Right. And, for the sake of argument, let's assume that we can precisely reproduce the sonic/cultural setting you were referring to in your Beethoven analogy, and we hear the staccato in that setting.
What's the relevance of that experience for a performer who wants to interpret that staccato in a performance? I think the answer depends on issues surrounding the rest of around 200 years of reception history of that piece, as well as various other historical/cultural /musical factors that the performer keeps in mind. It could be anywhere on a spectrum from completely irrelevant, as it is in many performances in the early 20-th century on modern instruments, to the sole factor in some other performance. But it doesn't make sense to call any point on that spectrum "correct" interpretation just because it jibes with the "original" sound of the staccato (still assuming that could be known). It does, however, seem fitting to call some interpretations "boring" because the performer limits his/her imagination to fit whatever models of interpretation are fashionable at the time.
Also, when speculating about original intentions, it seems curious that people tend to assume such knowledge would clear up issues of interpretation. It seems equally possible that, upon magically hearing Mozart or Beethoven play some enigmatically notated articulation or slur, that one would come out more confused than when they entered.
well, my paragraph was a fast reply to point out that what many people
take for granted (in this case a Beethoven staccato) isn't that simple of
a question at all. if I was to write something larger I might have written
a paragraph like yours.
I don't have the time now to sit down and put this into words, so I'll
just leave a couple of lines as reply:
- correct or incorrect doesn't exist, just different degrees of depth. how
to scale the details (e.g. the staccato) depends on your imagination and
the acustic/physical characteristics of the room and your instrument.
knowing more about these and your piece shouldn't hinder you from making
an interesting work, only knowing less.
- I don't believe the "boring" interpretation argument. A very boring
recording I have are the last symphonies of Mozart played by the Berliner
Philharmoniker with Karajan, a brilliantly engineered (and fast and loud)
recording. It's so impressive that it gets cheap. Compare with Bruno
Walter (on modern instruments) or Gardiner (on period
instruments/replicas) and you'll get much more detail of interpretation.
- read the writings of Harnoncourt, or statements from any good
"historically informed musician" (Gardiner, Herreweghe, R. Hill, ...), and
the point of knowing the history, the original instruments and contexts,
is to make sure you know more about the piece, and not just what the
interpretation schools of the latest 100 years (some of them coming from
russian ascent, as far as piano and string instruments are concerned) tell
you. Then you can use that knowledge to connect with the present (e.g. in
how many different ways a staccato could sound back then and how you can
make it sound like that on todays halls, to keep on topic), and not just
to "reproduce a photocopy". Like everywhere else, information is power.
- here is a small list of recordings which are much more interesting for
me to hear than modern ones, where the musicians clearly don't play just
what's the tradition nowadays, but are informed about the original
context: Gardiner and his orchestra, Beethoven Symphonies (or pretty much
everything both together do) / Mullova, Bach Chaconne
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VL9TFvYyKI, on a modern instrument.
compare this to any "traditional virtuoso" interpretation like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm1q3gadv50, and tell me which you find
rigid and "boring") / Herreweghe, Bruckner Symphonies (sound much more
clear, balanced and detailed with period brass instruments, for example
the Tuba was almost 2x smaller in the 19th century) / pretty much anything
up to early barroque (or some Bach) cannot be played in piano, this
instrument doesn't have the amount of colors and articulations that a
harpsichord has (unless it's a master like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glg99Zc0JjU playing). E.g. particularly
recordings by Robert Hill demonstrate this, specially the way he plays
with rubato/metrical time in his interpretations
(http://www.youtube.com/user/earlymus#p/u/69/z6yCXequhUw).
(this turned out to be longer as I thought.)
Maybe a shorter way to say all this is that clear, well thought-out scores in the 21st century made by considerate composers have a very high likelyhood of receiving a serious and considerate performance.
logically, yes. if the piece isn't uninteresting (one example is the cited
Stockhausen engraver, who is one of the best in doing scores, but not
known as a composer at all, and his excepts on the site looked a bit dull
to me).
Really, who are these composers whose scores are so misunderstood that their complex poly-rythms get played back as homophony?
that would be a award-winning bad performance. but complex poly-rhythms
being just let loose and not taking care of subtleties (if there are any)
does happen lots of times. speaking particularly of new music, it's
usually more a question of shortage of time than incomprehension.
What a pieces "really" sounds like is another question, most likely much more complicated, I guess.
It's actually quite simple: the piece really sounds like what one hears when listening to the piece. What else could possibly be the case?
that's the "zen" answer (simple or not), and is correct. if you throw e.g.
some Adorno or Lúkacs (any leftist- or art philosopher) into it, it gets
much more complicated. And also correct.