Reinterpreting Music
by asmallberg
The reading this week had a section on Glenn Gould, a Canadian pianist from the mid-20th Century who is renowned for his interpretation and performance of Johan Sebastian Bach’s keyboard pieces. While Bach always remained popular to play among a certain audience, it was Gould’s use of the piano to imitate the harpsichord that made Gould famous.
Here is a clip of Gould playing Well-Tempered Clavier, Book 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikbQ4lThJGo
I thoroughly enjoyed this piece. As a listener, I could feel Gould’s passion for Bach, and the Piano served as a sufficient alternative to the harpsichord. In fact, I must admit I preferred the sound of the piano to that of the harpsichord. This got me to thinking about how we as listeners view reinterpretations of famous works, or even more broadly, how we view any different interpretation of art. When a book is turned into a movie, and the film moves away from certain aspects of the book, it is not hard to find those who will criticize the film, even though it may just be trying for a different interpretation. The same can be said for a remake of an older movie. Film critics are quick to criticize a film if shifts away from the original aspects of the movie. In music, when musicians try and reexamine their sound or style, there certainly is backlash from their original audience (take Bob Dylan’s transition from folk music and use of the electric guitar). Likewise, playing Bach in anything other than his original instruments could be seen as sacrilege. However, where there are critics there are admirers. As a new listener to Bach and having no previous attachment to him, it was not hard for me to enjoy Gould’s version of Well-Tempered Clavier, Book 1 more than Bach’s. I perhaps identified more with the modern piano than the harpsichord. What makes peoples so attached to the original version of a piece of music that they cannot hear other interpretations? Likewise, is it possible to say one interpretation of a piece of music is better than the other? Objectively probably not but certainly subjectively one could. Gould’s popularity shows that there indeed was a large audience that enjoyed his interpretation of Bach’s work. However, I seriously doubt Gould himself, who revered Bach, would say his versions of Bach’s work were an improvement. But then, what was is the purpose in the first place of reinterpreting a piece of music or art?
The Thousand-Year Ears 
**Guitarist Alert**
There is no recording of a Bach piece from when Bach was alive. I say that it is impossible to compare a performance/interpretation to the Bach original. (I will take this as far as saying that if you’re going to the Wednesday night Nabucco, you’re not going to see the same show as me.)
I suppose that it is fair to compare a Bach piece with an arrangement for an instrument other than the that for which Bach composed the piece. That, though, is really more of a matter of instrument preference, particularly if the instruments have comparable ranges.
A harpsichord sounds tinny and inferior to the piano for anything other than trying to sound old. Of course something played on a piano is an improvement over something played on a harpsichord. I suspect that Bach would have written for the piano rather than the harpsichord if the piano had existed.
Then there is something like a Bach interpretation by Ana Vidović: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_f2xU_h02A
She also does this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx7vOb7GNBg
I think there is something about us humans that makes us desire stability. Change is uncomfortable for most people. When a new musical piece comes out, we accept it as it is. If someone tries to change it, we resist it and want to hear it the way we first heard it.
Personally, I’ve had this happen to me. I taught myself how to play piano. One day, I decided I would teach myself a song by Beethoven and typed “Beethoven” into YouTube. I ended up listening to Beethoven’s 5th Symphony (Liszt’s Transcription for Piano). I then printed notes for the piano and learned the song. I found that my way of playing it closely paralleled the version and style that I had originally heard. When I later heard other recordings of the song, for some reason it sounded very peculiar. When listening to other recordings, I could recognize the melody as Beethoven’s 5th Symphony, but I was used to hearing Glenn Gould’s interpretation of the melody. To me, the way I first heard the song was the way the song was “supposed” to sound like. Many people in general experience a similar effect.
[…] Reinterpreting Music […]
This example reminds me of last class’s samples of Hallelujah. I personally liked the newest interpretation. I was really surprised how little people raise their hands up for the newest one. I guess the music was maybe too powerful to the extent it might feel as artificial or exaggerated. However, considering that Hallelujah was designed to “move” people, I thought the newest one is actually very appropriate one to move people nowdays who are used to pretty much every kind of music.
Extending on the subject bstrekha has mentioned, I very much agree with him/her that we as human beings generally seek the status quo, whether it be about something as trivial as daily lifestyle or something as grand-scheme as politics.
As for music, I can’t help but add that the same kind of behavior is explicitly portrayed when new types of musical genres are either born or popularized. Take Elvis Presley for instance. An icon of Rock n’ Roll music. Though Rock n’ Roll existed way before Elvis’s rise to fame, it was he who brought it under the lime light. However, the radically different musical style, along with Elvis’s cultural impact, brought about an immense shock wave within American and the global society.
The upbeat rhythms and tunes that characterized Rock n’ Roll made Elvis subject to broad controversies and criticism. Not only was he a white man representing the then- “black music,” but Elvis was also a sex symbol and source of teen-age “rebellion,” as he was often derided by the mass public. The musical style of Rock n’ Roll which he brought with him to our ears was not familiar, and this led to various associations with a birth of a new culture.
Though Elvis and his popularization of Rock n’ Roll was subject to criticism (let’s not forget, though, that they were also subject to overwhelming fandom), nowadays we all praise his contribution to the bigger world of music.
I believe it is crucial to acknowledge our basic human nature to fear change, and rather be open to it, for music is all about experimenting with new styles. In this respect, I must say, Gould’s piano interpretation of Bach’s music (which was definitely not intended for piano) is justifiable, or rather, praiseworthy.
As one who generally loves playing the piano and is open to any musical genres and styles, I loved listening to Gould’s Well-Tempered Clavier, Book 1. He definitely did try to imitate the sound of playing the harpsichord, which I respect. Nonetheless, I’d still be open to interpretations that deviate from this “harpsichord” style that Bach had intended for his music.
Interpretations are called “interpretations” for a reason. They’re not meant to be “imitations.”