Author: Gregory Smith
Date: 2002-10-10 17:43
Morrigan wrote:
"Greg wrote "One has to as a performer be informed by the history, context, and stylistic considerations of any piece, particularly as formidable a work as this one."
Morrigan:
WHY I ask you? WHY?
Who says HAVE to look at all this to express something? Why do we HAVE to be contextually or historically correct? I know I'm question the very foundation of art here, but, didn't Einstein say to constantly question everything? This is how I learn, to sharply question everything.
It may be classier, it may deliver a better performance overall, but WHY can't one be selfish and take liberty? WHY are we conforming to what's on the page? Would the composer REALLY care about ONE performance that isn't precisely what he wanted?
Don't get me wrong, I understand completely what you're saying, I just really feel the need to question this because I don't understand why it is a necessity to be so faithful to a composer's intent."
================================================================
Yes, one is always encouraged to take liberties - that is the essence of artistic expression - but informed liberties within context are essential if your respect is for the music...in this case Debussy's music. Then, only after that, it's simply a matter of DEGREE how much one want's to put Debussy into the music, and how much one wants to put Morrigan into the music.
The great joy of playing this 20th century masterpiece for the clarinet is that it is seemingly bottomless (quite an accomplishment for an 8 minute "contest" piece") - 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, in this case, Debussy's kalidescope.
Again, being as faithful as reasonably possible to the composer's intent isn't a restricting process per se. In fact I asserted earlier that in the case of the Debussy - a work of impressionism - fidelity to the composer's precisely written instructions paradoxically FREES or LIBERATES the music from the cold, printed page.
You state, "Would the composer REALLY care about ONE performance that isn't precisely what he wanted?"
Well, you overstate your case. 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 muscal context from which to base one's interpretation.
I am also reminded of another quote from a great interpreter of music who said about style and interpretation, "It is perfectly legitimate to prefer the hectic, the arhythmic, the untidy - but to my mind, great artistry is not disorderliness."
Interestingly, that quote came from a musician who also said of the iconoclastic pianist Glenn Gould (whom he refused to perform with) after listening to one of his live performances, "That nut's a genius".
So yes, we all can be informed musically by one another. That's the beauty of it.
My assertions are far from unique or dogmatic. And they are perhaps only guidelines that will hopefully help unlock the music from the physically sterile printed page.
Gregory Smith
|
|
Keepers
