# The conundrum of interpretation in classical music



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

Hello everyone. :tiphat:

This is my first post on the board, and I am a relative newcomer to classical music, but am enjoying my exploration so far. However I wanted to address and issue that I have had while attempting to pick out recordings of works to listen to, and that is what performer or interpretation to acquire. For you seasoned veterans I am sure this is a non-issue, but for the inexperienced such as myself it is really quite intimidating. Since budgetary concerns are paramount, I can't afford several versions of every single work, so I want one or two that will hopefully highlight the potential of that piece of music and encompass what it has to offer.

The problem is, everyone has an opinion, and they are often wildly disparate. Some seem to prefer technical proficiency and a strict adhesion to the score, while others prize individuality or eccentricity. And I must admit, as a novice, that I cannot often tell the difference between a supposedly "great" interpretation and performance and one where the consensus is it's just average or lackluster. Let me use for an example Jeno Jando's recording of the Beethoven piano sonatas. This recording is available for $8 on amazon! What a steal right!? But I became confused why this recording is so cheap and devalued while others by the likes of Barenboim, Kempff, Arrau, etc. are 5 or 6 times as much! Indeed, as I read opinions on the merits of Jando as a piano player, many consider his playing competent yet boring. He does not capture the magic of the music, but just plays the notes, so to speak. Yet I came across this blog with a analysis of the Moonlight sonata by Beethoven, and according to him Jando's version is the best because he is the only one who correctly follows the score and conveys Beethoven's intentions! http://classicalmusicblog.com/2007/09/beethoven-sonata.html

So yes, a very frustrating conundrum for a newbie to all this. Can you perhaps explain to me why a recording like Jando's of the Beethoven sonatas that to my ears sounds clean, clear, and very nicely played is not in the same league with some of those bigger names? Am I missing out on something special by not acquiring one of them instead? What is it that you look for in an interpretation of a piece of classical music? And any guiding words of advice for my ongoing trek into the world of classical music would be very helpful...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Don't worry about all the opinions. Especially on something like Beethoven's sonatas. You will be reading and reading all week, and never reach a consensus. You're better off trying out a few performances on YouTube, and then deciding for yourself. And why not save money, and buy an affordable set?

But you have to pick a performer that sounds good to your ears as far as phrasing, touch and sound. Don't listen with other people's ears.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Listen to the recording you like. Don't worry about the reviews and all of that. Once you get to know a piece well, you will be better equipped to do some comparison listening.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

"For you seasoned veterans I am sure this is a non-issue . . "

Sorry, but no. I'm afraid it's an ongoing issue. It's frustrating too. But I agree with the others. Don't worry too much. Good luck!


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2015)

Yep. Use your own ears unless and until someone else's become available.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

You can now listen to a truly enormous number of different recordings for free via Spotify and similar online services before you commit to buying one.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

I agree with what the others have put.
I am not an expert but I will say that performances do differ and once you are familiar with a work you will notice the differences. As the others have said let your ears decide
What brought this home to me was using a music streaming service (Spotify in my case) which allows direct comparisons.


----------



## D Smith (Sep 13, 2014)

Performances can differ quite a bit but, for me, I need to get to know the piece first, then can appreciate the differences in performances. In a way I envy you listening to the sonatas for the first time. Enjoy and, as others have said, listen for yourself, not for others.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Actually, you should sell off most of what you own and invest in some 100 or so different Beethoven sonata cycles. Maybe even the Brahms, Chopin, and Rachmaninoff piano music, too. Forget about utilizing free services like You-tube videos. It's better to have tons of boxes full of CDs to comb through looking for the ultimate "Moonlight Sonata" recording. Of course, you'll need a great stereo system, too. So forget about buying the wife and kids and family any further birthday or holiday gifts. In a couple of years you'll be able to afford the biggest rig out there, with expensive tubes and gold knobs and cables which cost more than a car -- and everything, so that the "Moonlight Sonata" will sound as if Beethoven himself is sitting there in your listening room playing the danged thing himself. -- You _do_ have a listening room? You didn't sell it off with all the other possessions, did you? In any case, this hobby of searching for the ultimate performance is frustrating, expensive, time consuming, and ultimately satisfying when (or _if_) you ever happen_ to find _that great interpretation. Did I mention frustrating?

By the way, welcome to the Forum. I'd offer you more advice, but I'm in the mood right now to listen to some Beethoven sonatas, so I have to go to my CD shelves and figure out which sonata and which performance I want to hear. That's gonna take some time. I often think life was easier, and better, when I was a newbie to classical music. When I could just listen to whatever copy of the "Moonlight Sonata" I had handy (or which came on the radio) and actually enjoy the glorious music.

But I guess I'm glad I now get all hyped up over interpretations. I suppose there's a reason for the gladness, and if I figure out what it is I'll let you know.

In the meantime, enjoy listening. Classical music provides a wonderful universe to explore. One which I sometimes think is bigger than the one Stephen Hawking enjoys looking into.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Faustian said:


> Yet I came across this blog with a analysis of the Moonlight sonata by Beethoven, and according to him Jando's version is the best because he is the only one who correctly follows the score and conveys Beethoven's intentions! http://classicalmusicblog.com/2007/09/beethoven-sonata.html


That blog is filled with confirmed misinformation. (_Wait a minute, someone has said something incorrect on the internet!_ You have to keep in mind that many a blogger is anything but fully informed. In the one you posted, there are but few facts, misread or misunderstood, and sewn together to make the blog entry... which is nonetheless seriously far off the mark.
This article has the facts as known included, and a comment by a well-respected pianist who knew his Beethoven, and the history surrounding Beethoven's piano sonatas.
http://www.all-about-beethoven.com/moonsonata.html
According to [ Edwin ] Fischer, this image has no connection with Beethoven's intentions. He rather attributes this atmosphere to the feeling that overwhelmed the composer when he took watch at the side of a friend who prematurely left the world of the living. In one of Beethoven's manuscripts there are several notes from Mozart's Don Juan, notes that follow the killing of the Commander by Don Juan, and lower, this passage is rendered in C sharp minor in absolute resemblance to the first part of the sonata in C sharp minor. Analyzing and comparing, one could realize that it cannot be the case of a romantic moon lit night, but rather of a solemn funeral hymn."

Rellstab, a poet, son of a German music publisher, thought of the Beethoven sonata while Rellstab was on holiday in Switzerland, and was taking a night time walk along the banks of a river... this after Beethoven was dead! The sonata is not 'about' moonlight, in any way, shape, or form, at all.
The bulk of my post above quoted is here
http://www.talkclassical.com/36133-extra-musical-factors-5.html?highlight=#post805793
in a thread on "Extra Musical Factors" which may interest you.

Although the Willem Kempf recordings are of vintage age, there is a long-term general consensus that his interpretations are one of the highest water-marks of great Beethoven playing, which means the recording owners know there is a market and they do not discount those recordings.

Somewhere on this site, probably several times over, are posts asking "Who are the best / better Beethoven interpreters of the piano sonatas?" Find a few of those, note the many various suggestions, and that throughout those a handful of names will show up quite regularly. Then begin to investigate those, via youtube links if at all possible, before choosing one for yourself.

Re: budget. Sometimes you can find a very nice price on something valued at more, but the more current budget releases are often not the way to go -- simply 'to have' is not really my idea of a good start. _If_ you can exercise patience, I would advise being wary of box set 'deals,' and looking into who and what they are very carefully, and resist with all your strength the impulse to 'own all that at once for a few dollars.' As you find out more, learn more _and better determine what pleases you the best,_ I think you will look back on some of those less expensive bulk purchases with more than a little regret.

I'm not the Beethoven fanatic and audiophile that many are. Off the top of my head, Kempf, Rudolph Serkin, Arrau, Brendel are all pretty damn fine players of this repertoire, and Ronald Brautigam has carved a niche for himself performing the complete sonatas on a period Fortepiano -- of these, I would suggest searching youtube to see what you might find to audition.

There are 32 Beethoven piano sonatas, five piano concerti... don't, please, be in such a rush


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

My own personal take on this problem is to start with the most popular/famous recordings of a work, usually the Titans of Early Stereo. So, for Beethoven sonatas, I'd start with the Kempff stereo cycle and Gilels.

If I am unsatisfied or want to do further exploration, then my next move is to try something that might be really distinct, maybe Paul Lewis or even HJ Lim.

Now I haven't had this problem with Beethoven's sonatas: Kempff and Gilels and a smattering of other stuff - Pollini's recordings of the late sonatas, some Jandó that I picked up along the way, a little Paul Lewis, a little Charles Rosen, Pogorelich's and Hough's 32, other odds and ends - have more than satisfied me.

A better example of my approach might be Mozart's _Requiem_. In my most naive early days of listening, I got Karajan '61, knowing nothing about any issues of which recordings I should hear. I had that for years, fell in love with it. For me, for a long time, Karajan '61 was Mozart's _Requiem_. I'd heard a comment from someone who I trusted and who knew a heck of a lot more about classical music than I did then or do now to the effect that it wasn't actually a very good recording, but I didn't care enough to find a "good" recording.

Eventually, years later, I got curious and wanted to hear how someone else did it. I turned to Gardiner. I like Gardiner well enough in other recordings, but his Mozart's _Requiem_ hit me like an iron pipe. I hated it. I mean I hated it. He seemed to have taken everything good and thrown it out, leaving behind some scraps. I couldn't believe other people liked it.

Then I moved, somehow losing my Karajan '61! I got a new one, but... it was remastered! It was definitely better than Gardiner, but every time I listened to it, I suspected that the remastering had ruined it. I didn't hear what I remembered hearing. I assumed I was remembering wrong....

But remembering wrong or not, I was dissatisfied, so eventually I went in search of _what I remembered_ of Karajan '61 (regardless of what I might've actually heard). I tried Böhm, Abbado, and Bernstein, I can't remember in which order. Definitely they all had their merits. I really enjoyed comparing and contrasting them. I was learning a lot about interpretation and sound; they were very different, even though, from a certain POV, they actually weren't all that different!

Finally I just bit the bullet and got myself another Karajan '61, unremastered. It was a _little_ disappointing, but most of all, it was a very interesting experience (especially given that one of my great interests is the unreliability of the human mind, such as the "sins" of memory): in some ways it was what I remembered, in some it wasn't. The remastering had changed it, and not in very many good ways. But in some very important (to me) ways, it wasn't what I remembered. Besides my memory having been mistaken, which must of course be true, my hearing/listening/taste had surely changed as a result of my experiences in the meantime (and not only those with Mozart's _Requiem_), rendering me unable to hear it the way I'd heard it fifteen years earlier. How much of one, how much of the other? My deceiving mind had weaved a web too tangled to unweave!

I'm not in general against HIPPI stuff at all, I really like it usually, so I wanted to try some more HIPPI recordings, and I turned to Marriner. I intended to turn to Marriner 1990, an almost universally popular recording, but in my great and glorious stupidity, I got the wrong one, Marriner 1977. Interesting in a way, I listened to it a couple times, but I wasn't able to give it a very fair shake because I was too annoyed at myself for my mistake. So I got Marriner 1990, and loved it. Not the way I loved my memory-fantasy version of Karajan '61.

Returning to Gardiner, I begin to find it not so bad, just as I find Karajan '61 not so good. I'm still romantically attached to Karajan '61. It's brown, it's muddy, it's a lot of things that aren't flattering, but it was my first girlfriend, so nobody else is allowed to say bad things about it. Gardiner on the other hand isn't as bad as I first felt. It's still not my favorite! It's my least favorite! But I have to admit, I sometimes have found myself enjoying it....

A few months ago a friend of mine who is just beginning to explore classical music asked me if there really was much of a difference between various recordings. We compared and contrasted some recordings of Chopin's _Études_, one étude at a time. It was a ton of fun, blind tests, going back and forth between Pollini, Luganski, Perahia, Cortot, with little bits of other performers, comparing the sound, the performance, whatever we might notice.

Then we turned to Mozart's _Requiem_, and again it was loads of fun. He couldn't believe that Mozart '61 unremastered and Mozart '61 remastered were the same recording. But here's the best part: I hadn't told him which was my favorite or least favorite because I didn't want to bias him too much (although of course I was doing so, despite my best effort, through subconscious cues), and his favorite, he was sure, was Gardiner; his least favorite, the remastered Karajan '61. How about that? One of my best friends! Wonderful moment.

I think I'm done buying recordings of Mozart's _Requiem_. There are a gajillion more out there, and they would all be different of course, and I might like any of them more than the ones I've heard so far, but I have a lot of other music to explore. (Semi-relevant, I recently got the _Requiem_ that Rosetti wrote for Mozart!) I could spend the next year of my life listening to nothing but Requiems and not feel the need for another recording of Mozart's, so I doubt I'll live long enough for another version of Mozart's _Requiem_ to become among my higher priorities.

We've all got to balance depth (lots of recordings of one work) with breadth (recordings of different works). We all have to find our own equilibrium - perhaps you really want to hear thirty different recordings of Beethoven's most famous piano sonatas, and that is absolutely fine if you do, but I don't, because doing that would mean I'd never get to know the piano sonatas of Clementi, Dussek, Enescu, Haydn, Hindemith, Hummel, Prokofiev, Schubert, Scriabin, and so on, or at least not very well, and that's a sacrifice I'm unwilling to make!


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Wow... these long replies make me feel inadequate. Science said it well for me.

Just my recommendation: keep on open ear and listen to as many interpretations of the same piece as possible . That way you can start to separate what you find interesting or problematic.

For me, it's a good starting point.

Also even a few live concerts of the piece can help you out too. Only if you can.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Different interpreters produce different interpretations and which one you like will depend on your interpretation 

Record labels such as Naxos make a point of using less expensive performers to record their music. This record label has done an excellent job over the years of producing bargain discs covering an enormous repertoire and are trusted by critics and consumers alike. A more characterful interpretation of works may be available from the 'bigger' labels but you won't go far wrong with Naxos.

As for Jeno Jendo, I have dozens of his discs and he plays very well ... but I can hear him humming along when I play his discs on my good hi-fi so that puts me off. It isn't as pronounced on my spare room equipment of via MP3 and Mrs Hermit cannot hear it, so you may not notice it yourself.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

We each bring a lot to the table through the act of listening, so I'd recommend you not get hung up on interpretation if you're just starting out your listening journey.
If the Jando recording of Beethoven "sounds clean, clear, and very nicely played" to you, then I'd say that's enough: if you're happy to spend time in its company, it will be time well spent.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Preferably one does not want an interpretation, which alters the work to make the conductor's desires a part of the music, but a presentation of the composer's work as closely to what the composer intended as possible. Unfortunately, that is most easily done with 4'33" in which case it doesn't matter.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Florestan said:


> Preferably one does not want an interpretation, which alters the work to make the conductor's desires a part of the music, but a presentation of the composer's work as closely to what the composer intended as possible.


This is strictly a late 19th and early 20th century idea.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

isorhythm said:


> This is strictly a late 19th and early 20th century idea.


Maybe so, but I would rather, in the purest sense, have exactly what (for example) Beethoven wanted his symphonies to sound like than whatever twist some conductor puts on it. As I understand it, there are very few who are faithful to the original score.

On the other hand, as far as Mussorgsky's Pictures at Exhibition, I am perfectly happy to listen to orchestrations and other versions than simply the original piano work.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Florestan said:


> Maybe so, but I would rather, in the purest sense, have exactly what (for example) Beethoven wanted his symphonies to sound like than whatever twist some conductor puts on it. As I understand it, there are very few who are faithful to the original score.


I don't think this idea would have made any sense to Beethoven.

There is ALWAYS interpretation. The reductio ad absurdum of trying to escape interpretation was Milton Babbitt writing electronic music, not because he was interested in the sounds, but because he wanted perfect reproduction.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

isorhythm said:


> I don't think this idea would have made any sense to Beethoven.


Surely after all the work he put into writing symphonies, he would not want them altered by someone else. To the degree that Beethoven's intentions were not clear, the conductor will have to interpret, but that interpretation should be of what Beethoven likely wanted, not what the conductor desires to do with it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Florestan said:


> Surely after all the work he put into writing symphonies, he would not want them altered by someone else.


 Beethoven seems to have found any departures from his scores (ornamentation in the slow movements of piano sonatas, for instance) objectionable, and had a major tiff or two with friends over this. He himself departed from the written scores quite freely of course.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Beethoven seems to have found any departures from his scores (ornamentation in the slow movements of piano sonatas, for instance) objectionable, and had a major tiff or two with friends over this. He himself departed from the written scores quite freely of course.


 Alas, if only we could have kept him alive!


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

KenOC said:


> Beethoven seems to have found any departures from his scores (ornamentation in the slow movements of piano sonatas, for instance) objectionable, and had a major tiff or two with friends over this. He himself departed from the written scores quite freely of course.


Yeah, but there's a difference between improvised ornamentation - which was common until the early 19th century and then fell out of favor - and the concept of interpretation.

It's literally impossible for a performer to realize Beethoven's music, or any music of the common practice era, without fully inhabiting it and identifying emotionally with it. That remains true even if you faithfully follow all of Beethoven's markings (which I generally think you should).


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Florestan said:


> Maybe so, but I would rather, in the purest sense, have exactly what (for example) Beethoven wanted his symphonies to sound like than whatever twist some conductor puts on it. As I understand it, there are very few who are faithful to the original score.


A good discussion of this here. Excerpt gives a few reasons.

http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics3/eroica.html



> Why do knowledgeable experts routinely ignore the composer's tempo directives with such impunity, even while insisting upon exact adherence to every other aspect of his score? *The common rationale is that Beethoven added the tempo specifications in 1817, when his deafness had become profound and had deprived him of the ability to judge music in real time*, and thus represented an abstract sonic image that in any event was a re-imagining long after its conception. To that should be added *the well-observed psychological phenomenon that music in one's imagination often is faster than in a performanc*e. (And in fairness, let's not forget the famous incident at the 1825 premiere of his Ninth when Beethoven was so oblivious to the musicians that his conducting continued long after the piece had finished - but, curiously, that must have meant that his mental pace had been far slower than the real conductor's. Leonard Bernstein and the Stadium Concerts Symphony Orchestra of New York City (Decca LP) *Also hard to reconcile with his later metronome specifications is the review of the premiere, which complained that the work lasted a full hour;* frankly, that seems hard to accept at face value unless there were extremely long breaks between movements, as very few recordings, even at the increasingly slow tempos that have become the norm nowadays, approach that length.) Others try to avoid disrespecting the composer's directive and evolving esthetic outlook by speculating that his metronome was defective.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

I still struggle with the question of whether or not I like/dislike the particular performance or the work itself. After a few years of making my way through the most popular works and composers, I'm at a point where I will sometimes listen to other interpretations of works I've heard before, either by chance on the radio or intention from wanting to hear a possibly better rendition.

Over time, I have developed familiarity with certain performers, and I have a better idea which ones I like to hear. For example, Murray Perahia is one of my go-to pianists for when I want to hear a solo piano piece or piano concerto for the first time, as I have really loved a lot of his previous performances. A conductor like Pinnock has a love of harpsichord and other ideas that I generally do not like, so that would not be my first choice.

Listen how you can, and you will determine what is right for you. Most listeners are not going to buy 30 versions of their favorite symphony to get the very best one, or if they do, they will not do that for many works. I love having a virtual YouTube library in the form of a Classical playlist, and I only own a few classical CDs.


----------



## Giordano (Aug 10, 2014)

isorhythm said:


> It's literally impossible for a performer to realize Beethoven's music, or any music of the common practice era, without fully inhabiting it and identifying emotionally with it. That remains true even if you faithfully follow all of Beethoven's markings (which I generally think you should).


Yes, this is true, and the "identification" has to be much more than just emotional. I like to think of this as _attunement_, which one can also attempt as a listener.

[I may be wrong, but, unfortunately, I think many musicians today think of this attunement as belonging to the "mumbo jumbo" category.]


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Beethoven seems to have found any departures from his scores (ornamentation in the slow movements of piano sonatas, for instance) objectionable, and had a major tiff or two with friends over this. He himself departed from the written scores quite freely of course.


I didn't know this, Ken, so thanks (if you have the source that would be nice.) Did he have anything to say about using ornaments to make repeats more interesting? There's been a recent release of op 2 which uses ornaments for this reason (I think.) -- Paavali Jumppanen's. He does it less so in later sonatas, for reasons I haven't fully fathomed yet. He writes this



> Over time, Beethoven refrained from applying the second repeats, and even among his early sonatas he indicates them only when there are no substantial codas to "have the last word," so to speak. The nature of the repeats also changed. Early on their purpose was more rhetorical; they opened the floor for the performer's creativity through improvised ornamentation. As his style matured, the repeats had more to do with the structural design of the music: certain ideas were reemphasized by the repetition so that the listener would remember and recognize them in development and variation.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

"However I wanted to address and issue that I have had while attempting to pick out recordings of works to listen to, and that is what performer or interpretation to acquire. For you seasoned veterans I am sure this is a non-issue, but for the inexperienced such as myself it is really quite intimidating."

Initially, it's a daunting task. There are no short cuts. It requires lots of listening. FM radio, Spotify, partial samplings can keep costs down. It will take years. It's not a race.

Interp preferences are a personal thing. Never settle on something because of reviews, hypes, consensus. Decide for yourself through comparative listening. Keep notes if that helps. Remember, a short sharp pencil can often be better than a long, long memory.

Key things to listen for...passionate playing, tempi, attacks, transitions, recorded sound. Some listeners place more weight on recorded sound than others. It's my feeling that the recording is sabotaged, if your can't clearly hear the music. Often there's enough sound left (if the pitch is good) for you to appreciate the artistry. If so, you should then be asking yourself, Does this interpretation positively stand out in your comparative listening? So much so, that clarity can be overlooked.

If not, I suggest considering an onward move. The quest is too demanding to be bogged down with also-rans. And life is too short, too. Anyway, it's your choice. Happy hunting and listening.:tiphat:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> I didn't know this, Ken, so thanks (if you have the source that would be nice.) Did he have anything to say about using ornaments to make repeats more interesting?


It's from the new Swafford bio, in reference to an incident with Hummel or Czerny, don't remember which. Nothing about ornamenting repeats that I know of. I'm not sure anybody was thinking much about baroque performance practices in those days.


----------



## JACE (Jul 18, 2014)

The original poster asks a wonderfully philosophical question!

I suppose the way that you would answer the question depends on whether you're a Platonist or an Aristotelian. I'm the latter, so I don't think music meaningfully exists apart from the act of interpretation. These lines from Wallace Stevens, the poet and insurance salesman, play with this idea more beautifully than I ever could:

_*She sang beyond the genius of the sea.
The water never formed to mind or voice,
Like a body wholly body, fluttering
Its empty sleeves; and yet its mimic motion
Made constant cry, caused constantly a cry,
That was not ours although we understood,
Inhuman, of the veritable ocean.

The sea was not a mask. No more was she.
The song and water were not medleyed sound
Even if what she sang was what she heard.
Since what she sang was uttered word by word.
It may be that in all her phrases stirred
The grinding water and the gasping wind;
But it was she and not the sea we heard.

For she was the maker of the song she sang.
The ever-hooded, tragic-gestured sea
Was merely a place by which she walked to sing.*_

In other words: Without a singer, there is no song.

And this is a freeing idea. It frees us from the need to find an the "ideal" (to use Plato's phrase) performance, an abstraction that exists "out there" somewhere (perhaps in the mind of the composer?).

I like to think that music only exists in the particulars of the realization. This is a powerful idea, and it changed the way I think about music.

********

Sorry for the philosophical jag. All of the advice given earlier in the thread is right-on-the-mark. I just couldn't resist the urge to take the OP's question somewhere else.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

JACE said:


> And this is a freeing idea. It frees us from the need to find an the "ideal" (to use Plato's phrase) performance, an abstraction that exists "out there" somewhere (perhaps in the mind of the composer?).
> 
> I like to think that music only exists in the particulars of the realization. This is a powerful idea, and it changed the way I think about music.


I've always found it strange that people consider the music being contained by a score a "Platonic" notion.

The true Platonic notion in music (which a number of composers have held) would be that the music exists entirely prior to the creation of a score, and the composer is simply the one who instantiates it.

Any idea that music does not exist until it is performed would require us to believe that certain works did not exist as music until after their composers' deaths.

It is true that there is no one ideal performance. Rather, the score contains any and all possible performances of the music.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

From my experience I have several suggestions

1) Any recording that you *enjoy* is good, especially when you are new to classical music. As your ears become more attuned to things and you start listening more you will naturally explore other recordings and find ones you like, possibly even more.

2) Check out Youtube when considering a purchase - a free way to "try out" a recording.

3) Price does not necessarily mean that a recording is superior. Naxos is a label that tends to have less expensive recordings that are very solid.

4) Buy used (amazon, ebay). You'll pay 50% less usually.

5) I think it is helpful to read others opinions, then as you experience the music yourself you'll find whether you agree or disagree. If you disagree, move on to someone elses opinions. If you agree then start looking for other recommendations by the same person.

6) My usual plan if it is music I don't know AT ALL is to look for published opinions that are PASSIONATE. I am always more likely to listen to a recording that has really moved or affected another person.

7) The Penguin guide is a very reputable source to use when choosing interpretations. I have almost always enjoyed recordings I have purchased with their recommendations.

8) Get to know the website: www.arkivmusic.com. They list every recording currently in production and they also publish their own recommendations. It is a great website for researching what's out there.

I hope this helps a small bit. Best of luck with your exploration.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Faustian said:


> What is it that you look for in an interpretation of a piece of classical music? And any guiding words of advice for my ongoing trek into the world of classical music would be very helpful...


At the most fundamental level - I am looking for something that holds my attention. If my mind easily wanders from the music that is a sign to me that there may be a more musical interpretation that will speak to me more.

I once went to a piano competition (as a listener) and heard two pianists play the exact same piece back to back. The first one played everything perfectly but I found myself thinking - "this music is soooo un-interesting, I really don't like this composer." Then the second pianist came out and played the same piece and I was on the edge of my seat and I couldn't believe that it was the same piece. It really highlighted to me the importance of interpretation.* IT REALLY CAN MEAN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LOVING A DISC AND USING IT AS A DRINK COASTER.*


----------



## JACE (Jul 18, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> I've always found it strange that people consider the music being contained by a score a "Platonic" notion.


Hmm. That's interesting.

My first serious music listening involved jazz. Compared to that world, it always seemed to me that classical music and musicians operated under much more of a Platonic mindset. If, as you say below, "the score contains any and all possible performances" doesn't that imply something that inherent in the _score_ rather than the performer is at the very center of musical creation.

I don't think that's the case in jazz. Of course, composition and composers are integral to jazz. But the tune is only the starting point for the improvisers. In jazz, the hero isn't the composer, it's the performer who brings the music to life only when musicians "tell the story" in a personal way, giving it their unique stamp. That's one of the reasons that jazz celebrates iconoclasts and values individuality (in general) more than classical music.

Naturally, I'm not saying one way is better or worse. I'm just revealing my own preconceptions. 

But it does seem to me that classical music has a composer & score-centric way of thinking (emphasizing the idea of ONE at its core) versus a jazz mindset that emphasizes a performer-centric, individualistic way of thinking (with PLURALISM -- to use William James' phrase -- at its core). And this One & Many idea roughly corresponds with Plato & Aristotle and their respective viewpoints.



Mahlerian said:


> The true Platonic notion in music (which a number of composers have held) would be that the music exists entirely prior to the creation of a score, and the composer is simply the one who instantiates it.


Yes. Absolutely. And that would indeed be another form of Platonism.



Mahlerian said:


> Any idea that music does not exist until it is performed would require us to believe that certain works did not exist as music until after their composers' deaths.


Not sure I understand what you mean here. The composer wouldn't have to be dead. A pluralistic, as opposed to Platonic view, would only assert that the music isn't "really" music until it is performed by someone, anyone. At that point, it would be instantiated by a performer -- and, just as important, it could be heard. The whole tree falling in the forest thing; no sound, no music until there's someone to hear it.



Mahlerian said:


> It is true that there is no one ideal performance. Rather, the score contains any and all possible performances of the music.


I like that idea.

As I said before, this is just me slinging ideas around. I dabbled in philosophy while studying literature in college, but I'm no philosopher. Don't mean to mis-characterize anyone or anything. The only reason that any of this is fun is because I LOVE music -- regardless of how I'm thinking about it.


----------



## JACE (Jul 18, 2014)

20centrfuge said:


> At the most fundamental level - I am looking for something that holds my attention. If my mind easily wanders from the music that is a sign to me that there may be a more musical interpretation that will speak to me more.
> 
> I once went to a piano competition (as a listener) and heard two pianists play the exact same piece back to back. The first one played everything perfectly but I found myself thinking - "this music is soooo un-interesting, I really don't like this composer." Then the second pianist came out and played the same piece and I was on the edge of my seat and I couldn't believe that it was the same piece. It really highlighted to me the importance of interpretation.* IT REALLY CAN MEAN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LOVING A DISC AND USING IT AS A DRINK COASTER.*


Right on! Yes, yes, yes.


----------



## JACE (Jul 18, 2014)

20centrfuge said:


> Any recording that you *enjoy* is good, especially when you are new to classical music. As your ears become more attuned to things and you start listening more you will naturally explore other recordings and find ones you like, possibly even more.


It's the ONLY meaningful measure -- from a listener-centric point of view! 

If you dig it, it's good.

But if you're listening closely, you might be digging _something else_ more tomorrow!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

JACE said:


> Hmm. That's interesting.
> 
> My first serious music listening involved jazz. Compared to that world, it always seemed to me that classical music and musicians operated under much more of a Platonic mindset. If, as you say below, "the score contains any and all possible performances" doesn't that imply something that inherent in the score rather than the performer is at the very center of musical creation.
> 
> ...


You are certainly correct that there is a big difference in mindset between the two. Classical music has long been a tradition centered around the composition, rather than the individual performance, and the composition is signified by the score (it is not equal to the score, which is, as people are aware, an inexact notation). With Jazz music, a significant portion of the composition takes place during performance, and performers end up being co-composers who are in fact more important to the music than the initial written composition itself.



JACE said:


> Not sure I understand what you mean here. The composer wouldn't have to be dead. A pluralistic, as opposed to Platonic view, would only assert that the music isn't "really" music until it is performed by someone, anyone. At that point, it would be instantiated by a performer -- and, just as important, it could be heard. The whole tree falling in the forest thing; no sound, no music until there's someone to hear it.


No, he or she wouldn't have to be dead, of course, but one would have to agree that Schubert's Ninth Symphony, if it is to be considered "a piece of music", did not exist _as music_ until after the composer's death. Alternatively, if nobody is listening to a work, wouldn't it cease to exist as a piece of music until it is next heard or performed?

I believe that the initial hearing takes place as the composer writes it and finishes the work. It is heard in the composer's mind, and that is just as real as in the concert hall. After the work is contained within a score, it continues to exist as a specific finished piece of music, which will never change, though interpretations of it may.

Of course, a piece of music must be performed in order to truly show it off, but it exists as music even before then.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

One thing I'm interested in is that different music calls for different kinds of interpretation, and there may be fundamental differences between these kinds.

A priest singing an ancient chant, a pianist performing a Beethoven sonata, and Vibraphone Player Number 3 in _Music for 18 Musicians_ are all engaged in interpretation. But it seems clear to me that the pianist is doing something pretty different. He or she is doing something that is highly _subjective_.

The priest and the vibraphone player on the other hand are clearly making interpretive choices, but I'm not sure their own subjectivity enters into it at all. Certainly not in the same way.


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2015)

My Beethoven sonatas:

1-32 (Kempff) - General High-Quality Coverage
28-32 (Pollini) - High-Quality Non-Vintage For Some Of The Best
Random (Gilels) - A Few Flashy Versions Of The Classics For When I Get That Mood

Haven't particularly felt a need for any others, although I have heard several from Schnabel and Brendel.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Florestan said:


> Maybe so, but I would rather, in the purest sense, have exactly what (for example) Beethoven wanted his symphonies to sound like than whatever twist some conductor puts on it. As I understand it, there are very few who are faithful to the original score.


One might wonder if Beethoven actually knew what he wanted his symphonies to sound like. I wonder -- would Beethoven have changed his mind about how his music should sound after he heard it performed by one of the top-notch symphony orchestras of our current age, an orchestra with highly skilled musicians and spot-on exemplary instruments performing in scientifically designed acoustical spaces? Would he have felt that the standard orchestra of the Vienna of 1807 could do the score the same justice the modern orchestra could do it? One might wonder even if there was ever disappointment on the part of the composer after hearing a work, especially if his imagination had something more in mind.

To get the sound Beethoven may have heard, we might have to go to a small regional orchestra with lesser trained musicians playing inexpensive instruments in a poor acoustic. One must realize that today's instrumentalists have nearly two centuries worth of development of performance technique that Beethoven probably couldn't even have imagined. Players that today can effortlessly fiddle through a Rachmaninoff Symphony, a Schoenberg Concerto, or Penderecki's _Threnody_ must play Beethoven with a flow and ease the composer probably never heard. I can only imagine what Beethoven's contemporary orchestras may have thought had they looked down on their music stand to see any of the works mentioned above. Let alone play them.

We do know that Beethoven was eager to embrace the new sound of the improved pianofortes of his day. He was one who welcomed expansion, adding piccolo and contrabassoon to his Fifth Symphony. One would imagine Beethoven would appreciate the improved sound of today's top bands.

So ... did Beethoven know what he wanted his symphonies to sound like? If he first heard the First Symphony performed by a mediocre group, would he have been satisfied? If he had an opportunity to hear the music played by a better group of musicians the second time, would he then know what the potential of the music was? Can the sound of any orchestra ever match what is in the imagination when a piece is being composed?

Even to write a small work for solo oboe. Consider that what "sound" that oboe has in the composer's mind as the composer jots down the notes on a score page will probably never be realized by any single oboe or oboe player who undertakes the work simply because there are so many variables at work with an instrument, its reed, its quality, and the proficiency and style and quirkiness of the player.

I'm not a composer, but I suspect that a composer may enjoy hearing his work played with a different sonority (a different sounding oboe) or with a differing sense of interpretation (how long a note is held, how loud or soft each note is played, what tempo is adopted, and even what pitch is utilized -- there are so many variables). Music remains a liquid art. It is not locked into a form like a sculpture or painting or poem. It only comes to life when performed, and no two performances will ever be identical, even performances by the same musician of the same work.

So I don't especially worry about what Beethoven heard in his head or heard in his own concert halls. I do think that the great majority of serious musicians actually attempt to render the music they perform in what they consider to be valid interpretations as close to the intentions of the composer as possible. Which is actually quite an impossible endeavor, especially so for works of a composer dead since 1827.

The great thing is -- today one has access to so much. If one finds a "Moonlight Sonata" that seems too slow, one does not have to listen to it further. One can find many that will pace by at quicker tempos. Etc. Etc. And if one finds a performance that satisfies, one can generally live with it forever, especially if it is recorded. Still, even though I have encountered many a satisfying interpretation of many works by many composers, I have not turned away from further exploring other interpretations of those same works.

Just today I listened to a recording of the conductor Celibidache performing Mussorgsky's _Pictures at an Exhibition _in the Ravel orchestration, even though I have long favored a couple of other versions. But I had never before heard the Celibidache take. When the music ended, I had heard an interesting interpretation. One not wholly satisfying, yet one that was intriguing. I will probably listen to the recording again. I will return to the handful of satisfying interpretations I have long lived with. And I will continue to play unfamiliar recordings of the work. Because that's part of what being a music lover is all about. It's a large part of the joy of music. And I think Beethoven would have understood that.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

SONNET CLV said:


> One might wonder if Beethoven actually knew what he wanted his symphonies to sound like. I wonder -- would Beethoven have changed his mind about how his music should sound after he heard it performed by one of the top-notch symphony orchestras of our current age, an orchestra with highly skilled musicians and spot-on exemplary instruments performing in scientifically designed acoustical spaces?


I think that Beethoven was more concerned that his symphonies be performable by orchestras of his day, many lacking valved brass instruments and playing in primitive spaces, usually with two rehearsals at most (if that). Hard to imagine. But for his orchestral music, concerts were his main source of income aside from commissions -- there was little demand from publishers because of the extremely high costs of engraving so many parts and selling only a few sets. Remember that he had lost a good part of his income in the early 19th century because he could no long perform publicly due to his deafness.

I suppose that today Beethoven would orchestrate quite differently.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

KenOC said:


> It's from the new Swafford bio, in reference to an incident with Hummel or Czerny, don't remember which. Nothing about ornamenting repeats that I know of. I'm not sure anybody was thinking much about baroque performance practices in those days.


Ah I see, he didn't want people to ornament in slow movements but he was silent about the question of repeats out of slow movements.

The issue about ornamenting repeats isn't only to do with baroque, it's to do with how to play (eg) Beethoven op 2. There are loads of repeats in Beethoven, Haydn, Mozart etc and you have to know how to deal with them -- just repeating what you did before may not be very interesting to hear. If you can hear it let me know what you think of Paavali Jumppanen's op 2. It's certainly not a favourite for me, but I'm glad I've heard his ideas, and I'm looking forward t hearing the release of his op 10s in a couple of months.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Wouldn't "classical" music be pointless without interpretation?, Like eliminating the "human" part, what would that leave? I'm sure that You can find midi-files of all the Beethoven Sonatas on the internet, that would set You for life just in the same way an inflatable doll would be a much more hassle free relationship than a real human mate would... 

/ptr


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

ptr said:


> Wouldn't "classical" music be pointless without interpretation?


If so, then it would be pointless for a composer to conduct his own works.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Florestan said:


> If so, then it would be pointless for a composer to conduct his own works.


I'm puzzled? Why do You think that a composer who "play" or "conduct" his own music do not interpret? Interpretation is the intellectual to practical transformation act of bringing what is written in the sheet music alive by making sounds with one or more (musical) instrument(s).

/ptr


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Florestan - as I'm sure you know, different performances of a given work sound different even if they're all faithful to the score. Those differences are what we mean when we speak of different interpretations. Interpretation doesn't mean going against the score or the composer's intentions.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I am all for following the score, but according to Gunther Schuller there are only a handfull of conductors who actually faithfully followed the scores in the several classical works that he evaluated in his book The Compleat Conductor. I don't have much ability to discern how closely a conductor is following a score, but ideally I would like to know that my Beethoven symphony cycles are faithfully reproduced. At any rate, I have several cycles, all of which Gunther finds fault with, but I think the variances are insignificant in the big picture and Beethoven's work is being conveyed to me, albeit with interpretation.

As for interpretation, it may be somewhat a matter of semantics. If we consider interpretation as "the action of explaining the meaning of something" that is fine. But if we look at what I think is meant by interpretation in classical music performance, then it is "a stylistic representation of a creative work or dramatic role" which suggests to me that the conductor has put their own twist on the work.

Most certainly there will be differences due to concert halls, modern vs early instruments, size of orchestra, perhaps how the conductor is feeling that particular day, whether the musicians even pay attention to the conductor, etc. But I think the best we can do is follow the score as closely as possible without being mechanical--else we would feed the score into a computer and have it play back the sounds of the instruments.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

The disagreement is partly semantic, in that your definition of "interpretation" is not the standard one in classical music.

Judging by the summary of that book on Amazon, however, I think the disagreement is also partly philosophical. If the summary of Schuller's view is accurate, I doubt many composers would have agreed with it.

Have you ever studied an instrument or singing?


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

isorhythm said:


> Have you ever studied an instrument or singing?


No. I have not.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Florestan said:


> No. I have not.


I guess you'll have to take my word for this then, which is not great because I'm only a lousy amateur pianist. But classical scores generally leave a lot up to the interpreter by design. As the 19th century went on composers became more and more specific in their directions, but there's still always a lot up to the interpreter.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

isorhythm said:


> I guess you'll have to take my word for this then, which is not great because I'm only a lousy amateur pianist. But classical scores generally leave a lot up to the interpreter by design. As the 19th century went on composers became more and more specific in their directions, but there's still always a lot up to the interpreter.


Yes Schuller addresses that, but he found frequent violations in the parts that are directed. Also Schuller suggested that is the reason many conductors prefer to do older works as the newer ones are very difficult to perform with all the detailed instructions.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

Thanks for bringing arkivmusic to my attention. This is a great all-around resource for classical music composers, performers, and recordings. You do have to be careful when looking for recommendations of works there, though. For example, Beethoven's Symphony No. 5's list of recommended titles starts with Pierre Boulez's box set. Reading the notes/review section, the Beethoven symphony is considered to be dull and pedestrian. The box set was recommended and included the work, but it was not recommended for that work. There's really no way to automate the site's programming to avoid results like that, so careful reading is still good. However, it did star the Kleiber 5/7 recording as the top recommendation, which few would dispute as a terrific version of the symphony. The recommendations also pointed me to a nice Colas Breugnon by Kabalevsky (Pletnev's version).


----------

