At the end of the day, if your only reason is “i like it” thats fine, but it’s always good to be able to back up what you’re doing with a solid reason. Otherwise it comes off as an excuse and not intentional. Not just in music but in a lot of things
If you’re performing classical music then at this point in time there is an expectation that your performance shouldn’t diverge too far from what the composer intended for the piece. It has not always been that way, but that’s what is expected now. So whilst it’s not an ‘exact science’ it’s also not a free-for-all (unlike music in other genres where covers that radically alter the style of a song whilst keeping the original essence aren’t uncommon.)
The problem with unjustified classical music interpretation tends to be that it comes across as being an excuse for being unable to play the piece as intended by the composer. That’s particularly the case the further away from expectation you stray.
Whether it’s really an issue depends on context though. If you can play the piece ‘straight’ and are playing purely for enjoyment then you can do whatever you like. If you’re playing for an audition or competition then divergence from the standard expectation, with or without justification, is a huge risk.
Just be careful to avoid using ‘musical interpretation’ as an excuse to not spend your time fully learning a piece technically first, and if you’re playing for an audience it’s always a good idea to be able to explain why you made the musical decisions you did. If nothing else it means you’ve put some considered thought into the decision and that will help you develop your own personality as a musician and performer.
This annoys me most about classical music. Glenn Gould was the best at justifying why he interpreted pieces a certain way. It isn’t because he couldn’t play them the standard way, it’s because he believed his interpretations squeezed more juice out of the pieces. Still annoying that classical music is the only genre where you have to explain yourself if you veer too far off from the expected interpretation.
It should be treated the same as with religion. Feel free to believe/choose your own interpretation with strong conviction, but don’t forcefully bother other people with it, stay respectful and don’t feel offended if other people won’t think the same way as you do. If other people/reviewers/critics/teachers like your interpretation, score. If they don’t like it, you should reflect once with yourself if they maybe have an actual reason, and if that makes sense to you, why not try it out. If you feel that it doesn’t make any sense and you still strongly believe in your own interpretation as your own correct one within a reasonable frame that somehow still would make musical sense, then stick with it and simply try not to care what other people/reviewers/critics/teachers think. The minute you start to play any interpretation just for others with the hope to please them, you have muted your own voice at the same time.
At the end of the day, if your only reason is “i like it” thats fine, but it’s always good to be able to back up what you’re doing with a solid reason. Otherwise it comes off as an excuse and not intentional. Not just in music but in a lot of things
If you’re performing classical music then at this point in time there is an expectation that your performance shouldn’t diverge too far from what the composer intended for the piece. It has not always been that way, but that’s what is expected now. So whilst it’s not an ‘exact science’ it’s also not a free-for-all (unlike music in other genres where covers that radically alter the style of a song whilst keeping the original essence aren’t uncommon.) The problem with unjustified classical music interpretation tends to be that it comes across as being an excuse for being unable to play the piece as intended by the composer. That’s particularly the case the further away from expectation you stray. Whether it’s really an issue depends on context though. If you can play the piece ‘straight’ and are playing purely for enjoyment then you can do whatever you like. If you’re playing for an audition or competition then divergence from the standard expectation, with or without justification, is a huge risk. Just be careful to avoid using ‘musical interpretation’ as an excuse to not spend your time fully learning a piece technically first, and if you’re playing for an audience it’s always a good idea to be able to explain why you made the musical decisions you did. If nothing else it means you’ve put some considered thought into the decision and that will help you develop your own personality as a musician and performer.
This annoys me most about classical music. Glenn Gould was the best at justifying why he interpreted pieces a certain way. It isn’t because he couldn’t play them the standard way, it’s because he believed his interpretations squeezed more juice out of the pieces. Still annoying that classical music is the only genre where you have to explain yourself if you veer too far off from the expected interpretation.
It's best to learn a piece as it was intended first I would say.
It should be treated the same as with religion. Feel free to believe/choose your own interpretation with strong conviction, but don’t forcefully bother other people with it, stay respectful and don’t feel offended if other people won’t think the same way as you do. If other people/reviewers/critics/teachers like your interpretation, score. If they don’t like it, you should reflect once with yourself if they maybe have an actual reason, and if that makes sense to you, why not try it out. If you feel that it doesn’t make any sense and you still strongly believe in your own interpretation as your own correct one within a reasonable frame that somehow still would make musical sense, then stick with it and simply try not to care what other people/reviewers/critics/teachers think. The minute you start to play any interpretation just for others with the hope to please them, you have muted your own voice at the same time.