| Chapter 1: | Conducting in Theory and Practice |
|
|
Furtwängler’s insistence—that his is the only viable approach to the work—should be considered with caution. If we assume that all interpreters take the work through this process of organic recreation, it would not yield his “correct interpretation”, as he suggests. While the process itself may be valid, our own musical instincts and experiences will lead us down different paths with regard to interpretation.
In practice, objectivity and subjectivity coexist—however inharmoniously—in performance. Roy Howat writes, “Musical feelings demand that we explore what we read, question it and be prepared to amend what does not make sense after thorough investigation and acquaintance with that composer’s idiom”.29 It is in this way that the conductor answers the questions of interpretation, serving the score in a way that can coexist with his/her musical convictions. According to Hubert Toney, “the conductor uses the characteristics of his/her leadership, personality, facial expression, conducting gestures, body movements, musicianship and musical knowledge to communicate the composer’s musical intent to the ensemble”.30 Between the score and the performance exist several modes of communication that are personal in nature and can at any time alter or change the message before it reaches the ensemble. The conductors discussed here, while stating their positions, have all deferred to their own ideas or instincts with regard to how a given work should be interpreted and performed. In their minds, whatever decisions they make with regard to the score are derived from their knowledge and understanding, but powered by their personal expressive impulses.
Both the “perfect performance of music” and the “perfect musical performance” must coexist in the modern practice of the Western classical music tradition, one strengthening the other.