Even in those times dominated by the market law, I think we, artists, have to be free and not only an employee of the culture industry: we should be able to develop and put in practice our vision. If every single move we do as artists is motivated by an external demand with no direct aesthetic meaning within our vision then our position as thinkers is compromised. We loose our function of social influencer and become a reflection of the society. I believe Art is a catalyst for change in society and not a mere exponent of it: turning it into “a simple function, an object which can be substitute for an other object, or – in the final analysis – an article of consumption” (Adorno, philosophy of new music) is degrading it.

If we think about it, every choice of a musician can be seen as a political or philosophical action: our choice of repertoire, the sobriety or verbosity of our playing, our programs translate our state of mind towards music but also towards life in general. Every aspect of our art has to be coherent with one another, and organized towards the implementation of our ideas creating a personal and consistent world in which people (the audience) want (or not) to subscribe.

Unfortunately, most musicians are so anxious about breaking rules predefined by a sort of musical totalitarianism that they forgot to be themselves and unfortunately deliver a standardized output incompatible with their true personality. We finally just endlessly repeat again and again the same things in the same way, with little cosmetic changes to make it look new and shiny. But only one thing really changes: the essence of our Art fades away a little more every day. We are not victims, we have been supporting this for many years. We respect “standards of the industry” so well that our mind (thus creativity) has been standardized too. Even in our pre-formated bios: I played here, here and here with him, her and him, and I grew up in the middle of I-don’t-care-where. But does it really say something about the artist, about his way to approach music? Even when trustworthy, none of these facts really mean something musically speaking nor defining a musical personality. They are at most trying to show the reader how “successful”, in a certain and common way of power and hype, a musician is. But is this being successful musically speaking? I don’t think so, at least if you consider music as an end and not a means.

In other fine arts, expressing your true self and breaking the rules is something you have to do. Sure, you don’t break the rules just to break the rules, you break the rules because you need to/must do so because it doesn’t make any sense within your logical thinking. Which means you first need a critical/logical thinking before anything else. Once you know why, you can break the rule. Thinking is (should be!) the first action of a musician: you play with your mind, not your fingers or mouth or whatever you use to action your instrument.

Thinking out of the box is not forbidden, nor finding new paths. What’s very dubious is trying to be superficially (cosmetically) different, without an authentic purpose. When you have a look at our schools and educational system, you probably think it’s not made to think different, it looks like a factory delivering standardized products. Apparently, you’re right. But in fact you’re wrong. Music schools learn you the basics and traditions, so you know them. But it’s only at the end of your education that the journey towards your vision and your self is beginning. You acquired the tools at school, it’s now time to use them for your own good. This absolutely needed journey is long and painful but is a wonderful inner experience.

Get to know yourself to learn what you value most. Get to know yourself to know what you want to do. Get to know yourself to know what you want to say. Get to know yourself to stay coherent. Get to know yourself to better communicate your values through your Art.

No related posts.

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!

Related posts:

1. The score (3/4) – Notation
2. Following an overgrown path, you can easily get lost.
3. The score (1/4)

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.

Related posts:

1. The score (3/4) – Notation
2. The score (2/4) – Editions
3. The score (1/4)

During the Paleolithic, humans painted on cave walls but also played music. Instruments used to send sound signals have been found, such as whistling reindeer phalanxes (the oldest known dates to 100 000 BC) but also flutes and musical bows depicted on the walls of the Trois-Frères cave in southern France. Art is thus a primary need for human beings.

One may lean upon Hegel to understand this universal need of art: The general need of art doesn’t depend on anything else than on the fact that Man is a thinking being and endowed with a conscience. “The artwork is a mean by which Man exteriorizes who he is.”. In Hegel’s opinion, art is an absolute necessity for Man, “which follows from Man’s rational character, source and reason of art, as of any action and knowledge.” Through art, Man tries to find who he is, and tends to find himself.

In a world which tells us to not endure life, yearning for more authenticity, it appears paradoxical to not philosophize and to not ask oneself the fundamental question of who we are. However it is what many do by considering art as useless or just as a simple entertainment or even as an ordinary representation of beauty. The artist is before everything a thinker who interrogates himself on Man and it’s milieu. Isn’t it fundamental and much more important than to amass millions?

Related posts:

1. The art of piano playing
2. Le gibet (Gaspard de la nuit – Ravel)
3. Listen, there is nothing to see!

Often I see my collegues being surprised when we pronounce certain words or names. Adorno, Badiou, Deleuze, names that should not appear in the middle of a musical discussion. However philosophy has its role in music, and has strongly influenced History of musical creation.

While musicians are generally not trained in this discipline, aesthetics becomes very important when you deal with contemporary repertoire. Aside from the fact that it represents one of the best tools for understanding and controlling easily “irreducibles” claiming that contemporary music is just noise, it allows us to better understand the way taken by the composer and to resolve some issues of interpretation in a music which does not benefit from historical interpretation and specialists.

The interpreter actually little arises a fundamental question of aesthetics: What is music? Questioning a bit about what the music is helps us to understand views of certain composers. For example, the use of noise in music may seem absurd, but finally does the beauty of music only resides in tonal harmony, in sounds of instruments? Why could the composer use only specific types of sounds and not others? It must be clear that when a composer uses quarter-tones, it is not an eccentricity but an aesthetic way which drove him to the use of so-called quarter tones. Understand why quarter-tones, of course, is interpreting the composer’s music with a faithfull thought.

Of course, the aesthetics can renew “technical composition” or currents, by looking for, for example, the essence of music. If we take an emblematic figure of contemporary music that has a lot theorized as Pierre Boulez, you can easely notice that he had to develop a coherent system to counter to the attacks of older currents.

“The requirements of the current music go hand in hand with some of the mathematical currents or contemporary philosophy,” said Boulez. Of course! Thinking music is a priority especially for its craftsmen. If I go on with quotes from Pierre Boulez I will also use this piece of interview by the Figaro:

“Le Figaro: What do you think about a certain “neotonal” aesthetic which now seems to have the wind in its sails?
P .Boulez : This is a total waste of time. We are celebrating this year the 50th anniversary of the Domaine Musical’s first season: by consulting the works which were played at this time, I found that no major composer of my generation missed. And those I have chosen are still played. The netonal composers, who you refer to, prefer the Institute: it is their place. That does not worry me at all: their power can not exceed the ring road. These are ow-wage earner, unimpressive. Do you think that London or New York are interested in them? Who is invited abroad? It is not them, it’s me. If at least this current gave us masterworks, as neo-classicism of the 20′s, but there is nothing, it’s vacuum. “?

From the side of the composer, the aesthetic will play a key role in his musical process. It is the way of thinking which influences the music he composes, and is used to justify what he writes. Neotonalism against serial writing, Boulez here stigmatises neotonal composers whose aesthetic is diametrically opposed to Boulez. More than a simple parochial quarrel, this debate is crucial for the future of musical creativity, and influences the younger generation of composers.

You understand that musical aesthetics plays a big role on the music stage, mainly in the contemporary world, and I deplore that only musicologists are trained in a discipline which is also necessary for musicians and composers or more generally to all music artists, not just the theorists.

Related posts:

1. Sur Incises
2. French classical pianist Genevieve Joy has died
3. Do you know contemporary music?