Interpretation--what is it, and how can it be graded?

[Contrapunctus]

With the bulk of the arguments on both sides in my Hamelin Concerto thread based in the quality of interpretation, I dare ask the question: what is interpretation?

We need to agree on a definition that systematically covers all aspects of the creation of musical sound from a pre written score.

Only until this is completed can we develop a systematic and CLINICAL rubric on interpretation quality.

Only after we have this rubric in place can we grade interps and determine superiority, if it can be determined.

I would love to hear some input, because I am currently of the opinion that whether or not you like an interp is based of some irrational inner feeling and cannot be graded on some kind of legitimate scale or rubric.

[counterpoint]

I would love to hear some input, because I am currently of the opinion that whether or not you like an interp is based of some irrational inner feeling and cannot be graded on some kind of legitimate scale or rubric.

Now - after "faster is better than slow" and "tempo has to be 'even' " and "Pedal is evil" the next threat: "music has to be rational and 'clinic' "

Is music one of the arts, or is it just a mathematical thing?

Music that does not have a mystery is not music for me.

So if you don't get that mystery-feeling in an interpretation, it's not worth listening 

[ryguillian]

I tend to use the following rubric when valuing the (clinical, or otherwise) integrity, fidelity, and aptness of any particular interpretation:

If the performance produces, exacerbates, or brings forth what I have dubbed "lulz" then it receives a +5.

However;—

Should the performance, in any case, be an example of "gayness" then it shall receive a -5.

I hope this isn't too complicated for anybody.

Best wishes,—Ryan.

[general disarray]

I, for one, subscribe to the Heimlich Schultz-Klutzmueller scale, an observable judgement taking into consideration the appearance of goose-flesh. 

-- 20 pimpled peaks per square centimeter of naked flesh is a "10."

-- 0 pimpled peaks per square centimeter of naked flesh is a "0."

[Naked flesh, in general, is always awarded merit despite the number of pimpled peaks.]

("It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing" -- quote attributed to Heimlich Schultz-Klutzmueller, who felt all interpretation was bollocks and strictly subjective.  Yet, as you can see, he did try to quantify it.)

[counterpoint]

ROFLMAO 

[general disarray]

I tend to use the following rubric when valuing the (clinical, or otherwise) integrity, fidelity, and aptness of any particular interpretation:

However;—

Should the performance, in any case, be an example of "gayness" then it shall receive a -5.

I hope this isn't too complicated for anybody.

Best wishes,—Ryan.

Ryan will be pleased to know that Heimlich Schultz-Klutzmueller calibrated for "gayness" in his Interpretative-Arousal Scale and deduced that "12 pimpled goose-flesh peaks of a LAVENDER hue constituted Acute Gayness Arousal" and correspondingly, being homophobic, gave this Arousal a rating numeric of "4" out of a total possible "20."

[ryguillian]

Ryan will be pleased to know that Heimlich Schultz-Klutzmueller calibrated for "gayness" in his Interpretative-Arousal Scale and deduced that "12 pimpled goose-flesh peaks of a LAVENDER hue constituted Acute Gayness Arousal" and correspondingly, being homophobic, gave this Arousal a rating numeric of "4" out of a total possible "20."

Verily!

[jakev2.0]

Verily!

*adjusts monocle*

[katie_h]

Joking aside, IMO not only can interpretation not be graded in anything other than a purely subjective sense, but I don’t think artistry should be analysed/graded as this only serves to deplete the magic of listening and yet achieves relatively little. Some things in life are best left simply enjoyed. Analysis and grading implies a comparison with perfection and yet there is something inherently contradictory about perfection and artistry.

[mknueven]

I agree with the mystery element and the artistic element.
But I remember being in a music theory class once - getting a grade that I did not like
after I analyzed a piece of music - when I took it up with the teacher - he showed me how HE analyzed it.  When I asked well then - what are the rules you used?
He said - you can't put rules to art .
So then in effect, he was the artist - in his mind - and I was just wrong. 
Yet - if I was to analyze it over again - which I did - I still would have analyzed it that way.
There has to be a clear line drawn between theory and art - don't you think?

[danny elfboy]

There's no legitimate scale for these sort of things, and the people who claim to have invented one are usually egocentric and insane and this applies to everything in my opinion; from that idiot sociologist who "developed" a legitimate scale of morality (of course everything that wasn't western, brainwashed, consumistic, capitalist was at the bottom) to that idiot of Piaget who "developed" a legitimate scale of cognitive growth (and of course school-based formal operations were at the top of the scale and emotional intuitive intelligence at the bottom) to that other idiot that "developed" the scale of acceptance and even that legitimate scale which is the IQ ... still thought by many as a "scale of intelligence" while there's no evidence that the IQ can test intelligence or knowledge or even intellect and while even the author of the IQ itself admitted it was not a tool to measure intellect skills (clearly so since it is based on sociocultural knowledge not on universal innate information)

So whatever scale some idiot has invented is just an idiocy (no matter how big the ego and aura of scientific rigour behind it) Art if possible is even more subjective, atemporal, anti-analytical, a-linear, global, intuitive, perceptive and instinctive and would refutes such kind of standardization. Of course someone could invent such scale and brainwash the world into believing it is the true rigorous way to determine objectively the interpretative degree ... but of course it would be nonsense and if someone had the gut to really see what the data actually says; it would see a reluctant reality never conforming to the standard and speculations of the scale.

[counterpoint]

There has to be a clear line drawn between theory and art - don't you think?

The funny thing about "musical theory" is, that the theory was invented after the works already existed. The theories try to create a method how people which are not very musical can compose "good" pieces anyway 

A real artist does not need rules.

[danny elfboy]

The funny thing about "musical theory" is, that the theory was invented after the works already existed. The theories try to create a method how people which are not very musical can compose "good" pieces anyway 

A real artist does not need rules.

This so true!
The sad affair of modern music theory is that all these theorists/composers tries to come out with ad-hoc theories first and then force music to suit those theories. Whereas the very nature of music has always been that first come the music and then an attempt to theorize it all to give certain tools to the composers and musicians. In fact I believe the whole mindset of modernism is completely flawed in its theory-based microreductionist approach.

[shadow88]

In German lessons in school, when we try to interpret poems in an exam, the one who interpreted the most and interpreted almost every single word, gets the best grade. But if you read this interpretations, you really doubt if the author wanted to say everything that way. Some other guy surely would do another interpretation and you can't say which is wrong or right.
IMO its the same about music!

[cygnusdei]

Probably it's difficult to assess an interpretation other than by consensus. This is analogous to the use of taste panels to determine the sweetness or hotness (taste) of chemicals. Look up 'Scoville scale'.

[guendola]

I think it is possible to make a set of rules for grading interpretations. It should be as close as possible to the intention of the interpreter, the intention of the interpreter should be based on knowledge about the specific music, its composer and music in general, it should all make sense, etc. blabla.

What I really wonder is why do you want to make rules for the grading of interpretations? I haven't read the comments on your Hamelin Concerto but I suppose they weren't too nice. People don't often say what they think but they say things in order to feel good, be respected etc. - they basically talk about themselves. So don't ever expect a fair discussion about someting as delicate as interpretation. Look for the few serious comments and forget about the others.