Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Interpretation

Even if it was Chopin, I wouldn't do it simply because he said so. If he demonstrate HOW the f might work- and I liked it, I'd happily do it. If he simply said to do it and not to ask questions- regardless of whether it sounded good or not, I'd sooner ignore it. It wouldn't be about the forte itself, but how I felt it fitted within an overall context. Sadly, we may not succeed in getting that context, from the instructions of a score. Isn't it better to do something that you feel works- rather than follow something that feels totally wrong? Chopin might have preferred the alteration, to an unconvicing execution of what he wrote.

I've always ignored his forte when the music reaches A flat major in op. 25 no. 12. It simply makes more sense to relax the mood there. I doubt it even Chopin could have convinced me otherwise.

Well, since you appear to know more about what Chopin's music should sound like than Chopin(and I'm not talking about changing something once in a blue moon...that's not what this thread is about), I guess you must be right.

No. But that how I like it to sound. And I feel no shame whatsoever in saying that.

Some people feel "no shame whatsoever" over anything whatsoever; characteristics like massive ego, arrogance and entitlement are symptomatic of numerous pathological behaviors and disorders. Just sayin.

Steven

Some more examples of deviations from score that have became standard:
Chopin Etude Op.10 No.1: only dynamic marking is forte, but everyone plays it with dynamic varying from p to ff, and a performance would be criticized if it did not vary in dynamics.
Chopin Etude Op.10 No.12: no pedal marking in the Urtext; some pianists still insist that no pedal should be used at all, but different editions have put in different pedal markings.
Rach concerto No.2 first movement: the opening chords are marked as solid chords, but many pianists play them as broken chords. I read that even Rachmaninoff himself played them both solid and broken at different times. I don't know why Rach did not mark in the score that those chords could be played both solid and broken.

There are many other examples where modern pianists and audiences feel that the original score does not convey the music well enough. I would not say that society has become more arrogant or egoistic; rather, the society's taste of music is constantly changing.

Indeed. And some people follow orders without stopping to ask questions or demonstrate anything that suggests they have a trace of personality or individual will.

An overbearing desire to demonstrate that one has personality and individual will are more symptoms of a disordered personality. Some people are legends in their own minds—so special that rules and orders just don't apply to them. That's for the little people, the unwashed masses, the self-styled purists, the pedants.

Steven

I'm going to take the bait and go down the rabbit trail of personal philosophy a bit. In my view, there are two types of people in the world: rule-followers and rule-breakers. Art is a complex mixture of both following and breaking rules. Too much rule breaking and you just have a child banging at the keyboard or smearing a paintbrush across a canvas. Too much rule following and you might as well listen to a MIDI or take a photograph.

Clayton -

Much too black and white IMO. I think the huge majority are in between. I certainly don't think it's true that if one follows every marking in a score(wheter this is good or bad), there is no additional liberty in interpretation.

Yes, the golden mean is always the best....

If (1) there were only two types of people—rule-breakers and rule-followers, and (2) art were "a complex mixture of both following and breaking rules," then there would be no artists; no one would be qualified.

Steven

And how about those who sincerely believe that they are in a position to best represent the composer's intentions and who frown upon others for doing the composer a disservice- after all they know the composer's 'correct' style as well as anyone? When you compare that to somebody who simply wishes to play a piece as they feel like doing it, I think it's the performer who sincerely believes that he can channel a composer's spirit who is guilty of both delusion and arrogance. I can scarcely think of anything more arrogant than a performer who behaves this way. It's about as 'humble' as claiming to be a prophet who speaks on behalf on god.

?

Don't tell me you don't know what Q.E.D. means.

Especially when you take into account the fact that we don't even play the same instruments that most composers wrote for. Today's modern grand piano is a far cry from Chopin's Pleyel or Beethoven's piano. We don't even use the same temperament that Bach did. Someone posted a thread a while back about a music student who has recreated as closely as possible the actual tunings used by Bach and tuned a harpsichord according to that temperament. If you want to get all "historical", now that is historical. To me, historical re-enactment of music is its own genre which few people have the resources, knowledge or dedication to attempt. Performance is not about recreating the composer's "intent", whatever that means. I think of the composer more like a scientist of music who has discovered a beautiful theorem and written it down for all to enjoy. A good scientific theorem is never proven to be "false" (e.g. Newton's laws are not false, just not the most accurate description we have of the physical world), but it is never the last word either. It is always open to be further enhanced by new and better insights. Music is like this - always open to be enhanced by new and better insights.

Clayton -

Hmmm. Because we don't have period instruments tuned to meantone, "new and better insight" is demonstrated by playing forte and Allegro where the composer specifically wrote Andante and pianissimo—if we think it sounds good.

Dang, now I've got to remember to add insightful to that list of adjectives to describe the fashion-forward I did it MY way practice of musicianship that my dessicated, uncreative, stunted brain can't quite graps.

FWIW, I think that the average person would benefit a great deal from an understanding of intellectual property and its role in the creative process.

Steven

I understand intellectual property. However, it has legally expired on most of the great composers.

What annoys me is the double standards. How many period instrument player pay any heed to what Mozart decreed about rubato (where left and right are not continually synchronised). Ironically it's the same people who preach faith to Mozart who are usually the most damning when you take his specific description literally. Look at the comments Horowitz received (as one of few pianists who actually goes beyond the lifeless 'classical sound' to create a truly operatic sound). It wouldn't bother me if people were consistent about following what they preach on faith to the composer. When they go so squarely in the face of it so often, you have to question the premise for the accepted 'rules' in it's entirety. How many of them really stand up to any scrutiny? Those who do not ask questions may not only mind-numbingly boring- they may also be guilty of limiting themselves rules and restrictions that are entirely without foundation.

Isn't it rather ironic that those who are the strictest about faith to the composer can often be rationally demonstrated to be as distant from a 'correct' style as anyone? And that those who employ 'romantic' rubatos in classical period music are doing exactly what Mozart described? When you realise how misguided most of the modern preconceptions are, you have to ask questions. Half of the rules are little more than the result of a long, drawn-out game of Chinese whispers.

That's not quite accurate. There are, in the Urtext, indications of diminuendo (measures 36, 48, and 76) and cresc. (measures 33, 42, and 69).

Regards,

Exactly!

Clayton -