Login or Register to hide advertisements

Which is more artistic??

The art and science of piano performance and technique
Post a reply

Which is more artistic??

Postby johnmar78 » 10 Aug 2006, 19:08

I thought I BETTER MOVED MY ARITLCLE TO THE PIANO PLAYING SECTION TO GET MORE RESPOND.

I WENT TO THE ART GALLERY ON THE WEEKEND AND SAW THIS Salvator Dalis painting.. and something come up in my mind that will give you guys a good debate...

Just to say, what if you had two paintings that both are done by the same artist, Painting A is done by free hands, paint and brush ..the traditional way. And Painting B is done by using the aid of rulers and other precision measurement tools like the technical drawing from the engineering shop.
Thats say in art competiton, which One would win the heart of judge?

At the same time, applying this principle to our piano playing,

Would you played with strict time/mechanical pulse or rather your own NATURAL pulse??/

Tell me what you think?
johnmar78
Registered Musician
 
Posts: 147
Joined: 27 Jun 2006, 00:11
Location: sydney
Top

Postby Jeliness2 » 10 Aug 2006, 19:43

I'd prefer strict pulse, but a natural pulse is good as long as it's not all uneven or something.
Jeliness2
Moderato(r)
Moderato(r)
 
Posts: 1079
Joined: 25 Aug 2004, 17:31
Top

Postby johnmar78 » 10 Aug 2006, 20:02

yes,,,,,thank you for your response.

Natural pulse with no uneveness...
johnmar78
Registered Musician
 
Posts: 147
Joined: 27 Jun 2006, 00:11
Location: sydney
Top

Postby MindenBlues » 11 Aug 2006, 02:26

Johnmar, I like your comparision of a picture painted with mechanical help and strict/natural pulse on music.

Who likes listening to midi files with strict pulse?

The goal however should be to train the natural impulse that it remain plain and even.
MindenBlues
Registered Musician
 
Posts: 77
Joined: 25 Oct 2005, 08:51
Location: Germany
Top

Postby johnmar78 » 13 Aug 2006, 17:39

thanks pal. I agree with you.
johnmar78
Registered Musician
 
Posts: 147
Joined: 27 Jun 2006, 00:11
Location: sydney
Top

Postby PJF » 13 Aug 2006, 21:47

The great works of Leonardo da Vinci come to mind. They were mathematically perfect, yet infinitely artistic. So, to answer your question, I belive accuracy, whose meaning is subjective (at least when applied to emotion and other things intangible), is prerequisite to art, but can paradoxically be the source of its demise. An arbitrarily Puritanical approach can be as incorrect as undisciplined histrionics. The answer is somewhere in between. So begins the duty of the artist.

Personally, I first strive for 100% accuracy, and 100% emotional meaning. (I know that doesn't make sense.) I have to know exactly what the music says before I know how to say it, and vice versa. It's a strange state of mind.
Per Sapientiam Felicitas!

Pete
PJF
Registered Musician
 
Posts: 548
Joined: 08 Jul 2006, 02:18
Top

Postby johnmar78 » 13 Aug 2006, 23:41

Good one Pete. I beleive in "accuracy" when comes to art -as artistic but not in "Precesion". Lenardo was both the engineer and artist. But Michaelangio(spelt wrong) is rather both artistic in paintings and scluptor.
I would tend to say its more"accuracy" rather "precision".

Back to my original topic now, The painting done by free hands would be more artistic as long as its "accuracy"-say a straight line/circle were not too far off the "precise" straight line done by the ruler or compass.

This applies to our piano playing as by means of rubato playing....as long as not too far from"accuracy" or overly liberate the tempos.....its acceptable. It also depends on what type of music you play. Even for the Bach, rubato on right hand but not so much the left...Scarlatti.....as YOU said the strict pulse.

what you think my point? Do you understand what I am trying to explain??
johnmar78
Registered Musician
 
Posts: 147
Joined: 27 Jun 2006, 00:11
Location: sydney
Top

Postby PJF » 14 Aug 2006, 01:08

Yes, I understand. A piece played as precisely as an engineered drawing would be cold, not to mention impossible, since the pianist is human, therefore not capable of producing perfection. If we concentrate too much on accuracy, spontaneity suffers. Spontaneity is the soul of artistic performance and must never be sacrificed for the sake of hitting all the right notes. The theoretical conception of the piece, however, must be totally accurate to enable expressive clarity.

So, yes. There must be an underlying strictness in art. If we look deeper into the great artists' methods, we find the precision of the compass. The beautiful lines of The Sistine Chapel are ruled by mathematical formulas, the Fibonacci Numbers (The Golden Triangle), Pi, The Pythagorean Theorem, et al. Math is perfect, the foundation of everything. It's inescapable.
Per Sapientiam Felicitas!

Pete
PJF
Registered Musician
 
Posts: 548
Joined: 08 Jul 2006, 02:18
Top

Postby johnmar78 » 14 Aug 2006, 16:34

thank ALL especially to Pete. We are on the same track.......
johnmar78
Registered Musician
 
Posts: 147
Joined: 27 Jun 2006, 00:11
Location: sydney
Top

Postby PJF » 14 Aug 2006, 21:48

Did I say Golden Triangle? I meant Golden Rectangle.
Per Sapientiam Felicitas!

Pete
PJF
Registered Musician
 
Posts: 548
Joined: 08 Jul 2006, 02:18
Top

Postby johnmar78 » 14 Aug 2006, 22:51

does not matter. I thought Bermuda triangle.....haaaaaa
johnmar78
Registered Musician
 
Posts: 147
Joined: 27 Jun 2006, 00:11
Location: sydney
Top

Re: Which is more artistic??

Postby Catz » 21 Aug 2006, 15:06

johnmar78 wrote:
Thats say in art competiton, which One would win the heart of judge?

Whichever one is the better piece of art? What does the medium have to do with anything?


Would you played with strict time/mechanical pulse or rather your own NATURAL pulse??/

Tell me what you think?


It depends what you're playing of course. Just like you aren't going to paint a Jackson Pollock with a straightedge, you're not going to play Bach with insane rubato, or Brahms with none at all (coughGOULDBERNZTEINcough).
hahahhahha
Catz
Registered Musician
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 20 Aug 2006, 22:52
Top

Postby johnmar78 » 21 Aug 2006, 16:12

thanks for your feed back. And PLEASE introduce youself...
johnmar78
Registered Musician
 
Posts: 147
Joined: 27 Jun 2006, 00:11
Location: sydney
Top

Re: Which is more artistic??

Postby PJF » 22 Aug 2006, 00:03

Catz wrote:
johnmar78 wrote:
Thats say in art competiton, which One would win the heart of judge?

Whichever one is the better piece of art? What does the medium have to do with anything?


Would you played with strict time/mechanical pulse or rather your own NATURAL pulse??/

Tell me what you think?


It depends what you're playing of course. Just like you aren't going to paint a Jackson Pollock with a straightedge, you're not going to play Bach with insane rubato, or Brahms with none at all (coughGOULDBERNZTEINcough).


What an astute observation! Everything is relative, n'est pas?
Per Sapientiam Felicitas!

Pete
PJF
Registered Musician
 
Posts: 548
Joined: 08 Jul 2006, 02:18
Top

Postby keyla_c » 22 Aug 2006, 14:55

PJF wrote:Personally, I first strive for 100% accuracy, and 100% emotional meaning. (I know that doesn't make sense.)
at a master calss my teacher told me that I always have to give 200% ! :)

I agree with that.
noone likes to listen to a midi-file
but we wouldn't need composers who write down pieces if everyone plays what he want.
keyla_c
Registered Musician
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 17 Aug 2006, 12:54
Location: Germany
Top


Post a reply

Return to Piano Playing

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron