Last week we examined this tempo thing by considering "how fast CAN I play?" In other words, what can I get away with mechanically based on how well I can play this tune and keep the beat. This week we will consider the musicality of a piece and approach the tempo question this way: "How fast SHOULD I play?' To really understand the answer, we are going to begin by viewing some musical history from the window of a high flying jet airliner, seeing only the broad shapes below us.
Way back in Bach's day, the Baroque Era in classical music, much of performance (including tempo) was left to whim of the performer. Few, if any, tempo indications were provided by the composer. If you have studied Bach, Handel, etc. and used any Italian tempo terms provided in your edition, be aware that what you are studying is NOT the work of the original composer but that of some editor, often a person not even named in the publication.
As time passed, the Italian terms most of us have seen came into use. It is worth noting that even these were intended to be generalities only, not specific indications such as are given the note identities themselves. After all, if "allegro" means cheerful, exactly how cheerful are you? Just a bit, or wildly enthusiastic? It matters. Still, the interpretation of the player was called for, just not as much as in the previous age.
The early 1800's saw the invention of the metronome (which I have semi-humorously dubbed "Satan's Ticker" in other essays!) For better or worse, it was now possible to give an exacting statement of tempo, down to a fraction of a second. This was used, and still is, by music teachers as a means to ensure a necessary degree of proficiency for their students. "You should be able to play this passage at 120 beats per minute, with each quarter note representing one beat." Of course, composers who really wanted performers of their music to supply renditions as close as possible to their wishes had now discovered a way to reign in the swings in performer interpretation.
Which brings us to today and my main point in all this. I believe that, metronome or no metronome, Italian indication or no Italian indication, it is the job of the performer to perform the piece of music at a tempo which brings it to life, which brings out its character, that make the music interesting and fascinating and moving and all those traits we search for in expression and interpretation. And who should judge what that tempo is? Why, the performer - whom else?
Factually, the performer is the ONLY person who can actually do this, since he/she is the only person whose opinion and taste in tempo can be KNOWN with certainty. Thus, in seeking to judge whether a particular tempo "brings the music to life," the only way to judge this is to look into oneself and find out. You can't be in the hearts and minds of any listeners, only yourself. If we could say one thing about what makes good music, it is that "good music is music judged to be good." For a performer, the only person's judgment you can surely know is your own.
I tell my students, and I tell everyone reading this, that they should IGNORE TEMPO INDICATIONS AND METRONOME MARKS when working on interpretation and simply play at a tempo that they think is optimum for the music. If it is good or even great music, that tempo WILL be appropriate. There are two huge pluses to giving this instruction:
1. It develops musical sensitivity in the student, and
2. It prevents the student from playing "under protest," meaning playing against their own wishes.
Naturally, this must be modified with children, who have little or no musical sensitivity. But how will they ever develop any if the teacher is continually forcing them into the tempo the teacher prefers? You must encourage creativity if you want to produce a musician. To do otherwise, creates musical robots, which might impress some and even win competitions now and then. But should that be the purpose of a teacher of an art form? I, for one, do not think so.
"Play so the music sounds good to you." This simple instruction does so much good it is just silly. Doing it only way the symbols on the page demand, in addition to often not being honest (as in Bach's works), creates clerks - musical morons. I oppose it, and so should you.
Way back in Bach's day, the Baroque Era in classical music, much of performance (including tempo) was left to whim of the performer. Few, if any, tempo indications were provided by the composer. If you have studied Bach, Handel, etc. and used any Italian tempo terms provided in your edition, be aware that what you are studying is NOT the work of the original composer but that of some editor, often a person not even named in the publication.
As time passed, the Italian terms most of us have seen came into use. It is worth noting that even these were intended to be generalities only, not specific indications such as are given the note identities themselves. After all, if "allegro" means cheerful, exactly how cheerful are you? Just a bit, or wildly enthusiastic? It matters. Still, the interpretation of the player was called for, just not as much as in the previous age.
The early 1800's saw the invention of the metronome (which I have semi-humorously dubbed "Satan's Ticker" in other essays!) For better or worse, it was now possible to give an exacting statement of tempo, down to a fraction of a second. This was used, and still is, by music teachers as a means to ensure a necessary degree of proficiency for their students. "You should be able to play this passage at 120 beats per minute, with each quarter note representing one beat." Of course, composers who really wanted performers of their music to supply renditions as close as possible to their wishes had now discovered a way to reign in the swings in performer interpretation.
Which brings us to today and my main point in all this. I believe that, metronome or no metronome, Italian indication or no Italian indication, it is the job of the performer to perform the piece of music at a tempo which brings it to life, which brings out its character, that make the music interesting and fascinating and moving and all those traits we search for in expression and interpretation. And who should judge what that tempo is? Why, the performer - whom else?
Factually, the performer is the ONLY person who can actually do this, since he/she is the only person whose opinion and taste in tempo can be KNOWN with certainty. Thus, in seeking to judge whether a particular tempo "brings the music to life," the only way to judge this is to look into oneself and find out. You can't be in the hearts and minds of any listeners, only yourself. If we could say one thing about what makes good music, it is that "good music is music judged to be good." For a performer, the only person's judgment you can surely know is your own.
I tell my students, and I tell everyone reading this, that they should IGNORE TEMPO INDICATIONS AND METRONOME MARKS when working on interpretation and simply play at a tempo that they think is optimum for the music. If it is good or even great music, that tempo WILL be appropriate. There are two huge pluses to giving this instruction:
1. It develops musical sensitivity in the student, and
2. It prevents the student from playing "under protest," meaning playing against their own wishes.
Naturally, this must be modified with children, who have little or no musical sensitivity. But how will they ever develop any if the teacher is continually forcing them into the tempo the teacher prefers? You must encourage creativity if you want to produce a musician. To do otherwise, creates musical robots, which might impress some and even win competitions now and then. But should that be the purpose of a teacher of an art form? I, for one, do not think so.
"Play so the music sounds good to you." This simple instruction does so much good it is just silly. Doing it only way the symbols on the page demand, in addition to often not being honest (as in Bach's works), creates clerks - musical morons. I oppose it, and so should you.
0 comments:
Post a Comment