Double interpretation involves preparing two or more distinctly different interpretations, engaging with questions such as: How can different interpretations be meaningful in a given piece, and what creates coherence in an interpretation? Double interpretation thereby calls for a reexamination of the music, reconsidering how it might be performed and how various performances might reflect different aspects of the music.
Double interpretation also raises the question: What distinguishes one interpretation from another? Playing a composition in two different tempi while maintaining the same phrasing, articulation, and dynamics will obviously yield two different interpretations, but similarities may overshadow the overall experience. Conversely, making radically different interpretations also raises questions about a musician’s identity. Are there limits to how differently a musician can express a given piece of music? Do rehearsal culture, personal preferences, and musical capabilities restrict or define a musician’s individuality?
In the traditional culture of classical music, there is no established tradition of producing multiple interpretations of a piece. Musicians typically record a piece once, perhaps revisiting it a decade later. Albums containing several recordings of the same piece (with the same or different musicians) are almost nonexistent. This absence suggests a disregard for interpretation as an independent art form.
This lack of double interpretations in the recording culture could also be interpreted as a reflection of our cultural attitude towards recordings. However, in concerts, double interpretations are just as rare as on records. Nevertheless, whether on records or in concerts, presenting two distinctly different interpretations may serve as a means of clarifying the difference between the work itself and its performance, thereby enhancing the audience’s appreciation of interpretation.
Søren Rastogi’s two interpretations of the first movement of Beethoven’s Waldstein Sonata
The two versions of the first movement of Beethoven’s Waldstein Sonata arise from two different lines of investigation.
The first, a concert performance from the OPUS festival 2022, is inspired by the earliest recordings of music by Beethoven and Mozart, from around 1900.
D’Albert: Beethoven Sonata Op.53 ‘Waldstein’ (1904) · Saint-Saëns: Beethoven Op. 31, No. 1, 2. mov. (1905) · Reinecke: Mozart Larghetto KV 537 (1904)
Contrary to what is expected today in a Beethoven performance, the tempo and character here often change dramatically as the movement progresses. While we can’t be sure about the dynamic fluctuations in the recordings, as the medium is piano rolls, the tempo, synchronization between hands, and articulation are highly reliable. One can also compare with the first recording of Beethoven’s 5th Symphony from conducted by Nikisch (1913), which exhibits many of the same characteristics in interpretation.
Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Arthur Nikisch: Beethoven 5th Symphony (1913)
Key elements of this interpretation are: emphasizing formal and structural changes by continuously varying tempo, timbre, and dynamics; highlighting inner voices and “hidden layers”; and, overall, creating a narrative structure – a musical story that evolves and changes, containing surprises and abrupt shifts. This is a behavior one would typically reserve for more romantic musical works today.
The second interpretation is from the project’s context-concert. Here, the context (not declared to the audience) is that the pianist is experiencing a midlife crisis and is somewhat pathetically trying to recapture his lost youth. Musically, Søren Rastogi has worked with Lena Gregersen on physical movements at the piano and the possibility of exploring a more contemporary “groove” in the work.
The expectations to a contemporary interpretation of Beethoven’s solo piano music will typically include a unified tempo, but with a subtle overarching rubato that structures the longer phrases – often a “roll” with a slight accelerando towards the peak of the phrase and a slight hesitation towards the end. This is often correlated with a similar dynamic shape (crescendo-decrescendo). The early recordings referred above suggest that this approach is largely a modern construction, a contemporary “taste,” – and thus can be thought of differently.
As a counter to this expectation, Søren Rastogi instead places a slight emphasis on the second and fourth beats, almost consistently throughout the entire work. This gives a rhythmical feeling, much more related to modern rock and pop. At the same time, he keeps the pulse very stable, to give the illusion of an underlying drum set that provides the groove.
ex 1: Presentation of the theme
ex 2: Excerpt from the development section
ex 3: The second subject in the recapitulation
Henrik Knarborg in two interpretations of Why linger you trembling in your shell? by Juliana Hopkinson
Another example of double interpretation is the two performances of Juliana Hodkinson’s “Why Linger When Trembling in Your Shell” for percussion and violin. The first performance featured Anna Jalving (violin) and Henrik Knarborg (percussion) in collaboration with Marion Reuter (director). The second performance included Signe Madsen from Aarhus Sinfonietta and Henrik Knarborg, this time in collaboration with the composer herself.
As the small excerpt from the two performances show, the results were significantly different. One simple reason for this is that Juliana, as the composer, could clarify the intentions behind the sometimes unclear notation, thereby avoiding some of the misunderstandings from the first interpretation. Other differences are naturally due to the change in musicians (Anna in the first performance and Signe in the second), but a more dominant factor is the differing perspectives of the composer (Juliana) compared to the director (Marion). The following list, by Henrik, provides a simplified view of these differences:
| Juliana (composer), focusing on | Marion (director), focusing on |
Details | Big picture |
Intended sounds | Functional/effectful sounds |
| Understanding the creation and history of the composition | Exploring the implicit message |
| The context of the creation as background story | Inventing and evolving a narrative |
Musical parameters | Visual parameters |
Downplaying scenic ideas | Elaborating on scenic ideas |
The list suggests that the differences in approach are not primarily due to individual personalities, but rather to their professional roles.
The list suggests that the differences in approach are not primarily due to individual personalities, but rather to their professional roles. Composers often delve into the intricate details of their work, ensuring every notation and sound aligns with their creative vision. This meticulous attention to detail helps in capturing the essence of the piece as originally conceived. On the other hand, directors, and possible musicians in general, may prioritize the overall impact and functionality of the performance from the point of the audience, focusing on the visual and emotional experience.