Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Performance practice traditions must end

And on the other hand, Chopin was distinctly not happy when a student played a little extra filigree in one of his pieces, and he said, "You got that from Liszt, didn't you?"

Well it's possible that only Liszt could make that little extra filigree sound good

Your points are clear, even though raised at a very generic level it is difficult to evaluate what you mean exactly in terms of claimed freedom. So I don’t necessarily disagree with what you said, but I don’t fully agree either.

You are the one who gave the example of the professor comments. I don’t know you and therefore my comments are not directed at your particular case. But my point, which I don’t think you understood is to say that what is being taught in a conservatory is a different situation than what musicians will do afterwards. Just like when you learn to drive a car, the teacher will enforce certain rules and we all know that in real life (at least where I live) we dont apply all of them. So the example is somehow inadequate.


Stated like that, everyone would agree with you. It all depends what the FAR means for you.


Did I ? I don’t think I did that, that’s probably your interpretation. Of course, there are degrees of differences. But Mozart is different enough from Beethoven, aesthetically and stylistically that the difference must be taken into account. Taking more extreme examples to illustrate the issue, which I already gave, no one would think of singing Monteverdi in the Bel Canto style of Puccini, or Palestrina like Verdi. The Monteverdi music implies a particular vocal style, ornamentation which is specific to early baroque. Even if Mozart and Beethoven are closer, they are also different. Would you play Chopin in a baroque style ? Obviously no and nobody does it. That’s because you want to be faithfull to the romantic style of Chopin.


They will sound the same if you ignore the specifics of each style. Lets take the example of Furtwangler playing Bach. I love all Furtwanger performances (still have all his Beethoven on LPs) and certainly his Bach is intensively dramatic and I love it; the only issue is that it is played and sounds like Beethoven or even Wagner in certain places. So as much as I like his interpretation in absolute terms, I also must say it does not represent Bach aesthetics nor the baroque spirit. See below the example of one recording and a more recent version. I am happy that there are people like Pinnock who developed a more “authentic” version (even if imperfect and probably not fully authentic). Again I am not advocating that everyone should play authentically, and musicians have exercised a large latitude when playing historic music, but I am saying that a historically dated performance practice exists and must be taken into account when developing an interpretation, even if you decide to ignore it by artistic choice.


Well, there are plenty of elements that are not written in the score. In fact for many composers, like Bach, very little articulation is provided and nearly no dynamics at all (even in his non keyboard works). But that does not mean that he did not have a specific idea of how to play his works. There are no indication because it was obvious to all performers what were the usual performance practice of the time. So in effect it is exactly as if those were written in the score. For example in the French keyboard works, the “Notes Inégales” are not mentioned and even more they are actually played differently than notated. Similarly for over dotting. The scores of early baroque do not include any or little elements of ornamentation nor vocal technique to be used because those were known to performers of the time.

Every musician applies a large set of unwritten rules to play historic music. What you call your freedom is just a question of how much you decide to deviate from usually agreed interpretation standards. For example no modern pianists uses hand breaking anymore, something that was usual in older performances. Thats because it is considered mannered and inelegant. Thats not part of our modern standards. We all apply standards to play music, consciously or unconsciously.


THis one is not even close to what Furtwangler is doing in the Bach passions. This would be standard in his time.

Good responses to what, for me at least, was a rather rambling and unclear post by the OP.

Plenty of people here thought my points were clear enough. I am done arguing because I think this topic has been argued to death by now

Me and a few others have our opinion, you and most other conservatives have yours. Fine. I'm just going to continue doing my thing and believing what I believe in.

Hand breaking is a great analogy. In fact, I love hand breaking and use it all the time. It's one of the things my teachers pick up on and make note of. I think it sounds beautiful. While people sometimes think of these things as some kind of authentic historical insight, I think it's just the fashion of the day. We never hear a historically accurate performance of Liszt nowadays for example, in my opinion. Liszt was said to improvise over all of his compositions. The current fashion is to play note perfect, prepared months in advance. How could we possibly be hearing something similar to what people were listening to in the 19th century? I contend that we aren't. I would personally trust someone like an old concert pianist who studied with a direct pupil of Liszt to have a more authentic understanding of the style, than those nowadays who follow modern pundits. They all used hand breaking? I'd wager Chopin and Liszt did too.

The whole point of having a forum is to exchange ideas, it is not necessarily to convince or to win a battle. Exchanging ideas means confronting yours to people who do not have the exact same opinions. I think it is always interesting to read what others think of a given subject. If you do not accept the possibility that some ideas, that are contrary to yours, are bringing something to think about then indeed you have waisted your time. I always enjoy listening and reading opinions which contradict mine or which bring new perspective or new facts I was not aware of. There is nothing in this thread to be upset about, except that there are people that dont have the same opinion as you do and have some rationale for thinking differently.

I dont disagree with you. We certainly dont but that is also because the audience and the context are different. We are surounded by all sorts of music that no one knew in the 19th century and our tastes have changed too. People are expecting a near perfect and polished performance as the level of technical proficiency has increased. We dont use hand breaking because we prefer a certain rythmic accuracy which is part of our modern culture. Each time period and country has its own aesthetic. That is why, as I said no performance can be completely and totally authentic, and we can only approach it, but some interpretations are getting closer than others.

I would personally trust someone like an old concert pianist who studied with a direct pupil of Liszt to have a more authentic understanding of the style, than those nowadays who follow modern pundits. They all used hand breaking? I'd wager Chopin and Liszt did too.[/quote]

I would venture to say that you would be probably be disappointed in certain areas. But we will never know !

What the f is "hand breaking"? Never heard of this in a pianistic context, and even Google doesn't seem to know it.
From my naive point of view I'd say hand breaking for pianists is less common today because of the invention of the soft fallboard...

I believe that some pieces require karate chops to execute, like this diabolical suggestion:


.....though I don't know if any pianist has broken his hands on it.

Though I expect what the two pundits are talking about is hand desynchronization, as here:


Wasn't there a big advocate in PW of "arpeggiate all chords.....or die" by the name of Luis Podesta? Not seen him around for a while........

Yes, Louis believed that virtually all chords should be arpeggianated
He seems to have disappeared from piano forums.

Louis hasn't participated here since May 2015. We were classmates at the University of North Texas in the early 1970s. I certainly hope he is doing well.

I do that instinctively sometimes (not excessively), liking how it sounds, but then regret it when it's not in the score. Did Ravel indicate this somehow in that concerto? When he writes expressif, as he does near the end of the urtext edition of the Haydn Menuet, I tend to use that as an excuse to go to town with it and do whatever I want. Whether that's a generally accepted practice, I don't know.

Thanks, bennevis!

Oh, that's a little strong, I think. (Although quite humourous!)

I have never taken a score to a concert myself but can fully understand an aspiring musician trying to learn a piece, and still unfamiliar with it, taking the score to help their understanding of it. It is probable at least a small percentage do not fit your description.
In fact they are not perhaps showing how much they know but how little they understand. They are trying to improve. To condemn them as snob martinets is, I think just a bit unfair.
I don't think the score fascists go so far as to condemn people who don't take a score to a concert so perhaps there is room for a little tolerance.

My personal explanation is that I am not a snob, I nearly always follow the score whenever I play Rhapsody in Blue or Pictures at an Exhibition, because, as I say, I am not as familiar with them as I would like to be. Add to that quite a bit of Bach, Baroque, and Schubert.

In truth I don't think I have ever done it to check how accurately the performer was following the score. I've always done it to understand it better.

However I don't attend classical concerts and do not think I would take the score if I did.

Judge, though? Yes, I must do or else why would I prefer Bernstein's Columbia Rhapsody in Blue to any other and Lisitsa's glorious Schwanengesang?

By the way, after having the score since 1978 and following it many, many times, I am still always slightly at risk of getting lost in the run up to and during parts of The Great Gates of Kiev. I couldn't possibly take it to a concert, how embarrassing, flicking through the pages to find where the artist or performers were when it's obvious I've completely lost the plot!

Out of interest, why not ask one of these snobs if they have brought the score to check slavish obedience from the performers regarding it?
I would love to know what they say! The question would need to be phrased with some sensitivity though.

Once, I attended an open rehearsal of the Guarneri Quartet. At one point, an argument broke out among the players over what had happened or was supposed to happen at a certain measure but nobody could agree on the measure, was it 13, 15, or 17. A guy in front row has the score and said: “Measure 15.” David Soyer, the cellist said, “Da*ned music mavens.”

I agree completely with you.

I think Mattardo's post you quoted is, to be blunt, BS both in terms of the reason he gives for the present practice of fidelity to the score and his description of today's pianists as soulless and not musically impressive.

The idea that most of those who bring a score to a recital to follow during the performance do so to check the pianist's fidelity to the score is one of the silliest things I've read on PW.

Your comment..."In truth I don't think I have ever done it to check how accurately the performer was following the score. I've always done it to understand it better." is the correct explanation.

Have not read the whole thread, but see some people are advocating for freedom, some are labelled as conservative.

I do not really understand what is meant by "your interpretation". If you are playing a sixteenth to its value, an eighth to its value, if you are following the tempo, dynamics, etc, you are pretty much following the composers intent of the music. So the goal should be to understand what he wrote behind these notes (to me its like that).

There is a story, that Chopin was giving a lesson and the whole lesson was spent on the first tacts of the 7th waltz, because Chopin was trying to explain how the crotchets needed to be performed.

The thrill of interpreting music for me lies in guessing what the composer wanted. That's the quest I follow, that is the holly grail for me. And when I find it myself, the interpretation becomes mine. Because no matter how close it is be to someone elses, they can never be the same.

To give you an example of what I mean, I'll again do with the one from Chopin.
Take his nocturne op9 No2. In the third tact, there is a fioritura on the note C. If you listen to many modern performances, this fioritura is played fast. If you listen to the old pianists, this fioritura is played slowly.

Now when you are working on your interpretation and trying to decide how you play it, do you say: I will play it fast, because I like it that way?

For me it goes like this: Chopin was into singing and italian music, especially Bellini. He modeled his style over those italian arias. In Bellinis arias, this kind of fiorituras are not sung like sixteenth notes, but rather slowly. On top of that, if you read Chopin's method, you'll see that he advocated playing grace notes as improvised, but not rushed, as if one note carried to another. I analyze all that and decide that I want to play it slowly, like an opera singer would do.

So will this be my interpratation? Yes, my interpratation of how I think Chopin thought. But guess what, there were some people whom he taught, some people who he were friends with and who have heard him countless times. And they had pupils who were recorded on tape (Koczalski, Rosenthal). That's how tradition in music is passed along and it should never be overlooked and it certainly does not need modernizing.

Good reasoning!