Interpretation versus composer?

[Mark]

What is more important? One might ask. Accuracy? or Spontaneity?

A good question. I'm inclined to say spontaneity.

[BachQ]

One might ask. Accuracy? or Spontaneity?

Accuracy.

A good question. I'm inclined to say spontaneity.

A rather spontaneous response, Mark .......

[Mark]

Accuracy.

A rather spontaneous response, Mark .......

Accurately observed, D.

[jochanaan]

...in a sense, don't the performers have a better grasp of the music than the composer? ...

Perhaps we forget too often that, until the last century--pretty recently in historical terms--the composer WAS the performer; or at least was a major performer in his/her own right and most often played or led the first performances of his own music.  Why should I, as a performer, assume I know more than the composer about his own music?

But you really can't help interpreting.  Music doesn't live unless it's being performed, and every performance, no matter how closely it sticks to the notes and indications the composer wrote, is a synthesis of the composer's inspiration and the performers'.  The greater the performance, the more "personal" it is, and thus the more an interpretation.

Let's say, for example, that I'm playing Beethoven's Piano Sonata #23 in f minor, "Appasionata."  (I've actually practiced this for many years and still don't have it the way I want it. )  There's good historical evidence that Beethoven liked to play with a lot of metrical flexibility and many more tempo changes than are written in his scores, and I would find it hard to play this music at a metronomic tempo in any case.  But my own instincts tell me that such flexibility cannot go beyond certain bounds--at least, not with me playing.  So I let the music "have its head" and indulge in a number of unwritten tempo changes, but always in proportion.

Also, pianos in those days simply didn't have the big tone most concert grands have today, so some performers hold back on the fortes to match the volume Beethoven's hearers would have heard--yet this appears to be music of such power that there's no way I can hold back, especially, for example, on those huge chords in measures 17-18.  Besides, I feel it's more important to convey the sense of straining an instrument to its limit--especially since our world is much noisier than Beethoven's.  So I let the dynamics speak as they speak to me, and people in the front rows cover their ears.

Am I interpreting?  Not consciously, but in no sense am I merely "playing the notes as written" although I haven't made any deliberate changes to the score.  That's what all performers do, great or otherwise, and that's why I say you can't get away from "interpretations" even when it's the composer "interpreting" his own music.

(Stravinsky's tart words about "interpretation" were much needed at the time, though, because too many performers would alter the music any way they pleased, much like many stage directors today completely disregard both the playwrights' explicit instructions and historical evidence. )

[12tone.]

I have a question:

I just watched all 4 videos of Dvorak's cello concerto on Youtube.  After watching the videos I went down to see what people posted.  And I was disturbed because 1) it sounds like there are multiple versions of this piece a la Mahler's 6th and 2) it sounds like cellist Miklos Perenyi's interpretation included his own notes.

Interpretation can not include one's "own notes".  This can't be, right?  Does this actually happen where a performer's interpretation has that performer inserting their own notes?

Here are some responses from people that backed this thinking up:

Comment found on this page:

Jazzonkim wrote:

wow. terrible camera work.  he does some interesting things. i'm guessing it's like urtext things? like the octaves towards the end? in the first movement, before the octaves, he uses the original notes... so.. hmm. interesting to watch him play... i like it

This comment here:

HarmenGoose wrote:

I have Peter's Urtext edition, and Perenyi plays exactly what is written at 1m30 and further. But indeed everyone else plays double-stops. At 3m25 he plays something I've never heard, but i don't care, I like his version very much!


I was under the impression that you could only play what was written.  Interpretation can't mean making up your own notes?

[orbital]

I was under the impression that you could only play what was written.  Interpretation can't mean making up your own notes?

Why not? Even if you are not making up notes, you are making up silences anyway  With things like that, it is rather difficult to pinpoint exactly where the performance goes wrong. You see a lot of pianists inserting those ornaments if it suits their style.
I think what is important is what comes out in the end. There is no way of knowing if you would have liked the piece better, if it was originally scribed with those added notes. You are expecting to hear what you are accustomed to but sometimes you get a real nice surprise 

[jochanaan]

12tone, it's very possible that there are differences between the version of this concerto that's commonly played, and the first edition, and the original manuscript.  There often are.  It's perfectly legitimate, in such cases, to choose one in preference to the other.

Composers have been known to change their mind about their own music.

[12tone.]

12tone, it's very possible that there are differences between the version of this concerto that's commonly played, and the first edition, and the original manuscript.  There often are.  It's perfectly legitimate, in such cases, to choose one in preference to the other.

Composers have been known to change their mind about their own music.

Oh, this part doesn't bother me (despite my putting up it up under #1 under 'disturbed' in my original post).  If there are multiple copies to choose from, that's okay.  I can understand if a composer changes something or alters something.  You get different sides of things I guess.

But this...

You see a lot of pianists inserting those ornaments if it suits their style.  I think what is important is what comes out in the end. There is no way of knowing if you would have liked the piece better, if it was originally scribed with those added notes. You are expecting to hear what you are accustomed to but sometimes you get a real nice surprise 

The ornaments.  How far can you allow a performer to add notes?  I really didn't think these ornaments happened much.  Ornaments in Baroque?  Sure, sounds good...to a certain extent.  Ornaments in Classical?  Sure, why not.  Again, to a certain extent?  Ornaments in Romance?  Uh, no.  That's just wrong.  The music doesn't allow for that kind of thing.  The music just sounds that way.   

I don't know...    Bummer. 

[orbital]

The ornaments.  How far can you allow a performer to add notes?  I really didn't think these ornaments happened much.  Ornaments in Baroque?  Sure, sounds good...to a certain extent.  Ornaments in Classical?  Sure, why not.  Again, to a certain extent?  Ornaments in Romance?   Uh, no.  That's just wrong.  The music doesn't allow for that kind of thing.  The music just sounds that way.   

I don't know...    Bummer. 

Chopin mazurkas? Luisada adds (or sometimes modifies) some notes up to one full octave away. It generally works quite well AFAIC.

Here is one that doesn't quite work 
http://www.youtube.com/v/yFMPw0SwlLU