kalessin wrote:I would be very interested in hearing how a 'good' player can influence the sound of the instrument just by playing, i.e. just by changing the way they press the keys. It is, in my very humble opinion, simply impossible.
Likewise, I agree with kalessin's assertion that changing the way one depresses the keys will not influence the sound of the piano, at least not for an isolated single note -- hammer velocity (in free flight from the escapement mechanism) reigns supreme; however, to me, I find that how notes are connected / presented by a 'good' piano player ... is what makes a difference in nuance of a given 'musical' performance.
Listen to the way a pianist such as Alfred Brendel lets sounds develop in, say, Beethoven's Fourth Piano Concerto. He attacks certain notes hard, then progressively reduces the intensity (even to the point of using the una corda pedal on a modern piano even when it is not stated explicitly in Beethoven's original score), tying the whole thing down (which in itself creates several levels of nuance) until he flirts with silence. The way he lets the note finish, or die, is so subtly progressive that one doesn't quite know where the note ends and the silence begins.
From this uncertainty, which makes us listen hard to save this fascinating passage from nothingness, arises a strong emotion. If superficiality enters into the performance -- a kind of oversimplification in the rendition of nuances that gives the impression that the note, instead of dying away imperceptibly, is brutally cut off -- the interpretation's magic is immediately destroyed. The unknowingly superficial artist leaves us indifferent because he doesn't force us to focus our hearing faculties towards the outer limits of audibility.
(EDIT: From personal experience, when I watch videos of Lang Lang or Keith Jarrett, their obvious extraneous movements are part of their performances -- when listening to these artists without the vantage point of seeing them perform, their performances seem trite and/or unimportant to me. Yanni is another guy who seems to "benefit" from people watch him perform, whereas his audio CD's leave me cold. The only exception to this visual display, it seems to me is Glenn Gould, whose audio-only performances hold my attention for long periods of time -- perhaps, I am unconsciously recalling the visual "performances" of Gould, but that's another matter.
END EDIT)
The essence of an interpretation (whether on piano or violin or clarinet or kazoo -- well, maybe not the kazoo -- and certainly NOT in bagpipes) lies in working on the infinitely small---be it an attack, or a note held back for a fraction of a second (perceptible if the preceding note is reproduced neither too short nor too long), or be it a note that develops in itself (from the ramping up of sympathetic vibrations of harmonically related undampened strings); or, on a larger level, a crescendo or diminuendo encompassing several notes---all of which gives music a sense of direction, its palpable dynamics, its quivering life, and all of which, in the end, lies in the nuances.
Food for thought,
Joe
EDIT: I think this explanation helps express an anecdote stated earlier in this thread of why Cortot was able to elicit such beautiful music on his own Pleyel, whereas another person could hardly wrest much of a beautiful sound from the same piano.
Last edited by jcfelice88keys (10-12-2014 04:03)
