Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner A revolutionary interpretation of the world's most famous m

A revolutionary interpretation of the world's most famous musical work.

In the past, I believed that the most important thing in performance is as much emotion, passion and expressiveness as possible. Because only these three words are repeated again and again at any master class of any celebrity.

However, modern truly scientific studies conducted by leading universities of the world have proven that this is just silly nonsense. The last big study on this topic was conducted by Yale University in 2003, as far as I know.

In fact, the most important thing in performing is completely different. The most important is the elementary literacy of our musical speech: the proper emphasis in the "musical words", historically (if not genetically) embedded in the minds of every person on earth. In scientific circles, these stresses in musical words are called INTENSITY.

After all, all competent pianists of the world play absolutely the same notes on the same beat of music. And the best of pianists differs from the worst one only by the INTENSITY of each of the notes he plays. Anyone who has a basic understanding of music understands that all these pianists have nothing more to differ from each other. After all, music is "A system consisting of sounds of a certain pitch and strength, organized in a certain way in time."

The pianist has no right to change the pitch of the sounds and their organization in time indicated by the composer. All that remains is “a certain power - INTENSITY” of each sound, which is currently not indicated by the composers (although in vain).

Do not confuse this concept of correct stresses - "INTENSITY" with a more familiar to the most of musicians loudness - "VOLUME".

Do not confuse the concept of "INTENSITY" with the more familiar to all musicians "VOLUME". The meaning of the volume in the notes is known to everyone: ff = very loud, f =loud, p = quiet, pp = very quiet, and so on.

(ff) T - O - R - O - N - T - O ; (f) T-O-R-O-N-T-O ; (p) TORONTO; (pp) toronto - these all examples are about VOLUME.

Toront - O; T-O-ronto; Tor-O-nto - these examples are about stresses, called INTENSITY in music.


Correct stresses in the words of the spoken language or in the words of the musical language are not yet indicated in any way. According to many scientists, this is completely impossible. Fortunately, they are wrong in this statement. The exact, fine indication of accents and softenings in musical words is not only possible, but necessary. At the same time, it is absolutely not complicated and not difficult even for VERY BEGINNERS.

Like many musicians around me, I have been doing this for many decades with excellent results. And I share this wonderful way of communication between musicians (e.g. teacher and student) WITH EVERYONE who is interested.

If we utter musical words with the right accents, then all the listeners on the globe understand us and love our music. This is proved by the international popularity of performers of all musical genres.
However, If we distort musical words familiar to our public and say them always with a "soldier" stress on the first syllable (first beat), our listeners reject us and our music.


This is proved by the disappearing globally interest in classical music with the start of mass education, or rather, stamping of classical performers at "music factories" - schools, conservatories, etc. Because ALL OF THEM teach students to play precisely and only with this "soldiery" stress on the beat "ONE, taken simply from instructions for military brass bands.


For army commanders and soldiers, this drum beat and emphasis on the count “ONE" are really necessary for all soldiers to step with their left foot at the same time during the parade.
But in music intended for everything that is above the belt line (for the heart, for the soul, for the mind), this silly accent always on the beat "ONE" is ridiculous and disgusting.

Indeed, in all human languages ​​(and our music is only one of human languages), stress can be on ANY syllable of the word: on the first, and on the last and on the middle one: E-ngland, , Am-E-rica, Argent-I - na, Urugy-A-y, etc.


Today I finish our conversation on this topic with my "REVOLUTIONALLY NEW INTERPRETATION" of the world's most famous musical work. So far, I play it on the piano with only one finger. But I promise you to continue our conversation and in the future to play with all my fingers and even with both hands.


I wish you all a pleasant listening!


Please, tell me where my music is better, and where is worse:
on "A" versions or on "B" versions? Thanks in advance for this !

A1 https://yadi.sk/d/H8ODGg42DujdWg HP

B1 https://yadi.sk/d/qii0SlGGmBUrqg HN

A2 https://yadi.sk/d/5k3Ip0terBDr1Q LP

B2 https://yadi.sk/d/JFLFrAEqCPjjgQ LN


B3 https://yadi.sk/d/tl3dW9vNMrNt2w HN


A 3. Chopin (already with two hands) Nocturne in E b Major
https://yadi.sk/d/y-eS8tTmBHS64w

B 4. Chopin (also with two hands) Nocturne in E b Major
https://yadi.sk/d/uQiphKUxwhtufg

Actually, stress in Hungarian and Finnish falls invariably on the first syllable. It is also the case for most dialects of Slovak, which I only mention as you have your music uploaded to a Slovakian server!

To the readers in the Pianist Corner forum:

The OP has been trolling in the Piano Teachers Forum the last week. Now he's over here. Ignore him; you'll save a lot of time, and you won't miss anything of importance.

Tomorrow my Slovakian friends will come to me and I will check this information on Slovakian language that should not be so far from other Slavic languages in my opinion.

I do not know Hungarian spoken language but Hungarian music is unbelievably (for a tiny nation that is much smaller than a population of my Toronto) popular just because of the typically Hungarian stresses on EVEN (2 and 4) but not on odd (1 and 3) beats of the music.

I spent all my time during my tour in Hungary listening to their absolutely amazing trios: Violin, Alto, Cello. And the chords of Alto on EVEN beats (2 and 4) after the bass notes of Cello on odd beats (1 and 3) are at least twice louder. It is precisely what "creates a spring" in all Hungarian tunes and literally ignites audience around the globe.

No wonder that pianists most often get "bravo" for "Hungarian rhapsodies".

Is an ability to play beautifully and being loved by audience is not important for you? Or you never play concerts, just only criticize the others verbally?

Could you express your point of view MUSICALLY here? It would be mush more interesting than your ugly calls not listen to me.

While I agree with you on the emphasis (or what you refer to as intensity), that is only one small piece of the puzzle of effective musical communication. Timing, dynamics, and use of pedal are really the only 3 elements a pianist has in their arsenal to change the sound (without adding ornamentation or extra notes - which may be a 4th if it's an acceptable practice of the time period).

Your concept of intensity only addresses the use of dynamics to bring about the emphasis. But what about timing? Couldn't a person linger on an important note a tad longer, or rush up to an important note and then slowly die away from it - i.e., rubato? Or if appropriate, could they not add a mordent or acciacatura to place emphasis on a particular note? These are just a couple of examples - there's much more one can do to communicate than just emphasis.

From your previous posts, your examples seem to mostly be about the meter and what natural strong and weak beats exist there. However, a piece driven by that alone is like reading Shakespeare sonnet with emphasis on the iambic pentameter: you end up with a lack of understanding of the words because the meter becomes a distraction to the content of what's being said.

By the way, you do many of these other elements I'm talking about in your A recording of the Chopin, and the B is pretty much devoid of any of that. As a result I much prefer A.

Being born Finnish this seems a most natural way of speaking, even though I do not speak other languages this way

Thank you very much for your serious and constructive approach to our discussion!

1. I am afraid to say it at forums (because people there are in panic already from only my suggestion to control somehow emphasis alone instead of their "complete freedom of self-expression") but INTENSITY is bigger than just emphasis.

The Intensity is about softening of some notes as well and (what is MOST important) about correlation, hierarchy of all the notes in each our phrase.

2. Timing can be controlled by the pianist as well but only according to the "language" of the music he/she performs. We can not play the Bach's C-Minor prelude (WTC, I volume) as flexible as Chopin's Nocturne. Micro interference with the position of some particular note in a time flow as well as its duration is a wonderful tool as well. It is called agogic and is vehemently denied by recent pedagogic almost in the same way as Intensity.

3. The role of dynamics is unproportionally exaggerated in believes of modern musicians. We can try to "play" with a volume control during listening to or editing of any record and it really does not make music better. In old time harpsichord did not have a variety of volumes but people still enjoyed its sounds.

4. Pedal is a kind of acoustic tool. We do not play the same pedal in a room with a dry acoustic and in a huge cathedral where sound dies completely only after one minute.

But I contend there's more to expression than emphasizing and de-emphasizing.

I respectfully disagree. Historically, it was customary to play with rubato and asynchronized hands - even in Bach's time. It is only since the 20th century that use of rubato in playing and asynchronized hands fell out of fashion.

To assume that since an instrument didn't have dynamics that all instruments should not use dynamics is not very logical. There was singing and violin and all sort of instruments that did have volume control. And the early pianos were invented even in Bach's time. Dynamics give a piece interest and context.

I don't understand what you're saying here. I said pedal is used to alter the sound. So of course, you'd alter it according to the acoustic space - that goes without saying. But it still remains a tool that pianists have to alter the sound of the piano for expressive purposes.

The idea presented by the OP is nothing new. It is usually called shaping a phrase or voicing a line or chord.

It is very interesting and UNKNOWN fact for me. Could you provide some references on this topic , please. When I recorded my "Traumerei" cycle of posts, I received a lot of negative comments precisely for my asynchronized hands. But for me they are more natural in Schumann's music than synchronized.However, I never heard about the same way to play in Bach's time.

Quote: "To assume that since an instrument didn't have dynamics that all instruments should not use dynamics is not very logical. There was singing and violin and all sort of instruments that did have volume control. And the early pianos were invented even in Bach's time. Dynamics give a piece interest and context."

I did not deny some importance of dynamics and existence of dynamics in Bach's time. I do not encourage anyone to EXAGGERATE the importance of dynamics. Many people think that very big difference between "FORTE" and "piano" is a good idea. I had interesting example on this topic.

When I did "Carmina Burana" with my choir (I was a Chorus Master at opera company), somebody gave us a recording of this work, where "Forte" and "piano" were exaggerated electronically in such a way that "FORTE" was at least 5 times louder than "piano". After couple minutes of listening to this garbage, all my choristers begged me to stop it immediately. These idiots, who produced this recordings, did not know that we have special "volume control" - the smallest bone in our ear that blocks and opens sensitivity of our ears depending on the volume of sounds (e.g. canon shot or scratching of mouse). And our brain hates to change this setting frequently.

No one will tolerate your musical performance and even conversation with you, if you change the volume of your speech or "musical speech" all the way. People prefer so called "zone of comfort" - not too loud, not too soft. And we have to make just illusion of huge forte rather than make our audience really deaf after our concert. Rock bands do it, but so many people hate them for this "virtue".

Nothing under the moon is new at all, in general.

At the same time, my way of correcting a poorly shaped phrase and voicing a line is ABSOLUTELY NEW to you and other readers of the Forum.

You have no idea what I'm trying to show you.

However, you do not let me to correct your or anyone else mistakes of this kind solely to demonstrate the effectiveness of my method. And you do not want to listen to my own recordings on this topic.

BS

+1!

I learned these musical communications techniques from Marianne Ploger, who is a professor at Vanderbilt University (previously a professor at University of Michigan) and who studied piano under Nadia Boulanger. Her husband, Keith Hill, is an instrument maker known for his harpsichords, fortepianos, and violins. They both have studied this topic at length and have a website that explains the reasoning behind this as well as citing their sources here.

We have historical recordings of this kind of playing, as well as descriptions by prominent musicians and composers at the time describing them. There has lately been a growing interest in this style of playing as can be seen from this video here and the book referenced (which I have not read but I do wish to buy it now):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEDGPG8C5Y4

This appears to be the book he references in the video:
Off the Record by Neal Peres da Costa

These techniques, by the way, also are tremendously helpful in dealing with performance anxiety.

Regarding dynamics, it is always important to consider taste. I had played for an adjudicated music festival once and got a bit excited in a particular part where everything was equally forte. I knew the mistake right away, and the judge pointed it out to me as well. That was an error due to nerves (before I learned the above techniques), but there are those that are so preoccupied with following the score to a T that they forget many of the composers whose music we play assumed the performer would know what to do in a phrase.

I do think that some people do these things, but again, it's not enough to just shape a phrase. That is only one tool of many we have as musicians to use, if we choose.

Even if you were correct in what you're saying, the manner in which you're delivering your message is so condescending that it is completely unpersuasive as a written argument (ironic, isn't it, that you're advocating a better method of musical communication).

When you say something along the lines of "This idea is COMPLETELY NEW to you. Let me correct YOUR MISTAKES", you are already invoking negative emotions in whomever you're speaking to, before even the actual content of your message gets across. People will be much more receptive to you if you don't presume what they don't know and seek to "educate" them, as a parent might do with their toddler.

It also has the air of a snake oil salesman peddling his wares (BETTER THAN MOZART?? YOU WON'T BELIEVE HOW THIS PIANIST PLAYS 'OLD MACDONALD HAD A FARM' WITH HIS REVOLUTIONARY PHRASING AND VOICING).

"Revolutionary new interpretation?"

Where's Louis Podesta when we need him?

Thanks a lot for this information and video. Before I knew only one book on this topic: Golubovskaya "Pedalisation". She says directly: "No one good musician plays piano in synchronized way - all hammers at the same moment sound terribly. So we have to break, roll all the chords. Only the difference is that amateurs break the chord upwards and well educated pianists - downwards"

Now I have much stronger support for this way to play piano. thanks again!

Maybe you read or heard about famous Russian operatic Bass Fedor Shaliapin.

Just as a boy, I read and remembered his words: "With a decent person, I am a decent person. But with boor, I am also a boor!"
I am gentle and respectful with the persons which respect me as well. However, the words of my opponent (I quote):
"The idea presented by the OP is nothing new" - are insulting.

This is not just a lie, but slander. I did not steal this method from someone, did not write off from the Internet. NOBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD , except for me, knew and knows it completely today.

And for the only fact that I want to share this method and show it in the action some boorish person accuses me of theft of this method and says publicly that "it is not new"? I do not have to tolerate this slander politely. I have the right to self-defense and use this right in an absolutely adequate form.

I am not saying here that MY method is good and did not ask anyone to praise or buy it. I ONLY offered ANY test of this method by you - specialists in musical education.

But these "experts in the musical education" do not know ANYTHING about MY method at all (by default - because I invented it, and not anyone else), but they don’t want to check it out, claiming that "this method is not new". What is wrong with your logic?

By the way, how do you manage to teach and find students for yourself if you could not distinguish between "Happy Birthday To You" and "Old McDonald"?

It looks like I need lessons from you.

You must have forgotten which forum you're posting on. This is not the Piano Teacher's subforum, so your sarcasm is misdirected, because I am not a teacher. I was merely suggesting if you had used a less provocative title, not "revolutionary", people might be more receptive to your ideas.

I've listened to your clips, and unfortunately, they're all quite amateurish. The main issue is no professional player would exaggerate the stresses as you have. Only the very last Chopin clip sounds decent because the emphasis isn't as exaggerated. When you emphasize the beats like you have to such an extent, it greatly disrupts the flow of the melodic line and sounds unnatural. It would have been much more convincing if you had used a subtler effect to showcase the differences.