Are you a purist?

[amanfang]

I have a recording of Jorge Bolet playing Mendelssohn's Variations Serieuses in D minor live at Indiana University from like 50's or something (don't remember the date exactly).  Anyway, at the very end on that last sweeping arpeggiated diminished 7th, he doubles it at the 6th the whole time (instead of the single line as written).  Personally, I love the sweep and bravura.  When I mentioned this to a professor, he was rather "appalled" that someone would take "such liberties" with the score, and thinks we should play everything that the composer wrote, nothing more, nothing less.  I asked a couple other professors, and they said the same thing.  What's the big deal? 

[counterpoint]

I wouldn't call it purism, but respect to what the composer wrote. It's propably not as contemptible in the variations serieuses as in - let's say - Paganini Variations of Brahms, but why should one do that? Does the music getting clearer by doubling lines in octaves? You should have very good reasons to change the music of a serious composer.

Okay, perhaps I am a purist 

[liszt-essence]

What is the big deal indeed.

I don't understand why people have to go make such a fuss about it.

What the composer wrote is no sacred thing. IMO a piece is never finished and if I like to add a note here and there why not? I mean come on.. Would you mind if someone would edit your piece??

I certainly wouldn't, why whould I ?? Variations, added stuff, richness sure bring it on!

As long as the original version is there and avaible to everyone I say, mess it up as much as you like. Good creationism!

Nice job Bolet.

[phil13]

What is the big deal indeed.

I don't understand why people have to go make such a fuss about it.

What the composer wrote is no sacred thing. IMO a piece is never finished and if I like to add a note here and there why not? I mean come on.. Would you mind if someone would edit your piece??

I certainly wouldn't, why whould I ?? Variations, added stuff, richness sure bring it on!

As long as the original version is there and avaible to everyone I say, mess it up as much as you like. Good creationism!

Nice job Bolet.

When I first read this, I thought you were joking. 

I would never change the notes of a piece, but dynamics, phrasing and general interpretation are constantly changing, and I don't mind making slight changes in that regard.

When I mentioned this to a professor, he was rather "appalled" that someone would take "such liberties" with the score, and thinks we should play everything that the composer wrote, nothing more, nothing less. I asked a couple other professors, and they said the same thing. What's the big deal?

The big deal is that your professors are crazy. First of all, there are plenty of things that composers don't write on the score that were taken for granted back in their time. By your professors' words, Bach should be played without any phrasing whatsoever, no ornaments or embellishments either. 

Pedaling becomes an issue with this argument too. Beethoven wrote the following words at the beginning of the 1st mvt. of "Moonlight" Sonata: 'sempre senza sordini" which meand without dampers, or with the pedal down all the way through. On today's pianos, can you imagine how terrible that must sound?

Phil

[thalbergmad]

I am most definately NOT a purist.

Tastes change in time and what was acceptable 100 years ago is not now.

Generally speaking, the pianists of the modern generation perhaps do not take liberties with the score as much as those in the 19th and early 20th Century. Whether this is an improvement or not, is also a matter of taste.

There does however seem to be a penchant for 100% accuracy and 100% adherence to the score. Im my opinion you might just as well listen to a midi.

To me, the score is a guide or perhaps only a suggestion.

Thal

 

[mikebechstein]

I like pianists who take liberties with the score. Not too much, but just enough for them to make something stand out or bring a sense of individualism to the piece. IMO it doesn’t happen enough nowadays but that is only my taste.

I do, however, like the fact that there are both types of pianists out there. Sometimes I would prefer to hear Rubinstein play a particular Chopin piece for the interpretation and sometimes I would prefer de Pachmann just for the shear beauty of sound. If everybody played like Pollini or Hewitt (both of whom I like very much) then it would be a boring world. Equally, if everybody took liberties all the time then it would lose its impact and would be equally boring.

I don’t think even professors should be so arrogant (perhaps that is a bit strong a word) that you dismiss one style over another. Lets have many different styles and listen to the ones that please us. Each has its merits.

[ramseytheii]

I wouldn't call it purism, but respect to what the composer wrote. It's propably not as contemptible in the variations serieuses as in - let's say - Paganini Variations of Brahms, but why should one do that? Does the music getting clearer by doubling lines in octaves? You should have very good reasons to change the music of a serious composer.

Okay, perhaps I am a purist 

Of course people say that, that you have to have respect and a good reason, but let's stop to consider what his reason might have been!  If it was to heighten the effect that Mendelssohn wanted, it's all good.  Let's get to the core of matters here.

When I play these variations, I add a lot of things, including repeats.

Here is an interesting quote from Brendel which relates to what your professor told you:
"Sviatoslav Richter belonged to the first group [those who "shall play only what they see on the page"] and confirmed it in words...
There is one thing I'd like to make clear, and it seems to need some explaining.  Observing a composer's markings is not a simple, automatic matter that a computer could do as well or better.  Rather, they need to be understood - and that requires a great deal of imagination, the ability to concentrate on every single work and continually question what the markings mean in each particular context.  They often confirm what the structure already says.  But sometimes they are more than that.  Some of them are directly linked with the heart of the piece... One's critical faculties really come into play here.  One interpreter who tries to do justice to the composer's markings will often differ greatly from another, whose aim is the same.  There is always something personal involved.  It is utopian to assume the spirit of the composer might descend from above as if unimpeded, although in the fifties that was what a number of performers strove for."

For some reason I cannot find the quote which I wanted to include, but I can paraphrase.  Brendel said about Richter, "He said he only wanted to play what was on the page, and I often found that's all he was doing."

Walter Ramsey

[counterpoint]

"He said he only wanted to play what was on the page, and I often found that's all he was doing."

Interpretation is needed for sure (I would claim,  Richter is doing it in an extensive way), but interpretation does not mean to change the notes. It's how to play them.

[kempff1234]

I am not a purist at all. This is not to say that I take whatever liberties I want with the text because I am no expert what so ever. However I respect all the masters who did. I think Arrau critisized who ever played the arpeggios in teh beginning of beethoven's Op.111 with two hands rather than one.

[dnephi]

No.  The end

[ramseytheii]

Interpretation is needed for sure (I would claim,  Richter is doing it in an extensive way), but interpretation does not mean to change the notes. It's how to play them.

Well in the case we were talking about, nothing was changed, just added.  He didn't turn a diminished arpeggio into a dominant for instance.  And I think we have to give ourselves credit from time to time, that we do in fact know what the intention of a given passage was, and if we want to, we can heighten it.  Mahler did this of course in Beethven symphonies, as did Wagner.  And we say, yes, but we are not Mahler, we are not Wagner - no, you are counterpoint, or dnephi, or Walter Ramsey, and that is good enough.  We should not beat ourselves up, and lock down our imaginations just because of who we are not.  Nor should we treat ourselves like naughty children who need permission from an unspeaking, inanimate parent to do anything.  Why shouldn't a score be our friend?  Why does it have to be the tablet of commandments?

Walter Ramsey

[leucippus]

There does however seem to be a penchant for 100% accuracy and 100% adherence to the score. Im my opinion you might just as well listen to a midi.

To me, the score is a guide or perhaps only a suggestion.

I feel exactly the same way here.  Written score is not the music.  It was never intended to be the music.  It's simply a symbolical way to communicate the general idea of what the composer had in mind.  No one plays music precisely by the score, in fact in many cases it's physically impossible to play precisely what's actually written in the score.  If you want to hear what the score sounds like plug it into a MIDI player and there you go!

My simply conclusion is that the score was never intended to be the music.  So, from my perspective following the score precisely isn't being a 'purist' at all, it's simply being absurd.  The entire point of the score was totally misunderstood as far as I can see.  It's the music that's important, not the score.  And the music come from the artist of the performer which obviously means to play the score as he or she feels it should be played.  Like Thal said, the score is just a guide.

To me that's being a true 'purist' in the sense of being a pure musician and artist.  Blindly adhering to the score like a robotic midi file is nothing short of obscene.