Pierre-Arnaud Dablemont, pianist » interpretation

The score (3/4) – Notation

Pierre-Arnaud — Thu, 13 May 2010 16:00:38 +0000

Let’s continue our series on interpretation and scores. In our previous post we have been discussing the issue of editions, today let’s focus on notation and its interpretation.

Each sign written by the composer has a global meaning. Each performer has a different approach of the same sign. In other words, notation gives us a certain flexibility, a tiny space of freedom. We have to define the exact meaning of the sign, according to our taste, to the context, to the historical background and the composer himself.

Now let’s consider a practical example. A dot above or below a musical note indicates that you are to play the note staccato. The composer signifies an unconnected note, which is short and detached. Yes, but how short? The shortest possible or just short? This is what the interpreter has to define. The concept of length is very relative: some will play the note very short and others will opt for a less dry staccato. The result in both cases is completely different and will affect the global conception of the work: there will be a different interpretation of the sign resulting in a different interpretation of the whole work.

Each composer has a very clear idea of the musical result he wants. Part of his job is to transcribe this idea in a “universal” language, using a notation understood by all musicians. This notation often turns out to be semantically vague and reflects only part of the composer’s intention. The composer can then clarify his toughts by adding annotations or other signs, but this can sometimes overload the score with information, making it difficult to read. He can also let the interpreter deduce the accurate meaning of a sign used in the specific context of his work. So, the interpreter must always put in perspective what the composer wrote and can not accept notation at face value: it is a basis of interpretive work. Remember: a dot means staccato, yes, but what kind of staccato?

When collaborating with composers, it often happens that your interpretation is very different from the composer’s idea. We are obviously reading the same text, the same signs, but our idea of the musical result is completely different. We can not say that the interpreter is wrong, nor that the composer has written things in a wrong way: our perspectives are different, period. The composer then explains his intentions in order to make the interpreter better understand his music. And that’s so much easier when the composer is still living!

The score (2/4) – Editions

Pierre-Arnaud — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:00:44 +0000

A promise is a promise. In my first post about the score I told you that I will talk about the issue of editorial quality and the differences between editions. Text is our best source, and often all you can find about the music you want to interpret. In the case of a composer still alive you can always contact him to know his opinion about a detail, but in the case of Beethoven for example, it is a little late to ask him if a particular phrasing is in accordance with his thoughts. The quality of an edition becomes thus crucial.

There are mainly three categories of texts: the so-called Urtext editions, interpretative editions and facsimiles. Each of these various editions can be interesting for a performer. Let’s focus on differences between them. At first, Urtext Edition. “Urtext” in German means “original text”. In this case, the publisher tries to return to an objective text, trying to reproduce the original intentions of the composer, and removing all the additions or changes made over the time. To do so, the publisher uses various sources: the manuscript (if it still exists) , the first editions, and copies of the first edition corrected by the composer himself.

The interpretative edition offers the editor’s point of view on how to perform the work. Often provided by famous performers, it may diverge from Urtext by additions or changes of dynamics, sometimes even more radical changes in the score, for example, altering notes or deleting whole passages.

The facsimile is a photographic copy of a source. Sometimes extremely difficult to read, I am thinking particularly of Beethoven’s manuscripts, they are often used by researchers or interpreters conducting a study on a particular work.

As a student, I often heard my teachers recommending only Urtext editions. But while it is supposed to be the original text, there are sometimes doubts about the quality of some “Urtext” editions, affixing the label as a proof of quality in a mercantile way rather than as the result of serious editorial work. On the other hand, the return to “original intentions” of the composer is something rather difficult to define, and very variable according to publishers. We must therefore try to get to know the different Urtext editions and ask which one is taken as a reference for a particular composer, instead of trusting blindly a label.

A good Urtext edition is often essential to begin with the most faithful version of the composer’s intent, but personal taste is also needed to achieve a successful interpretation. Here come the interpretative editions. Made by experts, interpretative editions can bring you a new perspective and give you ideas to enhance or reinforce your vision of the score. Beyond an opinion on a particular piece, they also help you understand how great artists have forged their own aesthetic.

We will never say it enough: compare, compare and compare again your different sources to explore the text further and reach a personal interpretation of a work. Even if recording took more and more space in our life as a performer, the comparison of editions is still needed and far more conducive to building your really own aesthetic as an interpreter. Listening to records generally lead to imitate a style without understanding its essence. My professor used to say: “Look, look, EVERYTHING is in the text”, and he was damn right!

The score (1/4)

Pierre-Arnaud — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:00:38 +0000

The score is often the first medium you have to deal with when studying a piece. It enables the composer to encode four key dimensions of music: pitch, duration, intensity and timbre. This document can then transmit the composer’s thought, or rather transcribe his music in a format understood by any interpreter.

As we have already discussed it a few weeks ago, we won’t go back on the history of notation. However I advise you to refresh your memory by (re) reading the articles about the development of musical notation. They are available at:

The score is an act of communication to the interpreter. By writing a score, the composer wants to make his music able to be played by someone else, codifying it with a special notation. Like any transcription, it may be accurate on some points but also very relative on others. While duration and pitch of sounds are, in itself, easely measurable, the nuances and attacks remain at the discretion of the performer.

The partition is a set of signs printed on paper or screen, called notation and enabling performers to reproduce the composition using instruments or voices designated by the composer. The composer has encoded the music he wants to be heard in the form of conventional symbols.

Although some data appear qualitatively and quantitatively well defined, we can not only consider a simple reading of the score and play exactly what is written. Who would play a score of Chopin respecting blindly the written rhythm? The result would probably sound awkward and far from the composer’s world and rubato that he wished the performer to achieve. This simple example illustrates the relativity induced by a notation appearing clear and objective: the score is entirely subjective, and raises rather difficult questions of interpretation without even having begun to play the first note .

It appears that interpretins a score is not an easy and repetitive task. We need as interpreters to put us in the composer’s perspective to understand the value of each sign of the score. Preliminary work on the text is therefore essential but is often neglected by interpreters. Yet this study of the score is paramount to an authentic interpretation.

In our study we will focus on three key points which have to be clarified before even beginning to play: the editorial quality of the text, the interpretation of signs and connotations associated with the text. These questions will lead us invariably to discuss the thorny issue of style in a composer’s notation.

Finally, to complete our overview of the score interpretation, we will focus on certain types of notations in the graphic scores much less common than conventional examples.

Introduction to Interpretation

Pierre-Arnaud — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:00:04 +0000

Interpreter: word which can, by extension, replace the word musician. Yet the two words have a totally different connotation: if the latter clearly evokes music and the inspired craftsman created in and by popular imagination, first emphasizes another facet of the same man: here is suggested the intellectual work, in other words the analysis and long road towards understanding a work.

The word interpretation is a common word in the world of music, meaning how a performer plays a piece. Indeed, the execution itself often informs us about the interpretation given to the text. As an image of the player’s mind, his play reveals much about his relationship to the art of music. The mind controls the discourse, whether consciously or not, and performance inform us about the intellectual work performed. In a sens, we could say that performance is an implementation of our intellectual work. Just as an actor does not try to declaim a text he does not understand, I hope that a musician does not play a score he cannot interpret. Musician and interpreter are the two sides of the same coin, they need each other, one feeds the other and vice versa; From inspiration was born the interpretation, interpretation feeds the inspiration.

Any interpretation is interpretation of something. This something, object of our interpretation, is the musical work, or rather its so imperfect medium of transmission, called score. Each sign it contains defines a two-dimensional space: the univocal dimension and the equivocal one, and it is the latter that we interpret. We therefore interpret what is not clear, which implies a judgment and as a judge, we must support this decision by a set of facts and signals, not only good intentions or feelings. The interpretation of the text is based on a set of observations, a priori non-obvious and which you can miss at first glance. These observations enable to guide the equivocal dimension. In other words, « To interpret is thus to uncover the implicit and move towards the elucidation of an object which at first has been refusing. » (Serge Carfantan).

Keeping an open mind is essential: You must be able to reassess and revise your own position, and avoid falling in a kind of interpretative routine. « To interpret a text, is not a matter of giving it a meaning… Rather, it’s a matter of understanding the plurality of which it is made up » said Roland Barthes (S/Z p.11).

Performers work is ambiguous. On one hand, the interpreter should really disappear behind a work, and on the other, interpretation involves his whole being, and leads him to make choices which influence the music. As a second paradox, we interpret to free ourselves from interpretation.

Sometimes research in interpretation is absolutely necessary: in the world of Baroque music, the research towards an authentic interpretation has become a sine qua non for the execution. Seeking manuscripts, understanding baroque playing techniques, searching for the sound of the instruments themselves, freeing from preconceived romantic influences are, among others, part of the “baroque” daily bread. Au contraire, sometimes the work of the interpreter is truncated, empty, non-justified and it borrows from others what the performer should think on his own. This only results in a collage of aesthetics, grotesque music patchwork devoid of unity.