Fazil Say And Pires: Music Analysis

In my performance of Mozart’s sonata no. 12 movement II, I took inspiration from both Fazil Say and Maria Jao Pires’ performances of the piece. Each performance has different but not dissimilar interpretations and there is a sense of historical accuracy as well as innovation in both. One could argue that Say takes a more innovative approach whereas Pires plays more traditionally in a classical style. The use of pedal, tempo, dynamics and ornamentation are all major contributing factors to how each performance differs and these are what I will aim to explore in the content of this essay.

In Mozart, the use of pedal is a subject that can be debate due to the difference between the modern piano and the one that would have been used at the time. The performer must decide whether to take full advantage of the modern pedal or try to evoke a more classical sound. Pires takes a much more conservative approach with the pedal using it minimally, contrasting Say’s more heavy use. This can be
shown even within the first bar where we hear a stark contrast in their playing. Say blurs the phrase with the pedal creating a different sound in the single notes of the alberti bass . This contrasts Pires who’s pedal is much less noticeable allowing for a much clearer sound and each note to be heard . The other area this majorly affects is the articulation of the right hand trills. Say’s trills are much less clear whereas Pires brings them out through a lack of pedal , allowing her to play each note more clearly. We see a similar contrast in bar 8, however this time the pedal is used more effectively by Say. Say’s articulation of the repeated Cs in the left hand is brought out much more due to the lack of pedal whereas Pires uses a more sustained sound . The repetition of the Cs in Say’s performance seems much more interesting as it gives a different and contrasting feeling to the previous legato phrase and also allows Say to bring out the staccatos more effectively in the right hand. In my performance I will aim to take the more classical approach, using pedal to join notes and help with legato playing as opposed to using it to influence the articulation of my playing. For example in bar 11 , I will use it to help play the thirds as smoothly as possible and then use my fingers to create any difference in articulation.

Tempo and rubato are also used very differently in both Say and Pires’ performances. The general tempo in Say’s performance is rather fast when compared to Pires’ more true ‘Adagio’. One could argue that due to the faster tempo, Say is able to achieve a greater sense of line in his performance and the phrases are seen more holistically (as shown in track 8) . Pires still however seems to be able to achieve this sense of line at a slower tempo through use of dynamics as shown through the crescendo through the descending thirds in bar 35 as opposed to Say’s less dynamically varied version . Another way that both seem to differ is their use of rubato, in where they use it and by how much. For example, in bar 18, Say brings out the top C pausing on it to give it emphasis as it is the start of a new line . Pires does not do the same, she sees it as more of the same melody as opposed to a notable change and therefore continues straight through it . The opposite happens in bar 40, Pires pauses on the top G emphasising the E flat major chord, whereas Say spends more time on the suspension of the penultimate chord . In my performance, I believe that both of these moments should be brought out as they are both significant and I will try and demonstrate this through my playing. In general, I believe my tempo is much more similar to Pires’ as I am trying to stay as true to the ‘Adagio’ marking as possible. In my performance, rubato is not the most important aspect of my playing as I feel that as Mozart said himself, ‘Passage work should flow ‘like oil’ , the overuse of rubato can therefore take away from the overall flow of the performance, however this does not mean that it is not useful when it is used to bring out certain important moments such as a significant harmonic shifts or changes in mood.

Another way that these shifts and changes in the music can be shown is through the dynamics. Again, much like the use of pedal, dynamics are very different on today’s instrument due to the greater range of what we can do. Both performances use a similar range of dynamics however the difference comes with how and where they use them. For example in bar 36 , we see two different approaches to the change in dynamic. Pires opts for a sudden forte which she sustains throughout the ascending phrase , whereas Say grows through it starting softly and ending in a forte as opposed to starting with one and keeping the same dynamic . Say’s interpretation seems to offer a more interesting take on the phrase due to the variation in dynamic and the sense of line is achieved because of this. However Pires’ use of dynamics on an even smaller scale take for example the minor version of the opening theme.. In Pires’ bar 5, the two ornamented notes are played at the same dynamic despite the general crescendo through the phrase . This variability of dynamics and focus on single notes means that Pires’ performance on a detailed level is superior to Say’s. In my performance, I will aim for the same precision in the detail of dynamics whilst also trying to keep the same sense of line achieved in these performances. In terms of approaching dynamics in general, I believe following the composer’s markings such as the sforzandos in bar 11 is important. However this should not diminish or limit the ability to colour certain phrases differently, for example creating an echo effect in bar 10, or crescendoing through bar 20 into the recapitulation.

The use of ornamentation in this piece is usually very specific in it’s marcation of grace notes and trills.
However despite them being fixed in this sense, the performer is able to have their own take on them. Perhaps the most obvious difference between the two performances is the different approaches to the turns at the beginning of the piece. Pires’ more even turns seems to do what is written more than Say who lingers on the held note and then rushes off it in the turn . These two openings say two very different things, Say gives the impression that he is taking a more liberal approach in the sense that he will not stay strictly to what has been written, whereas Pires’ more traditional opening sets the tone for a stricter performance. I believe that Pires’ approach is more in keeping with the essence of how the piece should be played. In my performance, my aim is to keep to the more classical take on the ornaments much like Pires as opposed to the alternative interpretation of
Say.

In conclusion, we have two equally beautiful but different performances. Either approach can be seen to be in some ways the more historically informed depending on what one’s view of how classical music should be played is. Mozart in one of his letters states that he has an ‘abhorrence of expressionless rigidity’ , Say’s performance is both expressive and at no time seems rigid so lives up to this. Pires however, seems to stay more closely in line with the writing of Mozart in all aspects of the performance while still giving a detailed and interesting performance. Both Say and Pires therefore can be argued not to be performing contrary to what Mozart intended at any point, however both still give interesting and different performances. In my performance, I will aim to capture the essence of what Mozart wrote while at the same time try and add the type of personal touches that both Say and Pires do so well.