# Can a conductor's 'interpretation' ever be wrong?



## Guest (Sep 5, 2015)

I asked a question in a thread about Sibelius which applies more generally. It was prompted by an interview with Sir Simon Rattle and raises the question about the extent to which conductors' interpretations can ever be plain wrong. Here's the post and the link to the interview (thanks Becca).



MacLeod said:


> Hi Becca
> 
> Many thanks for your link to the interview about Sibelius with Rattle.
> 
> ...


There are similar arguments about Beethoven and the use, or ignoring of his metronome markings.

Though I'm particularly interested in Sibelius, please feel free to offer insights on any other composer.

Thanks.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Quite simple: the conductor is also an artist. The successful conductor must interpret the music to the listeners' acclaim. Unlike the composer who can whatever write he wishes, the conductor may not have that much freedom because the score is in front of him. Playing a symphony allegro as largo or a concerto andante as presto would risk ridicule. There are conductors who do risk interpretations but I think they won't be in their business long because tickets and recordings won't sell. That's when they get things "wrong". So to answer your question, I think the conductor as an artist can interpret in any wish he wishes, but in practice he does not risk extremities because it will not sell his concerts.


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> Quite simple





> _Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler_


(Probably Roger Sessions though often attributed to Einstein)

I don't doubt that conductors have an eye on both sales and publicity, but that doesn't really answer the specific questions I asked - which I've now put in bold to make them clearer.

I'm asking a technical question about the point at which a permissible interpretation strays into being a wrong performance, as exemplified by the Rattle examples.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I think it's worth noting that Karajan was a great champion of Sibelius when no-one else was playing him and that Sibelius himself was a great fan of Karajan's interpretations of his music. So for Rattle to make a statement like that appears a bit presumptuous.


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2015)

DavidA said:


> I think it's worth noting that Karajan was a great champion of Sibelius when no-one else was playing him and that Sibelius himself was a great fan of Karajan's interpretations of his music. So for *Rattle *to make a statement like that *appears a bit presumptuous*.


Only if there is a hierarchy of conductors, which is somewhat off the point.


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2015)

Hey MacLeod, while you have phrased this as a practical matter, I think that what you're talking about is actually a philosophical matter. That is, it's going to be tough to get any sensible responses to the question as asked, so all the sensible responses are going to look off-topic.

In a way, your question is about what kind of thing a score is. If a score is a set of precise instructions to be obeyed, then it's easy to conclude that disobedience is wrong. If a score is a set of suggestions to be interpreted, then it's easy to conclude that practically (!) anything an interpreter does is whatever an interpreter does.

It is, of course, not that easy. But that's partly because the terms of your query do not conduce to sensible responses, and the bolding just highlights that fact. As it were.

Here's another question that might clarify what I think is going on here. To what extent can a composer make mistakes in the score? Not copyist mistakes like wrong notes, but bad instructions. Things that don't work musically, so have to be overridden in performance.

(N.B., the words "don't work musically" are not sensible words.)


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Only if there is a hierarchy of conductors, which is somewhat off the point.


Nothing to do with a hierarchy. Karajan's interpretations had the composer's approval. Unless you consider Sibelius part of the 'hierarchy'?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> Quite simple: the conductor is also an artist. The successful conductor must interpret the music to the listeners' acclaim. Unlike the composer who can whatever write he wishes, the conductor may not have that much freedom because the score is in front of him. Playing a symphony allegro as largo or a concerto andante as presto would risk ridicule. There are conductors who do risk interpretations but I think they won't be in their business long because tickets and recordings won't sell. That's when they get things "wrong". So to answer your question, I think the conductor as an artist can interpret in any wish he wishes, but in practice he does not risk extremities because it will not sell his concerts.


I think there's some truth in this, but by focusing on the social and market issues you're masking another issue, IMO a more interesting one in fact.

Try a simpler question first, instead of "Can a conductor's 'interpretation' ever be wrong?" ask "Can a pianist's 'interpretation', playing for himself, ever be wrong?" That removes the the social element and reveals the problem of interpretation which is, of course, still there for the conductor.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Nothing to do with a hierarchy. Karajan's interpretations had the composer's approval. Unless you consider Sibelius part of the 'hierarchy'?


Sibelius approved of anyone who played his music. He told Beecham he was the best, he told Karajan he was the best . . .


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

some guy said:


> Hey MacLeod, while you have phrased this as a practical matter, I think that what you're talking about is actually a philosophical matter. That is, it's going to be tough to get any sensible responses to the question as asked, so all the sensible responses are going to look off-topic.
> 
> In a way, your question is about what kind of thing a score is. If a score is a set of precise instructions to be obeyed, then it's easy to conclude that disobedience is wrong. If a score is a set of suggestions to be interpreted, then it's easy to conclude that practically (!) anything an interpreter does is whatever an interpreter does.
> 
> ...


Suppose someone produced a recording of Kranerg with the tape playing at an unusual speed. Would that be a wrong performance?


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2015)

some guy said:


> Hey MacLeod, while you have phrased this as a practical matter, I think that what you're talking about is actually a philosophical matter. That is, it's going to be tough to get any sensible responses to the question as asked, so all the sensible responses are going to look off-topic.
> 
> In a way, your question is about what kind of thing a score is. If a score is a set of precise instructions to be obeyed, then it's easy to conclude that disobedience is wrong. If a score is a set of suggestions to be interpreted, then it's easy to conclude that practically (!) anything an interpreter does is whatever an interpreter does.
> 
> ...


Perhaps I should start simple (!) Is there a specific speed or range of speeds for allegro molto? If so, is it a mistake to conduct a piece marked (instructed by the composer on the score) allegro molto outside of that speed or range? Does Berglund make a mistake, or is it taste/preference/interpretation if he takes it slower than the correct speed?


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

I just wonder, Sibelius was constantly overspending (being broke), how much of endorsing a young, up and coming conductor that wanted to play some of his symphonies had a purely ulterior motive based on economical realities? I'm not saying that this any form of truth, but after having read Tawaststjerna's biography, this is not at all inconceivable!

As for the OP, I'm not sure You can say that an interpretation is wrong, but You are entitled to not like any form of interpretation!

/ptr


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2015)

DavidA - tell us more about Sibelius 'being a fan' or 'approving' of Karajan's performances. Where can I read more, and was his approval in some way definitive? If so, is Rattle simply wrong in what he says?

Note that if we head down the road of allowing interpretation to go too far, we bring up the question of whether the conductor knows the music better than the composer.

(If I could understand a score, I might answer some of this for myself - but I don't, so I'm looking for the technicians to help.)


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Is there a specific speed or range of speeds for allegro molto?


No.

It's a relative indication. Faster than just allegro, so that gives you a suggestion about how to play the passage marked allegro molto relative to nearby passages with related or opposed markings (allegro _tout court_, largo . . . )

I would say that if you had a passage allegro molto close to a passage allegro, and someone played the former slower than the latter, then _prima facie_ he'd be playing wrongly. All the work now is in spelling out what's in the _prima facie_ of course! And the _close to_.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> DavidA - tell us more about Sibelius 'being a fan' or 'approving' of Karajan's performances. Where can I read more, and was his approval in some way definitive? If so, is Rattle simply wrong in what he says?
> 
> Note that if we head down the road of allowing interpretation to go too far, we bring up the question of whether the conductor knows the music better than the composer.
> 
> (If I could understand a score, I might answer some of this for myself - but I don't, so I'm looking for the technicians to help.)


"Dear Friend,
As you know, I have always been a great admirer of Mr. v. Karajan, and his magnificent recording of my works has given me the keenest satisfaction.... his great artistic line and the inner beauty of the interpretation have deeply impressed me. I beg you to present my grateful greetings to him.
With all best wishes, Very sincerely yours,
Jean Sibelius"
(letter to EMI producer Walter Legge, 15 September 1954)


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> (Probably Roger Sessions though often attributed to Einstein)
> 
> I don't doubt that conductors have an eye on both sales and publicity, but that doesn't really answer the specific questions I asked - which I've now put in bold to make them clearer.
> 
> I'm asking a technical question about the point at which a permissible interpretation strays into being a wrong performance, as exemplified by the Rattle examples.


Happened numerous times throughout history. I can give you many technical examples, not following metronome markings, using different instruments/voices and transposing for these, re-writing sections, deleting sections to shorten the score (common with opera), ignoring repeats, using vibrato when there is meant to be none, tuning instruments to a much higher / lower pitch etc. all affect how the work sounds to our ears. Are these wrong? Many "great" conductors have done these to great acclaim as far as the audiences were concerned, mostly likely the majority did not even notice. Listen to several "great" recordings of Beethoven' fifth symphony final movement, many of the older recordings didn't bother with the repeats thus loosing the climax of the heroic finale.

This is one reason why I generally prefer to listen to historically informed performance practice groups when it comes to earlier music say before mid-Romantic.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> Sibelius approved of anyone who played his music. He told Beecham he was the best, he told Karajan he was the best . . .


But he approved!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> "Dear Friend,
> As you know, I have always been a great admirer of Mr. v. Karajan, and his magnificent recording of my works has given me the keenest satisfaction.... his great artistic line and the inner beauty of the interpretation have deeply impressed me. I beg you to present my grateful greetings to him.
> With all best wishes, Very sincerely yours,
> Jean Sibelius"
> (letter to EMI producer Walter Legge, 15 September 1954)


Eight months later another letter arrived in Legge's postbox:

Dear friend
You have perhaps wondered why I have not written to you before and thanked you for the excellent recordings of my fourth and fifth symphony. I have now heard them many times and can only say that I am happy. Karajan is a great master. His interpretation is superb, technically and musically.
With kindest regards and all good wishes,
Yours always sincerely,
Jean Sibelius.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Eight months later another letter arrived in Legge's postbox:
> 
> Dear friend
> You have perhaps wondered why I have not written to you before and thanked you for the excellent recordings of my fourth and fifth symphony. I have now heard them many times and can only say that I am happy. Karajan is a great master. His interpretation is superb, technically and musically.
> ...


Just to be clear for anyone who's lurking, we are NOT talking about Karajan's BPO recordings.


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Suppose someone produced a recording of Kranerg with the tape playing at an unusual speed. Would that be a wrong performance?


Yes. And not only that, but suppose someone misspelled Kraanerg.



MacLeod said:


> Perhaps I should start simple (!) Is there a specific speed or range of speeds for allegro molto? If so, is it a mistake to conduct a piece marked (instructed by the composer on the score) allegro molto outside of that speed or range? Does Berglund make a mistake, or is it taste/preference/interpretation if he takes it slower than the correct speed?


There's always more going on in a performance of music than the instructions on a piece of paper. That's why I said it was a philosophical matter, not a practical one. But simplifying keeps in firmly in the area of practicality.

And yes, there is a range for "allegro molto," but it's probably not something one could write down, and even if it were, that would still disregard all the other things going on in a performance, like (to keep things simple) the relative speeds of all the surrounding sections as well as Berlund's sense of how important contrast is for this particular bit you're identifying as "incorrect."

The question about the composer is still out-standing. Is it possible for Sibelius to have made an "incorrect" tempo indication, which a conductor would then have to "correct," and how would one determine that? And, generally, is it possible for composers to be "wrong" about their own work?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

All those HIP conductors of Beethoven's Pastoral who take the second movement of the Pastoral Symphony at a very fast clip or even worse, those who perform the third movement of the Beethoven Ninth Symphony as an andante instead of as an almost sacred adagio are also wrong, in my opinion.

Those who insist on taking every single repeat for the Schubert Ninth Symphony are also wrong, in my opinion.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

some guy said:


> Yes.


I think that it's more complicated than a one word answer, because at some point it would cease to be a performance of Kra*a*nerg. It would be something else.


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2015)

Ah, so it was a trick question. Well, I did think of the possibility of the thing turning into something else, but I was more interested in the idea that anyone would even do that. I can't imagine. 

But there are lots of things involved in a diffusion than the tape playing at the wrong speed. And the tape playing at the wrong speed would be the most unlikeliest of things. So unlikely as to be impossible, I would say. But the other things.... I was a world premiere of a piece by a composer friend of mine, who had sent me the sound file several months before the show. So I had had plenty of time to become familiar with the piece as a recording before ever hearing it "live," as it were. And the diffuser changed it so much it was almost a different piece, and that was mostly to do with potting. The un-performed sound file has a distinct arc. There's a dramatic flurry of events at the beginning and then a long, slow decline into silence. There's lots of stuff happening in the decline, but it's a decline nonetheless. Well, since this festival didn't let composers diffuse their own pieces, she had to sit there, helpless, while that long, slow decrescendo was turned into a circus of sudden bursts of loud sound from this or that speaker as well as long, slow crescendos which he made just by turning up the volume on one track or another.

She was pissed. I don't think she's let that festival play any of her music since.

There's also the whole business of settings. Another friend of mine sat down at the mixing board to perform his piece one evening only to find that all of the settings had been changed by someone at "rehearsal" for his own piece and not put back to where they had been. My friend had not realized that that had happened and so fought with the settings for the whole duration, and was so displeased with the results that the next time I visited him, he insisted on playing that piece for me with all the right settings. And it was, not surprisingly, almost a completely different piece. So yeah. There are things that can qualify for what MacLeod mentioned, even with fixed media electroacoustic music.

I don't think that the wrong tape speed is likely enough to be a good example is all.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Even the worst, most distorted interpretation of a work can still have some merit. Schoenberg said he only understood Mahler's Seventh Symphony after hearing it mangled by a poor conductor.

Unfortunately, the consistent poor interpretations of his work have not done much to aid understanding. I feel it's only been in the last few decades that conductors and orchestras have really been able to communicate what is in the music.


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2015)

Hey! That happened to me, too, and with the same piece. I had had the Bernstein recording for years and enjoyed it very much, but not until I heard the [ ] symphony play it live in [ ] did I feel like I really understood how that piece is put together, for what happening in the live performance was that each transition was badly botched. That gave a really informative sense of the piece's architecture that a well-played performance like the Bernstein just cannot convey.

Well, now it can, now that I've heard each and every transition, small or large, totally stumbled over.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Even the worst, most distorted interpretation of a work can still have some merit. Schoenberg said he only understood Mahler's Seventh Symphony after hearing it mangled by a poor conductor.
> 
> Unfortunately, the consistent poor interpretations of his work have not done much to aid understanding. I feel it's only been in the last few decades that conductors and orchestras have really been able to communicate what is in the music.


You think Walter's recordings are poor, and Klemperer's? And Scherchen's ? Fried? Mengelberg? I don't mean that to be agressive at all, I don't know much about Mahler performances but I've met the opposite idea - that Walter etc knew the man and knew what he wanted.

I'd be curious to know what you make of Klemperer's Mahler 7. I found it unlistenable, but maybe I should listen harder.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

some guy said:


> Ah, so it was a trick question. Well, I did think of the possibility of the thing turning into something else, but I was more interested in the idea that anyone would even do that. I can't imagine.
> 
> But there are lots of things involved in a diffusion than the tape playing at the wrong speed. And the tape playing at the wrong speed would be the most unlikeliest of things. So unlikely as to be impossible, I would say. But the other things.... I was a world premiere of a piece by a composer friend of mine, who had sent me the sound file several months before the show. So I had had plenty of time to become familiar with the piece as a recording before ever hearing it "live," as it were. And the diffuser changed it so much it was almost a different piece, and that was mostly to do with potting. The un-performed sound file has a distinct arc. There's a dramatic flurry of events at the beginning and then a long, slow decline into silence. There's lots of stuff happening in the decline, but it's a decline nonetheless. Well, since this festival didn't let composers diffuse their own pieces, she had to sit there, helpless, while that long, slow decrescendo was turned into a circus of sudden bursts of loud sound from this or that speaker as well as long, slow crescendos which he made just by turning up the volume on one track or another.
> 
> ...


From a philosophical point of view, I think getting clear about what it is that the composer creates when he composes, and in particular what its identity conditions are, are really at the heart of the questions in the thread. Only then can you start to see the relation between the composer's creation and the performer's creation.

I remember arguing years ago that when someone plays Bach on a Steinway, what they produce is so far away from what Bach himself had in mind, that they were effectively making different music. I wouldn't argue thay now, not because I think it's false necessarily, but because I can see how complex the underlying issues are.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> You think Walter's recordings are poor, and Klemperer's? And Scherchen's ? Fried? Mengelberg? I don't mean that to be agressive at all, I don't know much about Mahler performances but I've met the opposoite idea - that Walter etc knew the man and knew what he wanted.
> 
> I'd be curious to know what you make of Klemperer's Mahler 7. I found it unlistenable, but maybe I should listen harder.


Sorry, by "his" music, I meant Schoenberg's, not Mahler's. And Schoenberg did have some fine individual performers who championed his music and understood it well; it's just that orchestras couldn't cope with his demands.

Walter's readings of Mahler are fine indeed. Mengelberg's Fourth is a fascinating if idiosyncratic document. Klemperer's Second is of course a classic; I haven't heard his notoriously slow Seventh. I also think Furtwangler's Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen with Dieskau is good enough to make me wish he hadn't hated Mahler's music (Karajan, who also didn't like it much, conveyed this quite well with his horrific Mahler recordings).

Among early Mahler recordings, I'd say that Reiner's aren't particularly good, and that his Das Lied von der Erde is a classic far more for the fine singing than the rather poor interpretation of the work. (Boulez's _Lied_ has the exact opposite problem)


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Sorry, by "his" music, I meant Schoenberg's, not Mahler's. And Schoenberg did have some fine individual performers who championed his music and understood it well; it's just that orchestras couldn't cope with his demands.
> 
> Walter's readings of Mahler are fine indeed. Mengelberg's Fourth is a fascinating if idiosyncratic document. Klemperer's Second is of course a classic; I haven't heard his notoriously slow Seventh. I also think Furtwangler's Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen with Dieskau is good enough to make me wish he hadn't hated Mahler's music (Karajan, who also didn't like it much, conveyed this quite well with his horrific Mahler recordings).
> 
> Among early Mahler recordings, I'd say that Reiner's aren't particularly good, and that his Das Lied von der Erde is a classic far more for the fine singing than the rather poor interpretation of the work. (Boulez's _Lied_ has the exact opposite problem)


Ah, sorry. I don't know early Schoenberg orchestral performances (though I have enjoyed things by Rosbaud., including Moses) The Juilliards did good work for Schoenberg I think.

I think you should listen to Klemperer notorious Mahler 7 PDQ, since you are my favourite mahlerian. You will either suffer or relish the challenge.


----------



## Alfacharger (Dec 6, 2013)

I'll just leave this video.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MacLeod: _Can a conductor's 'interpretation' ever be wrong?_

Some guy: _Is it possible for Sibelius to have made an "incorrect" tempo indication, which a conductor would then have to "correct," and how would one determine that? And, generally, is it possible for composers to be "wrong" about their own work? _

I think the answers are "yes" and "yes."

It all starts with the composer. Every creative artist knows he can be wrong in his artistic choices, as well as deficient in his execution of them. Learning your art means learning to "read" the implications of your own ideas and to work out those implications. Once you've chosen some notes - usually the ones that first "inspire" the piece - your choices thereafter are not unlimited, and the more notes you decide upon the narrower your options become. Your job at every stage is to find the notes that go best with what you've already decided, or to revise what you've already done to accommodate new ideas. The notes in a piece of music are a company, not a mob. They all interact, each of them has a function, and if your work is well-made they will all seem important and right. If you're a good composer you'll know when you've achieved that.

If a piece of music can be well-made, it can also be poorly made. Or anything in between. The composer can make wrong choices - but he'll hope to eliminate them before publishing his work. Often he'll make changes after actually hearing the work performed - hence the "revised version."

An interpreter of music needs the same kind of discernment a composer has. He has to be able to see why a piece is composed as it is and not otherwise. His first job is to present the elements of a work so that the inner sense of it is evident to the listener, both its structural coherence and its character. The interpreter also might be able to see how a less-than-good piece could have been better; if he sees faults in the composer's work he may need to compensate for them by adding his own ideas to the way he plays it, even if these contradict what the composer appears to want. That may make his interpretation technically wrong, but it might actually make the piece better.

If a work is very fine to begin with, it will probably make musical sense in any competent performance, and because a score can only specify so much about what the composer had in mind the interpreter often has a pretty wide latitude in presenting what he conceives to be the spirit of the piece. If the composer is available to advise, that's always good, but composers don't necessarily want to straightjacket performers, who may have interesting ideas about a work that the composer didn't think of. An interpreter's choices can't be unlimited, however, and still claim to represent the work properly.

If you agree with the postmodernists (Barthes et al.) who think that authorial intent is meaningless and that we can do anything we feel like doing to composers' works, then no interpretation will be wrong. I suppose it comes down to an ethical question: what is our responsibility to the creator of the work? My answer would be: to understand as clearly as possible his intentions, and then to express our own sense of the work's meaning as informed by that understanding.


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2015)

Lordy what a knotty issue. I can add nothing to clarify, only muddy: Sorabji banned performance of his music for 40 years. Presumably he thought it was possible to perform his music inappropriately in some way.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> MacLeod: _Can a conductor's 'interpretation' ever be wrong?_
> 
> Some guy: _Is it possible for Sibelius to have made an "incorrect" tempo indication, which a conductor would then have to "correct," and how would one determine that? And, generally, is it possible for composers to be "wrong" about their own work? _
> 
> ...


This post makes me think of the typographers who corrected the "mistakes" in Joyce's Ulysses. I'm sure there are musical examples - some horn thing in the first movement of Beethoven 3 maybe, or even the tempo of op 106.

Or better, the phrasing marks in The Anna Magdalena Autograph of the cello suites.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Wilhelm Furtwängler, writing on score interpretation and Brahms, saying that he thought he composer had



> a very logical, intelligent mind, and he gave very few--by comparison with Wagner--directions... He acheived more by what he left out... Brahm's markings are deliberately restricted. He reduced them to only those that are completely essential. But each marking in Brahms has an absolutely authentic value... He rarely writes _ff_: When he does write _ff_ or _p_, it is in a place that must really be fortissimo or piano. Generally, where others write two or three _f_s he writes only _f_: He is very restrained [in this regard].


[As reprinted from _The Furtwangler Record_ by John Ardoin in a Music & Arts release of Furtwangler Conducts Brahms]


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> You think Walter's recordings are poor, and Klemperer's? And Scherchen's ? Fried? Mengelberg? I don't mean that to be agressive at all, I don't know much about Mahler performances but I've met the opposite idea - that Walter etc knew the man and knew what he wanted.
> 
> I'd be curious to know what you make of Klemperer's Mahler 7. I found it unlistenable, but maybe I should listen harder.


And Klemperer also knew and worked with Mahler ... and the interpretations by Walter & Klemperer are quite different.

P.S. Personally I would say that the tempi in Klemperer's Mahler 7th have more to do with his age and infirmities than anything else. As I observed in another thread some months back, Klemperer's 2nd is faster than most contemporary conductors.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Regarding the question about whether a composer can make mistakes in his scores, Michael Round in his book on Heitor Villa-Lobos states...

_"Because Villa-Lobos dashed off compositions in feverish haste and preferred writing new pieces to revising and correcting already completed ones, numerous slips of the pen, miscalculations, impracticalities or even impossibilities, imprecise notations, uncertainty in specification of instruments, and other problems inescapably remain in the printed scores of the Bachianas, and require performers to take unusual care to decipher what the composer actually intended. In the frequent cases where both the score and the parts are wrong, the recordings made by the composer are the only means of determining what the composer actually intended."_

And I can just imagine Villa-Lobos, the conductor thinking "_What the h*** was I thinking about here... well let's try it this way and see what happens."_


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Becca said:


> And Klemperer also knew and worked with Mahler ... and the interpretations by Walter & Klemperer are quite different.
> 
> P.S. Personally I would say that the tempi in Klemperer's Mahler 7th have more to do with his age and infirmities than anything else. As I observed in another thread some months back, Klemperer's 2nd is faster than most contemporary conductors.


The Klemperer Mahler 7 is an interesting case because lots of people would say, like you, that it's just a mistake, that he plays it wrong, he was a bit gaga, poorly, a silly old fool by then. I'm not so sure, having just listened to it again, I'm not sure. In truth I'm not enough of a Mahlerian to have an opinion.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Ultimately, only the composer has the right to say whether an interpretation of his music is "right" or "wrong ". Different listeners, whether fans, critics, musicologists or other conductors will always disagree . 
But the problem is that composers change their minds -period . They have been known to play or conduct their own music differently on different occasions , because this is inevitable .
The "composer's intentions " are not fixed in stone . 
Even Stravinsky, who was always blasting famous conductors for doing his music "wrong ", did not perform his music the same way every time when he conducted . You can see this on his different recordings of the Rite of Spring , for example .
Metronome markings began in Beethoven's day and were intended to give performers basic guidelines about avoiding tempos the composer would find either too slow or too fast . 
But Beethoven is known to have disregarded them himself - because he felt like different tempos
at different times .
Brahms rejected metronome markings, because he felt there was no one absolutely right tempo for any given work of his . So if a conductor or pianist etc does not follow Beethoven's metronome markings strictly, it does not necessarily mean Beethoven would have disapproved if he could come back today and hear the performance or recording . 
We are so fortunate to have recordings of their orchestral and other works by Stravinsky, 
Richard Strauss, Britten, Copland, Hindemith , Henze, and other great composers , but even they would admit that theirs is not the only way to perform the music .
As well as recordings of Bartok by Fritz Reiner, a close friend of the composer, and such close associates of Richard Strauss as Clemens Krauss , Karl Boehm, etc , Copland by Bernstein , Stravinsky by Monteux , whom he trusted as a faithful interpreter of his music . Britten by Steuart Bedford etc. 
Carl Orff was in attendance at the recording of the classic Carmina Burana with Euegen Jochum conducting the Deutsche oper orchestra of Berlin on DG and gave it his seal of approval . But there many other fine recordings of this.
The late Elliott Carter had certain trusted musicians who left exemplary recordings of his music , such as the Juilliard quartet and others . But he died in 2012 , and it's impossible to know now what he would have thought of other performances and recordings now .
Ultimately, there is no one absolutely right way to perform a masterpiece . Richard Strauss said that the worst sin of a performer is to be dull ! But not everyone agrees on what is dull or not !


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2015)

superhorn said:


> Ultimately, there is no one absolutely right way to perform a masterpiece . Richard Strauss said that the worst sin of a performer is to be dull ! But not everyone agrees on what is dull or not !


Well, superhorn and I rarely agree, so much so, that I had to read his last post over several times to make sure I wasn't badly misreading it.

I don't think I am. And I agree.

The matter is simply not a practical one. For actual notes, sure. If the score has an f# and you play a g, that's wrong. But for anything about how those notes are played, louder/softer, faster/slower, for anything about balances between sections, for anything to do with the overall arc of a piece, there will be differences. Those are philosophical matters, matters of taste, of balance, of psychology. Matters for which the words "right" and "wrong" or "correct" and "incorrect" are inappropriate.

It is very much a matter, come to think of it, of what is appropriate.:tiphat:


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

*Can a conductor's 'interpretation' ever be wrong?*

Sure, and Celi, Klemperer, Rattle, Giulini, Ozawa, Inbal, Gergiev, Maazel, Flor, Conlon, Halasz, Leinsdorf, Norrington, Stokowski, MTT, Thielemann, Scherchen, Furtwangler, Toscanini, Wand, quickly come to mind.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Beethoven should never be slick, glitzy and pollished, so that lets Karajan out.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I'm always against literalism in music, but let me just say this: there is one major sin in conducting, and that is sinning against the spirit of the music. What is this spirit of the music? It's a spirit that unfolds in time. So, to understand the spirit, you need at least knowledge and memory (of the background and the performance history of the piece), and maybe also that elusive Hegelian amorality (going against established practice by revealing a larger unity beneath contemporary boundaries of understanding) of a world-changing individual, if you really wish to skyrocket that piece into the future.

So, branch your vision organically and naturally on top of established practice or make a revolt but only if that reveals a larger and more complete picture. Not every whim does. And for Heaven's sake, don't make a Renaissance of dogma - "this is how it was played or intended, let's forget the last XXX years ever happened!" Art is spirit and spirit moves in time.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2015)

some guy said:


> Well, superhorn and I rarely agree, so much so, that I had to read his last post over several times to make sure I wasn't badly misreading it.
> 
> I don't think I am. And I agree.
> 
> ...


But the question as asked can still be answered - and your answer is, "No." :tiphat:


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Personally, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of performers taking too many liberties with a composer's work.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> But the question as asked can still be answered - and your answer is, "No." :tiphat:


Really? First, I think that the question as asked is the wrong question. Second, to the extent that it can be answered, my answer was "yes."


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2015)

some guy said:


> First, I think that the question as asked is the wrong question.


Typically some guyish! 



some guy said:


> Second, to the extent that it can be answered, my answer was "yes."


Except that since my question was "Can a conductor's 'interpretation' ever be wrong", your assertion that 'wrong' is an inappropriate answer only leaves 'no' (or something in between such as 'sometimes' or it 'depends'). I don't see how it can be 'yes'.

Given the collection of practical questions that I asked in relation to what Rattle said, I still think there is room for practical answers.

More importantly, how does anyone know how a piece should be played and what its 'inner spirit'* is until someone plays it - and therefore interprets it? Two different interpretations will give you two different 'inner spirits' - which is the right one?

*I'm using 'inner spirit' since someone used this term - or something like - to refer to whatever it is that the listener derives from the whole, larger than the sum of parts.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> Typically some guyish!


Ad hominem. (I accept your concession._



MacLeod said:


> Except that since my question was "Can a conductor's 'interpretation' ever be wrong", your assertion that 'wrong' is an inappropriate answer only leaves 'no' (or something in between such as 'sometimes' or it 'depends'). I don't see how it can be 'yes'.


It is possible to make mistakes and to make errors in judgment.



MacLeod said:


> More importantly, how does anyone know how a piece should be played and what its 'inner spirit'* is until someone plays it - and therefore interprets it? Two different interpretations will give you two different 'inner spirits' - which is the right one?


This is equivocating. The first part is philosophical; the last part is not. The first part sets up a situation in which correctness is inappropriate (not germane). The second part shoves the idea of correctness back into the picture.

Right and wrong are words that simply don't address interpretive realities much. There are things that can be called wrong, but they are few and far between. Errors. Mistakes.

You don't seem to want to talk about errors. You want to talk about "inner spirit," but as soon as you go there, you have left any context in which "right" or "wrong" make any sense.


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2015)

Thanks for the answers received to the question I think I asked...and a few that I didn't!



Mandryka said:


> No.
> 
> It's a relative indication. Faster than just allegro, so that gives you a suggestion about how to play the passage marked allegro molto relative to nearby passages with related or opposed markings (allegro _tout court_, largo . . . )
> 
> I would say that if you had a passage allegro molto close to a passage allegro, and someone played the former slower than the latter, then _prima facie_ he'd be playing wrongly.


Thanks. I get that. So it's still possible that one man's moderato is another man's allegretto?



Mandryka said:


> Just to be clear for anyone who's lurking, we are NOT talking about Karajan's BPO recordings.


So which are we talking about?



Mandryka said:


> From a philosophical point of view, I think getting clear about what it is that the composer creates when he composes, and in particular what its identity conditions are, *are really at the heart of the questions in the thread*. Only then can you start to see the relation between the composer's creation and the performer's creation.


Your questions, maybe. Not mine. I can see I made a mistake in the title. I should have asked something like, "Is Rattle right or wrong when he says [etc]". I should probably have just used 'performance' instead of 'interpretation'.



Woodduck said:


> MacLeod: _Can a conductor's 'interpretation' ever be wrong?_
> 
> Some guy: _Is it possible for Sibelius to have made an "incorrect" tempo indication, which a conductor would then have to "correct," and how would one determine that? And, generally, is it possible for composers to be "wrong" about their own work? _
> 
> I think the answers are "yes" and "yes."


You're saying, in effect, that the conductor has the right to say, "No, look here, what you _meant _to say was... Fixed that for you!"



superhorn said:


> Ultimately, only the composer has the right to say whether an interpretation of his music is "right" or "wrong ".


I do love a straightforward and unequivocal answer. Thanks.



Xaltotun said:


> I'm always against literalism in music, but let me just say this: there is one major sin in conducting, and that is sinning against the spirit of the music. What is this spirit of the music? It's a spirit that unfolds in time.


Now I've had the chance to look back more carefully at folks' replies, I can properly attribute. I knew when I referred to 'inner spirit' I'd picked it up from someone else. Not my idea, but yours. Combined with Woodduck's 'inner sense'. Both you and Woodduck touch on the problem I identify in talking about a piece's 'inner', but that's taking a route away from my very mundane questions, so I'd like to park that for now.

So, Is Rattle right or wrong to object to Ormandy's adding of a trumpet? (Did Ormandy 'add a trumpet'?)


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2015)

some guy said:


> Ad hominem. (I accept your concession._
> 
> It is possible to make mistakes and to make errors in judgment.
> 
> ...


No, I don't want to talk about inner spirit, but I was responding to someone who did. (See my post above where I attribute.)
No, I don't want to talk about 'errors', I want to talk about a conductor's deliberate choices. However, if Karajan, according to Rattle, has no sense of rhythm and plays it 'wrong', I'm willing to concede that that might be an error, though I rather think it is a shortcoming...if Rattle is right, of course.


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> So, Is Rattle right or wrong to object to Ormandy's adding of a trumpet? (Did Ormandy 'add a trumpet'?)


According to Stephen Johnson, it was Koussevitsky. For those who can access BBC material...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01wdkpq


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2015)

For those who can't, or who prefer reading, could you very sweetly tell us what you heard him say? Did he, for instance, explain why Koussevitsky did that?


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2015)

some guy said:


> For those who can't, or who prefer reading, could you very sweetly tell us what you heard him say? Did he, for instance, explain why Koussevitsky did that?


Here goes. Stephen Johnson, Radio 3 presenter has this to say (when considering the relationship between his personal life - struggling to restrain his drinking in the face of the ultimatum from his wife - the subsequent diminution of his writing and the possibility of this reflected in the music):



> This doesn't just bear on the symphony's emotional character. It affects the way one views how Sibelius marks the end of the work in the published score. The curious curtness of the final gesture surprised some when the symphony first appeared. Koussevitsky (BBCSO, 1933) changed it, adding a trumpet to the strings' final two-note rising phrase. It certainly has a radiant, triumphant effect and interestingly, Beecham did the same in his 1954 recording with the Royal Philharmonic. It was duly noted that Sibelius expressed hearty approval of Koussevitsky's recording of his symphonies so did he think Koussevitsky had got it right or more probably it seems to me, did Koussevitsky's ringing conviction make the seriously insecure Sibelius doubt the validity of his original rather more daring ending? Because the version printed in the score is subtler, less blatantly triumphal, more ambiguous. As the upper strings rise, crescendo, the other instruments, including the timpani, make a diminuendo. The final note, the supposedly triumphant tonic 'C' is remarkably short. Even Colin Davis seems to have his doubts about Sibelius's original. In his otherwise very convincing LSO Live recording, he has the timpani and the basses crescendo in sympathy with the upper strings. It's quite stirring (Davis clip played)...a brief gesture of triumph and the fist is raised in defiance...That's very impressive, but there's a strong case for taking what Sibelius wrote at face value. Leif Segerstam does just that in his Brilliant Classics version, but still more convincing is Osmo Vanska on BIS (Johnson's final recommendation, having considered Karajan/BPO, Berglund/COE too). Here's a conductor with a rare gift of taking a score absolutely literally and in the process, producing something that feels like a spiritual revelation. Vanska does exactly what Sibelius asks here and it makes the ending of the 7th Symphony more enigmatic, a challenging end to a hugely rewarding interpretation. This is not in any way, a traditional, romantic, heroic affirmation, it's something more complex and thought-provoking than that and I can't help feeling that we get closer to the composer's complicated heart in this...(Vanska clip)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> I do love a straightforward and unequivocal answer.


But you left the definition of "wrong" up to us. You're asking for a straightforward and unequivocal answer to an ambiguous question.

_Wrong:_ different from what's in the score. _Wrong:_ inconsistent with the composer's intentions (which may not be specified in the score). _Wrong:_ contrary to the "spirit" of the work (which may or may not be indicated by the composer's instructions or be suggested by knowledge of the composer, his style, his time, etc.). _Wrong:_ played with an inappropriate sense of style or manner of execution (which may be deducible only from scholarly studies of documents). _Wrong:_ inappropriate to the circumstances or occasion of performance. _Wrong:_ morally objectionable. _Wrong:_ incompetent or just plain lousy.

I would say an interpretation could be "wrong" in any of these meanings of "wrong," or in several at once. I'd also suggest that a performance which is wrong in one way could be right in another.


----------



## Guest (Sep 10, 2015)

I had thought my OP was quite clear, given the example of the added trumpet. I guess I was wrong.

Yet superhero did give me an unambiguous answer.


----------



## Guest (Sep 10, 2015)

Thanks for the precis, MacLeod. It's very revealing about how easy it is for conductors to have ideas. No wonder you started this thread. Now I understand, though I still agree with what Woodduck just said about "wrong." (Which didn't stop me from grinning at your saying "I guess I was... [wait for it!] ...wrong.")

Anyway, that was a very interesting and illuminating snippet you provided for us. Many thanks. I have made many interviews and done all the transcribing myself, so I admire anyone who transcribes anything.

I once took a conducting seminar with Herbert Blomstedt. (All you had to do was pay the fee. There was no entrance exam.) At one point he was rehearsing Stravinsky's Symphony in C and noted that there was a phrase in which one of the notes was changed a half step the second time it appears. It's a stunning effect, and I can't imagine anyone questioning it or even disliking it. It's brilliant! And so typically Stravinskian. But Blomstedt was sure it was a mistake in the score. And he asked if anyone had the Stravinsky recording of it. I did, and said I was sure the note was different the second time but that I'd check.

I did. It was.

Next day, i went up to Blomstedt and told him I had listened to the Stravinsky recording and confirmed that the note was different. He made a sour face at me and turned with a grunt and walked off with his huddle.

I've never liked people ever since that experience.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

There seem to me two points:
First that the conductor follows the tempo markings ( not necessarily the metronome). Ie Allegro con brio should not be played at Andante. Why I find Klemperer's reading of the first movement of Beethoven's Eroica impossibly slow.
Second the tempo should work. For example some of Beethoven's metronome markings are too fast even for today's players let alone the players of his day who were (by all accounts) far less skilled. So it is the spirit of the music rather than the metronome marking we should worry about with the question: "Does it work?"


----------



## Guest (Sep 10, 2015)

DavidA said:


> So it is the spirit of the music


But we don't know what the 'spirit of the music' is until we have someone's interpretation.


----------



## michaels (Oct 3, 2014)

If it's truly "interpretation" as an art, then maybe not...

But any interpretation can be easily seen as junk, juvenile, poor reflection of composer's intent, etc...


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

If instead of"wrong" you said "misguided," I would say unequivocally yes.


----------



## Winged Wolf (Aug 22, 2015)

Normally, I would say no to answer the topic's question. But then I remember, this exists:


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

hpowders said:


> All those HIP conductors of Beethoven's Pastoral who take the second movement of the Pastoral Symphony at a very fast clip or even worse, those who perform the third movement of the Beethoven Ninth Symphony as an andante instead of as an almost sacred adagio are also wrong, in my opinion.
> 
> Those who insist on taking every single repeat for the Schubert Ninth Symphony are also wrong, in my opinion.


Oops. I guess when our orchestra performed the Schubert _Ninth_ we committed an unpardonable sin. Curse those elitist amateurs on the stage who think they are the cat's meow 

http://www.talkclassical.com/38984-should-repeats-taken-classical.html#post907610

Many times we are glad when we do not play the repeats. When we did the Schubert _Ninth_ we were so overwhelmed by the music, we just had to keep going.


----------



## Guest (Sep 11, 2015)

Winged Wolf said:


> Normally, I would say no to answer the topic's question. But then I remember, this exists:


All movements taken at exactly the same steady 20 DBPM deadbeats per minute?

This is just plain 'wrong'!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> All movements taken at exactly the same steady 20 DBPM deadbeats per minute?
> 
> This is just plain 'wrong'!


Cobra thinks he's not wrong, and he's even published on it:

http://maximiannocobra.net/main/en/articles/tempus-dossier/124-tempo-space-and-music.html

Maybe it'll help to distinguish between:

wrong meaning "I don't like it." _red wine with fish is wrong_

wrong meaning false. _"grass is red" is wrong_

Cobra is wrong for many people in the first sense, which is maybe not so interesting. Is he wrong in the second?


----------



## Tedski (Jul 8, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Cobra thinks he's not wrong, and he's even published on it:
> 
> http://maximiannocobra.net/main/en/articles/tempus-dossier/124-tempo-space-and-music.html
> 
> ...


Yes. Nobody in his right mind could consider his Beethoven #9 2nd Mvmnt "Vivace."


----------

