Interpretation

A question as big as the Pacific Ocean!!!!

Personally, I do not believe in learning done in "phases," just as I do not believe that one should speak of interpretation after a certain period of study. Even a tiny piece of Beyer can be an object of interpretative study (the search for meaning).

Personally, I do not believe in the "separate" meanings of the terms: "Technique," "Interpretation," and "Reading the Score and/or sheet music."

I am a supporter of Gestalt Theory, in the part where it states: "The whole is not the sum of its parts." In fact, the "whole" is something more. It is the whole. I think that in Art, and not only in Music, one must not lose sight of the "whole" and must pay attention to all those practices that distance us too much from it and/or prevent us from reaching and understanding it.

Personally, I think that doing "technique first," then "note reading," then "interpretation" makes us reach the goal with difficulty, rarely, and sometimes not at all.

Everything is already inside the piece and we must reach, as much as possible, the "whole." It is not certain that we can reach it by diligently lining up all the aspects of the whole... but separately.

Years ago I held a different opinion: I would have thought of this as "sloppy makeshiftism."

Now I think that truly letting Music suggest the technical solutions, i.e., the "how to do it," and not losing sight of the Author's "ideas" is of great help.

It is clear that for a short time we can "distance ourselves" to experiment and understand in detail, outside the context of the piece, things that remain more "difficult" for us... but not for long. In the long run, it would be like glimpsing the path without ever being able to see the destination.

I think we must remember that we are making Music and that Music contains everything.

I am personally opposed to remaining for a long time in a distant world made of "slow study tempos" and contrasting rhythmic formulas that distort the required accentuation to be assimilated. I believe this path does nothing but prepare us for what "we must not perform" and that it does not work at all as an anti-whole or antibiotic against the "vices" or "errors" committed.

It is therefore advisable, even before studying the piece, to research, listen, understand... and even try some easier passages to enter into the "character" of the piece.

Now, yes, a slow, fragmented, "attentive" reading is fine, but always taking into consideration the final tempo speed, as well as the quality of sound, touch, the phrasing, etc.

I have seen students, and not only, study two pages of a Beethoven sonata, note by note, slowly, for two years. Perhaps with the aspiration to perform it, and only then, perfectly at the right tempo.

The fact is that, often, at the right tempo, with "interpretation"... which will come later... everything changes. The gestures and bodily participation are different and could require, for example, a different fingering, which instead worked very well, or almost, slowly! That is to say.... by approaching the "whole," we might realize that the exhausting and extremely long study of individual parts in a world far removed from performance has perhaps served little or, at least, has wasted much time in our study.

I would like to stop here for now, leaving it to others to develop the theme.

I return to remember what was thrown onto the table: "but so, do we have to interpret immediately, tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, or in two years??" Who knows!!!!!! 😆

In my opinion, one must interpret when they understand what the author has left behind. Let me explain better... If in painting I observe a picture and understand the hidden meaning behind the brushstrokes, in music I must understand the meaning of what the author has written and reproduce it according to my own reading, provided it remains in the author's style regardless of the difficulty of the piece. After performing a Rachmaninov piano concerto (which is enough to drive one mad), Valentina Lisitsa performed a splendid "Für Elise" by Beethoven as an encore, which she handled brilliantly. It is not, therefore, the virtuosity and the quantity of notes in a piece that determines an artist's skill, but their reading of the part and thus their interpretation. How does one interpret? First and foremost, one must know the author's life, the period, and the musical movement they belong to; something that helps greatly is knowing stories related to the artist's daily life because they help us empathize with their perspective and their era. Sometimes a single word can make all the difference. Personally, I was enlightened when, during an audition of Bach's Partita No. 1, Paolo told me: "When Bach writes music, he celebrates the glory of God." I asked my girlfriend, who teaches religion, to explain this to me, and she said: "For Bach, celebrating the glory of God is like giving credit back to Him for the gift received; when you talk to children about God, you take them outside and let them observe nature; when you play Bach, think of the beauty of nature." These are very profound phrases that one must reflect upon, and it is often behind these observations that the path of time is hidden—that little path that takes you back to the times of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, etc. For this reason, one cannot speak of "before," "during," or "after." Interpretation is an idea that never stops maturing, because often new things are discovered within the score even after years. Interpretation is also often linked to age. I played certain pieces a few years ago that I wouldn't play the same way now. Because I have grown, matured, read, studied, and discovered new things hidden in the score; certainly, in a few years, I will play them differently again. In short, interpretation is something that begins before you even buy the score of a piece and grows within us as we study, think, and age. And it is what is most difficult for a musician, because once we have learned the notes, as some famous performers used to say, we have only done a tenth of the work.

great post!!!!

Exactly so. One never finishes understanding the meaning, and therefore interpretation is a very vast territory.

Bachaus has recorded the complete Beethoven sonatas three times in his life and I must say that all three are different. A famous example is Bach's Goldberg Variations in the two "very different" recordings by Glen Gould. Chopin's famous Polonaise op. 53 sounds different under the hands of a young Rubinstein versus one over sixty.

Musical interpretation, and not just that, also deals with overall cultural preparation. It is something that enriches us within and always gives us new and refined tools for reading.

"With Music the sea of our heart swells like the tide under the moon" (Author unknown to me)

It is by Johann Paul Richter (Not Sviatoslav 😛).

thank you

Hi!

Very interesting name from the www.pianoconcerto.it forum

There is something in it. Now everything has become clear to me, thank you for the information.

TheSimon wrote:

Interpretation is an idea that never stops maturing, because often within the score, new things are discovered even after years. Interpretation is also often linked to age. I played things a few years ago that I wouldn't play like that anymore now. Because I have grown, I have matured, I have read, studied, discovered new things hidden in the score and certainly in a few years I will play them differently again. In short, interpretation is something that begins before buying the score of a piece and that grows within us as we study, as we think, and as we age. And it is what is most difficult for a musician, because once we have learned the notes, as some famous performers used to say, we have only done a tenth of the work.

Beautiful!