Anyone interested in classical music has likely heard the phrase ‘the performer’s interpretation.’ In classical music, interpretation is a great way for performers to showcase their individual charm and character. A performance lacking interpretation is often criticized as mechanical or uninspired, highlighting the importance of interpretation. However, performers who become overly fixated on their own interpretation, disregarding the composer’s written intentions, may be deemed arrogant. This is where analysis plays a crucial role. In classical music, analysis involves understanding the composer’s intentions based on the score and communicating this to the audience through the performance.

While the ideal approach would be a balance between analysis and interpretation, achieving this is nearly impossible. The balance inevitably shifts depending on the performer and the listener. In fact, since classical music began to be performed publicly in the 1790s, critics have been divided between those who prioritize analysis and those who emphasize interpretation.

Those who focus on analysis argue that the performer’s role is to convey the composer’s work to the audience, and each of these three parties—composer, performer, and audience—has distinct roles that should not overlap. The performer, therefore, does not have the authority to disregard the score left by the composer, and it is the performer’s duty to honor it. For these critics, interpretation serves merely to clarify the ambiguities in the musical markings, and such interpretation should adhere to universal standards. For example, while everyone may have a slightly different idea of what ‘loud’ means, there is a general consensus on what constitutes a loud sound. Thus, when playing a marking like “Forte” (F), which means ‘play loudly,’ the performer should follow the general standard of loudness while considering the musical context to decide on the finer details of volume. That, they say, is true interpretation.

On the other hand, those who prioritize interpretation argue that while it is certainly important to follow the composer’s notations, even the composers themselves did not always adhere strictly to every musical marking when performing their own works. Moreover, as time passed, composers would sometimes revise their own scores. This suggests that no score is ever truly perfect; a score is simply the composer’s personal interpretation of their own work. Furthermore, in this age of technological advancements, even artificial intelligence can perfectly execute a score. What makes a performance by a human special is the creativity that only a human can bring, and this creativity can only shine when not bound by strict analysis.

The arguments I’ve outlined here are simplified versions of both sides’ positions, and the points they raise are far more varied and complex. I think it would be fun to dramatize this debate as though two people were engaging in a lively argument.