Author: dorjepismo ★2017
Date: 2017-10-20 17:35
Philip,
"The emotional content projected is what I was thinking of above. What Mozart or other composers may have expected in that regard may be inaccessible or even unimportant to listeners down the road. Yet, the music still can be capable of moving them."
Well, maybe a couple things. First, Mozart pushed some boundaries, maybe a little farther than he could get away with. The idea of him not wanting anything to happen in performances of his music that he didn't expect is an assumption, and maybe not a good one. As a remarkable performer, he understood that you have to connect with the audience, and we all need to remember that ourselves.
And second, there are many good ways to play great pieces, and many more bad ones. We need to make the music come alive for people, but it's important to do that in ways that come out of the music itself, rather than through tricks we do that aren't intrinsic to what we're playing. Things shouldn't sound arbitrary, or done to produce effects intended to convince the audience that the player is better or more important than what he/she is playing. Trying to adhere to period practices, and the kind of textual analysis Brycon is talking about, are things that can help in ensuring that performance is tied to what's in the music. They aren't the only ways of doing that. But from performances I've heard, there seems to be some pressure especially for touring soloists to come up with personal interpretations with striking effects in order to demonstrate that it was worth hiring them, and sometimes the result can be musically questionable. I think there really is an emotional and aesthetic "content" to something like the Mozart Concerto or Quintet, intangible and difficult to describe though it might be. There are different ways of expressing and sharing that content, but if one substitutes a different, inappropriate or possibly incompatible content through one's performance, I guess I have problems with that.
|
|