Following up from yesterday’s post about interpretation: I taught on the subject in a recent class. I gave a few examples, one musical and one dramatic, to demonstrate what we (the interpreter) bring to the texts we present in performance.
The first was maybe obvious, but makes the point exceedingly well. Glenn Gould playing Variation I from the Goldberg Variations (1955 recording) and Glenn Gould playing Variation I from the Goldberg Variations (1981 recording).
1955:
1981:
One student didn’t even pick up that these were the same pieces (she admitted she was distracted by what she thought was a typo on the slides when I put the same performer and piece information up twice). Other students chuckled or nodded knowingly as I started the second recording. Such wildly different readings by the same person. We discussed what the elder Gould was attempting to show about the music that young Gould was not, and vice versa. As we listened a bit more, it seemed that students started to come around to the 1981 when they initially thought it was a bit goofy. (Gratifying, I’m a pretty devout 1981 recording fan).
The point is: they are wildly different and everything that sounds differently is a matter of interpretation.
My second example is a bit different. I used Speechify to create a reading of To be, or not to be. I used the “British English - dramatic” voice. Here’s how it sounds:
I’ll be honest, it’s better than I expected it to be. (And significantly better than it was in the first version of this lecture I prepared two years ago). It observes punctuation, leaves space, and has a pretty convincing cadence. It is, in other words, correct. Though it pains me to say, it’s as good or better than many actors I’ve heard on the stage. But it isn’t interpretive.
We then listened to the Andrew Scott version:
Let’s just say, the hush in the room made it clear the point was thoroughly made.