What is an Interpretation?

As mentioned earlier, I'm taking the Solo and Collaborative class of the Juilliard Evening divisions. For this class, I'll be preparing Chopin's 2nd sonata and his Piano Trio. The course syllabus says "By studying these paired pieces, the comparative motifs and trends that the composer utilized in each genre are revealed." I wonder what will be discovered?

I'm getting a little obsessed about having my own interpretation. What on earth does the word "interpretation" even mean? I suppose it is the whole of the tricks up my sleeve, overall emotional state when playing the piece and the rationalization the came before the actual performance. On a sad day, the sadness comes out. On a happy day, the happiness comes out.

But my real issue is, HOW does this show? In each individual phrasing and expression? If so, then to have a consistent performance, one must not give in to the whims at the moment of performing. With the lure of Chopin melodies, for sure one would be distracted. A phrase that came out too sentimental. A passionate passage that came out too aggressive. Yet, if your rationale is to rein in your emotional excesses, I fear that the performances would lose life. Such a difficult balance!

But my understanding of what an interpretation is certainly not accurate--I've only really thought about it for a day and haven't talked to many people yet. And that will exactly be a process in my musical growth.

ps. I found a review on somebody's performance of Chopin's 2nd sonata. http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviews/62f9

I needn’t detain you long: this is the kind of Chopin recital that informs and refreshes. From the weighty opening chords of Chopin’s Second Sonata, Simon Trpceski strikes a balance between detailed analysis, instinctive reaction and sweeping romanticism that’s deeply satisfying.

He can produce a huge, rich sound and introduce tempo adjustments and rubato in ways and at times that could prove disruptive, and yet his musical intelligence and confidence are such that he gets away with it, and you’re carried along with his exuberance. The rapid repeated chords of the Sonata’s second movement are attacked ferociously, then the huge resonance Trpceski’s produced melts into the warmest, gentlest cradle-song of a melody you could imagine. The third movement is that famous funeral march, not taken too slowly, and beginning with an intimate subjectivity, before the more public mourning and posturing. The frantically compressed moto perpetuo finale has a nightmarish quality to it…which is then picked up in the opening of the first of Chopin’s 4 Scherzos; not much to joke about here. And again it’s Trpceski’s willingness to surrender himself to the moment that’s so impressive in the Scherzi; there’s a genuine feeling of spontaneity about these performances, yet he’s still able to bring out little details and emphasise lines you might not have noticed before.

Personality in spades, yes, but there’s also integrity, and that really matters. You get the feeling that Trpceski really identifies with this composer-pianist, more so than in his Rachmaninov recital for EMI, where just occasionally the gestures felt overblown. Here there’s appropriate flamboyance alongside emotional honesty, and if you want to know what I mean, sample the opening of the Scherzo No. 2. Trpceski’s been given a better recording for his Chopin as well, absolutely mirroring the playing: intimate, but with room to take the grandest sonorities. Sheer delight from end to end.