How to Reconcile with Stylistic Choices

I was playing a piece for the first time -- one that I selected for myself because I'm building a recital -- and he stopped me in the faster section. He said, "You are trying to have a scherzando idea there. But I wouldn't do that. Try more grounded strokes." Feeling defeated, I sought ammunition in recordings only to discover that his approach was adopted uniformly therein, even though he was not familiar with the piece.

Curious to know what you're working on with your teacher at the moment. Which concerto, for example?

The only time interpretation (other than blatant error) becomes really important in my opinion is at an audition, when it all becomes a matter of a "guess what's on the auditioner's mind" game. Many valid interpretations at an audition get rejected because the auditioners were looking for something else. And unfortunately many who audition but don't win leave feeling they are failures when in fact they may be great musicians who just didn't have the tone or interpretation the auditioners wanted.

So by all means, in my opinion, start the conversation with either a teacher or a student, ask them why they feel their interpretation is a good one. Also ask them if they might consider a different interpretation and present it to them.

Interpretations of the classics have always evolved during the years since the compositions were first written, sometimes with more vibrato sometimes with less, sometimes with egregious portamento, sometimes with crisp separation of the pitches, and all were valid in their times and for their audiences.

I've alway been bothered by teachers who teach with the attitude "It's my way or the highway." Music is an art and not a science and if there is no room for varying interpretations then a piece has lost any relevance.

In my sometimes not-so-humble opinion.

I find it helpful to find a mental scenario to fit the music and work up an approach that tells that story (at least in my own mind).

I'd recommend caution with this assumption. There are divergent views on good interpretations, which change over time, and some interpretations are what they are mainly because they've been handed down from teacher to student. These get challenged over time, sometimes to much acclaim, by those breaking the pattern of repetition with "fresh" interpretations, often HIP, but more importantly musical inspiration.

In general, my answer to the OP would be that everyone has their own heart and mind, and if we weren't to play things as we feel them best ourselves, at least some of the time, there would be no point in us playing at all.

Regarding teacher-mandated interpretation or technique, there are additional concerns, because the instruction might be for a specific technical or learning issue. E.g. shifting for the sake of shifting, or playing it in a way that might have been done by a romantic interpreter to learn about that approach and to be able to do it.

So as a teacher and student, one should distinguish and clarify why a certain approach is being taken over another, and beyond that, there should be flexibility in interpretation when applicable.

However, in many/most cases with students, it's not a question of this interpretation or another, but of essentially no musical meaning when played as notes on paper, so guidance with interpretation, of any form, is much of the teaching. (Which is not to say that that interpretation is likely to be "right" - it's most likely not, but it's a start.)

Do you let your student exercise artistic liberty, or do you keep it strictly on your ground?
For this, it depends on the student. For my younger ones, we stick to the Suzuki or grade exam recordings, and encourage them to perform and interpret a piece in a similar way, however there is always an allowance for preference. I also find encouraging the youngsters to come up with story lines for a piece, really helps in their interpretation of the notes, how they work together. Understanding that minor keys usually mean sadness, major keys mean happiness (loosely anyway), is great in their stories and creative thought development.

I have one older (teenage) student that I have taken more recently, who is currently working towards Grade 8 ARBSM, and we are having a look at Mozart VC 2. Her current assignment is to listen to different professional (this is key) recordings of this concerto, comparing to her edition (Barenreiter), as well as looking at other editions of the work. This is proving a good time for her to really consider her own stylistics playing, how she wants to interpret the work and whose style (e.g. Hilary Hahn or Perlman among many others), she really wants to incorporate into her own playing.

I had one very interesting conversation with her about stylistic interpretation of Allegro
1st movt from Concerto in F, 'L'autunno',( Op. 8 No. 3), currently on the Grade 8 syllabus. I was explaining about vibrato becoming a big part of violin works in the 20th and 19th centuries, however, much before that, particularly baroque music, didn't really have that. She is keen to keep the authenticity of Vivaldi's works, without overdoing vibrato, perhaps not using it at all. Again, I am leaving this up to her. But having the conversation, gets the creative thought processes flowing.

(That being said, I generally prefer to teach beginners to intermediate, however, teaching this teenager has been an absolute delight!)

If you disagree with your instructor on an interpretive way, is it important to voice it?
Speaking as a student of viola, (and an adult), my teacher knows that I am perfectly capable of deciding how I want to interpret something. However, I do rely on their guidance for fingerings, bowing and what not, because generally hers are much easier! We have similar conversations to the ones I mentioned above, it really helps consider which direction I want to take the music in!

My younger daughter's teacher (different program) has minimal experience with historically informed performance, and I have struggled a bit with some of her suggestions. My daughter (age 10) doesn't confront her (usually) but I sometimes question things. However, my daughter has heard her brother play Bach and Mozart for years and so that sounds "normal" to her. She usually ends up playing stylistically more similar to her brother than her teacher...you imitate what you hear most often! Her teacher tends to romanticize Baroque pieces quite a bit but doesn't seem to mind when my daughter plays in a more historically-informed way. It's kind of a weird dynamic, though, because my daughter will say, "That's how my brother plays it," and her teacher doesn't question it since her brother studies with top faculty with a whole lot more experience in these matters.

Now, when it comes to specific interpretation, the general practice we've experienced has been that you can interpret how you want if you can justify it. It's all about understanding of the music. You must have a good reason -- melodically, harmonically, thematically, stylistically -- why you are making your choices. I think it is good to give latitude in this way. If something isn't working, however, then that is the point when you ask the student or teacher to justify or explain their reasoning. If they can't (and you can't either), then try out a variety of different other options.

Also, in many cases, kids end up playing something in a certain way not for an interpretative reason, but for a technical one. That is critical to point out!

I think it's fair to ask what the source of your "personal taste" is. Your teacher's may reflect a lifetime of reflection, experimentation, listening, and score study. What is yours based on--listening to Hillary Hahn?
(personally, I find it unfortunate that she has become the Interpretation Queen for so many young people).

Being trained as a musician doesn't mean following this or that interpretation. It means being trained to think like a musician. I know this is the ideal, and that many teachers simply want to tell students what to do and many students want to be told what to do.

Hilary Hahn occupies a very unique pantheon of interpreters. In part because to make a lot of her interpretations work, the prevailing advice is to "play like Hilary", which is easier said than done. For example I will take her Bach recordings over Milstein's (yeah, I said it, if you want a fight), and her Ysaye 3 over Vengerov's.

That being said, Ray Chen recently did a Youtube recording of practicing Mozart 5, and his belief is very much that a teacher (or a peer in his case) is there to guide a player towards tasteful interpretation, and that being too rigid is not very productive. There are very few things that are "set in stone" (Hilary and Milstein, for example, use vibrato in their Bach recordings). If the player can make it convincing, it is a tasteful interpretation. At an advanced level, it should be more of a collaboration between student and teacher anyway.

If you as a teacher don't have a solid grounding in the factors behind a specific approach to interpretation, you're not really equipped to push one style vs. another. "So and so plays it that way" is not an adequate basis for narrowing.

On the other hand to the extent that your listening has made you familiar with the existing range of performance approaches, that can inform your sense of whether a student has gone rogue and left orbit in a way that might harm their progress, and you are positioned to help the student place their preference in a context of possibilities.

When a teacher has a strongly developed theory of interpretation, that becomes one of the factors a student has to weigh in choosing whether to work with them. Is it a plus, a minus, or a sideline issue?

I also think that adding some introduction to improvisation in Baroque music can make a student a stronger player (after they have a solid grounding in the basics of course).

Paul, my teacher and I just started digging into the good stuff in Bach, namely the second fuga.

Scott, finding my own voice was the first thing I was concerned with when I picked up the instrument (probably--definitely--not the thing to focus on when you start, but since violin is my second instrument, and I was able to produce decent enough voices on the piano, I wanted to explore the tone and the characteristics early on!). I often don't agree with all pieces played by a player, and some I find are not to my liking (not to say they are bad, of course!). For instance, I prefer Nathan Milstein's Solo Bach works to Hilary Hahn's Solo Bach Works (Sorry James!), and I find Oistrakh's Beethoven Sonatas to move me more than does James Ehnes' (simplified examples--I do listen to more than just two recordings!) My preferences, which are largely internal and intuitive and often with no technical bases, have gone through some major changes since I started learning the instrument and I expect it to change some more as I delve deeper into the studies. Are my teacher's interpretations more respectable and educated than mine? Absolutely! But I like to haughtily think (hubris incoming?) that I have been traversing through the world of music long enough to form at least a personal opinion.

Thank you everyone for your responses, I think I have a better idea of where to take things both in terms of learning and also in terms of teaching!

EDIT: Paul, I didn't see your second reply! I'm so sorry I was a bit verbose in my original post. But you are correct in assuming rigidity in terms of style and interpretation, but that may well be because we are working on Bach. For every other pieces, he's been accepting of my take on them as long as I was able to back it up with a valid reason and a reference recording.

P.S. ...plus she rolls out of bed to do her daily Flesch, and lets us take a peek at what's under the hood

If I am a student I do think it a good idea to work on playing the way the tacher suggests--even if I am inclined to disagree and would want to do it differently if I had to perform the piece. There is value in trying to adapt to different styles and getting to experience in some depth various ideas. If you get around to ensemble playing you'll need to compromise anyway and either agree on a common solution (in chamber music) or implement the conductor's idea (in orchestras).

Hillary Hahn. Why is that? Is it because she's the best? I don't think so. There is something else going on, and somehow her management has managed to game Youtube so that she comes up first. So that is what young people will click on. It happens on Google as well, so I guess I'm not surprised.

Your beef is with our reliance on YT, but then you blame HH for having a large presence there because of some conspiracy to take over the interpretive minds of young people. She must be trying to corrupt them with her "not the best" performances. Oh the humanity!

I've become acutely aware of some Americans' notions of "the best" creeping up all over the place lately, as in "my soloist is better than yours. No she's not. Yes she is. No she's not. Yes she is." What's the point of trying to identify "the best" in the arts?

HH will always be among those I refer to because of her amazing bow control. It's silly to look for an interpretation you feel is the best, or the soloist you feel is the best, because what is the best? Even if you like one interpretation the most, what are you going to do, copy it? As a teacher, copying, especially mimicking is where I would draw the line.

The reason to study the great artists from all periods is to try to understand how they do what they do, and why. Does it serve the score, in so far as we understand it? Are they just being indulgent? Or innovative?

But as Jeewon says, the risk there is for someone to start just copying that style rather than using it as a learning tool or source of inspiration.