Name: Password: or

Music and Transfiguration

Interpreting Music

Glenn Gould's 1981 recording of Bach's Goldberg Variations is one of my all time favorites, not just of that particular piece, but of every recording I've ever heard. While listening to it yesterday, I began thinking about interpreting music. How can you not think about interpretation when listening to Gould since his were often so far from the beaten path? Nevertheless, it's a topic that comes up often in the music world, usually with much debate. What makes a "good" interpretation? What makes one better than another? How do you go about interpreting a piece of music? Sadly, there is no definite answer to these questions but I offer a few of my thoughts on the matter. The purpose of interpretation is to echo the thoughts of the composer. Think of the acoustical phenomenon of the overtone series. Ideally, a performer's interpretation of a piece should be like the overtones of the fundamental that is the composer's thoughts. In other words, the two should be in perfect agreement and the performer's interpretation a resounding, or broadening, of the composer's original thoughts. The problem then lies in the fact that we, as performers, are not able to accurately understand the thoughts of the composer while they composed a piece, unless, of course, the composer is still living and wishes to discloses them. This is not the fault of the performer but, simply, that no absolute aesthetical model exists for music by which to make judgments of interpretation. Thus, at best we can search for the composer's thoughts. Perhaps, one day, such a model will exist and we can redirect our focus from blind searching to embellishing.