| Chapter 1: | Conducting in Theory and Practice |
|
|
This is a limited free preview of this book. Please buy full access.
With regard to performance, Hermerén suggests that the P-interpretation may be preceded by a T-interpretation and may inform performance.
Hermerén’s notion of two interpretations is an interesting concept for conductors. The T-interpretation is conceptual and is derived from an intimate knowledge of the score. However, there is a stage of interpretation prior to the P-interpretation that, following Hermerén’s orthography, I shall designate R-interpretation. For Herbert von Karajan, this begins in rehearsal, which is when the conceptual notions regarding the work interact with the inertia of the ensemble. The R-interpretation may differ in many ways from the T-interpretation. These differences manifest themselves as conductor and ensemble attempt to answer questions of interpretation during the rehearsal process. The degree to which the ensemble affects or is allowed to affect the R-interpretation as it exists in the conductor’s mind depends, to a large extent, on the conductor and his/her relationship with the ensemble.
The P-interpretation may also differ from the R-interpretation. Not only do scores underdetermine interpretations, but also interpretations underdetermine performances.9 This speaks to the emergent quality of the work where its finished character is derived not only from what takes place in rehearsal but also from the act of performance. The P-interpretation cannot fully determine what happens during the act of performance, which is spontaneous and unpredictable. Wilhelm Furtwängler embodies this notion of spontaneity in performance. Daniel Barenboim explains,