☟ Question for the ☟ week
When playing classical music, does adding one's own ideas to the composer's work refer to a continuation of the composer's original intention, or a complete recreation of the composer's original intention? Is the latter a departure from the composer's intentions?
What exactly is true self-expression? Is there a right or wrong way to express this?
------------------
Yes, when playing classical music, whether or not to add one's own expression, and how to add one's own expression, has long been a controversial topic.
The idea of a considerable number of people is that classical music is already classic enough, and on the basis of playing it completely, it is perfect to restore the composer's original emotions and state at that time as much as possible.
But at the same time, some people have been trying to break through people's thinking that classical music can only be "played according to the score" and play classical music in their own unique style.
Pogleridge, as we've talked about earlier, is a typical example, who caused a lot of controversy at the Chopin International Grand Prix in his early years because of his strong personal playing style, and the judge Agridge left the table in anger because he did not make it to the final.
So, should playing classical music be scripted or played? Where are the boundaries of self-expression? And how to judge whether self-expression is good or bad?
Here's the answer from Yusi:
First of all, it's the same point: I don't quite agree with rough categorizing music.
Musicians hundreds of years ago wrote classical music, and now people write modern music. Then make a stipulation, what kind of music type should be expressed in which way. This act itself is a fragmentation of music.
Likewise, I do not think that distinguishing classical music from other types of music is the intention of the masters who wrote countless wonderful works hundreds of years ago. If Beethoven and Mozart had lived to this day, their music would have been constantly changing, and their performances might have been vastly different from those of hundreds of years ago.
So for today's question, my answer is:
The performance in the context of different eras must have different characteristics, and we should have our own expression and play, rather than being framed in the original song and the score itself.
After all, even when the master of the year was playing his own works, he could not be the same every time. As we said in the last issue of #Weekly Q&A," it is precisely because of the unexpected and the individual play that the music scene will be more attractive and more vital.
But there is a big problem today: most of the piano children and even many pianists will only play according to the score, and they have no ability to play themselves.
First, why is the performance more and more scripted, losing its vitality?
The segmentation of the music industry and the public's solidified understanding of classical music have led to the reduction of people's requirements for themselves and the gradual loss of creativity.
You know, "pianist" is a profession that has gradually diverged in modern times. In history, there is no distinction between composers and performers, they only have a unified title - musicians.
Being able to compose and play was the basic quality of every musician of that era. The Chopin and Schumann we know are all-rounders who can write and play, and even Clara, who was famous for her performance at that time, also had the same creative talent.
When musicians of that year played, they often had moments of improvisation. For example, in the Classical Music Concerto, there is a colorful part dedicated to the improvisation of the performer. The first movement of the fifth piece of Bach's Brandenburg Concerto has a long harpsichord brilliance, and we can hear his free and cheerful expression from the music.
But now, when we listen to concerts, we find that almost no concerto has an improvisational part, because many "pianists" today have almost no such ability.
Yes, in modern times, the music industry has subdivided the profession of "pianist", and this profession, whether it is in the industry or the public, has no requirements for creation.
But for a person who makes music, it is actually a ridiculous thing to only play and not to compose.
Just like a person who learns English, who only learns to memorize and read aloud and is unable to have daily independent dialogue, he is identified as an "English expert".
Many piano children are educated and raised in this way, and they learn "dumb music" just like "dumb English": as long as they can play it according to the score, they have learned it, and no one cares whether they can "speak" with music.
Sadly, out of the solidified perception of classical music, the public does not think it is a very strange thing.
More people default to the pianist as long as the song is played well, tacitly they do not need to be able to create, tacitly accept that these lifeless music is normal, even excellent.
I once saw a joke: How do you get a pianist to stop playing? The answer is: take his score off.
Although it is just a joke, but now that I think about it, it really means a lot.
Second, deliberate attempts are much greater than deliberate practice
Of course, not all pianists are setting the bar on themselves. There are still many good pianists who are pursuing creation and self-expression, because they know that this is the true meaning of music.
For example, we mentioned Gurda earlier, who originally achieved high achievements in classical music performance, but in order to have more space for self-expression, he chose to cross over to jazz. The difficulty of this can be imagined, but Gulda still tried it without hesitation.
As a child, I read a biography of Agridge that said that Gulda had encouraged her to do more improvised jazz, but she refused.
Because of this incident, I did not understand Agridge at one point, and felt that she lacked the courage to try. It wasn't until I grew up that I was relieved, because she was working hard within the scope of what she wanted to do. She tries to make every scene different every time and always surprise everyone.
The 60-year-old Canadian musician Marc-André Hamelin is also a god-level figure who combines creative and performance talents, and classical music is easy to play and compose music. You can feel the etudes in minor he composed, and you can find the music of many great composers.
In addition, the Russian post-90s pianist Triphonov has also composed piano concertos. Although there is obviously a taste of his predecessors in the work, at least he took that step forward and tried to make his own voice.
So you ask me, is there a right or wrong way to express yourself? There is no right or wrong in expression, but there must be good or bad.
Like the example above, these pianists are consciously and constantly training, making their playing styles richer, constantly letting people hear new things, and I think this is a good expression.
And those who are empirical and routine, always use the same way to highlight emotions, I think it is not a good expression.
Lang Lang himself is actually a very talented expressor, but we sometimes feel that his performance is trapped in a routine expression: for example, expressing romance, often always suppressing first and then rising, using long tones to express affection.
It's not that this is not right, but every time you use these techniques, it is difficult to bring freshness, and we will feel that he has not done new thinking and trying. This makes me feel particularly sorry.
Of course, this unconscious, thoughtless expression does not exist only in classical music, and even jazz, which relies heavily on improvisation, is easily filled with such routine, empirical performance. Because expressing it without thinking is often the easiest and least labor-saving.
So in my opinion, it is much greater to try consciously and thoughtfully than to repeat training without thinking and being cookie-cutter.
Because in countless attempts, it is full of unknown hardships and challenges, but the result is the warmest and most moving flower.
Music, never enough to play the piano, more impressive, often those hard to try, fresh and amazing moments.