Structural communication in piano duos: Musical compatibility and

International Symposium on Performance Science
ISBN 978-2-9601378-0-4
© The Author 2013, Published by the AEC
All rights reserved
Structural communication in piano duos:
Musical compatibility and individual
differences in interpretation
Erica Bisesi1, Jennifer MacRitchie2, and Richard Parncutt1
1
2
Centre for Systematic Musicology, University of Graz, Austria
Department of Research & Development, University School of Music, University of
Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland, Switzerland
Ensemble performance involves each member contributing to a shared
interpretation of the piece. In commercial recordings of piano duo performances, this study examined how individual differences in interpretation between each duo affect the rating of salience of particular events
(accents), as well as the continuous ratings of phrasing and tension. An
example comparing performances of Mozart’s Sonata K. 448 Mvt. 3 and
Sonata K. 521 Mvt. 2 by duos Argerich/Kissin and Haebler/Hoffman is
shown, looking at significant differences in the ratings of events between
the two. Differences were more evident between ratings of particular
events in the K. 448 extract, which may serve to explain some of the variance seen between the average phrasing profiles.
Keywords: piano; ensemble; expression; structure; perception
In ensemble rehearsal all members contribute to a shared interpretation of
the music by developing shared performance goals and landmarks, which are
then used in performance (Keller and Appel 2010, Ginsborg et al. 2006). This
study examined how these shared interpretations are perceived by audience
members, focusing on musical compatibility among ensemble components
and on differences in interpretation between ensembles. This project addressed compatibility among pianists in piano duos based on individual emphasis on score events (accents). Individual differences in the performance
styles of piano duos were explored by analyzing the structural features characterizing each performance and the extent to which eminent piano duos
agreed on segmentation of musical phrases and selection and emphasis of
accents.
264
WWW.PERFORMANCESCIENCE.ORG
METHOD
Participants
12 participants (all trained musicians) were recruited from the University of
Graz and the Conservatory of Southern Switzerland via email.
Materials
Excerpts were taken from 8 contrasting commercial recordings of two Mozart
pieces for piano duo (Sonata K. 448 Mvt. 3) and four hands (Sonata K. 521
Mvt. 2). For each piece, accent analysis was performed identifying immanent
accents in metric, melodic, and harmonic categories. These defined locations
were used as stimuli for stage two of the procedure. The instants of occurrence of these events have been derived in a separate sub-project according to
Parncutt’s theory of accents (Parncutt 2003, Bisesi and Parncutt 2011, Bisesi
et al. 2012).
Procedure
The method used for a pilot study involving solo piano performances of
Chopin Preludes (Bisesi et al. 2012) was extended here to analyze the perception of phrasing and local event emphasis in 8 contrasting commercial recordings of two Mozart pieces for piano duo. This method is a dual-stage data
collection process, first gathering responses on the continuous phrasing and
tension of each performance and secondly on ratings for particular salient
events (accents). For the first stage, for each piece, participants were presented the performances in random order, first listening to all performances
of Sonata K. 448 and then to Sonata K. 521. While listening to these performances they were asked to use a vertical slider to continuously indicate the
phrasing as shaped by the performer, the bottom point of the slider indicating
phrase boundaries and the top point being reserved for the point of highest
tension within each phrase. This data was collected through the Presentation
16.0 software. The participants were given a practice trial, including one of
the test pieces, to (1) familiarize themselves with the music and (2) practice
the task. Once they were familiar with the piece and the task the participants
continued to the real trials. For the real trials the task was repeated again
immediately for the same performance so that each one was rated twice.
In a separate session, stage two required the participants to rate the salience of selected notes corresponding to melodic, harmonic, and metrical
events using a scale from 1 (not very salient) to 4 (very salient). The audio
wave of each performance was presented using Sonic Visualiser 2.0 to allow
INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON PERFORMANCE SCIENCE
265
repeated listenings of user-selected excerpts according to the event locations.
Target events were presented as vertical red lines on top of the audio wave,
which itself had been transformed so that envelope information was no longer
available. Participants then entered their ratings for each event using the data
editor.
RESULTS
Results presented here represent an example of two contrasting performances taken from the two sonatas. The first performance duo was Martha
Argerich and Evengy Kissin (AK) and the second was Ingrid Haebler and
Ludwig Hoffmann (HH). Each performance will be referred to by their duo
acronym and the sonata’s K. number (e.g. AK 448). For each duo and for each
piece, the mean and standard deviations of the accent ratings were calculated.
These are shown in Figures 1-4. Bonferroni adjusted t-tests (alpha
level=0.05) showed significant differences between the performances of the
K. 448 sonata extract (see Figures 1 and 2) for accent MH in bar 11 (t11=3.62,
p<0.005) between HH 448 (M=1.58, SD=0.51) and AK 448 (M=2.75,
SD=0.75), for accent MC in bar 12 (t11=4.48, p<0.001) between HH 448
(M=1.58, SD=0.67) and AK 448 (M=2.83, SD=1.27), and for accent MC in bar
54 (t11=-3.77, p<0.005) between HH 448 (M=3.17, SD=0.94) and AK 448
(M=2.08, SD=0.90). However, no significant differences were found between
accent ratings of the Sonata K. 521 extract performed by AK and HH (see
Figures 3 and 4).
The positions of these accents were then plotted against the average continuous phrasing and tension responses from the first stage of data collection.
Figures 5 and 6 show the plots for the two performances of Sonata K. 448, 3rd
movement as these showed significant differences in the accent ratings.
DISCUSSION
Although the majority of accents between performances were rated similarly,
certain locations showed significant differences, which may reflect idiosyncrasies in each piano duo’s interpretation. Results will contribute to Parncutt,
Biseisi, and Friberg’s formulation of a computational model of immanent
accent salience in Director Musices, a software package for automatic rendering of expressive performance.
266
WWW.PERFORMANCESCIENCE.ORG
Figure 1. Means and standard deviations of accent ratings for Sonata K. 448, 3rd movement, performed by Martha Argerich and Evengy Kissin.
Figure 2. Means and standard deviations of accent ratings for Sonata K. 448, 3rd movement, performed by Ingrid Haebler and Ludwig Hoffman.
Figure 3. Means and standard deviations of accent ratings for Sonata K. 521, 2nd movement, performed by Martha Argerich and Evengy Kissin. (See full color versions at
www.performancescience.org.)
INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON PERFORMANCE SCIENCE
267
Figure 4. Means and standard deviations of accent ratings for Sonata K. 521, 2nd movement, performed by Ingrid Haebler and Ludwig Hoffman.
Figure 5. Plot of average phrasing profile across all 12 participants for performance AK
448. Vertical lines represent the position of the metrical, melodic, and harmonic accents
taken from the score analysis.
Figure 6. Plot of average phrasing profile across all 12 participants for performance HH
448. (See full color versions at www.performancescience.org.)
268
WWW.PERFORMANCESCIENCE.ORG
Acknowledgments
This research is supported by the FWF Stand-Alone Project P 24336-G21 “Expression,
emotion and imagery in music performance.”
Address for correspondence
Erica Bisesi, Centre for Systematic Musicology, University of Graz, Merangasse 70, Graz
8010, Austria; Email: [email protected]
References
Bisesi E., and Parncutt R. (2011). An accent-based approach to automatic rendering of
piano performance: Preliminary auditory evaluation. Archives of Acoustics, 36(2),
pp. 283-296.
Bisesi E., MacRitchie J., and Parncutt R. (2012). Recorded interpretations of Chopin
Preludes: Performer’s choice of score events for emphasis and emotional communication. In E. Cambouropoulos, C. Tsougras, P. Mavromatis, and K. Pastiadis (eds.),
Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition
(ICMPC 12) (pp. 106-107). Thessaloniki, Greece.
Ginsborg J., Chaffin R., and Nicholson G. (2006). Shared performance cues in singing
and conducting: A content analysis of talk during practice. Psychology of Music, 34,
pp. 167-194.
Keller P. E. and Appel M. (2010). Individual differences, auditory imagery, and the
coordination of body movements and sounds in musical ensembles. Music Perception, 28, pp. 27-46.
Parncutt R. (2003). Accents and expression in piano performance. In K. W. Niemöller
(ed.), Perspektiven und Methoden einer Systemischen Musikwissenshaft, (Festschrift Fricke) (pp. 163-185). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.