Showing posts with label Piano. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Piano. Show all posts

Friday, August 7, 2009

Behold, the Katzenklavier!


[The cats] be arranged in a row with their tails stretched behind them. And a keyboard fitted out with sharpened nails would be set over them. The struck cats would provide the sound. A fugue played on this instrument--when the ill person is so placed that he cannot miss the expression on their faces and the play of these animals--must bring Lot's wife herself from her fixed state into conscious awareness.




Imagine a piano.


Remove all the strings and replace them with cats.


Arrange the cats in a chromatic scale.


When you press a key, a pin hits the designated cat.


Behold, the Katzenklavier!





[caption id="attachment_667" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="This is the kind of thing people did for entertainment before television and the internet."]This is the kind of thing[/caption]

Created in the 17th century by Athanasius Kircher, this instrument was invented with the initial purpose of waking up catatonic patients. It was actually built and used for entertainment purposes.



Here's the Wikipedia page. Follow the references at the bottom of the page for additional information on this crazy contraption.




Tuesday, December 9, 2008

12 rules of being a first year piano student at the conservatory.


  1. Don't have fun at concerts, stand around looking snooty and slightly bored.

  2. Have contempt for any kind of mainstream music, including popular classic pieces. If people like it, then it is not good.

  3. Spend five hours each day criticizing other musicians at your school or on the Internet.

  4. Spend five minutes every other day actually practicing your instrument.

  5. If you're going to start playing the piano, make sure you start with the most technically difficult music you know. The Rachmaninoff second concerto, Liszt's second Hungarian rhapsody and Flight of the Bumblebee are all popular choices. Make sure to mention that you are "playing" those pieces to everyone you know.

  6. Carry the score to those pieces everywhere you go, preferably with the title page clearly visible to everyone.

  7. Once you are able to play the first couple of bars of the above piece at half speed with lots of mistakes, proudly tell everyone you know how you "nailed it" the last time you played it.

  8. When you are unable to "nail it" in front of someone else, make sure to blame: 1) nerves, 2) cold hands, 3) lack of sleep, 4) the piano. When you are alone, you always play it perfectly and your word should be enough for other people and for your teachers.

  9. Talent is the same as technical skill. The faster the fingers, the more talented the musician.

  10. Show off your piano, show off your sheet music, show off your artist clothes, show off your bohemian lifestyle, show off everything... show off your dog (get a dog). How others see you is the most important thing.

  11. Whenever you listen to another person play, make sure you mimic them. Play an "air piano" at recitals so that people know that you can do whatever the person playing is doing even better (this is not in the least bit annoying).

  12. Fast is good. There is no good slow music, except when it's Liszt.


---------



Some additional rules for the jazz students:

  1. A single note sounds bad. Play in chords, play it in octaves, play it with chords in one hand and octaves in the other (and an arpeggio somewhere in the middle).

  2. There are countless possibilities to the chords you can use to supply texture and color to your playing. With so many options out there, pick the two chords you like best and use them in everything you play.

  3. Length is the single most important factor in a solo, it doesn't matter if you keep doing the same things. If you can't go for length, then go for playing as many solos as possible.

  4. If it is impossible to be a good jazz pianist, at the very least pretend you are Chick Corea. It's all in wishing hard enough, no practice or talent required.

  5. Dissonant chords are the only chords.

  6. Sixteenth notes are the only notes. (This does not apply to trumpets or saxophones playing very very high, in that case they are not permitted to hold a note for less than four seconds).

  7. If it's not a piano or a trumpet, it's not a real instrument and should not be playing solos. That goes double for bass. In any case, if there's a piano on the stage, there's really no point in having anyone else there.

  8. If you can't pretend to be Chick Corea, you can at least pretend you know how to play Latin jazz piano.

  9. On second thought, don't do that. It's really annoying.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Finding the right teacher.

This is one of the first articles I published on this site. It is still one of the most popular and the one I get the most comments about from friends and colleagues. English is not my first language, so I sometimes have a hard time with basic grammar and composition. A friend (name not mentioned until he says it's alright) offered to do some basic-copy editing on some of my writing, so as to help me improve gradually. Here is a new version of "Finding the right teacher" that won't make English majors want to claw their eyes out.


Assuming a piano student has support from his family and considers music a possible career, his teacher is probably the single greatest influence on his development. The wrong teacher can severely cripple a musician's future prospects.


A good teacher will develop the love for music in a child, and will prevent the formation of bad habits from the very beginning. He will help an older student make the difficult transition towards an increasingly professional musical sensibility. He will provide the foundation for a good, flexible technique and introduce the different elements of style and interpretation. The end result is an independent student who knows how to practice and solve problems, with the sufficient knowledge to correctly understand a score, including all the stylistic and emotional that are often in-between the lines. Furthermore, a great teacher will help a student understand and express his personality through his music. Unfortunately, without experience, it is quite hard to gauge the quality of teachers; bad teaching is often only apparent after the damage has already been done.


Parents looking for a teacher will tend to rely on superficial considerations, like how the teacher dresses, what rates he charges, and how smoothly he talks, without realizing that many so-called teachers out there prey on these tendencies like slick used-car salesmen. They butter up the parents with their oily talk, making up fake qualifications and exaggerating their praise for the little kids at every turn, all while the children develop an ever more deformed technique and an aversion to music.


Older students looking for a teacher tend to fall into the peer pressure trap. They go with the teacher that all their friends are studying with, usually being talked down to by the other students (and often ex-students turned into teachers) until they finally cave in and join the clique. Young teenage students tend to have big expectations, and many teachers out there will prey on that, promising them the world but failing to deliver. Even when all the students have obvious common flaws (all of them the result of bad teaching), the teacher will heap on the praise. At this stage, teenagers and young adults are usually afraid to acknowledge a wrong decision (especially in conflict with the rest of the group), so they tend to idolize their teacher. The bad teacher will take advantage of that and go as far as to call other teachers complete garbage. Outside opinion is this teacher's enemy, and he will try to isolate the students from other musicians. The only yardstick the students have left to measure their progress is their teacher's opinion and their peers' progress. They are good because teacher said so, all objectivity lost in the constant reinforcement from their friends.


In order to find the right teacher, you have to examine the short- and long-term goals you want to meet at different points in your development. Understand what kind of teacher you need, and find the very best teacher for that level in your area.


In a child's case, motivation is crucial. When working with young children, the best teachers are those who manage to keep the child motivated, and prevent the child from acquiring bad habits.


You want a teacher with whom the kids are obviously having fun. A good teacher at this level leads to children eager to play their instrument, or more accurately play with their instrument. It's fun, not work. The teacher will keep the kids active and entertained-clapping, singing, and sometimes even coloring and playing games. But if that were the only necessary qualification, then any competent babysitter would be a great music teacher for children; a teacher who works with children should also have a complete practical knowledge of technique. Musicians who are great at playing their instruments, but who can't really explain how they do it, have no business teaching children how to play. A teacher at this level must be able to show a student how to hold and play the instrument, identify and correct bad habits, and explain to the student's parents clearly what to look for so that they can supervise their kid's practice time.


A sense of structure is important at this level. Students are motivated by recognizing their advancement through the ranks. We all remember looking with awe at the very last pieces in our beginner's books, full of strange symbols and notes way out of the range we were playing at the time. Having an outside source (a book, a website or even a guest teacher) to further clarify what the teacher is doing is also helpful. A clear lesson plan for each student is very important; unlike later in a musician's development, at this stage it is desirable for all students to follow the same road. They love to compare themselves to the other kids, and it gives their parents a clear idea of their progress.


At this level, the teacher should assign the student enough short easy pieces to avoid boredom, teaching the basics of sight-reading and music theory, and keeping the child eager for his next lesson. Music ideally should be a sort of game in which the child, the teacher, and the parents are all involved to some extent. There is no room for yelling and screaming from the teacher; if he loses his patience easily, he should not be working with children.


Warning signs at this level are: the child not wanting to take lessons anymore (which happens to all of us occasionally, but if the disinterest lasts too long, it's probably the teacher's fault) and unnatural playing. If a child complains of back, neck or tendon pains, there is something seriously wrong. In the case of the piano, playing with flat or excessively curved fingers, locked elbows or wrists, a hunched back, or hard, inflexible joints are all signs of deficient teaching.


Most importantly, remember that whatever the student's level, the musical result has to be as good as possible. Even if the child is playing very easy pieces, he should exhibit a steady rhythm, a good sound, intonation, and some elements of style. A lack of these is also a sign of a lazy or indifferent teacher.


Eventually it will be time to get a teacher more suited for an intermediate level; even some professionals are plagued by having switched too late. Remember the basics of teaching a child: motivation and the bases for good technique. If the kid's motivation is so strong that he wants to be a musician when he grows up, then he should switch to a more advanced teacher sooner rather than later.


Up until this point, music has essentially been a game. Now it's time to start "training," as if for a sport, and heading down the road towards being a professional. An intermediate teacher will challenge you, urging you to give the most you can. During this period, a musician needs a teacher he can respect. Teachers at this point come in all flavors: the crazy, screaming teachers who bang on the piano with their fists when they don't get their way, the motherly ones that will make you want to cry with just a sad look each time things don't work, maybe the friendly ones who will just shrug and kick you out. What you want at this point is someone who will nitpick at evert aspect of your playing and give you repertoire that will push you to your limits, but who has the knowledge necessary to show you how to exceed those limits.


He should push you to work as quickly and accurately as you can, always demanding perfection (even if what you are playing is something basic, like a Clementi sonatina). He has to cover all the bases-technique, interpretation and style.


A bad teacher at this point can do more damage than a buffalo in a china shop.


Recognizing a bad teacher at this stage is very important. Remember, you are looking to find the very best teacher you possible can within your area. Traveling is usually not ideal; there are bad teachers everywhere, and you could end up with one of them regardless of where you're looking.


The best way to judge a teacher is to analyze his students. Don't necessarily look for teachers with students who play very well; many teachers will just showcase a couple of really good students, usually self-made or the product of another teacher's work, while trying to hide the rest of them from view. Instead, judge a teacher by the majority or average of his students.


All teachers get one or two really bad students a year (whom they'll quickly get rid of), just as all teachers occasionally get a young talent. The rest of the students are the ones you need to be looking at. How do they measure up against the other teachers' average students? What level of repertoire do they play? What kind of progress have they made in the past year or so? How do his students perform at master classes? How do they do in competitions? Have any of them progressed to study at a higher level? Most importantly, is there some shared flaw between them?


If all the students have some kind of bad habit-raising their shoulders, clenching their jaws, playing out of tune or out of style-then these habits are probably the teacher's fault. Have they all suffered the same kind of music-related injury? If many of the students have had carpal tunnel syndrome or tendinitis at some point, then there might be a problem with the teacher. If the teacher says it's the weather's fault, or the students' fault for over-practicing in all those cases, then you can bet that he is definitely the cause of the problem.


Analyze your lessons. How much of your lesson do you spend just playing the piece over and over again? How much of your lesson does your teacher spend giving you information and criticism, and how much does he spend just complaining, wasting time and repeating himself? After the lesson, sit down and write down what you learned. Or, even better, record the lesson. Are you getting information from your teacher? Is he helping you solve your problems, or just yelling at you for having them? Have you had all your lessons?


Analyze his lesson plans. Are all of the students playing the same programme over time, or are the pieces individually tailored to match each student's needs? Unlike with children, having students play the same repertoire just denotes laziness or a lack of knowledge on the teacher's part. Look around, read some books, look at some websites, or attend some masterclasses. Is your teacher neglecting something essential? Is he flat-out telling you things that most people consider wrong? Can he play, or did he play once? Does he apply the things he teaches to his own playing? Is he teaching you one thing, but doing completely the opposite when he plays? Does it matter to him that you understand what you are doing and why you are doing it? When you ask him that, does he give you a straight answer?


Repertoire is also a big deal. Make sure that you understand the reason behind everything you play. Each new piece you play should help you improve or teach you about different styles and composers. Make sure that your teacher is assigning you music that is right for your level. Some teachers constantly make their students play things that are much too difficult to make themselves look good, so that they can make more money. This usually leads to the deterioration of a student's technique and quality of playing. At some point, the student will either get injured or find himself much worse off than when he started. Then those teachers will blame the student for everything and discard him. They'll get a bunch of naive young musicians and start the process again. Other teachers just make all their students play the same thing, because that's all they were taught and they're too lazy to do anything but repeat what they once heard from someone else.


Remember, the goal here is to get the student to teach himself. Progress is measured not only in technical achievements and difficulty of repertoire, but especially in independence. Being able to work out things for yourself; understanding how to fix problems, and having a big toolbox full of solutions for all the situations that might arise is what is most important. Independence ensures that you can continue to get better even if the teacher is not there.


Once students have reached this level of independence, it is time for an advanced teacher. A teacher at this level is your colleague (though a colleague with a much vaster experience than your own). A teacher at this point is more of a guide or an example than a trainer; someone who is actively playing or who has had a lot of experience forming good musicians is ideal.


From the moment a student starts with an intermediate teacher, he will be doing the bulk of the work. Teacher and student will build up the pieces together; the student working while the teacher pushes him. In a more advanced teaching relationship, the student will have done all the work and will ideally have the piece ready to play at his lessons. These lessons will focus more on interpretation; many times the student might disagree with the teacher, but the point of this level of development is contrasting different points of view to make your playing richer.


At this point in a student's development, the quality of teachers should be more obvious. The teacher's qualifications should be your most important consideration. Getting into a big-name school or "going to Europe" does not guarantee a good teacher at all.


Making sure that you have the ideal teacher for your level is essential. An intermediate-level teacher working with a child will discourage him and probably lead to bad habits. An advanced-level teacher is often useless at an intermediate or child's level, when a much more specific criticism or method is preferred, usually dealing with concepts too far advanced to be useful at that stage in a musician's development.


More than anything else, make sure that whatever you are playing-at whatever level you're playing it-is the very best you can do. You are your own teacher, and responsible for your own progress. You should read and listen to music, and attend conferences, masterclasses, and concerts. If you are stuck with a bad teacher and doing nothing about it, then it's your own damn fault.



Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Stop being a pianist.

How do you define a pianist?


Well... it's someone who plays the piano. Teach a monkey to play chopsticks and, technically, you've got a pianist. I was brought up by Russian teachers though and, for them, the word pianist is capitalized; the Pianist. You can't call yourself a Pianist in that sense unless you can really play; Rach 3, Tchaik 1, Prok 2 and all the other monosyllable + number combinations; play those, and then you are a Pianist.




[caption id="attachment_207" align="alignright" width="247" caption="Like it or not, this is a pianist."]piano monkey[/caption]

But, is being a pianist such a good thing? Arcadi Volodos always insists that he is a musician first and pianist last. No one can deny that he is an amazing Pianist in the technical sense, but he doesn't spend his day playing scales, he does an intellectual job. He thinks and imagines.


Having a solid technical foundation is very important, but I don't think it should be any person's goal to be a pianist, regardless of capitalization. The piano is a vehicle, a tool we use. In that sense, we are not pianists. We are artists. The piano is our medium. Music is the way we express our artistic ideas. We are also intellectuals, ever day we work with history and aesthetics. We make informed decisions constantly, weighing different points of view against our own emotions and intellectual understanding of a work of art.


"Just a pianist" is too little to strive for. It's the difference between craftsmanship and art. There is nothing wrong with craftsmanship, but for an artist, playing the piano well is a tool, not an objective. If your goal is to play faster, clearer and brighter than everyone else, you will be missing out on something greater, in my opinion you would be settling for too little. If you improvise a solo and all you are doing is showing off for applause, you probably won't accomplish much more than that. Wynton Marsallis had that insight when he was a teenager. Having just mastered circular respiration, he would play solos without stopping for a breath for five or six minutes at a time. In the end, the audience clapped, but he was little more than a trained monkey performing for them.


As an artist you can inspire your audience, communicate your love for music and share something with them that goes beyond our everyday lives. As a Pianist you can make them think "wow, he plays good". In the end, each of us decides what we want to be.


Stop being a pianist. Be an artist.

Monday, September 8, 2008

Daily piano tip #4.

As soon as you can, try to get used to doing trills with fingerings that involve more than two fingers, like the classic 1-3-2-3-1-3-2-3 fingering. It's one of those things that doesn't make a big difference early on, but is essential when one is more advanced. Those kinds of fingerings will help you develop finger independence and they give you much more control over speed, evenness and dynamics in the long run.


Some editions of beginner level pieces, like the Bach inventions or little preludes use these more complicated fingerings for mordenti and other ornaments. Students like to skip over them and just use a simple 3-2-3 or 1-3-1 instead of the harder 3-1-2 or 4-1-3.


If you learn these kinds of fingerings as soon as you can, it will make a big difference later on.

Sunday, September 7, 2008

Daily piano tip #3.

Get one of these:



Learn how (and when) to use it.

Rach 3 cadenzas and musical integrity.

[caption id="attachment_170" align="aligncenter" width="280" caption="I wonder how many people out there decided to become pianists because of this movie."]wer[/caption]

Like many other pianists that saw "Shine" when they were teens, I've had a thing for the third Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto for a long time. It's one of those scores that I've had around and occasionally read through, going from the "holy crap, this is impossible" phase to the "well, it's playable" over the years. It's now time for me to pick it up seriously and actually see it through to the very end with an orchestra.


There are a couple of decisions one has to make with this concerto. Cuts or no cuts? Long cadenza or short cadenza? I'm not going to bore you with all the details. If there is one work for piano that is ever-present on the Internet, it's this one. Do a Google search for "Rach 3" and you will get almost three and a half million results. Guys writing on their Myspace pages about how awesome it is and how much they want to play it, people who collect all available recordings of the concerto and compare them, hundreds of videos on YouTube of amateur pianists playing the opening theme and even more videos of students butchering the cadenzas (usually the big ossia cadenza). People all over the net, most of which probably have never played the concerto (and probably never will) debating about how the short cadenza is for wimps or the long cadenza is overblown and against Rachmaninoff's wishes.


ssdfsdf


Did he record it the way he did because of time issues? Because he was bored with it? (He recorded it 30 years after he first debuted the concerto). I honestly think that his recording of the concerto and his own recordings of his other works tell us as much about the interpretation of this work as the score itself. It seems his interpretation of his own music is so different from what has become popular and accepted these days that pianists are a bit disappointed, and want to justify what he did; they want to give excuses for him.


I love the Van Cliburn and the Volodos versions too, though. I believe that they choose the cadenza that best suits their pianism and their big sound and long lines. The reasons I like these recordings are more about their intensity and power and not so much about the concerto in itself. In my case, I feel I would have a harder time with the short cadenza. Big chords and octaves are easier for me than quick light playing. Even so, I feel that the short cadenza makes more sense within the context of the concerto, and is the one that Rachmaninoff himself would have included if he had published another edition of the concerto. It is also played in some of the versions that make more musical sense to me, like the Horowitz/Ormandy, Jorge Bolet and Rachmaninoff recordings.


The one thing I do not want to do, is grab the ossia cadenza because it makes me look better. It would lead me to a fundamental question about why I am playing the concerto. Am I playing it because it is famous for being hard? Is it about showing off? Am I doing it because I love the music? With the Rach 3, I have to scrutinize very closely the reasons behind everything I do. I have heard way too many versions where the musical lines are fragmented and things are played faster, louder than necessary  or completely blown out of proportion to make it more impressive than it already is. It is a question of musical integrity; when I play this for an audience, I should be playing a piece of music I love and transmitting Rachmaninoff's musical ideas and emotions by being as faithful as I can to the spirit behind the notes. On the other hand, I could go out and show off, play to make myself feel good and important.


Perhaps there is a little of both. There is a place in music for fireworks, excitement and a little circus; it's just a question of finding the right place for them.


Even Horowitz went crazy and recorded the fast and wild Barbirolli version. It is obvious that they are having a lot of fun. The short cadenza there sure doesn't sound wimpy:






Saturday, September 6, 2008

Daily piano tip #2.

If there is something in a piece of music you can't play or are having trouble understanding, there are always two things you can do to it:

1. Play it slower.

If necessary, you can end up playing at one beat per minute. Once you find a tempo that you can play something at, however slow it is, you can always speed up gradually from there.

2. Break it up into smaller pieces.

Even the most difficult piano music is made up of individual notes, you can break the music into pieces following musical patterns, or the sequences of the movements you make to play them. In the end, you can end up with single isolated notes. However small the fragments are, start joining them again once you are comfortable.

Friday, September 5, 2008

Daily piano tip #1.

When learning a new piece, the first thing you should do  is research.


Ten minutes on Wikipedia or Google, or the Grove dictionary of music will save you hours of practice. It will also save your teacher from having to tell you a lot of things you could easily find out by yourself with just a quick check on the Internet, a book, the prologue to your sheet music or in a CD jacket. Make sure you can answer a few simple questions about what you are about to play.


Who is the author?


Where was he from?


When did he live?


What was going on in his life when he wrote the piece of music you are about to play?


Did he write anything else related to or that is like the piece?


What is the title of the piece? You'd be surprised at the number of students who don't even know what the piece is called. I am sure it makes a difference if the piece is called "Roses of Spring" or "Clashing thunder" or "I'm so happy, happy, happy." or "Death, Death. Oh sad music of gloom and despair" or "I sound like I am happy but I am really very sad."


Is the piece based on something? It irks me to hear people play the second movement of the Prokofiev seventh sonata without the slightest idea that it has the same melody as a song by Schumann that is about showing a happy face to the world while being torn up inside. They'll even come out and say "Wow, this movement seems really out of place, it's so happy."


How were similar pieces played back then?


What does the name of the piece mean? You should at least try to learn the meaning of "suite", "sonata", "fugue", etc.


After all that, check through the piece. Did you find any words that you don't know the meaning to? Look them up! All those Italian, French or German terms have definite meanings that are easy to find, and they also have a big impact on how you are supposed to play a particular place in a piece.


With the Internet at our disposal, and thousands of interpretations of classical music free on the web, there is absolutely no excuse to not know at least what it is that you are playing. Before sitting down to play the first note, go out and look it up, it will only take about ten minutes of your time but it will save you hours of practice. It will also make your piano teacher like you a lot more.

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Moving your fingers really fast.

I watched a video by an amazing classical guitar player, John Williams. No, not the Star Wars guy.



This guy
This guy

In the video, someone asked him about his amazing tremolo. The point of his answer was pretty simple: play a note with your first finger, then play the same note with your second finger, then do that again moving your fingers really fast.


On the surface, this answer seems a bit too simple. There must be more to it than that? Of course there is. There are all kinds of problems one must resolve before being able to do the "really fast" part over time. Coordination between both fingers, building up a reflex movement, avoiding excessive muscular tension and keeping a good hand position are just a few of them.


On a deeper level though, the answer he gave is spot-on. It touches on a fundamental part of any musicians technique. The difference between contemplating a thing, and actually doing it. Those really fast scales, aren't going to play themselves, there is an intention behind them. I had a big problem understanding this until only a couple of years ago. Good technique, physical posture and movement are only the first step in solving a musical problem. There is a specific mindset one must have, for it to be really succesful. In my opinion, this mental component also goes towards explaining how it is possible for some truly gifted musicians to have a very advanced technical dominion of the instrument.


It is hard to explain with words. There is a sensation you have where you are following everything you play with full awareness of what is coming. If you don't have unnecessary muscular tension and know the music as well as you should, there is no reason why you can't just move your fingers really fast, on the piano.


The piano is a very unique instrument in this regard. It is not a difficult instrument to play. Really understand that:



The piano is not a difficult instrument to play.


Any guy can come up and get some sound from piano. A dog can play the piano. You press the key, and sound comes out. Anyone without severe mental retardation and some kind of bodily function can pick out a melody after a few minutes of sitting at a piano. It is the easiest instrument to play in that respect. It isn't a violin, where you spend two months just getting the hang of how to hold the damned thing; or God forbid, a french horn.


Piano music and technique are very complicated, though. The actual effort of playing any other instrument is quite hard but a polyphonic instrument like the piano, that also factors in how you press the keys, is very complex. After a certain point (which is quite early on), piano music is just much more complex than anything on the same level for other instruments; although the actual process of playing the piano is always ridiculously more easy. It is not one hard thing you have to do, it's trying to coordinate one hundred very little easy things in every page of music, all at the same time and one after the other.


Understanding this is fundamental towards learning how to practice. Anything you do on the piano can be reduced down to a lot of easy things. You can always make something easier to study and understand by dividing it up into ever smaller sections until you are left with single isolated notes, if necessary.


So we come back again to John Williams' answer. How do you play anything on the piano? Well... you play one note, and then another one, and then another one, and sometimes more than one at the same time. In the end, the really important part of the practice is not about getting your fingers to move at all, but getting you mind to follow and remember all the little things you are supposed to be doing, until they start to become second nature and you can concentrate on other more general things.


If you aren't doing anything to block free movement in your hands and arms, and have a good idea of how things are supposed to be played technically (what finger you have to use, what position you have to have, how the movements are supposed to be), then it's pretty much all in your head. It should get easier over time If it's not, then there might be a problem with your teacher.

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Playing Brahms with an orchestra.

Every time I have played with an orchestra, it is an amazing experience. It doesn't matter if the orchestra is great or if it is terrible. For the pianist, being in such a huge group setting is usually a rare thing. One of the things I love most about concerto playing is the way the sound of the piano constantly evolves as it is supplemented with all the different timbres in the orchestra. It is like playing a whole new instrument.


For those of us that love chamber music, the first Brahms concerto is great. The level of communication and prior discussion that must exist between the conductor and the soloist is very high. The piano and the orchestra constantly complement each other, but the writing is not so dense as to exclude the use of a rubato normally reserved for chamber playing.


I've found that as you add instruments to an ensemble, the liberties you are allowed to take with the music are gradually lessened, since one must take into account more musical lines, more individuals and more opinions. I haven't seen this to be the case with the Brahms concerto. The conductor and the piano form a duo in which both participants must interact constantly. It acts as a chamber group that constantly changes. At times it is a horn and piano duo, at times a piano quintet, a string quartet, a wind quintet, a clarinet duo plus piano or an oboe duo plus piano; there are many combinations. Even so, it never sounds "small". It is a  big concerto, with very loud and dense tutti sections. Since it was originally written as a symphony, the orchestra's role is just as important as the piano's and the constant interaction between the two makes for a great piece of music.


The attitude the soloist must have towards the concerto before playing is something to think about. Some pianists try to work with the orchestra, others just want to be accompanied with something loud in the background that plays tutti while they rest. And some, like the genius pianist Sviatoslav Richter, take a completely different approach, as is seen in this video of Tchaikovsky's first piano concerto:









Maybe my wife wants to be Rita at my next concert?

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Brahms, the way it should be played.

Learn all you need to know to play Brahms in three easy steps:




1. Get this CD:

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="266" caption="An amazing recording."]An amazing recording.[/caption]

2. Listen to the first 20 seconds. Rock out to Julius Katchen and Janos Starker.

3. Repeat number two as much as you can.

The way Julius Katchen plays those first two notes (F# and B), and the way Janos Starker joins the melodic line sum up for me what Brahms is all about: long lines, depth of expression, a warm sound and playing with a lot of soul.

Rachmaninoff and Chopin's waltzes.

Today we were stuck a long time in traffic. We had Rachmaninoff on the stereo; those old recordings of Chopin waltzes, his own stuff and piano miniatures. After about two hours of Rachmaninoff's playing, you start to notice the really fine things he did with rhythm. He played rubato all the time, but it never sounds heavy-handed or out of place.


Interpretations from his time tend to have some bad fame as over-romantic and as having a distortion of rhythm unacceptable by today's standards. After listening to a lot of recordings from back then, I have to disagree. The rubato and his timing are so organic and natural, they seem to mimic the natural movements of our bodies, breathing or the rhythmic cadences of spoken language.


The more I listen to his Chopin waltzes, the more I am fascinated with all the little things he did, with extreme elegance and finesse. Some of them are so tiny they can't really be accurately described. No two phrases are the same. His interpretation of the waltzes is especially enlightening. He never stops with the rubato; not once. At the same time, the waltz rhythm is always there and is easy to follow. You can dance to it.




The man.
The man.



After that, a lot of modern recordings sound extremely unnatural -either too metronomic, or with a distorted unnatural tempo full of heaving and grunting- and when a ritardando or a smorzando or something similar finally come up in the score, they kill the rhythm. A lot of modern interpretations I have heard lack that grace and elegance that seem to be present in most recordings of masters from those times, like Hoffman, Horowitz or Rachmaninoff.


There is also the issue of the interpretation of the written tempo indications. It seems that we are taught today that ritardando means "getting slower", accelerando means "getting faster" and that things like slargando, slentando, stretto or smorzando are pretty much all variations on the theme. Many professional musicians and teachers don't know the difference between rallentando, ritardando or ritenuto; as well as how they all relate specifically to the work of different composers (even if all three appear in the same work, where they obviously mean different things!).


Once I am familiar with a score, when I listen to one of the great masters play it, I don't hear them interpreting all those tempo indications in terms of "slower-faster" but into concepts which are far more profound; "a slight hesitation", "elation", "alacrity", "impatience"; which they tend to do in a very subtle way. Piano or forte aren't "soft" and "loud" but become "far", "near", "whispering", "towering". Modern interpreters might be doing exactly what is written on the score, but being pedantic with the indications is not the same thing as giving deep thought to what they might actually mean, not only to the composer but to ourselves, in a more personal sense.


Striving for an organic sense of rhythm and a natural rubato should be something all musicians try to do. I think there is a lot to be learned from those old recordings. Not so much in the sense of what are they doing? but more in the way of why are they doing that?


Sadly it seems there isn't much thought put into the "why" these days; its all about hitting all the notes and some hazy generalizations people want to call "style".