[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: composers playing their own concertos (was GG hagiography)
From: Jean-Christophe PONSERO <ponserj2@YAHOO.FR>
Reply-To: Jean-Christophe PONSERO <ponserj2@YAHOO.FR>
To: F_MINOR@EMAIL.RUTGERS.EDU
Subject: Re: composers playing their own concertos (was GG hagiography)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 10:36:46 +0100
My point is that once composed, a work becomes something totally
independent
left to history, which is already enjoyable as such by reading, but which
needs to match an player's inner world and technical abilities in order to
produce one of its full embodiments in the form of an interpretation.
Obviously the whole of the composer's intentions cannot be indicated on the
score. And any thouroughly literal interpretation without a sense of
interpretation is a catastrophy.
There is no truth about a musical work. There are probably mistakes not to
be made, but no single right way. I tend to consider interpretations as
variations. Everything is potentially contained in the original score, but
this great initial, contingent basis still needs to be fertilized by a
player.
I believe the historical approach such as the baroque revolution over the
last 30 years is a good thing because it widens the scope of our knowledge.
But, as wild tribes can teach us a lot about human nature, someone very
little influenced by history who would produce a very personal vision of a
work can be as enriching. So all artists should be FREE to play how they
please, and not fear the composer. The good interpretation requires a kind
of resonance between the composer and the performer.
I am on another discussion group set up for debating this issue
(specifically, Baroque performance practice and how strictly we should stick
to the way it would have been played back then). We had quite a few debates
centering around the issue of "composer vs. performer" -- i.e, "Should I
play this the way I want to, or the way the composer would have played it
when he/she wrote it?" Or, basically, "Who has the right to decide on
interpretation, the composer or the performer?"
The answer I gave to this debate was to say: We should not obsessively
adhere to the composer's own playing, for various reasons. They may not have
had access to very good instruments (e.g. the piano wasn't invented yet) or
musicians that were able to play the music as the composer might have liked.
However, this doesn't mean that we have a license to interpret the music
according to whatever weird, zany, or shocking whims strike us that day.
The question I believe all performers should ask themselves is: "Given the
instruments that we have today, and given a performer of my strengths and
capabilities, how would the composer have wanted this to be played?"
Of course, this is very much a hypothetical question, and obviously there's
no one right answer to this question. Performers' opinions on "what the
composer would have wanted" will differ. But if every performer asked
themselves this question, rather than trying to become famous by forcing
their own personal stamp upon the music and subjecting it to a tasteless yet
"original" interpretation, I think it would eliminate a lot of the more
annoying recordings.
Relating this back to Glenn Gould: I think both tendencies can be seen in
his playing. Take his recording of the 1st Prelude from the WTC (or, worse,
some of the Mozart sonatas.) I hate to say it, but this recording really
annoys me. The staccatos are entirely uncalled for (even on a harpsichord it
would have been played as legato as possible) and the whole effect is rather
nauseating in my opinion. On the other side, there are his recordings of the
Partitas, to name just one example. The sarabandes in particular are
incredibly beautiful; they are just so serene, relaxed, and peaceful. I
don't think Bach himself could ask for anything better.
Cristalle
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail