have the physical limitation of needing to breathe, and neither does the piano.
I have no idea what you hear or what you want to hear when you listen to instrumental music, but if you can enjoy listening to a string player or a pianist whose music doesn't "breathe," then I can't imagine that you are even listening to "music" as most of us define the term.
...then I can't imagine that you are even listening to "music" as most of us define the term.
Oh Bruce, what would my life be without vocal music. I was captivated by this the other day:
Didn't Chopin adore the Bellini operas? Of course he did, they inspired him, and one can certainly see why. I saw I Puritani a few years ago, and there wasn't one dull moment.
This analogy made me realize something important. Maybe the reason I don't understand what interpretation is that I don't know the "meaning" of each sound. I think I'd like to discuss this topic further. Would saying that a non-chordal note has the meaning of "tension", "unrest", or "uneasy feeling" be correct? It could be that the disassociation with sound and its meaning is the cause for my not being able to relate analysis to performance.
I would appreciate it if I could receive responses on this topic of "meaning" in sound.
In my honest and unabashed opinion, you are too focused on the scientific study of how to perfectly reproduce some "interpretation" that is standard, defineable, and (so you seem to think) beyond your grasp. I think that's holding you back.
The key to this is learning to make mistakes. First, make the mistake. Then, identify the mistake. Then, figure out what needs to change. Then you can correct the mistake. But, to me, you're still stuck at the starting line asking how to run, instead of just putting one foot in front of the other and giving it a go.
I used a reading analogy before. Allow me to continue it. We don't learn to read by first understanding what sounds we're making. As babies, we make sounds. We even say words. We have no idea what they mean. Even before we develop our sense of language, we begin to understand what different inflections might mean emotionally. We understand anger. We understand fear. We understand compassion. But we still have no idea what people are saying. Then, as we develop, we learn to find the meaning of the sounds we're uttering. Finally, we put the inflection with the sounds and we're speaking.
Long story short, you need to do more than think. Once you've done, you can analyze what you did. But if you don't do, you can't figure out what's going wrong. More doing and less thinking might help a lot. In other words, don't think about practicing without actually practicing.
On another note, the reason you may not get specific answers to your questions is because you're asking for concrete "rules" in a fluid system. Can I fundamentally break down wave mechanics and gravimetry to explain why ocean waves move the way they do? Yes. Will it help you understand what it feels like to stand chest-deep in the ocean? Nope.
Originally Posted by Cinnamonbear
Hi, Yukki! I see you've already received a lot of good ideas from lots of people, including Derelux, who I think you may have confused with me. No big deal. If I'm going to be mistaken for anyone on Piano World, I'm very happy for it to be Derelux!
Thank you for the flattery, but I wouldn't wish me on anybody!
Great points, by the way.
Bluoh- also a great post. Yuuki, reread this post. It's not about what you say. It's about how you say it. So, you have to decide how you want a passage to sound, and then make it sound that way.
To your two questions:
1. Sometimes you won't. It depends. What do you want to say differently the second time around?
2. What effect do you want it to have?
Quote
Anyways, following Derulux's advice and listening to my recording, I *think* it sounds less flat than I had. I realize that previously I was only guessing at the "right" sound. Now I think for myself, from reading the score, what effect it has on the ears, and how I should bring out that effect. And I also realized that this is a step towards relating analysis with performance.
Great! I'm glad you've gotten something out of it.
If you can post the contrasting recordings, we may be able to offer more specific advice/direction on how you can progress. I won't give "answers", though, because there really aren't any. Only direction. Think of it like traveling between two cities, except there's no highway. All you could tell someone is, "Go that way." What steps the person takes, which way they go around trees, what foot they start with, is all up to them.
Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.
The advice to listen to classical singers is good advice - if you can bear to listen to them.[...]
Fortunately, (I guess) this obtuse remark has left me speechless!
Originally Posted by wr
But, luckily, listening to string and wind players is just as good for learning how to make artful musical lines that are expressive. In one way, the strings are even better than singers, because they don't have the physical limitation of needing to breathe, and neither does the piano.
I have no idea what you hear or what you want to hear when you listen to instrumental music, but if you can enjoy listening to a string player or a pianist whose music doesn't "breathe," then I can't imagine that you are even listening to "music" as most of us define the term.
Oh, come on, you know lots of music that doesn't breathe in that sense. The last movement of Chopin's 2nd sonata, for example. Actually, any sort of perpetuum mobile music. And I think that some dance-based music doesn't really need that kind of "breath" either. And who knows how much else.
At any rate, I think you misread me - I didn't say one shouldn't allow the music to breathe, but just that the limitations of human lung capacity doesn't apply to some instruments and the music written for them.
But I will admit, it has always has seemed strange to me that some pianists turn the "singing" metaphor into some kind of over-arching dogma. To me, although some composers did write a good deal of music that works if you have that idea in mind, there's also a great deal where it either doesn't work or doesn't need it. For example, there are large stretches of Beethoven where it is just ludicrous to overlay some kind of vocal metaphor - and when he does want the piano to "sing", he often will say so explicitly by marking the passage "cantabile".
I know that I am hardly unique in being a classical music lover who doesn't really care for the singing done by many (not all) operatically trained voices. There's even a fairly well-known young composer who writes songs that are specifically designed to get away from that kind of singing.
But it not just nature of some voices that bothers me, it's fact that there are usually words involved. I find them distracting and/or limiting to how I hear the music. When I listen to classical music, I am not interested in literature. Actually, this pretty much applies to all music for me - although I enjoy a lot of non-classical music, I rarely relate to the words, if there are any. It's funny - there are a zillion pop songs I can recognize and hum along to, but I have no idea what the subject of the song might be.
You keep asking for examples. One of the best examples I can think of is: Seiji Ozawa. The man is just plain brilliant. Get ahold of a recording of him doing Beethoven's 9th Symphony. Especially Ode to Joy. Every other rendition will sound like it's generic in comparison. Seiji gets it. Brings Beethoven to life. He absolutely nails it.
Lots of good advise. Put your heart into it. I have a book titled: The Art of Practicing by Madeline Bruser She spends much time on this. She says to play like you're going to die tomorrow. Much good advise.
Ron Your brain is a sponge. Keep it wet. Mary Gae George The focus of your personal practice is discipline. Not numbers. Scott Sonnon
Have you ever read a storybook out loud to someone? Well, if you have, then you "interpreted" it. You gave it voice. Maybe there was an exciting part, and you used your voice to make the words sound suspenseful. Maybe you used the breathless dramatic --- pause. Maybe in a happy part, you even used your voice to laugh through the words a little. Maybe there was a lion who said something, so you made your voice growl through the words a little. And they all lived happily ever after-grrrr.
This is an excellent similarity of interpretation!
To verbalize a story well you should familiarized yourself with the story first and the same goes for the music you're trying to play. Listening is the most important element.
[...]In my honest and unabashed opinion, you are too focused on the scientific study of how to perfectly reproduce some "interpretation" that is standard, defineable, and (so you seem to think) beyond your grasp. I think that's holding you back.
[...]Long story short, you need to do more than think. Once you've done, you can analyze what you did. But if you don't do, you can't figure out what's going wrong. More doing and less thinking might help a lot. In other words, don't think about practicing without actually practicing.
On another note, the reason you may not get specific answers to your questions is because you're asking for concrete "rules" in a fluid system. [...]
Some of these points underline what I was thinking on reading the Op's original questions. Yuuki, you seem to be looking for rules that, once applied, will give you the interpretive skills you need; this may apply, but only to a point.
I believe that anyone and everyone can tell you what to do - slow down here, make an agogic accent there, intensify your tone at this point, etc. etc. - but unless you, yourself have some feeling for, understanding and sense of what is in the music, you are only applying, externally, what others tell you to do; unless you feel it yourself you will always have to rely on others telling you how to play which is not "interpreting" the music.
How to interpret well results from a great deal of listening experience, of studying scores while listening, even - at times - of learning what a composer was experiencing at the moment of composition and, ultimately, coming to some personal understanding of what the music "says" to you. In large measure, this cannot be learned by applying a list of rules, and can only be achieved over time.
Thank you for the advices, and sorry for the late reply. Reading these advices, the conclusion for me at the moment would be to "do more practicing and less thinking".
Anyways, I have gotten hold of the USB cable, so I'll post a link to the zip file of my recording of Haydn's piano sonata XVI - 44. I would appreciate it if I could receive further advice from this. Please let me know if another file type is preferred.
Actually, Yuuki, Boxnet or Soundcloud is a little more convenient for listeners, I think. I had trouble figuring out what to do to get to your music on 4shared.
I liked CB's analogy of interpretation. Reading through the thread I think one angle is missing. I know in my own practice I try to focus on leading a fulfilling life outside of piano to make sure I have experiences and a point of view to pour in my music. I read perplexing posts about people who seemed to have worked themselves into a tizzy for travelling away and missing a couple days of practice. I roll my eyes because I see these periods as the perfect time for building experiences and developing character to draw upon back at the bench. Garbage in. Garbage out.
I also think there is a formal tool kit - which I think Bruce might have been alluding to but don't want to put words in someone's mouth - to draw upon when performing a piece. To me this is the most intimidating because it forces the question; can one really execute what the composer is asking? Is one's voice developed enough to speak clearly?
My teacher tells me that analyzing a piece should help me "interpret" the music. But I don't know exactly what I'm supposed to do to "interpret" the music. I googled "music interpretation". one website said one rule was to "making a natural crescendo with ascending passages, and a decrescendo with descending passages". what other rules are there?
Anything beyond what is written is by the composer 'interpretation'.
This can be anything, phrasing, volume changes, speed changes, articulation choices, etc.
Originally Posted by Yuuki
For example, how should I play non-chordal tones like appogiaturas? My teacher tells me that the "appogiaturas" should "lean" on the chordal note. I have no idea what this means, and she cannot give another explanation. Does this mean I should play the appogiatura weaker than the chordal note?
Or how should I play cadences? How do I express that the music is coming to a pause?
Yes these can all be part of interpretation.
Originally Posted by Yuuki
Also, how can understanding the structure of the music help my playing?
Understanding the structure is part of understanding the music. You need to understand the music in order to decide on all these aspects of interpretation. FOr example you may decide to play louder in the climax part of the music, and in order to find the climax of the piese you have to analyse the music.
@wower A similar advice given to me by my teacher was to read romance novels, in order to experience more emotion. So I suppose what is said here is that since music ultimately comes from the composers' feelings/experiences, if I don't have the emotional capacity to feel them or experiences to draw upon, it's going to be hard for me to be expressive.
@wouter79 Thank you for the concise answers.
Quote
Understanding the structure is part of understanding the music. You need to understand the music in order to decide on all these aspects of interpretation. FOr example you may decide to play louder in the climax part of the music, and in order to find the climax of the piese you have to analyse the music.
Thank you!
![[Linked Image]](https://www.pianoworld.com/forumpicts/MOYD13/MOYD_3.gif)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.pianoworld.com/Uploads/files/Joplinbadgesmall.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.pianoworld.com/Uploads/files/RedDotMedalSmall.jpg)