Interpretation vs. telling a story

[DavidW]

Stokowski's orchestrations of Bach is still a guilty pleasure though!!

[Ten thumbs]

There is bound to be some flexibility in tempos and I see nothing wrong with that although I prefer it to stick within the general indication given. If adagio is written make it as slow as you like but andante (or andantino) is not adagio and should not be played thus - I have never heard a piece of music improved by so doing. Some other pet hates:
If the time signature is 6/8, there should be two pulses to a bar - if expanded to six the music goes as flat as a pancake.
If the time signature is 2/2, or ¢, don't reduce it to 4/4 for the same reason.
If a subsection is marked 'l'istesso tempo' for goodness sake follow the composer's instruction.
If a subsection is marked 'un poco piu lento' don't speed up (yes, I have heard this happen!).

[matti]

Performer's perspective: Being at all "historically accurate" with Baroque and Classical-period composers requires one at least to add "graces" or ornaments (trills, turns, mordents and the like), and at most to freely improvise variations on what's written!  And the better HIP performers realize this and revel in it.  In Romantic music beginning with Beethoven, to be "historically accurate" requires you to be flexible (at least!) in tempo.  This is not "changing the music;" it's merely playing it the way its composers expected it to be played.

Listen if you can to Sergei Rachmaninoff playing his own music.  His technique is about as flawless as it gets, and his playing is rather surprisingly "straight" compared to some; but by no means does he "just play the notes;" he plays with considerable flexibility while still playing all the written notes.

Even Stravinsky in his recordings of his own music can employ a fair degree of flexibility.

But there's a big difference between this sort of natural flexibility and deliberately changing things à la Stokowski.

This makes a lot of sense. Thanks, pal.

Extra kudos for promoting Rachmaninov's playing.  He does not need any adverts for those who have heard him play, but still.

[jochanaan]

There is bound to be some flexibility in tempos and I see nothing wrong with that although I prefer it to stick within the general indication given. If adagio is written make it as slow as you like but andante (or andantino) is not adagio and should not be played thus - I have never heard a piece of music improved by so doing. Some other pet hates:
If the time signature is 6/8, there should be two pulses to a bar - if expanded to six the music goes as flat as a pancake.
If the time signature is 2/2, or ¢, don't reduce it to 4/4 for the same reason.
If a subsection is marked 'l'istesso tempo' for goodness sake follow the composer's instruction.
If a subsection is marked 'un poco piu lento' don't speed up (yes, I have heard this happen!).

Agree about andante/andantino vs. adagio, and about "l'istesso tempo."  But there are always exceptions.  Brahms' Fourth Symphony's second movement would be unbearably frantic in 2--although far too many conductors take it as if it were Adagio lamentoso rather than Andante moderato. And the fast section of Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms' last movement tends to go better in a fast 4 than in 2; easier for the players to nail all those offbeat accents!

[Scarpia]

To return to the original post, I don't see what the difference is between "interpretation" and "telling a story."  How is it not interpretation to find a "story" in a piece of music?

[George]

To return to the original post, I don't see what the difference is between "interpretation" and "telling a story."  How is it not interpretation to find a "story" in a piece of music?

I think the difference is that with "telling a story" he means telling the composers story and with "interpretation" he means telling ones own interpretation (or version) of that story. Or perhaps vice versa, but I think that's the distinction being made between the two sides.   

[Satzaroo]

Performer's perspective: Being at all "historically accurate" with Baroque and Classical-period composers requires one at least to add "graces" or ornaments (trills, turns, mordents and the like), and at most to freely improvise variations on what's written!  And the better HIP performers realize this and revel in it.  In Romantic music beginning with Beethoven, to be "historically accurate" requires you to be flexible (at least!) in tempo.  This is not "changing the music;" it's merely playing it the way its composers expected it to be played.

Listen if you can to Sergei Rachmaninoff playing his own music.  His technique is about as flawless as it gets, and his playing is rather surprisingly "straight" compared to some; but by no means does he "just play the notes;" he plays with considerable flexibility while still playing all the written notes.

Even Stravinsky in his recordings of his own music can employ a fair degree of flexibility.

But there's a big difference between this sort of natural flexibility and deliberately changing things à la Stokowski.

How "accurately" Rachmaninoff interpreted his own piano pieces also applies to how authoritatively poets address their own works. When I was teaching American literature, I played a recording of Theodore Roethke's rendition of his "My Papa's Waltz."   I and my class were not impressed. Roethke spoke in a monotone throughout the poem. A robot could have been more expressive. The poem can be read from many perspectives: naïve nostalgia, bitterness, wistful regret, jubilation, disgust, ironic praise, or bits and pieces of each feeling as the poem progresses. Roethke was of no help whatsoever. Go figure!
   

[matti]

I think the difference is that with "telling a story" he means telling the composers story and with "interpretation" he means telling ones own interpretation (or version) of that story. Or perhaps vice versa, but I think that's the distinction being made between the two sides.

Yep, pretty much so. It may also be partly about languages: in my own language "tulkita", "to interpret"  seems (at least to me, I cannot speak for Finns in general) to carry some nasty overtones,  a "me-me-me" effect: I want everyone to hear how wonderful I am. I don't know if the English equivalent does the same for native speakers. 

[jochanaan]

How "accurately" Rachmaninoff interpreted his own piano pieces also applies to how authoritatively poets address their own works. When I was teaching American literature, I played a recording of Theodore Roethke's rendition of his "My Papa's Waltz."   I and my class were not impressed. Roethke spoke in a monotone throughout the poem. A robot could have been more expressive. The poem can be read from many perspectives: naïve nostalgia, bitterness, wistful regret, jubilation, disgust, ironic praise, or bits and pieces of each feeling as the poem progresses. Roethke was of no help whatsoever. Go figure!

I know; I've heard some great writers read their own works, and sometimes it's no help, as you say.  This shows that writing and performing are two separate skills.  Of course, Rachmaninoff was not only a fine composer but one of the great pianists of history.