Phrasing Questions: Micropuases And Legato

Hi, I have a few questions regarding the micropuase chapter of the DVD. 1) When playing notes within a legato phrase, does a micropuase effectively breaks the legato, or does it lengthen the last note of a group? For example, in a legato run of 16th notes (witn a quatrer note beat), would you play a pattern of , pause, ... OR long, ... In the Bach example in the dvd I think Alan plays the 2nd case, but I can't say for sure. 2) This question probably has to do with my lack of music theory knowledge. Alan mentions in the DVD that a micropause before a "pulse note" improves the preceived rhythm and highlights it. Does a "pulse note" refer to any note that happens on the beat, or only the first note in the bar? 3) Since micropauses are a way of rhythm entasis, is it correct to assume they affect both the melody and accompaniement? (unlike melodic entasis that doesn't affect accompaniement) Thanks, Zack

Hi, I have a few questions regarding the micropuase chapter of the DVD. 1) When playing notes within a legato phrase, does a micropuase effectively breaks the legato, or does it lengthen the last note of a group? For example, in a legato run of 16th notes (witn a quatrer note beat), would you play a pattern of , pause, ... OR long, ... In the Bach example in the dvd I think Alan plays the 2nd case, but I can't say for sure. 2) This question probably has to do with my lack of music theory knowledge. Alan mentions in the DVD that a micropause before a "pulse note" improves the preceived rhythm and highlights it. Does a "pulse note" refer to any note that happens on the beat, or only the first note in the bar? 3) Since micropauses are a way of rhythm entasis, is it correct to assume they affect both the melody and accompaniement? (unlike melodic entasis that doesn't affect accompaniement) Thanks, Zack If you're defining it as "within a legato phrase" I think you've basically already answered your first question already. It's all based on what your intention is. If it's intended to simulate the idea of melodic difficulty, within what is clearly still part of the the same long line (like a singer stretching the time to reach a high note, rather than punctuating two notes with a literal gap) it would almost certainly be legato. Conversely, if you want to distinguish two notes entirely- like taking a new bow or stopping for a breath, a silence is entirely appropriate. This also serves to make the delayed note more prominent. Generally, baroque and classical have much more of the latter. These are two major reasons for minute hesitations, but there are almost certainly various other definable cases too. I can't speak for Alan, obviously, but personally I'd say that such questions can only be answered by first deciding which of those reasons you are introducing a pause for. What effect are you wanting- to stretch two connected notes or to distinguish them as separate entities? The same goes for whether it applies to the accompaniment too. Old-school pianists didn't care if the hands came together. It was not "wrong" to take time in the melody without the accompaniment following- just because that meant the hands would be sounding a little separately. There's no reason why this shouldn't be used regularly, other than dubious modern traditions. It often contradicts the logic of the accompaniment to wait around, simply because the logic of a seprate line suggests a brief gap. However, there are also many cases where it sounds far better for both hands to delay together. Both are vital to a rounded performer, but sadly most modern pianists almost solely employ togetherness at all times- regardless of whether melody and accompaniment necessarily share the same logical implication of a break. I'm a firm believer in various 'rules' that apply even as much as 95% of the time, but there are always exceptions. For that reason, you can only say things for definite, by looking at a specific situation. "Rules" describe things that generally tend to be effective and are always worth contemplating for that reason. They don't necessarily determine what is effective in a particular instance, however. Often, you even have to squarely contradict one general 'rule' in order to observe another. Regarding, the entasis idea, I have to admit that I was very skeptical at first. I'd personally been brought up more on Schnabel's rule, that long notes should be short and short notes should be long (in the sense that long notes must not "sag" and short notes must still be clearly defined- especially in melodic writing, often by notable lengthening of many notes in succession). However, I'm increasingly seeing how there are also many instances where shortening short notes is extremely desirable, for enhancing a feel for connections (across bar-lines especially) over the course of a long line. I think that the many horn-like Fs and Cs just before the 2nd subject in Chopin's 1st Ballade are a really good example of a spot where Alan's approach of shortening the short makes it far easier to keep a long line moving onward, without becoming a series of lumpy chords. Taken metrically it easily sounds very lumpy indeed. Anyhow, this leaves me with one rule that says short notes are short and long notes are long and another that says short notes are long and long notes are short. While the contradiction could scarcely be more direct, I'm very grateful for both 'rules'.

Hi Andrew, Thanks for the detailed response. I agree. I am not looking for rules, but I am trying to understand general guidelines. You are referring to what Alan calls "melodic entasis". I am speaking of a different chapter in the book DVD called "micropauses" (under rhythmic entasis if I recall correctly). If I understand correctly what Alan is doing in this DVD chapter - he plays an excerpt of a Bach piece with a run of 16th notes, and insterts a micropause . This delay is barely noticeable and strangely it makes the rhythm sound better. This is not exactly the same as streching a note or pausing before a high point in a phrase to emphasize the next note (which is clearly audible to the listener). Have you watched this chapter of the DVD? There are no long notes in this passage, it's just a group of notes equal in duration, execpt that, instead of dividing the beat equally to four 16th notes, I think Alan very slightly "rushes" the first 3 notes and stretches the last note in each group. It is so slight that it actually makes the rhythm sound more even. I think that probably many pianists already do it without even realizing what they are doing, but this is one of the thing that distinguishes musical playing from mechanical note pumping. Zack

. This delay is barely noticeable and strangely it makes the rhythm sound better. This is not exactly the same as streching a note or pausing before a high point in a phrase to emphasize the next note (which is clearly audible to the listener). Have you watched this chapter of the DVD? There are no long notes in this passage, it's just a group of notes equal in duration, execpt that, instead of dividing the beat equally to four 16th notes, I think Alan very slightly "rushes" the first 3 notes and stretches the last note in each group. It is so slight that it actually makes the rhythm sound more even. I think that probably many pianists already do it without even realizing what they are doing, but this is one of the thing that distinguishes musical playing from mechanical note pumping. Zack If it's purely for rhythmic issues rather than based on phrasing issues, is there any reason why it should affect whether you play legato or not? I wouldn't imagine that there would be any reason to go against whatever phrasing would be natural, whether that happens to involve units that are puncatuated by fractional silences or one continuous line. I think you still have to just decide for yourself what purpose you're looking to achieve with it in a particular situation. Why not record yourself various ways and see how it comes out? Ultimately, a 'rule' is usually just a description of something that tends to sound effective a high percentage of the time. No rule can what will sound effective in any specific instance. They are tools that have to be adapted to the specific context (or even be discarded entirely, at times, owing to other factors), rather than a purpose in themself- so I doubt whether your question can really be answered one way or the other, in a generalised form. While I'm a huge believer in many valuable 'rules', I'm increasingly finding that there's barely a single one that can be followed without it forcing you to simultaneously break another one. Basically, the best results are likely to come from doing your own experimentation with such principles in mind. The key is that you are constantly making your own evaluations of what benefits you personally find, during the process of experimenting with such tools.

I experiemented with it a little bit. It seems easier to achieve with a metronome. I am trying to rush all the notes slightly and then start the next beat exactly on the metronome click. It sounds awfully exaggarted most of the time, but I do get a few times where I feel the beat very clearly and I think it sounds really good. The first note of each beat becomes slightly empasized because of the slightly longer decay of the previous note, but it's doesn't feel like a heavy accent of each beat. I will try to get some recording later this week. It's really hard to know with these things if I am doing it right or just deluding myself, but I think I am starting to understand what Alan means by "the whole exeperience of entering and leaving a pulse note is different"