Analysis Task 2

Performance Analysis of Moments Musicaux op.94 no.3

Moments musicaux op.94 no.3 is from a collection of six short pieces for solo piano composed by
Franz Schubert. The key signature of the piece is F minor, time signature is 2/4, tempo indication is
Allegro Moderato. The aim is to analyse the performance, comparing the performance with the
score and spotting the change in dynamics, tempo, rhythm and articulation.

The piece begins with a two bar rhythmic motif;

This rhythmic pattern in the left hand is played continuously throughout the piece. The melody
begins from bar 3, the quality of touch that should be employed is light and singing because of the
tuneful melody with simple rhythmical accompaniment in the left hand. This has been followed and
the dynamics were also perfect which gives a singing quality. But at bar 7 (shown below) in the
right hand instead of playing semiquaver I played it as quaver, so this makes a change in rhythm but
at the

second repetition these mistake was not repeated again. From bar 1-10 the dynamics & articulations
were followed as indicated in the score, and there were no changes in the tempo.
Bars 11-18 ends with the relative major, the melody sounds almost sadder. In bar11 the dynamic
remains the same in the score but I had to change it to pp- pianissimo because of the expressive
purpose and also used pedal only for bar 11 to get a singing quality as the melody sounds sadder.
The pedal is used without creating a blur but adding to the expression as a dynamic agent.
But it is not easy to play and during the performance i couldn't play at the first time because of
difficulty in controlling the dynamics and it is a sudden change which makes it difficult but at the
second repetition these mistakes were not repeated. At bar 13 the tempo gradually speeds up
especially in the second beat of bar 13 while playing the semiquavers and also the dynamic is not
followed, it was loud. But at the second repetition of bars 11-18 these mistakes were not repeated
again in the performance except the dynamics gradually became loud from bar 15-18.

The loud portion of this piece is at measure 19,

the dynamic indicated in the score is forte. Here in bar 19 i used pedal for expressive purpose to get
a fuller and rich sound. In bar 22 decrescendo is marked in the score but in the performance the
dynamic remains forte from measure 19-22.

The tempo is speeding up from bars 19 through 25 and also in bar 23 the dynamic indicated in the
score is piano with crescendo but this was not followed during the performance, because as I
mentioned earlier it was difficult to control dynamics in this piece.
Bar 27-34 is the exact repetition of bar 3-10 but this time the dynamic is changed to pianissimo. The
grace note was not played in bar 27 and also in the first beat of bar 28 the grace not was not played
which changes the rhythmic pattern. The articulation was not followed from bars 27-34.
Bar 33

There was rhythmic mistake in bar 33 during the performance. The melody is constantly doubled
with harmonic and consonant filling notes such as thirds, sixth and also change in fingering, this bar
should be played legato which becomes difficult due to changing fingers and also the dynamics
should be controlled. These create some technical difficulty for the performer.
The dynamics was played as marked, again the tempo was slightly speeding up in some bars.
Starting at bar 35, the comparatively long coda contrasts minor with major, and six measure phrases
with four measure phrases, ending the piece in F major after playful harmonic movements.
Bar 35 dynamic changes to mezzo forte, again the dynamic indications crescendo and decrescendo
in bar 35-36, 39-40

was not followed as it was difficult in controlling the dynamic during the performance and also in
some places the tempo was rushing. From bar 41 it should feel excited so i had to use crescendo to
get these textures and also the coda from bar 45 it should be played in a more relaxed way. Also the
dynamic indication is pp -pianissimo In the last coda bars 39-54 the piece is played in a faster
tempo as compared to the beginning tempo. The dynamics was also not followed according to the
score it was moderately loud where it should be played as pianissimo.
 Bibliography

(1) Roger Chaffin, Clair de Lune Retrieval Practice and Expert Memorization, Music Perception:
An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol 24, No.4 (April 2007), pp. 377-393

(2) Erick Clarke, Nicolas Cook, Bryn Harrison And Philip Thomas, Interpretation and performance
in Bryn Harrison's etre-temps, Musicae Scientiae (Mar 2005) pp. 9-13

(3) Hans Lampl, Tuning Notes Into Music: An Introduction to Musical Interpretation (Scarecrow
Press 17-Oct-1996 )