There's not really a terribly easy answer, as far as I'm concerned. And,  in general, I find that the more wonderful an interpretation, the harder it is to express just why I find it so powerful. So I suppose the most important factor is whether it moves me - to that extent I have performances of works that flout the composer's wishers, or follow them closely, which I love in fairly equal measure. And, of course, whether a piece moves one person and not another is entirely subjective. Of course, there are plenty of factors that help - the quality of the playing (and indeed the recording), the chemistry between conductor/orchestra and soloist (one of the reasons I adore the Fleisher/Szell Brahms concertos so much). Then again, in the Mackerras/SCO Beethoven 4 last summer the horns fluffed one or two notes, and the Ades/CBSO reading I heard in Aldeburgh a year or so earlier didn't suffer in the same regard, but I know which I'd take to my desert island. Which all brings it back to whether the interpretation moves you - because if it does, I find myself forgiven all those sorts of problems very easily.

(Still haven't got round to listening to the Barbirolli in full - plan to do so over the weekend. I did start it very late the other evening, and was struck by how slowly it opened, though in a good way, but I wasn't really in the right mood, or awake enough, to listen properly.)

One last point, I'm not sure Mahler is the ideal composer when it comes to debating going against his wishes - given how wont he was to change things (the 6th being a key example in that debate still rages on whether he preferred andante-scherzo or vice versa). In this regard Mackerras's comments from a Gramophone interview are most interesting:





regards, Tam

With regard to the composer's wishes - it does strike me that we tend to be rather selective. For example, how many people out there think we should respect Wagner's wish that Parsifal not be performed outside Bayreuth - the many people I know who've seen magnificent performances elsewhere (for example the Abbado/GMJO one that came to Edinburgh a couple of years back) would certainly not be among them. But why is it acceptable to ignore this yet request that we must follow Beethoven's metronome markings.

I have recordings of Beethoven symphonies that stick close (Mackerras, for example) and others that don't (Runnicles or Furtwangler, or Bernstein) all of which I find extremely moving in different ways. Should the latter not be allowed, it would be a shame as I think my life would be poorer without them. Also worth noting that while we have a pretty good idea of what Beethoven wanted in terms of markings, there are still question marks over some of them (particularly with the 9th).

Should we play Haydn's Creation with a large orchestra or a small one, the composer did it twice, once with either (very likely because those were what was available on the occasion) - a similar question could be asked about the symphonies of Brahms.

All that said, I think that as a general rule an artist should start from the composer's intention (as best they can determine it) and should only defy them with good reason - thinking along this line would be no bad thing in opera (in the recent Makropulos Case the director decided not to destroy the document, and inexplicable change of sense that added noting). But if, by defying them, they can say something new and wonderful about a well known piece that moves their audience, then why not? I think that while it has done many good things, the HIP movement has also been bad in some ways as it has led to what I term a HIPer than thou attitude - where fidelity to the composer is everything and in some cases comes as a substitute to having something to say about a piece that makes for an engaging performance. It is also self defeating as for reasons I have outlined (and more), we will in many cases never know exactly.


regards, Tam

Indeed. Then there are there is Messiaen. One can pick up discs of piano or organ works by many artists, read his glowing praise and assume that this is the recording to have (until you realise that he was quite liberal with his glowing praise for many different artists who played his work).

regards, Tam

May be it easier to describe what is a bad performance. Even a bad performance usually is not totally bad and may have some positive in it.
It is imposible to combine everything in one performance because if one has these than it is impossible to have that.
We need multitude of performances and interpretations.
Unfortunately there are trends and fashions. However they pass.
Interpretations are also fighting for recognition.
I personally find this part of life and competition very trying.

We can admire architecture and structure in one performance and liveliness flow of tempo in another, virtuosity and colours in one and intellect in another.

We are very subjective in our likes and dislikes.

Again, if we want to be more objective we can say what is bad performance and accept different ones.

May be a bad performance is the one that people played too many wrong notes, did not keep the tempo, etc.

I think may be we are too subjective and have our own ideas and therefore can not agree.
I think general public is kinder than musicians to each other.

Nick, I agree in that I don't think a performance would be bad because it struck to metronome markings or was note perfect, however, that isn't the whole story - and sometimes that isn't the whole story - in that I have heard performances that can be rather by the numbers and lacking in passion, yet not having anything technically wrong with them.

regards, Tam

p.s. former maths teacher myself.

Trained-Pianist

Now, I agree with every word of that! Critics actually seem to hold us all back.

Nick