1人の、ピアニストによる作曲

[Riccardo91]

Dear Japanese forum,

I'm wondering how should I interpret the comma in the following sentence from a cartoon.

本日演奏した曲は1人の、ピアニストによる作曲です

Attempt 1: The pieces we played today have been composed exclusively by our pianist.
Attempt 2: The pieces we played today have been composed by our one and only pianist.

Basically, I don't get if the comma is only meant to reproduce the emphatic pause made by the voice actor of if it brings about a change of meaning.

Thank you so much!

 

[SoLaTiDoberman]

All pieces we played today were composed by a pianist.
(You may notice that the tempo and tone are quite different among those pieces we played today, but they were all composed by the same pianist. The pianist composed all of those pieces we played today.)

Or
The music we played today were composed by a pianist alone.
(No other people helped him/her to compose it.)

I don't know the intention why the comma was there, but I don't think the meaning would change even when there is no commna. I can think of the two interpretations above.
I'm not sure if my two interpretations and your two attempts mean the same or not, but maybe the same.

I cannot decide which is the case. It depends on the context, and nothing else incuding the presence or non-presence of the comma there.

 

[gengo]

本日演奏した曲は1人の、ピアニストによる作曲です

At first, I agreed with Sola that the comma doesn't really change the meaning. Upon further reflection, however, I wonder if that comma isn't in fact necessary, because it separates two adjectival parts that both modify 作曲. We can't know from the above whether there is just one performer or multiple performers.

I think there are two possible translations, depending on the overall context.

1) All of the pieces performed today were composed by the same pianist.
つまり、すべての曲は一人のピアニストによって作曲されました.
2) All of the pieces performed today are compositions for a single pianist.
つまり、すべての曲はデュエットではなく、一人のピアニストによって演奏できるものです。

Does the overall context suggest one or the other of these?

 

[Flaminius]

2) All of the pieces performed today are compositions for a single pianist.
つまり、すべての曲はデュエットではなく、一人のピアニストによって演奏できるものです。

I am afraid this reading does not hold.

本日演奏した曲は1人の、ピアニストによる作曲です
I need confirmation if this utterance refers to all the pieces performed in the concert, and if they were indeed composed by a single person. Without context, it could refer to just one piece that the speaker themselves played.

Anyway, on the assumption that the concert was all about a single composer-pianist, it is natural to assume that the speaker wanted to emphasize on both surprise elements, the sole authorship, and the identity of the composer. The comma, therefore, reproduces the emphatic pause in the spoken language.

 

[Riccardo91]

The band that's running the show is a jazz trio (sax, drums, piano), and the pieces were composed by the pianist alone.
That pianist had a potentially deadly accident and couldn't play that night, so the person saying this wanted to underline his importance in the band. And he was referring to all the pieces they played, not only one.

I think my #1 attempt and SoLaTiDoberman's #2 attempt are the same. If the context I added above doesn't suggest anything else, I think that's the one.

Thank you so much!

 

[SoLaTiDoberman]

The band that's running the show is a jazz trio (sax, drums, piano), and the pieces were composed by the pianist alone.
That pianist had a potentially deadly accident and couldn't play that night, so the person saying this wanted to underline his importance in the band. And he was referring to all the pieces they played, not only one.

I think my #1 attempt and SoLaTiDoberman's #2 attempt are the same. If the context I added above doesn't suggest anything else, I think that's the one.

Thank you so much!

I think the context and background provided in #5 would change everything. The context and background are very important.

And one more thing is necessary, I think.
Was the show played by the two members without playing piano, or a substitute piano player played that night?

If there was a substitute piano player that night,
本日演奏した曲は1人の、ピアニストによる作曲です
means
"The pieces we played today was all composed by 'another' piano player who unfortunately doesn't appear tonight."

If there was only two players that night,
本日演奏した曲は1人の、ピアニストによる作曲です
means
""The pieces we played today was all composed by our piano player who unfortunately doesn't appear tonight."

The nuance is different according to the situation.

And as the context was very clear from the beginning to YOU, I don't know what you were asking about in #1?
I don't know the difference between Attempt 1 and 2, either.
But I'm glad that your question seemed to be solved.

 

[Riccardo91]

Sorry if my first message came unclear, I'll try to explain better what I was uncertain about.

The show was played by the two remaining members of the band, without a pianist, leading to your #2 interpretation:
"The pieces we played today was all composed by our piano player who unfortunately doesn't appear tonight."

But if you just want to convey the idea of "our piano player", then 私達のピアニスト or バンドのピアニスト would be enough, am I right?

Given that the speaker says 1人のピアニスト, I thought he wanted to convey the idea that their pianist is irreplaceable for them, or just the fact that they don't have another pianist in their band.
"The pieces we played today have been composed by our one and only pianist."
[本日演奏した曲は][1人の、ピアニストによる][作曲です]

But then I started wondering if that comma in the script actually changed the meaning of the sentence. I thought that maybe 1人のピアニスト wasn't supposed to be a "whole phrase" (I don't if I'm explaining myself here), that maybe the sentence should be segmented like this:
[本日演奏した曲は][1人の]、[ピアニストによる作曲です]

If so, I was speculating that the translation would be something like "The pieces we played today have been composed exclusively by our pianist" (<--- "we didn't help him with the composition, so we are giving all the credits to him").

I hope it's clearer now.
I deeply apologize for the confusion.

 

[SoLaTiDoberman]

How about this explanation?

「1人のピアニスト」is kind of the direct translation style Japanese from English, which means "a pianist", which is also re-translated into Japanese 「ある(一人の)ピアニスト」.

To the contrary, 「1人の、ピアニスト」is more like "A pianist" or "a pianist" or even "the pianist" by emphasizing with the comma.
"A" pianist in this context turns out to be "the" pianist who is "our" pianist.

In this context, 「1人の」's function is more like English articles, a/an and the, I think.
And it literally means the indefinite article a/an, but its function is more like "the" because
一人の、ピアニスト
＝あるピアニストが一人で
＝我々のトリオのメンバーのピアニストが彼一人で.

I think that the expression 一人の、ピアニスト is influenced by the direct translation style from English, or influenced by the English culture. Japanese language didn't have the concept of "articles" in English.
Do you know what I mean?

Regarding "exclusively"-matter you were asking, I think that sentence includes the meaning that other two members didn't help him composing them.

>私達のピアニスト or バンドのピアニスト would be enough, am I right?
Yes. But the speaker chose an indirect way of speaking, which seemed better, rhetorically speaking.
A direct, straightforward expression might be easy to understand, but it may sound childish, not-sophisticated.

 

[Riccardo91]

Really helpful as always, now it's totally clear.

Thank you so much!