The Future of Schubert Interpretation: What Is Really Needed? Author(s): Malcolm Bilson Reviewed work(s): Source: Early Music, Vol. 25, No. 4, 25th Anniversary Issue; Listening Practice (Nov., 1997), pp. 715-722 Published by: Oxford University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3128415 . Accessed: 01/12/2012 20:37 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Early Music. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.215 on Sat, 1 Dec 2012 20:37:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Observations Malcolm Bilson The futureof Schubertinterpretation: what is reallyneeded? URING the 1991Mozart Conferenceat Lincoln aries.' In an age when most mainstream perfor- Center in New York City1 a recording was mances are very far from the kind of creative,ima- played of Serge Rachmaninoffperforming the first ginative playing of which in the case of SergeRach- movement of Mozart's A major sonata, K331.2To maninoff we have direct witness and in the case of describe Rachmaninoff'sperformance as not heed- Wolfgang Mozart well-founded suppositions, such ing the text would be superfluous;it was so free in thinking can only be detrimental.Our principalgoal this regard that the penultimate Adagio variation should be to get into the passion and emotion of the was actuallyfaster than the Allegro that followed it. music as deeply and richly as possible. This is not This gave rise to a great deal of controversyamong merely a romantic notion; it is what every late 18th- the participants;there were those who were outraged and early19th-century treatise known to me stresses at the 'utter lack of respectfor the composer and the above all else (see below). To me the study of perfor- text', while others proclaimed,'But who today plays mance practice always promised More from the as flexiblyand gorgeouslyas Rachmaninoff?' greatestworks, not Less.The subjectof study is, to be Indeed, who does play the piano today as gor- sure, to ascertainjust what kind of More (i.e. the os- geously as Rachmaninoff, according to some the tensible differences between what Mozart would greatestpianist of his generation?Yet if Mozart,pos- have played and what we have from Rachmaninoff). sibly the greatest keyboard player of his day, had Montgomery's article addressestwo main issues: made a recording of that movement on his own the appropriateness(or lack thereof) of adding free Walter fortepiano, it would have been equally as ornamentationto Schubert'sinstrumental composi- wonderfulas Rachmaninoff's,equally as flexible,but tions, and the proper use of giving way in tempo, very different.My own goals as a pianist and musi- commonly called rubato. Montgomery admits that cian have alwaysbeen to glean as much information none of the tutors of Schubert'stime list him as one as I can from the pertinent sources, and then hope of the 'approved'composers for whom the particu- that I can transform that information into some- lar treatisemight be applicable,as Schubert'spublic thing as imaginativeand creativeas did Rachmani- publishing and performinglife was far too short to noff, albeit of a differentnature. make any impact until quite a few years after his Many aspects of David Montgomery's article death.Nevertheless,says Montgomery, by studying 'Modern Schubertinterpretation in the light of the as many treatises as possible from the period one pedagogicalsources of his day' in Earlymusic, xxv/1 should be able to arrive at some understandingof (Feb 1997)fill me with dismay.Such an articlerepre- general performance practices of the time, and sents a recent kind of performancepractice scholar- should thereforebe able to correlatethese to a par- ship that leads us in just the opposite direction from ticularcomposer living at that time and in that place. the one I think we should be taking.It says:'Find out I am in complete agreementwith this concept. what was permitted,and don't exceed those bound- The protagonist and apparent impetus for MalcolmBilson has beenfocusing on the Viennesefortepiano repertory for 30 years,and is currently recordingall the Schubertsonatas for Hungaroton. EARLY MUSIC NOVEMBER 1997 715 This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.215 on Sat, 1 Dec 2012 20:37:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Montgomery'sarticle is pianist RobertLevin, who in [Hethen quotes the 'most esteemed music director Ttlrk']... a recording of Schubert's A minor sonata, D537 Whoeverpresents a pieceof musicso thatthe affect [charac- in it is Vivarte, SK53364)introduced a few variants ter] accuratelyexpressed in everypassage, and where (Sony thetones are turned into a the of that and lead-ins. cites an earlierreview of 'languageof emotions', Montgomery manwe say,he hasa goodVortrag.8 this CD by Susan Kagan, who was so offended by Levin's accretions that she suggested that a WARN- Virtually every treatise known to me proffers a ING! label might well have been affixedto the cover similar First Rule. These invariably come before of the CD.3 Montgomery is equally affronted by those passages that instruct us on the proper use Levin'sfreedoms, and has taken the trouble to write of the bow, rendition of unmarked notes, tempo them out (occupying in all half a page). It must be rubato,etc. To put it in the simplestterms: the player pointed out that neither Susan Kagan nor David must be himself moved, and must be able, through Montgomery offer any precise critique of how and his art, to make manifest that which moves him what Levinactually plays; their common objectionis through his execution. The 'language of the emo- that he takes such libertiesat all!4 tions' is basic and central.9 Now, the PerformancePractice Movement is sup- But I was intrigued by the rather fascinating posedly interestedin 'how it was or might have been notion that WARNING! labels might be affixed to ideally'.Yet all over the world young musicians are CDs and concert programmes. To quote Susan being taught,from the best Urtext editions, the art of Kagan:'Perhaps the most importantissue here is the Thoushalt not: 'Thou shalt not departfrom the writ- obligation of Levin, in making such additions and ten text.' (Evenwhen we know from the treatisesand changes, to inform his audience. An unsuspecting other sources that this is precisely what was ex- listener who is not familiar with the original score pected.) 'Thou shalt observe stylistic differences.' cannot have the slightestidea that what he is hearing (Eventhough it is tabu to investigatewhat those dif- is not what Schubertcomposed. This recordneeds a ferencesmay have been.) WARNING! label ...,'o Most treatises of the time, Montgomery quotes me as saying: 'I believe that including those quoted by Montgomery,"1tell us, every measure of every piece in this repertoire with regard to such free extemporizing, that there (Schubert) has to be understood and interpreted.' should be very little of it and that it must be appro- Later on the same page: 'Robert Levin, Malcolm priateto the characterof the composition and intro- Bilson and Paul Badura-Skodaare not alone in the duced at the proper place. The most we get from opinion that Schubert'smusic requiresconsiderable Kaganis that Levin'sembellishments 'trivialize' the personal interpretation.'sNote that the word 'per- music; there are no specific critiques of particular sonal' has been added by Montgomery,but I gladly passages she considers awkwardor non-Schubert- take it on. I believe that personal interpretationis ian. In a 66- minute disc Levinhas some 20 seconds intrinsic to the First Rule of every treatise (in all of free ornamentation;is this the kind of 'excess'the following excerptsthe italics are mine): treatisesspeak out against? But if such WARNING! labels are indeed LeopoldMozart: One must take pains to discoverthe affect appro- intendedby the composer,and executeit correctly.Because priate, to what of kind of performancesmight they the sorrowfuloften alternates with the joyous,so one mustas- be applied? siduouslyendeavour to performeach accordingto its man- I recentlyheard on the radio a performanceof the ner. In a word, one must everythingin such a way that play SchubertB6 Piano Sonata, D960, by one of our lead- one is oneselfmoved by it.6 ing mainstreamperformers, on modern piano.This Ttirk:Whoever performs a composition so that the affect is a noted Schubert and Beethoven player, is most faith- pianist (character,etc.), even in everysingle passage, and his have interna- (made and thatthe tonesbecome recordings garnered many fullyexpressed perceptible) I listened and would venture at the sametime a languageof feelings, of this personit is said tional prizes. carefully, that he is a to that one bar of what he was cor- good executant.7 say hardly playing to what Schuberthad notated, Starke: Strong and weak, and all the different nuances, are responded carefully for our senses as the moon is for the tides of the sea. accordingto every late 18th- and early 19th-century 716 EARLY MUSIC NOVEMBER 1997 This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.215 on Sat, 1 Dec 2012 20:37:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions source known to me. LeopoldMozart and others tell of Mozart's specific performanceinstructions were us that all notes under a slur are to be played dimin- followed;everything was playedsmoothly and legato uendo, that is, gently tapering.Thisparticular pianist in a dynamic rangebetween piano and mezzo-piano; played every bar crescendo, as is the common mod- fulminating, bubbling, brilliant virtuosity was ern way, in order to promote the famous 'long line'.