Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner To What Extent is Ornamentation "Optional"?

As a hobbyist, who plays piano only for my own pleasure (or more often, displeasure ), yet loves Bach, one of the most intimidating aspects of Bach's keyboard music is ornamentation. While I would certainly place voicing and fingering as the two most formidable technical challenges of his music, to an amateur like me, ornamentation warrants a close third place.

I have an old worn and tattered Kalmus edition of the Inventions and Sinfonias which contains some ornaments in normal size print (presumably required), and others in smaller print (suggested). Yet I've heard recordings where even the so-called "required" ones are completely ignored, and ornaments are added where none are annotated in my score.

Dictionary.com defines the word "ornament" with respect to music as: "any of several decorations, such as the trill, mordent, etc, occurring chiefly as improvised embellishments in baroque music." The words "decorations" and "improvised" and "embellishments" would seem to imply that the performer has a certain amount of discretion as to when, or even if, to play them.

But is this true? Are ornaments mere adornments or embellishments, like toppings at a salad bar, or are they integral to Baroque music? What would constitute "acceptable practice"? Are there "minimum standards", and if so, how would these standards vary for an exam vs. a competition vs. a performance? Do pianists like Gould, Hewitt, Schiff get a pass, or are they held to the same standard?

Yes, I understand that no Ornamentation Police will visit me in my living room, so let's put that one to bed. But if I were to play a Bach invention for a real pianist, what would be the expectation? Could I honestly say I "played" it if I chose to ignore many of the ornaments? Or is this a case of "If you can't play the ornaments, don't play the piece."

At least I can take some comfort from this delightful quote from Cinnamonbear:


I'd love to believe that's what those squiggles mean, but my confidence level is very low.

Old Man; I can at most offer you my unreliable and uncertified opinion on the matter and only at least that...well, at least I suppose I could offer nothing, but it's too late for that Um...all pianists are the same; the "rules" apply just as much to Gould as they do to you, *or* to Bach. Bach is no different to any other composer (and here the batons come crashing down) and should be treated no differently. If you play with *no* ornamentation at a Gouldian level you'll still be playing competently, um...the actual notes don't *really* matter so long as the sensation, the feeling, the milieu of the piece is held intact. I mean...I ornament liberally and, though I'm not sure, would never choose to leave one out; I'd rather play that section inexplicably slowly and pretend nothing was amiss But, um, seriously, ornaments, by definition, are decoration, the basil in the dish rather than the egg, they're *important* for a decent flavour but not necessary. Your playing may sound like it lacks some substance or other, but if you play well enough that won't matter...I just...well, um, bear in mind that harpsichords and organs were the main keyboard instruments of the day and, as such, ornamentation *was* their version of dynamics; if you replace ornamentation with clever articulation you won't go wrong...I'm sure if done particularly well it could even surpass ornamentation, but that's just conjecture Personally, I like to throw in ornaments as and when the mood takes me and that satisfies *my* conditions on how it should be played. Audiences will likely expect a carbon copy of what they usually hear, ornamentation and all, but will appreciate a *well done* performance either way...um...as for exams and competitions I couldn't advise without *entirely* talking out of my other end. All I'd say, in short is that if you'd miss such an ornament in a bit of Brahms or Beethoven, don't feel bad for missing it in Bach; he was a prolifically versatile musician himself, I'm sure he'll adjust
Xxx

Another thing to consider is that ornamentation makes less of a difference in a modern temperament. In many historical temperaments, embellishments had a very real tension, or even avoidance, function.

In the old days they might just give you a bass line and a melody and let you fill in the rest yourself.

It is for sure not an exact science but was a common practice at the time. There are a few books on the subject and it is no simple matter.

Given that the music manuscripts at the time did not carry the same weight towards 'correct' interpretation as say a Stravinsky score I believe there is freedom in what ornaments you choose to recognize and ignore. Or course an adjudicator or teacher may disagree with me and whatever decisions you decide to make but I guess that's a risk you have to take.

It was common practice for singers and instrumentalists to add more ornamentation on repeats. Think of a greedy song bird strutting her stuff on the repeat of a da capo aria to make the audience drop their jaws. This seems to be a lost art but maybe there are a few performers out there who can pull off this kind of thing.

For myself as long as the end result is sound (and tasteful) I wouldn't argue pro or con what a performer SHOULD do in regards to ornamentation. Something new and unexpected on a well known work would be welcome.

FSO, you're touching on the very thing that is frustrating, when you talk about the "sensation, the feeling, the milieu of the piece." One can become so obsessed with trills, mordents, trills with prefixes and suffixes, trills with terminations, that the whole feel of the piece soon gets lost. My temptation is to close the book, and pop Gould into the CD player so I can get back to actually enjoying Bach.

I also agree that the limitations of the instruments available in Bach's time contributed to the liberal use of ornamentation. The rapid decay of a harpsichord note combined with lack of sustain, almost begs for some sort of embellishment. But would Bach or other Baroque masters have employed these same techniques if they had had access to a piano? Anyone's guess.

Which is the purpose of my questions. I'm not looking for "certified" opinions, just opinions. But my sense is that many pianists seem to play Baroque ornaments ad libitum - a little basil here, a little rosemary there. Curiously, I seldom hear this ad libitum playing in the romantic period, including Beethoven. If a Chopin waltz has a trillo above a note, I feel duty-bound to play it. I think that's because we know that Chopin had access to a more capable instrument. So if he says he wants a trill, we assume his purpose is musical, and not simply to augment the sound of a less capable instrument.

There are some ornaments I feel I have to include, some I choose to ignore, and some I think are optional. This isn't based on historical practices; it's based on my thoughts about the piece: how I think it should go. (Admittedly, this is strongly influenced by how I've heard it in the past.)

For instance, some of the 2-part inventions. For the B-minor, I would never consider not playing the three RH ornaments in the first two measures. Those are a fundamental part of how I hear that melody. And A major: How could I not play those turns, and the trill in the first measure? Essential to my feeling of this piece.

I'm less convinced about the RH ornament in the first measure of C major. I'd probably play it, but it feels more "optional" to my ears. And I'm not sure if I'd play all the written ornaments in measures 3-4 of the D major. Doesn't feel essential to me, especially at a fast tempo. I'd probably leave one of them out.

Etc. My point is just that I make a personal decision case-by-case, based on how I hear the piece. I probably play 70-80% of the printed ornaments.

But, as you say, there are no Bach police. Enjoy the freedom, scary as it is.

-Jason

It is my understanding that the placement of ornaments was left up to the performer during the time Bach's pieces were written. I also understand that ornaments, in many cases, were added to make up for the fact that the harpsichord does not sustain sounds. Codifying ornaments, and scores for that matter, is a more recent phenomena. I think if you add or delete ornaments it is fine as long as you preserve the flavor of the piece - not under-doing it or over doing it.

On the other hand, there is much to be gained by learning how to play ornaments with ease. Start with slow, relaxed, weighted practice.

Ornamentation is such an integral part of baroque music of every type. It is what gives the music emotion (think accented appoggiatura), lilt, finesse, excitement... Look at the second movement of the Bach Italian Concerto. It is one long written out ornament. It gives you a clue as to how Bach thought about line and emotion. Read through Couperin or Rameau. French Baroque musicians were masters of ornamentation. It is worth the effort to make your own ornaments, and make them musical. Much of the music is simply a harmonic skeleton on which the melody and ornaments are hung.

Listen to a HIP performance of the Bach St. Matthew Passion. Most soloists will sing the da capo much more heavily ornamented than the first time through.

It seems to be all about taste and musicality. That may sound ambiguous, but it really isn't. It's probably best demonstrated by example. If you want an example of abundant yet tasteful use of ornaments in Bach, see Schiff's recordings of the inventions and the Well-Tempered Clavier.

Schiff also freely uses ornaments in his Haydn. He even adds them occasionally in his Beethoven Sonatas. It works because his playing carries such musical authority without them. They are then added as a cherry on top to tastefully heighten the musical expression of the piece.

Of course, you can always disagree with this that or the other ornament, but even if you do, when they are used well you are forced to recognize the interpretation as a valid one even if that's not how YOU would play it. Indeed, ornaments are about the courage, conviction, and taste to say, "This is how I would play it."

Agreed! In Baroque music, especially on a modern instrument which is much more powerful and that can be controlled by the subtle use of dampers, I think it is important for ornaments to fit the flow and momentum of the music, and not be ornaments for the sake of ornaments. Depending on the kind of keyboard piece (Allemande? Sarabande? Minuet? Gavotte? Courente? Gigue?, etc.) with the appropriate attendant pulse and tempo of each, the ornaments help move the piece along, and sometimes help define the melodic arc. Sometimes they help to heighten the harmonic tension, and, a move to resolution. I'd like to underscore what prout said by saying that I think ornaments almost always help establish lilt and momentum. And, when used as an explosion of interest when playing the repeat, they can be very exciting when done well, but can also be garish and grating when overdone (as in, "puhleeze!" *rolls eyes*). So, sometimes, I will start to learn a piece *without* the ornaments, and "see what it needs," like seasoning.

I've been working through the Handel Keyboard Suites for a few years, now (slow learner, you know; Edition Peters, btw), and there are places with ornaments indicated that say to me, "No! No, no, no!" and places with no ornament indicated that scream to me, "Yes! Put one right here!" In fact, I will admit that there are places where the ornament comes from my fingers before I realized I just made one up. Sorry, OldMan, I guess I just invalidated my quote! Ah, to be human...

Anyway, for show and tell today, I brought this, from Handel's Keyboard Suite No. 13, the first part of the Sarabande. Here is the "original":



And here it is "worked out":



This is an example of the way the ornamentation is an integral part of the music, not just some semi-random, uh, squiggle. The tricky part in this example is to make it all fit the pulse in three. This Sarabande is the only piece in the two volume set that has the ornamentation for the whole movement written out like this, so I know, in this case, it's im-por-tant! (At least, it was to the editor! )

--Andy

Here's the Goldberg played almost devoid of ornamentation. The Aria is almost unrecognisable......

http://youtu.be/Y2w-jBKYDWk

In some Baroque music, ornamentation is almost an integral part of the music, and sounds rather odd without it.

Here's how we normally hear it (this version has more ornamentation than most other piano versions):
http://youtu.be/--WOImiq7TQ

My thanks to prout and Cinnamonbear You've both helped me make a small discovery about myself: I'm a squigglephobic.

prout said to take a look at the 2nd movement of the Italian Concerto, so I did. I looked at a few scores on IMSLP, and noticed that some had deconstructed those squiggles into real, honest-to-goodness notes. And that makes all the difference in the world. Not that I'm delusional enough to believe that this small discovery will enhance my execution of these notes. But visualizing them greatly clarifies what's demanded, without having to know in advance about short squiggles, long squiggles, tails pointing down, tails pointing up, etc.

Cinnamonbear did the same thing with his "show and tell". He said, Here's what the score shows, and here's what I actually play. Once again: notes. You can never have too many notes, despite what Emperor Joseph II thought.

So thanks, guys. I think I may be cured of my pralltriller nightmares!

I'm not sure of what you mean by "codifying ornaments" but Bach himself wrote out a table of ornaments. So, if that is the sort of thing you mean, it has been around as long as the scores themselves.

I was referring to the trend nowadays to follow the score exactly. My teacher has told me that before recordings, and especially before the 20th century, there was more flexibility in interpretation including adding, deleting or changing ornaments. He told me that competition judges today frown on changing the score or presenting an original interpretation, even if it is musical, because they have to follow a rigid score card or are rigid themselves. Changes like this can hurt your chances of progressing in a competition so piano playing today has less originality than it used to.

No more unreliable and uncertified than a Kalmus edition

Deborah -- surely not all piano playing nowadays is done at competitions?

Of course not but it seems that most careers these days are made at competitions.

or

https://app.box.com/s/kikysyc46x60e8i9q7bu

True. Though I think even competition winners play differently when performing than when in the special environment of a competition.

Anyone who thinks free ornamentation is a thing of the past should listen to Schiff's recording of the first Two-part Invention.

Here's the thing, though, Old Man. I did play from the "worked out" pages for a long time--slow, laborious practice--until I noticed it was becoming fluid. Then, I went back to reading the "original," and worked slowly with a metronome until I could feel the pulse and get it to fit in three. Now, I am working on the "interpretive arc" of the movement, trying to get everything in it to actually *do* something pleasant while holding together.