More thoughts on interpretation and style...

[m1469]

Could one say that there is ever a time when music really "should" go a certain way?  Is there something "concrete" within music that needs to be interpreted?

My students will be giving a recital soon and one of them has composed a piece of music that I will be playing for them.  I, as a musician and a person, have more experience and more education than my student, so my ideas about how this music should go maintain a different perspective than my student's.  I feel like my interpretation would make more sense to the adults in the audience, when to my student and the younger generation, it probably would not make the same sort of sense.  It is fascinating also, that I would find certain things within the music of a 12 yr old, that I am quite certain she did not intend to have there, though when I approach the composition from an "objective" standpoint, I get very clear ideas about how it should go and what it "means" (to me, but is that all there is to interpretation?  What it means to the individual? he he, so many questions).

I will play it as she wishes, but it got me thinking about interpretation and how that relates to maturity and whether or not one could really say there are actual things within music that lend themselves to being expressed a certain way over another way (I don't feel like I am being able to be very clear, sorry).

I mean, there are times when the "message" just seems more clear if played a certian way... why is that ? 

I started thinking about people like Horowitz, whom I would describe as having fairly mature taste in interpretation, if that is possible to say.  This same quality that I love, could be read as dryness by somebody else, when perhaps the performer is simply just being misunderstood.

A related thought I have been thinking about is "style".  A simple example would be how with a certain composer and within a certain era, a performer may interpret a diminshed chord differently than with another composer and within another era when they are the very same chord note-wise.  What is that? 

I know these are pretty broad questions, but I am Ms curious at the moment.  He he, it is exciting to me.

m1469

[ted]

Well you know me by now, m1469. For me, ambiguity in both playing intention and listening impression is precisely what makes music the vitally transporting medium it is. In music I am always becoming and never being; each musical event is a springboard to others. The idea of a permanently fixed approach to anything is thoroughly repugnant to me. “Shoulds” and “ought tos” do not feature at all in my musical landscape. So personally I just play everything as I feel it and the issue doesn’t trouble me.

Right now. That is easy for me to say and do because, for me, music in the social sense does not exist. Not being completely dense, however, I realise that, for the professional and the social amateur, these considerations are of the utmost importance and I therefore leave it to others more qualified to describe how they find an elusive optimal point between orthodoxy and freedom.

[m1469]

Well you know me by now, m1469. For me, ambiguity in both playing intention and listening impression is precisely what makes music the vitally transporting medium it is. In music I am always becoming and never being; each musical event is a springboard to others. The idea of a permanently fixed approach to anything is thoroughly repugnant to me. “Shoulds” and “ought tos” do not feature at all in my musical landscape. So personally I just play everything as I feel it and the issue doesn’t trouble me.

Right now. That is easy for me to say and do because, for me, music in the social sense does not exist. Not being completely dense, however, I realise that, for the professional and the social amateur, these considerations are of the utmost importance and I therefore leave it to others more qualified to describe how they find an elusive optimal point between orthodoxy and freedom.

Oh man, oh man.  Well, you just sparked a huge thing in me, but I have a student arriving at any moment so I cannot repsond in full.  Arrhggg...

m1469

[m1469]

Well, like usual I am starting to get myself all tangled up in this.  Yes, I do have an idea of where you are coming from Ted, but I always appreciate your unique perspective and I hold you as a musician, with quite high regard in my mind.  I thought that the "should" would not appeal to you, but I do wonder what it is that compels you, all the same, to "play everything as you feel".  What is that feeling?  That's what is striking me at the moment.  What is it that gives impulse to action?

I suppose my question is at least two fold in that I realize there are many social issues surrounding "style" and "interpretation", but I am also talking about something else.  What struck me in particular about the situation I described above is that there were no preconcieved ideas about what "style" my student's composition should be played in as it was completely original (if that is possible).  I mean, I was not trying to play in the "classical" style and so on.  So, I wonder where the impulse comes to shape the music a particular way?  I think you experience this too, even if it is improvisatory and in the moment.  This is part of what I don't understand.  What is it exactly that makes us do that?  I know, I know... sorry...

As far as addressing the particular "styles" regarding eras and such, I understand your desire to leave that alone.  Mainly it has just been obsessing me lately though, and finally I voiced it.  I just don't understand how we reach certain conclusions within music and I do not even necessarily disagree with them, I just want to understand.  And I wonder about a big bag of mixed things... I suppose it touches on those questions..."what is music"  "where does music exist" "for whom do you play" and so on. 

I just wonder though, if there is anything actually inside of music at all, if that makes any sense, or is it simply and only what we make of it?

While I realize that probably there is not an exact answer to these things, or maybe not one that can be discerned exactly (or maybe there is  :- ), I am interested in people's perspectives, whatever they are.

Okay, I will be calm.

m1469

[ted]

But m1469, you're one of the calmest, most quietly insightful people on the forum !

Anyway ....

"What is that feeling?  That's what is striking me at the moment.  What is it that gives impulse to action?"

I don't know. Nothing less than the totality of my life experience being forced under pressure through the tiny pinhole of piano expression ? I really don't know. Let's see what a few others have to say first.

[c18cont]

A single comment, or rather a question,

Is it then, not reasonable to assume at ANY time, that you understand the composer's intent; the emotion and drive captivated in the composition, notwithstanding the place in time, at least to some point of success?

If so, how then do we ever interpret any composition not our own?

John Cont

[Kohai]

Is it then, not reasonable to assume at ANY time, that you understand the composer's intent; the emotion and drive captivated in the composition, notwithstanding the place in time, at least to some point of success?

If so, how then do we ever interpret any composition not our own?

John Cont

I would think this may be part of the point here perhaps, if I am understanding correctly that is.

Kohai

[chopintod]

OK, ready for my two bits?   

Besides being a piano player, I'm also a creative writer.  There is one maxim of publishing which all writers know (or should, if they don't already): once you publish something, it is no longer your own.  Readers can interpret it any way they feel.

Anecdote: (stay with me) A famous author writes a book and it becomes a bestseller.  He goes to speak about this book at a major university, and a well-respected English professor stands up to ask a question.  He says, "In chapter 2, you use the falling of the sky to represent the demise of social contextualities..."  The author interrupts:  "Oh, is that what I meant in chapter 2? I didn't know that."

To sum up: once published, art can be interpreted by anyone, in anyway, and any interpretation HAS to be right, because art is a matter of persional expression.  It's that well-known story of two people looking at a piece of modern art: one thinks it looks like spaghetti (perhaps because he's hungry?) while the other sees a skyscraper.  Both interpretations are correct; they have to be, because, as I said, art is a matter of personal expression.  The artist channels his emotions; others interpret it as they see fit.

The same thing goes in music.  The composer can channel his own emotions however he wants to, and play his music however he feels like it should be played.  However, another player can pick up the same piece of music and interpret it in a completely different way.  Perhaps the composer was thinking sad while the the player is thinking soulful, or whatever.  The musician, as an interpreter of art, is able to interpret the art however he/she sees fit.  Because of this, there are no wrong interpretations (as long as, of course, the actual notes played are what the composer indicated; changing the notes changes the art, while changing the expression is simply a different interpretation). 

So...after that long post, I'm going to take a nap...wish me luck in graduation tonight.

Terry

[c18cont]

Indeed, ChopinTOD,

Also my feeling, as I felt the depth our other writers were reaching, yet without personal involvement in interpretation...which is wistful thinking in one way, and not worth the effort in the other...Interpretation can STILL be learned from the more experienced...and from historical practice...

Your analogies were quite to the point...

Best,   John Cont

[ramseytheii]

A single comment, or rather a question,

Is it then, not reasonable to assume at ANY time, that you understand the composer's intent; the emotion and drive captivated in the composition, notwithstanding the place in time, at least to some point of success?

If so, how then do we ever interpret any composition not our own?

John Cont

For a long time I have felt my stomach turn at the phrase, "composer's intent," used in such contexts as, "respecting the intentions of the composer," "faithfully following the composer's intentions," et cetera, although if you asked me why I couldn't have said.

Don't get me wrong, I am not an advocate of musical anarchy where however anybody feels it becomes right. ("Tell me Mr Schnabel, do you play as you feel, or do you play in time?" "Why can't I feel in time?")  Nor am I an opponent of willful interpreters such as Glenn Gould.  And if I was it wouldn't really matter.

Why then the turning of the stomach?  Because the idea of the "composer's intentions" is one that can only serve to distance ourselves from the music and the purpose we ourselves attach to making it.  Basically anything we do is subjective interpretation, and I have always found the justification, "composer's intentions," to be the weakest, because so many times has a piece been interpreted in vastly different aways, both according to "composer's intentions," and also because it is an easy way to avoid the process of becoming attached to a piece of music.  So many people do it, because the "composer intended," not because they actually care.

Just wanted to air my personal thoughts on the subject because I have been wondering myself so long why that phrase has made me nauseous.

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

And just to contribute to the original question, this from Alfred Brendel on the subject of Glenn Gould:

"...it seems to me that he [Gould] has no interest at all in the character of a piece.  He is not aware that it exists.  I'm told that he used to go into the studio, play a piece three or four times in entirely different ways, listen to them afterwards and then choose what should be used.  He does not consider that there might be a character which is indissolubly connected with the piece, which one must find and bring to life.  That is where I disagree with him so strongly."

Walter Ramsey

[c18cont]

Then, in Fact,

A given composition becomes an entity in it's own right...free to grow or wilt according to the feeling and interpretation some performer attaches to it..but not yet an entity then...as it is doomed to depend upon an individual to bring out the hidden meaning, or meanings in it's existance....so again it is our responsibility....WE are the thought behind the reality...

If so, then the performer becomes the interpreter, and, in turn, the asseveration of the composers intent, if for no other reason than the counterpoint and harmony encountered...the actual play of note against note...

In the end, again, bringing out an emotional response that would otherwise not be a part of reality...for only in hearing can the abnigation or apotheosis of that creative attempt become an answer.....and it must be one or the other; seldom can total indifference reign for any length of time...instead the created is discarded as unworthy...

  John Cont

[whynot]

Oh m1469, sigh, you do dig deep, don't you!  Another of your excellent topics.  As usual, I don't have anything profound to say, but the last few posts got me thinking about a related idea:   It seems to me that some music can survive almost any interpretation (like Bach! look what people do to it, but it's still Bach), while other music needs certain things to happen (or not happen) in order to hold together.  I should give an example but have had a very bad day, can't seem to gather my thoughts.  However, will watch this thread with interest, m1469.  Ted's words are right on the money, as always, and I love everyone's posts on this so far.  Especially "can't I feel in time" (priceless!!) and
"composer's intent." 

Congrats to the graduate!! Yea!

[c18cont]

I assume,

The interpretation of the John Cage, "4min 33sec.", may then give us cause for concern, as it must depend on the same factors any performance depends upon....and we may be very sure, those factors are almost ENDLESS.....

John Cont

[c18cont]

I am sorry, I need to do another post here, for,

It is important to me to do my own reading of any score in odd places, ranging from laying in my bed to riding on a bus....I read all I have and continue to buy and beg more..in particular new orchestral music...I then am truly the interpreter as I am the only person "hearing" the music in regard to the time frame....It then is truly my interpretation that is important.

If it is a piano score, then I am thinking of how I will play it....long before in some instances, the actual attempt to learn and perform....(no matter the audience..it is usually for me these days , and my poor wife or other family and friends...).

It might be interesting sometime, to find out...how many take some time in reading mentally before attempting? (of course this wouldn't matter if it is a composition that is familiar...)..

John Cont

John Cont

[pianonut]

interpretation seems highly anagous to taste.  some are bothered by too much regularity and some by too much rubato, overuse of dynamics, overpedalling, ignoring composer's intent.  so, i think one has to listen to lots of music, read about styles and periods of music (as to what is generally accepted) and give credence to criticisms you get or hear others get.  i heard lang-lang play on the radio the other day (tchaikovsky's first) and at first my husband liked it.  i told him i didn't.  then i said why.  this is always an important thing to do when criticizing.  tell why you don't like the interpretation.  for me, i thought the interpretation was too regular (metronomic).  i said, 'you can almost hear a metronome in the background.'  for me, i like to hear pianists take time over turns of harmony and 'follow the wind' so to speak.  if you watch leaves blow in autumn (or clouds/birds fly by), you'll see a natural gust and wane.  this is SO related, to me, to interpretation.  you don't see birds suddenly falling (completely to the ground) and then aiming straight up in the air again. (lang-lang isn't that stiff - and is quite an accomplished pianist - but imo needs to relax and not just think about getting through the piece).  of course, i can't play the concerto yet, so my criticism is not yet founded on experience in playing that concerto.

[m1469]

Okay, well thanks for the replies thus far.  I am gnawing on some ideas a bit... collecting my "big" thoughts on this, so to speak.

There are a number of things which are standing out to me at this point within the replies, but I am thinking.

bye bye

m1469

[c18cont]

Indeed...as to birds in flight, leaves blown in autumn or... lovers in arms..... ,

Here we are speaking in terms of program or discriptive music as contrasted with absolute music...Or...do the two even actually exist separately?

Do we find a Clementi sonata to spring from the same germination as, say, Adagio for Strings..? For there ARE those who look at the latter as absolute and spend time on analysis of the string orchestra as used by Barber...

And what have we to think of Schonberg in that case....Or Leo Brower...are they so different?

Perhaps looking at primitive man and his use of musical sound and expression may provide a clue...for primitive man exist's today..and uses such as the Saeng or the Darbuk..and even the Dobro.....Most surely these represent the sentient value of emotion?

John Cont

[JPRitchie]

Hello Piano-Forum,

Normally I browse, but this topic is too interesting and the participants too knowledgeable to pass up.  I don't play the piano, instead I program a keyboard. Music interpretation is at the core of that, given mordern technical capabilities. In the course of this work, my appreciation of live performances and music interpretation has greatly increased. Recently, I produced a CD with recordings of keyboard performances of select Scott Joplin compositions. While interpreting them, there were three central questions I continually asked myself. They really aren't technology specific, but are questions any musician might consider. The questions concern ego, knowledge, and ability, as described below.

1. Ego. Perhaps this seems a bit personal, but once you've complimented a composer by selecting their work, why should you put your interpretation above that of theirs? If you're a better composer, perform more of your own works - like Liszt did. An example of this phenomenon is found in many recordings of Maple Leaf Rag. Joplin marked the B section “stacc.”, for staccato. Yet, it is rarely played that way. Another is that the "Tempo giusto" marking is frequently ignored in Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody #2, Friska movement, start of the section in F#. Composers of works such as these created something that has interested many others in addition to you for over a hundred years, and not vice-versa.
 
2. Knowledge. Do you have a reliable source of what the composer's intentions were? Do you have an authentic score, or are you playing some editor's conception of what the piece should sound like or, for professionals, are you starting from a simplified version? For example, a lesson book version of Chopin's Prelude Op. 28, No. 7 shows the big chord near the end to be arpegiated. Yet, the 1839 editions derived with Chopin's own input, don't show this and indicates, instead, the clever technique of using the thumb to bridge the bottom A#,C# on the right hand. Chopin's pedaling is also simpler (!). Many marks, especially pedaling, phrasings, and accents are added or significantly modified by editors. Also, did you really find the right effect in every phrasing? Have you considered every phrase in its place in the entire composition; for instance, should similar parts be played with identical dynamics, or crescendo, or with a change in accent? If you change to a slower tempo, does it destroy a gradual acceleration throughout a section? Do you understand every marking in the composition? Finally, have you made informed choices about what may be implied by the composer? An example of this is the Rondo Alla Turca movement in Mozart's K331. The URTEXT version shows the initial 4 note group (and analogous repeats) beginning with a grace note, followed by an eighth and two sixteenths. Yet many editions show simply four sixteenths. It may not be possible to know precisely what was intended in older pieces, but, see 1 above, some effort should be made to find out.

3. Ability. Does the performance really reflect your artistic sense or is it simply a demonstration of your inability to make it sound the way the composer wrote it? Questions of tempo, articulation, and adaptation to the instrument or keyboard or technology are central here. Have you really expended the effort and been honest enough with yourself about the result to call it art and an improvement on the original?

Of course, it's paradoxical to tell an artist exactly how to perform something and composers write music for others to play. Indeed, Palmer (in one of the Alfred Masterwork editions) quotes Beethoven's remark after hearing a performance of one of his sonatas: "That is not exactly the reading I should have given, but go ahead. If it is not exactly myself, it is something better."

Regards,
Jim Ritchie
P.S. My CD is available through https://www.cdbaby.com/ritchie and it contains MIDI files as well as additional information for instruction and for music appreciation.
jpr

[c18cont]

Well, to All and JPRitchie,

Again we may indeed find we are tied to the abrogation of our responsibility, or the abreaction of our souls....as we may indeed have to explore the meaning of 1). ego...so if we wish to avoid the above, we have to know again, the composers intent, and for any musical use, we may find the time required to be no benison for our already failing interpretive skills;

2). Knowledge, with all the failings so well noted by the author of the thoughtful response...It is nigh impossible! Chopin as an example is indeed over-pedalled by many today..and as for Scott Joplin, I suspect unlike Chopin, many more interpretations  may be allowed, as is traditional in Jazz and Blues, (as a generality..) Again, who is to say in authority? Ina given performance of Chopin, or Scriabin for that matter, you will again find the gamut of approval to cover many different attitudes, in just an audience of pianists;.. Add the general public and it is something else altogether...So we MUST be as faithful as we feel expresses the composer, AND our own ego....(?)

3). Ability is, as you are able....If you cannot produce as Lang Lang, do you fail to present, in deference? Then you indeed fail in your responsibility it would seem. All performers in ALL medium's are different, and the audience exists to hear all..

BUT!!! Wait a minute... In that case you will surely have misinterpretation...Just as I find in performance of even visiting artist's of note...and in the high school students I once judged in contest...They may fall short of what I BELIEVE is the ideal...but I must correct the student, and so.. MUST KNOW the best performance at age and grade..and also KNOW the most strict requirement for that visiting professional...if it is my place to judge him, which is most likely, not really possible anyway...so we then, fail in perfection. But that is as it should, or, MUST be, or we are not mortal...

Thanks for closing with the important anecdotal material from Beethoven; The masters had their doubts and fears as well....Never forget.

My Best, and thanks for a carefully crafted response..I regret I cannot match it; I am too close to the candle...

John Cont

[TheHammer]

I always thought interpretation (of music, literature, art...)was based on two principles:

1. My own impression, understanding of the piece, based on the (emotional, intellectual, etc.)effect it has on me.

2. Logic. And that is, to become clearer, to deliver a consistent, cohesive interpretation which is traceable.

Some explanations: Interpretation means the try to find significance in something abstract. When I read a poem or hear a piece of music, it will evoke emotions and thought in ME. Whatever these thoughts and feelings are, they are mine and will be the base of my interpretation of the piece. Concerning this, anyone can come up with his own (or even several) interpretations, all being correct to them. But not necessarily.
We once interpreted a poem in our German class. It was a romantic poem (written around 1820-30 (?)), it was about the cycle of life, being born, seeing and experiencing the world, love, life, and then death (connected with quite a lot of connotations to nature, the seasons for example). Now there was one verse in which it was stating something like:
 "And in the silver circlet I cool my sultry wing
want to raise it to new spring
but there freezes me a cold delight"...something like that.  Now, one of my fellow students uttered his "interpretation": "In these lines the lyrical self talks about his last days, when he has his last erection (=sultry wing that has to be cooled), but this last "delight" brings also his death - perhaps a heart-attack, because of the stress or something..." (Sorry for posting this, but it illustrates my point perfectly).Now, that was grade 12... Okay, I don't want to translate the whole poem, but just believe me, there is no evidence in the text that the author is speaking about a sexual experience - well no real evidence, but to a wicked mind, some of the used old-fashioned words could hold a sexual/erotic significance. But there was also plenty proof in the text that the poem is about nature, longing and passion, and so on...
What I am trying to say is, that this student obiously interpreted the poem in the WRONG way, although he said, this would be the impression he got from it. The problem is, his interpretation is not traceable, it is not confirmable with the text, indeed it contradicts many sections of the poem. The student based his interpretation on only one passage, he ignored the time it was written in (in which "sueltry wing" would not mean the masculine crotch).
And I think it is the same with music. Of course, you can play Bach with a lot of pedal, ignore the counterpoint, play a fugue as a one-voice cantilene (with a very complex accompanying), if it makes sense to you AND (the most important one) if it makes (or can make) sense to the audience. If I sit in the audience and can say: "Man, this doesn't even sound like Bach, but it actually sounds inspiring, exciting (or whatever), I love the way it is performed." Now, this is highly improbable, because Bach's writing is based on counterpoint, and his fugues ONLY make sense when you play them as fugues, but if you could play them in a different way, and it would still make sense, would still be logical and comprehensible - why not? That does not mean it has to sound like Bach intented (indeed, as a previous poster said, it should sound as I intented). You can have several comprehensible interpretations of one work (going back to the poem, one other student said it wasn't about life, but about nature itself, which could be understandable as well, and it was (quite) consistent with the rest of the poem).

How we come to this interpretation is another question... I think it has to do a lot with our experiences with music, what we have heard so far, what we connect with certain sounds, with our sub-conscious, with our view of the world, our current mood... One piece can have different meanings to me at different times, and the best interpretations are these in which the listener has enough space to find his own.

[c18cont]

My feeling is, to The Hammer and others,

You are saying much that is true from other authors in this thread...(Isn't it unfortunate more are not moved by the subject and material, or maybe it has been well trod before...)...

Sounds like Odin to me in translation....Perhaps other old Norse, where the Silver Circlet is the anadem of the heavens....the newest of new moons in dim splendor...In any event I do find the subjective interpretation of the student to miss the point....but then he new not of the origin of the "Silver Circlet", I suspect...

In truth you have put it in the forefront; it is not to be called perhaps, sophistry, but it borders on the edge...the student selects a roynish interpretation, which is his own, whether real, or a great penury of thought is the question...

I would suggest the old Norse interpretationm, where it is the reforming of the life element, it seem's I recall, but have long ago forgotten...sorry. In any event it is sure the same set of occurences is real for our musical experience; indeed all our perusual of art!!

As to the use or misuse of the master....I can only relate the tremendous good will generated decades ago by the artificial figure, P.D.Q. Bach...as initiated by "professor Schickerle?......something...who recalls?...Many people who had hated the Baroque and J.S. Bach were turned upside down by the comic relief, and went on to discover the wonder of J.S. Bach, and many others, as a result of this little harmless nonsense....!!

What an excellent addition you have made to this thread, begun, may I remind, by m1469, (who is surely disgusted with our takeover, even though it was meant to be non-hostile... )...Do forgive us if you might...we err on the side of interest in your etiolation of a difficult concept....!!!

Best Thoughts,  John Cont

[m1469]

What an excellent addition you have made to this thread, begun, may I remind, by m1469, (who is surely disgusted with our takeover, even though it was meant to be non-hostile... )...Do forgive us if you might...we err on the side of interest in your etiolation of a difficult concept....!!!

Best Thoughts,  John Cont

Well, I am a little overwhelmed actually by the responses... LOL.. but you wish that I should become less interested??  Anyway, I am working to keep up...

m1469

[TheHammer]

He, I agree C18Cont, m1469's threads are always the most philsophical, thought-provoking ones. Every time I click on one I make sure I am ready to change my mind on piano playing

And btw thank you for your compliments. I appreciate them and your posts in general (it's funny, I always try to figure out what you mean with some of these strange words like :"roynish", "abreaction", "etiolation"  etc. you have some cool vocabulary...are they acutally English words? But I think that would be more than off-topic )

And no, it's not Odin, but Clemens Brentano, a German romaticist, perhaps he is known for a work another personality made famous in the music business: it was Brentano who published a collection of folk songs in early 19th century: "Des Knaben Wunderhorn" ("The Young Boy's Magic Horn") which was then set to music by Gustav Mahler.

I thought a bit about "misusing the master". Of course you can do it, everything is permitted, but I would not see the one as an artist, but as a clown (now, what is an artist? However, there seems to be a codex of good taste or something like that, for me it's the condition that everything an interpreter does has to make sense in the context of the work, the composer, and me, of course), now, there is nothing wrong with a clown, and as you said, it can have some positive effects, but I wouldn't call it an interpretation (I will definetly make a research about this obscure P.D.Q.whatever Bach).

Thank you all for your time.

[dreamplaying]

Derar All, Dear m1469


Thanks a lot for your "Thoughts on interpretation and style".  A couple of years ago I discussed about this same topic with another piano lover friend. There were two position faced.

1. One just has to play music according to one’s feelings, try to express and to say with the music coming out from your hands, from the keyboard and from your soul what you (the pianist) feel when playing someone’s music. Music is an expressive art. 

2. There are two things to consider when one has to play something. First, there is a piece inside the partition that you will transform into music, but this music has the composer’s signature, I mean his essence, his spirit. Pianist has to respect that and to play the scores understanding what the composer wanted to say….but ….(the Second one) there is the principal actor when music is happening, the pianist’s spirit, and feelings. There is always a personal touch in every pianist performance that makes live music more interesting. 

I think that both perception can be naturally blended. When you play something, try to express the composer’s spirit even if he/she is a child. His/her music expresses what he/she is at that moment. However, express all that with your personal touch, just like an history teller. For me that is the art of interpretation, amalgamation between Composer’s and Performer’s feelings.

Kind regards

[c18cont]

No m1469, and Others,

indeed it may seem so..but you have given the subject a new life in this thread it is obvious...Also, I can hardly resist the unusual word..in answer to the Hammer...but I am aware I carry a perhaps good thing too far...

As to all that, I would agree with dreamplaying as well, but then we again must find that composer's signature...It is not so easy at times...and in addition we are a different age; a different society most of the time...We have to reach back for information that for our day may not only be hard to find, but hard to understand in true intent...

If however it is as the original questioning led, in relating to a STUDENT composition, we know that composer....then we MUST put them in the seat with us when we perform..  Add as it were, their very thoughts to reach the fingerstips, as much so as possible......

I am reminded of my best teacher from long ago, who was one of the last students of a famous teacher, who believed in knowing your composer above all else, to the point of spending many hours on research before attempting the first note; Maybe a little much there, but surely we need to do our research, as pointed out by a few in the forum...perhaps we owe the historical line that courtesy...

I leave it to others...I have said too much about a subject I have always had a wery strong interest in,... however if I may remark upon the clown...and Des Knaben Wunderhorn...

Of course, !, and now I recall...and how we have enjoyed the Mahler interpretation in music....However the source remains  similiar, I believe, or at least was from a common thought background..The Material I remember was sung and recited as poetry...Thanks for the great reminder...I have it and will listen again after some years..(How it strikes us all...the impossibility to hear all we want to hear, even in this new age of advanced electronics!!!)...

And lastly, perhaps we are all clowns in our own times...asserting something for the effect of fun and pleasure it may afford...in that light:

The P.D.Q. Bach may actually be distasteful to many; it sure isn't great art!!!..I found it fun as a young man, however, and had many laughs at the expense of the professor..The titles and instruments alone that he listed as and for, compositions will bring on stomach pains from laughing.......!!

Best,  John Cont

[JPRitchie]

Dear m1469, John Cont, Walter Ramsey, Kohai, Terry, TheHammer, Ted, pianonut, whynot, and browsers,

I've found MIDI files to be very useful in interpreting music. The objective part is creating MIDI files according to a certain set of fixed rules that are nearly, but not exactly, invariant from one piece to the next or, at least, through-out a single piece. Only minimal dynamics, tempo variations etc. are present in this unadorned version. This unadorned piece can be played while reading along with the score. Using the score as a guide, velocities, tempi, and other effects are adjusted, asking the questions described in my previous post in this thread. The result is a unique interpretation of a piece. I listen for and then accentuate the effect that is in the notes themselves. It's unique, because no one else will have exactly the same set of rules, instrument samples, and tastes as the listner. With study, it can also be a faithful translation of the original composition because the marks/notes in the score are being converted according to a set of rules into sounds. (Hence also an emphasis on obtaining authentic scores.)

Some of the possible variations that can be introduced into a MIDI performance might seem surprising. One example is the flexibility in setting the volume of individual notes within a chord. Typically, Cmaj, say, has three notes of equal volume setting; ie. all three 90 on a scale of 0-127. But, inspection of a MIDI recording of a manual performance will show that rarely happens. Likewise, differing relative volumes of left-hand tones lends a  differing color to a dominant right-hand tone. Several times, I've been astounded to hear something completely different from previous recordings. This is due, at least in part, to the different limitations of electonic versus manual performance. The music I've worked with so far was composed for manual performance and, without a huge effort, the electronic performance probably isn't the reading the composer would have given it - it's a new interpretation. It can also indicate new possiblities for manual performance, as well as to remind one of the variety of interpretations that are possible.
Regards,
Jim Ritchie
P.S. The MIDI files from my CD (https://www.cdbaby.com/ritchie ), which were prepared from facsimiles of the original manuscripts, can be converted to an unadorned state using a sequencer. This might then serve as an aid for your own interpretation.
P.P.S. If raw sexual stimulation is someone's dominant impetus in interpreting music, the last movement of Berlioz's "Symphony Fantastique" should provide some provocative material.
jpr

[c18cont]

If I may comment on electronic and computer composition,

It is surely out of the scope of the original intent of this thread but it is also true,That:

Indeed much can be done, but it is not in general acceptable to the purist, or even the average artist. It is viewed, rightly or not, as an outsider in serious music circles....You must be the judge for the future...

The battle still rages as to what constitutes music..The lines are drawn, and the fight will be a long and bloody one...., as we can surely write a score for crashing two cymbals together, whilst dropping plates and  forks on a concrete surface, and then we must ask the famous question, "But Is It Music...?"...We can produce a perfect score for all elecronically produced sounds by automatic means...Where and who is the composer of "automatic" music?

I personally find more satisfaction in speaking in terms of "sound" and "music"...I have had my time with fairly advanced techniques in computer/workstation composition, some of it published, and well might anyone...as you are able to "Stop Time in It's Tracks"..and make each and every note fit requirements, even to the small nuances that may determine  "true" musical sound...and this ability improves every day...as new equipment is concieved and produced.

The choice of calling it music in the sense we dream of music,...is a personal one..For me, I have found it necessary to return to the composition and playing techniques of my youth...for there and only there is the true measure of the tradition of music still inviolate...and in presentation, I must be capable of DOING it in real time...if it is to satisfy my belief in music.

That however, is NOT to say "engineered" music is not acceptable , it is rather that I began as a performer, as a child, and I intend to go out that way...Other's in an increasing stream, are accepting the technology and making the future much different than we can even think...

John Cont

[pizno]

I have been working with a Henle edition of Bach French Suites, which of course has no phrasings or dynamic markings in it.  Last night while at an old high school friend's house, I came across his old copy that he worked on in the early 70s.  He worked with a very renowned teacher, who insisted on this particular edition.  I can't remember exactly what it was - but it was an Italian version that had every single dynamic marking and phrasing, as well as some fingerings written in.  Of course, this was 30 years ago, but isn't this rather out of vogue now?  On the other hand, I'm wondering why exactly many teachers insist on editions that leave everything to our own interpretation.  The result, for me, is that I have changed my interpretation about 20 times, or more, depending on my mood.  I suppose I have learned more, by laboriously trying to come up with 'my way' of playing it, and  trying to learn something about Bach's intention.  But more often, it has meant that my teacher decides how it will be played.   

I was fascinated by this edition - I have to say my life would have been easier if I had it from the beginning.  But because of my training, I feel like I am cheating to read Bach like this. It was sort of like finding the answer sheet.  So, I am just adding this to this thread because it is a fascinating subject. 

[Bulgarian]

I have been working with a Henle edition of Bach French Suites, which of course has no phrasings or dynamic markings in it.  Last night while at an old high school friend's house, I came across his old copy that he worked on in the early 70s.  He worked with a very renowned teacher, who insisted on this particular edition.  I can't remember exactly what it was - but it was an Italian version that had every single dynamic marking and phrasing, as well as some fingerings written in.  Of course, this was 30 years ago, but isn't this rather out of vogue now?  On the other hand, I'm wondering why exactly many teachers insist on editions that leave everything to our own interpretation.  The result, for me, is that I have changed my interpretation about 20 times, or more, depending on my mood.  I suppose I have learned more, by laboriously trying to come up with 'my way' of playing it, and  trying to learn something about Bach's intention.  But more often, it has meant that my teacher decides how it will be played.   

I was fascinated by this edition - I have to say my life would have been easier if I had it from the beginning.  But because of my training, I feel like I am cheating to read Bach like this. It was sort of like finding the answer sheet.  So, I am just adding this to this thread because it is a fascinating subject. 

Just I short comment. I am almost positive that the edition you have seen was the one done by Bruno Mugellini. I remember my old teacher was also crazy about that. Don't feel bad you haven't played from this edition. So many things are very old fashioned and subjective.

[c18cont]

I agree,

Old editions, inc. the Mugellini, which I also have never played, and know only by name, seem out of vogue, but whether you have really missed anything is surely personal and subjective, based on your past experiences and accepted practice...Worth some time but maybe not a great loss if never encountered..

John Cont

[JPRitchie]

In response to John Cont's comments about electronic music, I'd like to reply that computers can be used to expand possibilities of music interpretation - even in the most serious, formal sense. Let me give two illustrations, one of finding the composer's original intent, the other of finding something new in a standard.

The first illustration is Joplin's "Fig Leaf Rag". It's marked 100 qps. But, aside from my own recordings, I've never heard it played that fast. Joplin was quite concerned about tempo: many of his rags carry the comment "Not Fast" and "It is never right to play ragtime fast."  Fortunately, Joplin gave the quantitative indication in several of his latter rags and associated it with the marking "Slow March Tempo" frequently used in earlier works. Rifkin's performance is about 65 qps ( 4:42 vs. 3:02 playtime). "Fig Leaf" is a very different piece near the correct tempo. Also, 8 measures into the B section, there is a prominent descent to a parallel sequence
of dyads beginning on G. The sound of it at the correct tempo is much more radical at the correct tempo. But, in either case, most ragtime was written strictly for solo piano.

The second case in point is a classical guitar rendition of "Fur Elise". I created this because many of the left hand (piano) sequences in the opening section and repeats could be programmed as a slow strum, while sustaining the tone. Similarly, in the remaining two unique sections, the left hand part can be played as a fast strum. But, I did have to slow the tempo for these two sections, because otherwise the right-hand parts are too fast and don't sound very musical. The characteristics of the piano and guitar differ enough that this piece has to be somewhat adapted in translation, but the result is something novel.

I respect the abilities and interpretations of those who can play the piano or guitar far better than I can. Nonethess, the computer allows new interpretations, even for familiar works.

Regards,
Jim Ritchie
P.S. Regarding the HENLE editions, I'm familiar with one by Lange for Mozart's "Klaviersonaten". It has special significance as Urtext. Is the Bach edition Urtext also ?
jpr

[pizno]

You are right it is the Mugallini (I knew someone here would know right away).  I spent some time last evening going through it, comparing the dynamic markings to my own.  In many places I disagree with them, yet there are many places that I have not been absolutely positive what to do so I do whatever comes to me at the moment, or change them one week to the next.   Reading through this edition has made me much more positive about what I want to do.  I can't wait to ask my teacher, who I am sure will turn up his nose at this.  I'm also glad I didn't see it earlier.  But some of it has been quite helpful.  It is also interesting to see the notes of my friend's teacher, who I wish I had had at the time, and who people still travel from all over the world to study with.  I wonder if he would still have the same comments he had then?

[m1469]

After becoming completely swept away by the quantity and quality of the replies here, I have been forming some new (for me) thoughts about all of this.

There are a few main aspects I have been thinking about, but first let me say that, there are too many things dancing around in my head, which people have posted about, for me to be able to give everyone the recognition they deserve.  I just have to get some of these thoughts out...

1.  I suppose there to be a difference between the "spirit" or "essence" of a piece and the "letter".  (Yes, I am borrowing that expression from the Biblical connotations... please forgive if it offends, but I don't know how else to explain my thoughts)  I suppose it is so with music in general....

A couple of aspects which strike me along these lines are as follows:

a) I think it is acceptable by most that "the letter" of a piece (what a composer puts down in ink on paper) does not change over time (unless the composer changes it), more or less.  What the composer decided on as "the letter" can become somewhat set in stone.  I suppose within this alone, there are many aspects and facets worth being addressed.

b)  The "spirit" or "essence" could conceivably change, however, over time.  Where is that contained exactly?  Maybe within each of us.  Perhaps the essence of a work or of music or of art, is indeed meant to change, evolve and grow, or perhaps more accurately... teach us how to do these things.  I suppose this to be an endless process (if it could be labled as such).

Perhaps people spend more time arguing over the letter of a word and forgetting about or not recognizing the essence?  Or perhaps it is the essence which is argued over, or maybe it is both.  Whatever the case, there seems to be not much resolution with this yet...

2.  About the source of it (art, music, etc) ... I have decided that it makes sense to me that it all comes from the same place (more or less).  and with that...

3.  About interpretation : I suppose the composer is already interpreting "the essence", and as a result, along comes the letter.  It may be something mathematical, emotional, sexual, spiritual, nature-oirented (if there is a difference between all of these) or whatever else.  Whatever the case, I suppose the letter should only serve the essence/spirit and should never aim to encapsulate it (it is impossible, it would seem).

What is striking me at the moment is this here (as an example):

Ingredients of a Well-Played Two Part Invention
https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4736.msg44774.html#msg44774
(how to play inventions – Escher picture – Example: Invention 4 – Analogy with the game of chess)

It dawns on me that, there is an essence about this piece of work (the Escher drawing) which is similar to that of a Bach's invention.  Perhaps this is exactly what Bernhard is meaning by his words here:  "A two voice invention is the sound equivalent of this visual ambiguity."  (I do not mean to twist your words around nor put words into your mouth).

I would think, both Escher and JS Bach caught the wind of a similar essence and they were moved to interpret this through articulatin within their respective "chosen" "letter".  I suppose the list of possible interpretations of this very essence can go on and on... mathematical relationships, chess, poetry, etc.  I would decide that the composer or artist or poet etc. are moved by the same "spirit" or essence, which cannot be articulated or "passed along" from one person to another but through some medium of art (which could be as simple as looking into somebody's eyes or a heart-felt smile).

I would suppose the bird's flight to be a form of artistic interpretation of a deeply embedded essence of life, which could be whispered to the onlooker, which "could be articulated" through the onlooker's medium of choice.  What is that essence?  Perhaps better questions for my mind, regarding life and music are "what is the essence of..." vs "what is life/music".

Perhaps I am only stating what is the obvious to many of you whom are more advanced than I, but I want to sort these thoughts out and make them "my own".  Through reading this thread, I glimpsed a view about art in general which moved my thought into new and exciting channels and directions.  One of the most important things I realized is that art is not static.  It does not stay nor even rest (perhaps) within the paper and ink... it is moving and breathing right along with us.  It is formless and glowing and beautiful and is capable of bending the beholder's thought toward it's meaning (whatever that may be). 

I suppose my goal as the performer is to first capture the essence of a piece and then work to articulate it.

Okay, I am out of words for now... thank you so much everyone for all of your replies


m1469

[whynot]

Ms. m1469, what you've said is profound and true.  It reminds me of a little performing sideline I see once in a while, that of orators reciting poetry to unrelated music.  I mean, music that was composed without an initial relationship to the text, and vice versa.  I'm not always convinced by these pairings, but there have been some that I thought had real affinity for one another, where the same story got told at roughly the same pace, and also with much deeper similarities that I'm not enough of a poet to express.  Anyway, so I have seen the same thread running through two completely different works of art, sometimes created in different centuries on different continents, but somehow the same expression.  Well, I'm not putting it terribly well, but you see what I mean, which is to say, I see what YOU mean.   

[m1469]

Ms. m1469, what you've said is profound and true.  It reminds me of a little performing sideline I see once in a while, that of orators reciting poetry to unrelated music.  I mean, music that was composed without an initial relationship to the text, and vice versa.  I'm not always convinced by these pairings, but there have been some that I thought had real affinity for one another, where the same story got told at roughly the same pace, and also with much deeper similarities that I'm not enough of a poet to express.  Anyway, so I have seen the same thread running through two completely different works of art, sometimes created in different centuries on different continents, but somehow the same expression.  Well, I'm not putting it terribly well, but you see what I mean, which is to say, I see what YOU mean.   

I have been meaning to respond whynot, that YES, what you are saying does make sense and that it slid a piece of the puzzle together for me.  Thanks

m1469