What makes an interpretation too personal ?

[m1469]

I just spent some time visiting a good friend of mine -- a piece that I have had around for years and means a great deal to me (though I haven't played it in quite a while).  I am thinking about programming it in the Spring for a concert I will be giving and as I played it this evening, I just realized it's part of me.  And, I wonder if it's too personal to play publically (?).

I have heard people say that they did not care for such and such a performer's interpretation of a piece because it was too personal.  Well, what is that, exactly ?


Thanks,
m1469

[ted]

You could guess my opinion by now, m1469. Music is supposed to mean a lot to us. What on earth is the point of it all if it doesn't ? If playing it the way you do means a lot to you then that is precisely what music is all about. Now if the way you play it happens to disagree with a particular listener or with established convention then that's fine and it doesn't matter; worse things happen at sea. You cannot be other than yourself, and the chances are strongly that one or two people might see the piece in a revelatory light because of your interpretation. The reward of that outcome, it seems to me, far outweighs the benefits of safety and convention. As that pianist on the "Art of Piano" video says, "Safe is boring."

[opus10no2]

I think people mean 'too personal' in a sense that it departs too much from the composer's original intention, becomes wayward, and eccentric.

I think these can be good qualities, and it's all down to taste..

Performers are recreaters, pieces are written by other people, but we have to find ourselves in them.

Most often, an 'objective' studied interpretation can be very dull, but a personal performance, even if it doesn't completely agree with our tastes, is always more compelling, the piece is reinvented and reconcieved through the soul of another musician.

Personally, I am uninterested in being a conduit, whether this makes me selfish or egotistical is debatable, but it makes me happy .

[pianowolfi]

Welcome back m1469

Well this is a question that I have also now and then. I think the more personal the better it is. The more it has become a part of you the better it is. For example Rach's prelude in b minor is so much a part of me that I sometimes feel like I had composed it myself. And I think my interpretation does benefit from that. It is actually unselfish to play very personally because you are united with the composer. Not with his bust. His thoughts are your thoughts. His music is yours. So you celebrate a fusion on the stage. And the composer himself again has had the same fusion with the source of his music, the cosmos or the big plan or god or the spiritual world or how ever you may call it. So you are united with the composer's music and with the cosmos. That is very personal. And though very humble.

[invictious]

I have never thought interpretations to be too personal. I am interpreting it, if I want to play Fur Elise as though it's describing a devil, then I will. I am playing it, and by whatever means, it's MY personal interpretation.

I do not believe in the existence of an interpretation that is too personal.

[counterpoint]

I remember times, where it was absolutely "in" to play extremely strict, rational and cool. You could not play with rubato without getting malignant glances. Playing with too much emotions was looked at as unserious and embarrassing. Perhaps that was sort of extreme in germany after all the cruelty, germans did do in nazi times while celebrating "great feelings" in music and art. There was a great mistrust in feelings in general after the war.

[preludium]

I just spent some time visiting a good friend of mine -- a piece that I have had around for years

I don't really understand this phrase but I think I know what you're writing about. In my opinion there is nothing that could make an interpretation too personal. However you play it, there will always be some people who like it and some who don't. Some time ago there was a movement about playing Barock pieces extremely slow in order to reveal to the audience a kind of beauty in some compositions that is usually only known to the musician. Of course it was critizised as if followers of this approach would try to replace the usual way to play these compositions.

This is so stupid. If you think you can interprete it the way it was meant by the composer you're playing tricks on yourself, unless there are recordings of the composer. Scores are not expressive enough to reveal every detail of how the composer played it or wanted it to be played. Many things are left out on purpose and considered to be known to the interprete, like the stress of every other first beat in a menuet. How many of these implicite rules got lost during the centuries? Nobody will ever know. Many early compositions are not even meant for a particular instrument or group of instruments, so I think especially in the Barock era composers were quite relaxed about how something should be played, and then the technical abilities of musicians at that time were probably very different from what it is today.

Even if a composition is relatively recent and there are recordings of the composer I dare doubt it should always be played the same way. If someone would want this they should play a CD but not listen to an interpretation. Pianowolfi mentioned in the audition room that he doesn't like to play Bach, because there are so many people these days who know exactly what is right and wrong. Well, I often hear interpretations that I don't like. Apparently there is at least one person who thinks differently, so why not let them have it their own way? Some pieces only talk to me with a very particular interpretation. Someone else may say that this very interpretation goes too far, but why should I care about this? If you love music then you shouldn't care about other people's opinions, unless you try to make a living from it, but that's a completely different story.

[m1469]

I don't really understand this phrase but I think I know what you're writing about.

Oh, what don't you understand ?  I am talking about the piece being my good friend. 

[preludium]

Ah, you call a piece a friend, that's ok, I get it now. This just looked a bit weird to me. I blame the Bordeaux.    Once I knew someone who called his books "house gods". Hard to grasp on the first reading...

[Bob]

.

[preludium]

I have heard people play things with some bizarre interpretation, or add so many nuances that it distorts things too much (things like rhythm).

Do you know the recordings of Jaques Loussier playing Bach pieces in Jazz style? Not everyone's taste for sure, but quite interesting. What is the difference between a free interpretation and a parody or an imitation? Would it be less offensive if the interprete gave it a new name? Would this be more offensive, because the interprete cannot come up with something completely of their own?

[allthumbs]

Greetings m1469

Oh, what don't you understand ?  I am talking about the piece being my good friend. 

Hahaha... you got me there too m1469! I thought 'What is she talking about?'

I agree with Ted. I used to feel self-concious playing in front of musically knowledgeable people in that my interpretation of a piece may not be the correct one. Then I read a post from a member of this forum (can't remember who) that no one has the correct way a piece is supposed to be played except for the composer himself.

So, all the famous concert pianists in the in the world today playing Beethoven are just playing what they think Beethoven had intended.  Sure, there may be some performance notes by the composer that these performers can follow that may bring them closer to what the composer intended, but the final result would be an approximation at best.

So we are left with the fact that excluding technical considerations, anyone's interpretation of a piece of music is just as valid as anyone else's IMO.


Kind regards,

allthumbs

[pianowolfi]

So, all the famous concert pianists in the in the world today playing Beethoven are just playing what they think Beethoven had intended.  Sure, there may be some performance notes by the composer that these performers can follow that may bring them closer to what the composer intended, but the final result would be an approximation at best.

I find myself thinking about this again when I read your comments, allthumbs. And to me what you say is principally right. But to me there is more. After all, if I have learned all the notes of a Beethoven sonata, have used the most up-to-date edition, have tried to figure out Beethovens intentions as carefully as possible - there is still a step to go. A big step. You need to learn to walk on the water. Somehow this is what I feel. Inspiration comes in. The undescribable process of making music. The magic of music. Suddenly you will find yourself in a "flow", a different dimension. And that is what counts after all. Even if everything you do may leave a lot to be desired.

[pianowolfi]

I blame the Bordeaux.   

lol sounds somehow familiar to me

[m1469]

Hi .  Thanks so much for all of your thoughts and feelings on this subject.  I am thinking about this and, as is my trend lately, I can't quite respond to it yet.  But, I want you each to know that I have read what you have written and I appreciate your thoughts and the fact that you have taken the time and energy that you have to respond.  I just can't get the words out right now (it's all stuck somewhere in me).

So, I will just quietly observe for a little while.

Thanks,
m1469

[allthumbs]

I find myself thinking about this again when I read your comments, allthumbs. And to me what you say is principally right. But to me there is more. After all, if I have learned all the notes of a Beethoven sonata, have used the most up-to-date edition, have tried to figure out Beethovens intentions as carefully as possible - there is still a step to go. A big step. You need to learn to walk on the water. Somehow this is what I feel. Inspiration comes in. The undescribable process of making music. The magic of music. Suddenly you will find yourself in a "flow", a different dimension. And that is what counts after all. Even if everything you do may leave a lot to be desired.

Oh, you are so correct here when it comes to your point of 'walking on water', so to speak. The great pianists trranscended pure technique and placed their performance into a 'different dimension' as you put it.

I'm sure that you've heard pianists that were not technically perfect, but enjoyed the performance more than someone who was. The difference was the intangible element present in their playing.

I was in no way trying to say that any humble interpretation I may make on a piece would be anywhere near that of a Brendel, Horowitz, Hough et al, but I see where you are coming from.



Cheers

allthumbs

[pianowolfi]

I was in no way trying to say that any humble interpretation I may make on a piece would be anywhere near that of a Brendel, Horowitz, Hough et al

The more I teach the piano and play myself the more I think that this is actually a too humble approach. Everyone who is seriously interested in music can get at this point. Not everyone will get famous and perform at Carnegie hall or so but the flow and magic and the special moments with music are for everyone. This is one of the reasons why I got seriously mad when somebody once criticized the level of one of my student's recitals indirectly with saying something like "this is a piano class under development." and then compared my student's recital with much more advanced conservatory students. Of course it always is under development. Of course you can always increase the level. But what this person did not see is that I will held student's recitals in ten years where the level will not be higher. There are always beginners, advanced and more advanced and everything in between. What I try is to teach music from the first time someone touches a key. And if this someone plays at his first recital after three months of taking lessons the little pieces consisting of five notes are supposed to sound like music, not like something preparatory.

[counterpoint]

I'm sure that you've heard pianists that were not technically perfect, but enjoyed the performance more than someone who was. The difference was the intangible element present in their playing.

That is the point, where it really gets interesting!
You call it an "intangible element", but I think, it is not completely intangible. You can point out the differences between the two and it is possible to talk about it. I must be careful not to sound like Mr.Dounin, since I don't believe, it's only a question of microdynamics. There are many more things to care about. Most of all: freedom of tempo and freedom of rhythm. Then pedalling (very important!) and articulation.

[assante]

i never find an interpretation is "over interpreted" if it's consequent.
consequent of what you just did and what you'll do next. Then as a listener, you feel like you're taken on a ride admiring the landscape. The surprises that may come are fine in as long as the come from within the score itself and not some sort of whim or caprice . You like being surprised with the landscape but not with the driver putting on the brakes for no reason or suddenly steering all over the place on a straight road.
Then that becomes mannerism, makes me a bit sea sick, haha.

[m1469]

Still thinking about a lot of this stuff.  I just wonder if there is such a music that makes one wish they didn't know what the music told them through the performance of it ? 

You know, many times people enjoy just going along the surface of things, and maybe seeing or hearing something pretty, or exciting, but they don't want to be reminded of the deeper layers that they try to forget.  Perhaps glimpsing something like that in the performer (or composer) is scary or threatening for the listener, and therefore off-putting.

[ramseytheii]

I remember times, where it was absolutely "in" to play extremely strict, rational and cool. You could not play with rubato without getting malignant glances. Playing with too much emotions was looked at as unserious and embarrassing. Perhaps that was sort of extreme in germany after all the cruelty, germans did do in nazi times while celebrating "great feelings" in music and art. There was a great mistrust in feelings in general after the war.

I think that dirty residue is still with us!  So many young pianists these days get praised for having a tone like "ice" or "cold crystals" or whatever nonsense.  Why does everyone want to sound like a barren winter?  I also seem to remember in his liner notes for Yundi Li's DVD w/Liszt Sonata, Carsten Dürer praises him for not being "Romantic" or "mysterious" or something of the sort.  If you want I will dig up the exact quote.  Well, Yundi Li is frankly a dry pianist, and his DVD of the Liszt sonata proves this without a doubt.  He sounds like a winter wind with absolutely no humidity whatsoever.  And this is good?!

An interpretation becomes too personal when it prohibits the audience from understanding.  This presumes you are going to play before an audience, otherwise nothing is too personal.
I would say Pletnev sometimes falls into this category.  I heard his Schumann Fantasy live and much of it was not to be understood, I heard the recording later and felt the same way.  Not only did I ask "why," this, why that, but the things he did never suggested any real images to me.  Then later I read an interview with him, maybe in the Times, and he was asked why he does such willful things to the scores, and according to the magazine, he just smirked, and didn't answer.  In other words, he is glad to prohibit people from understanding.  Good for him!

Walter Ramsey

[rc]

I think that dirty residue is still with us!  So many young pianists these days get praised for having a tone like "ice" or "cold crystals" or whatever nonsense.  Why does everyone want to sound like a barren winter?  I also seem to remember in his liner notes for Yundi Li's DVD w/Liszt Sonata, Carsten Dürer praises him for not being "Romantic" or "mysterious" or something of the sort.  If you want I will dig up the exact quote.  Well, Yundi Li is frankly a dry pianist, and his DVD of the Liszt sonata proves this without a doubt.  He sounds like a winter wind with absolutely no humidity whatsoever.  And this is good?!

I'm sure every generation gets fed a preconcieved ideal of how their playing is supposed to be...  One way or another, all musicians must start from blind imitation.  The other option is to reinvent the wheel, but that's impossible, the student would have to live in a vacuum.

It also makes sense that the more secluded student would have less popular influence to conform.  I believe Chopin lived in a cultural backwater, where he had more freedom to develop his unique style.  Perhaps if he'd grown up in more of a cultural hub he'd have been more conformist?

Either way, the student must learn to think for himself at some point, as a natural stage of development.  Maybe it's when one generation of pianist tries to force their ideal on the next is how reactionary tastes come about,  the resentful students rebelling when they begin to think for themselves.

My only qualification for an interpretation are the reasons behind the decisions...  "because I want to", or a smirk are pretty weak reasons, likely the decisions of an immature mind.  The best interpretive decisions are well thought out - "I did it like this because I wanted to get a sighing effect that goes well with the character of the piece, and I ended it that way in order to give a sharper contrast with the following section..."

I can respect anyone who can give well thought reasons for their decisions.