interpretive freedom for performers

[lenny]

is it ok or not ok to go against the composers directions?

how freely should a performers own musicality personality be allowed to come through in the piece being played?

is it wrong to have this philosiphy 'i play the piece whatever way i think it sounds best, even if that means going against tradition, experimenting radically, and even ignoring some of the composers performance intentions'?

i feel, yes it is ok

there are, and always will be - pianists who want to play everything exactly as the composer intended, and not to experiment and add their own personal expression at all, but i think there is room for radicals ans individualists.

i believe in order to respect the composer, one must often ignore some of their directions in order to bring new life and ideas into a piece.

[lostinidlewonder]

In public recitals, it is ok. In competitions it is limited. I think you should always play a piece how you want it to be played that is the reason we play instruments! It isnt to confrom, it is to play music how we intend it to be, if it is "better" or "worse" than what is intended, who gives unless you care about exam marks and winning competitions.

[twinkly217]

I am of a different opinion, that we should not interpret classical music in any way we choose. I think different performers will play the same piece differently even while adhering strictly to the markings in the piece. I am an emotional player, a friend of mine was technical--the same piece, with the same attention to the same details, sounded completely different thru each of us. But where that Chopin scherzo crescendos, I want to hear a crescendo.

Some pieces lend themselves to greater interpretation, like romantic and post-romantic pieces. But the baroque and classical periods are not typically intended for a lot of renditioning.

I get my free-wheeling jollies playing popular music, where I can interpret and cover songs any way I like--no rules. But I'd say if you want to learn classical music, you recognize it's a discipline with rules instructing you regarding its proper execution. I'm not sure I'd understand the point of playing a classical piece like it's a Billy Joel tune. I personally would walk out of a performance in which I heard Schubert being played like Debussy... but I think I'd qualify as a more of a purist on this issue.

[lenny]

well  completely disagree

as long as nothing is 'dumbed down' i am totally non-purist

i prefer bach on piano, i enjoy both sentimentalised and 'stricter' rach

[pianopoet]

Listen to Pletnev (from Baroque Scarlatti to Romantic Schumann) and see what he does with scores. He reads them, interprets them and performs them with a transcendental level of ingenuity and spontanaeity. He composes them as he performs and they are SUBLIME

[lenny]

yes, this is exactly the type of pianist im talking about, his interpretations are often unique and awesome!

[pianonut]

i will listen to pletnev.  am reading an interesting book by dennis forman, "mozart's concerto form."  and, in the book, he details how sonata form came later than the early mozart concertos.  thus, when one tries to fit them into an exact mold of sonata form (ie as an architect vs a quantity surveyor) they come up against some interesting challenges.  THIS is what i consider a true analysis of what you are dealing with in form.  then there is the detail of dynamics.  should we change them?  i don't think so.  should we change the tempos (within certain guidlines of markings - allegro, adagio, etc).  i don't think so.

what should be added to and taken away from, imo, is a 'standard performance.'  there has to be something engaging that the listener will take away from a performance and say 'that was great.'  do you think this could be the performers interpretation (reading) of the music.  as in a play, or a reading of a book, you have characters, or words that stick out and mean much more if you do more with them.  then, you aren't completely direndering the play to a different meaning, but elevating the meaning to a higher level of enjoyment.

[mound]

this current thread has some good thoughts on this:
https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,6879.0.html

[willcowskitz]

Saying that only "light" music is valid for interpretation is like admitting that one lacks understanding of classical music's soul. Do you think that composers were some kind of machines or god-like creatures that could set rules bounding future generations for millennias because they understood music "better" in some "absolute" fashion? I'll have to tell you, no; they were subjective, imperfect human beings, with extraordinary intellect in a certain field of art, but same down-to-earth problems, crises and emotional perceptions on world as with any of us potentially.

[twinkly217]

Each of us reading this question may have a different interpretation of what it means: andante where presto is indicated--for an entire movement, even? Pianissimo instead of pianoforte? As a degree'd pianist, I tend to think of how I was trained and what would get a pianist thrown out of competition or flunked during a jury, recital or audition--an experimental reading would probably do it.

The composers were only human--humans with extraordinary musical vision about their creations, and generally passionate, exacting perfectionists. Liszt probably would not have had much patience with a student who offered up a radically interpreted version of his Rhapsodies. While I understand the desire to transcend the music and introduce fanciful new ideas, one also runs the risk of making the impression upon the unprepared listener that he does not know what he is doing, does not understand the music or the genre or the composer or the piano. It would seem the truly visionary colorists have earned both the right to trascend the music with radically unique ideas, as well as the respect for doing so.

All pianists will take liberties with the music to some degree, generally with the respect to the genre. To some degree you can edit score, tho in my experience this was usually some commonly accepted or debated alternative. Some pianists are naturally more colorful and imaginative than others, and that shows thru as well.

[anda]

there's so much freedom for the performer while respecting all composers' wishes! i say, if you need more freedom maybe you should start composing... not trying to re-write what was already written.

[musik_man]

I don't see why a performer should be bound by anything in a score.  If a pianist wants to play a Chopin Nocturne at prestissimo, that's his prerogative.  I'll disagree with the choice of interpretation, and think that that pianist lacks any taste, but he can play it as he likes.

there's so much freedom for the performer while respecting all composers' wishes! i say, if you need more freedom maybe you should start composing... not trying to re-write what was already written.

I see nothing wrong with transcriptions.  I'd much rather listen to the Horowitz version of HR15 than Liszt's.  I simply like it more.  Of course that's not to say all transcriptions are good.  Volodos's Alla Turca for example...

[sharon_f]

I don't see why a performer should be bound by anything in a score. 

So it's okay to ignore the key signature in the Pathetique and perhaps play it in C major??? And why not play it two octaves higher? Or two octaves lower? Or play the last movement first. Or play the entire piece backwards. Why not change the entire paino literature!

Well I guess it's okay for a circus performer, but if one wants to be a musician....

[pianobabe56]

I will be the first to admit that sometimes, just for kicks, I'll pull out a slow, flowing debussy and whip right through it, but never seriously. These composers were musical geniuses- they have given us the incredible gift of sharing their music with us, and I feel that the least that we can do for them is to play their music as they would have wanted it played. I agree that adding your own interpretation is highly commendable and a perfecty reasonable request, but it should be done within the limits of reason. Also- as we play this music for others, we are sharing with them a piece of a certain era, and it should be played accordingly, to give the listeners the authentic experience.

[lenny]

Each of us reading this question may have a different interpretation of what it means: andante where presto is indicated--for an entire movement, even? Pianissimo instead of pianoforte? As a degree'd pianist, I tend to think of how I was trained and what would get a pianist thrown out of competition or flunked during a jury, recital or audition--an experimental reading would probably do it.

i agree with alot of your ost, but i have to point out that this is one of the main reasons i think piano competitions are possibly a bad thing.

[m1469]

Okay as far as I can understand it, ultimately no matter what, we are always and only allowing ourselves a certain freedom and interpreting something as far as we can personally percieve it.  I am also not convinced that there is any reason as to why one person's ideas are inherently more valuable than another, in and of themselves.  Ultimately, there are only differences between one interpretation from another.

Only when there are certain expectations and/or certain contexts, can one begin to clarify one's individual and personal beliefs and desires.  Even still, it is largely a pesonal perception intertwined with personal limitations, or strengths (btw-- I would gladly like to be intelligently convinced out of this).

I think what needs to be largely considered here is the context which one is endeavoring within, as well as the intentions behind one's endeavor.  Ultimately, it seems to come down to who or what one is serving when one decides to pick up a piece.

Is one solely serving one's self?  Yes?  Then why not play it just the way one wants to?   Ultimately nobody has to listen, or if someone does listen, they don't have to agree and they certainly don't have to enjoy it.  So what?  Where does that leave anyone?

Is one serving the composer?  Yes?  Still one can only discern a morsel of what the composer intended, even if the composer is coaching the performer.  Furthermore, there are instances where the performer may allow a piece to reach greater musical heights than what the composer himself/herself may have previously fathomed.  So what happens then?

Is one serving the music itself?  Then what is musicality?  Also, musicality does not ulitmately belong to a somebody more than a somebody else.  Or rather, it belongs to everybody.

Anyway, I think the idea is clear.

So it seems to me that the initial question of this thread is not complete.  I think the question has more to do with what it means to be musical and what it means to actually be interpreting something in the first place.  It seems these questions need to be considered before one decides what "freedoms" one has or has not, as I believe musicality is the essence of what is being discussed.  One also needs to discern what is actually on the score to work with in the first place, because it may certainly not be all there is to what even the composer intended.

These questions have begun to be discussed here and I think need to be grappled with first:

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,6853.msg67901.html#msg67901
(Questions on musicality and interpretation)


m1469

[lenny]

I don't see why a performer should be bound by anything in a score.  If a pianist wants to play a Chopin Nocturne at prestissimo, that's his prerogative.  I'll disagree with the choice of interpretation, and think that that pianist lacks any taste, but he can play it as he likes.



I see nothing wrong with transcriptions.  I'd much rather listen to the Horowitz version of HR15 than Liszt's.  I simply like it more.  Of course that's not to say all transcriptions are good.  Volodos's Alla Turca for example...

i love the volodos btw, and i agree about the HR15.

and even if a pianist's performance isnt to my tastes, doesnt mean i dont think its a great performance in its own way.

if i could choose to rob the world of alot of pop music, even thought i dont like some of it, i wouldnt, because i think EVERYTHING has its place. even a prestissimo nocturne.

[musik_man]

So it's okay to ignore the key signature in the Pathetique and perhaps play it in C major??? And why not play it two octaves higher? Or two octaves lower? Or play the last movement first. Or play the entire piece backwards. Why not change the entire paino literature!

Well I guess it's okay for a circus performer, but if one wants to be a musician....

If I thought that Pathetique sounded better two octaves lower or in C major, I'd play it that way.  However, I don't, so I won't.

I view myself as a musician.  My primary purpose is to make good music, not to blindly follow a dead man's directions.

Is one serving the composer?  Yes?  Still one can only discern a morsel of what the composer intended, even if the composer is coaching the performer.  Furthermore, there are instances where the performer may allow a piece to reach greater musical heights than what the composer himself/herself may have previously fathomed.  So what happens then?

Is one serving the music itself?  Then what is musicality?  Also, musicality does not ulitmately belong to a somebody more than a somebody else.  Or rather, it belongs to everybody.

I'm not serving any composer, and I'm not serving some intangible thing called "music."  I'm trying my best to create good music whenever I sit at the piano.  I can't see any good reasons to do otherwise.

[lenny]

If I thought that Pathetique sounded better two octaves lower or in C major, I'd play it that way.  However, I don't, so I won't.

I view myself as a musician.  My primary purpose is to make good music, not to blindly follow a dead man's directions.



I'm not serving any composer, and I'm not serving some intangible thing called "music."  I'm trying my best to create good music whenever I sit at the piano.  I can't see any good reasons to do otherwise.

i agree completely

and lest we forget - to beethoven the piece was actually in Bb minor(or close)

[sharon_f]

I view myself as a musician.  My primary purpose is to make good music, not to blindly follow a dead man's directions.

Wow!

[anda]

I don't see why a performer should be bound by anything in a score. 

then what do you need the score for?

If a pianist wants to play a Chopin Nocturne at prestissimo, that's his prerogative.  I'll disagree with the choice of interpretation, and think that that pianist lacks any taste, but he can play it as he likes.

i won't even comment this...

I see nothing wrong with transcriptions.  I'd much rather listen to the Horowitz version of HR15 than Liszt's.  I simply like it more.  Of course that's not to say all transcriptions are good.  Volodos's Alla Turca for example...

who said anything about transcriptions? of course i see nothing wrong with these either, but wasn't this thread about something else?

[musik_man]

then what do you need the score for?


who said anything about transcriptions? of course i see nothing wrong with these either, but wasn't this thread about something else?

I didn't say the score was worthless.  I only meant that nothing in it is binding.  If I disagree with a composer's choice, I'll play it the way I think works best; however, I rarely do disagree with the composer, most of my interpretations aren't particularly outragous.

I brought up transcriptions because they can be viewed as the ultimate form of a performer's freedom.  In a transcription, a performer literally rewrites the score. 

[lenny]

I didn't say the score was worthless.  I only meant that nothing in it is binding.  If I disagree with a composer's choice, I'll play it the way I think works best; however, I rarely do disagree with the composer, most of my interpretations aren't particularly outragous.

I brought up transcriptions because they can be viewed as the ultimate form of a performer's freedom.  In a transcription, a performer literally rewrites the score. 

i agree with most hings you say

actually i recently found a MIDI webpage with some extremely fast chopin noctures

i was amazed, not only at the sheer audacity, but the fact that they often genuinely sounded GREAT!

ive said this before and ill say it again - i would never , if i could choose to, rob a person the right to play a piece of music ANY WAY they wanted, even if i completely disliked the result.

people often complain about 'disgraceful recordings', saying 'ohhh beethoven would turn in his grave if he heard this'

i say let it be, if you like it- you like it, if you dont - you dont.