It's that but also realistically the only thing you can change when you're playing the exact notes and dynamics and other markings is rubato. Rubato is just 1 of basically infinite factors in music. It's still Chopin.
It's funny... I often play this exact piece when showing my students the difference between musicality and no musicality. One thing I think these fine musicians missed is that their left hands are still soft in the unmusical version, and their pedalings are also too clear. The melodies still come out instead of sounding like a muddy mess of notes. Like they can't untrain themselves :p But I especially use this piece to demonstrate how important a soft accompaniment is.
Ironically they'd all really have to "practice hard" to be able to play something truly unmusical, or a-musical. So many musical things are just hardwired into their reflexes. Like, Aurelia's is a good caricature of a student performance in the chords and melody, but the bass line is actually really artistically done. It kinda sound like there's a jazz trio with an older, experienced teacher playing bass and he's jamming with his beginner students on the higher instruments.
@@joshuaharper372 when I play the unmusical version for them, I tell them it doesn't even sound like music anymore. It just sounds like a bunch of notes. They definitely understand. But training musicality takes a long, long time in my experience.
@@CodyHazelleMusic I think most of these people are too young to have worked with truly unmusical pianists. None of their unmusical performances sound that bad. They were just too straightforward and mechanical. The big thing they missed with imitating bad students is their lack of reliable rhythm. Also, students tend to play this like a waltz and too quickly. That’s been my experience. I agree with everything you’ve said. These guys need to work with students for a few years and they will really realize how bad some students actually sound. I’ve heard it all. That includes being a judge in competitions.
@@danielgloverpiano7693 right... I do think there's a difference between a "bad" performance (I. E. Rhythmic issues) and an unmusical one. An unmusical one is all technically correct, but just boring and uninteresting. I do agree that these musicians could have done a better job making this work sound unmusical :p The contrast could have been more stark.
"Unmusical" is playing exactly what's written. "Musical" is adding contextual interpretation to each note in the piece. It's similar to telling a story. Speak monotone and you'll lose the audience. Speak with a bit of enthusiasm and you'll capture the audience. The same story is being told, but one way better conveys emotion.
I think so too! And this is exactly the reason why I think we don't describe painters's work as "artistically" (usually), because it isn't based on another artwork. The artistry of a visual artist might come more from artistical interpretation of the real world or emotions.
Any midi file can play “nonemusically”, any artificial intelligence can paint unpainterly. If you want to praise a painter for being painterly, praise him for using more contrast at the focal area, for using lots of nuances, different dynamics of brushstrokes, for only insinuating some shapes through light….the contrary of just painting “things”/objects literally and with equal contours like language syntax illustration.
I feel you can play “technically” well but it doesn’t sound “musical!” The pulling and pushing of Chopin’s music can be taken out and it still sounds fine but not as musical.
If you wanna hear "unmusical" Chopin, just listen to a midi version reading off the sheet music. Midi doesn't sound terrible for all music, but it definitely does for Chopin
@@mari-my5gr This is not true. You could easily train an AI to play chopin in a "musical" way. I am working in the field of AI and can assure you that I know what I am talking about. It is complicated to explain shortly why and how this is possible but I am a 100000% confident that this is not even a hard task.
@@bluebox6307 Yeah, this definitely sounds like something AI could do. Not even the hardest challenge in this field, as far as I know. Although I'm not an AI scholar, I do spatial probability, which is only a somewhat related field.
Almost without exception, the “musical” version has the pianist breathing with the phrasing. It’s an under appreciated aspect of good music, even with non-wind instruments!
All the "unmusical" versions here sound way more musical than my most musical attempt...😄😄 Btw: would have loved to hear Seymour Bernstein in this compilation 🙂
The biggest eye-opener for me was when I was learning some of the Bach inventions. When I had finally learned and could play through one of them it still sounded so bland and incoherent, really just like a big mess of notes. But when my teacher played it for me it was like an entirely different piece, suddenly so full of life and energy, and you could tell that it was a piece carefully crafted with precision down to the last note. It really showed me how magical music can be, and just how different the exact same notes can sound like from two different people. Later as I got more confident in the inventions I could finally bring some life into them with my own playing 😁
Bach Inventions can also make a big impression on young/developing pianists, and lead to revelations about purely musical details beneath the surface. Here's Marc-Andre Hamelin recalling a lesson with his teacher in Montreal growing up (Yvonne Hubert): "She watched my purely pianistic progress very closely, but above all, she really awakened me to the importance of detail. I vividly remember one of my earliest lessons with her, at which I’d brought Bach’s D minor sinfonia. It was the most complicated piece I’d worked on by that time, and after an exhausting half-hour of her correcting elementary voicing details - several in every bar, it seemed - I realized that I hadn’t known the piece at all beforehand. She was also very instrumental in getting me to pay attention to my sound."
On one hand, Bach has a lot in it. On the other hand, Bach is more musical when played unmusically than almost any other composer because the writing itself is impossible to make boring. If you play Mozart unmusically it will turn into musical wallpaper but you can’t make Bach sound like it’s badly written.
Yike Yang really nailed the "unmusical version" in that it didn't accidentally make it "bad". His "unmusical" version was still very beautiful, and professional. Just not... musical!
Actually liked it the most out of all. It's way more subtle in it's volume changes. It felt like it could go under my skin with how "thin" it was...And his "musical" was the most "overboard" for me. Too theatrical
@@bonumonu5534 As someone who doesn't understand any of this.... I think his "musical" version was the most beautiful! To be honest, with all the other players I couldn't really hear a difference between the "unmusical" vs "musical" versions. His actually stood out to me! Maybe it's just because I'm uneducated in this type of thing but all the others just sounded plain and "good" both times they played. His has a clear distinction!
I love how many of these pianists are so good that they kind of fail in playing it "unmusically". Like, right away the first pianist, she really tries, yet constantly some of her wonderful musicality slips through, even though she tries to pretend it's not there. Tiny rubato here, well placed change in dynamics there... Hilarious :-) And a Testament to these players actual musicality. Once this level of musicality has rooted itself inside your muscle memory, it's really hard to shake it off. And that's a wonderful thing. Thank you for the nice and funny video
It is very difficult to play Chopin "unmusically" if you are a skilled pianist. One of the key facets of Romantic piano music is how the melody is expressed. Key elements include the use of rubato, effective pedalling, and thoughtful and expressive use of dynamics. In this excerpt in particular, the most "romantic" place arguable is the high D towards the end. For me, the suspense (slightly delayed preparation), which is characterised by rubato, a delicate touch and a cantabile tone, together with precise pedalling, all contribute to a "musical" performance. If I was to play it "unmusically", then I would not let the melody sing, try to strike each right-hand note the same with no variation in tone or colour. I would bash out the left-hand chords, making them ragged, untidy and overwhelming the melody. I would also refrain from any use of pedalling and accept any breaks in the line wherever they fell (whether natural or not) whilst trying not to produce a musical line. Inappropriate use of dynamics. But I should imagine, when you're at the piano your instinct is to play musically even if you think it isn't! Some of the so-called "unmusical" renditions were actually musical!
This is certainly the case. Contrast this with Classical Era music where the focus is on form and counterpoint. How 'interesting' the music sounds will have to rely on performers.
Yes. I imagined how I'd do it. I can't think of anything better than trying to make myself feel totally bored while playing. Or pretend I hate the piece in such a way that I'm convinced even just for 1 minute. Actually they hardly achieve to play un-musically. The high notes still get more energy and it then relaxes again.
Depends on what you call "unmusically", I guess. Another extreme is when people get lost in rubato and all sorts of embellishments without actually producing a coherent meaningful message through their playing. Because of that many interpretations of romantic pieces sound like babbling of an angsty teenager, including those coming from professionals. In this sense I would also call them unmusical, because what difference does it make? Whether you are playing flat or putting all sorts of contrasts which do not serve any purpose, this is not a meaningful playing.
It is not at all difficult. Do you think it is difficult for a trained opera singer to impersonate a five-year-old singing "LA LA LA LA LA" with their fingers in their ears? Just play the piano equivalent.
Let's admit that Tony's "un musical" was the best interpretation. He chose a beautiful sound (thus already "musical") and all the rest made sense inside a coherent atmosphere. Sometimes less is more.
Musicality: With heartfelt expression and emotion, true to the composer's intent for the piece. That is, dynamics, correct tempo, natural interpretation from the heart...❤️
Historically, Chopin's idea of rubato meant left hand in time, but the right hand having a disconnect between it and the left hand; this is actually written out as groups of 13, 9, 17 notes, or whatever. When he wanted a speed-up or slowing-down, he would indicate it. Some of the "unmusical" versions were probably closer to the real Chopin style than the "musical" versions. I think a slower performance is also required to make it a real "andante", and you wouldn't have to slow down for the ornaments or groups of faster notes. At the usual tempo at which it is played, it almost sounds like a slow waltz.
I agree and I think this is a very difficult topic to discuss about. My opinion is that Chopin had a very deep understanding and sense of musicality. Also we need to separate the academic conception of musicality from what could that actually means. The reason is that the academic results very often doesn’t sound musical at all but some people think it actually is. The easier way to make my point is to take a waltz. Search for a non academic performance and compare it to an academic one. If you don’t feel like dancing something is wrong. A lot o Chopin’s music is based on dances, music for singers and Bach. Bach is extremely musical but academic people are obsessed to make it sound as unmusical as possible. I mean, it is not easy to imitate a good singing if you aren’t a good singer and also because you are a pianist! Knowing good declamation is important. In chamber music with a singer you follow the singer, not trying to force him to follow your lead. Well, now do both parts and be the singer and the pianist that follows. Very difficult to achieve and that it is just the tip of the iceberg
This definition of rubato is not exactly comprehensive. The idea of having a steady accompaniment must also be understood in the terms of what steady meant at those times. We must remember that the metronome was a new invention and it wasn't precise. Moreover, every type of music had it's own metric and rhythmic internal pulse which consisted in some accentuation and back and worth in the flowing of the tempo. The modern idea of the steady bit isn't that of the 19th century where the music was also improvised a lot. Chopin had also his "ad libitum" way of playing - described by some students and friends (I suggest to read the book "Chopin as seen by his pupils" ). I wanna also mark as the displacement of the melody can be done through arpeggios, anticipations and delays. Those are tools with are mostly gone in our modern practice. Finally, the idea of having a soft accompaniment and a singing line didn't work very well in the historical pianos Chopin used, where the upper register had a very limited range of dynamics. The melody was played mostly after or before the accompany because it was the only way it could be clearly heard without loosing the left hand. It's a complex subject but I find it very interesting.
@@simonemao3794 Rather then asking me to look at history, I think you should. The early metronomes were the product of several centuries of clock-making, and even surviving early examples are pretty accurate considering their age. The Chopinesque rubato, which was described by a contemporary, was the same as Mozart's - an intentional disconnect between the two hands. It was also said that the metronome never left Chopin's piano, which implies he was keen on playing in time. A defect of keyboards is their lack of sustaining power, but to remedy this one has to use one's musical imagination - or orchestrate the music, but not pushing towards faster tempi, which have to be slowed down whenever an ornament or a group of faster notes appear. The error of modern Chopin interpretation is that the tempi used are much too fast - authentic tempi is an important area for research.
Rubato LH/RH. Actually I thought that the idea came from Mozart. The musicality of "unmusical versions: I agree. Metronomes 1. I don't think that Mozart ever had one. 2. Weren't the metronomes before Maazel's in the form of a rocking weighted pendulum with no clockwork? 3. there is some discussion about the metronome marks put by the composer in Beethoven or Schumann's scores might have been faulty. 1/8 = MM132 for this famous Nocturne seems rather rapid too. On tempo more generally, does no one read Quantz on the subject?
@@jsc5492 1)No, Mozart didn't have one - it was invented about 1815 2) Pendulums were used before; also pocket watches could be used time pieces (Tuerk) 3) The metronome had evolved after centuries of clock-making, so wasn't faulty. The MMs in scores are almost always too fast, sometimes completely unplayable, and the results do not agree with contemporary descriptions of allegro, andante, etc. The metronome was referred to as a pendulum, and the period is the normal unit for measuring when using a pendulum (forward and back swing together). Thus I unit is 2 movements. Therefore halve the written MM. MM 1/8 = 132 becomes becomes 66, and you get a slow movement, just right for a nocturne.
I personally believe that pianists play Bach with more expression differences than intended by the composer. The famous 'Nunn komm den Heiden Heiland' for example (if i spelled it correctly) was much more straight and rigid. Therefor I like the organ versions more in this specific case.
Tony Yike Yang seemed to have a hard time playing it unmusically! I had been waiting for someone to play it with some dynamic nuance, and he did that even in the first version. In the second version he brought out some inner voices that added some hints of contrapuntal juice that none of the others hinted at, as well some variation in tempo (not just rubato) that added some urgency to the melodic line. In some ways his "piggish" version was even better! I suspect he was trying to push the interpretation beyond the bounds of good taste, but couldn't quite bring himself to go that far. His second was the only performance that I wanted to continue, so that I could enjoy what else he might have to say in the rest of the nocturne. I'll watch out for this kid.
The way Aristo talks about the occasional necessity of playing the text as written, removing any interpretation, reminds me of how the early stages of my training as a visual artist were learning to "draw on the right side of the brain," or draw exactly what one sees in front of them, rather than what one thinks an object of that type looks like. These days I try to stylize my art, which involves more intentionality and judgement calls on what to emphasize and what to leave out; where I can substitute colors and where I can simplify, etc.
its wild how each person's interpretation shows how exactly they feel about the piece when they play. Fantastic showcase! They play it a lot differently to me, and that's great, the unique feelings we all experience when we play are what make human performance so great
In most reviews I've read, "unmusical" referred to literalistic, mechanical performances -- as in the unmusical examples here. But occassionally, "unmusical" was used to mean the exact opposite: mannered, exaggerated, over-the-top performances (in the reviewer's view, anyway). These two uses are not necessarily contradictory. You could say that 'musical' refers to a sort of golden mean: not too much, not too little. Defined this way, it makes sense that straying too far in either direction would be deemed 'unmusical'.
I guess "musical" just means that you're playing the music in a way that is showing you understood the piece and convey the right emotion that goes along with it. And "unmusical" means that you didn't understand the piece and are unable to convey the right amount of emotion (being it too much or not enough emotion).
A very interesting video! Especially with the first 2, the non-musical version was nice, but when they started to play the musical version I instantly got chills!
Oh, to have had a piano teacher that was so good to teach real musicality! I am more musical many years later. I believe it is when I am transported into the world of the piece. It's in the hand movements, the body, the emotion that flows from the fingers to the keys. I've seen many great teachers here on YT doing a wonderful job on getting the pianist to understand what the musicality is while teaching the piece. I believe as a young person I was like the second guy. You know, it's getting the mechanics first, then the musicality comes after that! Fun to watch this!
I find this interesting. As a teacher myself for 50 plus years ( piano guitar vocals ) At it's most base level - it's about rhythm. Of course you can bring dynamics 'color' (what exactly does that mean?) and other things into it but, in the main, it's about rhythm. If you play with an exact copy of the notes with precision metronomic timing from the score you will have no 'musicality'. That's it. The first role of getting things musical is how you address the rhythmical aspect of a piece / song. If there is zero amendment to the rhythm = then there is no musicality. Adjust this and you are already a good way down the road to acquiring 'musicality'. Of course how and how much you do this is up for debate, given that certain composers need this in their music maybe more than others. I often hear that pianists are too 'free' with their 'musicality' BUT if you take the score too literally, rhythmically, then you end up with technically brilliant but 'lifeless' performance in my opinion. I'd like to see and hear this done again BUT - with Bach's music! Bach is often performed too rigidly, too precise, too fast, even though the music and conventions of that time push the music to being that way naturally. It often sounds too metronomic for me. Bach did not have a dynamic instrument in the piano so much of his 'expression' has to be achieved with rhythmic subtlety and movement, which I find often lacking nowadays. Only an opinion. Interestingly and with some 'paradox' ! in teaching I definitely advocate learning a piece 'metronomically' before working out expression or real 'musical' input. That method does encourage the student to really understand the 'nuts and bolts' of a piece and learn the notes properly - again in my opinion
Very interesting. I'm just a piano beginner (at 50). One of them said that "musicality" is often (mis)understood as overdoing things. And that's what some of the "musical" version proved to me. The "unmusical" versions of #5 (followed by #2) were the most pure and touching versions I have heard so far, so to me they were the most musical...
Good one, hehe 😇I sometimes prefer the "bad" ones....an acquired taste. This Nocturne has almost become a joke piece in this day and age. I remember the Late Show Band playing it when John Oliver entered the stage. Sax and drums. Kurt Weill would have loved it.
I like what Seymour Bernstein said. it was something like “you can feel music all you want, the piano won’t know it.” Outward expressions and gestures don’t necessarily make anything more musical. Sometimes, I believe that it can be a distraction to both the performer and the audience.
It's interesting, nearly all of them equate musicality with rubato. But truly, a good musician should be able to play musically even in tempo. I would argue some of the versions here with lots of rubato are actually less musical than their first version, because the rubato can sound unnatural if it doesn't fit the melodic line, harmonic line, or affect. Musicality for a piece like this means playing with a particular tone quality, shape, balance, voicing, pedaling, natural and intentional rubato, and in line with the affect of the phrase.
Humans don't speak like robots. If you try to sing it with your voice you will find out that every interval has different tension whereas being played in mechanical way on the keyboard they all sound the same. Timing should always be involved unless you purposely mean to sound like a music box
@Charlie Charlie I'm inclined to agree with igosplatt's comment, and it has nothing to do with rigid purism. As the Ukranian pianist said, so-called musicality can be overdone and ultimately detract from the piece. Tempo is not the only medium for expression on piano, and when it's relied on too heavily, the piece becomes halting and jerky. The music can be "lifted off the page," even with strict, metronome-like tempo, through subtleties in voicing, pedaling, articulation, phrasing, dynamics, and overall balance. Sure, rubato is often a valuable element in breathing life into a piece, but it's not the only element--or even most important--and treating it like it is results in poor, artificial performances.
I can't agree with that. If you do not make amendments to the rhythm of a piece of music it will be lifeless, dull and 'unmusical'. My 50 years playing teaching has taught me that. It's core rhythm that listeners 'feel' and innerly move to. If that is missing the dynamic side becomes less and less. In my opinion. It's not a 'sin' to add rubato to Chopin ( or anyone else for that matter) but it certainly is if it's played rhthmically precise and metronomically - again in my opinion
I mean, yes and no with regards to your first sentence there. This is a Chopin piece, and it is a Romanic era piece - both characteristically heavy with rubato tendencies. I reckon if it were another composer there would've been a different interpretation of "musically", something clean and rigid from the Baroque or early Classical era perhaps. I do somewhat agree with your first sentence though, because deviating from the written score is seen as artistic interpretation and the easiest and most recognisable way of doing that is by using rubato.
To me, being musical on the piano means to first gaining full control over the sound envisioned, then having a very deep sense of the expressions with all their nuances, and an encompassing idea of the whole piece in mind. If there is no deeper idea and subtle feeling, there can be no musical expression. Especially with Chopin, there is a tendency to overdo, losing the beauty of simplicity, to do too much of rubato, to be unbalanced in the dynamics, to not "sing" the piece, and to show off... The interpreter ideally completely forgets himself/herself when playing for the sake of real beauty.
Oh of course. Music being dynamic as a reflection of our environment (especially a nocturne!) requires real movement and emotion to facilitate. It’s hard to be dynamic without BEING dynamic
musicality is what puts feeling into a piece. there are so many things in musicality but that's what really brings the piece to life and invokes emotions. I played piano for about 8 years, I want to get back into it again. it's magical to bring a piece to life
I really like #5Tony’s first version over his second version, and also over all the other four players’ versions in this video. Sometimes it is not musical or unmusical; instead just something simple and suited to my emotion at a particular moment.
Tony musical maybe too much expression for some, but I have 180 unmusical was good but musical was best of them all. It is that flying, it is looking in to the sky, rise
This reminds me of a video I saw over a decade ago. The person demonstrated the changes seen from starting thru several years of learning. Most of what he showed was, more or less covered here. I really enjoyed the last contributor's that's.
Great experiment! This piece in particular is difficult to play in both ways. The most touching and striking interpretation was the "pig" and the most acceptable musical version of the Hong Kong guy. Thanks for the video, great tool for piano lessons!
Go to any 2nd-year piano recital and you can REALLY hear an unmusical version of virtually any piece. These fine musicians were actually unable to get out of their own skin and ignore their years of musical training.
Fun and insightful! I was guilty of just playing the notes for the longest time - this is exactly the skill that I'm trying to bring up to speed right now
this is hilarious , but also very insightful . Each of these beautiful gifted young people has given me something really useful to think about . Great idea , thanks for posting it .
It’s so interesting to me that pianists struggled to play “unmusically.” They were all such great musicians that it was very difficult for them to play without musicality.
When you speak in a foreign language, it's stuttering, hesitant, difficult to combine gesture and emphasis with getting the words right. But speaking your own language, one does those things without thinking. Same for reading. Same for musicality.
As someone who doesn't understand any of this.... I think Yike Yang's "musical" version was the most beautiful! To be honest, with all the other players I couldn't really hear a difference between the "unmusical" vs "musical" versions. His actually stood out to me! Maybe it's just because I'm uneducated in this type of thing but all the others just sounded plain and "good" both times they played. His has a clear distinction!
To me, to play without musicality would be to play mechanically, like a computer might play a basic MIDI file. To play with musicality however would be to FEEL the music and play with passion. You have to give it life through your mood and expression, play with rubato and dynamics in a way that doesn't betray the melody but brings it out in some unique way that makes it shine.
Hello - It is all about dynamics, rubato, sensitivity, emotion, interpretation and practising every day. Feel the music as the composer intended it. Best wishes.
This would have been great to see from the masters, BUT I appreciate your efforts here in uplifting the voices of young pianists. It’s important that they be heard in development of their careers/musicianship. Thank You
I think it's telling that, when playing the 'musical' version, they were all much more animated and the emotional involvement was clear on their faces. They remained robotic and devoid of any syncopation in the unmusical version.
i taught a couple kids piano and it’s easy to tell from like a couple weeks into learning how to play if you have “it”, this musicality. i’ve always been fascinated by it. the trance playing can put you in.. and the kids that didn’t understand that would soon quit
IMHO - none of them succeeded in playing it non-musically expect the parts that came out as obvious caricatures. A testament to how naturally musical the five pianists and the piece are! BTW, when is Part 2 of the transcendentals coming?
I disagree none succeeded -- I wager Darío did the best! In fact, I thought his "unmusical" version was better executed than his "musical" version (perhaps he got too self-conscious about playing "better", or putting himself out vulnerably more with the musical version).
I totally agree with Dmytro in regard with "going beyond the border of good taste". Sadly too many pro. stage pianists go way beyond that "border" when they are performing in front of an audience... Balance is key.
Really interesting to see how, especially with Aristo, the difference was more in his body and feeling. It didn’t translate to the actual production as much as I think the pianists might think.
The most interesting thing happened to me while I was listening to the two versions. Whenever they played the unmusical version nothing happened to me. But when they played the musical version I got goosebumps. Also very interesting that none of them said they played the unmusical version like a robot - without feeling, and the musical version like a human being - with feeling.
It’s all about phrasing… the piano must “ sing” the way a gifted singer would do …No metronomes need apply! You must know how to apply rubato without descending into schmaltz
This is really a fascinating question. Musicians in general (I'm a flutist) bandy about the terms "musical" and "unmusical", but we all likely mean different things by those terms.
@@matt566 Not so much bs as that we need to actually try to be clear what that word means in that moment. Just as my idea when I think of the color green is likely different from yours, I mean are we talking granny smith apples, grapes, grass, green peppers, oak leaves...? It's an opportunity for an exchange of ideas about a subjective reaction/interpretation.
I once heard someone describe this Nocturne as “this piece plays itself”, which I think is a great way to put it. The composition itself is inherently incredibly beautiful. But the contrast between “unmusical” and “musical” interpretations is still amazing.
I especially liked Tony's straight version. His left hand was still phrasing naturally in the style that triple meter usually requires, and it isn't over-romanticized.
@@tonebasePiano The issue here is most of them use rubati and expression in their "unmusical" attempt. That's why many people, including me, like the first version more. It's more subtle.
Musicality is playing with the heart included, a injection of the player's soul into the sound making it feel alive, rather then just the mind and body. A wholesome experience.
This happened to make for like some grade 5 Bach piece. I could play all the notes so I thought I had finished learning it. But then I had a CD with the piece and when I heard it I was floored because I could tell it was all the same notes but felt so alien.
Aristo Sham's playing was great, that smoothness of fingers in his right hand. When I try to play this Nocturne, I play it unmusically. Maybe because I'm trying to learn to play piano myself... Probably that's the reason))
It’s true that most people are vague on the concept of musicality or expression. It’s often assumed to be something you have or you don’t, or that you just “feel it” and it can’t be taught. Most of the pianists here also seem not to be able to explain the idea in any concrete way. I would suggest that musicality and expression requires an understanding of how rhythm, harmony, and melody work together, combined with applied imagination. Musicality can be examined and explored with questions/concepts such as these: 1) What is the rhythmic structure? Are there deviations from normal metrical accentuation? 2) What is the harmonic progression? 3) Is the harmony stable, or transitional? 4) Is the melody rising or falling? Where are the changes in direction? 5) Does the melody move in steps, or leaps? 6) Which notes are dissonant and which are consonant? 7) Do the dissonant notes fall on strong or weak beats? 8) Where is the climax/goal of the phrase? 9) What is the character of the piece or phrase? 10) What emotion are you trying to convey? What experience in your life is similar? 11) What tone color/sound is appropriate? What can you compare the tone color to? 12) How would a singer/violinist/organist/bird/orchestra play it?
the difference seems to be in the slight variation in timing and inflection, how much emphasis is placed on which notes, and how much space is allowed for each set of notes to breathe. essentially, its the difference between the way a natural human speaker would say a phrase, and how an machine might talk.
I had a teacher who maintained that Chopin got rather annoyed when people overdid rubato in his music ( unnecessary, goes with the absence of titles). It's a matter of taste and personal feeling.
It's hard to make it bad when you are learning for years to make it good :D
True, let me maybe record it badly unmusical, since I am a total amateur and never learned to play well :)))
Non musical isn’t bad, it’s how you should practice the piece. Interpretation comes after technique
It's that but also realistically the only thing you can change when you're playing the exact notes and dynamics and other markings is rubato. Rubato is just 1 of basically infinite factors in music. It's still Chopin.
They all still had rubato and weight.. I'd have done the sewing machine gun.
if you use midi it sounds terrible but is played perfectly… but these are human beings ,,,
It's funny... I often play this exact piece when showing my students the difference between musicality and no musicality. One thing I think these fine musicians missed is that their left hands are still soft in the unmusical version, and their pedalings are also too clear. The melodies still come out instead of sounding like a muddy mess of notes. Like they can't untrain themselves :p But I especially use this piece to demonstrate how important a soft accompaniment is.
Ironically they'd all really have to "practice hard" to be able to play something truly unmusical, or a-musical. So many musical things are just hardwired into their reflexes. Like, Aurelia's is a good caricature of a student performance in the chords and melody, but the bass line is actually really artistically done. It kinda sound like there's a jazz trio with an older, experienced teacher playing bass and he's jamming with his beginner students on the higher instruments.
Yes, I have heard students absolutely butchering this nocturne.
@@joshuaharper372 when I play the unmusical version for them, I tell them it doesn't even sound like music anymore. It just sounds like a bunch of notes. They definitely understand. But training musicality takes a long, long time in my experience.
@@CodyHazelleMusic I think most of these people are too young to have worked with truly unmusical pianists. None of their unmusical performances sound that bad. They were just too straightforward and mechanical. The big thing they missed with imitating bad students is their lack of reliable rhythm. Also, students tend to play this like a waltz and too quickly. That’s been my experience. I agree with everything you’ve said. These guys need to work with students for a few years and they will really realize how bad some students actually sound. I’ve heard it all. That includes being a judge in competitions.
@@danielgloverpiano7693 right... I do think there's a difference between a "bad" performance (I. E. Rhythmic issues) and an unmusical one. An unmusical one is all technically correct, but just boring and uninteresting. I do agree that these musicians could have done a better job making this work sound unmusical :p The contrast could have been more stark.
"Unmusical" is playing exactly what's written. "Musical" is adding contextual interpretation to each note in the piece. It's similar to telling a story. Speak monotone and you'll lose the audience. Speak with a bit of enthusiasm and you'll capture the audience. The same story is being told, but one way better conveys emotion.
I think so too! And this is exactly the reason why I think we don't describe painters's work as "artistically" (usually), because it isn't based on another artwork. The artistry of a visual artist might come more from artistical interpretation of the real world or emotions.
@@yowo6105just goes to show how vastly different a painted piece of art is from a beautifully composed piece of art.
Any midi file can play “nonemusically”, any artificial intelligence can paint unpainterly. If you want to praise a painter for being painterly, praise him for using more contrast at the focal area, for using lots of nuances, different dynamics of brushstrokes, for only insinuating some shapes through light….the contrary of just painting “things”/objects literally and with equal contours like language syntax illustration.
I feel you can play “technically” well but it doesn’t sound “musical!” The pulling and pushing of Chopin’s music can be taken out and it still sounds fine but not as musical.
@@creamwobbly that's why each note has a particular context in the piece. Playing it in a way that is out of context also makes it unmusical.
If you wanna hear "unmusical" Chopin, just listen to a midi version reading off the sheet music.
Midi doesn't sound terrible for all music, but it definitely does for Chopin
Then isn't it just a poorly sequenced midi?
@@dopaminecloud Not poor, just 100% on the grid and same velocity values.
Chopin can never be played by an AI lmao that is going to be hard at to achieve for machines tbh
@@mari-my5gr This is not true. You could easily train an AI to play chopin in a "musical" way. I am working in the field of AI and can assure you that I know what I am talking about. It is complicated to explain shortly why and how this is possible but I am a 100000% confident that this is not even a hard task.
@@bluebox6307 Yeah, this definitely sounds like something AI could do. Not even the hardest challenge in this field, as far as I know. Although I'm not an AI scholar, I do spatial probability, which is only a somewhat related field.
Almost without exception, the “musical” version has the pianist breathing with the phrasing. It’s an under appreciated aspect of good music, even with non-wind instruments!
All the "unmusical" versions here sound way more musical than my most musical attempt...😄😄
Btw: would have loved to hear Seymour Bernstein in this compilation
🙂
I don't know if he could play that game😅 I see him say something like: I am music, what you ask me is not possible!
@@sylvaingoudreau7189 Haha I heard that in his voice!
@@sylvaingoudreau7189 Seymour would say, "just listen to Glenn Gould play Mozart. It's a disaster!"
Same here...their unmusical is better than my musical.
don't forget they are playing on grand piano, also they teach their fingers to play with good tone for years
The biggest eye-opener for me was when I was learning some of the Bach inventions. When I had finally learned and could play through one of them it still sounded so bland and incoherent, really just like a big mess of notes. But when my teacher played it for me it was like an entirely different piece, suddenly so full of life and energy, and you could tell that it was a piece carefully crafted with precision down to the last note. It really showed me how magical music can be, and just how different the exact same notes can sound like from two different people. Later as I got more confident in the inventions I could finally bring some life into them with my own playing 😁
Yeah, it's hard to play Bach musically.. in the beginning you play like a robot, metronomically
Bach Inventions can also make a big impression on young/developing pianists, and lead to revelations about purely musical details beneath the surface. Here's Marc-Andre Hamelin recalling a lesson with his teacher in Montreal growing up (Yvonne Hubert):
"She watched my purely pianistic progress very closely, but above all, she really awakened me to the importance of detail. I vividly remember one of my earliest lessons with her, at which I’d brought Bach’s D minor sinfonia. It was the most complicated piece I’d worked on by that time, and after an exhausting half-hour of her correcting elementary voicing details - several in every bar, it seemed - I realized that I hadn’t known the piece at all beforehand. She was also very instrumental in getting me to pay attention to my sound."
"That divine typewriter" describes an unmusical approach to Bach. (Quote is from memory, I think it was attributed to one of Colette's fiction works)
On one hand, Bach has a lot in it. On the other hand, Bach is more musical when played unmusically than almost any other composer because the writing itself is impossible to make boring. If you play Mozart unmusically it will turn into musical wallpaper but you can’t make Bach sound like it’s badly written.
if you don't mind me asking, in you example, which of the inventions was it? thanks in advance
The young lady at the beginning is so SWEET! That lovely smile!
Yike Yang really nailed the "unmusical version" in that it didn't accidentally make it "bad". His "unmusical" version was still very beautiful, and professional. Just not... musical!
Actually liked it the most out of all. It's way more subtle in it's volume changes. It felt like it could go under my skin with how "thin" it was...And his "musical" was the most "overboard" for me. Too theatrical
@@bonumonu5534 As someone who doesn't understand any of this.... I think his "musical" version was the most beautiful! To be honest, with all the other players I couldn't really hear a difference between the "unmusical" vs "musical" versions. His actually stood out to me! Maybe it's just because I'm uneducated in this type of thing but all the others just sounded plain and "good" both times they played. His has a clear distinction!
I thought exactly the same!
"Chopin is the greatest of them all, for with the piano alone he discovered everything."
- Claude Debussy
As Garrick Ohlsson said on this very channel: "Chopin even when played bad still sound kinda nice, if you don't listen too hard."
This piece is actually quite difficult to play un-musically. I think some pieces just set the performer up and that's a testament to the composer.
I love how many of these pianists are so good that they kind of fail in playing it "unmusically".
Like, right away the first pianist, she really tries, yet constantly some of her wonderful musicality slips through, even though she tries to pretend it's not there. Tiny rubato here, well placed change in dynamics there... Hilarious :-)
And a Testament to these players actual musicality. Once this level of musicality has rooted itself inside your muscle memory, it's really hard to shake it off.
And that's a wonderful thing. Thank you for the nice and funny video
It is very difficult to play Chopin "unmusically" if you are a skilled pianist. One of the key facets of Romantic piano music is how the melody is expressed. Key elements include the use of rubato, effective pedalling, and thoughtful and expressive use of dynamics. In this excerpt in particular, the most "romantic" place arguable is the high D towards the end. For me, the suspense (slightly delayed preparation), which is characterised by rubato, a delicate touch and a cantabile tone, together with precise pedalling, all contribute to a "musical" performance.
If I was to play it "unmusically", then I would not let the melody sing, try to strike each right-hand note the same with no variation in tone or colour. I would bash out the left-hand chords, making them ragged, untidy and overwhelming the melody. I would also refrain from any use of pedalling and accept any breaks in the line wherever they fell (whether natural or not) whilst trying not to produce a musical line. Inappropriate use of dynamics.
But I should imagine, when you're at the piano your instinct is to play musically even if you think it isn't!
Some of the so-called "unmusical" renditions were actually musical!
This is certainly the case. Contrast this with Classical Era music where the focus is on form and counterpoint. How 'interesting' the music sounds will have to rely on performers.
Yes. I imagined how I'd do it. I can't think of anything better than trying to make myself feel totally bored while playing. Or pretend I hate the piece in such a way that I'm convinced even just for 1 minute. Actually they hardly achieve to play un-musically. The high notes still get more energy and it then relaxes again.
Depends on what you call "unmusically", I guess. Another extreme is when people get lost in rubato and all sorts of embellishments without actually producing a coherent meaningful message through their playing. Because of that many interpretations of romantic pieces sound like babbling of an angsty teenager, including those coming from professionals. In this sense I would also call them unmusical, because what difference does it make? Whether you are playing flat or putting all sorts of contrasts which do not serve any purpose, this is not a meaningful playing.
Is the first girl not playing that last bar wrong? It's wrong isn't it, the 16ths?
It is not at all difficult. Do you think it is difficult for a trained opera singer to impersonate a five-year-old singing "LA LA LA LA LA" with their fingers in their ears? Just play the piano equivalent.
Let's admit that Tony's "un musical" was the best interpretation. He chose a beautiful sound (thus already "musical") and all the rest made sense inside a coherent atmosphere.
Sometimes less is more.
Agreed. Slathering on rubato doesn't make it musical. Perpetual rubato becomes meaningless, like the boy who cried "wolf".
Musicality: With heartfelt expression and emotion, true to the composer's intent for the piece. That is, dynamics, correct tempo, natural interpretation from the heart...❤️
Historically, Chopin's idea of rubato meant left hand in time, but the right hand having a disconnect between it and the left hand; this is actually written out as groups of 13, 9, 17 notes, or whatever. When he wanted a speed-up or slowing-down, he would indicate it. Some of the "unmusical" versions were probably closer to the real Chopin style than the "musical" versions. I think a slower performance is also required to make it a real "andante", and you wouldn't have to slow down for the ornaments or groups of faster notes. At the usual tempo at which it is played, it almost sounds like a slow waltz.
I agree and I think this is a very difficult topic to discuss about. My opinion is that Chopin had a very deep understanding and sense of musicality. Also we need to separate the academic conception of musicality from what could that actually means. The reason is that the academic results very often doesn’t sound musical at all but some people think it actually is.
The easier way to make my point is to take a waltz. Search for a non academic performance and compare it to an academic one. If you don’t feel like dancing something is wrong. A lot o Chopin’s music is based on dances, music for singers and Bach. Bach is extremely musical but academic people are obsessed to make it sound as unmusical as possible. I mean, it is not easy to imitate a good singing if you aren’t a good singer and also because you are a pianist! Knowing good declamation is important. In chamber music with a singer you follow the singer, not trying to force him to follow your lead. Well, now do both parts and be the singer and the pianist that follows. Very difficult to achieve and that it is just the tip of the iceberg
This definition of rubato is not exactly comprehensive. The idea of having a steady accompaniment must also be understood in the terms of what steady meant at those times. We must remember that the metronome was a new invention and it wasn't precise. Moreover, every type of music had it's own metric and rhythmic internal pulse which consisted in some accentuation and back and worth in the flowing of the tempo. The modern idea of the steady bit isn't that of the 19th century where the music was also improvised a lot. Chopin had also his "ad libitum" way of playing - described by some students and friends (I suggest to read the book "Chopin as seen by his pupils" ). I wanna also mark as the displacement of the melody can be done through arpeggios, anticipations and delays. Those are tools with are mostly gone in our modern practice. Finally, the idea of having a soft accompaniment and a singing line didn't work very well in the historical pianos Chopin used, where the upper register had a very limited range of dynamics. The melody was played mostly after or before the accompany because it was the only way it could be clearly heard without loosing the left hand. It's a complex subject but I find it very interesting.
@@simonemao3794 Rather then asking me to look at history, I think you should. The early metronomes were the product of several centuries of clock-making, and even surviving early examples are pretty accurate considering their age. The Chopinesque rubato, which was described by a contemporary, was the same as Mozart's - an intentional disconnect between the two hands. It was also said that the metronome never left Chopin's piano, which implies he was keen on playing in time. A defect of keyboards is their lack of sustaining power, but to remedy this one has to use one's musical imagination - or orchestrate the music, but not pushing towards faster tempi, which have to be slowed down whenever an ornament or a group of faster notes appear. The error of modern Chopin interpretation is that the tempi used are much too fast - authentic tempi is an important area for research.
Rubato LH/RH. Actually I thought that the idea came from Mozart.
The musicality of "unmusical versions: I agree.
Metronomes
1. I don't think that Mozart ever had one.
2. Weren't the metronomes before Maazel's in the form of a rocking weighted pendulum with no clockwork?
3. there is some discussion about the metronome marks put by the composer in Beethoven or Schumann's scores might have been faulty.
1/8 = MM132 for this famous Nocturne seems rather rapid too.
On tempo more generally, does no one read Quantz on the subject?
@@jsc5492 1)No, Mozart didn't have one - it was invented about 1815 2) Pendulums were used before; also pocket watches could be used time pieces (Tuerk) 3) The metronome had evolved after centuries of clock-making, so wasn't faulty. The MMs in scores are almost always too fast, sometimes completely unplayable, and the results do not agree with contemporary descriptions of allegro, andante, etc. The metronome was referred to as a pendulum, and the period is the normal unit for measuring when using a pendulum (forward and back swing together). Thus I unit is 2 movements. Therefore halve the written MM. MM 1/8 = 132 becomes becomes 66, and you get a slow movement, just right for a nocturne.
Chopin's music naturally oozes with such musicality and heart that it is truly difficult to play it without any of that.
I have a confession to make. I used to love listening to Bach and Mozart on 1990s midi because it was so pure.
Glenn Gould liked Wendy Carlos's "Switched on Bach" album for similar reasons
@@tonebasePiano phew. Glad I'm not the only one. Thanks for the album title. Will check it out!
Clinically insane
I personally believe that pianists play Bach with more expression differences than intended by the composer. The famous 'Nunn komm den Heiden Heiland' for example (if i spelled it correctly) was much more straight and rigid. Therefor I like the organ versions more in this specific case.
@@wybren "Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland" ;) (Translated word by word: "Now come, the heathen's saviour")
Tony Yike Yang seemed to have a hard time playing it unmusically! I had been waiting for someone to play it with some dynamic nuance, and he did that even in the first version. In the second version he brought out some inner voices that added some hints of contrapuntal juice that none of the others hinted at, as well some variation in tempo (not just rubato) that added some urgency to the melodic line. In some ways his "piggish" version was even better! I suspect he was trying to push the interpretation beyond the bounds of good taste, but couldn't quite bring himself to go that far. His second was the only performance that I wanted to continue, so that I could enjoy what else he might have to say in the rest of the nocturne. I'll watch out for this kid.
Yea he always does something with the music that makes you curious to listen more
@@roberthu7616do any of you happen to know whether he has a yt channel? I only found his plays that are uploaded by others 😯
he placed in the Chopin Competition for a reason
@@eudoravia7082 he has youtube.com/@happykeke
@@roberthu7616 You're the best! Thank you
The way Aristo talks about the occasional necessity of playing the text as written, removing any interpretation, reminds me of how the early stages of my training as a visual artist were learning to "draw on the right side of the brain," or draw exactly what one sees in front of them, rather than what one thinks an object of that type looks like. These days I try to stylize my art, which involves more intentionality and judgement calls on what to emphasize and what to leave out; where I can substitute colors and where I can simplify, etc.
Tony played this so beautifully. All his versions were great - but especially his musical version!
its wild how each person's interpretation shows how exactly they feel about the piece when they play. Fantastic showcase! They play it a lot differently to me, and that's great, the unique feelings we all experience when we play are what make human performance so great
I like Tony's performance the most, especially at the start, at 11:57. that's also my favorite phrase of this piece
Aurelia's first rendition was funny. The second, goosebumps by beat 2 for me. She is special
In most reviews I've read, "unmusical" referred to literalistic, mechanical performances -- as in the unmusical examples here. But occassionally, "unmusical" was used to mean the exact opposite: mannered, exaggerated, over-the-top performances (in the reviewer's view, anyway). These two uses are not necessarily contradictory. You could say that 'musical' refers to a sort of golden mean: not too much, not too little. Defined this way, it makes sense that straying too far in either direction would be deemed 'unmusical'.
I guess "musical" just means that you're playing the music in a way that is showing you understood the piece and convey the right emotion that goes along with it.
And "unmusical" means that you didn't understand the piece and are unable to convey the right amount of emotion (being it too much or not enough emotion).
A very interesting video! Especially with the first 2, the non-musical version was nice, but when they started to play the musical version I instantly got chills!
Oh, to have had a piano teacher that was so good to teach real musicality! I am more musical many years later. I believe it is when I am transported into the world of the piece. It's in the hand movements, the body, the emotion that flows from the fingers to the keys. I've seen many great teachers here on YT doing a wonderful job on getting the pianist to understand what the musicality is while teaching the piece. I believe as a young person I was like the second guy. You know, it's getting the mechanics first, then the musicality comes after that! Fun to watch this!
I find this interesting. As a teacher myself for 50 plus years ( piano guitar vocals ) At it's most base level - it's about rhythm. Of course you can bring dynamics 'color' (what exactly does that mean?) and other things into it but, in the main, it's about rhythm. If you play with an exact copy of the notes with precision metronomic timing from the score you will have no 'musicality'. That's it. The first role of getting things musical is how you address the rhythmical aspect of a piece / song. If there is zero amendment to the rhythm = then there is no musicality. Adjust this and you are already a good way down the road to acquiring 'musicality'. Of course how and how much you do this is up for debate, given that certain composers need this in their music maybe more than others. I often hear that pianists are too 'free' with their 'musicality' BUT if you take the score too literally, rhythmically, then you end up with technically brilliant but 'lifeless' performance in my opinion.
I'd like to see and hear this done again BUT - with Bach's music! Bach is often performed too rigidly, too precise, too fast, even though the music and conventions of that time push the music to being that way naturally. It often sounds too metronomic for me. Bach did not have a dynamic instrument in the piano so much of his 'expression' has to be achieved with rhythmic subtlety and movement, which I find often lacking nowadays. Only an opinion.
Interestingly and with some 'paradox' ! in teaching I definitely advocate learning a piece 'metronomically' before working out expression or real 'musical' input. That method does encourage the student to really understand the 'nuts and bolts' of a piece and learn the notes properly - again in my opinion
Very interesting. I'm just a piano beginner (at 50). One of them said that "musicality" is often (mis)understood as overdoing things. And that's what some of the "musical" version proved to me. The "unmusical" versions of #5 (followed by #2) were the most pure and touching versions I have heard so far, so to me they were the most musical...
Basically :
*Unmusical* = Straight face and bagging the notes hard.
*Musical* = Face expressions, heavy breathing and softer touch
Hahahah
Good one, hehe 😇I sometimes prefer the "bad" ones....an acquired taste. This Nocturne has almost become a joke piece in this day and age. I remember the Late Show Band playing it when John Oliver entered the stage. Sax and drums. Kurt Weill would have loved it.
Also: Use of the eyebrows.........very important. HaHa!
Pretty much
Yeah this video gave me high cringe with the overacting from these "pianists".
Aristo's interview was so insightful and smart. Talking about the practicalities of it sometimes being a necessary step was really interesting to hear
Tony sounds like someone who could give 1000 interpretations of a single piece
WOW! What a difference I can hear and feel. Thanks for this lesson...helps me discern the level of skill vs the level of talent in playing the piano.
I like what Seymour Bernstein said. it was something like “you can feel music all you want, the piano won’t know it.”
Outward expressions and gestures don’t necessarily make anything more musical. Sometimes, I believe that it can be a distraction to both the performer and the audience.
this is incredibly interesting, i love to hear differences of opinion about interpretation it’s fascinating to get inside a pianists mind in this way.
Tony had such a great dynamic control
Aurelia played her musical version similar to Vadim Chaimovich's 200 million plus view version on youtube. Beautiful.
Imho Aurelia had the most beautiful singing tone and phrases in her "musical" version.
Loved Tony’s.
It's interesting, nearly all of them equate musicality with rubato. But truly, a good musician should be able to play musically even in tempo. I would argue some of the versions here with lots of rubato are actually less musical than their first version, because the rubato can sound unnatural if it doesn't fit the melodic line, harmonic line, or affect. Musicality for a piece like this means playing with a particular tone quality, shape, balance, voicing, pedaling, natural and intentional rubato, and in line with the affect of the phrase.
Very well said!
Humans don't speak like robots. If you try to sing it with your voice you will find out that every interval has different tension whereas being played in mechanical way on the keyboard they all sound the same. Timing should always be involved unless you purposely mean to sound like a music box
@Charlie Charlie I'm inclined to agree with igosplatt's comment, and it has nothing to do with rigid purism. As the Ukranian pianist said, so-called musicality can be overdone and ultimately detract from the piece. Tempo is not the only medium for expression on piano, and when it's relied on too heavily, the piece becomes halting and jerky. The music can be "lifted off the page," even with strict, metronome-like tempo, through subtleties in voicing, pedaling, articulation, phrasing, dynamics, and overall balance. Sure, rubato is often a valuable element in breathing life into a piece, but it's not the only element--or even most important--and treating it like it is results in poor, artificial performances.
I can't agree with that. If you do not make amendments to the rhythm of a piece of music it will be lifeless, dull and 'unmusical'. My 50 years playing teaching has taught me that. It's core rhythm that listeners 'feel' and innerly move to. If that is missing the dynamic side becomes less and less. In my opinion. It's not a 'sin' to add rubato to Chopin ( or anyone else for that matter) but it certainly is if it's played rhthmically precise and metronomically - again in my opinion
I mean, yes and no with regards to your first sentence there. This is a Chopin piece, and it is a Romanic era piece - both characteristically heavy with rubato tendencies. I reckon if it were another composer there would've been a different interpretation of "musically", something clean and rigid from the Baroque or early Classical era perhaps.
I do somewhat agree with your first sentence though, because deviating from the written score is seen as artistic interpretation and the easiest and most recognisable way of doing that is by using rubato.
It’s amazing how much the body involvement is more important when they play musically, particularly number 3.
This is great - love how you dig at something new and interesting
To me, being musical on the piano means to first gaining full control over the sound envisioned, then having a very deep sense of the expressions with all their nuances, and an encompassing idea of the whole piece in mind.
If there is no deeper idea and subtle feeling, there can be no musical expression.
Especially with Chopin, there is a tendency to overdo, losing the beauty of simplicity, to do too much of rubato, to be unbalanced in the dynamics, to not "sing" the piece, and to show off... The interpreter ideally completely forgets himself/herself when playing for the sake of real beauty.
This goes to prove that your personality and creativity can be displayed through your playing.
second times and the pig is so awsome its like they are putting love in the sound almost like a cook do when they ad a extra spise i like it
What's cool is they all seem to move their bodies more while playing with musicality. They put their whole being into it.
Oh of course. Music being dynamic as a reflection of our environment (especially a nocturne!) requires real movement and emotion to facilitate. It’s hard to be dynamic without BEING dynamic
musicality is what puts feeling into a piece. there are so many things in musicality but that's what really brings the piece to life and invokes emotions. I played piano for about 8 years, I want to get back into it again. it's magical to bring a piece to life
They all sound quite ‘musical’ to me. 😂 Anyway, great to see Dmitro here!
Yes, they were all somehow enjoyable to listen to.
What an interesting idea for a video! Kudos
... Actually loved the pig rendition btw :)
I really like #5Tony’s first version over his second version, and also over all the other four players’ versions in this video. Sometimes it is not musical or unmusical; instead just something simple and suited to my emotion at a particular moment.
Tony musical maybe too much expression for some, but I have 180 unmusical was good but musical was best of them all. It is that flying, it is looking in to the sky, rise
This reminds me of a video I saw over a decade ago. The person demonstrated the changes seen from starting thru several years of learning. Most of what he showed was, more or less covered here. I really enjoyed the last contributor's that's.
Great experiment! This piece in particular is difficult to play in both ways. The most touching and striking interpretation was the "pig" and the most acceptable musical version of the Hong Kong guy. Thanks for the video, great tool for piano lessons!
Aristo is so good he played even the unmusical version more musically than most pianists
Go to any 2nd-year piano recital and you can REALLY hear an unmusical version of virtually any piece. These fine musicians were actually unable to get out of their own skin and ignore their years of musical training.
... depends on the student. Depends on the piano department.
Each of them played the piece so beautifully, quite musically and each in their own flavor.
Thank you for the interesting experiment! The musicians obviously struggled, attempting to play "unmusically" 😄
Fun and insightful! I was guilty of just playing the notes for the longest time - this is exactly the skill that I'm trying to bring up to speed right now
Jeez, first girl when she played "musical" Version I got chills. Maybe because of rough comparison or maybe cause it was really good
this is hilarious , but also very insightful . Each of these beautiful gifted young people has given me something really useful to think about . Great idea , thanks for posting it .
It’s so interesting to me that pianists struggled to play “unmusically.” They were all such great musicians that it was very difficult for them to play without musicality.
Need violin version of this content. 👏
When you speak in a foreign language, it's stuttering, hesitant, difficult to combine gesture and emphasis with getting the words right. But speaking your own language, one does those things without thinking. Same for reading. Same for musicality.
dario aurelia and tony understood the task :))
As someone who doesn't understand any of this.... I think Yike Yang's "musical" version was the most beautiful! To be honest, with all the other players I couldn't really hear a difference between the "unmusical" vs "musical" versions. His actually stood out to me! Maybe it's just because I'm uneducated in this type of thing but all the others just sounded plain and "good" both times they played. His has a clear distinction!
Agreed. I think he had the best understanding of what makes them different. He probably learns the piece “neutrally” more often.
It's fun to see how everyone has the hardest time making it 'unmusical'...they can't help it :) very cool video, many thanks :D
To me, to play without musicality would be to play mechanically, like a computer might play a basic MIDI file. To play with musicality however would be to FEEL the music and play with passion. You have to give it life through your mood and expression, play with rubato and dynamics in a way that doesn't betray the melody but brings it out in some unique way that makes it shine.
Hello - It is all about dynamics, rubato, sensitivity, emotion, interpretation and practising every day. Feel the music as the composer intended it. Best wishes.
This would have been great to see from the masters, BUT I appreciate your efforts here in uplifting the voices of young pianists. It’s important that they be heard in development of their careers/musicianship. Thank You
Oh those are masters, believe me 😅
I always wondered why my playing sounded different than professional recordings. I now realize that my style of playing is what it called "unmusical".
I think it's telling that, when playing the 'musical' version, they were all much more animated and the emotional involvement was clear on their faces. They remained robotic and devoid of any syncopation in the unmusical version.
i taught a couple kids piano and it’s easy to tell from like a couple weeks into learning how to play if you have “it”, this musicality. i’ve always been fascinated by it. the trance playing can put you in.. and the kids that didn’t understand that would soon quit
IMHO - none of them succeeded in playing it non-musically expect the parts that came out as obvious caricatures. A testament to how naturally musical the five pianists and the piece are!
BTW, when is Part 2 of the transcendentals coming?
Might be a testament to Chopin.
I disagree none succeeded -- I wager Darío did the best! In fact, I thought his "unmusical" version was better executed than his "musical" version (perhaps he got too self-conscious about playing "better", or putting himself out vulnerably more with the musical version).
I love Tony's interpretation 😍
I totally agree with Dmytro in regard with "going beyond the border of good taste". Sadly too many pro. stage pianists go way beyond that "border" when they are performing in front of an audience... Balance is key.
It's really interesting to hear the pianists' interpretation of "musically" and "not musically". Very cool video!
Really interesting to see how, especially with Aristo, the difference was more in his body and feeling. It didn’t translate to the actual production as much as I think the pianists might think.
To me, musicality is when the player can feel the emotion the piece conveys and is able to express that.
“Play it like a pig.” New catchphrase!
Indeed, let's have the unspeakable conversation. Shout out to you guys for digging into the most tricky yet relevant aspect of music making.
The most interesting thing happened to me while I was listening to the two versions. Whenever they played the unmusical version nothing happened to me. But when they played the musical version I got goosebumps. Also very interesting that none of them said they played the unmusical version like a robot - without feeling, and the musical version like a human being - with feeling.
Tonebase you never fail to be masterbatory and highfaluten
It’s all about phrasing… the piano must “ sing” the way a gifted singer would do …No metronomes need apply! You must know how to apply rubato without descending into schmaltz
I think in this respect, many musicians fail to grasp the very basis of rubato which means not just to steal all the time, but to also make it up
i love love seeing music drive peoples faces so damn much
These pianists are amazing. their non-musical is better than me playing musically
This is really a fascinating question. Musicians in general (I'm a flutist) bandy about the terms "musical" and "unmusical", but we all likely mean different things by those terms.
Which means as a concept it's kinda bs
@@matt566 Not so much bs as that we need to actually try to be clear what that word means in that moment. Just as my idea when I think of the color green is likely different from yours, I mean are we talking granny smith apples, grapes, grass, green peppers, oak leaves...? It's an opportunity for an exchange of ideas about a subjective reaction/interpretation.
It's tougher than expected to play an unmusical version. You could literally organise a competition for that!
So simple for Chip to say, but oh my gosh I love this piece and all of these Folks!
I like their "unmusical" version somehow, simple but still beautiful.
Yeah, I think this piece can be effective played very cold and still, or like a distant memory.
I once heard someone describe this Nocturne as “this piece plays itself”, which I think is a great way to put it. The composition itself is inherently incredibly beautiful. But the contrast between “unmusical” and “musical” interpretations is still amazing.
I especially liked Tony's straight version. His left hand was still phrasing naturally in the style that triple meter usually requires, and it isn't over-romanticized.
@@tonebasePiano The issue here is most of them use rubati and expression in their "unmusical" attempt. That's why many people, including me, like the first version more. It's more subtle.
Musicality is playing with the heart included, a injection of the player's soul into the sound making it feel alive, rather then just the mind and body. A wholesome experience.
Aurelia is so talented that she plays musically even when she's trying to play unmusically.
This happened to make for like some grade 5 Bach piece. I could play all the notes so I thought I had finished learning it. But then I had a CD with the piece and when I heard it I was floored because I could tell it was all the same notes but felt so alien.
People do describe the artisticness of art, such as “painterly” brushwork
its hard to make this nocturne ever sound bad, the melody is too great
Aristo Sham's playing was great, that smoothness of fingers in his right hand.
When I try to play this Nocturne, I play it unmusically. Maybe because I'm trying to learn to play piano myself... Probably that's the reason))
The pig version is amazing 🤩 that pin drop D 🥰
It’s true that most people are vague on the concept of musicality or expression. It’s often assumed to be something you have or you don’t, or that you just “feel it” and it can’t be taught. Most of the pianists here also seem not to be able to explain the idea in any concrete way. I would suggest that musicality and expression requires an understanding of how rhythm, harmony, and melody work together, combined with applied imagination. Musicality can be examined and explored with questions/concepts such as these:
1) What is the rhythmic structure? Are there deviations from normal metrical accentuation?
2) What is the harmonic progression?
3) Is the harmony stable, or transitional?
4) Is the melody rising or falling? Where are the changes in direction?
5) Does the melody move in steps, or leaps?
6) Which notes are dissonant and which are consonant?
7) Do the dissonant notes fall on strong or weak beats?
8) Where is the climax/goal of the phrase?
9) What is the character of the piece or phrase?
10) What emotion are you trying to convey? What experience in your life is similar?
11) What tone color/sound is appropriate? What can you compare the tone color to?
12) How would a singer/violinist/organist/bird/orchestra play it?
Chopin is always so pretty even played badly it still sounds decent!!
the difference seems to be in the slight variation in timing and inflection, how much emphasis is placed on which notes, and how much space is allowed for each set of notes to breathe. essentially, its the difference between the way a natural human speaker would say a phrase, and how an machine might talk.
I had a teacher who maintained that Chopin got rather annoyed when people overdid rubato in his music ( unnecessary, goes with the absence of titles). It's a matter of taste and personal feeling.