As I was listening to your explanation, something just hit me. Why stress the individuality of your own interpretation? Are performing artists expected to come up with a unique interpretation that no one else has done? As the same time, you did point out that "whoever I follow, whoever interpretation I prefer, on the other hand dislike", I am not that artist interpretation, I will be developing my "own" interpretation based on the recordings I have heard. But, since we are not all Bach scholars, and do not have the time or day to analyze his works in his manuscripts (plus he didn't write out every note as he left portions to be filled in to the prerogative of the instrumentalist), we have to rely on what we hear and how we (or I) interpret the structure of the music as we see fit. Back to the basic question: should I present "new original" interpretations which no one else has done? I think such a feat only comes once in a lifetime and only at a particular moment in history.
Yeah good questions. It's all just varying philosophies of the role of a classical musician. On the extreme end you have those who say the only point in playing it is to make a unique artistic statement. Then you have the other extreme end who say absolutely everything in the performance should follow the composer's intention as closely as possible. Most people would land somewhere in the middle I suppose...
@@joshvigranmusic "follow the intention of the composer" = In the study of Hermeneutics, many philosophers of hermeneutics wonder how we can know the "intention of the composer". Also, composers are not necessarily the best interpreters of their own work.
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
The equivalent of broscience applied to music. So much of it. Thanks for debunking.
As I was listening to your explanation, something just hit me. Why stress the individuality of your own interpretation? Are performing artists expected to come up with a unique interpretation that no one else has done? As the same time, you did point out that "whoever I follow, whoever interpretation I prefer, on the other hand dislike", I am not that artist interpretation, I will be developing my "own" interpretation based on the recordings I have heard. But, since we are not all Bach scholars, and do not have the time or day to analyze his works in his manuscripts (plus he didn't write out every note as he left portions to be filled in to the prerogative of the instrumentalist), we have to rely on what we hear and how we (or I) interpret the structure of the music as we see fit. Back to the basic question: should I present "new original" interpretations which no one else has done? I think such a feat only comes once in a lifetime and only at a particular moment in history.
Yeah good questions. It's all just varying philosophies of the role of a classical musician. On the extreme end you have those who say the only point in playing it is to make a unique artistic statement. Then you have the other extreme end who say absolutely everything in the performance should follow the composer's intention as closely as possible. Most people would land somewhere in the middle I suppose...
@@joshvigranmusic "follow the intention of the composer" = In the study of Hermeneutics, many philosophers of hermeneutics wonder how we can know the "intention of the composer". Also, composers are not necessarily the best interpreters of their own work.
@@philipvlnst also true! These kinds of issues are always debated among performers and at conservatories
@@joshvigranmusic It all started with Biblical Hermeneutics. Am looking at Gadamer's fusion of horizon explanation for music interpretation.