Spontaneity discussion

[henrah]

In your opinion, is it good or bad?

When I play pieces (never performed to a proper audience before), they always come out differently, but more or less along the same lines. Though sometimes I deviate as I suddenly think of something on the moment.

All depends on my mood and feelings at that particular time, and how fast the first two notes are played (which always differs).
Henrah

[m1469]

I don't really think it's a matter of whether it is "good" or "bad" to play something differently each time you play it, rather it's a matter of the fact that this occurance is simply unavoidable.

[mike_lang]

I don't really think it's a matter of whether it is "good" or "bad" to play something differently each time you play it, rather it's a matter of the fact that this occurance is simply unavoidable.

There is a difference between inconsistency and and spontaneity.  I think that [unintentional] inconsistency is not a positive thing.  Spontaneity can be very good (of course, it has just as much chance of ending up very bad, but that is the risk that you take).

ML

[m1469]

There is a difference between inconsistency and and spontaneity.  I think that [unintentional] inconsistency is not a positive thing.  Spontaneity can be very good (of course, it has just as much chance of ending up very bad, but that is the risk that you take).

ML

uh... and ?  How does this have anything at all to do with my post ?

[mike_lang]

uh... and ?  How does this have anything at all to do with my post ?

My point is that it is possible to have the same interpretation from performance to performance.  I don't think that it is unavoidable that performances will be different.  Performances can be different, and if it is controlled, then that is good - if it is not, that is not so good --- I suppose it also depends on what types of things are different.

I hope the connection is a bit more apparent.

Best,
ML

[m1469]

My point is that it is possible to have the same interpretation from performance to performance. 

Best,
ML

I disagree.

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings.

I believe that Claudio Arrau once said that he always plays the same piece different each performance. That being said, I think that there are infinite interpretations of pieces and I think that it's fun to experiment and play something another way.

[mike_lang]

I disagree.

Very well - how do you define interpretation?

ML

[m1469]

Very well - how do you define interpretation?

ML

Now, how, exactly, am I (or anybody, for that matter) supposed to benefit by answering you that question at this point ?  And, is that what this thread is about ?  'How do you define interpretation' ?  I believe I already gave my thoughts on the topic of this particular thread.   


m1469

[tompilk]

Now, how, exactly, am I (or anybody, for that matter) supposed to benefit by answering you that question at this point ?  And, is that what this thread is about ?  'How do you define interpretation' ?  I believe I already gave my thoughts on the topic of this particular thread.   


m1469

hehehehe... well done 
I believe spontainity is the only way to make a performance interesting... the same recordings get boring after a while (20-30 listenings) and as soon as you listen to another interpretation or even performance, the piece totally changes itself. the same pianist, such as Horowitz Rach 3 (1930s and 1950s performances) I got bored of one because it is set in your mind that that is the wauy the piece should be played. I think that this also leads to how you feel about a piece. I first heard the Argerich Rach 3 so I compare everything to this one because I played it in to the ground...
So even the performances of the same piece by the same person (Horowitz) sounds so much different and this, i think, is partly spontainity (however the heck you spell it).
Also, the quality of recording has a lot to do with it for me (sorry im off the point but bear with me if you will...). I find that I ghave to listen to a modern recording to have as a standard for the piece (without interference such as crackling). I first heard the Ashkenazy Chopets and I judge all others against that, even though they might be of a much lesser standard. Also, I firstly heard Rach 23 5 by Horowitz and played that over 50 times. Only then did I hear Berezovsky's interp on a modern recording, which I now use as a standard to judge other recs.
I find this "standardisation" extremely interesting and would like to know what you think about how quality effects what you think of it...
Tom

[mike_lang]

hehehehe... well done 
I believe spontainity is the only way to make a performance interesting... the same recordings get boring after a while (20-30 listenings) and as soon as you listen to another interpretation or even performance, the piece totally changes itself. the same pianist, such as Horowitz Rach 3 (1930s and 1950s performances) I got bored of one because it is set in your mind that that is the wauy the piece should be played. I think that this also leads to how you feel about a piece. I first heard the Argerich Rach 3 so I compare everything to this one because I played it in to the ground...
So even the performances of the same piece by the same person (Horowitz) sounds so much different and this, i think, is partly spontainity (however the heck you spell it).
Also, the quality of recording has a lot to do with it for me (sorry im off the point but bear with me if you will...). I find that I ghave to listen to a modern recording to have as a standard for the piece (without interference such as crackling). I first heard the Ashkenazy Chopets and I judge all others against that, even though they might be of a much lesser standard. Also, I firstly heard Rach 23 5 by Horowitz and played that over 50 times. Only then did I hear Berezovsky's interp on a modern recording, which I now use as a standard to judge other recs.
I find this "standardisation" extremely interesting and would like to know what you think about how quality effects what you think of it...
Tom

Would you therefore say that spontaneity is a positive thing?

ML

[tompilk]

yes i would...
Tom

[mike_lang]

yes i would...
Tom

I agree with you on this point.  Therefore, I would say that spontaneity is good and relevant, rather than being a neutral, irrelevant matter (see m1469's second post).  Furthermore, the level of difference between performances can be controlled.  I like the way Horowitz put it - before he went on, he knew the color of each section, but details he left for the moment.  When I asked about definition of interpretation with reference, m1469, to your earlier post, I was trying to figure out whether you we were on the same page when speaking of interpretation.  I believe that it encompasses the whole of the piece, not simply these details, and therefore should be relatively static.  It follows that spontaneity, in my (and indeed Horowitz's) view, applies to these incidental details.

In other words, all posts following my first have been in service of the thesis that spontaneity is in fact a very good thing, insofar as it contributes to an effective performance.

Best,
ML

[henrah]

Thanks guys, been quite helpful.

* henrah likes the Horowitz quote