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

I think a big factor here is whether the changes to the composer's intent are coming from a place of knowledge or of ignorance. When Glen Gould plays the b minor fugue (WTC I.24) as an allegro, even though it's marked "Largo" in my urtext, I may not agree with his decision, but I respect that he's made it after a thorough knowledge of Bach's intentions.

Similarly, I once heard Baremboim perform Brahms's first concerto, in which, to my shock, he actually added notes to the very end of the last movement-- a sequence of chords not in the score. But Baremboim has spent a lifetime studying Brahms, and I think he's in a position to make such a decision.

I think this is very different from a student changing a composer's intent just because he likes it more that way.


"Study the masters first-- then comes the revolution."
-A. Schoenberg*

(* Actually, he didn't say this. But he could have!)


-Jason

[quote=NyiregyhaziUndeniably? That's really a very strong word. [/quote]

WEll, how about 99% chance it was corret?

Well, how about 99% chance it was correct?

It really doesn't matter whether the teachers were undeniably, 99% or 50% correct in terms of the point I was making, namely that just because someone likes another person'()or their own) performance, this doesn't mean there's nothing wrong the performance or liking it is the only thing that matters.

Probabilities don't mean anything here though. Who determines the odds and on what basis? In any case all that matters is the fact that when something is portrayed as an absolute on false ground, people are restricted on unnecessary grounds. Teachers ought to encourage wider boundaries for creativity- not close doors by claiming that things are undeniable absolutes, when they are not. When something as portrayed as undeniable (yet it very much IS deniable) teachers could often be 'banning' something that is not only extremely interesting, but also perfectly valid. That's why anyone who is concerned with more than following 3rd hand orders needs to do their own research and thinking. Sometimes the consensus about the only 'correct' approach is actually very much wrong. I find this especially objectionable when it's claimed to be in the name of the composer, where it solely represents a view of the teacher.

"Undeniable" things are pretty few and far between, when you look at advanced masterclasses. Sadly, all too many try to make things look indisputable by claiming to talk about everything as though they can speak for the composer's will. However, the majority of it is their own belief about what the score means.

The teachers never said anything was undeniable and I changed that word in my description. All this has nothing to do with my point.

You're not saying that because some random person "likes" some performance, that should be the only criterion are you? That's the only point I was making.

The point I was making was that you were referring to absolutes, on slightly dubious grounds. I'm not saying that just because someone likes something it is good, no. However, you equally have to question whether a consensus among intellectuals means that something is good (and, above all, whether alternatives are therefore 'wrong'). As I illuistrated with the example on Mozart, even when you have a heavy consensus, there is often strong evidence to show that the consensus is based on highly dubious grounds. If you look at how few members of the public take an interest in most classical musicians, I think that is relevant too. Consider the following that certain performers used to have. Is that because their sounds reached out to the public? Maybe. These days a lot of pompous people like to talk about how 'deep' the playing of Brendel is. Can they explain in what way it is 'deep'? I've always seen it as being an example of the emperor's new clothes. The consensus of those who are supposedly knowledgable, is frequently based on people not wanting to be the one who risks coming across as too stupid to see what others claim to see. It's interesting to consider where the line ought to be drawn, but it has to be stressed that any premise that requires a person to see a score (before deciding whether a performance was good) or not, is flawed. You might as well claim that a painting is 'bad', if the artist takes the liberty of adding an extra tree, instead of doing a flawless reproduction of the landscape in front of him. Would the mona lisa become bad art, if we discovered that she actually had blond hair, but he chose to make it black? Is it impossible to appreciate, without a photograph of the scene he reproduced? In terms of what I look for myself,I think that outstanding performances are those that stand out upon how they sound- not upon whether they correspond accurately to instructions or not. Art is usually observed for what it is. Not by checking whether whoever brought it into being followed the instructions to the letter. I don't see why music should be an exception.

I already made it clear a few posts ago that I never meant to imply that classical music had to be performed to the letter of the composer's wishes.

When I discussed a PW memeber's performance in the recordings section, interestingly enough I said something to the effect that "I don't have the score in front of me, but the way you play such and such a passage doesn't make sense musically". I didn't need the score to realize this. The poster thought I meant that he wasn't following the composer's markings and that's when he said he had never bothered to look at them and played the piece the way he felt.

Okay, I see what you mean. Even there, I'd be careful about going to so far as to talk about "indisputible" flaws though. I think the kind of impressions you're talking about arguably fall even more under the notion of subjective tastes. Sometimes when something just doesn't work, there are different things that you can focus on. Change one element and suddenly another element that might have seemed poor, might seem wholly appropriate. However, change a completely different element (while keeping the other identical) and that may also lead to a perfectly good whole as well.

Which basically means that because you can't hear what others are hearing, they must be wrong. It's the same kind of bogus reasoning that is employed by those people who insist that anyone who says they like modern music is lying, assuming that it is simply not possible that anyone else like anything they themselves can't enjoy or understand.

And too, I've rarely heard any adequate explanations of why any interpretation by anyone of any music is "deep". That inability to explain it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Music is notoriously difficult to talk about, especially when trying to describe the effects it has on people.

No it means that because they cannot even begin to quantify what makes it "deep", I am extraordinarily skeptical as to what it is that supposedly carries such 'intellectual' weight. If someone just likes a performance that's fine. There's no implicit dishonesty there. It's when people hype something up as being intellectual or "true to the composer" etc. without being able to follow through (with anything that goes beyond mere issues of taste) that I ask questions. It stinks to me of people wanting to been seen to like a 'clever' musician, when they are not in a position to judge whethere there's actually anything clever or 'correct' about it. When I hear a pianist who sounds very middle of the road being described as a genius, I expect some kind of attempt to explain what I'm missing- if I'm to be persuaded that anything exists. At least pianists like Horowitz or Gould had an unmistakably distinctive sound. Like it or hate it, it is both audible and open to objective descriptions. However, I'm rather skeptical as to whether many Brendel fans could pick his performances out from a host of other competent pianists- either in terms of style or quality. Anyway, this is straying off the point somewhat. The major issue was that the fact that concepts of 'correctness' that are widely accepted by knowledgable people are often easily falsifiable according to historical evidence. Just because there's a wide consensus that something is 'wrong' doesn't mean that it actually is. That's the big problem in performances styles these days. Too many people trust what they have been told is right (and more importantly, what is supposedly unacceptable), without stopping to think for themselves.

First, you would have to find someone foolish enough to care to undertake that endeavor, which I am guessing would probably prove to be futile in the end, anyway.



Certainly in a live performance, I could. But that doesn't matter, since testing that premise isn't a possibility, and I suspect that it's unlikely you would take anyone's word on it.



People generally ally themselves with whatever trends of thought and fashion that fit their sensibilities. I don't think that thinking for themselves has much to do with it, other than the sort of everyday rationalizations we all use to explain ourselves to ourselves.

So, gentlemen, music is a performing art, I conclude???
with all what that implies, i.e. a mix of traditions, currents and countercurrents of approaches to interpretation with the usual sprinkle of ultra-"traditionalists" and "innovators".
Whether we can accurately estimate what Mozart really wanted or not is not as relevant as it might appear. Today's living composers have ample opportunity to record their exact wishes to posterity but they rarely go beyond some instructions on the score. And it is rather obvious to us, and probably to them, that their works will be "interpreted" differently three or four generations into the future. That is the Achille's heel of the performing arts in a sense. Even 'worse", an audience made out of "lay" people gets to have the final word. Their appreciation of a performance is however very much steeped in the moods and sensibilities of the day. Academic interpretation might differ from popular takes but it too carries the stamp of time and place.
Nothing new under the sun.

"First, you would have to find someone foolish enough to care to undertake that endeavor, which I am guessing would probably prove to be futile in the end, anyway."

"Certainly in a live performance, I could. But that doesn't matter, since testing that premise isn't a possibility, and I suspect that it's unlikely you would take anyone's word on it."

So you could "certainly" recognise his style of playing? But you could not even attempt to offer a few words of what distinguishes it from others- so as to permit you to do so? I'm afraid that's rather unlikely to convince me about what it is that I am supposedly missing. Personally, I remain convinced that his reputations has far more to do with his 'holier than thou' gimmick than anything else.

But the world of music is now dominated by those who do NOT have open minds- and who impose rules that are frequently unjustified historically, as if they stem from incontrovertible fact. That's the entire problem with today's culture- the fact that so many people not only think that they CAN conjure up what Mozart wanted, but that they seek to dismiss other ways as 'unstylistic' or 'romanticised' etc.

The only answer to today's limited thinking is to look to history. Not in order to impose rules, but so the most dubious 'rules' that restrict modern musicians can be brought into question and hopefully shown the door. Then musicians can start doing interesting things again, without being told that they are guilty of pissing in the composers face.

For some reason, I just can't seem to find the motivation to say anything.

Call me old fashioned, but I've never been terribly swayed by the 'no comment' line of argument.

Perhaps because no one is trying to sway you?

Whether you're trying or not, if I believe in something strongly, I usually prefer to support it with something. I find it rather remarkable that you're bold enough to publically claim that you could "certainly" pick out what distinguishes Brendel from other pianists, yet you're not bold enough to offer so much as a shred of detail as to how. At least most of his supporters are able to come up with something about his superior grasp of 'structure' (albeit using overwhelmingly subjective vagueness that rarely suggests anything remotely intellectual or accountable).

Funny, I didn't feel particularly bold saying that. I was just reporting what I think is the case. It seems rather pointless to offer any detail or try to back it up, since it's just based on my personal listening experience, which is not necessarily reducible to verbal description even if I had the inclination to try to do it.

So there's nothing remotely bold about claiming that you could distinguish Brendel's sound from other performers without offering any explanation as to how? That sounds like outright bravado to me.