Dear All,

Do you believe a Musician should play exactly what is written on a piece (note for note, accidentals, dynamics etc) or should they play or improvise with the piece, play it how they feels the music should be played themselves?

Regarding Exam Pieces, Teaching Music and everyday pieces of music, is it important to play exactly what is written or should the Musician be encourage to play what he/she feels with the music (for example, adding a note, an accidental etc...)

Would a candidate lose points for improvising, trying to make the Examination Piece sound enjoyable (I accept some may make a pigs ear of it!)

What does an auidence want to hear? The exact piece note for note or the Musician's translation of the piece, he/she is the person who is bringing the composers music to the auidence.

Best Regards to all,
Craig

I think that if it is an exam piece, and it being played in the exam, i think that it should be played exactly as written, but if not, i think you should add some of your own improvisation or 'musicality' as my teacher called it! Then the pupil is getting more experience i suppose... Anyone else have thoughts on this?

QUOTE

What does an auidence want to hear?

That depends very much on the audience....

I suspect that in changing the pieces in the ABRSM exams one would loose a lot of marks; if you have pupils that enjoy doing this (or wish to take their music making in this way) and want to do exams then perhaps you could try the ABRSM jazz exams: I think that they allow students to play the piece and then improvise on a section of it.

Yes, I agree with you guys on the Exam front. After all, you are taking an Exam that requires you to meet specific requirements.

Sometimes I have felt 'trapped' when I have had to play a piece of music that is written. It sometimes makes me feel as if I am unable to express myself (my creativity.)

Would you say there were Logical Musicians (follow what is written to the rule) and Creative Musicians (add bits in, expand on a theme etc..?) I suppose a musician should have both of these?

Just my own personal opinions of course!

Thanks Guys,
Craig

QUOTE (AnotherPianist @ Jun 15 2004, 11:22 AM)

I suspect that in changing the pieces in the ABRSM exams one would loose a lot of marks;

Nonsense. Any old (baroque and pre-baroque) music is meant to be elaborated upon heavily.

Which I find really tricky...

Boroque music is probably what I play most, and what I enjoy playing most (probably comes from playing the recorder for so long) but how do you know where to elabourate, or what to elabourate, and which ornaments to use? Should you go on instinct or just put in the ornaments the editor suggests
? And when do you have too many ornaments, I supose when the shape (or contours as examiners have a habit of saying- I thought they were from Geography but whatever) starts to become obliterated.

But how do you know, and what if the examiner happens to take a dislike to your embellishments? surely then you're really stuck!

If you're a good musician, you will be pretty certain what embellishments to put in.

If you're a good musician, you will play the embellishments well enough that there is no way that an examiner can disagree.

If you're doing this in a grade below grade 6, you don't risk it, because you may be a good musician, but you're probably not good enough.

Dear All,

Following on from my other posts....

Is It probably best to understand the Theory before being creative? To understand the various embellishments that you may put in before putting them in.

Best Regards,
Craig

QUOTE

Nonsense. Any old (baroque and pre-baroque) music is meant to be elaborated upon heavily.

Okay then, appropriate elaborations at appropriate points, but I think these would be few and far between (possibly limited to ornamentations in Baroque works?); I do think that one really has to understand what one is doing before taking decisions to change things though. I don't think that the ABRSM are particularly after elaborations, in general for pieces with cadenzas they don't require the cadenza to be played; for ornaments the editor makes a suggestion (based on presumably much research, pondering and expertise) and they are quite happy for a musician to agree with these. They do ask theory questions on how ornaments should be played, so there are certainly several 'wrong' ways to do these things (otherwise answering anything to these questions would gain full marks, hence rendering them pointless...) so I would recommend great care when doing it as there are many potential pitfalls and you don't stand to gain anything in the exam from it. However, if outside the exam you enjoy doing it then why not?! I'm by no means an expert though so feel free to ignore me!

QUOTE

Would you say there were Logical Musicians (follow what is written to the rule) and Creative Musicians (add bits in, expand on a theme etc..?) I suppose a musician should have both of these?

I think that musicians that just play what's on the page (i.e. don't change things and improvise) are doing more than just functioning logically; otheriwise why would a human be better than a computer? I would argue that both are creative and valid.

If it's a good performance isn't that all that matters?? whether you improvise or not?!

Ok, here's a similar question...

For my grade 7 flute, I'm playing the second movement of a Mozart concerto. There's a written cadenza which I can play, but would I gain more marks if I performed my own? Similarly, would I lose marks?

It's not really a case of elaboration, more of totally changing it!

[QUOTE]If you're a good musician, you will be pretty certain what embellishments to put in.

If you're a good musician, you will play the embellishments well enough that there is no way that an examiner can disagree.[QUOTE]

Whoever said I was a good musician!! I just play the music, (cause I enjoy it) and pass the exams, (cause they look good in my Record of Achievement). Oh, and of course playing flute means I meet lots of interesting people.

And when I did Grade 7 I played the teleman Sonata- it's now been removed from the sylabus. On my comments sheet, the examiner went on about imprecision in embellishments or something in the allegro. I wish I knew which embellishments he meant, because there are only a few trills that I played, and I'm not sure how imprecise you can get on a couple of trills, unless of course he thought some of my errors (there were quite a few- because of nerves I played it faster than ever before and my accompanist said he only just managed to keep up!)

A few thoughts on Baroque ornamentation:

1. Get ideas from listening to lots of recordings, both specifically for individual pieces you are learning and also to get a "feel" for what works.

2. The theory helps - e.g. make sure all trills start on the upper note.

3. Editors don't always put in the most sensible suggestions - and views have changed about what was originally meant, so old editions have some horrendous suggestions.

4. As a general rule, if you can't play it well don't play it at all. Especially for exams. It is OK to change the suggestions in exam pieces - if it helps you play the piece better. You won't get more or fewer marks just because of the notes you play, it's how well you play them that counts! (My recorder pupils add in trills from grade 1).