The Performer Breathes Life
Recently, upon practicing my piano repertoire, I was reviewing Claude Debussy's "Clair de Lune" and decided, for good measure, to listen to a few interpretations of it on YouTube by various performers. I came across an interesting recording that claimed, in the title, to be the great Debussy himself performing his own "Clair de Lune."
The hot topic in the comments for this particular recording was the controversial tempo (this is to say rate of speed or pace for my non-musical readers) at which it was performed. The general consensus was that it was played fast and from the limited number of comments that I read, the majority of listeners preferred the faster tempo. We now have in question an interpretation of a piece performed by its very own composer at a faster tempo than most listeners and performers alike are accustomed to. Therefore a discussion regarding the "right way" to play “Clair de Lune” inevitably surfaced, a notion with which I take issue. Some users assumed the stance that if the composer is performing the piece, it is then being performed "correctly" the way it was "meant to be played". And so, for the sake of argument and this blog entry, "Clair de Lune" should be performed fast, as that's how Debussy would perform it, if the recording with which we're concerned is, in fact, his performance. This prompted me to philosophize a bit, and raised the question of whether there is or isn't a "right way" to interpret and perform a piece.
I was compelled to comment on the YouTube video to share my philosophy and so I did. I will directly quote the comment I left (with some clarifications in square brackets) so as to maintain any integrity it may possess:
Reading many comments here: FYI, there's no "right" way to play this piece (so long as you follow the indications in the score), it's just a stupid thing to believe when you're dealing with the subjectivity of art. As a pianist and composer myself, if I gave a piece of mine to a pianist [to perform], there's a good possibility I'm going to enjoy his or her interpretation of it more than my own. The composer's intentions and original vision can only go so far [and it's the performer's job to make it come alive]. The performer breathes life. Personally, I've heard better [interpretations] than this, even if it really is Claude. Ultimately, it's a bit of a waste of time debating what the right way to play this piece is. By that logic, every piece of music ever written by every composer should be performed solely by that composer so as have it performed "correctly". While many composers are performers, some performers are only performers and work 24/7 at their ability to interpret [a piece of music] and their technical skill and can therefore [in most cases] play a piece far better than the composer ever could. I would argue, personally, that's [one significant reason] why performers exist.
What do you think? Feel free to comment and share your thoughts!
Musically yours,
Daniel