Does modern times change things.

[becky8898]

Hi everyone: I bring this up after a recent lesson with my teacher and a spirited discussion at family dinner time.  In my last lesson we were going over some of my old Mozart Sonata's that I had done a couple of years back. My teacher is trying to get me to start being more of an artist with my own thoughts  instead of where she guides me every step of the way , rather than the little technique machine I can be.  Well , one of the things that came up was this, and I guess it really applies, to Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven, there always seems to be this magic line when you figure out how to play a piece that your not supposed to cross. You hear it all that time, " Thats the way Mozart did it, " You think your smarter than Beethoven, etc. I guess its why so much classical playing sounds so utterly predictable from really good players.  Here is the thing. No , I dont know more than them , but I know something they dont , so do you all reading this. We all know what a modern Grand sounds Like. We all know what a digital recording sounds like. We all know what a modern Concert hall having been designed by sound engineers. We know all this and they didnt.  so in a sense there are things we know that Those three great composers didnt. It got me to thinking if they did , would they have kept there music the same or would they have given different instructions.

So after all of that, are mature musicans, (certainly not me) entitled to change what those composers wrote in they way of Dynamics, tone color, etc.  based on the new conditions that today we find ourselves performing in. That really has me thinking. Especially in light of the fact that so much playing today is so antiseptic. 

Looking foward to see what other people think.

Cheers, Becky

[furtwaengler]

At least Beethoven in your list is one of the reasons instruments changed. The orchestra had to evolve in order to bring about his conceptions. And then comes along Mahler who made his own emendations and additions to Beethoven's work to bring about HIS conception (He did this for many other composers, even modern). This he wrote of in terms of the modern orchestra not being known by Beethoven. He expanded the 9th Symphony beyond additions of instruments, adding effects common of Vienna's new music, muted brass and such. Many then and many now take offense at this. It is at least interesting to me, though I think the original scores are sufficient and preferably adequate to the modern orchestra.

It's all relative and as much as we hate to admit, it's in large part subjective. Richter performed Bach's keyboard concerti on a modern grand piano with a harpsichord in the ensemble. I am working on some Bach on the piano that I'd prefer not played on the piano, and some that I greatly prefer the piano. My line is subjective...but then I'm not and will never be a part of the musical elite of thinkers or the HIPsters.

[jimbo320]

Becky,
Good food for thought!
The more I listen to and try to play the great masters the more I realizes just how great they are. Instead of trying to sound and play like them, do them as you. I don't have the luxury of a teacher but I do associate with people more advanced and just plain better than I.
The "line" that is crossed is when you feel and play from the heart. Showing your respect to the masters by pouring your emotions as well as your full attention to their work. Art is of the heart, let it fly...

Musically, Jimbo

[thalbergmad]

So after all of that, are mature musicans, (certainly not me) entitled to change what those composers wrote in they way of Dynamics, tone color, etc.  based on the new conditions that today we find ourselves performing in.

Most certainly yes, they are entitled. We must adapt and evolve to continue to breathe new life into music and take note that markings on a score are going to produce different sounds on different intruments in different surroundings. More than anything else, we must personalise it so we all don't sound the same. Your Bach should sound different to my Bach and my Beethoven different to yours. If they are the same, it would be a waste of time for us to record the same works and all of us might just as well carry around piano rolls to concerts.

To me, a score is a suggestion and not a book of law. Law is often rigid and not open to interpretation and is of interest to beady eyed pencil necks who haven't seen a sunrise in 50 years.

Bach did not have a Steinway, but if he were alive today and was given the choice of a modern grand or his early 18th century clavichord, which one do you think he would choose??. Would he not wet himself with excitement if he could have a few hours on the organ in Ulm Cathedral??.

Thal

Thal

[daniloperusina]

For me personally, being an interpreter and not a creator of musical compositions, means trying to understand the ideas, and then try to bring that across. Not only do we have other instruments today, but these instruments vary also, as do the acoustics of the venues. So you try to make a piece come alive there and then, using your ears, mind, heart, fingers.

Leaving the urtext issue aside, I also think you need to be sensitive to what the writing tells you about the composition and the composer. I, for instance, think that with Mozart you have more freedom than with Beethoven. For many reasons. And I beleive it's in the character of the music itself.

Let's not forget that they themselves also experienced different instruments and halls, and I can't imagine that any of the great composers from the past would have played their own pieces exactly the same twice. First of all, it's physically impossible to exactly replicate a performance, second, I can't imagine they would have been really interested. Thirdly, when their own contemporaries/family/friends played it must have sounded different. Were they all wrong too?

Recordings can be a bit of a danger in this regard as performers can risk loosing their own original line of thought and understanding and opt to become copycats instead.
No good!:)
A healthy doubt is always a better way to go, 'cause if you start to doubt, you start to wonder, and if you start to wonder, you start to think. And then you're off!

[ladypianist]

Becky - Music, glorious music is art , not science.  It is a reflection of the culture around us. Music is alive, it lives, it breaths , it evolves, it changes. Mozart might have written it a long time ago but after he wrote something it became like a mighty tree, sprouting new branches and changing. Of course you must play as a child of this century. To do otherwise is to deny what we see before us. As a young musician stay the path, but as you get older and grow more confident, wander off that path and explore. Try different things, different ideas.

Lady Pianist

[Derek]

If we're entitled to change dynamics, tone, and so forth, does it follow we ought to be "entitled" to change the notes themselves, or indeed, create totally new music?

[thalbergmad]

We must each make our own decisions on that one.

Thal

[roger_1948]

Im sure if those great masters would hear there works today of course there would be things they would change.  But the rub is, isnt there always rub, just because they would change things, it doesnt mean where smart enough to figure out what they would have done differently. thats why there them and where us.  The only question in my mind is if your brillant enough to make a change that makes the music in some way a better listening experience.  And good luck with that one getting people to agree if it is so. Doing it just for yourself. fine. Do it for others listening and get ready for a whole batch of varied opinions.  Great question Becky.  Figures a kid would come up with it. 

Roger

[soitainly]

 This is a really tough question to answer, and it is an opinion oriented one for sure. First off your teacher must think you are progressing well enough technique wise where she thinks you are ready to start injecting your personality into the music you play. It is good to explore the artistic side of music, thats where the real fun begins. How many liberties you can take depends on how convincingly you can pull it off. As you probably know, there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of pianists that can play just about any piece out there. What is your intangible voice that would make me want to hear your version vs. any other.

 There are an infinite number of ways to play a piece, even if you follow the score. Why does Glenn Gould sound different from Lang Lang, they are playing the same notes (for the most part). If you stray too far from what people consider the norm, then you will be criticised, but if you are good enough then you may even advance the art of piano playing. You can probably have a wonderfull life and career just following the advice of others or borrowing ideas from other players to find your own style. But it seems once or twice a generation, someone comes along that changes the bar. I am sure in modern times it gets harder since we all can hear just about anybody in the history of recorded music in a few clicks on YouTube.

 So your teacher feels you are at the point where you need to find out if you have a voice of your own. Not everyone does, but you have to at least explore the possibility that you may be very creative. It can take as much work and thought as your physical practice does, but in the end it is more important than just technique. You would be amazed how much time and effort the great concert artists put into interpreting the music. Watch some masterclasses with some of these famous artists, they aren't just telling you how to play the notes and dynamics as written, they explore many possibillities to come up with there own expressive result, where every single line in the piece works both on it's own and in the overall structure of the piece.

 Congratulations on reaching the point in your playing where you are being asked to start developing as an artist, many people never get past the point where all they think about is playing the right notes.