Are you an intellectual or emotional interpreter?

[lwl]

Do you consider yourself to have a more intellectual, or more emotional, approach to musical interpretation? Is this a conscious decision, or one that just seems to be the way things are for you? Are you trying to change?

By "intellectual", I mean more analysis-oriented -- considering the work's structure, its history, its context, the tradition of performance practice around it (from its time of composition to the present), and so forth.

By "emotional", I mean more instinctual -- what you "feel" is right.

While "intellectual" interpreters are sometimes considered "cooler", one does not necessarily imply the other.

[HuangKaiVun]

What good is intellectualism without the emotional HEART behind it?

What good is emotion without the INTELLECTUALISM of a score to act as structure for those emotions?

[JKF]

Hello Lydia,

Thank you for starting this tread, and well put. I wasn't sure how to term that dichotomy, but you are very good at bringing the words about clearly! :=)

I can't put my finger exactly on it, but clearly we fall in the intellectual frame: taking a piece of music, studying it first, identifying the "high" points, studying the background etc. So, I believe we would fall closer to that end of the spectrum. But you know, how you put the emotionality in is the question...and I feel an identity with you on that journey. :-)

Then there's the element of emotionality, and honestly, I've really had a problem with the meter on that point. It's a slippery edge when going too far can be viewed as "syrupy" or gooey, but not enough and "cold" or technical. So what meter can a person rely on. There are so many differing ears, differing tastes etc. So in the end you have to rely on your own taste?... If not would it be a 'dishonest' presentation of what you personally bring to the music in a human/emotional aspect. I hope I didn't get bogged down in words here.

How's it going?... Write if you can,

Jen

[chronos]

I kinda agree with HKV on this one. Although they may sometimes be in conflict, the two approaches are not incompatible.

A piece is first defined by the composer's intentions, which are expressed somewhat imperfectly by the musical score. This defines certain essential parameters which must ideally be obeyed. Beyond this you are free to express yourself as you wish, and this is where emotions come into play.

Knowing what a piece is like you then express its music in your own voice, taking advantage of whatever emotions a piece inspires in you while making sure you're not to bastardize it. This requires both emotions and intellect.

[This message has been edited by chronos (edited 11-11-2001).]

[iupviolin]

I agree with HKV. Its like technique and musicallity. You can't play musically unless you have the proper technique to express it. I feel the same way with interpretation in general. You have to know the work, and other works by the composer before you can really understand what the composer is saying. And you have to know MUSIC too.

[deStaunton]

A balanced ( dare I say perfect?) blend of both is my ideal... not just in violin playing, but as a human being as well.

[This message has been edited by deStaunton (edited 11-11-2001).]

[vieuxtemps]

Yes.

[Oldtimer]

Would you all make the same comments if you were talking about, say, jazz, blues, or bluegrass? Speaking from a strictly personal point of view, when I play the classics, I feel compelled to follow the composers instructions, which I usually agree with. However, when I play any of the three styles I mentioned supra, I feel much more at liberty to invoke more emotion, or feeling, into the music, including (my right)to vary the interpretation.

[lwl]

I originally wrote, "Do you consider yourself to have a more intellectual, or more emotional, approach to musical interpretation?" -- I phrased it as "more X than Y" because clearly practically everyone does some of both.

Thus: Which do you tend to favor first, and how do the two approaches intertwine for you?

[chronos]

lwl,

For my part, I didn't mean to suggest that you thought the two approaches are mutually exclusive. I'm thinking, however, that they're not inversely proportional either. More of one does not necessarily call for less of the other. Intellectual in preparation, emotional in execution.

I'm lazy about doing research, so I guess I tend to rely more on my emotions.

[staylor]

Intellectual is the ideas and innovations.

Emotional is that the above is natural.

[JKF]

Yes, here inlies the difficulty. In the past, the style was a major interjection of individual personality into the music. I respectfully submit that it was this era which gave rise to the identities of "Yes, that was Heifetz", or "Yes that was Kreisler" etc. A lot of times the music was acceptable in making it your own. Today, the trend is more geared toward the trueness of the composer's intentions, and here is where I have a difficulty in playing the role of an actor, largely dependent on the person interpreting those intentions :-). Composer's intentions.....written down? (which I think some did in large detail, others leaving blanks for the creativity of the performer).

Then refining the emotion, such as "this passage suggests anguish, but shortly later a calm resolve" and keep it to the rhythm and follow the dynamics etc! It's easy to play either agressive/angry vs. emotionally in love. The in-between is very hard, and having that transmitted to the listener, well you understand, I'm sure.

This is merely a conversation, if you will, as I don't feel there are any rights or wrongs. Too much is dependant on the way an individual's mind interprets what a musician sends, and largely this is due to individual experiences and associations which that individual connects to what is heard.

I find this deceptively complex, yet intuitively simple. The post has a very personal attachment for me right now, as I've received two directly opposite reviews by very highly respected musicians. Confusing? Yes. One review read "Highly musical, extremely mature interpretation with perfect intonation and clean technique" to "not musical, but excellent technique". So, for me it's very difficult to know exactly what to do. I know you can't please everyone. So we went to a third person, again very respected for his time and years in the field, and played the Chacconne. He closed his eyes, and at the end he said "you played that so tenderly, with a beauty of tone and perfect intonation. I know you feel that way about it, and it's you. There is an influence of your teacher there but I still hear yourself". Over all I liked the last best, because, it gave me more of an indication that I should keep working at developing something that is there, and with effort could come to full fruition.

I've got to end this up! But I need to express one last thing joggling my mind. There was a biography of Josh Bell I saw on PBS including a segment with Gingold. It sticks in my mind what Gingold said about Heifetz vs. Kreisler. He said that he didn't like the way Heifetz played, making "the hairs on the back of his neck stand on end". He prefered Kreisler's warmth and charm. Well, forgive the mindless bantering, but in a way I feel his statement exemplified everything with respect to musician preferences. At the same time, I for one like to hear the differences and varieties in presentations. It's for me, what art is all about. Sorry to ramble, just had to unload a massive think-talk from my mind.

[This message has been edited by JKF (edited 11-12-2001).]

[paganiniboy]

I dont think you HAVE to have a full historyical, or structural, etc, way to make your music when composing. For examply, Phillip Glass' quartets lack a lot of structure, and thats why he's a minimalist... Its also up to the performer to learn the emotional side to it, give it stories of its own, and thats why you call it original.

When I play around composing, I forget most of everything to do with structure, etc. I get something in the end thats, well, pretty modern/contemp. (but thats cuz I wanted it to be like that), but it still sounds like it follows something. Its all about the WAY people hear it. I have always thought Ysaye lacks a lot of structure; yes he has intros, transitions where they should be (most of the time, cadence's in 'normal' places, bodies, and conclusions - but sometimes they dont make any sence!

And he's still my [second if not first] favorite composer!

P

[MrWoof]

Hmmm,

The head or the heart, from where comes art?

A piece of music could be viewed as a chess game, a cold carfully measured and structured series of moves and counter moves. To play a piece without considering the structure would be folly. All pieces want to go somewhere.

On the other hand an exquisite moment in music needs no explination as it is as boundless as the great mystery of life itself and cannot be put into a box and neatly labeled.

Neither of these can "be music" without the other. Step back and look at the larger picture and your playing will improve.

They are like fire and water in an eternal dance which seeks to quench the other then there is nothing.

Don Crandall

[bob kogut]

I think an accomplished musician who plays masterfully is one who has come 'Full Circle"in their journey towards playing.

The first time one picks up an instrument,it is pure emotion with no training or intellect behind it. It is'faking', but sincere faking, raw emotion.

Then, after years of lessons, the training pays off, but the emotion rarely returns in most players. They stop at technical proficiency.. However, the truly great and inspiring players can bring out that little child enthusiasm and emotion from deep within,and couple it with masterful technique.That's what makes the hair on my neck stand up, when I hear someone who has come all the way around.

Bob

[Beaven]

What an interesting question. And it is so complicated and extremely individual since it is directly and indirectly related to our own unique experiences. Personally I would have to not only look at instrumental music, but vocal as well, both with and without accompaniment. The lyrics to me are especially problematic. I find if I deeply get into the meaning and meter involved with lyrics whether they be so called classical, church, or the variety of other forms of vocal music, that I have a tendency when singing those songs in concert to have a rubato that is far more than generous. The more that I "feel" the music via the five senses the harder it is for me to easily keep the musical pulse making it very hard for someone accompanying me to follow. It is easy of course if I play the guitar with my own singing. Sometimes the same effect can happen with instrumental music. The melody of the notes becomes separate from the time. The more passionate and powerful the music the easier it seems to occur.

[Violinflu]

Your last post was very insightful, Bob. Thank you. I think that is something that we all know to be true, but which previously I had never heard explained so clearly.

As to the original question: It is our duty as performers to fulfill the composer's vision by finding clues left by the composer in the score and determining his intentions. Every great composer had a perfect idea, which he then approximated as best he could by the imperfect system of notation. The emotional side is in deducing what the motivation behind the written notes was, and in projecting the discoveries you have made to an audience.

But without doing your (intellectual) homework first, and relying on emotion, you will end up with something perhaps musical in its own right, but something other than what the composer wrote.

So while you can have an emotional approach free of intellectual inquiry, I am not so sure that you can have a purely intellectual approach, since by intellectual inquiry, you discover the emotions that resonate from the composer to you. A great example: Gidon Kremer, often critiqued as being a highly intellectual player, is also highly intense and passionate about his music making. How could he be otherwise, with his intimate knowledge of the composers whose pieces he plays?

Thanks for this subject, lwl!

Jesse

[Tenor1]

This is an interesting topic and one I have pondered over for myself. While in the study mode for a piece I tend to over exaggerate the analysis side of music, scrutinizing fingering and phrasing. It is a slow process of infusing my emotion into the playing. Prior to letting my emotion taking the upper hand I have already made sure my playing style is in context with the music.

After my final performance of the piece, either for a teacher or concert, is when I let pure fun and emotion take over. This is when performance pressure is over and mistakes don't really matter. Please remember that I am basically a pianist and my violin technique is limited. For violin, I'm happy just to play it correctly, ha, ha! That's about all the emotion I can handle! Whew!