Performative vs. Critical Interpretation in Music

Abstract

Abstract This chapter takes as starting-point the curious fact that two activities, on the surface quite different, are called by the same name: interpreting. On the one hand, there is what critics of the arts do with respect to individual artworks, such as Kafka’s Penal Colony, Picasso’s Demoiselles d’Avignon, or Mahler’s Ninth Symphony—that is, offer interpretations of them. In other words, they try to say, roughly, how such works should be viewed, what they mean, and why they are structured as they are. On the other hand, there is what performers in the performing arts do with respect to individual artworks, e.g. Mozart’s Clarinet Concerto, Balanchine’s Four Temperaments, Shakespeare’s King Lear—that is, perform them. In other words, they play (dance, enact, recite) them in a particular way. Obviously there is some connection between these activities—it is sometimes suggested, for example, that the performing interpreter is doing implicitly what the critical interpreter is doing explicitly—but the similarities here are perhaps no greater than, and no more interesting than, the dissimilarities. This chapter will devote itself to emphasizing the latter. My particular concern will be to contrast, within the tradition of Western classical music, a musical performer’s interpretation of a given piece of music, and a music critic’s interpretation of the same. For convenience in what follows I will often abbreviate performative (or performer’s) interpretation as PI and critical (or critic’s) interpretation as CI.