What are the limits (if any) on a performers interpretation of music?

Very volatile word at present.

I have to second Nemesis' response: It may be difficult for a particular generation to understand, but the span of latitude for what counts as 'interpretation' is extremely narrow: yet within that, as the man said, the choices still left a performer are very great, while being also extremely finite and particular.

'Our' duty, as performers, is to get as close to 'what that composer said' as is humanely possible. The premise of performer as self has slowly crept into the contemporary sensibility over the last thirty or forty years. A few over-emphasized historical 'facts' have only allowed this distortion to continue to warp further (Wagner's megalomaniac ego is an ugly exception, while Liszt's flamboyant elan is much misunderstood and too much emphasis on that aspect is completely at odds with that composer's psyche).

Subjugation of self, as the best performers do (I believe the best composers also 'get themselves out of the way' when writing), is what it is about. We work very hard to become a vessel, a Sybil of sorts, through which others speak through us. It is up to us to get 'the dialect' just right, so it rings sincere and true, regardless of our personal 'feelings.' We work hard to be, if you will, anonymous servants.

Tempi in Bach, for example - why not? They are not marked, and most of us agree there is a 'natural' or organic tempo at which a particular piece 'speaks best.' Controverting that is the very rare and occasional Glenn Gould, who can convince us, via technique (back to Nemesis' thesis) that a piece works at that performers chosen tempo.

For the rest, any latitude left after considering all the composer's marks in the score is also (or used to be) a choice based on rigorous musical training (a very real area quite above and beyond fundamental playing techniques) and this neatly returns us, Ouroboros-like, to the realm of this nebulous word "Interpretation."

The best maxim relating to this, I learned of as quoted by Nadia Boulanger to a pupil,

"Great art loves chains."

Best regards.

It depends on a couple things.

1. What period of music is it from?

2. What instrumentation is it?

3. Who is the composer?

4. Are there any instructions prohibiting any other interpretations?

For example, Chopin's piano pieces, whether with orchestra or solo, never have a definite tempo. The player and the player only has the opportunity to express himself and the piece.

On the other hand, for something from the Baroque era, probably something the Art of Fugue, the player should keep definite tempos because of the reoccurring theme. If one were to treat the Art of Fugue like a Chopin piece, it would create much confusion to the listeners.

I am a percussionist, so I am going to use this example. When I play a snare drum part of a Sousa march, I better darn play it as it is written. Whereas my mallet choice for the timpani part in Mozart's Requiem may change as the orchestral instrumentation changes, as the size and structure of the venue changes, or how I personally feel the part should sound changes.

If you are playing in a band or orchestra, base your decisions on how the conductor instructs the other members, or how they play.

If you are a solo artist, make sure, first of all, that the music doesn't make you play a certain way. If it doesn't do anything you want that still keeps the purpose of the music intact.

It is every performer’s responsibility to “Interpret” to the listener the composers intentions. That would imply that the performer will remain at all times true to the essence of the composers message and respect those salient details which also made the work unique or remarkable. The limits which are to be imposed on the reformer are those that his good conscience demands to fulfill this goal of liaison between composer and auditor. Over-stepping these bounds belies insincerity, lack of humility and perversion of purpose, all aspects that the limits of good conscience would preclude.

The key to this question is "what was the intent of the composer?"

The performer and the music should always be the servant of the composer. It is not for the performer to try to impose his own ideas on a piece outside of the latitude of what was provided for by the writer. This is a general rule and is based on the study of the music and the composer himself. Chopin for example would deplore the over use of rubato when playing his work. He was specific about this in his writings.

Edit: In terms of classical music... you are totally bound by the composer's intent. Otherwise, you are playing jazz.

Joshua Charles, mon brave, you or rather your Q has made me feel really rather old, in that I suddenly felt thrust into an alien land by where the implications I sensed in it likely led me. And I'm hamstrung by either or both of your headline Q and the rider re-reading of it in your supplementary.

I never knew I was meant to have a personal latitude. The pain and grind of acquiring a discipline and honouring it in the doing precluded that. Latitude within those constraints certainly, but by the time you have gained the rights in that territory any thought of imposing self above discipline is meant to have been sublimated to the point of being quite irrelevant.

I'm worried by your Q because I know it uses a word that has become poison in the classical arts of music and theatre. Interpretation. Something that has now become generally accepted as meaning 'I'll project like living hellfire what I want this work of art to mean even if it has nothing to do with what its creator wanted it to be, and because of that I, pot-bellied tin-god toddler-having-a-tantrum if you don't admire me for my 'interpretation', will throw all my toys out of the pram and take my ball home too boot, because you don't respect my 'interpretation'.

I was disciplined to be a ridiculously well-trained servant. That's all I know. Hyper-critical of myself in the execution of my duties in that context. And the master's word -- score, literary text -- is writ. If I wanted to 'express myself' I would have to do some composing of my own, in which case this particular 'interpretative' boot would be on someone else's foot...

I have genuinely always found that a particularly satisfactory division of labour & responsibility.

There is a jargon that worries me even more -- for instance 'interpretative decisions' -- what the heck are these? The work is there. Monumental in its awful grandeur. I make technical decisions, architectural ones, colour ones, a veritable army of them of every hue and garb. But that's discipline. That's the craft hammered into you and willingly deepened as our daily labour. The work of art grappled with just sits there, unyielding, just being, and because of my induction into the Craft and my years within it, I know exactly what it's meant to be if only, puny by comparison, I can make my being and my frail flesh, no matter how, grasp it and push it out across the footlights. For that's the job I signed up for as a callow youth...

Feeling even older now... :-))

All the best,