On Interpretation

If music is art in the sense of expressing something, as means of communication, and if it is a science in the sense of formal composing and problem solving and experimenting, it is also a sport. People like to play music - it is both a pleasure and a social experience. Even if in modern times studio musician is the core musician, interpreting music will remain a part of musicianship. By moving our body we are translating emotions into physical motion, and sound are traces of those motions. By repeating these motions, a performer is repeating composers original feast, and performances themselves are affirmations of this feast, which are transmitted from generation to generation and preserve some virtues needed for performing music. If one is only studio musician, but can’t play, that would be more an eccentricity, something like a general who was never been a soldier, or a football coach who can’t play football.

The measure of interpretational attractiveness, since it depends on quantity and subtlety of motions that are to be performed, presents – although not necessarily – also an indicator of some inner substance. Lack of movement is a shortcoming known as statical character of music. Such compositions can be well structured, but more movement would make them more interesting, under the condition of not losing the orderliness. This is difficult to achieve. Maybe that is why top class composer is most easily recognized by being equally gratifying to the performer and to the listener.

But the concept of live virtuosity in electronic music would be somewhat different than in traditional: here it is before all an idea of a man-orchestra; like a conductor who actually makes sounds - man in control of the machine, conductor of machines. The impressive thing about his virtuosity would be not that much fast fingers, but doing on the run many things at once, possibly with improvisation - much like skill of a real-time strategy computer game player. It is intellectual/spiritual virtuosity rather than physical, so it makes perfect sense as being improvisational and representational virtuosity of electronic, “scientific” era of music. Concept of a DJ after all is a step towards institutionalization of this.

Certainly, the prime ritual is that which includes improvisation, when a piece is literary being made in front of the audience, so we witness the moment of creation itself, together with hearing the piece. Electronic music even gives much more possibilities for improvisation – live virtuosity can even mount up to its golden time. A modern day analogy to live improvisation would mean audience which does not expect to hear constantly beautiful or righteous music. Instead, music is slowly put together. Audience is witnessing becoming of music through improvisation, atmospheres built little by little, layer by layer, element by element added and subtracted, something repeated with changes to be more beautiful and so on. This is actually much more rewarding and potentially meaningful improvisation then ever; a true compositional improvisation.

There is still a prospect of evolving traditional idea of interpretational virtuosity, through a prospect of different electronic instruments and orchestras peaking with the body synthesizer; an instrument actually played by free dancing (a computer “sees” the motions through a camera and converts them, according to certain rules, to sounds). Paradoxically, electronic music can also mount up to golden day of traditional interpretational virtuosity.

For example, a piano is a very difficult instrument. To put a feeling into a piano piece, you have to be able to cheat a little bit, because the piano is very stable. You can't make your own sound, like on a synthesizer; the sound is there, so the good pianos must be so delicate. The smallest differences in touch would be able to produce a different character, and that makes a piece interesting immediately. That's what we call performance. Vangelis