Name: Password: or

Music and Transfiguration

Make the Music Personal

Last night I was doing a little random surfing on the Web. I wasn't looking for anything in particular, just more or less getting an idea of what other people were writing about concerning classical music. I stumbled across two things from different sources but actually go together quite nicely. The first is from a photography blog:

"Glenn Gould turned his back on the classical music stiff-upper-lip society to immerse himself in the music and perform it his own way."

The second is from an article by Alex Ross, music critic for the The New Yorker:

"For at least a century, [classical music] has been captive to a cult of mediocre élitism that tries to manufacture self-esteem by clutching at empty formulas of intellectual superiority."

I could not agree more with Mr. Ross. Classical music has been the captive prey of elitism. These elitists often come in the form of theorists, musicologists and scholars. I can recall one professor actually commenting that the main reason he taught music theory was to look smart in front of his students.

There is a sort of unwritten standard in classical music and if you stray too far from it you can suddenly find yourself on a lot of people's black list. I speak from personal experience. I mention Glenn Gould because he is a good example of this. He broke from this unwritten standard. While his interpretation of Bach's keyboard music is often praised, his interpretations of Beethoven's piano sonatas are often heavily criticized for being too different from the "norm" for playing Beethoven. Also, there was a uproar in the musical world over his unorthodox interpretation of Brahms' D minor Piano Concerto. I must ask: where did this "norm" come from? Who said, and who has the authority to say, this "norm" is correct? Classical music requires two things: 1) for the composer to write the music and 2) for the performer(s) to interpret it. Interpretation of a piece of music is just as personal as the act of composing it and, honestly, I don't know if the composer or the performer(s) has the hardest task. The only requirement of the performer(s) is not to stray, or contradict, the spirit of the work established by the composer. Falling back on a standard, or "norm" of interpretation is artistic default, allowing the performer to get away with not thinking.

I write this as an encouragement. Make the music as personal as you can. All art is personal. One of my favorite quotes from Anton Bruckner is: "They want me to write differently. Certainly I could, but I must not. God has chosen me from thousands and given me, of all people, this talent. It is to Him that I must give account. How then would I stand there before Almighty God, if I followed the others and not Him?." Whether you believe in God or not is immaterial. The point is, in whatever way you are involved in music, do you follow others or yourself?

Comments        (You have to be logged in to leave a comment)

A great post but raising the issue of interpretation -- oh, my goodness, it's like opening a can of worms!  On the one hand, all a performer can do it is to think and play to the best of his/her ability and understanding.  But don't you hate mannered interpretations which are about the performer but not the composition?  Or when the interpretation just seems to be about something different than what the composer had in mind?  You qualify that interpretations should follow the spirit of the music.  But how do you define this spirit?  Glenn Gould was one of the most talented pianists ever, but some of his Mozarts and Beethovens drives me crazy!  But going back to your main point: yes, very often classical music seems to be going to way of the kabuki theater -- but then you hear somebody young and good and think, "hey, it's not over yet!"

Submitted by coda15 on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 15:55. Report abuse