Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2004-04-12 05:34
After having performed it numerous times, some of my general thoughts on musical interpretation (including the Copland).
I am keenly aware of a school of thought more and more in vogue presently, that prizes putting performer whims ahead of the composer's explicit instructions. Overt flamboyancy at the expense of the composer's explicit instructions violates a sacred trust between composer and performer that is strongly frowned upon - at least in the professional circles that I travel. There is indeed a trend to look at a composition in a 'personal' way. Indeed, to 'exploit' its nuances as a personal expression tool. And to do this right at the beginning of learning it.
Most of our waking hours are committed, as scrupulous professional musicians, investing ourselves in exploring just how to interpret a composers work with the upmost fidelity to the composer in mind - and not as a means of self-indulgency.
This is not to say that there is not artistic liscence that one uses to deviate from the composer's "blueprint" that's in front of a performer at any given time. All great performers that I know or have heard of use this "blueprint" as a point of departure to then add their personal artistic expression or spontaneity to enhance (not undo) what the composer has laid out for them.
In writing a specific piece a composer makes thousands of choices. Should a ritard happen on a specific note? Should a crescendo extend an extra 2 beats? Should a held note be 4 beats or 5? etc., etc., etc...
The performer, in turn, faces the daunting task of trying to convey these wishes within the historical context of the piece. When the performer decides to depart from the composer's instructions "ad libitum" then the music ceases to be the composer's any longer, and violates the intent of the author.
If however the music is performed as written, then the music will take over on its own merits. As, for example, no two performers execute a ritard, or crescendo exactly the same way, thus lies the subtleties which separate the average performance from the memorable - that innate ability to take the listener along a truly sculptured and informed musical journey.
The great joy of playing this 20th century masterpiece for the clarinet is that it is seemingly bottomless - always offering something new of worth each time it is dusted off, re-examined and played once again. It's as if one would look through a spectacularly colorful kalidescope - each performance a reflection of that incredible array of colors present and available in every new turn of the kalidescope. But it must be Copland's kalidescope.
Again, being as faithful as reasonably possible to the composer's intent isn't a restricting process per se. Fidelity to the composer's precisely written instructions paradoxically FREES or LIBERATES the music from the cold, printed page.
No one knows "precisely" what he wanted. On the other hand no composer would want their music interpreted the same way every time. Something in the middle would do...but doing "something in the middle" is the key idea.
What I am describing is that the parameters of performance style must simply be informed by the composer...however one can best go about doing that...studying and listening to other works of the composer comes to mind...examining other scores of their works, etc. Otherwise there is no musical context from which to base one's interpretation.
More isn't always more. Sometimes less is more.
Gregory Smith
Post Edited (2004-04-12 05:36)
|
|
The Clarinet BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
