Composers' ideas about how their music should sound. (philosophy)

[Mandryka]

There's a  model of classical music which I want to examine. I call it the Private Internal Performance model. PIP.

According to PIP, the composer has a certain idea in mind about what the music should sound like. He writes down  the composition in what is often an imperfect notation. The notation that Beethoven and Bach and Mozart used more or less indicates  relative pitches and  rhythms, some tempos and some phrasing and articulation. All the rest -- absolute dynamics, relative dynamics, contrapuntal balances, rhythmic nuances, tone colours -- are hardly specified at all as far as I know. And  it's the job of the interpreter to try to unearth as many clues as he can about the PIP.


The model which I want to present as an alternative is one where the composers have no privileged access on how the music should sound. Either he has no PIP, (this may be the case for Ferneyhough for example) or if he has a PIP it's not part of the music he has composed. Rather, the composer is fully aware that the notation radically under-determines the sound of the music, and accepts this. He accepts the creative right of performers to decide how the music will  sound, at least in the areas not fully defined by his chosen notation. This creative role of  performers is all part of the game, the form of life. I call this model anti-PIP.

[Henk]

Interesting!

[Jo498]

I am generally in favor of your alternative and I think that the PIP model leads to chasing a chimera, the elusive ideal performance as imagined by the composer. We know that for most of music history composers were faced with extremely different performance conditions and usually willing to adapt their music to such conditions in manners we would reject, if anyone else but the composer did it.

For instance, Corelli's Concerti were apparently sometimes performed by huge ensembles with winds doubling the tutti, but certainly also often in semi-private chamber settings, probably one instrument per part. A lot of keyboard music was played on a huge range of very different instruments from organ to clavichord, fortepiano etc. Even in Beethoven's time orchestras for concertos or symphonies would range from slightly more than 1 per part to large ones with 60 strings and tripled woodwinds.

We know of composers like Brahms that they were equally fond of rather diverging interpretations (wrt to tempo, rubato etc.) of their music (IIRC von Bülow vs. Steinbach in Brahms' case)

Nevertheless, there may often be remarks or preferences of composers that give useful hints about important performance aspects.

[kishnevi]

I would say the antiPIP model is artistically more fruitful.

[Ken B]

I would say the antiPIP model is artistically more fruitful.

So would I, and certainly more accurate as a matter of fact, especially of older music. In this I differ, at least according to what he posted, from Nate I think.
I wouldn't push it. If Beethoven arose from the dead and fulminated against Glenn Gould's playing I'd back Beethoven. While there is under specification in the notation we cannot ignore the living tradition of performance the composer knew and context of the composer. For example Palestrina wrote music for church use. That is not in the notation but it is part of the context, as is the nature of his church, etc.

[Pat B]

According to PIP, the composer has a certain idea in mind about what the music should sound like. He writes down  the composition in what is often an imperfect notation. The notation that Beethoven and Bach and Mozart used more or less indicates  relative pitches and  rhythms, some tempos and some phrasing and articulation. All the rest -- absolute dynamics, relative dynamics, contrapuntal balances, rhythmic nuances, tone colours -- are hardly specified at all as far as I know. And  it's the job of the interpreter to try to unearth as many clues as he can about the PIP.

Dynamics were specified by Mozart's time.

My understanding is that Baroque music had less of a PIP than we are accustomed to -- ornamentation was expected; instrumentation would be at least somewhat flexible depending on what was available at the moment. There are probably other examples.

I have read that Beethoven had strong opinions about how his music should be played, but also that his own performances of a particular piece were not necessarily consistent.

[Mandryka]

Dynamics were specified by Mozart's time.

My understanding is that Baroque music had less of a PIP than we are accustomed to -- ornamentation was expected; instrumentation would be at least somewhat flexible depending on what was available at the moment. There are probably other examples.

I have read that Beethoven had strong opinions about how his music should be played, but also that his own performances of a particular piece were not necessarily consistent.

Dynamics, absolute and relative, were hardly specified. How loud is forte? How much quieter is f than ff?

[Mandryka]

Let me try to say what I'm getting at by means of an analogy. When Shakespeare wrote

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death.

He may have had a way of acting it in his head or he may not. It really doesn't matter for how we perform it today. And Shakespeare knew that people would be creative with how his plays look and feel, that's all part of the form of lie which is to do with the theatre.

The anti-PIP view would say the same about a piece of music.

[Pat B]

Dynamics, absolute and relative, were hardly specified. How loud is forte? How much quieter is f than ff?

That we don't have dB measurements doesn't make it "hardly specified at all." The wording of your first post implies that tempos are more specified than dynamics. I would say the opposite is true, that Allegro assai is considerably more ambiguous than forte. There's a little room for judgement but it's small compared to questions of tempo, phrasing, rubato, agogics, etc.

I think your overall point is valid; this just isn't a good example.

[Florestan]

The wording of your first post implies that tempos are more specified than dynamics. I would say the opposite is true, that Allegro assai is considerably more ambiguous than forte.

I think they are both as ambiguous as it gets. And then again, what's the difference between Allegro moderato and Allegro ma non troppo? or between Allegretto and Andantino? 

This very nice and instructive story, if true, is obvious proof that what the composer had in mind when marking tempos and dynamics, and how the performer understands those markings, are two so very different things.

Last year I saw a documentary on Bartok's last few years in the US. There was an interview of a member of the BSO who played in the premiere of the Concerto for Orchestra who spoke of the one time he saw Bartok, who was sitting in the audience area during a rehearsal with Koussevitzky (who also commissioned the work). According to the BSO member, they started playing and suddenly Bartok interrupted them with "It's much too fast!" So, they started again. A few measures into the piece, "It's too loud!"

This continued on a few more times until Koussevitzky suggested "Mr. Bartok, why don't you write down all of your concerns as they come up and I will address them with the orchestra after the rehearsal break?" The composer immediately pulled out a paper and pencil and started furiously writing down as the orchestra continued playing. Bartok had to leave during the break and Koussevitzky started the second half of the rehearsal by announcing "I've spoken to Mr. Bartok, and he says that everything is fine."

[Ken B]

I spent some time listening to covers of Bad Romance on YouTube. I doubt anyone would insist that only LG's recording is valid. Most are pretty weak, but some are interesting, and if they do not improve on the original do bring out other aspects of it.
So how much more true when instead of a recording of a short piece by a contemporary we have only hen scratchings from a man dead two centuries for example.

[Mandryka]

There's an epistemological  aspect. Basically this is PIP but it says that the private internal model is inaccessible now so you just have to muddle through. Hen scratchings from a man dead two centuries. There are general questions about knowledge of the past of course, in particular about the past psychological states of otthers.

And there's an ontological question, which I thought was more interesting in fact, about whether what the composer has made includes  how the music sounds.

(I mean, putting aside people like Luc Ferrari)

Let's take another concrete example -- baroque  unmeasured preludes. What Couperin etc made when they wrote that sort of  music does not include how the music sounds, I think fairly clearly. It's not a question of the scratchings being hard to decode.

[Brian]

I think that PIP also affords a range of reactions.

Jeno Jando is a candidate for the world's leading PIP artist. He eschews most traces of imagination to focus on interpreting the score as rigidly as possible. The results are mixed; they never (to my ears!) do the music a disservice, but they rarely (but sometimes!) seem as inspired as the competition. I do value many Jando recordings, like the Beethoven Moonlight Sonata, for the way that they provide a "grounding". That is, when you hear Jando, you know what the work should sound like, and you have a good idea of the artistic license everybody else is taking, and whether or not they're in good taste.

That said, there ARE some pretty artistically fantastic PIP recordings. Generally, I don't prefer it, but given the tone of this thread so far, I feel the need to defend it. The first thing I think of is Misha Dichter's totally faithful, but totally amazing rendering of the Liszt Hungarian Rhapsodies (ironically, one series of works where Jeno Jando takes huge creative liberties).

[Pat B]

I think they are both as ambiguous as it gets.

If I'm playing violin:
When I see ff, I play as loudly as I can.
When I see pp, I play as quietly as I can and still be audible.

If the composer used ff - f - mf - p - pp (with or without mp), then I treat the intermediate markings as equally spaced. If there's no mf then it's a bit less clear but I still have a pretty good idea of what f means.

Whereas if I see Presto or even Prestissimo (or Largo), that doesn't necessarily mean "as fast (or slow) as you can play."

[Pat B]

I think that PIP also affords a range of reactions.

Jeno Jando is a candidate for the world's leading PIP artist. He eschews most traces of imagination to focus on interpreting the score as rigidly as possible. The results are mixed; they never (to my ears!) do the music a disservice, but they rarely (but sometimes!) seem as inspired as the competition. I do value many Jando recordings, like the Beethoven Moonlight Sonata, for the way that they provide a "grounding". That is, when you hear Jando, you know what the work should sound like, and you have a good idea of the artistic license everybody else is taking, and whether or not they're in good taste.

That said, there ARE some pretty artistically fantastic PIP recordings. Generally, I don't prefer it, but given the tone of this thread so far, I feel the need to defend it. The first thing I think of is Misha Dichter's totally faithful, but totally amazing rendering of the Liszt Hungarian Rhapsodies (ironically, one series of works where Jeno Jando takes huge creative liberties).

If I understood Mandryka correctly, there's a difference between "PIP" and "strictly following the score." PIP is what the composer intended which can't always be represented in the score.

[Florestan]

If I'm playing violin:
When I see ff, I play as loudly as I can.
When I see pp, I play as quietly as I can and still be audible.

Agreed, but then again there's always somebody who can play louder or quieter... 

EDIT: And if you find in the score forte fortissimo (fff) or piano pianissimo (ppp) ? Does it mean "louder than as loud as you can play", or "quieter than as quiet as you can play"? How do you play it then?

Whereas if I see Presto or even Prestissimo (or Largo), that doesn't necessarily mean "as fast (or slow) as you can play."

Why not? What's the meaning of Prestissimo for you? And how is your Allegro moderato different from your Allegro ma non troppo, if they are different at all? And if they aren't different, then why two different markings for the same thing?

[Brian]

If I understood Mandryka correctly, there's a difference between "PIP" and "strictly following the score." PIP is what the composer intended which can't always be represented in the score.

So basically mind-games of trying to guess what was in the composer's brain?

[Mandryka]

If I understood Mandryka correctly, there's a difference between "PIP" and "strictly following the score." PIP is what the composer intended which can't always be represented in the score.

I don't think that you can strictly follow the score, the score doesn't determine what the music sounds like.

Also there are conventions about what must be followed and what maybe followed. Must follow relative pitch, may take repeats, comply with metronome markings, use instruments indicated . . . Composers know about this, they're writing for a form of life in which these conventions exist.

So what's contained in the score is neither necessary nor sufficient for a real performance.

[Mandryka]

So basically mind-games of trying to guess what was in the composer's brain?

In  PIP, there's this private performance in the composer's head which is the key -- that's what your aiming to make real. In anti PIP, it's not like that. You have a score, you have conventions, and you have performers' imaginations.

[Mandryka]

Agreed, but then again there's always somebody who can play louder or quieter... 

EDIT: And if you find in the score forte fortissimo (fff) or piano pianissimo (ppp) ? Does it mean "louder than as loud as you can play", or "quieter than as quiet as you can play"? How do you play it then?

Why not? What's the meaning of Prestissimo for you? And how is your Allegro moderato different from your Allegro ma non troppo, if they are different at all? And if they aren't different, then why two different markings for the same thing?

Doesn't Schumann say at one point "play as loud as you can" and then after says "play louder"? Maybe in the toccata.