Amber wrote on the Grade 5 Theory thread:

QUOTE (Amber @ Nov 5 2004, 02:50 PM)

Is aiming for perfection good or bad?   I always seem to strive for it, but it can be hard work at times.

I think aiming for perfection is good, but achieving it is so rare (especially, in a musical context, in a live performance of any kind) that you have to train yourself not to take it too hard if you don't achieve it. You need to develop an "off switch" for it. I've just had some button badges made in particular for the players in my elementary orchestra for adults, saying "My best is good enough". I was reminded again only this morning on BBC Radio 3 that the top professionals don't always play perfectly (which I knew anyway!). On the "building a library" programme which was comparing the available recordings of Charles Ives's ferociously difficult Concord Sonata (for piano) there was a comment about a clumsy edit which had actually made it onto a finished recording. Oops!

BTW if you want to hear the detailed and interesting comparison of the recordings I believe you should be able to pick it up on the BBC Web site for the next week - www.bbc.co.uk. Two movements of the sonata will also be played tomorrow morning (Sunday November 7) at about 11.30 GMT on BBC Radio 3's Cowan Collection programme.

Too often perfection in accuracy (of notes and timing) means that music conveyed in the phrasing (aiming for the goal note in the phrase, and expression generally) is sacrificed or overlooked.

I don't want messy performances, but slightly slower with phrasing (or so phrasing and expression can take place) is so enjoyable to hear.

Sometimes the difference between a professional performing career and a world class artist seems to me to be whether phrasing is conveyed or not.

The cellist Rostropovich has such excellent phrasing!

No - nice quote (loosely based) on something Piotr Andersomething said on the great pianists video:
'We try to be as safe as possible by practicing, but then we realise that safe is often boring, and that we may never be completely safe, since music is something that's alive.'
Or something along those lines!

Dave

I was attracted to this Post like a moth to a light.... strange, that!

I like your quote by Piotr Andersomethingorother, Dave, as I can really identify with the safety aspect. For me, knowing that I've got a piece technically right, or as right as I can given I'm a mere fledgling singer, helps build my comfort zone. And it's only after that, that I feel safe to sing from my heart. The more you give the higher the risk, but also the higher the rewards. If that makes sense?



Amber
x

-

QUOTE (Rhapsodin @ Nov 10 2004, 09:44 AM)

I can't see perfection in any of the Arts as possible. It would presume an absolute standard against which to measure a result.

Excellent point, Rhapsodin. Before reading your post I would have said yes, aim for perfection, but don't expect to achieve it. Now, though, I will amend it to Aim for beauty.

I recently learned Haydn's Gypsy Rondo on piano. I reached a certain speed, the phrasing and dynamics were spot on ( I say modestly ) and I thought it sounded beautiful. Then I noticed the editor had marked a metronome speed ... rather faster than my interpretation (132 crotchet to my 110 crotchet). I spent about two months trying to play it at this speed and beating myself up because it didn't sound as good. Of course it didn't! The phrasing went by so fast it could scarcely be heard. I had achieved the editor's idea of perfection - but it wasn't mine. Perhaps there is a musician who could create beauty at this speed - but is there an ear which could appreciate it? To me it sounded like a typewriter (clackclackclackclackclack - ping)!

I know when I'm learning a new piece I hear 2 versions: My own clumsy sightreading and, in my head, a wonderful performance with every note so crafted as to bring tears to the eyes. My task is to bring the former as close as possible to the latter. I'm working on Mozart's Clarinet Concerto K622 at the moment - the clarinet in my head has such a lovely mellow tone, whereas my real one sounds rather thin!

Well, sorry if this is rather long and disjointed - perhaps I've been thinking about perfection too much!

QUOTE (Fred @ Nov 10 2004, 11:54 AM)

QUOTE (Rhapsodin @ Nov 10 2004, 09:44 AM) I can't see perfection in any of the Arts as possible.   It would presume an absolute standard against which to measure a result. Excellent point, Rhapsodin. Before reading your post I would have said yes, aim for perfection, but don't expect to achieve it. Now, though, I will amend it to Aim for beauty.

Aim for beauty. Yes, I like that.

one can never be perfect.... there's bound to be room for improvement.... just go for the beauty of the music...

If your piece is really hard, it's nearly impossible to aim for 100% perfection.

QUOTE (Fred @ Nov 10 2004, 11:54 AM)

I recently learned Haydn's Gypsy Rondo on piano. I reached a certain speed, the phrasing and dynamics were spot on ( I say modestly   ) and I thought it sounded beautiful. Then I noticed the editor had marked a metronome speed ... rather faster than my interpretation (132 crotchet to my 110 crotchet). I spent about two months trying to play it at this speed and beating myself up because it didn't sound as good. Of course it didn't! The phrasing went by so fast it could scarcely be heard. I had achieved the editor's idea of perfection - but it wasn't mine. Perhaps there is a musician who could create beauty at this speed - but is there an ear which could appreciate it? To me it sounded like a typewriter (clackclackclackclackclack - ping)!

Oooh yes, I agree.

I often tell my pupils this sort of thing about the metronome speeds on the exam pieces - that is, that the metronome speed is a professional performance speed for the piece, the speed the piece is "best" at in the editor's or the composer's opinion, not a grade 2 speed to achieve for best marks. And then I tend to go on to say (with many pieces) that the speed I think the music works best at - so that the mood and expression is best conveyed - is....(and it's usually slower).

I'm afraid I'm a bit critical of many professional performances regarding speed, as lots of things are played too fast for the phrasing and expression to be conveyed. Maybe they've lost sight of, or didn't perceive the expression that I imagine - or maybe they perceive it differently from me, but actually I think that is being too kind. It's easier to imagine phrasing and expression as a listener than to get it across in performance, of course, but if you've imagined it, you try to put it across - at the appropriate speed. I am nonetheless impressed by how some pieces gain a completely new atmosphere at a very fluent speed - such as the Grieg piano piece called Butterfly Op43. Sometimes it's easier to play a piece fast to give it life, to make up for a lack of imagined expression and phrasing. Sometimes to stay ahead of the crowd of other professionals, or to keep one's world class reputation, a performer might "have" to play a piece fast. Nonetheless, better to choose showpieces for showpieces, and (like the truly world class players, in my opinion) express the music with wonderful understanding of which notes are important in the phrase so the music goes up to a higher level where it seems to "speak" so much more.......