Definitive vs. Personal - interpretation approaches

[opus10no2]

Should a pianist strive to make his interpretation the definitive interpretation of a piece?
Or should a pianist give up trying, and just focus on saying something unique?

I suppose this is the argument of objectivity vs. subjectivity.

An objective interpretation, will, on average please more people, but a subjective one will divide people, but at least it will inspire more passion.

This is the problem with alot of competitions too, they end up going with 'safe' pianists alot of the time, someone everyone will like, to a defree, and rarely people who inspire love and hate.

Observe Katsaris -

He definitely chooses to be different, some would say unique for the sake of unique, but while this may not be my favourite interpretation, it's a very interesting and valid one all the same.

Someone like Hamelin, who is actually still one of my favorite pianists, is interesting to talk about in this way, because his technical ability is what stands out, and this alone allows unique things to happen.

[dnephi]

I would say that to be definitive, it has to be completely unique.

[ted]

I think you must stick to your own vision, even if it goes against the rest of the musical world. In saying this, I do not mean we should cultivate iconoclasm for its own sake; that is just a neurosis; the distinction is important. But if you are genuinely different then do not waver. To live somebody else's dream is very sad.

[fizzy]

My approach is to understand and know what the definitive interpretation is, ie what everybody else does. Then I decide how I like that and find my own approach and understanding of the piece. It might match up or it might not.

[opus10no2]

I think this ties in with many people's desire to be the greatest, the best in their field.

The thing with art is, how can success be defined by anything but popularity?

Well, in a way it can, but this isn't what art is about.

Too many people strive to be 'the best', only to have their hopes squandered, there will always be someone better than you in any measurable terms, every record will be beaten, conceivably.

Art deals with that which is immeasurable and unique, and therefore most artists are much better off following their own vision, being themselves, being unique, finding out who they are, finding their place.

Perfection , as Horowitz said, is imperfection when it comes to art, because perfection isn't human, and something which isn't human can't affect us emotionally.

My admiration for technical ability is almost the opposite in this case, because technical ability *is* measurable and it is more possible to figure out who's best....and even the best will be beaten, there will always be technical advancement, and a person's achievements should not be diminished by people who come along later and outdo them, because we are standing on the shoulders of giants, and people should be judged in comparison to those of their own time.

[counterpoint]

If there would be something like a definitive interpretation, that would be the end of interpretation. Just: final goal reached - end of story.

But there is no end. New approaches lead to new understandings.

It's only the CD buyers who look always for the ultimate recording to then say: I have it.

[invictious]

It's music, it's a form of art, and I suppose it's what separates Horowitz and that random pianist down the street.

People call my interpretation too personal. i never got that that meant, because it's personal! I feel what this piece feels, so yes.

[opus10no2]

It's music, it's a form of art, and I suppose it's what separates Horowitz and that random pianist down the street.

Horowitz is undeniably a great artist, and definately a very personal one, but it's interesting to attempt to put in words what seperates him and other pianists with creativity and technical command.

[inswinger7]

Are the two mutually exclusive of each other? I believe however one tries to be definitive, the interpreter will inject his/her personality, consciously or otherwise (unless perhaps that pianist is a mechanical hack).  Pianists have their own temperament, attitudes, personal backgrounds and teachers. This will affect their understanding of the music to interpret. Sometimes definitve is in the ears of the listener (or even a commercial gimmick). At the same time while being personal, one has to also take into consideration certain parameters like composer's intent, historical basis (if any), current practice, etc. Also, each epoch has it's own set of objective and subjective standards. Toscanini for example was regarded as a objective interpreter in his time, however by today's research he would come out as subjective.

I strive for both. Never successful all the time for me but the heck, it's worth the hours of practice (if I still do!).

[ramseytheii]

Are the two mutually exclusive of each other? I believe however one tries to be definitive, the interpreter will inject his/her personality, consciously or otherwise (unless perhaps that pianist is a mechanical hack).  Pianists have their own temperament, attitudes, personal backgrounds and teachers. This will affect their understanding of the music to interpret. Sometimes definitve is in the ears of the listener (or even a commercial gimmick). At the same time while being personal, one has to also take into consideration certain parameters like composer's intent, historical basis (if any), current practice, etc. Also, each epoch has it's own set of objective and subjective standards. Toscanini for example was regarded as a objective interpreter in his time, however by today's research he would come out as subjective.

I strive for both. Never successful all the time for me but the heck, it's worth the hours of practice (if I still do!).

It's not mutually exclusive (reminds of me Schnabel: "A girl asked me if she should play this movement as she feels it, or as it was written.  'Why can't you feel it as it was written?'" to paraphrase). 

BUT these days people would like to enforce upon us objective definitions of a definitive performance.  And I suspect that is what opus12 is getting at.  To reimagine the question, should every pianist strive to present the piece as historically accurate as possible?  Which for some is definitive.  In this vein, should every pianist who plays Beethoven 4th concerto, also play Beethoven's own cadenza?  After all, that would be more definitive.

My personal feeling is an absolute no.  There are some who are intent on the noble cause of imagining what music would have sounded like only to the composer's ear, which by the way is not a unviersal thing, but a thing conditioned by the composer's own epoch.  But why should every musician be saddled with the same responsibility?  There are some performers whose method would seem more free than others, for instance Cortot.  Listen to his Jeux d'eau, which sounds very different then what we imagine Ravel to have intended, and yet Cortot knew Ravel and played Jeux d'eau for him. 

I had a teacher that said, play what is written, as long as it doesn't sound bad.  The obvious question is: who are you to say it sounds bad?  But who are you but the person performing the music, the very person who has to convey an aesthetic of sound to an audience?  You are the very person to decide what sounds good or bad.  To imply, as some strict ones do, that to take liberty is to be immoral, is simply close-minded, and it ignores the extreme beauty of recordings we have from the past especially, that have less to do with the way we imagine (I don't say "know") the score to mean. 

There are some pianists who feel the inner urge to be definitive, in the sense that everything must be "as it was."  There are others who are not, and never need to be, burdened by this responsibility, but have to replace it with a consistent aesthetic of their own, never losing integrity.

Walter Ramsey

[Derek]

*edit* upon reading some of the other posts here, what I've written below is just another way of putting it..

I think the real issue here is creativity versus museum-like preservation. Some people really like the idea of being human museums, preserving great works of art into the 21st century exactly as they had been written down  (but who knows how their composers actually performed those pieces--- probably DRASTICALLY differently, but that's beside the point).    Other people are not content with being museums and feel an urgent need to say something of their own.    I'm an amateur so any of you who may be professionals or students should probably ignore what I'm saying,  but...I do very much enjoy playing written pieces in different ways. Different tempos, different inflections, different everything. Sometimes I even (gasp) change parts of a piece.  So...its really up to you as an individual. are you a museum, or a creator?

[ramseytheii]

*edit* upon reading some of the other posts here, what I've written below is just another way of putting it..

I think the real issue here is creativity versus museum-like preservation. Some people really like the idea of being human museums, preserving great works of art into the 21st century exactly as they had been written down  (but who knows how their composers actually performed those pieces--- probably DRASTICALLY differently, but that's beside the point).    Other people are not content with being museums and feel an urgent need to say something of their own.    I'm an amateur so any of you who may be professionals or students should probably ignore what I'm saying,  but...I do very much enjoy playing written pieces in different ways. Different tempos, different inflections, different everything. Sometimes I even (gasp) change parts of a piece.  So...its really up to you as an individual. are you a museum, or a creator?

You may not have intended it, but I think the choice of language shows a personal bias.  I don't think there is anything wrong with someone who has the high moral standard of being able to convincingly reproduce every mark in the score, after all this is the principle that pianists as diverse and creative as Brendel and Richter set off from.  Listen to how different their approaches!  "Museum" pianist sounds slightly perjorative, especialy when you oppose it with creative, as if such a person cannot be creative.

I only think that all pianists in the world do not have to share the same goal, and can operate from different, internal moral standards.

Walter Ramsey

[Derek]

You may not have intended it, but I think the choice of language shows a personal bias.  I don't think there is anything wrong with someone who has the high moral standard of being able to convincingly reproduce every mark in the score, after all this is the principle that pianists as diverse and creative as Brendel and Richter set off from.  Listen to how different their approaches!  "Museum" pianist sounds slightly perjorative, especialy when you oppose it with creative, as if such a person cannot be creative.

I only think that all pianists in the world do not have to share the same goal, and can operate from different, internal moral standards.

Walter Ramsey

Yes, I think you are right. It did sound a bit pejorative, perhaps. At least, it could be taken that way. I didn't mean to imply that museum pianists are old and dusty, for example. There are both old and dusty museums, and engaging, well kept and accurate museums. Take it however you like, I suppose!  I also didn't mean to imply that museum pianists can't be creative; they merely choose not to exercise their own creativity, at least as far as creating new music is concerned. Perhaps it could be said it takes a certain creativity to try to ascertain what the composer really intended, since we really don't know what they intended. Sheet music is only a crude representation of musical sound,  the vast variety of playing styles is testament to this. 

I am pleased to note that most of the readers of this thread chose "personal." I suspect our readers are primarily youthful and creative, and probably not "old and dusty museum" pianists.

I've got one question: How does one's personal way of playing or interpreting music have anything to do with morality? I can't think of any situation in which playing music a certain way would be morally wrong.

[ramseytheii]

I've got one question: How does one's personal way of playing or interpreting music have anything to do with morality? I can't think of any situation in which playing music a certain way would be morally wrong.

Maria Callas said that when you perform, you have to obliterate in the audience's mind any other performance of that music.  Yours has to be the only possibility.  In order to achieve that, you have to believe in every decision you made as if it is a life or death decision.  If you go against your own integrity, or for instance don't put enough time into achieving a certain sound or effect, you've gone lower than your standard, and that's immoral.  Some pianists like Richter have the standard that they are going to make every mark as convincing as possible, and probably not even question it.  But although not everyone operates from that standard, every great artist has a personal standard which has some kind of definition.

I think arts in general are deeply tied to morality.  There is noone in the creative arts to govern what artists are doing, to say what is right and what is wrong, past the stage of apprenticeship.  But how does any artist know which detail, which color, which inflection, which shape, to their painting, composition, or sculpture?  There's a deep inner morality, which is formed differently for every artist, though which can be so influential as to be for a time universal (like Beethoven's aesthetic). 

As a side note, look at how often people in the medical profession also excel at the arts.  Why that profession more than so many others, like law for instance?  Anyone who wants to become a doctor has to take the Hippocratic oath, a moral oath to serve the patient as best as possible.  Lawyers for instance don't have such an oath, they aren't immoral, but their job requires a moral flexibility which simply doesn't carry over to the arts, and that may be why we see so few artistic lawyers (always exceptions).  It's my personal hypothesis, so you can take it or leave it obviously, but I find it most interesting.

Walter Ramsey