Annoyed about "fidelity to the score" confusion of classical music

[cuberdrift]

Grrr.  

I just want to rant about all this "be faithful to the composer" stuff.

Okay - what are we? Are we supposed to be some sort of "historical music revivalists" or something?

I just don't get it. I don't know why. But I have always been annoyed and irritated about what seems to be the "gray area" within classical music performance of the "spectrum" between "total freedom in interpretation" and "being beholden to the composer's intentions".

Look - I understand, admire, appreciate, and love all those old composers. I love their music, and I have ideas about what performances of their music sound nice and what doesn't, at least for me.

However, I get confused about what it is all about, really - is it all about everyone, every single performer, trying to strive for a single, "perfect" sound - the sound envisioned by the piece's composer - or are we allowed to adjust certain details in the piece to fit our own conception of them?

My late father, who taught Art Studies, had an idea that Classical-era music (e.g. during the time of Mozart, etc.) has an association with the Classical Greeks' idea of "perfection", that is, linear, symmetrical, and "realistic" form of art - an art that had to copy nature as closely as possible.

Therefore, if say there is a piece by Mozart, everyone strives to play as closely to the "perfect" way as possible - the perfect way meaning the way the composer envisions it - because it is he who knows how the piece should sound like in order for it to be beautiful, and some kind of manifestation of the heavens.

In short, the composer alone knows what is perfect, and every single interpreter must strive to perform the piece as closely to this "perfect" way as possible.

And this means that there has to be but one interpretation; not many, but one perfect interpretation.

The idea sounds sensible, since if we are going to play someone else's music, why not play it exactly the way he/she wants it?

And now, I'm kind of annoyed and frustrated at this ongoing "dilemma" within the realm of classical music about how much "freedom" the performer has in interpreting the piece according to his/her own conception of it, but how much he/she must stick by the composer's rules.

And because of my frustration with it, I have ideas about a new kind of piano composition where the composer can be more specific about what he/she wants - above each note there is a "decibel" level, and the distance between the attack of two notes can be written out in milliseconds.

Because, as it is, piano playing seems to be actually just about two things; 1.) when you press a key, and 2.) how quickly (and thus how "loudly") you press it; in other words, piano playing is simply about the duration a key is held, and the volume at which the note sounds.

Of course, if this happens, then piano performance by a human pianist might actually become obsolete; a Yamaha Disklavier piano (or something similar) could end up performing by itself, in front of an audience, the piece, following all the written-down "decibel" markings and "duration" markings (by the way, I've read that the company, Zenph, has "re-produced" the performances of pianists such as Glenn Gould, Rachmaninoff, Oscar Peterson, and Art Tatum - supposedly exactly how they played it - wow!).

After, if it is all about the composer's intent, why not just carry it out to the letter?  

I don't claim to be a great pianist or musicologist or anything - I'm just a piano student; but I'd like to know your insights, especially since I see that there are so many highly insightful and helpful individuals in this forum.  

Can anyone shed some light on this? How and when did this performance ideology start?

Thanks!  

Regards,
cuberdrift

[spenstar]

   Music is very subjective. For example, I like rap, but many other people hate it. Likewise, just because the song sounds perfect in one person's mind does not mean it sounds perfect in another's. Music is an art, not a skill. Have you ever listened to a computer version of a piano song? They play it perfectly, yet it sounds quite bland. This is why many people like to come up with their own interpretation.

[cuberdrift]

  Music is very subjective. For example, I like rap, but many other people hate it. Likewise, just because the song sounds perfect in one person's mind does not mean it sounds perfect in another's. Music is an art, not a skill. Have you ever listened to a computer version of a piano song? They play it perfectly, yet it sounds quite bland. This is why many people like to come up with their own interpretation.

Ah, I understand.

However, I wouldn't say that a "computer performance" of a piece is "perfect" - they don't usually have dynamics, rubato, etc.

But if the composer had the ability to put those details in the program, and did, I think it would sound nicer and closer to what the composer's conception of its sound in performance is.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Ah, I understand.

However, I wouldn't say that a "computer performance" of a piece is "perfect" - they don't usually have dynamics, rubato, etc.

Aye you'd be surprised

[iansinclair]

Music, perhaps more than any of the other arts -- though it is true of the visual arts and literature as well -- should be a continuing dynamic interaction between the composer, the performer, and the listener.  Limiting myself here to music (and ballet), each piece has something different to say -- often many different things to say.  Each performer brings his or her own interpretation of the piece, and his or her own things to say when they perform it.  And each listener also brings his or her own life to it.

If any of those parts of the chain are dead or soulless, the whole chain is broken and -- in my not very humble opinion -- the end result is pretty close to worthless. 

Fidelity to the score is very important.  Indeed, I would go so far as to say that if the performer is not technically capable of performing the score as written they should go back to their studio and practice some more.  However, if the performer is not capable of bringing their life and their thinking to the score -- animating it with their own spirit -- they shouldn't be playing it in the first place, except possibly as a show piece for Madame DixDoigt's piano students' recital which is -- blessedly -- limited in attendance to the parents and sometimes the lovers of the victim.

Computer performance?  Phooey.

End of rant...

[kalospiano]

accuracy in playing is one thing, but sometimes I'm surprised by some comments I see to some flawless performances I hear: too much rubato, too much staccato, too little of this and that... I think people could often be more open minded and be able to appreciate more interpretation of the same music. Might be saying some huge BS here but I would guess even the classical composers themselves didn't play their pieces always the same way.

[briansaddleback]

Hey op there is a lot of subjectivity in music performance and music itself so comes the unfortunate (and fortunate) bias when people opine about it or critique. It is fine if they just say this is my own personal judgment coming from limited knowledge on my own behalf but they don't. They are the standard to be measured by is the implication. Take for instance Barenboim. I like his Beethoven performances but ever watched his master classes on a few sonatas ? I did.
Now it is a small sample size by me I watched his take on professional pianists who played. His critique is too exacting and far too detailed and critical towards them it gave me a headache.  Maybe he is more lax when it comes to amateurs I don't know but I have Barenboim s cd set of all sonatas and I tried to look out for what he said to the pros on their performances and compare to his own. You know what? He didn't follow his own advice in too many areas. 

If we all talked less about music (unless there is real teaching involved to correct real technical or musical issues) and just listened more  it would be better. But alas, I don't as well and get caught up in the forum where we have to talk too much.  It really doesn't show me in the right light bc in person I'm really not like this. You guys on forum bring out the bad in me so I try to limit my usage of forum. 

[marijn1999]

I think Bach, Beethoven and many other great composers would laugh so hard on us playing exactly how they felt their music should've sounded at the moment the wrote it down. 

[philolog]

The OP raises some very interesting points, probably enough to explore in an entire volume devoted to aesthetics!

Considering the comparison to classical Greek sculpture, I would say that one important difference is that a sculpture is “set in stone,” and assuming it’s final form truly represents the artist’s conception, it would be inviolable. Granted every viewer interprets it subjectively.

However, music is mostly an art that depends on performance and all its attendant vagaries for realization (baring the mental survey and internal audition of a score, but even that can’t avoid the subjective element) and its materials are notoriously evanescent and difficult to describe. Therefore even the most rigorously intentioned composer-----Stravinsky, for example, who famously thought that if a musician would only adhere to his instructions, every performance would be “perfect”--------has to contend with questions like “how fast is fast,” how loud is loud, etc.

A computer-controlled performance would solve this dilemma, but I don’t think musicians would give up playing, if only in the privacy of their own homes. Also, I think listeners enjoy seeing and hearing "real" musicians at work.

It should also be pointed out that many composers are far more liberal in allowing musicians to perform a score as they see fit. Since the OP mentions Glenn Gould, I wonder if he’s heard the anecdote about Gould performing a piece written by Jacque Hetu for its composer, who thought the result marvelous even as it totally ignored his instructions.

Since Zenph has been mentioned, I’d like to point out that what this, admittedly impressive, system does is to translate a previously recorded performance into something playable by a sophisticated solenoid controlled piano (probably the same kind devised by Wayne Stahnke-----you can hear it on A Window in Time, which stunningly recreates Rachmaninoff’s piano rolls). This nicely solves the problem of audio fidelity, assuming you’re there to hear it.

Also, for your information (if you don’t already know) there are numerous composers who have issued CDs of their piano pieces as played by the Yamaha Disklavier------One I’m familiar with is David Chesky, who while capable of playing them himself, decided for several reasons to allow the piano to perform his New York Rags.

As to those greats of the past, who knows? Since we can only rely on second hand testimony, we must eventually admit that we know almost nothing beyond the score. It’s all well and good to assert secret knowledge of the composer’s intentions, but I’m dubious of the validity of such claims.

[huaidongxi]

dottore professore saddleback, have watched a number of master classes by various prestigious artists, and what you describe from barenboim is definitely one type of instruction in those settings.  never going to be a conservatory student or regular private student of an elite tier instructor myself, but that style could be horrible from one's regular instructor, it seems to me.  the master class setting obviously limits what the instructor can get across, and he/she might internally resolve, if there's only four or six things to convey here, what should they be, and how to make sure the student gets some benefit. have observed barenboim vary his approach quite a bit also according to what he perceived in the knowledge and mastery of each student's execution. [didn't he have a class with lang lang and biss as students ?  the former barely familiar with the sonata he was reading, the latter obviously fluent]. no reason barenboim wouldn't exercise much more freedom in his live or studio performances in repertory he's been immersed in his whole life.

[briansaddleback]

I think Bach, Beethoven and many other great composers would laugh so hard on us playing exactly how they felt their music should've sounded at the moment the wrote it down. 

You have such an excellent point here.  Thank you thank you

[expressman70]

A great piano pedagogue once asked me a question: Who is more important, the performer or the composer? I wrongly said composer, and he re-asked the question. I got it right the second time. The composer will be there no matter what. You gotta give it you, because theres enough of everyone else's interpretations etc.

[michael_sayers]

Fidelity to the score is very important.  Indeed, I would go so far as to say that if the performer is not technically capable of performing the score as written they should go back to their studio and practice some more.  However, if the performer is not capable of bringing their life and their thinking to the score -- animating it with their own spirit -- they shouldn't be playing it in the first place, except possibly as a show piece for Madame DixDoigt's piano students' recital which is -- blessedly -- limited in attendance to the parents and sometimes the lovers of the victim.

Hi Ian,

Why do you say that fidelity to the score is very important without giving any reasons for the conclusion?

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Fidelity to the score is very important.  Indeed, I would go so far as to say that if the performer is not technically capable of performing the score as written they should go back to their studio and practice some more. 

There's a revealing inference which can be drawn from this (whether it is intentional I don't know). namely that infidelity to the score is the consequence of ineptitude or ill-preparation. Of course, it often is, but then it's surely just a mistake.. not deliberate infidelity to the score. I find deliberate infidelity to the score, as performed by those who assuredly are technically competent, to often be very interesting.

[michael_sayers]

There's a revealing inference which can be drawn from this (whether it is intentional I don't know). namely that infidelity to the score is the consequence of ineptitude or ill-preparation. Of course, it often is, but then it's surely just a mistake.. not deliberate infidelity to the score. I find deliberate infidelity to the score, as performed by those who assuredly are technically competent, to often be very interesting.

Hi ronde_des_sylphes,

In my response, performances by those who assuredly are technically competent isn't an essential ingredient to the interest.  To me it is about the ideas and sufficient skill to get them communicated.  Wrong notes are okay, as too are elderly if not also retired pianists such as Ervin Nyiregyhazi.

[iansinclair]

Micahel -- I don't think I said "fidelity to the score" was important; if I did, I didn't take the time to explain.  Clearly I should have.  I think it is important that the performer know, and be capable of, performing the score as written.  That doesn't necessarily mean zero mistakes every time; everyone is human.  It does mean having the technical skill -- and knowledge -- and practice -- to play or sing it as written (in any music earlier than the 20th Century, this may mean knowing a good deal about the performance practice and history appropriate to the time).

Then... one can, and should in my view, be able to take the score and make it one's own, in the moment.  ronde_des_syphes is absolutely correct in saying that deliberate infidelity to the score, as performed by those who assuredly are technically competent, [is] often [...] very interesting, to which I would add -- illuminating.

This can be taken too far: some of Leopold Stokowski's transcriptions of Bach were definitely over the top, as were some of Sir Thomas Beecham's interpretations of Handel (although in both cases it can be argued, legitimately, that they had something very valid to say).  But it is worse when one's devotion to the exact score (and to exact period instruments) gets in the way of the music (not that a period instrument performance isn't illuminating in and of itself!  It is, and of considerable value in understanding what the original may have sounded like)(further, sometimes a period instrument is genuinely more appropriate -- but that goes back to the original premise: one has to know the score and all very well indeed and then make a deliberate interpretative choice to use a period instrument).

So to bring it back to piano performance -- the very best performance will be by someone who knows the score and the history backwards and forwards, and has the technical skill and practice to perform it as nearly flawlessly as is humanly possible -- and the humanity or soul to take that score and make it their own, and transcend it, and give it to the audience.

A technically perfect performance without soul is unfortunate.  A performance by someone who is not technically capable of performing the score is worse.

Sightly muddled and run-on, but perhaps you can figure out what I mean...

[michael_sayers]

Thanks for the long explanation Ian!  I may be able to respond after some rest.

Interestingly, an article on discrepancies between Beethoven's symphony manuscripts and the published versions recently appeared at Classic FM -

https://www.classicfm.com/composers/beethoven/guides/case-beethoven-missing-notes/

It also discusses issues with the parts for String Quartet Op. 135.

[klavieronin]

Who was it that said "the score tells you everything you need to know about the music except what is essential"? I think it was Mahler or someone like that.

That's the problem with playing exactly according to the score, the music ends up sounding lifeless. If you have ever heard a computer playing a midi file you'll know what I mean.

[outin]

Who was it that said "the score tells you everything you need to know about the music except what is essential"? I think it was Mahler or someone like that.

That's the problem with playing exactly according to the score, the music ends up sounding lifeless. If you have ever heard a computer playing a midi file you'll know what I mean.

There's always a difference with a human playing "exactly according to the score" and a computer doing it. The score tells us things that an average computer cannot understand. The human perception has elements from culture and language that enable us to see things "beoynd" the simple markings on the page. So even if we tried to follow everything exactly, our playing would still reflect OUR understanding of the score. It is of course possible to develope a computer program with such elements as well. Then it wouldn't be lifeless either, but it would easily still be more predictable than a human playing the same piece.

BTW the reason most midi sounds so horrible has as much to do with the technology as it does with the interpretation of notes. This becomes clear when you record yourself as midi and listen to it without any sound editing and compare it with an acoustic recording of the same playing.

[klavieronin]

There's always a difference with a human playing "exactly according to the score" and a computer doing it…

I think that was kind of my point, that notation is rather inexact and we need to read things into it that aren't necessarily there, based on our culture, experience, etc. just as you said.

On a slightly separate point, I have no doubt that computers will one day be performing music just as intelligently as humans, though I think we're a long way off that yet.