Personal intepretation or composers interpretation? Thoughts.

[henrah]

I have found recently that, everytime I play Chopin's fourth prelude, it comes out differently and all depends on what I am feeling when I play it. Sometimes it's slightly jolly, sometimes heavily depressing. The same happens with his Raindrop prelude; but last night I took more notice of the dynamics and everything else that was written in the score.

What I'm wondering is: If I ever have a concert career, would it be best to become (as many good reviews I have heard say) simply a bridge between the composer and the audience, in effect playing the piece exactly the same everytime, paying careful attention to what is written on the score and the composers exact intentions; or make it more my piece by playing it however it gets played, which all depends on my state of mind and feelings before I play it?

I have read many times from many reviews of pianists that they are 'a bridge between the composer and the audience, showing the composers true intentions' and these have been reviews of some of the most famous pianists. It is starting to make me think that the majority want to hear the composers music, and not what I make of the composers music (although sticking to what is in the score still includes some of my own interpretation).

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.
Thanks,
Henrah

[prometheus]

If you want a concert career I would get a very good teacher and ask her/him.

If not then I wouldn't be too restrictive on how your interpretation turns out. But the important part is that it has to be a conscious interpretation, you have to be in control.
As for the composers interpretation, often there isn't one. And in some cases, as with Rachmaninoff, the interpretation (of his own score) strongly contradicts with the score.

So we talk about the composers intention, which can be argued about and in most cases will never be clear.
I would really consider all the dynamic markings, and other things, the composer has written down because they are all written down for a reason. If you are going to ignore them you must do so based on descision, supported with arguments, not on 'instinct'(, or rather, at least in most cases, lazyness).


But do remember, the music is totally in your hands. Though you do have a resposibility towards the composer, as the listener has a responsibility to you, you are the one that descides what is played. You can never have a responsibility towards the 'composers interpretation' because you only have the score, and not the composer. The score is quite limited in many respects. The composer only has a responsibility towards the score, if he didn't write it down we cannot consider it.

[demented cow]

If somebody is not the 'bridge from composer to audience' of which you speak, but plays as their moods dictate and change what the composer wrote, they will get knifed by the critics, judges and snobs in the audience. But what about the people who want to hear new life breathed into a piece they've heard often? Maybe they're getting neglected because of this modern obsession with textual fidelity.

I bet that some (though not all) of the people who criticise others for not being faithful to what the composer wanted have never actually asked themselves why it should be so reprehensible to deviate from the score or present one's own feelings (as opposed to those of a long-dead composer). Put otherwise, these people blindly accept (and then preach) faithfulness to composer's intentions in the same way that people blindly accept/preach various other unmotivated superstitions, dogmas, habits, etc, and slam all others that don't.

People sometimes say it's conceited to superimpose one's own feelings (or make changes in) the composer's text. This is another piece of unclear thinking. If you deviate from the composer's intention in performances (as e.g. Bolet, Gould, Horowitz, Cziffra, Liszt did), it doesn't mean you're an egomaniac or that you think you're better than the composer, it just means you happen to have had an idea that the composer didn't but is still worth hearing, and had the courage to try it out, to submit it to the audience, braving the ridicule that will inevitably come from pretentious, unthinking people (and may come from serious musicians too if your risk backfires on you).

I'm not saying that it's not possible to do wonderful performances completely within the guidelines set by the composer, and I'm not denying the need for textually faithful recordings, but I fail to see why every performance needs to be 100% faithful.

[henrah]

Thanks for you thoughts on this guys, much appreciated.

I think sticking to the true intentions of the composer is a must, but there must be an element of yourself in there that makes it unique and true to yourself. In Chopin's fourth prelude, I stay true to the basic dynamics and expressions (i.e. the smorzando at the end) but as most of it is blank, it becomes unique through my interpretation. This piece therefore has quite a lot of leniency for performers, and can vary greatly from pianist to pianist. However other pieces - like the Raindrop prelude - have quite a lot of dynamics written in, and I can actually see the reasoning behind them. It therefore gives less leniency to the performer, but you are still able to make it uniquely yours through other products of playing (timbre, tone etc).

As you say Prometheus, 'the music is entirely in my hands'

I think I know understand this alot better. Thanks again guys,
Henrah

[m1469]

I have thought a lot about interpretation in general.  What is it ?  Are there guidelines ?  And so on.  I used to think that in order to make my performance of a piece original, and personally authentic, I had to add some part of "me" into the music.  However, I never really knew what that was.  It felt like though, that I had to pull something out of some unknown and mystical part of the Universe to make it happen.  The focus was, admittedly, mostly on myself and what I could do to make this music breathe.

Well, perhaps I had some *accidental* success doing this.  Lately though, I have tried to excuse my own ego from the process. I have realized that  I wish for the music to speak to the audience more than I wish for me to speak to the audience.  But, in order to sit there playing in the first place, I must have some sort of understanding about the music itself -- and that very understanding is my interpretation.  It has become more about trying to gain my own understanding of something that already exists.  And, as we know, we all understand things a little differently.  So, in order for me to develop my own interpretation, "all I have to do" is work to understand what is sitting in front of me and be completely myself.  I don't have to add anything.

This "understanding" will never exist in the form where there is nothing more to learn.  That does not mean there is no true understanding to lean on though.  And ideally, this understanding will deepen with research and experience.  So, the interpretation will evolve over time.  I enjoy looking at numerous scores and reading as much as I can find about the piece.  In some ways I used to resist this because I thought it would somehow hamper the "purity" of my own thoughts on the music.  But, if I approach all of the research as simply trying to gain a better understanding of the music, I simply do exactly that, and I gain a broader understanding of the piece as a whole (and its "affect" on the world).  I have more to work with then.

The main benefit of gaining an "understanding" of the piece is that it allows me more confidence, which helps me to get out of my own way.  This in turn better allows me to connect with the audience, which is ultimately what really matters (no matter what the articulations, dynamics... and so on).

And, instead of my interpretation being consciously rooted in my particular emotion of the moment, my interpretation is ALWAYS consciously rooted in the understanding I may have of the piece, though perhaps somewhat affected by my emotion of the moment.  When I aim at performing in this way, what I find changes most is my boldness in connecting with the audience.  I can feel when the music is inside of them and speaking to them.  And, when it's about the music and not me exactly, I feel more bold in allowing the connection to stay.  Funnily enough, my abillity to connect with the audience increases as "myself" gets out of the way (it's difficult to explain).  And also funnily enough, I end up feeling like I have been able to speak to them through the music.  I still have a long way to go with this.

As a side note, I often practice doing this with my students.  It seems I can actually "make" a student like a piece by connecting with them in this way.  It seems that no matter what the piece is, if I make the connection with them, they like it and want to learn/play it.  I like to experiment with this (and I don't tell them, of course, what I am doing).

I just wanted to join in the conversation  .


m1469

[saturation]

This entire topic is a core treatise of Harold Schonberg's book, The Great Pianists.

If anyone's interested here are some of its ideas.

Schonberg says that before around 1900 virtuosos played compositions anyway they felt like including rewriting, adding, subtracting, changing entire sections of compositions or mix movements from different sonatas, from different composers.

In a nutshell, Schonberg puts forth that the romantic virtuoso saw themselves as the center of attraction, and the music was there to highlight themselves.  They played as they felt the music should be expressed.  By analogy, there is no way to recite Shakespeare, so its up to the actor to breath life into the words, formulating a general idea of how a particularly scene is supposed to be convyed.

In that view, what one experienced in a performance was always 'unique', that the audience could look forward to surprises.  There was a lot of showmanship among this set, and it reaches its apogee with the Liszt school of pianism.

Around Clara Schumann's time, she put forth that greater fidelity need to made towards expressing the composers intention as best as possible, and not to change what is obviously written into score.  This is where we are today.

My thoughts:

Schumann's concept maybe a core reason for the stagnation in classical music, and a continuing decline in interest in classical pianism, and piano sales.  The emphasis is on preservation, or re-enaction, repeating the same item faithfully over and over, like a museum.

However, a note on music fidelity.  A composition cannot have new notes written into it and still be called a Chopin waltz.  It will be like the romantic pianists of old did when they rewrote the music, now called, for example a Godowsky transcription of a waltz.

https://www.bmgmusic.com/acq/default/index.jhtml;jsessionid=AGABEP45XZUBECTI0UTSFFA?acqlinkback=y&_requestid=66795
I think the time has long been overdue to reemphasize a pianist's more personal view of classical piano music interpretation but not to the extremes of the romantic virtuoso, for 3 reasons.

What has developed in modern pianism is only a very narrow range of interpretable variations, so for the most part nearly all performance is pretty much identical to the general audience.

Second, classical piano students focus on faithful execution of notation over performance passion.  The net result is most performances are musically boring.  By contrast, 'pop' music is passion first, virtuosity far second.

Passion is discussed by Schonberg and is taught by many good pianist-teachers.  One gets it through an extensive and involved experience of real life, a pianist is unlikely to convey more meaningful feelings through performance, if they don't have complex and vivid feelings themselves.

Third, playing strictly by notation creates a standard performance type dictated by the notation.  Piano competitions encourage a partciular pianism as decided by judges which, coming from standard music school ideology, continues the status quo of music interpretation.  The word conservatoire comes from conserve or preserve, not to breath new life.  And aren't most preserved things already dead?


Conservatory \Con*serv"a*to*ry\, n. [Cf. F. conservatoire, LL.
   conservatorium.]

A public place of instruction, designed to preserve and
      perfect the knowledge of some branch of science or art,
      esp. music.


When you look at classical pianists willing to risk idiosyncratic interpreations, such as attempted by Glenn Gould or Lang Lang, you will certainly get harrumps from the professors and audience members expecting a standard interpretation.  But I think angering such conservatives is worth it in trying to appeal to and create a bigger general audience.  There will always be room for the academic interpretation as desired by Clara Schumann, but that is probably best left within schools and 'authoritative' performances.

If you can find old recordings by pianist who were students while Liszt lived, the true romantic pianists such as Josef Hoffman or Vladimir Horowitz, you'll find they did take much more liberty in interpretation than we do today, and their playing is far more livelier, unique, and engaging, than a lot of what we hear today.

[pianistimo]

maybe we should gear our relative 'feelings' to the audience - as an actor sometimes does.  when you have a loose audience - you feel loose and relaxed.  an uptight audience - you are kind of guarded and more 'careful.'  at least that's me. 

my very favorite recital location would be a small ballroomroom (salon type) and not formal concert stage.  you can hear the piano better - and the intimacies of a performance and the 'feelings' better.  seems that on a large stage in front of a large audience it is more 'contrived.' 

there's some other thread that talks about how people get 'into the mood' of playing.  i have to admit, on a friday night if i decide to have a beer (or half a beer) - i play much more relaxed.  don't want to take that too far of course.  don't want to rely on drinking a beer before going on stage (staggering to the piano and laughing about mistakes). 

basically - for people like me - naturalness is something we learn.  for others that are more talented than we - it is something that comes very easy.  i tend to want to be a perfectionist about the notes and the dynamics and the writings of the composer - thus perhaps an admittedly just a bit stiffer player.  but, when i am warmed up - i think i play a pretty passionate waldstein.  scarlatti is hard for me to understand how to loosen up - but many hours and beer should do it.  i've never performed having taken a drink though, so i don't really want to start.  maybe just compare what i do before and after and try to imitate it dry?

[saturation]

maybe we should gear our relative 'feelings' to the audience - as an actor sometimes does.  when you have a loose audience - you feel loose and relaxed.  an uptight audience - you are kind of guarded and more 'careful.'  at least that's me. 

my very favorite recital location would be a small ballroomroom (salon type) and not formal concert stage.  you can hear the piano better - and the intimacies of a performance and the 'feelings' better.  seems that on a large stage in front of a large audience it is more 'contrived.' 

there's some other thread that talks about how people get 'into the mood' of playing.  i have to admit, on a friday night if i decide to have a beer (or half a beer) - i play much more relaxed.  don't want to take that too far of course.  don't want to rely on drinking a beer before going on stage (staggering to the piano and laughing about mistakes). 

basically - for people like me - naturalness is something we learn.  for others that are more talented than we - it is something that comes very easy.  i tend to want to be a perfectionist about the notes and the dynamics and the writings of the composer - thus perhaps an admittedly just a bit stiffer player.  but, when i am warmed up - i think i play a pretty passionate waldstein.  scarlatti is hard for me to understand how to loosen up - but many hours and beer should do it.  i've never performed having taken a drink though, so i don't really want to start.  maybe just compare what i do before and after and try to imitate it dry?

You sound like my kind of pianist! 

Frankly, I prefer attending Curtis, Juillard and other student recitals over big names playing in concert halls.  Until they are fully trained, many tend to play more as they feel, and they do bring exceptionally fresh and different interpretations despite flubs, until the school system turns them more into what the school wishes them to be.  Now, individuality does eventually shine despite that, but that if often much less than before they had much of their uniquenss worked out of them.

Consider 2 pianists who come from non-classical pianistic schools for a fresh approach to the classical genre, Keith Jarrett [ although he spent time at Berklee but did not finish] and Billy Joel [ who plays often, doesn't record].  Both enjoy playing classical, and Jarrett has recorded several cycles on CD.  Here is one:

https://www.stereophile.com/recordingofthemonth/1292rotm/

and Billy Joel as composer:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005Q6KS/002-2479090-1008025?v=glance&n=5174

Readers, you decide, how different and fresh speaking from a view that isn't constrained by the rigid systems within the classical piano pedagogy.

[alzado]

I believe Chopin gives more latitude for interpretation than do many of the other composers.

Notice all the heated debates about tempo rubato as applied to Chopin, and how much is tolerable, and how much is beyond the pale.

Also listen to recordings -- some of the timing, the pauses, are highly interpretive and dramatic.  There is considerable latitude here, which makes me think your varying interpretations may be acceptable.

As for the idea of taking this to experts, or getting the view of some "great cham" of music -- I mean --

Just play the stuff.  Don't make everything so bureaucratic, please.

[andric_s]

If we don't put our own expression into our interpretations of music, we may as well mime along to a player piano.

If one is inclined to interpret radically, as some great pianists are and have been, I believe one should.  If we worry about pleasing critics and uptight audience members, we will fail ourselves... and fail the music by being dishonest in our performance.  In that case, we would do better to sell insurance as a profession and play piano as a hobby.

[henrah]

Wow, tis a lot to read. Thanks for the new posts guys, I think I have found my solace in this classical world of 'preservation' and 'conservation'.
Henrah