The Politics of Performance

I was talking with my composition teacher, Randolph Coleman, who is the scraggy, and he mentioned that theatre and dance all have these very active interpretive communities - that is, people who will do entirely new interpretations of older works. Look at Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, for instance. Baz Luhrmann did his post-modern film version, which is still one of the most compelling versions I've ever seen. There was recently a production in New York which did the entire play set in a Catholic boy's school, with the entire cast played by four men. Even dance has this, though much more exclusively. Several ballet companies will revitalize choreography to set works, or update existing choreography with more modern movements.

Music, on the other hand, is a very canonical art form. Students are taught to play Mozart a certain way, Beethoven a certain way, Liszt a certain way. There is little to no room for interpretation, and what interpretation there is is small, confined to the level of pacing, or the expression of phrase. Theatre and dance too have their historical revivalists, but they also have a thriving interpretive community.

The idea that my teacher and I found was in the way that the art forms are passed down. Music is passed down from acolyte to acolyte, each one refining performance practice, until finally, there's a "one way to play." Theatre is passed down as a method of interpretation, rather than a method of performance. Stanislavski's method, on which most, if not all other acting methods are based, is simply a process for an actor to interpret a character in a script. It is not instructions on how to play the character. This then gives actors the freedom to create their characters, and also a director to interpret the script at a macro level.

I will not comment on dance beyond what I know, which is why it is absent from the analysis in the previous paragraph.

Sure, it's canonical... but that still leaves some room for interpretation. There are those who agree and disagree with things like, for example, the period performance movement. And there are many disagreements on how to conduct Beethoven... Furtwangler's heavily-dramatized recordings of Beethoven do have their fans.

I agree. Personally, I believe there is already plenty of interpretation going on - too much for my taste, actually; and within any particular school of interpretation, such as the period performance movement, there are as many different ways of interpreting subtle nuances as there are performers, without getting to the point where the interpreter's vision is more important than the composer's. Just how far afield can an interpreter go with music before it becomes unrecognisable? You can set "Swan Lake" in 1950s Paris if you like, and maybe it will still be meaningful, but in music, you can only get so far from a composer's original intention and stylistic context before it gets ridiculous.

You can set "Swan Lake" in 1950s Paris if you like, and maybe it will still be meaningful, but in music, you can only get so far from a composer's original intention and stylistic context before it gets ridiculous.

A key point here. It might not be so much in the attitudes towards standardized performance practice etc) as in the mere fact that a romantic (and indeed classical or high baroque) score has far more information and far less gaps to be filled than a Shakespeare script. A playwright doesn't have the same ambition to write everything down as the composer. Early baroque music, on the other hand, leaves far more to the performer--here, perhaps, the attitude towards notation and prescription is closer to that of drama. That attitude is probably the most relevant one.

Early baroque music, on the other hand, leaves far more to the performer—here, perhaps, the attitude towards notation and prescription is closer to that of drama. That attitude is probably the most relevant one.

True. We do need to be careful not to ascribe too much of an attitude toward freedom of interpretation in early music, though. While the temptation is to assume that less direction means more interpretive freedom, in actuality composers before the 19th Century wrote less down because the stylistic/idiomatic context was so well understood as to render any more specific directions redundant. We understand from treatises on performance practice that much more was expected of a performer than the notes on the page, but only insofar as it conformed to very narrow and specific stylistic conventions.

Music, on the other hand, is a very canonical art form. Students are taught to play Mozart a certain way, Beethoven a certain way, Liszt a certain way. There is little to no room for interpretation, and what interpretation there is is small, confined to the level of pacing, or the expression of phrase. Theatre and dance too have their historical revivalists, but they also have a thriving interpretive community.

The idea that my teacher and I found was in the way that the art forms are passed down. Music is passed down from acolyte to acolyte, each one refining performance practice, until finally, there's a "one way to play."

I think that is because the core of a Shakespeare play is not in it's idiomatic setting.

Perhaps it's a matter of symantics - but I do understand what you are saying with regard to music. Mozart, Beethoven composed variations on other people's famous work - but I rarely hear people do it today - as if it's a sin or something.

I once wrote an elaborate variation on "A little night music" by Mozart, even posted it here (on the old board) - and have recieved compliments on it elsewhere - but mostly from non - classical musicians(I combined it with drums, distortion guitar, some recognizable blues -- oh the horror!). It's not an earth shattering or outstanding composition imo, but I can only imagine that one of the reasons classical musos didn't receive it well is because Mozart is so lofty that he poo poos marble. :P

But I wouldn't call it an "interpretation" - more of a variation - in which the work I've done definately becomes more the focus than the orginal on which it's based, not unlike Beethoven or Mozart variations on other people's work in this respect.

As a side note, I've yet to see (I'm sure there are, but I'm yet to see them) - a pianist who can improvise decently in the classical idiom, on a classical piece. I suppose this is exactly for the reasons you mentioned. People might have to plug their ears from the blasphemy.

Which is funny, because until the early 19th century, cadenzas in concerti were almost always improvised, and in his lifetime, J.S. Bach was famous not as a composer but as a keyboard improviser.

Which is funny, because until the early 19th century, cadenzas in concerti were almost always improvised, and in his lifetime, J.S. Bach was famous not as a composer but as a keyboard improviser.

In fact, Mozart was also famous as a keyboard improviser. In the technical definition of things, Mozart was not a composer at all. He was simply a man with a genius gift for improvisation. A composer would be someone like Beethoven, who would take his works, cut them up, piece them together, and spend hours, days, weeks, and months editing and rewriting. Mozart's autograph working scores have no markings, while Beethoven's are full of them.

The question that I think this is bringing up is not how far to get from the music a composer puts down, but why historical performance practice is becoming the only way to do things. Mozart is currently performed with only a little pedal. Bach is performed with none. Chopin is performed with a lot of pedal, as is Debussy. Why not play Mozart the way you'd play Debussy or Chopin? Why not (here's a stretch), play Bach in the way you'd play Schoenberg or Rzewski?

The other question I feel this raises is: what is the intention behind the music? Beethoven did not write the 9th Symphony by saying, "Okay, I'll start with an E Major chord, and then go to a B Major chord, then deceptively resolve... (etc.)" He did not spend his days alone, writing. He spent his time in salons, in coffeehouses, talking with people about philosophy, science, and any number of other things that interested him. In theatre, there is relative freedom in the method of presenting these ideas. In music, it seems to be passed down as a specific way. Suppose I wanted to play an unmarked passage piu marcato because the piece seems to be influenced by (German Philosopher Of Your Choice). Many teachers would say it is invalid because that's not how it's done.

A conversation I had with a pianist friend of mine. The "he" she mentions is her teacher, Peter Takacs. This is pretty much the point I'm trying to make with this thread.

How much freedom do YOU have to interpret personally?

we do a lot with expression and rubatos, and he likes to take liberties with tempo...like not stick to one metronome marking..and he's all about "re-barring measures"...like changing the time signatures for meausres that feel like they're different than what they're written as, etc.

Okay.

he talks a lot about the composer, we often spend lessons comparing several editions of the piece

And how much do you decide?

and then if we don't like something, we scrap it and do it our own way

Fun.

So, you could feasibly play Beethoven in the style of... Rzewski?

he usually lets me decide, and he'll just tell me...no, you're totally off...or "why don't you try it this way?' and if i agree it's better, i do it..if not, we agree to disagree

What makes something totally off?

if it doesn't fit with the style (like if i do something really rubato in a classical era piece)..i donno

or if my dynamics or tempo are just totally wrong

he lets me take liberties, but still need to somewhat follow what's written

Okay. Why is rubato wrong for a classical era piece?

well it's not..that was just a bad example..but you can't do too much in classical era

like making it sound like chopin

Why not?

because that's just what i've been taught..that mozart didn't mean for it to be played that way

i guess i don't have a real reason..

My Question

Why does "what Mozart meant for it to sound like" count (outside of historical performance), now that instruments have different timbres, are much more complex, can produce wider varieties of sound, and performance practices are much more varied, and more techniques are acceptable at concert level performance?

I mean, don't you think that Mozart, if he were composing today, would use string piano techniques? Or at least the full range of the modern piano?

Politics? Yes, it embraces policy but in the performing arts policy is hidebound to cultural orientation which itself is changeable.

My own area is dance - generally modern dance. Within it, dance companies work over the entire spectrum: the determination to preserve the letter of original productions through to those happy enough to preserve its spirit, like Matthews' Swan Lake - though they are still ostensibly the same work....through to dance companies whose works would be impossible to revamp without losing the "meaning" of the original (such as Merce Cunningham's and Martha Graham's schools - and the Pineapple School in London to some extent). These were set up by dancer/choreographers breaking away from tradition to create their own style.

Interpretive performance is minimal in these because their works are their set pieces. They may introduce minor variations but essentially it will be the same work - the production will be the same - or it will develop into something different and be titled differently. One can imagine, for example, Cunningham's "Pond Way" being danced differently but it would be impossible to produce it in another way without it becoming something else.

With music, who knows? I'm inclined to accord with Ravel's statement that a performer is a slave, an unfortunate necessity in the communication chain, borne by composers because they don't perform themselves with few exceptions - Beethoven, Liszt, Rachmaninov.

Sometimes bigger intermediaries are needed in the shape of ensembles where the conductor is the (main) interpreter. Some conductors try to interpret a composer's wishes as closely as possible assuming the composer knows what he or she wants - likely that they can when the two knew each other, as in Delius/Beecham; Bax/Barbirolli. Only a few composers make a good go of conducting their own works. No matter, the work is usually recognised. I mean, Beethoven's 5th is recognisable whether conducted by the laid-back Klemperer or at the helluva crack that Karajan took it (probably because he was worried about the pubs closing).

So I think it's down to the basic score in all areas other than fictional literature. Scores try to be definitive but they aren't, thus performers and producers get it on the act, each trying to impose their stamp (which isn't necessarily an ideal performance). When I hear Pollini playing Chopin, I hear Pollini playing Chopin, not Chopin, though he was responsible for the list of instructions.

As far as the literature goes it would be pointless to highlight the endless reinterpretation of stories in plays as "this is the same as (insert classical title here)" because only a small number of basic plots exist (I remember reading something like 10) so every extended fictional piece, theatrical or not, is likely to be based on one of these plots (until the avant garde).

The question about Mozart is interesting speculation but if Mozart were composing now, the results would likely be a very different Mozart (and would depend partly on whether you still envision the original one still existing in his time).

Very open-ended. I sometimes try to put myself in the position of 'the entertained' and wonder...does it matter as long as you like it?

M

I'm curious, M, about your view on the conductor's instructions.

Some conductors try to interpret a composer's wishes as closely as possible assuming the composer knows what he or she wants - likely that they can when the two knew each other, as in Delius/Beecham; Bax/Barbirolli. Only a few composers make a good go of conducting their own works. No matter, the work is usually recognised. I mean, Beethoven's 5th is recognisable whether conducted by the laid-back Klemperer or at the helluva crack that Karajan took it (probably because he was worried about the pubs closing).

What about the (rather Cage-ian) view that once the composer's score leaves his custody, it is no longer his job to do anything with it? Sure, if a composer can workshop a piece with a group, that's awesome, and will doubtless be close to the original composed intent of the work. But if a composer can't, I'm more inclined to think that it's up to the individual performers (in a small group) or the conductor (for larger pieces) to present the interpretation they feel is correct.

What I think about canonic music is that interpretation needs to go deeper than just musicality. Composers in the Classical and Romantic Eras especially were spending their time down at the coffeehouses, learning about philosophy, and modern science, and human rights, and all those other great things that were being invented back then (I know this sentence sounds amateurish - it's for humor). Those topics find their way into the composers' music by way of written score. However, the score does not state those incorporations specifically, much as the script of a play does not state the central ideas specifically.

In the case of a play, it is up to the director to find themes that are RELEVANT TO THE TIME PERIOD IN WHICH THE PLAY IS BEING PERFORMED and bring them out. Why is it not the same with music?

I feel that of necessity, music requires program notes, because music is not an implicit language. Program notes allow music to find contemporary relevance. But I also find that these notes are underused. I have seen three live concerts of Beethoven's 9th, and heard no less than four different recordings. Only one set of program or liner notes said anything new or topical, and even that applied only to the fourth movement. The one that did was this past summer, where the conductor related the themes of brotherhood and peace found in the fourth movement to the current state of instability across the globe, and how such instability might be solved. Even this is sort of a cop-out, because it does not relate to modern thought, but rather to timeless themes that can be specifically applied to today's world.