I have often hear the suggestion that you should play what the composer intended. While I have asked myself many times about the composer's intention when analyzing a piece, I find it debatable, or even objectionable the connotation that it is the "golden rule" for what shall be played.

To me, the score and the composer's intention is only a guideline to my own interpretation and musical experience. It is an important question to ask, but it's only a means to and end, not the end goal itself. This is of course only my personal opinion, what's your take on it?

PS: I'm cross posting this from the pianist forum as I would love to hear what the piano teachers have to say

It depends what you are changing, and in what performance context. There is now the notion of moral rights attached to intellectual property, to do with attribution and not misrepresenting the work of someone else....

The music I compose for students is designed to be malleable in certain ways (and I encourage students to use my pieces as catalysts for exploration and further composition, as well as exploring performance options in their practice), but if you perform it as written you will have a sensational performance piece.

If someone were to perform one of my pieces with the notes changed, and they didn't announce that they had changed the notes, I would be peeved. I like the notes the way they are, and when the notes are changed it changes the meaning of the music quite substantially. I've had editors 'correct' notes they believe are wrong, and I think they've been surprised that I noticed when the proofs came back, but I honestly mean for the exactly pitches I've written to be played in 99.99% of circumstances (the reason one note is notated and not another is that I've considered all the options and this is the right one, and sometimes I've mulled on a single note for some considerable time, making sure it is the exact expression of what I want to say).

On the other hand, a student of mine the other day played me a piece I've written where the RH plays an accompanying chord on the 2nd and 4th beats of the bar in the opening section, but this student had mistaken the rhythm and she played this accompanying chord on the 2nd and then the 6th quaver pulse in each bar: it sounded fantastic!! This was because she played it consistently throughout, and it didn't alter the function of that RH chord, it just upped the energy level a bit, and that was a positive change. If she'd played it for an exam, however, she would have been marked down, so even if I approved she wouldn't be judged well.

Elissa, very interesting to hear your perspective as a teacher as well as a composer.

For an exam, I agree with sticking very closely to the score (if you want to pass that is).



The moral rights is a very debatable subject, probably a bit less debatable in classical music as most composers were long dead. It's still debatable nonetheless, as you can see in the pianist forum.

I do think that the situation is a little bit different when the composer is still alive and active, because of things like reputation, intellectual property of the composer. Say if I'm playing your piece, and I want to play a few notes differently in a performance, how would you like me to go about it? Will it be sufficient to you if I just announced the change before hand (maybe on the programme)?

Personally, I would find it too limiting to play only music after 1820 that was specifically written for modern piano, so I have to say that the whole concept is bogus, and very much a result of modern mindset, and definitely not the intent of most of the composers whose music we like. Beethoven, Mozart, etc., aside from the fact that they didn't write for the piano we play, they also didn't write every note, and fully recognized that their music would be improvised on, did it themselves, and furthermore, did it to other composer's music.

The authority of the composer is much dependent on the genre of music. When we are talking about classical or art/concert music following the score note for note is crucial. If we were to consider contemporary genres and bands such as AC/DC and Metallica or even genres of Jazz were improvisation is a fundamental component to the music, the performer has a bit more 'freedom' or 'allowance' to arrange and change the notes.

There are certain interpretive parameters to what the composer intends and what the performer wishes to inject into the music. Ultimately you make an informed decision based on certain facts and generalizations you make as a performer.

Take the classical period as an example, a fundamental instrument at the time was the clavicord, it was different to the harpsichord as the string was strum rather than struck, as a result the dynamics were quite 'black and white', we only had dynamics in forte and piano. Thus the performer should bear this in mind. In saying all of this, you wouldn't know how many decibels forte was or piano, it also varied from piano to piano, along with this you would be playing on a piano not a clavicord but you should be aware of the nature of the instrument. With saying this, ornaments were sometimes marked in classical music but it was up to the performer whether to play them or not or how to play them.

As a performer you should be sensitive to the intentions of the composer but as a performer, you are the one who is making the decisions. I still remember my harmony lecturer saying something along the lines of: You can read a book about how to play in a particular style and get a lot of rubbish, you can also read articles on the internet or you might find journals, but in the end YOU are the one who is making the decisions, these are just aids to your discoveries but these books, articles and journals are not the answers.

I hope this helped.

Very true. I cannot agree more.

Regarding following the score note for note, it has becomes quite a bit of a discussion over the pianist forum, so I'd invite you over to check it out.

Does part of this involve understanding something about music so that it is an informed choice? For example, knowing the nature and mentality of the Baroque times, intentions that a given composer tended to have, the nature of a genres such as a waltz or march, swing, jazz, blues or whatever? My thinking is that you would have an insight into the music while interpreting it, and not be at the opposing ends of either slavishly following the score verbatim or simply going hog wild playing however. Perhaps you would turn it into something else, but at least you would know that you are doing so. This is meant half as a question.

Don't change my notes. Write your own piece if you want to use your own notes. I tend to preach a gospel of the score not being sacred, the composer not being god, and the importance of the performer to take creative responsibility for the meanings being conveyed in a performance. But I'm aware that you are cool with changing notes in well-known Debussy pieces, and this leads me to think I wouldn't trust your judgement (that is, I think you would change my notes for the worse)!!! I honestly have given a great deal of thought to every note, and while unanticipated errors (or just stupid errors, for that matter) are unavoidable, they shouldn't be encouraged.

Here's the thing from a performer's perspective: often when I am first learning a piece I think to myself, what a crazy note this composer has chosen, and I rant internally as I am learning this ridiculous note.... And then after I have a better idea of how the whole piece works I realise that the crazy note is actually wonderful, and all my ranting was simply a sign that I had not yet realised the conception of the whole work.....

I believe you are referring to my reply on another thread. I simply encouraged the OP to take the thought and time to experiment, and make up his own decision. I do not play that particular piece myself, so I don't know what I'd do if I were him.

On the other hand, I am asking the question as something general, not about me performing your piece. But it sounds like what you are saying is "it depends on who is asking you", which is fair.



Just as you have honestly given a great deal of thought to every note, don't you also conceive the possibility that the performer could have given just as much thought when changing a note? I find that a bit pretentious to simply assume that the performer is changing things out of ignorance or laziness (not to say that it doesn't happen).

Btw, if I were to play your pieces, chances are I won't change anything. Out of the 20 years I've been playing I can count with my ten fingers where I intentionally deviate from the score, and they are all minor changes. But every change I made I have also given a great deal of thought and time on it.



I have such realization myself at times too and it is always a joy to reach such realization.

If you listen carefully to the ending chords of Claudio Arrau's version of Debussy's Toccata, you will do a double take when you hear the fourth of the slow ending cadences. He has inserted his own chord and replaced Debussy's. An error, perhaps? Or is it an improvisation? Got me.

I would adhere to the respect that I have for classical composers and their editions. I would like to preserve what we know about them and the history of music as it has evolved to the present day.

Perhaps it my age and long term experience in piano teaching that places me here.

I think my key words are "maturity" of the pianist and "respect" for the composer and all of music history.

Do your own thing to your heart's desire, but please make it new and wonderful and about you, not about recreating the masters of composition because they are representative of a different world in every way. That is worth saving to it's true integrity.

It takes skill, discipline, and a huge amount of respect to play what the composer intended, in my opinion. Integrity is not what it used to be.

Betty Patnude

Teachers have the responsibility of selecting editions of classical music for students. We must be respectful and teach the music accordingly. We can't expect students to understand ornaments and such if we do not explain these things in detail.
Too much rubato, changing notes, etc. etc. all of these issues must be handled by the teacher, tirelessly, we must do this and set the example of respecting the composer and his compositions.

Your perspective has its rightful place, it is respectable and reasonable, but obviously there are going to be millions of different perspectives out there.



Sorry I actually don't quite understand this statement. Could you elaborate more?

I do agree that respect and integrity is what it boils down to, whether one is following the composer's intention or deviating from it.

One of the biggest problems is simply:

How well does the score reflect a composer's intentions?

It doesn't reflect Bach's well at all. (No dynamics, ornamentation not written-out, no articulation, etc...)

To some extent, the same is true with everything up until Beethoven, who was among the first to be very careful in his notation.

Plus, composers changed their minds. Beethoven and Mozart constantly revised things. Chopin's changes are famous, and I can think of at least one extreme case in Scriabin.

Not to mention the fact that the Liszt sonata originally ended loudly, and that there are multiple versions of his etudes.

This is a very valid point, and many times in the discussion, the issues of following the score and following the composer's intention get mixed up together.

One could potentially follow the score but still deviate from what the composer might intended, and it is just as possible to deviate from the score while still following the composer's intention.

And then there is the question, even if we can fully know what the composer intended, must one follow it? From the response here, the teacher's position here seems to be a resounding "Yes". Is there an absolute right answer to this question? I doubt it.

From the point of view of a teacher there is also the issue of whether accuracy is the aim in a performance or authenticity, and most teachers would agree that an accurate performance can be completely lacking in authenticity and that there is no great value in performing 'accurately'. What music demands is an investment by the performer in the experience, and accuracy (in a classical context) is only one aspect of this investment.

Authenticity demands an understanding of the work on a number of levels (emotional, structural, historical, just for starters) but it also demands that the performer create a story with their performance, that the performer create drama or paint a picture or evoke a feeling or even stop time. The performer needs to be 'performing' convincingly as well as communicating this deep involvement with the work. Accuracy is often the least of a pianist's worries when striving for authenticity.

Note that in other musical forms accuracy is not measured in the same way as it is in the classical tradition: in jazz if you were to improvise outside the harmonic possibilities of the ensemble performance you would be 'inaccurate' but of course there are multiple options you could have chosen that would have been within the 'accurate' category.

AND a book recommendation (I suspect you haven't read it) William Westney's "The Perfect Wrong Note". It explores all the issues you are concerned with regarding an unhealthy obsession with accuracy/perfection, and it is a wonderful read and inspirational reference.

And then there's this:

Let's say you want to play a piece, but your technique isn't to a point where you can reliably handle one or two passages. Would the composer rather you:

1) Play the passage as written, but badly
2) Modify/simplify the passage so you can play it well
3) Not play their music at all

Answer:
#3
take lessons and progress to the point where you can play the music. Is this not a no-brainer?

If it were a no brainer and #3 was the obvious answer, then nobody would play the 2nd Brahms concerto (because of the double octave passage in the Scherzo) or the 3rd Prokofiev concerto (because of the horribly awkward glissando 2nds in the finale.)

Schnabel would never have played the Waldstein sonata (because he had to arrange the glissando octaves at the end as scales.)

Also, pianists with small hands would not be allowed to play most Rachmaninoff, Brahms, and Debussy because arpeggiated chords they couldn't reach would not be allowed.

This would also mean that Beethoven would rather you not play Fur Elise if you can't handle the middle section.

Or what about movements? If you can't handle the finale of Clementi Op. 36#1, does that mean a student shouldn't perform the first movement? The movements do belong together, after all! Or Bach preludes and fugues - he obviously paired them together, so do we have to wait until we can handle the fugues to play the preludes? Almost nobody would play the first prelude if that were true.

This also means a lot of pianists would have to say no to accompanying baroque music, most of which is written with figured bass. If you can't realize figured bass (like Bach/Telemann/Handel/Corelli intended), then you shouldn't accompany baroque music!

With other accompaniment projects, I can see making an exception for orchestral reductions, but what about everything else? And what happens if a singer wants to sing a Schubert song faster than you can play it? Do you change some things so you can take it at his tempo, or do you simply say "I'm sorry, I cannot accompany you since I cannot play everything exactly as written and the composer would rather I not change anything. Please find a different pianist for that song."

So no, I don't think it's a no-brainer. Not by a long shot.

O.K. you are right. Perhaps I came on too strong with the "no brainer" comment and I apologize if it came across as rude or snippy, this was not my intention and I meant no disrespect.

My thinking in responding to your question was that if we answer l. play it badly or 2. modify the piece, we will end up lowering our standards which I believe contribute to not playing what the composer intended.
We've all heard bad arrangements of classical pieces.

I think most composers would prefer that their music is played well. It will depend on the personality of the composer as to the degree to which changes to the score affect the composer's definition of 'playing well'.

I totally agree that accuracy is the least a pianist would concern about, and I asked the question actually didn't have accuracy in mind (but it does become an issue intertwined in the discussion).

I am actually more concerned about what you call "authenticity" here, in "which "my story" could be a bit different than the "composer's story"



I'm glad you bring up the word "tradition". As the conversation progresses, I realize my question is actually more about tradition than musicality. Federich Gulda is a good example of playing classical music outside the classical context, let's look at this rendition of Bach:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVaRtib1Ewo

At the very end of the fugue he added a somewhat Jazzy bit (probably improvised). It's something that's currently discouraged in the classical tradition, but I'd say most ppl would agree that it still sounds musical. So the question is if there is any value in bringing in something like an improvisory element to the current classical tradition? (I know this is getting OT, but it is related). As teachers you have as much responsibility in preserving the tradition as much as pushing it forward, so would you agree that it is a question that is at least worth contemplating?

I'd also like to add that the answer to this question is not so much cut and dry, some composers might actually prefer his piece being more accessible, so I'd say it is possible that a composer might actually prefer 2), as long as you are keeping the meaning of the music behind it.

And weren't there instances that a composer revised his work later on to make it a bit easier? (I could be wrong here)

Barb860's answer is a reasonable one for a teacher though, as teachers have the responsibility of pushing the student to advance technically.

A very good point!

If a composer's definition of "playing well" meant "getting all the notes right with the articulations and tempo I specified," then yes, we should by all means get the notes right with the notated articulations and tempo. (And some composers do want this!)

But I think it's equally likely that a composer's definition of "playing well" could mean "your own beautiful interpretation of this sketch I've provided."

Those are two extremes, but I think many composers lean towards one or the other. Beethoven and Ravel seem to lean towards the first, being somewhat meticulous in their notation. Haydn and some Liszt lean towards the second (as evidenced by Haydn's rather haphazard notation of certain details and the fact that Liszt's works come in different versions and that his paraphrases were constructed to suit his particular technique. I would take him at his notational word in the sonata, however.)

Also important is the fact that some pieces are improvisatory in nature (Liszt's paraphrases, as I mentioned, and Chopin's nocturnes and dances.) Anything that's improvisatory or used as a showpiece should be changed to suit the performer's individual tastes and abilities (even if it means making things more difficult, as in Godowsky's Chopin studies.) But I do tend to agree that we should remain faithful to pieces that were written as very personal statements (Beethoven's late sonatas or Chopin's Ballades, for example.)