Interpretative Style

It is difficult to answer in two words; entire volumes have been written on this subject!

I would limit myself to saying that when a music performer has a personality that stands out, imposes itself, and is not homogenized to a vision that repeats customary performance methods, then we could say that this performer is an interpreter and therefore has an interpretive style.

But here, the discussion immediately opens regarding the relationship between the individual personality of the interpreter and fidelity to a historical performance practice, which also means defining the relationship of the performer with respect to the enjoyment of a historical repertoire (it is another matter for a performer who only performs their own music, obviously).

Therefore, the problem of "interpretive style" is complex. If you take two great pianists, for example Benedetti Michelangeli and Pollini, you will notice that both are very faithful to the text and both pose themselves the problem of respecting historical performance practice; yet they are very different from each other: thus, in this diversity, we can grasp an aspect of "interpretive style," the style of Benedetti Michelangeli which is different from that of Pollini (and I would not know how to choose between the two...)

Stellina wrote:

In your opinion, what is an interpretive style made of?

The "performer" sounds like putting two aspects into play: fidelity to the written text and their own personality. Not always in equal proportions, not always in the right proportions (where by "right" it is meant that they privilege fidelity to the letter over their own needs). In any case, the combination of these two elements, fidelity to the letter and personality, determines the "interpretive style" of each performer, because logically the same text, if interpreted without the superposition of personal elements, would sound irremediably aseptic. There have been in the past (and perhaps there are others today) performers who argued for the necessity of not superimposing one's own personality during the interpretation of a musical text, but this is absolutely impossible, because every written sign is inevitably filtered by the performer, who, even if wanting to rationally nullify themselves, cannot do so totally.

This topic has always fascinated me, even though I have never understood the true meaning of interpretation.

Currently, I think of the pianist as a translator of the composer's thoughts, who writes on paper to capture their "ideas."

I believe the pianist's purpose is to reproduce such music in a way that is closer to the composer's intention; finding themselves faced with non-unambiguous indications (the score), they must rely on other knowledge to play the piece, inevitably bringing part of themselves into it.

Now, if what I have said is correct, I cannot understand how such different interpretations of the same piece can be achieved (sometimes even by the same pianist).

Can you help me clarify this??

sisifo1987 wrote:

[...] I cannot understand how such different interpretations of the same piece can be achieved [...]

"To interpret" means "to find a meaning within things" (very approximately: forgive me, Latinists and scholars of ancient languages, from this point of view, I am a perfect ignoramus). The written sign on paper is as vague as it gets, graphically speaking. If you think about how many types of "house" come to mind if I tell you "I saw a beautiful 'house'", if you think about how many nuances of "beautiful" there can be for me, for you, for anyone reading or hearing that sentence... imagine how many "meanings" can be found in a musical phrase, in an articulation, in an entire movement of a sonata, of a symphony... Music, as I have already said several times, is an "asemantic" art, meaning it does not express concepts. For this reason, it is impossible to identify the limit of the expressive possibilities of a written sign, even when the author has left detailed indications regarding it. The proof is that, aware of this and following the tendency that saw the author progressively losing contact with their music, composers from Beethoven onwards have gradually increased the set of "side" information to instruct those who played on the meaning, the manner, the how and the why of a sign, a phrase, a note, an accent... nevertheless there does not exist—I would add "thank God"—a single interpretation, but many exist, which perhaps differ by only a few minimal details, yet even the same performer, after some time, discovers new things.

In this regard, an anecdote concerning Shostakovich is very dear to me. Oistrakh used to tell it. The great violinist recounted that, immediately following one of his performances of a Shostakovich violin concerto, he received a phone call... from Shostakovich himself! "This is Shostakovich," the Maestro said, and Oistrakh was immediately intimidated. "I listened to your performance of my concerto last night..." DS continued, and Oistrakh expected criticism, since he was aware that, in some parts, he had contravened the indications of the score... DS proceeded: "You did things different from what I wrote," and Oistrakh: "Yes, Maestro, but you see...", at this point DS interrupted him and said, "Hold on the line: I am going to get the score." Oistrakh expected scolding and reprimand and was already prepared to apologize, when Shostakovich, returning to the phone, said to him, "Here it is, now I have the score in front of me: go ahead and tell me..." Oistrakh, astonished, replied, "Maestro, in what sense 'tell me'?" and Shostakovich: "Tell me what you did: it was beautiful, I want to write it down!". It is not a legend: a recording of this phone call exists, at least in part, and I find it an excellent element to put an end to those who make fidelity to the text and self-censorship a rule of life that leads to absolutizing interpretations. They are chimeras. It is not possible to be faithful to a text that is, in itself, incomplete, because the performer must fill that incompleteness through study, dedication and, why not, a bit of presumption: the kind that sometimes leads you to be convinced that you have understood a little more than an author, only to perhaps call your "discovery" into question during the next performance... I don't know if I have managed to give you at least a vague idea, but I tried.

First of all, thank you for the explanation.

I certainly don't have clear ideas yet, but now I have new insights.

From the anecdote, I understand that the performer can give a different shape than what the composer intended, as if the composer gives birth to a "plasmic matter" conceived in one of infinite configurations and the performer can find a new, more beautiful form.

Am I philosophizing too much??

sisifo1987 wrote:

From the anecdote, I understand that the performer can give a different shape than what the composer intended, as if the composer gives birth to a "plasmic matter" conceived in one of infinite configurations and the performer can find a new, more beautiful form.

Am I philosophizing too much??

Of course not: it is exactly like that. The same composer may not be fully aware of the richness of ideas and inspirations present in their own music and, once discovered, find them as interesting as what they had thought of themselves.

So the skill lies in finding the form that is most objectively appreciated, running the risk of even changing the graphic indications of the sheet music if deemed right, and it will be the listeners who judge.

sisifo1987 wrote:

So the skill lies in finding the form that is most objectively appreciated, running the risk of even changing the graphic indications of the score if deemed right, and it will be the listeners who judge.

No, in my opinion no: whatever result is achieved, it must be achieved with the primary goal of identifying the composer's intentions or, in any case, serving him, not ourselves. If this leads to modifying his indications, there must be a very good and plausible reason which, ultimately, should find its own legitimacy within the text itself.

Carlos wrote:

No, in my opinion no: whatever result is obtained, it must be obtained with the primary goal of identifying the composer's intentions or, in any case, serving him, not ourselves.

I understand this!!

Carlos wrote:

If this leads to modifying his indications, there must be a very good and plausible reason, which, ultimately, should find its own legitimacy within the text itself.

I don't understand this!! What allows us to make these choices??

sisifo1987 wrote:

I don't understand this!! what do these choices allow us to do??

Only one thing: study, study, study

ahahahah so then it's all easy!! I will understand better with study (hopefully), in the meantime this chat was very nice to me

sisifo1987 wrote:

ahahahah then it's all easy!! I will understand better with study (hopefully), in the meantime this chat was very nice to me

With «studying, grinding, studying» I meant study through which one deepens their knowledge of an author little by little and learns more and more aspects of them. To play a Beethoven sonata well, one must have studied many of them, perhaps even having taken (why not?) a look at the Quartets.

In reality, even if it may seem that in the end it is «easier», it is not so, because in the face of greater familiarity with the author's language, many more doubts arise regarding the legitimacy of what one is doing. Brendel speaks about this in his book/interview «The Veil of Order», it is very interesting: he says that one must "illuminate from within" a piece, an author, meaning to put oneself entirely at their service; but he also says that fantasy and knowledge are not inversely proportional and that fantasy is always necessary to interpret an author. A very complex and interesting discussion.

Ok I understand what you said but for the moment I don't quite understand it.

When I find myself on the path, I will remember your description and the journey will be somehow less "unknown".

Thank you all

I found this beautiful quote, which I am happy to share:

The best interpreter will therefore be the one who, pervaded by the composition and entirely dedicated to it, in order to reproduce it, puts into play an amount of total energy of their personality equal to the time involved, as well as the pleasure of realizing their own talent; in short, the one who has preserved the joy of making music from their early years and pours their deepest nature into the interpretation, after having reached the most intimate union with that of the composer. [bruno Walter - Music and Interpretation]