An ongoing and heated discussion in the music world is whether a performer should follow the instructions written by the composer (if the performer is not the composer him- or herself) or should implement his or her personal style in the playing of the piece. Although the question was simply phrased and thought to have no more than just the matter of individual preference, I believe there are more than meets the eye. Sure it can be explain as easy as "that's just the way I like it", but there could also exist explanations that would be more historically informed, systematic, generalized and widely-accepted. I would like to (hopefully) talk about different levels and dimensions of authenticity and creativity in musical performances, today.
But first, it would be prudent to ask: what would be considered "authentic"? How can a musical piece attain the quality of being authentic, or orthodox, or original, or historically-accurate etc.? To clarify, authenticity here is not to denote music that is different, but to refer to the fact that historical music now might be played in a different approaches when comparing to historical musicians. While creativity are rather easy (easier compared to authenticity I would say) to define, the problem of authenticity remains convoluted. In the simplest way, is to view creativity as being diverted from what has been done or existed; and authenticity as the exact opposite. I would also like to view authenticity as how the composer/creator wanted the piece to sound like. However, the rather profound issue is that we have no clues to how certain music was played before the invention of recordings, thus the most concrete evidence of authenticity is no longer in existence. With no evidence, we can only hypothesize what musicians could have and would have done based on lost-and-found unfinished manuscripts, chronologies of the composers which might have been written by highly-biased clerks or the music being performed through several generations. One way or another, the original integrity of the music is already compromised, and the value of authenticity is threatened. On the other hand, we can take a piece of music and play it in our way can already be called creative. But how much creativity is considered creative anyway? Would adding numerous trills to a Scarlatti sonata be considered creative? Or just alternating the way of playing trills enough to be called so? Or maybe only reharmonizing the whole Mahler symphony be considered significantly creative? I my view, authenticity and creativity might be the Kelvin temperature scale: one can have certain degree of creativity, but never achieve true authenticity.
To tackle, we can apply an "area of authenticity" which makes room for musicians to perform authentically. While not being true authentic, we can still have the ability to observe and listen to how the music would have been played a few centuries ago, of course through the interpretative lens on available evidence by the performer. In a way, we are listening to what the performer thinks the composer would have wanted to achieve in a piece. Authenticity encompasses several dimensions not just in the methods of playing. After the span of a few hundreds years, almost everything would have changed, most evidently the use of instruments, pitches, musical philosophies, the employment of recordings and as mentioned, playing styles. I hope to address (to the least superficial) every aspect of historical performance.
One thing we cannot deny is the evolution of historical instruments into what we call to day modern. From the clavichord to the harpsichord then to the pianoforte; from the lute to the guitar to the electric guitar; from the recorder to the flute; from the trumpet to, the trumpet? Anyway, the instruments have changed, and so do their mechanics of creating sound, either expltcit or implicit. Take the harpsichord and the piano for instance: while the two looks strikingly similar with black and white keys (may be in inversted color), and we play by pressing the keys, the harpsichord would be considered a plucked instrument, whereas the piano would be percussion–not that the piano is a percussive instrument but the mechanism of sound generation is by hitting the strings with a hammer. So clearly, the sound is different, but should we say that a Bach tocatta performaed on a piano is any less authentic than the same piece played on the harsichord or an organ?
Another problem arises when it comes to arranging and transcribing music to be played on other unrelated instruments. We have seen countless examples when a song is arranged for the solo guitar, or a violin piece be transcribed to fit the whole harmonic range of the piano (e.g., Chaconne from BWV 1004). First we ask if a music pertain authenticity when we play on a similar instrument but of the the future, now even with a completely distinct instrument? How authentic would that be?–Asked an authentic historical performance elitist. It seems that many people have a problem with old music to be played on new instrument, and unfortunately I think the reasons are entirely biased. One should provide the evidence to the argument why certain instruments could only be qualified to play certain music, rather than "I just like it that way". Otherwise, it is quite equally valid to say that any instrument could play any music.
Two issues presented so far, and there are not much of a distinction between the two question as they both refer to the choice of instrument. I might just give my thoughts as a whole. When it comes to playing of different instruments, I have an idea that I am very much convicted to:
It should not matter on which instrument we play, as long as the instrument works with what the music itself can offer, i.e., harmonies and techniques, and vice versa (the music should be played with what the instrument can offer, i.e., sonorities and tone qualities).
I do agree that the statement provided cannot be any more general, but I believe it gives a reasonable argument. The Canadian pianist Glenn Gould stated that there are two kinds of composers, those who devote themselves to creating the abosolute best music just for one instrument, those are Liszt and Chopin on the piano, Paganini on the violin, Barrios on the guitar etc. On the other hand, there are composers who focus on exceptional musical harmonies and structures, and that is it, with Bach being exemplary. The claim I made earlier on fits well with those on the latter side of the spectrum i.e. Bach, since he concentrated himself in composing music that is organized and pleasant to the eyes as well as the ears, rather than conceiving the ultimate piece for a specific instrument. Before Bach became a great composer as we know him as today, he was also known as one of the early arrangers by taking works from his precedents, such as Vivaldi or Marcello, and transforming those pieces onto a different instrument (e.g., Vivaldi's L'estro Amonico Op. 3 No. 9 became Bach's BWV 972). Later on, not only did he adopt pieces from other composers, there are numerous instances that he even recycled his own works: BWV 1011 on the cello versus BWV 995 on the lute; BWV 1006 on the violin versus BWV 1006a for the lute versus Simfonia from BWV 29 on the keyboard; various instrumental versions of The Art of Fugue, so on and so forth. Clearly, he was the most pragmatic man and did not care (or would not care) which instrument should a piece be played on. If one even bother come to realize that during Bach's time, or maybe Baroque period entirely, such prominent composers would have to traveled (and not in a minimalistic way) to various regions to, likely, commission a piece for the reigner of that regions. Since they would have to be adapted to the local instrument, the use of instrument for their music now became less relevant. While sonorities are still important, one's imagination on the scaffolding of the music should be the major focus. Even before the Baroque, music would be composed in a way that can be performed at any events and any musical ensembles serving as background music, partitas or dance tunes for the royals.
So far we have address the second type of composer; how about the former type? Certainly since the music was intentionally written for the piano, so should that music be played on the piano only? Think about it this way, if that music can be part of the new repertoire for the piano, could it contribute to the guitar as a new guitar piece, rather than viewing it as a guitar-esque display of a piano piece? As I said earlier, using the piano to guitar example, the guitar offers some sonorities and timbres that could work well with the tonal characteristic of the music, however, as well as some parameters that are, well, not suitable to the music. At this point, I think it is quite clear that some particular music may never be, or could never be (technically speaking), transcribed to another instrument even if one desires very much. For example, transcribing a whole symphony to a small and dynamically-limited instrument such as the guitar, would be a challenging task, but not that it has never been done before (see Pictures at an Exhibition by Mussorgsky, on the orchestra and guitar). As for music that works well on both original instrument and the novel instrument, we can all have a look at Liszt's transcriptions of Beethoven's symphonies on the piano (Symphony No. 5 or Symphony No. 6). In some cases, the new instrument could serve a better justice to the music, for that the music was written, not poorly, but rather out-of-league for the original instrument. Looking at the three sonatas on the violin BWV 1001, 1003 and 1005 by Bach, the violin, normally preceived as a leading, monophonic and melodic instrument, now has to play three extended fugues in which sometimes there are up to four voices simultaneously. All three sonatas (and three partitas to complete the whole solo violin compilation), have been transcribed to the guitar, which are more appropriate in playing big chords as well as bringing out the polyphonic textures of the pieces. Obviously, really it should not matter which instrument we play the music on, what matters is that we can use the instrument as a tool to process and convey the gist of the piece into something meaningful and beautiful, within the ability of that instrument, and the piece become a part of the repertoire for the new instrument in its own terms. I only think that it is fallacious and overreacting to view an arrangement as a limited backup or an alternative to the "authentic" version.
A subtle aspect that I should mention is the differences between some modern and historical instruments. It is quite clear to differentiate the sound of an 18th century harpsichord and that of a contemporary Steinway. However, it is also important to keep in mind that we are looking at two cross-section a few hundreds years apart, so we are missing a whole lot in the middle. the revolution of the piano, and also for other instruments is not just a jump from A to B, but a continuous iteration of slightly new instruments, not being degenerated and eliminated, over and over again. If we take that vantage point, we shall be able to see that the Romantic period pianoforte would have some timbre and sonority aspects from the Classical pianoforte, while offer a larger dynamic range as we see in a modern piano. Similarly, the Baroque violin with a convex bow and a smaller body were more appropriate for accents and play short scales, and as the music evolved, demanding musicians to play longer melodies while maintaining dynamics (or mold the dynamics as he or she wished), we experienced a shift toward the modern violin with a concave bow and slightly larger body size. So, again, it is about working and neutralizing between what the music and the instrument can offer: if it works, it works. Let's take Bach's Violin Partita No. 2 BWV 1004 for example, especially the Chaconne. All other movements of the partita could be play either with a Baroque or a modern violin, since the player could rationally play with emphasis on the rhythms (as per dance music) or on the melodic aspect of the piece (as long scales suggested). However, the Chaconne, while being a dance piece itself, it contains a heavy load of polyphonic structure, therefore, one should concentrate on maintaining melodic lines (especially the bass), and one could more easily achieve this by playing on the modern violin. That being said, it is not inappropriate to play on the Baroque violin either, it is just that one may sacrifice the melodic integrity while focusing more on 3/4 rhythm of the Chaconne.
Certainly, this is not the end of the story, but I want to put a pause to this here, as I still have other topics to talk about.
In short, similarly to the previous argument abut instrument of choice, one should focus on what the pitch could offer, as well as taken into account the historical significance of such use, instead of "pitching" on how certain pitches should be used. Since the Baroque period, there has been a gradual increasing of "standard" pitch from A = 415Hz to A = 440Hz; or in musical terms, all notes are half-tone higher after a span of 500 years. While I strongly think the question of pitch is much less impressive to the quality of the music, but still it might be interesting to talk about. We can speculate the use of different pitches (Baroque and modern) in the piece, again, Chaconne on the guitar:
Some may prefer the Baroque tuning simply because it captivates them with a mellow, bassy, rather warm, almost alto sound. Some, onthe other hand, find the modern tuning a bit more familiar, brighter and clearer. For me, I don't have a any preferred standard pitch, as the harmonization and the structure as well as the overall emotional conveyance of the piece are far more important. However, I would still like to make a case that even if one preferred to play in A = 415Hz, I doubt that it would be called the "Baroque standard pitch". Quite similar to the tuning system (e.g., mean tone, well-temperament, equal-temperament), there was no standardization; rather each region, or even each church, would devise their own pitch, which maybe higher or lower than 415Hz, very much called arbitrary. In any way, do please experiment on different pitches, as long as you don't justify playing in 432Hz frequency because it's "harmonically resonant to the frequency of life".
Compared to frequency selection, the choice of tempi is even more arbitrary and confusing. Although pitches have changed through time and emcompassed a whole spectrum of frequencies, we can still boil down to just play in either 440Hz or 415Hz. Even compared to instruments of choice (there are just countless number of them), some may even find certain instrument more favorable or perhaps maybe more appropriate depending on the music (as I mentioned). Temi, not only do they range vastly, but also depend on numerous factors: how we should perceive and interpret historical tempi if there were no tempo indicator, one's technical capability to play as fast (and surprisingly, slow) as possible, the sacrification of tone quality if one wants to play a piece faster and consequently the trade-off between harmonic lines, the sound production delay in certain instruments (some instruments are not quite responsive e.g. organ compared to the piano), how quickly the sound decays so that the next sound can ring without being muffle and lost, etc. Sometimes, if not often, I just kind of ignore the tempo mark and play as long as I feel comfortable with the beauty of the music. Of course, while some parameters can be absolutely arbitrary, there are a few tricks to determine the appropriate tempo one may wish to play. Nonetheless, it is still possible for two completely opposite interpretation of the score leading to two completely opposite tempos.
While I previously said I sort of ignore the tempo indication, the keyword here is "sort of". Not that I completely disregard the composer's choice of tempo (if there is any), that would be both nonsense and blasphemous! This is because, as an amateur musician, I need to ensure my physical ability can embrace the difficulty of the music. It is also good practice to start slow rather than playing fast. Only then should I build up to the desired tempo. This, of course is not applicable if I were to sightread though, as sightreading requires a different set of skills (playing the right notes at the right tempo with fewest mistakes).
Very often, it would preferable to get hold of the composer's choice of tempo (him/herself). This did not really happen before the invention of the metronome, as well as the comcept of minute. The practice of writing down tempos did not become common until the end of the Classical period, and not florish until the Romantic era, so composers such as Beethoven, Czerny or Mahler, were a few pioneers that shared with us their understanding as well as intention of how fast a piece should be played. Just when we thought the problem is diminished, since now we would have a rather clear guideline, another problem arise: after music is subjective, and if we only stick to one tempo for the whole piece (or whatever tempo the composer attached to a section), the music becomes rigid and objective. The funtion of rubato would probably become extinct. While in some cases tempos can be more rigorous, for instance some modern composers assign how long (in minutes and second) a piece should be, tempos should not be set in stone as dogma that all disciples need to follow. It is rather common sense that the composer only provided us an approximation. One can realize that Beethoven did not really bring the metromoe with him everytime he had a concert. After all he was deaf for nearly a third of his life, and unless he had an innate ability to discern 152bpm from 154bpm, he would have only approximated. But even another question emerges: so how much tolerance should we give to this approxiation? ±10? ±15? Or should we play by feels completely? This question would be impossible to answer, and really it depends. I would refer you to this video by Bernstein to have a better view on how and why one should study the whole piece to justify the appropirate tempo. This also brings us to my next (short point).
Another trick mentioned here would be how to unveil, or to justify one's use of a specific tempo. The fundamental would be: if it cannot be played fast, then it's not meant to be. Indeed such statement is nowhere near objectivity, but let's take the Bach sonatas for example: on one hand, some movements, such as the adagio or largo (and we should forget the name for now for the sake of demonstration), were filled with dense and intricate harmonies, along with various ornamentation sprinkled in the long notes. If one were to, perhaps, play those movements fast, then it would lose all the magic in the music. On the other hand, the other movements, characterized by pseudo-monophonic, could be easily played at a steady and fast pace, so the use of faster tempi is entirely suitable. Nonetheless, since we are on the topic of choosing tempi, the fugues of these sonatas are neither excruiatingly slow, nor are these hastely fast. In this case, exparimentation would be another viable method. Bach himself was an improviser, so the tempo might only need to be steady!
Seems that I have digressed from the subject of authenticity and creativity. Certainly playing not at an original tempo would be considered creative. But, taking a huge leap from the original tempo would be considered sacreligious. I believe you may have heard the classic first movement from the sonata No. 23 Op. 57 Appasionata by Beethoven. The tempo marking assigned by Beethoven himself was Allegro Assai, which I would say pretty fast. An ordinary pianist would play this movement in about 10 minutes. But Glenn Gould (again), played this montrosity in under 15 minutes. Many called him maniac and scandalous. I personally found it intersting and maybe even more pleasant to listen to, as he brought out, instead of the Beethoven virtuosity and temper, the contrapuntal beauty that Beethoven was very much lesser-known for. Here, I absolutely advocate for the audacity of trying something new!
Doesn't recording preserve "permanently" an ephemeral instance of irreplicable performances? If that were to be the case, then isn't recording, in any form, considered a device of storing authenticity? We take photos at places we've been in, videotape a concert, to retain these memories in a hard drive that we can later recollect in a truest way...
But what if, in other senses, recording is actually a way of creating a freshly-made version of the original? Indeed I couldn't be any more grateful that we have these media to capture irrestorable moments. But, while we have always thought about how videos are so great in maintaining historical performance of virtuosi that we could not have a chance to see them live today, and even more relevant and prevalent in these days where livestreaming concerts are an absolute necessity for performers, we often forget that recording is only an illusion of the truth. It can come close to reality though. Through various gates of information prcessing, from the lights and sounds hitting the device, converting into electrical information from analog waves, stored in arranged atoms, then back to playing devices in our house, the quality of the so-called original is now doctored by the quality of both the instrument of record and playback.
Also, the process of recording could enhance the quality of the music, and, if being not done right, could render the music enhance in a very artificial way. We have certainly heard classical music that are dreadfully reverberant and echoing; some may be so dry that the notes cut like scissors. Nonetheless, best recording practice could really showcase the potentials of the instrument, or sometimes the music, especially in contrapuntal music. The nature of the sound is malleable, that is not to conceal mistakes, but to beautify what the music has to offer.
Even if one came to a concert, one is also subject to the doctoring of the sound. A front row seat would produce a massive, full sound, may even be blasting, compared to those sitting at the far back where the sound might be dampened. One sitting on the left side of the hall would be likely to experience a symphony that has a prominent violin melody as well as percussion, whereas those on the other side of the hall immerse in the bass and cello and tuba. The problem here: even the original has is own subjectivity, and he experience that each person has is their own creativity at work. Not to mention, we all have different hearing ability at the anatomical level.
So far, even up to this point, I have only mentioned the epistemological standpoint (original: knowledge, but the term here is used loosely to describe how matter, in this case, music, are observed and absorbed), but not the ontological standpoint (i.e., how true original music is created).The topic is utterly complex, and I certainly do have a feeling that I should jot my last words here. This might be for another piece of writing for another rainy day.