Old Time Instruction

Paderewski and Von Bülow Contrasted

Perhaps no better illustration of the relation of the personality to the interpretative art is to be found than that offered by Mr. Paderewski to whom I revert once more with pleasure.  At this moment when it seems altogether probable that he will not again appear as a pianist, but will devote his time, his intellect and his immense energy to his country, it should be especially interesting to consider how his interpretations are colored by his spiritual organization.   

Few know that Mr. Paderewski is a man of extraordinary intellect.  He might have succeeded in other fields than that of music.  He possesses a remarkably broad and comprehensive grasp of philosophies, of history and of world politics.  He displays in the discussions of the gravest topics of the time an insight which would do credit to a statesman.  But apart from the force and fineness of his intelligence the famous pianist has that intangible combination of spiritual sensibilities called temperament.  The predominant trait of this temperament is an exquisite sense of beauty.  To Mr. Paderewski the vital quality of music is sensuous beauty.  There is for him no music of the type described by James Huneker as “cerebral.”

When therefore some of his opponents charge him with playing Beethoven sentimentally they lose sight of the real truth which is that this man’s personality feels more acutely than do some others the melodic and harmonic beauty of Beethoven’s music and that he is more anxiously concerned about attaining a perfect publication of this than a searching analysis of the form or a pedagogic exposition of technical details.  Von Bülow on the other hand, was a pianist who interpretations of Beethoven attracted teachers and students in crowds because the first quality which they clearly set forth was their own authority.  Von Bülow’s great series of Beethoven recitals was like a lecture course on the correct manner of performing the works.  But assuredly no one ever felt the thrill of emotion while he was playing.

These are two examples of opposite types of personally and unquestionably each has its place and part in the world of musical performance.  The playing of Von Bülow was probably as nearly objective as any playing could be.  Paderewski’s is vitally subjective.  Both were sincere and each had its message for the hearer.

Personality Should Not Be Obtrusive.

The varying angles of view in the conception of an art work which is to be interpreted are the results, as I have intimated, of differences in the artistic organizations or temperaments as they are customarily called, of the performers.  The interpretation is part and parcel of he personality of the artist.  Owing to the insidious working of dark and sinister influences we too often get more of the artist than of the composer.  That, let us repeat, is an undesirable projection of personality.  On the other hand if no personality at all permeates the interpretation you may be certain that nothing of the emotion of the composer will appear either.  The artist cannot at the same instant be spiritually dead and artistically alive. 

The personalities of musical performers are always interesting establish to that vast number of persons who vaguely think there is some sort of miracle about the performance of music in any way at all.   The lamentable tendency of contemporaneous journalism is to cater to the public appetite for information about the personality.  This practice directs the attention of the reader to the private traits of the artist, not that part of them which gives character to his art.  It feeds itself to satiety upon such stuff as the old fable that floated all over the country that Mr. Paderewski while playing such or such a piece of Chopin was always thinking about his dead wife and consequently always in tears.  If such a combination could be effective as a stereotyped frame of mind and a mechanically started stream of tears as the accompaniments of a certain interpretation,  You may be sure that the interpretation itself would soon become as weak as the tears.   

That which is propelled into an auditorium across the footlights is all of a personality that an audience should know.  No one ever suffered from over advertised personality more than Mary Garden.  For any artistic shortcoming on her part her loyal admirers always pleased “But she has such an interesting personality.”  Miss Garden’s personality it seems never to have occurred to her adorers is not a thing apart from her art.  It is the foundation of an interpretative method which almost makes one forget that this incomparable woman is a singer who rarely sings.  Miss Garden is one of the most ingenious and resourceful actresses before the public.  She has an inexhaustible theatrical skill, a marvelous command of the pictorial lights and shadows of the stage, a profound grasp of the illuminating quality of the footlights. 

In the art of music there is no other department in which the power of personality can work such magic as in the opera.  Radical defects in technique, flagrant violations of good taste and astonishing ignorance of style are all obscured by the charm of a “magnetic” personality.  In the field of the song recital also the artist is often admired when the art should not be.  But obviously this is not the operation of personality which is meant by the inquirer as to whether it should dominate an interpretation by a performer of instrumental music.