I apologize in advance for this ignorant question which I am ashamed of, but on the other hand, asking is the best way to learn new things. Could you explain to me what is meant by "interpretation of a piece" and what distinguishes one performer from another? In the sense that, if we take a musical score, it indicates both the pitch of the sounds and their duration relative to one another (and to the rests). So I imagine that the only possible variations are their volume (in short, the intensity with which the key is pressed) and the overall tempo of the piece (respecting the composer's indication such as "andante" etc.). Is that all, or is there something else I am missing?
Thank you to whoever will take the time to answer me!
In a musical score, there is written much more than what seems to be there, and thus the interpretation of a piece goes far beyond the things noticed at first impact. To interpret also means knowing the life of the author and the historical moment in which they composed a particular piece, so as to be able to deduce states of mind. The research into the interpretation of a piece is practically infinite; new things are always discovered and it is always possible to improve the performance, both technically and interpretatively. The piece being studied is contextualized within a very precise historical trend. This is said in very concise words. One could write a book to talk about interpretation, and this is not the place to do so. Examples should be made at the piano; this is why pieces are normally perfected with Masters.
Simom, first of all I thank you, but can I ask you, in extreme simplification, how can you convey a state of mind if its notes and their duration are "fixed" by the score?
You must go beyond the score; you must not think of tempo and note duration as something fixed. Tempo in interpretation is elastic. Try listening to the same piece played by two different performers and you will immediately realize the different musical thought. Each of them, while remaining within the correct style appropriate to that piece, will have a different idea of it, and heaven forbid if they didn't.
In the sense that, if we take a musical score, it indicates both the pitch of the sounds and the duration of one relative to the others (and to the rests). So I imagine that the only possible variations are their volume (in short, the intensity with which the key is pressed) and the overall tempo of the piece (respecting the author's indication such as "andante" etc.).
This is what a PC does; we can do much more.
All this to say that the score is only a framework; between the written notes and those played, there is a world... the world of every performer who measures themselves against that score and provides their own key of reading, their own interpretation. On one hand, the performer has the duty to honor the composer's thought; on the other, they have the right to give it voice with their own voice, with their own pronunciation, with their own way of relating the compositional elements, with their own being. In short, four signs on a score are a little bit of nothing to do justice to an artistic thought, to an art that unfolds in time and in every time and is fixed onto an inert sheet at a specific moment. Contexts change, instruments, people, consciences, needs, halls, pitch, etc. ... the score, however, is always inexorably the same.
