What really is the standard of playing in diplomas? Is it OK if someone plays the pieces PERFECTLY (I really mean perfect-no mistakes at all, correct phrasing, good dynamics, excellent technique, beautiful expression, etc.) like you do in grade exams (you'll probably get around 27-30 if you play it like that in any grade)? And if you have to play with "interpretation", or whatever it is, what really is the meaning of that word? Where's the border between technique and interpretation? I'm too afraid that I won't be able to use "interpretation", or whatever it means. It's not just "the way of playing a piece". That's way too general.

Anyone bothered to answer?

I read your post, didn't bother replying at first b/c the question you asked is not really possible to answer. I can talk about this for years.
But I probably can understand where you are coming from with this question.... I guess, I can answer this much. This is what I tell my students:

The performance in diploma levels is a lot HIGHER in standard than graded exams. In a certain way, you can think of it this way. Graded exams, you as a candidate can approach the exam and enter the room thinking yourself as a "student"/"candidate".... performing to be judged by the examiner. So, how I explain it to students in comparison is: You are playing with a "?" question mark. The expression of the performance often is like there is a question mark at the end. So to answer your question, just playing all the correct notes, rhythm, counting will not do the trick. Robots can do that. Computers can do that. But if you ever noticed, sounds from a recording, MP3, websites, or Cds....are NEVER comparable to the experience and sounds of a LIVE CONCERT.

But at diploma level, you are to carry yourself into the exam room as an "artist". To perform in a solo recital. Therefore, the expression of the performance overall is with a "!" exclamation mark. It has to "WOW" the audience, from the start to the end. This cannot be summed up in any specific words. Of course, technique, articulation, expression ,dynamics, style, pedalling, ( I can only speak from a pianist point of view)..... and the cleaniness of the performance. Programme is important, and tempo and consistency, AND whether the way you performed the programme was convincing. Was it like a Puppet performance of your teacher? Did the performance come from your heart and soul ?

This all comes from years of studying music, history, composers, listening to lots of concerts and recordings, and a lot of internalization of yourself as a musician. Getting to the diploma level is a long term project. No quick shortcuts.

I think I already wrote too much.

Please try not to demand answers from people when your question has only been up for a short time; it feels quite impolite. Secondly the standard is not really possible to describe in words, the AB say the standard of someone at the end of the first year of music college: however this varies from person to person (I guess that they're saying pass is the minimum expected standard to pass the first year). The syllabus gives wordy descriptions of the standard expected; but really it's something that can't be described in words. To pass you have to wow (not really sure that's a verb...) the examiner and impress them whereas to just pass a grade your playing has to be 'satisfactory' to an examiner. The description of someone failing a diploma is simply 'not advanced sufficiently beyond ABRSM grade 8' so if your playing is grade 8 standard you fail. There is a DVD 'Achieveing Sucess' I don't know if you'll be able to get it but that has examples of people's performances in exams but even then you need a good musical ear to tell how good they are (even relative to you); someone with an underdeveloped ear would probably not be able to tell how good the performances really are anyway (I'm not saying you there just generally a lot people).

In summary it can't really be described in words and there are only two ways to truly find out if your playing is the right standard: either get a teacher experienced at entering people to tell you if your playing is ready or not; or enter and try the exam to see if you pass.

And remember that the recital is only part of the diploma syllabus - 40% is non- recital. I'm wondering how would fare in the viva if you're unsure of the meaning of 'interpretation' and the 'border' between interpretation and technique. And then there's the quick study, etc..

Further to what AnotherPianist and Helen said, there is an excellent book called "The Art of Practicing" that's really good by Madeline Bruser.
The subtitle of this book is "A guide to Making music from the Heart" I think that sums it up !

I love this book. I recommend it to all musicians, teachers, students, and music lovers.

The other good book is "With your Own Two Hands" Subtitle: Self-Discovery through music, by Seymour Bernstein.

I am sure alot of you have heard of these two books. But in case, anyone who hasn't, I recommend these to my students to read, and they have both been enlightening.

QUOTE (AnotherPianist @ Mar 11 2005, 06:17 PM)

Please try not to demand answers from people when your question has only been up for a short time; it feels quite impolite.

Sorry, Another Pianist, I guess we have never gotten along. Anyway, I understand, but it seemed nobody bothered anyway. I could start a long, long debate on this, but it's a great idea not to do so.

Isn't it true that performing isn't supposed be examined? Everybody's playing is different. If you hear a recording of a pianist A playing the Beethoven sonatas in a this way, and pianist B that way, maybe you could like only A, but other people could've liked B better, even though both of them played the pieces perfectly in techique. It's a matter of taste. When you can play the piece technically perfect, I mean that you're able to play the piece perfectly in notes, tempo, expression, etc. then you could start interpreting the music much more freely, without technical difficulties. So, you can't say B had a bad interpretation if he could get the technical stuff right. There's no kind of perfectly "right" interpretation, whatever the term "interpretation" means.

In the grade exams, I think that the technical part is much more examined rather than the interpretation, especially because in the earlier grades you barely need too much expression. But in diplomas, the candidate (or artist) should have an interpretation of his own kind. If the examiners just mark from this, then it depends more from the examiner, right?

Even if the examiners mark by if it's wowing them or not, first it's hard because you have to get a number of marks (could you easily measure how "wowed" you are?), not just pass or failed. And what if a pianist wanted to play something DIFFERENTLY, I mean in a sort of new way? That's what a lot of artists do. But the examiners might not like it, despite the fact that the audience might. And that's what made the transformation of musical periods. The examiners then have to be really open, and judge not by the interpretation itself.

And a person might be "wowwed" by a certain candidate, but not the another one, even though some people like the other one much better.

The sentences I just wrote might sound stupid, but that's my opinion.

The main question wasn't really the standard of playing, but the question WHAT IS INTERPRETATION? Can we consider that a new Grade 1 student has a bit of interpretation?

QUOTE

The expression of the performance often is like there is a question mark at the end. So to answer your question, just playing all the correct notes, rhythm, counting will not do the trick. Robots can do that. Computers can do that.

I said not just purely technical stuff: are dynamics and rubato considered interpretation, too? Normally, I play using dynamics and expression, but I listen to recordings, too. Each recording has some interpretation, too. But after I listen to that recording, I can start feeling that my playing is wrong, and I have to do everything EXACTLY like that recording. I can think, if I play like exactly like this then the examiner will be happy, but there's a big risk of failing if I play it in my own way. It's just like my coming grade 8 exam. What if I wanted to play the Beethoven sonata with more pedal than the recording? Will my examiner like it? But how about if I played it in that way in a diploma exam? Will he consider it as a big mistake or will he consider that as a part of my own interpretation? What if I hate the way they play in recordings and I want to play it my own way?

Is there a real line between playing technically and with some "interpretation"?

QUOTE (DGA @ Mar 14 2005, 09:00 AM)

QUOTE (AnotherPianist @ Mar 11 2005, 06:17 PM) Please try not to demand answers from people when your question has only been up for a short time; it feels quite impolite. Sorry, Another Pianist, I guess we have never gotten along.

I don't think it's a personality clash, DGA, you were just plain rude.

Having said that - DGA does have a point, interpretation can be a very personal thing: look at Glenn Gould, how would he have fared doing the Goldberg variations as he does them in his 1982 recording (rather than the 1955 more traditional version), one wonders....and with the humming along (which comes out quite clearly in the recordings)....yet can anyone deny he was one of the great Bach interpreters of the 20th century?

Food for thought really. However - you have to be incredibly self-confident - arrogant, even, to be able to pull it off as an untried, junior musician....

QUOTE (DGA @ Mar 14 2005, 09:00 AM)

Sorry, Another Pianist, I guess we have never gotten along. Anyway, I understand, but it seemed nobody bothered anyway. I could start a long, long debate on this, but it's a great idea not to do so.

Indeed so let's not. I've seen it happen a few times on here (it's not just you that does it) the only reason I complained at yours and don't usually complain is because I don't usually reply when that happens, but as I wanted to reply anyway I thought I'd mention it to you. I have nothing against you, it's just that I happened to be replying to this post and not to the others.

QUOTE (DGA @ Mar 14 2005, 09:00 AM)

sn't it true that performing isn't supposed be examined? Everybody's playing is different. If you hear a recording of a pianist A playing the Beethoven sonatas in a this way, and pianist B that way, maybe you could like only A, but other people could've liked B better, even though both of them played the pieces perfectly in techique. It's a matter of taste.

It is the job of the examiners to objectively assess your interpretation and that isn't an easy task. They have to thing not 'do I like that interpretation' but is that piece played with any passion, attention to detail and any real feeling such that someone could like it. I'm sure that they will be slightly affected by whether they like it or not but not to the extent of it making more than 3 marks difference or something: don't get to hung up on the precise mark mostly that will just be a general idea of where you fit into the category, what they will be focussing on is putting you into the right category and the mark is of lesser importance: it's very unlikely that two examiners would give an identical mark to the same performance, but we'd hope that they'd put each person in the same category. Even if one prefers Brendel's interpretation of the Beethoven Sonatas, one can still appreciate that Gould's has merits and is good even if it's not to one's taste; this is what the examiners have to do.

QUOTE (DGA @ Mar 14 2005, 09:00 AM)

In the grade exams, I think that the technical part is much more examined rather than the interpretation, especially because in the earlier grades you barely need too much expression. But in diplomas, the candidate (or artist) should have an interpretation of his own kind. If the examiners just mark from this, then it depends more from the examiner, right?

It depends how you approach the exams, I'd agree that certainly not a great deal is required to pass but to get a distinction in the higher grades pieces need to be well interpreted.

QUOTE (DGA @ Mar 14 2005, 09:00 AM)

Even if the examiners mark by if it's wowing them or not, first it's hard because you have to get a number of marks (could you easily measure how "wowed" you are?), not just pass or failed. And what if a pianist wanted to play something DIFFERENTLY, I mean in a sort of new way? That's what a lot of artists do. But the examiners might not like it, despite the fact that the audience might. And that's what made the transformation of musical periods. The examiners then have to be really open, and judge not by the interpretation itself.

There's a fine line between genius and rubbish! Sometimes someone might do something so radical that it's considered rubbish yet 20 years down the line it's hailed as genius. I think that it's important to learn as a young player how things are conventionally done before really making quite a large step in a new direction as this will probably be seen as lack of knowledge of current practices rather than genius.

QUOTE (DGA @ Mar 14 2005, 09:00 AM)

And a person might be "wowwed" by a certain candidate, but not the another one, even though some people like the other one much better.

I think it's possible to be really impressed by an interpretation even if one doesn't subjectively like it, examiners know what's bold and different and can appreciate music on a theoretical level even if they don't like on a personal level.

QUOTE (DGA @ Mar 14 2005, 09:00 AM)

The main question wasn't really the standard of playing, but the question WHAT IS INTERPRETATION? Can we consider that a new Grade 1 student has a bit of interpretation?

Again the answer is yes, grade 1 students do interpret their pieces, at least those that get good marks do. Some people will approach the grades as a mere technical exercise to get through each piece; others really do want to play their pieces with artistry. If you notice two people one playing grade 5 pieces and one playing grade 1 pieces (these being their respective standards) it is possible to feel that the grade 1 pianist is already far more of an artist than the grade 5 pianist (if this is true): they play nicely with a good tone and real feeling, some people get to grade 8 and still have really quite dry playing. I wouldn't question the fact that artistry and the ability to interpret develops as the person gains more experience of playing but some people start of with more artistry or develop it more quickly (and some people work more so on that than on pushing techncial boundries and thus cause the development to happen more quickly). In my opinion the best pianist is not the one who can play the hardest pieces but the one that can play the pieces that they play, at whatever level, the best: this is what I strive for technical issues are, in theory, the easy bit....

Perhaps this will make more sense: written music is purely a mathematical thing: press this (or these) note(s) for this long then release it and play this note etc. theoretically every reading of this should be identical: this is what computers can do to read it, they'll all play exactly the same. Interpretation is what makes one person's performance different to another person's performance: how they play the notes, do they stretch the time a little, small details like this.

QUOTE (DGA @ Mar 14 2005, 09:00 AM)

I said not just purely technical stuff: are dynamics and rubato considered interpretation, too? Normally, I play using dynamics and expression, but I listen to recordings, too. Each recording has some interpretation, too. But after I listen to that recording, I can start feeling that my playing is wrong, and I have to do everything EXACTLY like that recording. I can think, if I play like exactly like this then the examiner will be happy, but there's a big risk of failing if I play it in my own way. It's just like my coming grade 8 exam. What if I wanted to play the Beethoven sonata with more pedal than the recording? Will my examiner like it? But how about if I played it in that way in a diploma exam? Will he consider it as a big mistake or will he consider that as a part of my own interpretation? What if I hate the way they play in recordings and I want to play it my own way?

Whether the examiner consideres something a mistake is really dependent on how historically informed the decision to interpret in a certain way is. For example if you chose to use the pedal in Bach and put in lots of rubato then the examiner will consider this wrong, well I would, it's not historically well informed. If however you decided in Bach that you wanted to play the repeat and ornament it the second time (in a historically informed manner) then you wouldn't lose marks, regardless of whether they like it or not, so long as what you've done is tastefull, historically informed and they could see that others might potentially like it. So if you want to know about whether it's appropriate to use the pedal in your Beethoven research his pianos and what he would have expected.

QUOTE (DGA @ Mar 14 2005, 09:00 AM)

Is there a real line between playing technically and with some "interpretation"?

Most definitely, this is what music is all about. Although I'd question whether it's possible for a human to play a piece with no interpretation at all everyone, no matter how skilled, or otherwise, will approach each piece in a slightly different manner.

And finally,

QUOTE (DGA @ Mar 14 2005, 09:00 AM)

The sentences I just wrote might sound stupid, but that's my opinion.

No they don't, it's an interesting discussion.

A thought on the question of "new" interpretations - the programme notes are an opportunity to discuss the performance and interpretation of the work. Anyone attempting their own spin on a piece would have the opportunity to justify it academically in the notes, and the examiners could then discuss it with them as part of the viva. In this way there is the chance to put some objectivity around it - why has the candidate opted for something different, and does their research bear it out? For example, let's say you pedalled constantly through some Bach. Perhaps you'd argue that an 18th/19th century piano was not so precise in its action as a modern piano, and that the performer would have been gifted some legato from the action - by light use of the pedal you're reproducing this.

True, the viva and performance are marked separately, but this is the only place where the examiner can sense the "why" of your performance.

DGA - I suggest that if you haven't done so already you look at the marking schedule for the diploma exams which are in the downloadable syllabus. It won't answer your "how is it different from Grade 8" type questions, but might give you some idea about what makes a good or great Dip pass.

In my Dip exam I came off the rails spectacularly in my Haydn Sonata - once in the first movement and once in the third. It was rapid sections where I just lost control. Things I sailed through in practise but bottled on the day. I kept up some kind of pulse until I was through it. I still passed, so no, you do not have to give a note-perfect performance. Some performance skill lies in how you cope with mistakes (I don't think anyone is ever guaranteed a perfect performance!) - perhaps they felt that the fact that I didn't stop and try to "fix" things was an appropriate response.

QUOTE

It depends how you approach the exams, I'd agree that certainly not a great deal is required to pass but to get a distinction in the higher grades pieces need to be well interpreted.

AnotherPianist - please, please, can you word this type of comment a little more considerately I think you're being a bit insulting to the people who do have to slog to get a straight pass. I hope that what you mean is that the higher you get the harder you have to work at all apects of your performance to acheive a distinction?

Yes sorry, it's more of a lament at the attitude of rushing through the grades without worrying about artistry just about collecting certificates (a strategy doomed to failure at diploma level); rather than those who work so hard to achieve just a pass. I guess that there's another point in there too: at the diploma level you certainly won't even get a pass pass with anything but distinction level performance in anything else. I have great respect for people who work very hard to get just passes in the grades, and I certainly wasn't saying that their passes aren't good. It was merely an upgrading of DGA's comment (although he worded his more diplomataically!) that no interpretation is needed in the grades at any level, just technical accuracy. What I meant worded in a better way was that people who are getting distinctions at any level are most certainly playing musically and so too, although to a lesser extent, are those that pass. I hope that sounds nicer .

QUOTE

without worrying about artistry just about collecting certificates

But they're so pretty and shiny...

I'd have to agree entirely with your reword - nicely captures the idea that playing a piece note perfect ain't enough - you have to have some soul there too
<clambers clumsily off high horse>

well put *grins*

QUOTE (sarah-flute @ Mar 14 2005, 05:52 PM)

QUOTE (DGA @ Mar 14 2005, 09:00 AM) QUOTE (AnotherPianist @ Mar 11 2005, 06:17 PM) Please try not to demand answers from people when your question has only been up for a short time; it feels quite impolite. Sorry, Another Pianist, I guess we have never gotten along. I don't think it's a personality clash, DGA, you were just plain rude.

OK, I KNOW I am RUDE, I have been RUDE many times, I have shattered a lot of my relationships with people without knowing it, now when meeting somebody I am VERY VERY careful in what I'm saying. So if I'm rude on the board, REALLY SORRY, and I guess that's why I spend most of my time studying music and reading dictionaries alone rather than wasting time playing online games with my friends. Many people have been doing this! Some post something like that only 5 minutes after they post the topic.

Thank you, Another Pianist. Now I understand how they mark.

QUOTE

Perhaps this will make more sense: written music is purely a mathematical thing: press this (or these) note(s) for this long then release it and play this note etc. theoretically every reading of this should be identical: this is what computers can do to read it, they'll all play exactly the same. Interpretation is what makes one person's performance different to another person's performance: how they play the notes, do they stretch the time a little, small details like this.

So, it seems that everybody has an interpretation of themselves, I mean they develop that automatically with their practicing and playing without any specific training just to "create" an interpretation, isn't that right?

Ok, now I understand how they mark candidates. Now it's time for me to get back practising.

DGA

Regarding interpretation, I can probably share my own experience with you.

I had my lesson yesterday and I played Deux Arabesque No.1 to my teacher. He was very pleased with my playing but he commented, "well, you play it in a rather emotional/passionate way. Since it's your own interpretation, it's OK. But I would have played it more gently." (NB. he knows my usual way is to play 'p' in 'pp' and 'f' in 'ff' or even 'sf')

In my second attempt, I tried to play it more gently and reduced contrast in dynamics. He then said, "This way of playing is conventionally accepted, the French would like it." (implying that the examiner would like it too.)

Which way do you think I would opt for? Of course the latter approach. It is not just because I want to get higher marks in exam (but yes, I still want to ), I also want my audience enjoy my playing.

My teacher went on to comment my playing towards the end of the piece (bars 103 onwards). He said I played it in the usual western way which is OK. But he also said that this part of music came from the idea of Chinese music (as you know, Debussy visited Asia) and I should try playing it in an oriental way. He even quoted a Chinese saying to help me picture the scene in my mind. I did try and, the effect was good and different ie. it is unique, it becomes my own way of interpretation.

Hi guys (and gals!) im new on this board. Im 13, studying for grade 8, but also keeping the diploma in the back of my mind. I have already had some performing experience, playing at the Royal Academy, attending courses, attended a course in germany last year.
Im interested at the moment in the 7 or so minutes of free playing you can get in the Dip. At the moment i am thinking, would it be more benificial to play a few short pieces, such as 2 or 3 of Chopins op.10 etudes, or 1 longer piece, such as the op.40 C minor polonaise (no2) that i am preparing for mi grade 8 at the moment? Is this kind of thing down to the artist, or is there more scope for impressing the examiner by playing a set of short pieces in this free time playing.
I would appreciate someones opinion please. thanks.

Hi sl123451

I believe the 7 minutes of own choice is there so that a candidate can play something he/she likes that isn't on the official list. You may pick a piece/pieces to showcase your skills and musicianship to your best advantage. For my DipABRSM on recorder I played a piece, two movement of which I played in Grade 8, in order to save practising time

Yes i was actually thinking after i wrote that post. It would be easier to play a piece like the polonaise, that i already know, and also would make the programme notes easier.
On the topic of programme notes, can people who have taken the diploma please say, do you find it difficult to fill the space, or do you feel that you need more space to write about all the pieces?

ps soz for not introducing myself well...my name is scott!!!

Hi Scott,

When I prepared for my DipABRSM, I did a fair extensive research on my programme and was able to come up with the required number of words comfortably. Once you have the level of knowledge expected for the level you should have no problem to fill the space.

For the record, I also picked pieces to make it easier for myself to write the written submission

QUOTE

benificial to play a few short pieces, such as 2 or 3 of Chopins op.10 etudes, or 1 longer piece

The programme notes are only 1100 (give or take 10% on the new syllabus) words (this is around two sides of A4 at 12pt font - not very much at all. If you go for several short pieces, you will probably find it very difficult to say very much about any one of them - check out some of the posts by singers who have to write about 8 or 9 songs!
I found it very hard indeed to scale back to 1100 words - first draft was closer to 1500.

QUOTE

The other good book is "With your Own Two Hands" Subtitle: Self-Discovery through music, by Seymour Bernstein.

I own this book, and it's been extremely useful to my piano playing. I highly recommend it.

QUOTE (samanthafung @ Mar 21 2005, 11:24 PM)

DGA Regarding interpretation, I can probably share my own experience with you. I had my lesson yesterday and I played Deux Arabesque No.1 to my teacher. He was very pleased with my playing but he commented, "well, you play it in a rather emotional/passionate way. Since it's your own interpretation, it's OK. But I would have played it more gently." (NB. he knows my usual way is to play 'p' in 'pp' and 'f' in 'ff' or even 'sf') In my second attempt, I tried to play it more gently and reduced contrast in dynamics. He then said, "This way of playing is conventionally accepted, the French would like it." (implying that the examiner would like it too.) Which way do you think I would opt for? Of course the latter approach. It is not just because I want to get higher marks in exam (but yes, I still want to ), I also want my audience enjoy my playing. My teacher went on to comment my playing towards the end of the piece (bars 103 onwards). He said I played it in the usual western way which is OK. But he also said that this part of music came from the idea of Chinese music (as you know, Debussy visited Asia) and I should try playing it in an oriental way. He even quoted a Chinese saying to help me picture the scene in my mind. I did try and, the effect was good and different ie. it is unique, it becomes my own way of interpretation.

I understand that, but...well, unfortunately my teacher doesn't really comment on special styles of playing, like the French style or something like that. I guess your teacher was just polite when he was still a bit pleased with your incorrect interpretation. So, there is a kind of "right" interpretation? My teacher told me to play that Arabesque (that was ages ago, I have almost forgotten it!) in a dreamly like way, but not too dreamly, and all sorts of other stuff on how she played it.

I doubt that the Arabesque has something to do with Chinese music...I know how Chinese music sounds, and it's much different. If I'm right, Debussy was influenced by Asian instruments and music not by going there directly, but for example seeing the gamelan in the Paris expo or something.

QUOTE (sl123451 @ Mar 23 2005, 06:48 PM)

At the moment i am thinking, would it be more benificial to play a few short pieces, such as 2 or 3 of Chopins op.10 etudes, or 1 longer piece, such as the op.40 C minor polonaise (no2) that i am preparing for mi grade 8 at the moment?

Check the rules in the syllabus that state that only one piece can be played by each composer (unless explicitly stated otherwise in the syllabus) so if you were to play more than one Chopin piece as your own choice you may be breaking the rules. Fen's point about programme notes is also a good one.