Kinza Hagerup

Analysis for Performers

MUS 407
Dr. Horsts
December 13, 2016
The first reading I chose was Analysis and the Act of Performance by
William Rothstein. He poses the question; what effect should music
structures have on the way music is performed? How should the results
of analysis be conveyed to the audience? An example that he uses is in
Bach fugues. We are taught almost always to bring out the subject in
Bach fugues. Glenn Goulds recording, that we used and listened to in
class, over exaggerated almost bringing out the subject in the Bach
fugue that we looked at. Each time there was even a hint of the subject
he makes that the most important thing that is happening. His playing
though is technically accurate but not very musical. The argument that
he has is to do the latter. We should play with Bach and follow the
other important musical ideas that are happening. We should always
be aware of the subject, but it is almost like a little surprise for the
audience when you can hear it being sneaked in from out of an episode
or middle entry. In class we talked about musicality v technicality. As
piano student growing up I was taught always to bring out the subject
but as I got older I started exploring how to play these more musical. I
believe that this is the argument that Rothstein was getting at. In order
for our audiences to stay more engaged we must try and make Bach
sound more musical. Hammering out the subject is giving away the

answers and its ignoring everything else that is happening in the

music. A lot of his fugues are very improvisatory sounding and the
subject was just a nice little friendly reminder coming back in every
once in awhile.

The second reading I chose is From Score to Sound by Peter Hill. He

poses the question; How can we work and work, without losing
enthusiasm or the open mindedness that enables our ideas to develop.
He used the example of the Webern Variations Op. 27. Most students
would take this piece at face value and use it as a technical or etude
exercise. It was soon revealed through some students of Webern that
he wanted the use of lots of rubato throughout. He then asked himself
(and his students) He then asks why we learn it that because that is
the way he learned it. Looking at traditional teaching practice we are
taught to learn the notes and put in the music later. Sometimes we
listen to recordings to get ideas but then our playing almost always
mimics what the performer we listened to. Hill refers to this as just
going and getting the answers. To figure out how to play melodic lines
we often look to bowings (if we are a string instrument) or the way
things are slurred. Hill says that the only way to really get to know a
piece without contaminating your mind with other peoples
performances or getting stuck in rut is do it away from the instrument.

Go with what you hear in your head; do not become encumbered by

technique.

The Performers Voice: Performance and Analysis in Ravels Concerto

pour la main gauche by Daphne Leong and David Korevaar was the
third article that read. This one was interesting because we discussed
this at the beginning of the semester so it was interesting to come
back to it after all the articles we have read. This was interesting
because it asks the question what types of Analysis have a bearing on
performance. Some of the examples it gives that we as performers use
are mid bar down beats (like in Bach keyboard works), rhythm
(hypermeter), form, and surface level or middle ground voice leading.
It then relates it to the Left Hand Concerto by Ravel. The author
explores different performances of how they used different analysis
techniques to bring out different lines or to be able to play certain
spots seamlessly. Since it is for the left hand only, it brings in many
different issues. I thought this article was interesting because it shows
how many different performers use different techniques that have to
do with analysis in order to get the performance that they want. They
look at the cadenza and identify the problems like pedaling, following
certain articulations, and also which harmonies to bring out. Using
different recordings and looking closely at the score they discover what
should or not be brought which articulations to use and how to do them

effectively in a performance. I think this article is important because a

lot of the other articles deal with Schenker Analysis and this one is
based a lot more on some aspects that even some previous authors
didn't neccesarily approve of in order to get the results that they
wanted.

The last article that I looked at was Performance, Grouping and

Schenkerian Alternative Readings in Some Passages from Beethovens
Lebewohl Sonata by Alan Dodson. Dodson wanted to see how
different Schenkerian graphs of the opening measures of a Beethoven
Sonata could affect the way things are brought in a performance. This
was actually a very interesting article to read and listen to the
examples. He had four different Schenker graphs and then he found
four different artists that in their performances interpreted one of the
Schenker graphs. I think this was most interesting because the artists
had probably never looked at these Schenker graphs but the subtlety
of maybe taking a little more time here or doing the exact option or
pausing here, etc. could affect the performance so much. This article
though sometimes hard to read was very interesting. Maybe to the
average listener they might not be able to notice these difference as
well as a trained musician. As a performer who is always looking for
small nuances to bring out or finding new hidden treasures in a piece

that has probably been performed thousands of times, this is a new

way to look at music and how we should go about performing it.
After reading many of these articles, my perception of the relationship
between analysis and performance has changed. I am happy that there
are people looking out for new and more effective ways to practice
because we as musicians in order to stay relevant need to keep on
innovating. Though I dont exactly agree all the time with Schenker
analysis I think it is very interesting to see what results you can get
from the different levels of Schenker analysis. Applying those to your
performance can bring out things that you might not have thought
before. I also know that not all of these ideas will work for every
pianists ( everyone learns differently) but I think having new ideas to
try and implement in my own performance will help greatly or at least
give me ideas on how to help others.

ANALYSIS
C. In the Recap, one thing about the recapitulation is it sounds like it is
going to be in minor one in the beginning with a full statement of PT1
but then it goes to ST1 in C Major does the actually recap in that key
and it is not till we almost get to the Coda that we have C minor back.

E. The transition back to the recap happens at m129 and ends once we
get to the down beat of m137. The Arcadia Quartet did a wonderful job
of showing this by having a dramatic dynamic change and really
building the anticipation until we final get the C minor chord at m137
after a G Major pedal for awhile.
F. This piece does have a coda and it starts at measure 195 kind of like
the Coda in the Exposition. The two performances led me to believe
this 1. Because the Coda back in the exposition starts the same 2. It
could have ended on a nice C Major or C Minor chord but it goes on at
m203 with a big minor four chord to get back into C minor. We then
have some transitional material very similar to the developmental
material and then an evaded cadence at m 209 where it could end
again but it keeps going. Both the string quartets did a great job of
showing this especially at m203. I liked the Arcadia String Quartet
performance better. They played it faster and with more intensity. Also
the cello part was brought out more which you could hear a lot more
subtle nuances that Beethoven wrote for that part.