A Composers Instructions Should Not Be a Straight-Jacket

[davepinto]

I and other composer friends, are acutely aware of how our interpretations of our own compositions can change drastically from performance to performance. Perhaps this is why when performing others music, it's easier for many composers to not feel honor bound to ALWAYS slavishly follow each and every dynamic, articulation and tempo indication. That having been said, and setting aside the ommisions, vagaries and inaccuracies of instructions, I do believe that a composer's instructions are vital to take into account, and follow to the the best of one's ability...especially in the case of performers who are not acquainted with traditions and performance styles. But when an advanced musician feels impelled to display the vitality or beauty of a passage by illuminating something other than the obvious (like stressing an inner voice), then more power to them...as long is it's tasteful. "Tastefull"? I guess there's where all disputes will originate. However, I'd rather err on the side of opening the door to a variety of interpretations, to dictatorially insisting on a standardized "perfect" way of interpreting a musical composition. If I'm not mistaken, Chopin was known to change his interpretation of his compositions...sometimes radically. Please correct me if the latter statement is in error.
David Pinto

[stevebob]

You’ve conceded that “a composer's instructions are vital to take into account, and follow to the best of one's ability,” while simultaneously suggesting that doing so might be considered a straightjacket.  I’ve never felt that way about hewing to a composer’s intentions (to the extent they can be understood), but neither do I believe that there’s such a thing as a standardized or “perfect” performance.

It seems to me that there’s considerable flexibility and latitude even within prescribed parameters of printed instructions for dynamics, agogics, etc., and that the performer’s discretion over them already allows for the interpretive variety we hear from professionals whose styles are considered dissimilar.  A musician’s decisions over such elements as how loud a forte should be, how suddenly a crescendo or ritardando should be made and how much rubato is appropriate are what distinguish artists from one another; our perception of those differences accounts for why we find some performances congenial and others not so much.

In any case, there are some other basic issues here concerning performance practices in various genres of music.  Once upon a time classical musicians could (and did) improvise, and doing so was accepted or even encouraged.  That’s no longer the case, and any deliberate alterations or deviations would be hugely risky unless the very point is to present music purposefully distinct from the original composition (i.e., explicitly acknowledged to be merely based upon, derived from or inspired by it).

In the hands of skilled musicians of a different genre—jazz interpretations of musical structures by Bach and Chopin, for example—the resulting transformations can be compelling and very agreeable in their own right.  If a classical musician assumes the license to make changes in tempi, dynamics or other areas while ostensibly performing a piece as written by the composer, though, it’s likely to transcend “tastefulness” entirely and convey hubris instead.

Making willful changes to the score is a slippery slope, too; how far would such liberties extend?  To adding embellishments, perhaps?  To adding or changing notes, even in a way that affects melody or harmony?  Even if good taste dictates where the line should be drawn, tastefulness resides as much in the ear of the listener as in the intent of the performer.

It’s true that Chopin was known to make modifications to the text of his own music when performing it—but he was likewise known to disapprove of others doing so when playing his works.

[keyboardclass]

Bringing out inner parts can often be appropriate.  Chopin shows how this would be indicated through his highlighted bass tune in op 25 no 1.  I don't know anywhere else he did that so we're safe to assume he was generally alright about such interpretations.   Changing overall dynamics, in my book, would be pretty much out though.   

[ask_why]

Trust the art, not the artist.

/thread

[davepinto]

Although the current convention is that we shouldn't "mess" with a composer's "intentions", as everyone knows, in the 19th century and earlier embelishing and improvising were not only accepted but often necessary, and it was mainly the degradation of this art that lead to the current strictures in classical music against it (the domain of creative improvisation has passed to jazz). But I think we should reconsider this stricture. For instance, as exercises, pianists should be encouraged to write their own variations on Chopin's filigrees, embelishments and cadenzas. Of course, for the vast majority of cases, the results won't be any near as good as the originals, but the process of composing them will offer the artist a great deal of insight on how to actually 'feel' and perform them with the necessary freedom, rather than the stilted feel that so often comes from a too literal reading of the notation of cadenzas and embellishments. And who knows, perhaps in some rare cases the results may be as good, or superior to Chopin's. In that case, take it to the concert stage, and let the public decide. Of course I know what the pedants will say about such a proposal. But...pedants are also the ones that would righteously howl if, unbeknownst to them, an authentic but previously unknown Chopin mansucript containing differing cadenzas were performed.

[keyboardclass]

Why not play 18th century music? There embellishment is expected.

[ask_why]

Although the current convention is that we shouldn't "mess" with a composer's "intentions", as everyone knows, in the 19th century and earlier embelishing and improvising were not only accepted but often necessary, and it was mainly the degradation of this art that lead to the current strictures in classical music against it (the domain of creative improvisation has passed to jazz). But I think we should reconsider this stricture. For instance, as exercises, pianists should be encouraged to write their own variations on Chopin's filigrees, embelishments and cadenzas. Of course, for the vast majority of cases, the results won't be any near as good as the originals, but the process of composing them will offer the artist a great deal of insight on how to actually 'feel' and perform them with the necessary freedom, rather than the stilted feel that so often comes from a too literal reading of the notation of cadenzas and embellishments. And who knows, perhaps in some rare cases the results may be as good, or superior to Chopin's. In that case, take it to the concert stage, and let the public decide. Of course I know what the pedants will say about such a proposal. But...pedants are also the ones that would righteously howl if, unbeknownst to them, an authentic but previously unknown Chopin mansucript containing differing cadenzas were performed.

I've never encountered the attitude of strict interpretation that you're talking about, but the people who espouse that view must be an especially repulsive kind of pretentious .  If the art of piano could be boiled down to "right" and "wrong", then computers would already be playing and composing pieces that could put the greatest pianists to shame.  Ok, maybe they wouldn't be writing music, but it's no exaggeration that they'd be able to play it extremely well.  Literally, if our methods of notation were sufficient to convey all the desired expressiveness and feeling in a piece, then it would mean that computers and/or robots could very easily be programmed to play as well as the best piano performers out there.

We don't know exactly what thought or feeling a composer was trying to express when they wrote a given piece of music, and even if we did know, how would we estimate the degree of that feeling they were attempting to express?  I'm not aware of any pieces that contain notations for happiness and sadness levels of 1-10, or anything of the sort.  And, furthermore, how would we know that the composer managed to get it right?  If Beethoven was trying to express "Level 10 Happiness" when he wrote the first movement of Moonlight Sonata, I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say he got it wrong... very wrong.

Obviously that's not the case and it's a pretty exaggerated example, but I still think "trust the art, not the artist" is the best approach. 

[thalbergmad]

I always treat a score as a suggestion as opposed to a strict instruction, but i rarely venture outside of the romantics. Obeying the score surely would lead to similar performances.

I play how i damned well want and since all of the composers i play are dead, they are not around to complain.

Thal

[stevebob]

Although the current convention is that we shouldn't "mess" with a composer's "intentions", as everyone knows, in the 19th century and earlier embelishing and improvising were not only accepted but often necessary, and it was mainly the degradation of this art that lead to the current strictures in classical music against it (the domain of creative improvisation has passed to jazz). But I think we should reconsider this stricture. For instance, as exercises, pianists should be encouraged to write their own variations on Chopin's filigrees, embelishments and cadenzas. Of course, for the vast majority of cases, the results won't be any near as good as the originals, but the process of composing them will offer the artist a great deal of insight on how to actually 'feel' and perform them with the necessary freedom, rather than the stilted feel that so often comes from a too literal reading of the notation of cadenzas and embellishments. And who knows, perhaps in some rare cases the results may be as good, or superior to Chopin's. In that case, take it to the concert stage, and let the public decide. Of course I know what the pedants will say about such a proposal. But...pedants are also the ones that would righteously howl if, unbeknownst to them, an authentic but previously unknown Chopin mansucript containing differing cadenzas were performed.

"Pedants"?  I guess I should have expected that.

I don't agree that "pianists should be encouraged to write their own variations on Chopin's filigrees, embelishments and cadenzas"; those who are interested should feel free to do so, of course, but I'm certain that many of us have no interest at all in doing so.

Furthermore, "tak[ing] it to the concert stage" is an option for only a select few.  If artists like Gabriela Montero succeed in improvising in public, that's great.  I would guess that most of us posting and reading here play primarily for ourselves in our own living rooms and therefore lack a platform to "let the public decide."  (On the other hand, being able to play as we "damned well want," in Thal's words, seems a reasonable trade-off.)

[shadowzerg]

I agree completely with thal. The composers provided us with a template; it should be our choice to do what we want with it. Art is purely expression so we must express not only what the composer felt(what we think anyway) but also what we feel.

[lostinidlewonder]

If everyone follows the score they all will sound different still, it is not that complicated. Micro parts that are uniquely how you play will snowball over the course of playing the piece, so without even trying to sound different you will always sound different.

I remember reading Gottschalk write about how people should interpret his music:

*on the piece O my charmer, Spare me*

"I must suggest this little piece should be played exactly as it is written, as the license occasionally indulged in by pupils, of substituting their own thoughts for those of the composer, must inevitably interfere with the general effect. The characteristics of mingled sadness and restless passion which distinguish the piece would be utterly lost were not the accuracy of each changing rhythm fully sustained. The melody should stand out in bold relief from the agitated by symmetrical background of the bass with the singing sonorousness and passionate languor which are the peculiar traits of Creole music. To give entire score to the "Ad Libitum" and "Tempo Rubato" and at the same time not to transcend the extreme limits of the time, is the principal difficulty as well as the great charm of the music of the Antilles, from which I have borrowed the outline of this composition, the theme and arrangement being exclusively my own. I intend hereafter, as a prelude to my pieces, to make a few observations on the proper method of playing them, hoping that those who like my music, may accept the fervent desire to facilitate its execution, as an acknowledgement of their kindly appreciation."


Often composers write in a particular style which is recorded as best they could in the score. We might have to have a few listens to other pieces of the similar style to be able to appreciate how it is written (otherwise if we simply go ahead and interpret it based on our other past musical knowledge we may mutate it and lose its character).Chopin is well known to infuse traits of Poland in his Mazurkas and Polonaises for instance, if we do not understand some aspects of Polish traditional music how can we then expect to make a valid interpretation of the music in line with what the composer had in mind? How can we interpret a piece confidently if we do not even know where it originates from (some people stab in dark and just go off instinct but it is not a very logical methodology in my opinion).

Music is more than just playing and ensuring the sound is right, it is also about researching, mentally attuning yourself to the "tradition" of the music. This then makes the subtle interpretations to the score controlled with the same musical spirit and thus more complete. I see it like a painting almost, if we had a Rembrandt and wanted to add to it, it would look funny to put Picaso images amongst it. Even though it can still be called art, it is like Frankenstein music, bits and pieces stuck together and forced to live! Although in saying this, there are novelties that can work well, but more often than not these type of interpretations are much lesser ones.

[keyboardclass]

Nice one lost!

[thalbergmad]

I view the human body like an electric circuit board with musical ideas freely flowing from the brain to the fingers.

Each specific instruction on a score is like putting in resistors which gradually rob the pianist of expression. Too many instructions is a bit like taking colours off a painter until eventually he has only black left.

How much we take liberties is up to the individual, but perhaps for performing concert pianists it is also limited by what might be considered to be taste and for advanced students, it might be limited by frightening University professors with small rounded glasses and large beards.

I am so glad I was never good enough to become a concert pianist as I love the feeling of complete freedom.

Thal

[stevebob]

This conversation has a subtext I've never understood.

When we love a piece of music (which we would never in a million years have been capable of writing ourselves) and respect the composer who wrote it (as someone whose genius exceeds our own immeasurably), why would we want to disregard any or all of the details the composer specified for its performance?

Whence comes that impulse?

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I view the human body like an electric circuit board with musical ideas freely flowing from the brain to the fingers.

Each specific instruction on a score is like putting in resistors which gradually rob the pianist of expression. Too many instructions is a bit like taking colours off a painter until eventually he has only black left.

How much we take liberties is up to the individual, but perhaps for performing concert pianists it is also limited by what might be considered to be taste and for advanced students, it might be limited by frightening University professors with small rounded glasses and large beards.

Well said.

This conversation has a subtext I've never understood.

When we love a piece of music (which we would never in a million years have been capable of writing ourselves) and respect the composer who wrote it (as someone whose genius exceeds our own immeasurably), why would we want to disregard any or all of the details the composer specified for its performance?

Whence comes that impulse?

For me, it depends on just how sacrosanct you consider the text to be. I play a lot of Liszt and would never consider tampering with the B min sonata; his Hungarian rhapsodies, paraphrases etc (especially the more frivolous ones) however are fair game in my book. In my case it comes from curiosity, looking at the score, and wondering "why didn't he write it this way?". (I consider myself a composer first and pianist second, albeit not a fully professional one, and therefore I do think, consciously and subconsciously, about the compositional aspects of the music I'm learning.) In any case, surely thinking about whether or not to judiciously alter or disregard details is a creative process which is part of preparing an interpretation?  Obviously any changes made should be tasteful and in keeping with the general style and context - and that's a matter of judgement.

[ask_why]

This conversation has a subtext I've never understood.

When we love a piece of music (which we would never in a million years have been capable of writing ourselves) and respect the composer who wrote it (as someone whose genius exceeds our own immeasurably), why would we want to disregard any or all of the details the composer specified for its performance?

Whence comes that impulse?

Disregarding those details doesn't preclude the attitude of respect or the recognition that the composer was far more talented than we are.  And who is speaking on behalf of all the dead composers?  Some of them might have welcomed the alteration of their pieces...

[davepinto]

Thalbergmad said, "Each specific instruction on a score is like putting in resistors which gradually rob the pianist of expression." I agree with his spirit of independence, but only up to a point. While studying a piece, I love following all the composer's instructions, no matter how detailed, because it gives me an insight on his favored interpretation at that point in time. I just happen to know that it is more likely just one of his intrepretations, which now, frozen in time, every overly-literal mind will consider untouchabley sacrosanct. In the end, after loads of study, thought, and respect for the composer, I'll interpret the way I want to reinterpret, which more often than not is as the composer instructed, but sometimes...not at all!
Stevbob said, "When we love a piece of music (which we would never in a million years have been capable of writing ourselves) and respect the composer who wrote it (as someone whose genius exceeds our own immeasurably), why would we want to disregard any or all of the details the composer specified for its performance? Whence comes that impulse?"
Well, the impulse comes from intensely studying a composition with the eye to bringing out the best that it has to offer. For instance, I may find a passage that is rich with inner detail that had escaped me before, and I may wish to bring out some of that detail so that I can share my enjoyment with others. This, despite the lack of the composer's instructions, or even contrary instructions.
On the other hand, despite my (and others) best efforts at interpretation, I may find a passage that I wish had been written differently. After all (ignoring for the moment the idol worship that insists we fawn over every note coming from their pens) the master's compositions are rarely perfect. And I find that it is often those seemingly "less-than-perfect" passages that take me hours and hours of thought and practice to make sense out of. Sometimes, after much work, I may actually find that what I'd thought was imperfect, was instead my understandng(!), and to my delight I now find the passage yielding its secrets. But often, my first instincts prove correct, and I have on my hands a fact: the composer's inspiration flagged and now I've got "fluff" to make sense out of! In the latter case, if I can improve the passage's intelligibility, I'll feel free to "violate" the composers instructions in order to preserve the integrity of my performance.

[keyboardclass]

Folks, some of you are missing the point of recreating a work of genius - it is to share in the thoughts of that genius.  How sublime!

[stevebob]

Disregarding those details doesn't preclude the attitude of respect or the recognition that the composer was far more talented than we are....

I'm not persuaded of that, and, even were it true, it doesn't explain what the motivation for such disregard is.  Except in the case of an occasional redistribution or omission of a note to make something playable that otherwise wouldn't be, such willful disregard seems to demonstrate both an attitude of disrespect and the presumption that one's own knowledge, skill or ideas are better than those of the composer (or, at the very least, are equally valid).

What else would be the reason and purpose for deliberate changes to the score?

Well, the impulse comes from intensely studying a composition with the eye to bringing out the best that it has to offer. For instance, I may find a passage that is rich with inner detail that had escaped me before, and I may wish to bring out some of that detail so that I can share my enjoyment with others. This, despite the lack of the composer's instructions, or even contrary instructions.
On the other hand, despite my (and others) best efforts at interpretation, I may find a passage that I wish had been written differently. After all (ignoring for the moment the idol worship that insists we fawn over every note coming from their pens) the master's compositions are rarely perfect. And I find that it is often those seemingly "less-than-perfect" passages that take me hours and hours of thought and practice to make sense out of. Sometimes, after much work, I may actually find that what I'd thought was imperfect, was instead my understandng(!), and to my delight I now find the passage yielding its secrets. But often, my first instincts prove correct, and I have on my hands a fact: the composer's inspiration flagged and now I've got "fluff" to make sense out of! In the latter case, if I can improve the passage's intelligibility, I'll feel free to "violate" the composers instructions in order to preserve the integrity of my performance.

It looks as though you’re confirming my suspicion that the impulse does indeed come from the presumption that you are in some respect “improving” the original.  Still, I can’t help wondering why anyone who believes submission to the composer’s instructions implies a straightjacketed or “slavish” approach—or that respect for a composer’s genius connotes “idol worship”—is playing anybody else’s music to begin with.

I just expect creative freedom to be the province of the creator of the product, not the interpreter.  Actors don’t typically decide to edit scripts to their liking; their artistic license extends to personal inflections and gestures that confer meaning on the material while conveying and honoring the author’s intent.  I don’t find it at all limiting that performance practices of classical music maintain the same expectation.

I admit that I play Chopin and little else.  Maybe if I were learning music of lower-tier composers I would feel differently, but, as things stand, I’m completely content to be a conduit for his creative genius and nothing more.

[thalbergmad]

I remember once playing the Liszt Paganini Etude V to one of my teachers.

On the last chord of the 2nd page, I played G sharp instead of natural and sustained the chord as I continued with the next page.

He was almost incandescant with rage, but i thought it a novel approach and rather effective.

No idea what Liszt would have thought. Never met the man.

Thal

[keyboardclass]

Please keep your indiscretions to yourself!

[thalbergmad]

There is not enough space on here to list them.

Thal

[keyboardclass]

No basking in the radiance of genius for you then?