Author: Kevin
Date: 2004-04-12 22:32
My views on the subject are as follows.
A performer's interpretation is an important aspect of a piece, but his take on the music is not quite more superior than the notes themselves. In order to write music of any decent value, a composer undergoes hours of creative struggle & painfull editing. The process to put those little thoughts onto paper and then to actually make all of them work together is a long difficult task. When a masterpiece is finally completed, I think it can be somewhat insulting to the creator when a performer just comes up and flat out changes what has been written. Differences in ritards, and dynamics are, of course, acceptable and even expected, but not when the performer alters aspects like rythms, timbre, pulses, pitches, etc..
Again, those were simply my own views on this subject.
But even with that being said, I really don't think it's that big of a deal. Stoltzman's recording may not be accurate, but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy it. People should learn to listen to works with an open mind, and appreciate the performance, rather than to wonder how its supposed to sound or what the composer meant.
|
|
The Clarinet BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
