Phrasing

Way back when I was a student I worried about phrasing: it seemed important, but did I understand it or even know what it was? So I picked up a book on phrasing but after reading it I seemed to know little more than before I read it. Let me try and explain why this happened.

Phrasing, as I understand it today, is simply how a musically aware performer responds to the musical text. What notes are grouped with which and in what way, what is joined and what is separated, basically, how is the meaning of the music articulated in performance? I don't mean the socio-political subtext, I simply mean the musical meaning.

So a proper book on musical phrasing would first explain all the possible musical structures and meanings and how to respond to them in your interpretation. Ah, yes, well that is why there aren't any good books on musical phrasing. Looking at Amazon there are a whack of books on phrasing for jazz and blues players, but only this one for classical: Hermann Keller, Phrasing and Articulation, which is probably the one I read. Actually, since I read it so long ago when I was not very educated, it might be excellent. I would have to re-read it to offer a proper criticism.

But the general problem is still there: an understanding of how to phrase depends on a general musical understanding of things like theory, structure and history. Or you could simply phrase things the way your teacher shows you, which is what a lot of musicians do. But I think it is better to figure things out for yourself.

As this is just a humble blog, I won't explain all about music structure and history, but I will give you two examples that might be illuminating. The first is a YouTube clip from The Independent Pianist discussing an interesting interpretive choice by Sviatoslav Richter and comparing it to a more conventional choice by Alfred Brendel. The choices involve what is essentially rubato. Here, have a listen:

My second example is from the Sonatina meridional by Manuel Ponce that I am re-learning right now. I won't put up any YouTube clips because I can't find any that illustrate my point so I will just give you a written musical example:

Click to enlarge

This is from very near the beginning of the movement and this passage is the second theme of the exposition. I input the notes into Finale and the black notes are the theme while the red notes are an accompanying figure that is in the form of a descending sequence. Most players just play it pretty much as written with perhaps some oomph put into the sixteenth notes in the interest of virtuoso expression. But the more interesting interpretive phrasing would be to separate the descending harmonic line, which is quite interesting in its alternating 2nds and 3rds. How do you do this? A couple of ways: just give those notes a tiny bit of rhythmic extension, hold them a very tiny bit longer than their actual value, and second, give them a different timbre, perhaps a bit warmer than the sixteenth notes. I suppose if I had lots of time this morning, I would record myself illustrating this, but why don't you try it for yourself? I think you will see what I mean.

What this does is add another dimension to the passage. Instead of there being basically one idea punctuated by some chords, there are actually two ideas that contrast with one another. So this is an example of how phrasing is suggested by the musical structure. The best way to sort this out is to play just the lower voice(s) by themselves so you hear how they connect with one another, then put it together. Actually, as Oscar Ghiglia often emphasized in his master classes, you should always play through the harmonies of every piece you are learning, listening carefully so you are sure you hear and understand them.