Leaving Something Up to Interpretation

I certainly am no expert on this subject (perhaps a musicologist can add their thoughts below?), but it is my general understanding that notation was much less specific in the 19th century (and earlier) than it has been in the 20th and 21st centuries, undoubtedly for practical reasons. Since so much music was written in the tonal system and since so many people were trained to understand and interpret tonal harmonies in a relatively consistent fashion, it wasn't as necessary to indicate a decrescendo at the end of a phrase or a crescendo into a section where the harmonic rhythm would begin to accelerate. 

Today we have composers writing in an infinite variety of styles and idioms, some of which have implicit interpretive traditions and others of which do not. I have encountered composers (teachers and peers) who deal with this potential interpretive black hole by erring on the side of notating every parameter of each musical gesture. Being the diligent student that I usually am, I typically follow suit. But recently I performed a piano piece of mine in a masterclass run by a composer and a pianist and the pianist suggested to me that my notation was almost too specific...that a lot of the implicit aims of my gestures could be understood by the performer, without having my explanations cluttering the page. So how should we, as composers, handle notation? 

The pros of precise notation are relatively obvious. As young composers, it's highly unlikely that we have established a performance practice for our music, thus allowing for our pieces to be “accurately” performed on a regular basis (ew, the word “accurately” does not usually belong with such a subjective concept as musical interpretation!). Being specific with our notation would therefore seem to guarantee our performances a certain degree of communicative consistency. Also, the realities of our national and global communities create situations where we often have performers interpreting our music in other places...where it's impossible for us to sit in on a rehearsal and quickly say, "Oh, right there I want that pizzicato to be as delicate as possible."

I will say that the practice of specific notation has mostly served me well. Often if you are super specific you give the performer an entryway into thinking about the music, which is helpful, especially if the music is written in an idiosyncratic style. But I think excessive notation also has some pitfalls. I'm always surprised and disappointed when a performer will fail to breathe life into a melody, even if the melody arcs, just because it doesn't have opening and closing hairpins or molto espressivo written underneath it. Or, after seeing a pattern notated in a certain way, the performer won't apply those same notational rules to the pattern's reappearance in another section of the piece. And I bring this up not as a slap to any performer, because I think the problem lies in our tradition of over-notating everything. I'm guessing that many performers have been told that they need to do exactly what the composer says, rather than trying to figure out what might make the most sense to them musically. So, by encouraging hyper-notation are we running the risk of shutting down the average performer's interpretative abilities?

Beyond curbing a performer's interpretative juices, could our hyper-notation also curb their enthusiasm for new music in general? The minimal notation of a Chopin piece might suggest much more freedom to a performer than the over-notated pieces that young composers offer up on a regular basis (I guess it would depend on the performer...some performers find historical performance practices stifling!). Regardless, I want a performer to feel like they can invest some of their own personality in my music. Also, what if they have an interpretation that, while different, is an effective and interesting way of communicating my music? How sad would it be if I never got to hear that?

Posted by Natalie