Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Interpretative Freedom

It's also ridiculous how much misinformation flies around the internet too (not blaming you, but the source of this quote)! The pieces in question were Chopin's etudes, not his polonaises.

I also don't think taking liberties is very helpful when dealing with 20th century music. For example, Ravel and Prokofiev's writing demands precision, and taking liberties with the score usually undermines the music itself. I would say that liberties are something that can be taken when playing music which is born from improvisation (Chopin, Liszt, Mozart, early Scriabin, etc). Works born purely of craft IMO fare less well.

Anyways, a good example of a musical liberty being taken would be Horowitz starting off the Scriabin D# minor etude piano, as opposed to forte. Listening to the recording in isolation, it's puzzling. However, if you recognize that the sombre etude in C# minor precedes the D# minor, and Horowitz transitions between the pieces without applause, then his choice of dynamics at the start is logical. This shows a kind of care when developing a recital programme which seems to be something of the past as well...it seems now that people are all about displaying insane "tour de force" styled recitals.

If you've read my other posts here on a similar subject, you will note that I specifically excluded the likes of Ravel from any liberty-taking ('Performers ARE slaves' was his riposte to Paul Wittgenstein when the latter rewrote the D major Piano Concerto to suit his requirements). Most 20th century music are very specifically detailed as to speed, dynamics, nuances etc, leaving the performer little room to manoeuvre, except for aleatoric music by a few composers.

I attend many piano recitals -around ten a year,and often make a point of going to concerts by someone who's recently won a competition etc, whom I haven't heard before, as well as the few established names whose playing have real personality (those who haven't, I stop going.....). It's depressing to me how so many of them play almost by rote, as if they're still playing in front of the jury - no personality, no individuality, anodyne even. They all sound the same. Maybe that's the way they've been taught, not to rock the boat for fear of bad reviews. Or maybe they haven't lived a life away from piano music. Or maybe - they just don't have any individual ideas about music.

I couldn't disagree more, and I will go to around 10 recitals just during the last two weeks in July at the Mannes IKIF. But if you feel that way, why do you bother going to recitals?

I would also strongly disagree that the finalists in major competitions play by rote and without personality.

...in the hope (sometimes even expectation) of spotting a new talent, someone with something to say. (Sometimes because of the program they're playing). And it's happened on the odd occasion, when I will then add that particular pianist to my small list of 'not to be missed' musicians.

The acid test is, if you're listening with your eyes closed (so that their facial and body mannerisms don't influence your perception), can you hear any personality in the playing? Can you tell the difference between this pianist and another one? If not, why would you bother to go to listen to this pianist in concert again?

Seems like you are so negative about most pianists playing today that the small chance of enjoying a performance would hardly make it worthwhile.

On the contrary, I'm an eternal optimist . In recent years, I've added Yuja Wang to my special list, plus a few others to my 'back-up' list. And I have high hopes for Daniil Trifonov, who I'll be seeing for the first time in concert in December.

I have always regarded Piano World as the best place to ascertain a generalized idea of what the larger world of pianism was thinking. In view of that, this consensus of opinion is very surprising to me.

It seems like only three or four years ago, the consensus of opinion on Pianists Corner would have been the opposite of what I have read here. It would have been that too many pianists stray too far from the composer's intent. What I'm generally reading here is that the doctrine of composer's intent is too often hobbling the creativity of the performer.

I'm surprised, because I would have thought that such a significant change in attitude about performance practice would happen over a longer period of time, say several decades, or even a half century.

Has performance practice actually changed in the recent past, or are we just thinking that it should? Is this thread an indication of changed attitudes in the larger world of pianism?

Tomasino

Well...it's only a sample of a dozen or so individuals, so it'd be tough to draw any real conclusions. But even so, the rate of change increases with time at an accelerating pace (or so it would seem)...um, it's not reaching everyone (obviously), but I've certainly come across more of a desire to hear individuality of performances as time goes on.
Xxx

I don't think there has been consensus on this thread. But even if this was the case, I don't think it represents any generalized idea in the larger world of pianism.

I think PW has over 50,000 members but I'd guess that a very high percentage of posts are done by a small number of people, perhaps around 40. Anybody want to add up the total posts of the top 30 and divide it by the total number of posts from everyone?

What you are seeing is a Lang Lang effect. Only three or four years ago, there was a constant barrage of threads and posts about him and his style of playing (and his apparent effect on some competition pianists). Those have died down, and with them the protests to a certain theatricality in playing have also dwindled. That can give the impression that there's been a general shift of opinion, but I don't think such a shift has really happened, at least not that dramatically. On the other hand, a more subtle shift along those lines may be occurring (but that could just be wishful thinking on my part).

Also, I wouldn't take PW as being representative of anything other than itself.

Pianoloverus is correct. There is no consensus. I have just re-read the entire thread, and I overstated the case.

Still, I feel the thread may indicate a trend away from strict observance of composer's intent, as it veers away from endorsing composer's intent over performer's self-expression. Based on my reading of Pianist's Corner over the past years, I would have expected the opposite.

Of the seventeen individuals who have contributed to this thread, four, including myself, quite clearly veer away from endorsing strict observance, Kreisler going so far as to say:

“Today's attitudes towards interpretation are horribly stifling. I'm pretty sure Beethoven, Liszt, and company would find our blind devotion to strict urtext realizations of their works completely absurd.”

The remaining thirteen posters really take no clear position one way or another, but rather discuss it from a critical distance--depends on the era, the specific composer, and the like. This suggests they have some flexibility on the issue. Further, no poster trashes looser readings entirely, as I would have expected a few years ago. Eventhough there is no consensus, the numbers, the flexibility on the issue, and the lack of outrage, suggest to me that something has changed--at the very least, on Piano World.

The question remains, is this an indication of a larger trend? Several posters think not--the numbers are too small, Piano World represents only itself, and so on.

But where else would we find better information? Pianist’s Corner participants represent a fair cross-section of opinion: We have many very serious pianists, we have some international participation, we have one or two professional artists who perform regularly with professional symphony orchestras, we have composers, we have high-end teachers as well as neighborhood teachers, we have parents of students, we have old and young, men and women, we have serious amateurs such as myself, we have academic scholars from other fields, we have liberals and conservatives, and not just a few cranks and crazy people (you know who you are) who should not be discounted, all bound together by a serious interest in pianism, all observant, and all very smart.

I know the numbers are small, I know it’s more intuitive than scientific, but it seems as good a place as any from which to speculate on the larger world of pianism.

Tomasino

I don't want to turn this into yet another Lang Lang-bashing thread (or even LL-luvvie thread ), but it's interesting how a seismic shift (excuse this allusion - been reading too many scientific journals lately) has occurred in the past 10 years or so, since Lang Lang first burst on the scene some 10 years ago. Before then (if anyone here is old enough to be around....), Asian pianists were few, certainly on the international concert scene, and almost universally they were tarred with the same brush: as great technicians with robotic stage manner and even more robotic interpretations, learning the great Western classics by rote from their teachers, as it were, playing all the right notes in the right order, often at high speed but with no understanding and even less insight into what makes classical music great. (BTW, I exclude pianists like Mitsuko Uchida, who obviously couldn't be included in this category because she was uprooted to Vienna from her native Japan at 12, and studied there, therefore can be considered 'Viennese'....).

Come Lang Lang, with his ebullient stage presence and no-holds-barred playing, over-emoting at the music's expense (according to his detractors), over-personalising and stamping his own individuality on everything he plays - including even Beethoven (gasp!! ), etc, etc.

Is he responsible for the acceptance of greater individuality of interpretations in recent years? Personally, I don't think there has been (and I've been attending concerts for more years than I've lived (well, almost)); those who have never been broad-minded are still the same - I still kept overhearing expressions of disapproval after Mikhail Pletnev's concerts from annoyed patrons (just because of his free approach to tempi, rhythm and dynamics), who obviously wanted to hear only what they'd heard on CDs at home, from more conventional pianists. The difference with Lang Lang is that those people kept away from his concerts, and were replaced by younger budding musicians (some, it must be said, seduced by his fame) with more open ears, untarnished by 'received' tradition and convention.

But when this new generation of pianists grow up and make it big, who can tell? But don't think that there was no precedent - Gyorgy Cziffra was one such, and he was arguably even freer with his playing than Lang Lang. But noone took on his mantle...

IMO inidividulaity just for the sake of individuality is meaningless and not worthwhile. One can turn the music score upside down and get an individual interpretation.

The question should be if a particular interpretation makes musical sense, moves the listener, is beautiful, etc. Many of those who criticize LL do so because they think some of his musical choices makes no sense. OTOH, Pletnev is more generally considered a very great artist because his often unusual interpretations makes musical sense, are beautiful, etc.

I have not read the previous discussion, but I honestly think that musical interpretation is a personal thing. If people happen to like your interpretation, then great. If not, so be it. But like Horowitz once said, music is controlled emotion. Just play what you feel. I think its really that simple.

Music is not an objective science. Pletnev's Beethoven Concertos (and Symphonies, with the RNO) have been heavily criticized by some in the musical press for his free approach, just as Lang Lang's have been. IMO, both make musical sense in their different ways, but are very different from each other. And interestingly, Martha Argerich partnered both Pletnev and Lang Lang in one of her favorite pieces for piano duet, Ravel's Ma mere l'oye. Evidently she found a kindred spirit in those two pianists .

I didn't say musical interpretation was objective or there was no one who criticized Pletnev. I do think that the amount of criticism LL has gotten for for interpretive ideas is far greater than Pletnev.

The fact that Argerich played the Ravel with both is of very minor, if any, importance. It is a straightforward piece. If you watch the video I think you'll notice that LL does far less of his usual theatrics when playing with Argerich.

On the contrary, I think the fact that someone of Argerich's fame and clout should enjoy associating with Lang Lang (and note her frequent luvvie smiles at him during the performance ) speaks volumes. She has no need to perform with anyone she doesn't have any respect or affinity for; neither does Barenboim, Rattle, Mehta, Eschenbach, Gergiev, Maisky, Repim....the list goes on (and I haven't yet mentioned the world's greatest orchestras like the Wiener and Berliner Philharmoniker etc). Either these great musicians were hoping for Lang Lang's fame to rub off on them, or they enjoyed working with him, and respect him as a fellow musician (even if they don't necessarily see eye-to-eye with him all the time in the interpretation). If it's the former, that doesn't bode well for their sense of self-respect. Being a charitable sort of fellow, I prefer to believe the latter .

The pianists and conductors you mention probably don't have to play with someone they would prefer not to play with(and some of them probably think highly of LL). But just because they don't have to play with him doesn't mean they think highly of his playing either. Just like every piece they conduct may not be one they think equally highly about. I think it's a bit naive to think LL's rock star status is not part of the equation.

Or..they simply hope he will draw more people and maybe introduce some new blood into the audience. Translation: money. I don't think they have many delusions about their chances for fame.

OK, if you limit it to "Just for the sake of individuality," maybe you've got a point. But it's more than that. Individuality seems to be a necessary component of great music, both on the part of the composer and the performer.

Tomasino