Music Interpretation-Help

[piano_learner]

Can anyone please explain why there isn't ONE correct way of interpreting a piece of music?

Links to threads discussing this will be helpful too.

Thanks in advance.

[mound]

Because it's art.

If there were ONE and only ONE correct way with regards to all levels of detail within a performance, it could be completely mechanized and computers would be just as capable as humans at performing the piece to everybody's satisfaction and delight.

The human condition is what brings a performance alive, and since we all carry with us a lifetime's worth of unique experiences,  a unique performance is valued more than a mechanical reproduction.

Or something like that

-Paul

[galonia]

Well expressed, mound!

I see music as a three-way communication: between the composer, the performer and the audience.  Each of these brings their own personal emotions, moods, experiences, histories and opinions - how can this not be unique each time music is made?

[faulty_damper]

There IS only one correct interpretation of a piece.  All music is are a series of sounds collected together in a manner that contrast each other to certain degrees.  Playing one single note is a contrast to silence.  Playing notes longer or shorter is another kind of contrast.  Increasing the loudness is yet another.  This is what music is: systematic contrast.  

There are three attributes that make up music:
pitch
dynamics
time

Musical interpretation, which is what one must do to enhance the music, of written works only involve dynamics and time and the subtle or unexpected changes of each.  It is very often the subtle changes that make the best of the music, not abrubt changes that may interrupt it.

Here are some well-known repetory to show how each piece utilizes certain interpretational devices.

Beethoven's "Moonlight" sonata, 1st movement -  slow tempo, accents using extended time, dynamics gradually change.

Haydn's "Surprise" symphony - moderate tempo, fortissimo accents on the unexpected "surprise" which excites the ear and all other expected suprises are met with the surprise that is not as loud as the first surprise which contrasts our memory and expectations.  This sudden loud accent is what some call a "cheap trick" that many composers utilize, though not as explicitly as Haydn in this particular symphony.


As I have mentioned before, the quickest way to destroy musical expression is by playing a piece in strict tempo thereby leaving only the changes in dynamics to enhance the music, though it is a futile attempt.

[Ludwig Van Rachabji]

Think about it this way, what a piece might mean to one person might mean something completely different to somebody else. There are no "Rules of Art", and it disgusts me when people say something "should" be played a certain way.

- Ludwig Van Rachabji

[Daniel_piano]

Let's not forget that before classical/contemporary music began to consider themselves, "serious" "better" "arts" while the rest was considered crap, composers really wanted that their pieces was performed by each player and director in a personalized way using their own interpretation
During the 1900 instead teacher became considering not filling every bars with all of notation a sign of superficialy and "you must know how you want your piece to sound" forgetting that in the past of baroque, classicism, romaticism, impressionism and neorealism it was expected a personalized interepretation from the player, it was expected by the audience and by the composer itself
In some original score other than "piano" "mezzoforte" "morendo" "melodico il canto" there were also notation such as "according to the player intepretation" or "as the player feel" and that sort of thing that you'll never find on a Boulez score

Daniel

[julie391]

a musical performance , in my mind, should NOT be like acting

the performer should not seek the emotional and musical disposition of the composer

they should however try to learn the piece as written, soak in what the composer intended - THEN the perfomrer's performance should be a combination of empathy and sympathy for the composers intent - and a unique personal reflection on the musical material.

in short - the performer should make the work his/her own - and this is the only way to play with true emotional sincerity.

[maxy]

There IS only one correct interpretation of a piece.  All music is are a series of sounds collected together in a manner that contrast each other to certain degrees.  Playing one single note is a contrast to silence.  Playing notes longer or shorter is another kind of contrast.  Increasing the loudness is yet another.  This is what music is: systematic contrast.  

There are three attributes that make up music:
pitch
dynamics
time

I will have to disagree.

There is a fourth attribute.

We have pitch: hitting the right keys
length: when to release the keys, rythm basically
intensity: loud, soft, basically related to the use of weight
timber: I hope I am using the right word, "timbre" in french.

The last one makes a big difference when it comes to interpretation.

If you are not convinced, try this:

play loud with the tip of the fingers, then, with the same dynamic, play the finger all flat.
There will be a difference and it's not about pitch/time/volume.
The use of una corda is also an exemple.  It is more about changing the "color" than anything else.

other example:  play a chord with locked wrists, do the same with loose wrists.... big difference.

attack speed should also be considered, but it is also attached to intensity somewhat.

There is more than one proper way of playing.

We are not even talking about the performer's perception... 

Funny story:  it's about Ravel hearing Horowitz play some Ravel.  He said something close to: "it's not how we play it, but it's not wrong.  On the contrary, it could be the proper way of playing it." 

Sorry if this post is unclear.  It would have been much easier for me to write it in french.

[julie391]

actually, timbre is to do with pitch

the tone colour of instruments sound different due to their differing range of overtones, etc.

[maxy]

hum...

Maybe in a true technical and scientific way, timber is related to pitch but in practice, timber must be considered. What is a pianist that is not interested in creating different "timbers"?  You could also say that dynamics will affect pitch...

I don't see your point.

[bernhard]

Can anyone please explain why there isn't ONE correct way of interpreting a piece of music?

Ah! The one million pound question!

But wait a minute, didn’t the great J. S. Bach claimed that it was all a question of playing the right notes at the right time? So how can it be possible to have a multiplicity of interpretations? Sure, if you play the right notes at the right time, that is pretty much it, is it not?

So. let us explore the concept of interpretation. But interpretation cannot even start unless other aspects of a piece of music are in place.

Consider this letter from Jill to Jack, written in English:

[1]
dearjackiwantamanwhoknowswhatloveisallaboutyouaregenerouskind
thoughtfulpeoplewhoarenotlikeyouadmittobeinguselessandinferioryou
haveruinedmeforothermeni yearnforyouihavenofeelingswhatsoeverwhen
wereapartIcanbeforeverhappywillyouletmebeyoursjill

So, what is wrong with it? All the right letters are in the right places. Unfortunately it has no “phrasing” or “articulation” . So, it becomes very difficult to discern its meaning. So the first step is to separate the words:

[2]
Dear Jack I want a man who knows what love is all about you are generous kind thoughtful people who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior you have ruined me for other men I yearn for you I have no feelings whatsoever when we’re apart I can be forever happy will you let me be yours jill

Now, this is far better. But what is the meaning of this letter? If we phrase it further (by adding punctuation), we come across two very different meanings:

[3]
Dear Jack,

I want a man who knows what love is all about. You are generous, kind, thoughtful. People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me for other men. I yearn for you. I have no feelings whatsoever when we’re apart. I can be forever happy – will you let me be yours?

Jill

[4]
Dear Jack,

I want a man who knows what love is. All about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people who are not like you. Admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me. For other men I yearn! For you I have no feelings whatsoever. When we’re apart I can be forever happy. Will you let me be?

Yours,
Jill

Now we have a problem: Which meaning did Jill had in mind, in other words, what were Jill’s intentions?.

You have three possibilities:

1.   Jill intended meaning [3].
2.   Jill intended meaning [4].
3.   Jill intended the letter to be ambiguous. (How come? Well, right now there is a big scandal going on in the UK press regarding home secretary David Blunket who has been having an affair with a married lady. Blunket claims that the lady in question sent him many love letters. She claims that he was a nuisance and that she wrote him letters saying so in no uncertain terms. This sort of ambiguous letter would be just the kind that a crafty lady may manufacture)

How are we to know? Again, there are several possibilities:

1.   We know Jill and can ask her (but can we trust her to give the true answer?)
2.   We happen to know Jack and Jill very well, and their home life, so it is obvious which “interpretation” of the letter is the true one.
3.   Jack and Jill are actually our great-gradparents and we know a lot about the family history and their personal history to make a decision in no uncertain terms.
4.   We know nothing about Jack and Jill except from letter [2].

In any case, if I decide to make a movie out of this, and ask an actor to read this letter aloud, how will he do it? This reading aloud is actually what I would call interpretation.

It is totally obvious that the same actor can read this letter in different ways, and different actors even more so. But whatever their interpretation, first and foremost, they must decide on the meaning of the letter. Is it [3], [4] or ambiguous?

So it is with any piece of music. Before we can even start talking about interpretation, decisions must be made in the following areas:

1.   The right notes and the right times (is the score/edition trustworthy?)
2.   Articulation (the equivalent of separating the words: the step from [1] to [2])
3.   Phrasing (the equivalent of punctuation – as we have seen in the particular case of the above letter, everything will hinge on this)
4.   Ornamentation (if applicable – this would be the equivalent of our actor making expressive noises, like sighing for instance, at certain places in the letter).
5.   Dynamics (where to read with a loud or a soft voice)
6.   Tempo (should it be spoken faster or slowly and if so when and where).

Only after all of these questions had been decided, it would be possible to add the extra layer we call interpretation. In fact, if one can answer these questions, a lot of interpretation is already taken care of.

In the case of music for which the live tradition of performance has been lost (most if not all pre-classical music) the scope for personal choice is huge. (All we know is that the letter was from Jill to Jack).

In the case of more recent music (classical and afterwards), where there is either a live tradition of performance, or we have access to the composer (still alive!), the scope for different interpretations is less wide.

Finally, the letter above is very special, in that it can convey two completely opposite meanings. In fact such a letter would not come about by chance. Such ambiguity must be carefully crafted, and if we ever come across such a letter it can be stated with almost certainty that the author had both meanings in mind and intended the ambiguity.

Most letters, once you separate the words and punctuate the sentences have only a single obvious meaning.

So it is with music. If you analyse it, the questions of phrasing, articulation, etc. are pretty obvious, and the interpretation follows suit.

The problem is: you must know the language. If the letter above was written in aramaic, you would not be able to decide on anything. You may then fall into a big trap, which I call the aesthetic trap: You organise and interpret the music according to your taste. “If it sounds good to me, then it must be the correct interpretation to me. That would be the equivalent of rewriting the Aramaic text so that the letters formed some decorative pattern that was aesthetically pleasing.

Or, to place the chess pieces in a chessboard according to “how nice they look this way”, and perhaps even toppling one or two pieces for added effect.

Such aesthetical approaches are always the result of a deep ignorance about the language of music, the meaning it conveys, and the rules of the game.

I am always amazed how many piano students with barely any knowledge of theory and harmony (= knowing the language) go around laying down rules for interpretation. On must first learn the language, its grammar and its syntax. Then meaning will direct interpretation, not subjective emotionalism.

And oh, yes, the original question! No, there is not a single correct  way to interpret a piece of music. There are several correct ways. But there are also infinite incorrect ways.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[dmk]

No, there is not a single correct  way to interpret a piece of music. There are several correct ways. But there are also infinite incorrect ways.

I couldn't agree with you more bernhard!

I always cop an earful from my students when i have told them that something is wrong, particularly when i have just told them there is no one right of doing something....my personal favourite "But my friend is playing this piece and HIS teacher is letting him do it this way so why can't I"

I only wish i could respond...."because your friends teacher likes to take short cuts and won't persevere with something and teach it to your friend the correct way"....This argument is usually raised in the context of phrasing and using pedalling to cover up the fact that their student is not playing something legato as it is marked (of course this only applies where it is possible to play legato without the use of the pedal).

Sorry, don't mind me, I just came back from teaching and having this doscussion with a student   

There is no correct way to interpret something but there sure are plenty of wrong ways....

[piano_learner]

Thanks everyone. 

[jlh]

During the 1900 instead teacher became considering not filling every bars with all of notation a sign of superficialy and "you must know how you want your piece to sound" forgetting that in the past of baroque, classicism, romaticism, impressionism and neorealism it was expected a personalized interepretation from the player, it was expected by the audience and by the composer itself

Let us not forget that many baroque and early classical composers such as Mozart wrote keyboard music to a large degree for their own performances, so many articulation and interpretation marks are left out because it was mainly them who'd perform it.  Any other early performers would have been highly trained in the contemporary styles and techniques of the day, so they would automatically know how to interpret the music.

As with any art form, you can only break the rules if you first know them and their importance.  By that I mean you have to know what was intended by the composer and conventional styles in place at the time of composition before you can make arbitrary decisions as to the interpretation of any piece of music.  Ignorance of this basic concept that leads to an incorrect interpretation of the music essentially reduces the composition's authorship, i.e. Mozart sonata completely misinterpreted ceases to remain a Mozart sonata.

[faulty_damper]

I am still in complete disagreement that there is more than one way of interpreting music because I think the idea of interpretation is an inherently flawed quality of humans and dependent on how advanced his musical understanding.  When good musicians perform the music sounds very much pleasing and their interpretation is usually not in conscious question.  When bad musicians perform the music is very much incoherent to the musical ideas and the music is very much in question.

Or maybe I am refering to something different as to the definition of interpretation.

When I hear a piece of music, I can tell immediately whether or not the tempo is correct within half a tick to 7 ticks either too fast or slow.  (A tick may be a reference to the metrenome marking but I have never timed these internal ticks and so it is not a objective standard.)  This is often regardless of whether I have heard the piece before.  I can also tell immediately if the performers rubato/expression is an exageration unmerited within the context of the collected pitchs/musical phrases.  This is "over-interpretation".

The key to interpretation is not always found in the composers intention but within the written notes.  Any phrase/passage can be taken out of musical context.  And played alone without consideration for the entire work it may sound completely different.

1. What is the most musical way to play a C major scale?
2.  And what is the most musical way to play the same scale in __________ bars n through n?

The first question asks for a musical phrase taken out of context.
The second asks for the same phrase but considers the context in which it was played.  Now the tempo and dynamics of the first question may very well be crotchet = 60-66 and mp.  But the tempo and dynamics in the latter may be crotchet = 90-96 and mf-f.  So in such a situation a musical phrase cannot be taken out of context because it exposes itself to an incorrect interpretation.

Here's a better analogy: Dramas and Soap operas.
When we watch a soap opera one of the first things we notice are how incongruent their mannerisms are to the content of what they are saying.  This is called "melodrama".   In fact this incongruency is so out of place that anyone will be able to spot such acting just by listening to it.  A possible reason for this is because no one ever speaks in such a manner.

Comparatively, in movies with believable actors, we usually do not notice such fake acting.  When we watch it, we believe they are the characters they are portraying.  And this is talent that merits millions of dollars per movie for their skills.

So consider that both soap operas and movie actors read from the same script and in one instance, the actors sound strange and the other sound believable.  This is the same thing as good musicians who play the same notes and sound believable compared to bad ones who sound questionable.

A good interpretation is when you barely notice any inconsistencies with the music and how it is played.
A bad interpretation is when you notice many inconsistencies with the music and how it is played.

And the perfect interpretation?  The perfect interpretation is when you do not even notice they are interpreting.

Your brass friend,
Faulty damper

[mound]

I tend to agree with most of what you said, but I think you're argument is too black and white.

A good interpretation is when you barely notice any inconsistencies with the music and how it is played.
A bad interpretation is when you notice many inconsistencies with the music and how it is played.

And the perfect interpretation?  The perfect interpretation is when you do not even notice they are interpreting..

Indeed, but how does that discount the possibility that there could be more than one perfect interpretation?

So consider that both soap operas and movie actors read from the same script and in one instance, the actors sound strange and the other sound believable.  This is the same thing as good musicians who play the same notes and sound believable compared to bad ones who sound questionable.

This is exactly true.  There is cleary Bad and there is cleary Good. But if we took 10 "world class actors" and gave them each the script to audition with, they all would give a different reading, for exactly the reasons I described in my first post (Reply #1) and they all would potentially be good.  Of course in this case, the director/writer is likley available to determine which one was "perfect" and consequently who gets the part, but in the case of historical music where the composer is not available, who's to say which guess is "the ONE that is correct"?

A score was initialiy created via a composers intent. Yes, the notes are "set in stone" so to speak. But the written notes are not music, they are a model of it, and has Bernhard has stated elsewhere, a model is only a close approximation. Music is dynamic, it is an art, as it should be. As such, I'd rather see a world full of world class players each bringing their own world view and life experience into their performance of a work, rather than a world full of technically sound players doing nothing more than mechanical reproductions of a score only because they are so vehemantly committed to taking themselves out of the equation. 

Look at it from the listeners side. Would you argue that somebody listening to a live performance of a  Beethoven Sonata must be studied and informed of the consequences of LVB's life and emotions/intent that led to the composition, such that they know exactly what the intent of the composer was? If they aren't studied on such things, as they listen, every person in the audience is going to be consumed with their own thoughts and emotions, based on their life experiences,  and what's going through one listeners mind during the performance is likely 100% different than each and every other person in the audience. So are they all wrong?  Music is art, and with every art form, it's a give and take.  The difference with music is that we are blessed with the ability to take all we can from the composer, filter it through our own creative minds and then give it to new audiences time and again. An impressionist painter will leave his mark on the canvas, and then the rest of the world may only guess at it's intent.  If music required me to take myself out of the equation, I would have no interest in persuing it, and if I had tickets to a live performance and I had no doubt that it would sound exactly like it did the last time, I would not go. Just as once I've been to an art exhibit once, I'm not generally interested in going to see it again. And to me, a world class player who takes himself out of the equation, regardless of his technique, isn't worth listening to.

The beauty of music as an art form over painting is in the fact that it does require a filtering through the human condition to be performed and as such, appreciated by the audience. We can't just get up on stage, sit at the piano, and then hold a boom-box over our heads with the Sonata playing into a microphone and get a standing ovation, the crowd would walk out in disgust. We have to play it ourselves, which requires that it first be filtered through the artist/performer.  It is this very quality of music over art forms that remain static once "composed" that keeps it dynamic and changing with time.  Wouldn't you prefer it that way?


-Paul

[maxy]

And the perfect interpretation?  The perfect interpretation is when you do not even notice they are interpreting.

Your brass friend,
Faulty damper

That only exists in your imagination...

Quick example: let's take the Rach concerti topic.  Most posters will say that Rach is not the best performer of his own pieces...  How is that possible? Would you dare say that Rach does not know how to perform his own pieces?  We are not talking about Ravel that did have a hard time playing most of his own pieces.  We are talking about Rachmaninov, one of the greatest pianists ever.  Rach himself admitted that other performers played some of his own pieces better than he did.  If truly there is only ONE correct way of playing, that concept is impossible.  A performer can push an interpretation beyond what was initially meant by the composer.

How about Shostakovich's first piano concerto...  I never heard a recording that actually respected all the metronome markings.  It's normal, most orchestras/pianists just can"t do it.  Would that mean that all performers got it wrong? Because obviously,  the text is not 100% respected.  Or maybe the composer is wrong... So tell me what is exactly the correct way to play that piece?  Do you really dare to say you know exactly how it should be played?

But I believe I see your point:  for YOU there is only one one correct way of playing any given piece.  That is not the listener speaking, it's the performer.  In a way it's good, you have a "musical vision" and you strongly believe in it.  Now how about respecting other visions...? 

[faulty_damper]

Indeed, but how does that discount the possibility that there could be more than one perfect interpretation?

If perfection is perfect, than there would not be another perfect interpretation.

This is exactly true.  There is cleary Bad and there is cleary Good. But if we took 10 "world class actors" and gave them each the script to audition with, they all would give a different reading, for exactly the reasons I described in my first post (Reply #1) and they all would potentially be good. 

And yet only one of the actors would get the Emmy because his performance was the most convincing.

Look at it from the listeners side. Would you argue that somebody listening to a live performance of a  Beethoven Sonata must be studied and informed of the consequences of LVB's life and emotions/intent that led to the composition, such that they know exactly what the intent of the composer was? If they aren't studied on such things, as they listen, every person in the audience is going to be consumed with their own thoughts and emotions, based on their life experiences,  and what's going through one listeners mind during the performance is likely 100% different than each and every other person in the audience. So are they all wrong?  Music is art, and with every art form, it's a give and take.  The difference with music is that we are blessed with the ability to take all we can from the composer, filter it through our own creative minds and then give it to new audiences time and again. An impressionist painter will leave his mark on the canvas, and then the rest of the world may only guess at it's intent.

Try this: do you understand German?  If you do, substitute German for another language you do not understand.  Then go watch a German television program or radio program.  Then afterwards rate how well they spoke the language.  Would you be able to do it?  Probably not unless your rating system was based only on the sounds they made.  If you liked the sounds, then give it a high rating. If not, a low one.  But if you did speak German, then how would you rate it?  This is knowledge of a language with meaning to the words, not just sounds.

This is just as with pop music v. classical music.  These are two different beasts but music, nonetheless.  Just because you speak and understand English does not mean you also speak and understand German yet both are still languages.  The difference lies in how well you understand the language if you understand it at all.

The beauty of music as an art form over painting is in the fact that it does require a filtering through the human condition to be performed and as such, appreciated by the audience. We can't just get up on stage, sit at the piano, and then hold a boom-box over our heads with the Sonata playing into a microphone and get a standing ovation, the crowd would walk out in disgust. We have to play it ourselves, which requires that it first be filtered through the artist/performer.  It is this very quality of music over art forms that remain static once "composed" that keeps it dynamic and changing with time.  Wouldn't you prefer it that way?

Umm... ever hear of Maksim?

"Perfection is our goal, excellence will only be tolerated."
I read this on the back of a sweatshirt worn by a young woman while riding my bicycle across the bridge one day.  The shirt was from a music school and that was their mantra.
I tend to think that the idea of perfection is just a theoretical conbobulation in our minds.  But this does not mean we can't strive for perfection.  Is that not our goal in performing music?  When we go to listen (and watch) a concert, do we not expect the best the performer can do?  And what is he speaks a limited amount of German and the audience can not understand it?  That would raise many questions as to why they are on stage trying to speak/perform something he is not fluent in.  And if the audience did understand German, they may very well think he can't speak German because they are having a difficult time understanding.

Your brass friend,
Faulty le Damper

[galonia]

A performer can push an interpretation beyond what was initially meant by the composer.

I completely agree - I compose, as well as play, and I can say as a composer, I have my own feeling and I hear the way I think a piece should be played.  Then someone else performs it, and I'm blown away by their way of seeing the piece.  It's completely different to mine, and it's not necessarily wrong (although I have sometimes objected to the way something is done because it totally negates my intent).

So as Bernhard points out, there are incorrect interpretations, but that doesn't mean there is only one correct interpretation.

I think if you speak to many contemporary composers, they will tell you one of the most exciting things about composing is hearing other people play the pieces - and hearing many different performers play the same piece.  Every performer will be a bit different, and that's the way it should be.