The longer I study music in a school setting, the more curious I become with the schools of thought surrounding interpretation of music. I personally think that music should be performed any kind of way that the performer feels best expresses themselves and their ideas. That is not to say that education should do away with teaching performance traditions. Rather, the idea of free, sensible expression should be encouraged more in secondary education.
In my limited observations and experiences, self-expression is a limited privilege to aspiring classical musicians. Unless you fall in the prodigious category or just have no respect for the thoughts of your teacher, you must resign to the conventional, to the common practice, to the historically accurate. It doesn't matter if you are in school to sing, conduct, or play. There is an air of "you're too young to know how you feel. So don't let your feelings interrupt
I think of instrumental music like an argumentative essay. No matter how outlandish or commonplace your argument is, your it must be supported by evidence and take a progression that is logically followed with relative ease. To that point, why is it looked down upon to approach music the same way with something like Bach Cello Suites, Telemann, Mahler or Tchaikovsky symphonies? In these instances, I often hear people say "their interpretation went too far," or "it was too fast," or "the cello suite was too romantic." I always ask, "Well, did it sound good?" Ultimately that's what matters right? I mean, if we were meant to scrupulously follow the "intent of the composer," how would anything we listen to ever sound different?
While Bach, Tchaikovsky, et al possessed a level of genius that I'll never reach, they were also human. Musicians seem to forget that. The pedestal that musicians put these titans on is more like hagiolatry than it is admiration. There is trepidation and needless apprehension, in my opinion, when approaching their music. Music is innately connected to the human experience. So is it really music if the performance of a piece ignores (even if a little bit) the experience of the one resurrecting it? I would say no. It's almost music. It's something watered down. It is academic and contrived.
Two of my favorite people in all of music epitomize the kind of interpretive ideas I'm suggesting. The first is Pablo Casals. He was a brilliant educator, cellist, and conductor. I recordings of him performing all of Bach's Cello Suites. Plainly stated, it's expressive and it's beautiful. He did not concern himself with the "musical right wing," if you will. Rather, he would study the music intimately; its repeated motives, harmonic structure, direction of line, all to render an accurate, human performance. His thoughts are crystal clear and rather moving in David Blum's book, Casals and the Art of Interpretation. It's a long, methodical read but it is full of expression and lots of stories from and of Casal's himself.
The second person whom I really love when it comes to expression is Leonard Bernstein. He possessed a rare fearlessness when on the podium. The first, most powerful thing that comes to mind is a recording of Mahler's Symphony No. 2 he did with The London Symphony Orchestra. The composition is itself very flamboyant but Bernstein takes it to a pleasant extreme. It is a vulnerable openness that I admire and that I strive to bring to everything I perform. Listen to it. It's seriously awesome.
History and the present together make for the most compelling performances and the most authentic ones. Again, just my opinion. But it's something I feel very strongly about.
Random aside:
There is something about moderation these days that evades American culture. Take politics for example, religious right or sassy socialist. Purist or wholistic person? Choose one. There is no middle ground. Weird.
In my limited observations and experiences, self-expression is a limited privilege to aspiring classical musicians. Unless you fall in the prodigious category or just have no respect for the thoughts of your teacher, you must resign to the conventional, to the common practice, to the historically accurate. It doesn't matter if you are in school to sing, conduct, or play. There is an air of "you're too young to know how you feel. So don't let your feelings interrupt
I think of instrumental music like an argumentative essay. No matter how outlandish or commonplace your argument is, your it must be supported by evidence and take a progression that is logically followed with relative ease. To that point, why is it looked down upon to approach music the same way with something like Bach Cello Suites, Telemann, Mahler or Tchaikovsky symphonies? In these instances, I often hear people say "their interpretation went too far," or "it was too fast," or "the cello suite was too romantic." I always ask, "Well, did it sound good?" Ultimately that's what matters right? I mean, if we were meant to scrupulously follow the "intent of the composer," how would anything we listen to ever sound different?
While Bach, Tchaikovsky, et al possessed a level of genius that I'll never reach, they were also human. Musicians seem to forget that. The pedestal that musicians put these titans on is more like hagiolatry than it is admiration. There is trepidation and needless apprehension, in my opinion, when approaching their music. Music is innately connected to the human experience. So is it really music if the performance of a piece ignores (even if a little bit) the experience of the one resurrecting it? I would say no. It's almost music. It's something watered down. It is academic and contrived.
Two of my favorite people in all of music epitomize the kind of interpretive ideas I'm suggesting. The first is Pablo Casals. He was a brilliant educator, cellist, and conductor. I recordings of him performing all of Bach's Cello Suites. Plainly stated, it's expressive and it's beautiful. He did not concern himself with the "musical right wing," if you will. Rather, he would study the music intimately; its repeated motives, harmonic structure, direction of line, all to render an accurate, human performance. His thoughts are crystal clear and rather moving in David Blum's book, Casals and the Art of Interpretation. It's a long, methodical read but it is full of expression and lots of stories from and of Casal's himself.
The second person whom I really love when it comes to expression is Leonard Bernstein. He possessed a rare fearlessness when on the podium. The first, most powerful thing that comes to mind is a recording of Mahler's Symphony No. 2 he did with The London Symphony Orchestra. The composition is itself very flamboyant but Bernstein takes it to a pleasant extreme. It is a vulnerable openness that I admire and that I strive to bring to everything I perform. Listen to it. It's seriously awesome.
History and the present together make for the most compelling performances and the most authentic ones. Again, just my opinion. But it's something I feel very strongly about.
Random aside:
There is something about moderation these days that evades American culture. Take politics for example, religious right or sassy socialist. Purist or wholistic person? Choose one. There is no middle ground. Weird.
Posts
