surfboard_ said:-Skyleo- said: "Perfection" does not exist in the musical world, but "interpretation" does.
One thing doesn't invalidate the other. It's pretty obvious that you can't achieve a perfect performance for all perspectives, but it doesn't mean you should neglect the very concept of perfection and do whatever you want because "ITS MY BODY, MY PERFORMANCE, MY FEELINGS" (its not even wrong to approach those ideas and blend with the score, but theres a balance, unless you just want to have fun with your mates)
Can't agree more.
Nonetheless, what I wanted to add is that this "perfection" implies two things : what we call "virtuosity" (technical stuff), and your "own lecture of the score" (read between the lines, it deals with intuition imo). The first is objective, and the latter is subjective.
As a result, I think music "perfection" is not as 'simple' as a mathematical formula. It's a "subjective perfection". It can be madly accurate but still, perfection in music always implies personal choices between two or more 'right answers'.
surfboard_ said:
-Skyleo- said: Btw, if I refer to your idea of "perfection" ('human metronome'), then I think it would be too simple to be a professional musician.
Competition or not, when you have to do music, you do music. That's about it.
Well, your idea of perfection itself is pretty flawed ("human metronome"), unless you think its the ultimate goal for a performer. By the way, to be perfectly on tempo isn't something simple or even bad (muh robotic performance), and even if you're a human metronome, no way it would sound as if you're a robot.
This idea of perfection is not mine, this is Komandos' one.
Yes, to be perfectly on tempo isn't something simple, but usually, the score doesn't show in black and white the exact tempo to follow. It's here when you can see the difference between a 'robotic performance' and a 'human interpretation'.
Even in classical music like Mozart, Haydn or firsts Beethoven sonatas, for example, how you can see the exact tempo to follow when the score only indicates "allegro ma non troppo" ? What is an exact "rubato" ? A "diminuendo" ? What is the exact duration of a "fermata" ?
Perfection means the musician should be able to see the music behind the score, and not just get stuck in front of the score. We're not supposed to be MIDI player, we are musicians.
I sincerely think you can sound as if you're robot if there is no soul to your interpretation. Music deals with passion and not just effort. Effort without passion is worthless. Moreover, the composer himself who writes the score has a soul.
It doesn't mean that you are here to show that "ITS MY BODY, MY PERFORMANCE, MY FEELINGS", I agree with you on that, and I don't like this kind of performer such as Lang Lang. I think there are more prompt to show themselves than to show music. They are boring.
surfboard_ said:
The score its basically everything. Its how you write your musical ideas, concepts and thoughts (an art tradition). Music until the last century survived through the score (with the exception of folk music). Performance and interpretation is just how you can play and think about the original composition. One of the reasons that classical compositions are always refreshing its because we'll never get to see the same performance twice (unless you're checking a recording), so you can always obtain different opinions about it (an easy example is the classical posture in conducting the 5th Symphony of Beethoven versus the romantic approach). But above it all, the score remains at the top of everything.
100% agree.
The only thing I wanted to add is : to read the score and understanding it are two different things. There is actually a lot of hidden story on a score, and good musicians are able to see, or sense them.
surfboard_ said:
You just demonstrated a process to reach "perfection", your own effort to make it the best performance possible for yourself.
Yup.
surfboard_ said:
"... but the score doesn't always matter"
Can you cite examples in classical music where it doesn't always matter?
Sorry for my english skill. I mean... That's not what I meant.
What I wanted to say is that the score doesn't always show explicitely how to play properly the music.
Personally, I'm not a pianist virtuoso (it isn't my goal anyway, my main study is 'composition', in a classical way which means I study harmony, orchestration and all that jazz), so my exemple may not be the more appropriates.
I play this piece for exemple : Ravel - A la manière de Borodine
As you can see, in the first part (from the beginning to 0.31) and in the first F-clef, the higher note is a F constantly repeated. But what is hidden is that this higher note is not the most important one, the score hide the fact that the actual melody is just below (it makes = Bb-Bb-C, Db-Db-C, Bb-Bb-C, Db... and so on). The rhythm of this melody makes us understand the 'waltz' character of the piece. As a consequence, if the performer wants to show this to listeners, he will soften the volume of the constant 'F' in order to bring to light the melody.
And the score doesn't show this explicitely, it's just an interpretation through intuition of what the score implies for a musically trained ear.
In the same vein, I played this little Shumann 'Phantasietanz', 2 years ago at a piano exam : Schumann Albumblätter Op.124 - 5. Phantasietanz
You can see that, after the 4 first mesures, the score doesn't really show that all the difficulty of this part is that the more important thing, the melody, is on the left hand, totally in the medium range.
The legato symbol is just a key hint to find the meaning of this piece.
Note that Jörg Demus decided to, for the first time (this part have to be play two times), enhance the medium melody in the RIGHT hand (with all the syncopation), then, for the reprise, enhance the melody of the top of the LEFT hand. And it works because, even if the right hand doen't have legato symbol, one of the musical lines do have the same note (an ocatve higher) as the melody in F-clef. The score show nothing about this choice of interpretation, it's exactly the same part, there is just a reprise symbol. Although the score show ONE thing, the pianist play it in TWO different way. It's interesting sounding, because in that way, the first time, we, above all, hear the 'resonance' of the melody (the melody seems to be "off beat"), and then, the second time, we hear the actual melody on the left hand, more clearer than on the right hand because the melody is more defined, we have a more concrete idea about the rhythm.
It's his interpretation, Marco Lo Muscio didn't interpret the score like this for exemple.
surfboard_ said:
Le meme Suzuki xD (welp, I shouldn't say this since I'm attending a school that uses this method)
Funny things, since I don't know well the Suzuki method, lol.
I just read something about that, and it's true that I can sense that his vision of a good musician is pretty similar to mine.
However, I think I'm more closer to Alfred Cortot point of view imo.
surfboard_ said:
This happens very often with me, its pretty awkward to go through a whole show by just hitting the notes and hoping that everything will be fine. I wonder if its a dicease or just some minor psychological problem, I gotta look up for it.
I guess this is because we tend to focus on so many details, so many notes, so many nuances, that we can lost the general picture of the score in the process. =)
As a conclusion, I want to say that I generally really agree with you. I just want to nuance some notions because it can be misinterpreted for a non-musician.
But, ultimately, I agree with you. |