Improvisational Interpretation and Composing

I want YOUR opinion about the following:

In order to become a complete and original artist, one must break through the fog of lies interpretational artist have made.

Interpretation should be mingled with a healthy dose of improvisation. One should not only be able to improvise but be able to improvise sharply with original melodies, original use of modulation and chord progression.

When interpreting a piece (especially Liszt and Chopin) one should add a healthy dose of improvisational spirit to the piece to make it original - making YOU an original artist and interpreter.

However improvised, one should keep to the music as it was originally written (unless you have a coda) and interperate it the way the composer originally wanted to hear it played. But beign an original artist, one can add a dash of improvisational spirit to it to make is new - and exciting. Just as long as you keep to the composers idea's.

When composing, one must make a paradign shift. From "A composer" to "An improviser". It will render your quality much higher and you will be able to compose very originally.

Pieter Smal

A bit vague, wouldn't you say? Exactly what would you define as 'the composer's idea'? The notes themselves that he wrote? The mere 'idea' of what he was trying to transmit? (If the latter, please define it further.)

And what do you mean by improvisational spirit? Adding notes? Rubato?

In the third paragraph you say interpretation should be mingled with improvisation, and then you list improvisation with original modulation and chord progression; but in the fifth paragraph you say that one must interpret it the way the composer originally wanted to hear it played.

Refering to Orginal modulation and chord progression, I was refering to IMPROVISATION AND COMPOSING. (My mistake)

Improvisational spirit is (perhaps) adding notes, a mere hint of rubato. We are talking interpretation here! Then again, the spirit differs from each style. I would not add a singe note to Mozart but I will add some to Liszt (personal interpretation).

A vague thread - I want your opinion. Then again, this line of thought is very new to me and I am yet to understand it completely. You can't change an Adagio into Moderato just because of your interpretation - you have to stick to the composers original idea. What did the composer wanted to say with the piece? THAT, my dear friends, are the essence of interpretation!

Originally Posted by Pieter Smal

Improvisational spirit is (perhaps) adding notes, a mere hint of rubato. We are talking interpretation here! Then again, the spirit differs from each style. I would not add a singe note to Mozart but I will add some to Liszt (personal interpretation).

Look at the slow movement of K. 332/300k, compare the first edition to the autograph (they should both be present in a decent Urtext edition, either separately or as ossias) and see if your opinion changes about Mozart here.

If anything, I think improvisation (in the sense that goes beyond rubato and expression, which is a kind of "improvisation" every good musician I've seen seems to endorse without question) is more important in earlyish Classical music and earlier (all the way earlier) than in Chopin and Liszt.

Perhaps true, but Chopin and Liszt wrote in a very improvised way. Especially Liszt. This "improvisational spirit" can be a certain rubato, but only a hint. This line of though is very deep and I simply cannot explain it easilly. Few seem to understand it. Perhaps Professor Joseph Stanford (piano) will understand.

I am sorry. Mozart could change, but I am not a big fan of that. Forgive me. This is so difficult.

Let me put it again:

With improvisational spirit it is interpreting the way Paganini would have interperated it. Like hearing different versions of his Vioin Concerto's, as is the same with an improvisational spirit. If anyone understand what I am trying to get to, let me know.