Re: composers playing their own concertos (was GG hagiography)

[Jörgen Lundmark <jorgen.lundmark@SUNDSVALL.NU>]

Juozas Rimas wrote:


> Do you think one needs to change a piece drastically, make it new, for it to
> be called an interpretation? A performer, I believe, can produce his own
> style without making radical changes in the composer's original ideas. And
> by having the composer's own interpretation, we have *guidelines* for this
> purpose.
I think it's important to leave room for every kind of interpretation or
even re-interpretation (wherever you choose to draw the line).

Kevin Bazzana (in his "Glenn Gould, the Performer...") really puts the
finger on something strangely contradictory in today's interpretation of
classical music. We have access to more recordings than any previous
generation, yet interpretations tend to get more and more mainstream.
Who needs another "Moonlight sonata" played almost exactly the same as
the last 40 or 50 CD's? In the early days of recording, artists like
Rachmaninov, Friedman, Hofmann, Godowsky, the young Horowitz (who
continued this tradition until his death) etc. etc. created something
personal out of the standard repertoire. The first four were of course
also composers...


> Nevertheless I have noticed people mentioning "composer's intentions" in
> classical music mailing lists way often. I have seen phrases like "Bach
> wouldn't want to hear that played like this", "he didn't mean it when
> writing it", "he'd turn over in his grave if heard this interpretation"
> hundreds of times. And what about all the accusations of not taking repeats,
> too much staccato because it "kills" the piece or "destroys its integrity"
> etc etc?
> So the authors of the phrases do not limit themselves to subjective
> comments like "I didn't like the performer's approach". It seems the
> composer's own interpretation would be quite useful in such cases to cease
> the pointless debate.
Couldn't agree more with you. I think it's of the utmost importance not
to impose an opinion as if it is a "truth". With people like Gould,
Horowitz, Heifetz, Richter, Argerich, Karajan and Hamelin (he's Canadian
-- I hope you all know this!) one shouldn't be so fast to judge. One can
and should make up one's own mind, but why label it as untrue to the
spirit of the music. I wonder what that means anyway?

In the same context, don't mistake brilliance and virtuosity with
coldness and an inability to move the heart. A wrong note here or there
doesn't make it more emotional.

Interesting you should staccato playing. In my mind Gould's glorious
staccato has too often been associated with certain expressions. For me,
the way he uses these separated sounds has far more depth and feeling
than most lyrically inclined, right-handed, soft sounding tinklers. One
should never forget that Gould, despite his staccato inclination, was
better than most pianists at keeping together VERY long phrases.

> Also, I emphasize that the composer should be very skilled with his
> instrument for his own renditions to be worth attention. However, even he
> doesn't play an instrument at all, his advice regarding tempo etc IMHO
> shouldn't be disregarded completely because otherwise you're moving away
> from classical music and entering the jazz realm...
Well, Beethoven's tempo markings do have a tendency to divide opinion.
But of course, when a composer does know how to play his own work it's
always interesting in one way or another. I wouldn't go as far as to say
it's the only way or even best way (if there is such a thing).

Regards,
Jorgen