Interpretation vs. telling a story

[matti]

I just heard an interview of a seasoned pianist who, in my opinion, made a very sensible remark when she was asked about interpretation. She said interpretation often carries (inter)pretentious connotations: if a musician interprets, he/she is bringing something extra to the music, something that is not meant to be there. She said she had always felt playing music as telling a story, plain and simple. The magic is already there and not much needs to be added. I concur pretty much: I have always liked straightforward, honest artists with little or none self-consciousness. IOW I am asking if the term "interpretation" should better be abandoned altogether? Everyone of course tells a story in his/her own way, and there are dull and interesting storytellers.

[DavidRoss]

I doubt musicians can help but "interpret" music.  Just as readers can't help but interpret stories and actors can't help but interpret characters in a play.  Some interpretations are more self-conscious than others.

[Satzaroo]

Talk about interpretation! Check out Norrington's period instrument rendition of the third movement of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. The pace is twice as rapid as any other recording I have ever heard. I still can't get used to his fast tempo. From his research, Norrington has concluded that his version is truly authentic. 

[Brahmsian]

Talk about interpretation! Check out Norrington's period instrument rendition of the third movement of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. The pace is twice as rapid as any other recording I have ever heard. I still can't get used to his fast tempo. From his research, Norrington chas concluded that his version is truly authentic.

Andy D. might like this version, since I don't think he's the greatest fan of that particular movement.   

Are his interpretations of Beethoven's symphonies (other than the 9th) also very fast?

[Brian]

Andy D. might like this version, since I don't think he's the greatest fan of that particular movement.   

Are his interpretations of Beethoven's symphonies (other than the 9th) also very fast?

Norrington's Stuttgart 7th has a second movement that's 6:40.

[Brahmsian]

Norrington's Stuttgart 7th has a second movement that's 6:40.

There are certain movements of Beethoven's symphonies I can envision being played at faster tempos than usual.  This isn't one of them.   

However, I would love to hear a really blazing fast Eroica scherzo.

[Gurn Blanston]

There are certain movements of Beethoven's symphonies I can envision being played at faster tempos than usual.  This isn't one of them.   

However, I would love to hear a really blazing fast Eroica scherzo.

The fastest you can go is limited by how fast the hornists can play those calls. They are the pivotal phrases of the movement, and they simply can't be played too fast or someone will get a fractured lip...   Gardiner and Savall are as brisk as it gets, Gardiner seems to speed up a bit between horn calls. They both have some damned fine hornists too! 

[Gurn Blanston]

But on topic (sorry Matti, lost my head). I prefer performances that aren't willful. I don't want to hear Klemperer's Beethoven (for example), I want to hear Beethoven's Beethoven. Still, you can't get away from the fact that every time a piece of music is created anew from the printing on the page to the vibrations hitting our eardrums, it is different. And despite having maybe the same person(s) making the vibrations, they will not be the same. To what extent this amounts to interpretation even by someone who 'plays it straight' is something to consider.

Something else to consider is whether there actually is a story to tell. There is an interesting video by Tilson-Thomas on the Eroica (since it was brought up) in which he narrates a long story, one that he (says he) considers to have been Beethoven's intention. I don't know. Doesn't this all really hark back to that long discussion about absolute music?  I think so.

[matti]

actors can't help but interpret characters in a play.  Some interpretations are more self-conscious than others.

Thinking often helps. Compare, for instance, say Lawrence Olivier to John Gielguld. Former intolerably pompous, latter more like a minimalist. Less gestures, more thought often helps.

[Satzaroo]

Andy D. might like this version, since I don't think he's the greatest fan of that particular movement.   

Are his interpretations of Beethoven's symphonies (other than the 9th) also very fast?

The Ninth is the only one that I have.

[matti]

Something else to consider is whether there actually is a story to tell. There is an interesting video by Tilson-Thomas on the Eroica (since it was brought up) in which he narrates a long story, one that he (says he) considers to have been Beethoven's intention. I don't know. Doesn't this all really hark back to that long discussion about absolute music?  I think so.

Gurn, that sort of storytelling is not what I meant at all, Tilson-Thomas's concept strikes me really as something quite opposite of what I meant. I may have a go later on, but right now I am just too bloody tired. And, of course, every artist tells the same story a bit differently every single time.

edited because of typos

[George]

I should start by saying that I often prefer interpretations that take liberties with the score. I like personality, I like style, I like when a phrase is played in a way that is new to me, I like when I pianist slows things down and finds new treasures, or speeds things up and finds more excitement, or alternates between the two, tugging at my emotions. I find that the story is better told (at least to me) when some/all of these things happen. 

This idea of not interpreting the text and just playing what's on the page is simply another style of interpreting, so I don't see it as something different than interpreting with say, more rubato or dynamic contrast. It's all interpretation. 

If all pianists played the piano in the manner of those who try to not interpret (and for a moment, assuming it is possible to actually play just the notes on the page, with no added interpretation), I'd only need one recording of each piano work. My musical life would be therefore be much less interesting. I'd have to think that the life of a pianist would be a lot less interesting as well.   

I also find it impossible to believe that any composer-pianist performed their own works in public exactly the way they were written on the page. The inspiration of the moment had to have played a part a Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Rachmaninoff, etc live performance, back when they were alive. Ironically, now that more and more people are trying to just play what's on the score, the romantic performing style of Chopin is all but extinct. To me, when it comes to Chopin, most modern pianist's are not storytellers, there more akin to note producers. Yes, the notes are all there, impeccably produced, but the Romantic style is (sadly) all but absent. One can't simply read the Chopin score and play in the manner that he did. More study and listening to pianists of yesteryear (luckily we have the recordings of Koczalski and Rosenthal, to name a few) is required, not to mention an internalization and assimilation of this style, so that when the rubato appears it is natural and elegant. Moreover, I also would find it hard to believe that Beethoven (or any other composer) wanted all of his students to play like him and not put their own personality into their interpretations. We could ask our own Karl Henning if he would wish for all performers of his viola sonata to try and mirror what's on the page? Or is he OK with people putting some of themselves into their performances? Finally, we must remember that composers, like Rachmaninoff, were not shy about admitting when other pianists (Moiseiwitsch, Horowitz) played his works better than he. And it wasn't because they were better at playing just the notes on the page. One listen to a Horowitz performance is enough to dispel that idea.   

[springrite]

I don't think this is an either/or question where on the one hand you have "readings" and the other "willful liberties". I hope 99% of music-making I hear are neither!


About "telling a story". The thing about music that is different than literature is that, the story is not just the notes. You have to have that "story" in your head. Since the pianist, say, don't really know anything about the story in the composer's head, he/she can only either play the notes (reading) or have a story in his own head which he hopes and thinks is somewhere close to what the composer had in mind. By having this story which is really his own in his head his playing begin to have a cohesion that it would not have by simply playing the notes perfectly.

[George]

I don't think this is an either/or question where on the one hand you have "readings" and the other "willful liberties". I hope 99% of music-making I hear are neither!

Good point. And I too hope to never hear a recording that is 100% one way or the other.

[DavidW]

I think we're seeing the ugly head of the ur-text modern style performance practice rearing its head.  Terrible!  These automatons would approach all eras this way, could you imagine how bad a baroque piece sound if played by literal interpretation of the score?

I'm with George, who has it all explained better than I have.  I think this performance style cul-de-sac started with Stravinsky, and since then this strange way of performing has become standard.  That's why when you encounter a risky performance like Jarvi's LvB 3 or Jacob's Mozart 41st it's like a breath of fresh air!  And they have a distinctive style without pissing all over the intention of the composition either.

[Scarpia]

I should start by saying that I often prefer interpretations that take liberties with the score. I like personality, I like style, I like when a phrase is played in a way that is new to me, I like when I pianist slows things down and finds new treasures, or speeds things up and finds more excitement, or alternates between the two, tugging at my emotions. I find that the story is better told (at least to me) when some/all of these things happen. 

This idea of not interpreting the text and just playing what's on the page is simply another style of interpreting, so I don't see it as something different than interpreting with say, more rubato or dynamic contrast. It's all interpretation. 

If all pianists played the piano in the manner of those who try to not interpret (and for a moment, assuming it is possible to actually play just the notes on the page, with no added interpretation), I'd only need one recording of each piano work. My musical life would be therefore be much less interesting. I'd have to think that the life of a pianist would be a lot less interesting as well.   

I also find it impossible to believe that any composer-pianist performed their own works in public exactly the way they were written on the page. The inspiration of the moment had to have played a part a Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Rachmaninoff, etc live performance, back when they were alive. Ironically, now that more and more people are trying to just play what's on the score, the romantic performing style of Chopin is all but extinct. To me, when it comes to Chopin, most modern pianist's are not storytellers, there more akin to note producers. Yes, the notes are all there, impeccably produced, but the Romantic style is (sadly) all but absent. One can't simply read the Chopin score and play in the manner that he did. More study and listening to pianists of yesteryear (luckily we have the recordings of Koczalski and Rosenthal, to name a few) is required, not to mention an internalization and assimilation of this style, so that when the rubato appears it is natural and elegant. Moreover, I also would find it hard to believe that Beethoven (or any other composer) wanted all of his students to play like him and not put their own personality into their interpretations. We could ask our own Karl if he would wish for all performers of his viola sonata to try and mirror what's on the page? Or is he ok with people putting some of themselves into their performances? Finally, we must remember that composers, like Rachmaninoff, were not shy about admitting when other pianists (Moiseiwitsch, Horowitz) played his works better than he. And it wasn't because they were better at playing just the notes on the page. One listen to a Horowitz performance is enough to dispel that idea.   

I find that implication that modern performances lack style or don't take liberties to be quite puzzling.  Taking pianists, some performers today like to twist the music like taffy, some find it important to follow dynamic and tempo indications very strictly, most fall somewhere betweeen.  You can find whatever style you want among modern performers. 

[not edward]

As someone who's performed--though not for a long time--I didn't really think of it as either. I always thought of interpretation as more "shaping" the music, or controlling the "breathing" of the music--more like smoothing the fine detail on the clay of a largely created figure, say.

And at least with live performance, even unconsciously the audience will affect you: not just coughs and the like but a general sense of how they seem to be reacting; if they appear to be hanging on your every note, it's easy to slip into playing that already daringly slow slow just movement that little bit slower, or to whip up a frenzied climax even more than you normally would.

As for taking wilful liberties, I'm not sure it's as easy to judge as all that. Certainly, disregarding large parts of the score could seem that--but on the other hand, what about the first movement of the Eroica? Almost every recording ever made disregards Beethoven's metronome markings, yet when people talk about taking wilful liberties in this work one of the recordings that comes up again and again is the 1958 VSOO/Scherchen, which comes as close as any to those markings. (Are wilful liberties, then, as much related the performance history of the work as to what the composer actually wrote down? Is Michelangeli's obvious desynchronisation of the hands in the slow movement of his EMI Ravel G major concerto sheer bad taste or a reflection of the pianistic style that Ravel grew up with? And so on...)

[Ten thumbs]

So, if ignoring tempo instructions is OK even to the extent of altering the beat, and dynamics can be taken howsoever we fancy, why is it necessary to stick to the notes as written? Why not interpret as a free fantasy?

[DavidW]

So, if ignoring tempo instructions is OK even to the extent of altering the beat, and dynamics can be taken howsoever we fancy, why is it necessary to stick to the notes as written? Why not interpret as a free fantasy?

It's a spectrum, not black and white.

[jochanaan]

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.