another angle on "interpretation"

ernest-b · September 28, 2010

Luis: "If you go to concerts, you will notice how often the word "interpretation" is used for describing the performer's individualized rendition of someone else's score."

---------------------

Arthur: "True, but [sic] when you have listened to the Beethoven 5th by several conductors it becomes quite apparent that there is some quite variable interpretation of the original score going on (tempo, relative tempo, relative importance of instrumental sections, their balance, etc.).

"Which of the 40 or so recorded 5ths is the one the composer intended? How do I regard the image made by a fellow photographer, if not with my own baggage of knowledge and experience?"

----------------------

Ernest B: "[Arthur,] Well said."

----------------------

Arthur and Luis, I feel obligated to refine and amend my brief comment above.

Arthur, I read your post too quickly, and the "but" didn't register. I misinterpreted your point, thinking it a further elaboration of Luis's observation. (I.e., I read it as if you had written: "True. When you have listened to....")

To me, Arthur, after a more measured consideration, your insertion of "but"-- rendering your idea contrary to Luis's--seems misplaced.

Luis, your point (as I read it) was simply that the concept of "interpretation" permeates the entire field of musical performance.

With the exception of a composer who is conducting a (first) performance of his own work, or of (non-conducted) performers playing or singing their own extemporaneous inventions, interpretation is a concept central to all musical performance.

For that reason, Arthur, your rhetorical question (how can anyone alive today say with any certainty, how nuances of early music were intended to sound?) and its implicit answer (no one can, thus all modern performances of it are interpretive) struck me as reinforcing the validity of Luis's observation, not contradicting it.

For that matter, the whole idea that the field of music could serve as an example of an art form in which there's less "interpretation" going on than in photography seems fatuous.

Just my own interpretation, but I wanted to be clear.

Norma Desmond · September 28, 2010

When a performer "interprets" a piece of music, he doesn't tell us what it means. He performs it.

When a viewer interprets a photograph, he often resorts to telling us what it means.

That's the difference.

We can use "interpret" differently and say it applies even more to music than photography. But when we use it the same way in each case, and say that an interpretation supplies meaning, a musical performance/interpretation does not provide anywhere near the same kind of meaning as many verbal interpretations of photographs.

Music has to be performed to be heard. Photographs don't have to be interpreted by a viewer to be seen.

Norma Desmond · September 28, 2010

Also: The interpreter of the score is the performer, not the listener. By comparing the interpretation of the performer to the interpretation of a viewer (of photographs) we are comparing apples to oranges.

Observation: When a thread becomes a word and analogy stew, it usually is avoiding tough ideas.

ernest-b · September 28, 2010

"When a performer "interprets" a piece of music, he doesn't tell us what it means. He performs it."

By performing a piece of music, the performer communicates what it means (to him).

----------------------

"Music has to be performed to be heard."

So how did Beethoven, deaf, compose his final, greatest, works?

-----------------------

"Photographs don't have to be interpreted by a viewer to be seen."

Photographs have to be made to be seen. Music has to be made to be heard.

In both cases, interpretation--the issue of their meaning/significance--is a different set of questions from their "existence".

----------------------

"We can use 'interpret' differently and say it applies even more to music than photography. But when we use it the same way in each case..."

Yes, Fred. And so we arrive back at the same point we started from, about two threads ago.

You repeatedly have said you "don't care about definitions". Yet, without an agreed set of definitions, all discourse eventually ends up...nowhere.

ernest-b · September 28, 2010

"Observation: When a thread becomes a word and analogy stew, it usually is avoiding tough ideas."

----------------------------------

Fred, that's one way of looking at it.

But for me, in the present context, speaking of "tough ideas" seems odd.

When words and concepts are applied without rigor, in non-agreed ways that suit the individual preferences of participants, "soft, flabby ideas" might be more apt.

Norma Desmond · September 28, 2010

I have performed many musical pieces on the piano and never once have I communicated what those pieces mean to me. I have performed the music. I have considered melodic line, swells of sound, how to touch the keys, how my fingers should move, rubato when it sounds right, pedals for an overtoned legato. I don't fantasize or romanticize about what all of that means. It's absolutely unnecessary and virtually impossible. I may occasionally discuss how a piece makes me feel but never once have I engaged in discussions about what a musical passage might mean, how it translates or transfers to ideas.

ernest-b · September 28, 2010

As I wrote, Fred:

"By performing a piece of music, the performer communicates what it means (to him)."

You may be entirely unconscious of your own interpretive processes, and you may never speak or write of "interpretation" to anyone.

But if an audience of reasonably intelligent, reasonably sensitive people were to listen to you playing a given piece of music--immediately after they'd listened to a different pianist playing the same piece--many of the listeners, I suspect, would be able to point out distinct differences in your "interpretation".

You're faced with the same question that was raised in the earlier threads, but left unanswered: what does it mean, in the field of art, to "interpret"? When using the term in its broad, generally accepted sense, it seems intuitively obvious that "interpretation" occurs at many levels of the brain and the mind. You're now using the term in Susan Sontag's narrow, self-defined, special sense of "misplaced criticism"--which would be fine, if you were conversing only with believers in her frame of reference.

But you've already written that you are not, yourself, a defender of her frames of reference; and as you know, you're presenting your ideas to others, in these threads, who've made clear that they do not accept such a narrow restriction of the meaning of the word.

The fact that musicians and music critics and musical theorists all employ the word differently from the way it was used in Sontag's 1964 treatise means...what, exactly?

(I wold suggest that it means, at a minimum, that many well-informed, sensitive people do not subscribe to the limited scope of the term she prescribed.)

Norma Desmond · September 28, 2010

I'd suggest that the term simply applies differently to the performance of music and the viewing of a photograph.

When we say a performer interprets a score we don't mean the same as when we say a viewer interprets a photograph. Words apply differently in different contexts. A dictionary won't help. Read Arthur's interpretation of his own gravestone image and read his patron's interpretation of the photo he talked about and there is little similarity to that and performing ("interpreting") a piece of music. Of course, my "interpretation" of the piece is different from someone else's. But I don't refer the musical notes or passages to something else, to some idea. I don't need to think that this passage represents fate and this one represents a lush countryside in order to play it or listen to it. Arthur and his patron did just that with the photographs.

ernest-b · September 28, 2010

"When we say a performer interprets a score we don't mean the same as when [i, Fred] say a viewer interprets a photograph."

Fred, did you read the extracts I posted from Herbert Brun's essay?

Others may (do) approach the same ideas differently than you do. A photographer may "interpret" a landscape before him in the same, or analogous, way that a performer "interprets" a musical score.

And a listener may "interpret" (in Brun's sense) a musical performance, in the same way that a viewer interprets a photograph.

Moreover, as he wrote, in the first line I quoted:

"At a given moment the language considered common to all is able to pave the way to an agreement on the facts which have happened and could have been perceived. But to agree in terms, understandable to all, on the effects which such perceptions may have on the perceiver, a language common to all must be looked for, found; if necessary, be invented..."

In these threads, "a language common to all" was never established. Instead, fiats were declared, and the outcome was predictable.

aplumpton · September 28, 2010

Ernest, thanks for your lucid remarks, for your attempts to establish rigour in the comments of this forum and for a not so prevalent drive for progress and meaning in discussion. Like the streets of Rome, the "fiats" are omnipresent, while the "lectures" are too predictable and rather ill conceived, the misreading of considered comments frequent, and the genuflection of some before chosen authority embarassing for thinking persons. This is less a philosophy forum and more that of unruly question time in (e.g., Canadian) parliamentary democracy, or whatever the analogue may be in America.

aplumpton · September 28, 2010

ernest-b · September 28, 2010

"This is less a philosophy forum and more that of unruly question time in (e.g., Canadian) parliamentary democracy, or whatever the analogue may be in America."

Arthur, the analogue in America to your "unruly question time" may be "all the time."

(Just kidding, I love this place.)

Norma Desmond · September 28, 2010

"Ernest, thanks for your lucid remarks, for your attempts to establish rigour in the comments of this forum and for a not so prevalent drive for progress and meaning in discussion. Like the streets of Rome, the "fiats" are omnipresent, while the "lectures" are too predictable and rather ill conceived, the misreading of considered comments frequent, and the genuflection of some before chosen authority embarassing for thinking persons. This is less a philosophy forum . . ." --Arthur

Speaking of high horses. Definitional obsession at the expense of photography.

aplumpton · September 28, 2010

Fred,

I think Ernest is to be thanked for seeing how some little fencing matches and obsessional speaking down to others has limited the usefulness of the discourse and continues to turn off others. As for "at the expense of photography", that's a value judgement. I for one have no problem with your evocation of musical examples, for instance, at least in the manner discussed. Consideration of other analogies, from painting or sculpture or poetry, and a desire to be definitionally rigorous in discussions, are they to your mind at the expense of photography?

ernest-b · September 28, 2010

"Definitional obsession at the expense of photography."

Fred, there are many excellent photographers (I would suggest) who talk and write little about the "artistic dimensions" of their own photographs, much less the "philosophy" of photography in general. They create the best, most interesting pictures they can, and study the pictures of others to find, assess, and assimilate new visual ideas; they navigate their way visually.

But to state the obvious, this particular online forum is a place of verbal exchanges. We are writing to each other, using words, to address complex concepts. We are presenting and defending divergent views on issues that are verbally defined (and we're doing it under the rubric of "philosophy", no less).

In this context, your complaint of "definitional obsession" seems misplaced.

Norma Desmond · September 28, 2010

John, an invitation. A while back, you asked:

"If you see that man's withered face against aging wood, does it 'mean' something in a way that's different from that inherently abstracted music you've mentioned? Does it inherently say something about age . . . " --John K.

And I answered:

"I got hung up on these questions for a while. That's good. Maybe provocation is a better place to go than interpretation? I see the pic of the withered face against aging wood and may feel provoked to think about aging and relationships of aged things or may myself be provocative in making pictures showing naked, middle-aged or older men. (Provocative can be stimulating but not always controversial.) No, the pic doesn't inherently say something about age. But it likely does provoke thoughts about it. Imagination is something that can be sparked and talked about. I'm getting more and more used to having viewers' imaginations projected onto me and my photographs. I may provoke a response yet not have strict control over it and not have the intention a viewer may project. A photo may provoke ideas without representing them. It seems more honest for a viewer to say her thoughts, ideas, feelings, emotions are provoked by a photo than that she is interpreting the photo in such and such a way. Interpretation suggests much more of a direct and literal linkage than I think is at play. I've used the word suggestive a lot. Maybe suggestiveness goes hand in hand with provocation. Interpretation, on the other hand, is a package often too neatly tied."

I'd like to get back to that because your question was challenging and helping me. Thanks.

albert_richardson1 · September 28, 2010

I should have inserted my comment about music this morning without being worried about not having time to go on.

The musician has no choice but to fill in the gaps the written score leaves out in order to perform the piece. She can't do nothing about the decisions she has to make and she can't just leave it to chance that she might do one thing in one performance and another in a subsequent performance of the same work. These are the issues study and rehearsal are meant to work out. And yes, the musician can be said to interpret the work because there are places requiring her to draw on her own sensibility as a guide to exactly what she must do to make the sounds the piece requires. Written documentation can never tell you everything you need to know to make sure every performance is exactly the same. This would seem to be the heart of interpretation: do the work required to fill in the gaps necessary to make sense of a work. (It sounds trite to say, "to make a work work," but that is my drift.)

I hope I'm not oversimplifying anything here. The audience's experience with previous renditions of the work and similar ones, and their estimation of how successful the orchestra is in its current performance will win or lose the day.

albert_richardson1 · September 28, 2010

I reread the article used to kick this thread off. It is a music review of a group of jazz artists that have been successful with their unique improvisational style. The other reference is a survey of music history that describes various styles that have been explored over the years.

I think that the description - criticism - and interpretation are all part of the same thing. The difference lies in how much juice the speaker/writer brings to the table. I should be clear in telling you that the viewer, not the artist, is the subject of these comments. So what do I mean by juice? I mean the sophistication one gets through exposure to the work, similar works, performances, & etc., that all go together to inform one's opinion. It seems almost too easy to comment that the more one has to say about a work, the more you might expect them to.

All of these terms point to a person's effort to make something of a work and her experience of it. The spectrum runs from "tell me what you see there in front of you" to "connect the dots: fit the work into a context that helps explain the artist's point of view and its significance" to "use the work as a springboard for you to reflect on wherever it might lead you." All of these activities are worthwhile in my estimation, but they do different things.

So... You're all right! But in different contexts and from different perspectives. It seems to me to be eight guys and an elephant all over again.

AJHingel · September 29, 2010

Albert wrote

I hope I'm not oversimplifying anything here. The audience's experience with previous renditions of the work and similar ones, and their estimation of how successful the orchestra is in its current performance will win or lose the day.

</blockquote>

The spectrum runs from "tell me what you see there in front of you" to "connect the dots: fit the work into a context that helps explain the artist's point of view and its significance" to "use the work as a springboard for you to reflect on wherever it might lead you." All of these activities are worthwhile in my estimation, but they do different things.

</blockquote>

I think this is very well formulated and somewhat clarifying. The important thing is that the very different usages we make out of works of art whether fine art in the form of paintings or photography or music performance.

I don't know whether you in the US have something similar, but in France, every Sunday afternoon during some three hours, <a href="http://players.tv-radio.com/radiofrance/playerfrancemusique.php">France Musique</a>, the main classical music radio channel, has a program where a panel of music experts discusses a long series of interpretations of the same smaller passage of a classical work. What Albert writes is a very good short description of what happens in such a program and I see it as an important aspect of appreciating music interpretation. It increases my ability to hear music and understand interpretations. To add to that what ever one can find of written testimony of the part of the composer is adding to the quality of the exercise. For example I think knowing what Stockhousen or others has said and written on "spatialization" in his music gives added value to any interpreter and any listener to his music. Listening to <a href="

for example can be one experience without such knowledge but a somewhat different with. It gives meaning to the music, puts it in context and makes for the listener reference to ancient <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiphon">antiphon</a> in christian music and rituals that might not come to the fore without.

All that is music literacy. Other approaches are totally valid, but we need to admit that there are different approaches and not one best way.

When it comes to the "fine arts", again Albert's second paragraph quoted above is clear and in my eyes very just. Many approaches are possible and equally valid. To confront them might not be the best way of filling this forum. It might be more optimal for understanding each other to separate them because they are of very different order.

aplumpton · September 29, 2010

As I think was mentioned by Albert and Anders in a slightly different way, the personal "baggage" of knowledge and experience that the viewer or listener brings to a work is important in terms of the nature of the appreciation she can derive from it. Not having any knowledge or experience when considering and viewing "Pop Art" or, (in regard to a more local movement here), "The automatists" (1940s and 50s abstract art), can be a handicap in interpreting what we see or hear. However, I believe that "literacy" in these arts is not a universal quality. It can exist in different forms. As an Asian, I might listen to classical music of the West in a different way than the westerner, and vice versa.

In North America, many orchestras, including our local QSO(OSQ) hold a half hour or hour session before selected concerts, in order for the conductor or an orchestra member to describe and discuss interpretation for the audience. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the earlier users of a similar approach was Leonard Bernstein, whom I remember discussing ABBA (Not the Swedish pop group) musical composition form in a Saturday lecture to youth, and comparing some of the compositions of the Beatles to that classical form. Some interviews with singers in radio opera broadcast intermissions analyse different interpretations and try to relate them to the orginsal intentions. But I think that not much compares to the various music commentary programs of "France Musique". Travelling the long autoroutes in France is made more enjoyable by listening to such programs. I once felt compelled to pull off to the side of the road at a rest stop to better concentrate on understanding the descriptive and interpretative comments being made. It was that captivating.

Given the universal presence of an excellent means of communication, TV, why do we not have more programs (I tacitly assume there may be a few) which critically describe and analyse visual works, especially fine photographs? Does some sort of taste or "level of comprehension" governor wheel kick in to inhibit that, or is it simply considered something that won't sell to the advertisers?

luis_g · September 29, 2010

Arthur - " Given the universal presence of an excellent means of communication, TV, why do we not have more programs (I tacitly assume there may be a few) which critically describe and analyse visual works, especially fine photographs?"

The cable TV company where I live carries a channel called Ovation that regularly has shows devoted to multiple aspects of visual works, including description, interpretation and criticism. Mostly with non-photographic art, but a few are devoted to photography.

There are also more than a few blogs devoted to this at different levels and quality.

fate_faith_change_chains · September 29, 2010

<a href="http://www.ovationtv.com/">Ovation</a> can be seen online too...

AJHingel · September 29, 2010

The best I have seen on photography on TV is "Genius of photography". Here is <a href="http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/entertainment/watch/v6979965Z5ZpMaRd">the second</a> in the series of five.

ernest-b · September 29, 2010

Anders, it's excellent!

I just downloaded and installed "Veoh", to be able to watch the whole thing.

Thank you for posting this.

luis_g · September 29, 2010

Now and then Ovation re-airs the entire series.

Sign In

another angle on "interpretation"

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in