🎨 From correct to musical
Getting the notes right is only the doorway, and we all know pieces that are accurate yet somehow flat. Turning a clean run-through into something that breathes, with shape, colour, and a sense of line, is a different kind of work, and it is not always clear how to practise it. Some hear the phrasing first, others find it only after the mechanics are solid.
💬 How do you make a piece musical, not just correct?
- When a piece is technically secure but sounds flat, what do you actually do to bring it to life?
- Do you plan your phrasing and dynamics deliberately, or do they emerge as the piece settles?
- Where does your sense of interpretation come from, the score, recordings, a teacher, your own ear?
The music lives in the choices past the notes, and no two players shape a phrase quite the same way. Let's compare how we find it.
15 replies
-
I will be interested to hear the comments on this topic. I have spoken at length with my guitar teacher about this topic. My attitude is you have to build a solid foundation before you add all the trim. There is no sense in decorating the kitchen if it hasn't been built. And much to his frustration that is how I have to approach learning a new piece. He believes that it is possible to chew gum and walk at the same time.
Having said that I believe that Audiation is my best friend in helping to play a piece in a musical fashion. I heard someone say "you cannot play music musically if you cannot sing what you want to play." And that I believe to be true.
Cheers
Michelle
-
After many years of "notes first, then add interpretation" I have totally switched to defining an interpretive plan at the outset. Actually, following Klickstein's approach I create an audio model of the piece and define, and write into the score, an interpretive plan (phrasing, dynamics, articulation, rubato) before picking up the guitar. The point is that, as explained to me by the head of one of the UKs guitar conservatoires, when you are under stress, for example when performing, you default to your most comfortable state. That tends to be how you first learned a piece of music, so it is essential that dynamics, articulation etc are part of this state.
,
-
This is a topic dear to me, a never ending search for the soul of a piece with the score a signpost pointing to but not strictly defining the interpretive value of the piece, which I believe is in part the extension of the composer's intent and feeling but also that of the player who adds to it with their own unique interpretation. Unfortunately, in my quest for this, I've become almost overwhelmed by the seemingly infinite possibilities, so I've learned to be content with what I can take from the piece and then revisit it as I continue to practice it further to keep the notes under my fingers, lest I spend the rest of my life plumbing the depths of only one piece! This keeps my repertoire alive, organic and growing instead of a stagnant piece that is mechanically played simply to maintain muscle memory. So I guess there are technical things I do to make a piece more "musical" but for me the most important thing is to bring the soul of the composer as well as my own closer together, and the music simply sings its own song.
-
For many years at the conservatory, my approach was to put interpretation before everything else: from musical to correct. Over time, though, I realized this had a real limit: my technique wasn't solid enough to actually support the interpretation I was trying to build. My teacher kept pushing me toward fingerings and interpretive choices that my hands weren't yet capable of sustaining.
It was thanks to tonebase and to Łukasz Kuropaczewski's masterclasses and courses that I started to understand a different path was right for me: first get the piece fully under your hands technically, and only then start working on interpretation.
-
For me, I need to memorize a piece. I do conceive of a musical interpretation as I learn it, and that comes to life more when I can be 100% involved with it and not looking at the notes.
-
My younger self relied heavily on improvisational interpretation. This often got me into trouble, mostly because I lacked awareness of the piece's style or historical era.
Today, I have a much stronger grasp of interpretation, shaped by a lifetime of listening to all kinds of music. I can still tap into that raw musicality, it's right at the surface, but I tend to bring it out only once my fingers, ears, and mind are fully familiar with the piece.
Engaging that side of playing requires a completely different energy and mindset compared to routine practice. To me, musicality is an ever-evolving process: a blend of innate intuition, a lifetime of learning, and where my mind is in the current moment.
-
I like to memorize the piece so I can play it away from the written score. Then, I keep playing it until I find myself listening to the music as if some other person were playing it. Then I can judge which 'other person's' rendition I like best and work on perfecting that.
This way I find it's relatively easy to recast a piece if I hear someone else's version that I like better. I guess that makes every piece a work in progress forever.
-
If a beginner or student wants to learn a new music, he or she should not listen or imitate the way other guitarists intepret or perform the music. I believe copying some guitarists intrepretation is not a creative process and not artistic. Therefore, I believe a musician or guitarist interpretation is a personal choice rather than our teacher interpretation except the musical signage indication on the music score by the composer. I observed that many guitarists performed the same guitar music with the same approach and interpretation. In classical guitar circle, it is a very boring community to listen to guitarists play the same music with the same interpretation. Playing music is a fun of self discovery and exploration process and can be personal endevour. I do not believe a single correct or right way to play music either musically or not musically. Of course, the teacher guides us in reading phrases and the intention of the composer rather than using the same fingering and placing phrasing by our teacher or the composer. Thus we can play a music correctly with the same musicality or interpretation. There were times we are biased because we listened to the great guitarists performed beautifully and we love to imitate their way of playing. We should explore alternative interpretation rather than fix on one way of interpretation. Thus there is no correct or wrong interpretation just like a conversation or diagloue between 2 persons.
-
Are we making things more complicated than necessary. Every musicians are differents and have different approach. For me both approach (techincal or musical at the beginning) have their benefits. We should just use what works the best for us. I am still a beginner, so the technical approach is certainly my priority at the beginning followed closely to getting the adequate rhythm. The other musical aspects are looked after when I am more comfortable with just gettint the notes right and at the right time.