Personal interpretation or lack of practice?

[faa2010]

I know that sometimes one needs to eat humble pie and keep practicing and polishing faults by listening someone else's piano, following the music sheet with more detail, etc, but there comes the problem that if you listen the "correct" way of playing, one looks for imitating it, uncounsciously or not.

Then it comes the crisis where one doesn't know anymore if one is trying to imitate other's style or if the interpretation is original. 

How do you know that you only have an original interpretation, that you are playing in some way because of yourself and it is not lack of practice?

[iansinclair]

Now that's an interesting question!  I'd say -- just my opinion now -- that you could claim an individual interpretation when your technique and knowledge of the piece are good enough that you can play it the "correct" way, or the way so and so played it, but you choose not to because you feel that your way expresses your interaction with the music and feeling for the music better.  You don't have to be able to say why... 1

[m1469]

It depends on the individual.  I think there is a school of thought who acts as though "interpretation" means to pick and choose as desired from indications on the score.  But, how many ways are there to execute and interpret a slur or a cadence, for example?  One ... or infinity?  Does it really need ignoring just to be original?

Personally, I believe we know we have a personal interpretation when we have more or less mastered the letter and have a very strong sense of what else exists, as well as having let those phenomenal interpreters sink in ... deeply.  

Cumin, a favorite spice of mine, is cumin.  It tastes like cumin, acts like cumin, smells like cumin ... yet, "we" hold out that every person may somehow experience it ever so slightly (or signifcantly) different than others ... to me, ignorance is not necessarily a stepping stone to originality (though, that is an imperfect thing to say since in the huge picture we aren't even sure of all that we are ignorant of).  But, a master chef, for example, who has an intimate knowledge and self-aware pallet has a very different type of experimenting with cumin than somebody who just moments ago popped out of a giant clam shell from deep within the ocean, swam his way to the ocean's surface, swam thousands of miles under the blistering sun to some unknown seashore, and upon eating his first meal unattached to the umbilical cord of a clam, tasted cumin and wanted to make his own dish.

[j_menz]

These days it's so easy to listen to a range of great pianists playing pretty much anything in the standard repertoire (and quote a bit outside it).  Listening to several will give you bits you enjoy from one, and bits you enmjoy from another. In putting them together, you'll have to modify both in order to produce a coherent whole. In doing that, you'll develop your own ear and start to depart from everyone else. Then you'll be original.

Originality isn't an end in itself that you should specifically look for (Pogorellich or Gould fans look away now), but rather something that will develop as your relationship with the piece develops.

[brogers70]

Originality isn't an end in itself that you should specifically look for (Pogorellich or Gould fans look away now), but rather something that will develop as your relationship with the piece develops.

I agree 100%. Originality as a target is counterproductive. The least appealing styles of art, music, and literature come from people who consciously try to be original. If you do what you like, and what you like happens to be original, then you'll be original. If not, then at least you're doing what you like.

[grim_22]

This is a great subject!

In my opinion, and like some have touched upon in earlier posts, originality should not be actively sought - this is a useless practice. As human beings, we are all unique - this applies to everything we do, but is perhaps most prominent when practicing the arts. Originality can and will only surface when we have reached a sufficient level of mastery in what we're practicing. It will happen whether you want it to or not, and trying to force it (or trying to get rid of it for some reason) will result in disaster.

Some may point to a musician playing very well technically, but who is very unoriginal. I would argue, however, that this person hasn't mastered his instrument to that degree. Learning to perform various actions on an instrument is fairly easy - learning to play music is something else entirely.

That's my perspective, at least.

[birba]

It's easy to get into a rut, though.  I'm not saying you should go against the written note or do outlandish things just for the sake of doing them, but once in a while, at home with just you and your conscience, do just that.  We have to break that habits.  Go against that phrase that feels like an old shoe.  We should never play like an automaton.  And it happens.  And it's a good thing at times, like when you're nervous at the beginning of a concert.  You go into automatic pilot.  But, in general,  we should always be sure we're playing what we want to play and not what we're accustomed to or what our nervous reflexes have assimilated.