# How Does Playing A Piece Affect One's Understanding of It?



## Aleksandr Rachkofiev (Apr 7, 2019)

How much more (though I know it's hard to quantify) and in what ways has playing a certain piece, or even a part of it, helped you understand it more than simply listening to it with an active ear? Is there some fundamental aspect of any piece that can only be grasped through playing it? I'm mainly curious about this because I haven't been playing piano for that long, but I definitely feel that I achieve a much deeper connection with works I take the time to actually play as opposed to the ones I just listen to. If there is a significant difference, can someone who merely listens ever achieve the same understanding of a work as someone who plays it?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

The idea if you're playing the music is that you're _becoming_ the music as an insider looking out rather than being on the outside listening in. But I still think it's possible for a non-musician to have great insight into the music even if not as a performer, though one will likely have no idea of the technical challenges and difficulties that can add something special to the experience. Overall then, most musicians have the advantage and there's a special thrill of feeling the vibrations of the instrument in one's fingers translating the music into sound. I found this true when practicing the Mozart and von Weber clarinet concertos rather than just listening to them. It's a privilege to play an instrument and it does have its special rewards that can't exactly be put into words, other than to say that you're also part of the history of that work by actually performing it. I believe the learning of any instrument is worth the cost and sacrifice because of the lifelong rewards it can bring. You're no longer an outsider looking in.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

We notice and remember much more about our surroundings when driving than when watching things go by from the passenger's seat. Performing music definitely changes our perception of it. We both hear more and imagine more: listening to someone else's performance tells us only one way a piece can be understood, whereas the process of working on the piece can tell us much more about it, both its formal properties and its potential expressive meanings. Having to consider and choose from among the interpretive possibilities allows us to "own" the music, which invests it with value and meaning it didn't have when we merely heard it.


----------



## Aleksandr Rachkofiev (Apr 7, 2019)

Good responses! A follow-up question might be: how significant is the difference between a conductor and a performer's understanding of a work? 

While in a symphonic work the conductor knows all the parts whereas the (average) orchestral player only knows his/her own, the conductor oftentimes lacks the deep understanding an instrumentalist has for his/her particular instrument and its character. How does a typical performance then differ from a hypothetical one in which the conductor and all the performers have the exact same understanding of the music, each instrument, and the proper "place" of everything when put together? Might it actually be worse (this question might be difficult to answer simply due to it being asked in such a vague way :lol?


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Aleksandr Rachkofiev said:


> Good responses! A follow-up question might be: how significant is the difference between a conductor and a performer's understanding of a work?
> 
> How does a typical performance then differ from a hypothetical one in which the conductor and all the performers have the *exact same understanding of the music*, each instrument, and the proper "place" of everything when put together? Might it actually be worse (this question might be difficult to answer simply due to it being asked in such a vague way :lol?


An actual performance is heard by an audience, it represents a balance of sound. The conductor is there to keep the musicians together and to get the balance of sound and timbre that he wants. Yes, the players can help by listening to each other and adjusting the way they sound and how clearly they can hear their own part in relation to the other parts. But physical location on stage affects your understanding of the sound balance. That's why some small rock and folk groups use fold back speakers to judge the sound balance the audience is hearing. That's why your hypothetical example would fail because it would depend on an incredible understanding of sound balance for each player.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Infinitely more, to the original question. Especially learning to play a piece I am able to discover how Beethoven uses suspensions, etc. to achieve their effects, especially music I never heard before from scratch. I feel I can see somwhat how he composes the music when he goes along and against my expectations as I'm labouring through. In fact I learn a lot by making mistakes when I anticipate incorrectly. It all goes towards ear training as well.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Playing great masterworks in an orchestra gives you an understanding and appreciation that no amount of record listening or even score study can approach. Even though you're only playing one part, you hear how your part fits in to the whole, how the work is constructed vertically and horizontally. The architecture of the work really becomes clear. When I was a kid I really didn't care for the Brahms' 1st. Too long, dull, over-blown. Then the opportunity to play the contrabassoon part came along. After those four rehearsals and the two concerts, the Brahms suddenly opened up to me and I knew why it's a great, great masterpiece. I resisted the Mendelssohn symphonies for a long time, too. But now, having playing nos. 3, 4, & 5 several times each I get it. George Szell took in very few students when he was in Cleveland - James Levine was one. He required that every student play in the orchestra. Maybe piano or percussion, but at least they got some of insiders-view that is so essential. That's a real problem for me with so many young conductors today: they have very little, if any, orchestral playing experience. They think that making fancy patterns, acting like a clown is what a conductor does. That's a reason I think the old guys were better; they came from the ranks. Toscanini, Koussevitsky, Munch, Monteux, Ormandy, Haitink - they and many others spent a lot of time in the orchestra.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

When you play or sing the music you create it, you interpret it. It's the same difference as building the house and watching it be built.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

mbhaub said:


> Playing great masterworks in an orchestra gives you an understanding and appreciation that no amount of record listening or even score study can approach. Even though you're only playing one part, you hear how your part fits in to the whole, how the work is constructed vertically and horizontally. The architecture of the work really becomes clear. When I was a kid I really didn't care for the Brahms' 1st. Too long, dull, over-blown. Then the opportunity to play the contrabassoon part came along. After those four rehearsals and the two concerts, the Brahms suddenly opened up to me and I knew why it's a great, great masterpiece. I resisted the Mendelssohn symphonies for a long time, too. But now, having playing nos. 3, 4, & 5 several times each I get it. George Szell took in very few students when he was in Cleveland - James Levine was one. He required that every student play in the orchestra. Maybe piano or percussion, but at least they got some of insiders-view that is so essential. That's a real problem for me with so many young conductors today: they have very little, if any, orchestral playing experience. They think that making fancy patterns, acting like a clown is what a conductor does. That's a reason I think the old guys were better; they came from the ranks. Toscanini, Koussevitsky, Munch, Monteux, Ormandy, Haitink - they and many others spent a lot of time in the orchestra.


 I agree with you absolutely except about today's younger conductors , many of whom do have experience playing in orchestras . And many renowned conductors from the past did not play in orchestras and were pianists , such as Solti, Karajan, Sawallisch , Boult, to name only a few .


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

You're right - but Solti and his generation came up through the opera house system. They served as repetiturs learning the music from the inside, then eventually allowed to conduct smaller operas, then the big time. And yes, there are a lot of youngsters, like Karina Cannelakis (sp?) who spent time in the violin section. But there are also a lot of them out there with little to no orchestral background. One I know was a trumpet major who realized he'd never be good enough for a high paying gig so too up the baton. Many of these posers would be exposed immediately if they had to do concerts with 3rd, 4th rate groups. The Berlin Phil or NY isn't going to sound bad for anyone. Making a lesser ensemble sound great really takes skill, talent, psychology and experience - that's my problem with a lot of the kids; they want to go to the big time too early.


----------

