THINQon : Just do you in Music

THINQon is a platform for a more intelligent web. It aims to replace the ruling paradigm of the web – that of sharing and gathering information – with a sharing and achieving of understanding. Instead of the Q&A model it offers an experience. A platform for discovery of ideas, people, and yourself. Continue >

Edna Stern

Just do you in Music

Latest Post: March 12, 2010 at 9:23 PM

86 followers

I liked very much Morgan’s post just do you and thought the question could also be approached from the musical point of view.

“Just do you” must have been the first advice I got from Krystian Zimerman when I came to study with him. In music, it is valued to have your own stamp- that the people listening to you can immediately recognize your playing by its distinctive style. I was young when I first came to him, and at that time I was still very much under the influence of another great pianist: Martha Argerich. She is certainly the most amazing pianist I know, what makes her so unique for me, is her timing which is both extremely precise and yet free in its careless seduction. Naturally, I was trying very hard “to be her”, and I learned a lot from trying to imitate, but at the end of the day, I learned that it doesn’t work - I cannot “be her”. To go on further on that path, would have made me just another imitation. Then I met Zimerman who said “don’t try to sound different, because you already are different by the simple fact of your playing with your own hands which create your own sound.” (needless to say, I worked a lot on my sound since I heard that phrase:-) Now I know that “just me” is not so simple, it’s an elaborate construction of all the important influences in my life, but “just me” is also very simple- sitting down and playing the music as beautiful as I can.

Music Discussed

Martha Argerich Plays Chopin: The Legendary 1965 Recording

Chopin: 4 Ballades/Barcarolle, Op.60/Fantasie in F

Martin Karl tagged this post as Insightful.

Reply to:

Martin Karl

March 3, 2010 at 7:38 PM

3 followers

I liked your refelction, it points to an improtant issue. How to find the right balance between "Just do you" and (in music) "Just do him". And I think both is important: to see, what the composer wanted, the context when s/he composed the work you want to interpret, and the rules s/he wanted to follwow (and those that s/he wanted to replace by new ones, a new style. I really dislike interpretations that are completely away from the intentions and the times of the composer himself (this is also true for theatre), but I really like "modern" interpretations that succedd in bringing the composer's world and our world today in a new frame that integrates both. Such interpretations are - from my point of view - extremely seldom, but extremely valuable. But they are hard to find. So, I also like the interpretations that are closer to the composer, but "common" in a certain sense.

Let me give an example: I was very impressed by Leonard Bersteins interpretation of the 4th Sinfonie. Most interpretations are such that there is no tension in the orchester between two moods, but Bernstein wanted to hear the upxoming thunderstorm ("this man was mad"...) So he brings up the search for peace and calm (harmony), disrupted by slowly upcoming tensions. The same I hear in Helene Grimauds piano interpretation of the Kreisleriana, where there is a continuous tension between the hramony in the left hand and the threatening thunderstorms coming up from the bass.

These interpretations fit very well to Schumann's biography, and nevertheless they are played in a very close orientation to what Schumann has written.

But all this are interpretation from a non-musician. But in formal thinking - as absurd as it may sound - we know a similar thing. You can stay within the calculus, or you may become creative within the rules of the formalism. The latter is what formal people attracts in the beauty of mathematics. But they also dislike completely if you simply calculate wrong, even if the failures are creative in some sense.

Edna Stern sent kudos.

Amy Silberman sent kudos.

Reply to: or

Edna Stern

March 10, 2010 at 9:02 AM

86 followers

“Do him” as you put it, Martin, is absolutely essential. I believe it is the musician’s dearest wish to get as close as possible to the composer’s ideas. To know the rules of each composer (i.e. Chopin’s use of rubato or Bach’s continuo function and ideas on polyphony), is important in order to interpret them. Some interpreters also use a similar instrument to the one the composer had. Sounds like the perfect time to introduce here my new Chopin CD who just came out yesterday in France :-)

Postscript (March 10, 2010 at 11:39 AM):

P.S. Thanks Jim, you must have been one of the first ones to get my Chopin:-)
And as I didn't mention it before in my post : the instrument on which I recorded is a Pleyel from 1842, of the kind that Chopin had at home, and it is certainly different than what we are used to hear.

Music Discussed

Chopin

Reply to: or

Martin Karl

In response to Edna Stern

March 10, 2010 at 11:03 AM

3 followers

Great! I've put the new Chopin-CD in the German wikipedia-article about you (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edna_Stern#CD-Ver.C3.B6ffentlichungen).

I do completely agree with your argument. But I wanted also to say something behind that: sometimes the composer himself may not be completely aware about his ideas (this, at least, is how I understood Leonard Bernstein when he made his very psychoanalysis-inspired interpretation of Robert Schumann' scherzo in the 2nd sinfony and wanted the orchester to play it in such a way). From the notes, it is note by note Schumann. But nevertheless, this interpretation goes beyond that. It corresponds to what psychoanalysis claims in many cases of Art, that there is often something more, coming from the unconsciousness. And sometimes we find really intriguing interpretations, that do both correspond to the idea of the composer and correspond to what we know about the biography, the context and the psychological circumstances. In many cases, I think the latter would be overdoing the interpretation, but in some cases and works it makes sense, maybe even in Bach's work (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Fugue) - but there is also some discussion about that as you can read in the same article:

"Contrapunctus XIV breaks off abruptly in the middle of the third section at bar 239. The autograph carries a note in the handwriting of Bach's son Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach saying "Über dieser Fuge, wo der Nahme B A C H im Contrasubject angebracht worden, ist der Verfasser gestorben." ("At the point where the composer introduces the name BACH [which in modern notation is B♭-A-C-B♮] in the countersubject to this fugue, the composer died."

So was the introduction of B-A-C-H on in a very complex fugue Bach's presentiment of death?

And even more provocative: could Beethoven's 9th sinfony also be interpreted in the sense of a superimposed overhelming joy, but there is naked despair beyond. I konwo that this is very uncommon and maybe it is simply wrong, but for me the "song of joy" often sounds this way.

To summarize: I think that you have posed a very intriguing question, and it is really hard to find any concluding answer. In contrary, it poses a bunch of interesting philosophical questions about understanding, interpretion and communcation.