# Expressiveness vs Technique?



## Samuel Kristopher

Hey guys, got a question for pianists out there.

I've been playing piano for about a year now, mostly just by going through standard exercises and playing various pieces around my level. My girlfriend was trained in the Music School & Academy here in St. Petersburg so she's made sure my basic posture / hand and finger positions are correct and given me the exercises she had to do when studying. The pieces I'm learning at the moment are Chopin's Waltz in A minor, Tarantella by Prokofiev, and some pieces from Tchaikovsky's "Seasons". 

Lately, since I've made a bit of progress in how quickly I can read sheet music and accurately hit the notes, Liuba (my girlfriend) has started complaining that I sound too barbaric/machine-like, that it's much more important I focus on having a beautiful, expressive, lyric musicality, and that things like accuracy and sight-reading speed are less important. 

It's a little frustrating. It seems to me that, the more familiar I am with a piece and the more I play it, the better I am at putting more soul and expressiveness into it. I don't understand how I'm supposed to focus on expressiveness when I'm playing an unfamiliar piece from the Seasons probably at about a tenth of the correct speed. 

She admits that she may not be a good teacher, for all her virtues at the piano, so I wanted to hear the opinions of others. What do you guys think? Am I doing okay, or should expressiveness be the first thing I think about when learning a new piece?

Cheers!


----------



## Taggart

Two separate issues. I'm doing UK piano exams to pass sight reading you need:



> Continuity generally maintained
> Note values mostly realised
> Pitch outlines in place, despite errors
> Cautious presentation


To be good, you're looking at



> Fluent, rhythmically accurate
> Accurate notes/pitch/key
> Musical detail realised
> Confident presentation


The important point is the musical detail - dynamics, rubato, pedal - all the things that bring a piece to life. Any good pianist can do the accuracy and rhythm, it's the musicality that matters. To get that you must have an understanding of what the piece is trying to achieve.

When you're learning a piece, you start with accuracy and rhythm and as you develop an understanding of the piece then you can put in the musical details. Although they may also be part of the technical challenge as well.

In a sense, it's like making a speech, you need to think about what you're trying to convey. That will alter your emphasis and phrasing. Often the same words can convey a range of different meanings depending on the emphasis and phrasing. Music is just the same. You need to think of the mood of the piece and how you convey that.

OK there are a lot of disputes about this. Do you get one or two bars totally accurate with all details at full speed or do you go for a bigger chunk, learning notes and rhythm and then putting in the details and then working up to speed.

I'm working on a Grieg Nocturne (Op 54 no 4) at the minute. There are a range of technical details e.g. the 2 against 3 or the trills but equally there are a whole range of expressive features e.g. bringing out the melody at the start in the chromatic run in the left hand or later on when you're bring out the top line in the right hand in duplets against the chords in the right hand in threes (with ties as well) plus the pedalling. OK some of that is technique - chord voicing and timing - but other parts are musicality.


----------



## Samuel Kristopher

Thanks Taggart! Really useful to know! I may have been a little misleading though - I know that both musicality and technique are important, I was just wondering which I should focus on first, as trying to learn a piece by focusing on the musicality first was really difficult and confusing. You answered that though, so thanks


----------



## worov

> It's a little frustrating. It seems to me that, the more familiar I am with a piece and the more I play it, the better I am at putting more soul and expressiveness into it. I don't understand how I'm supposed to focus on expressiveness when I'm playing an unfamiliar piece from the Seasons probably at about a tenth of the correct speed.


Unfamiliar piece ? Do you mean you never heard the pieces you're practising ? You didn't listen to them on a CD ? I suggest that you listen to the piece before you work on it. Then you know how it is supposed to sound. It will be easier to work on musicality then.

It's like cooking. It's hard to cook a fried egg if you never tasted one. How will you know your egg is well cooked ?

There are several recordings of Chopin's Waltz in A minor. I enjoy Vladimir Ashkenazy (Decca) :










Tchaikovsky's Seasons have been performed by Mikhail Pletnev (Virgin).










Prokofiev wrote at least two tarentellas for piano : one of them is in Musique d'enfants, opus 65 no 4 :






The other is a very fun piece he wrote when he was a teenager :






Both pieces have been recorded by Frederic Chiu (Harmonia Mundi) :










Good luck !


----------



## Taggart

All sorts of arguments about listening to CDs. How do you know if it's any good to start with. You don't want to follow some interpretation if that's not what the music is saying to you. You don't want to aim for something that is beyond your current level of technique.

OK listen to a piece and see if you like it. Then learn it and see you you see it; then you will have much better tools for judging any recording. You won't be reliant on critics judgement, you will have the skill to make your own judgement.


----------



## worov

Taggart said:


> All sorts of arguments about listening to CDs. How do you know if it's any good to start with.


Well, if the student enjoys the recording, then it's a good piece. Simple as that. The student should play pieces he loves. That's my philosophy. When I choose my pieces, I use two criterias :

1. My own taste. I must love the piece. If the piece grates on me, when I listen to it on CD, then I won't have the motivation to learn it. I have listened to Bartok's Mikrokosmos. I find it dull (sorry, Bartok fans), so I don't play it.

2. Difficulty of the piece. I try not to choose pieces way above my level. I am intermediate student, so playing an Liszt etude is an absolute no-no (that's good since I don't like Liszt). But there are many pieces available at my level.



Taggart said:


> You don't want to follow some interpretation if that's not what the music is saying to you.


Well, the best would be to listen to several recordings of the same piece. (This is what I do.) I mentionned the recordings above because these are the ones I know for the pieces he's working on. But I'm sure there are others very good recordings.



Taggart said:


> You don't want to aim for something that is beyond your current level of technique.


You're absolutely right (though playing a piece above your level can be beneficial, but this is especially true for the late intermediate student). Usually the teacher chooses the pieces assigned to the student. I don't know if Samuel Kristopher has a teacher. Is his girlfriend the teacher ? Anyway it looks like she guides him in his piano practice. I suppose she will tell him if the pieces is too difficult.



Taggart said:


> OK listen to a piece and see if you like it. Then learn it and see you you see it; then you will have much better tools for judging any recording. You won't be reliant on critics judgement, you will have the skill to make your own judgement.


This is how I have always done and it has always worked for me.


----------

