The focus of the project is musicalinterpretation in the context of classical music. The main thesis is that the musical works are aesthetically overdetermined and that theirpotential can therefore only be actualized through a plurality of different (sometimes asthetically incomaptible) interpretations.
1.Brief Description
The subject of this project lies in an understanding of the notion of musical interpretation, first described as interpretative pluralism—a de facto inquiry accepted in musical practice (especially in the realm of classical music). Second, it justifies this fact through the analysis of the relationship between score and interpretation—a de jure inquiry. Finally, it advocates the thesis that the interpreter of classical music plays a maieutic role by actualizing aesthetic dispositions of the musical work.
2. The Four Research Directions of the Project
The project develops through four research directions:
a. The musical direction: Based on analyses of interpretations and scores, the project aims to support the developed argument. It seeks to bridge the perceived gap between theory and practice. The goal is not solely to apply theoretical paradigms but to develop concepts and thinking that can produce new insights into practice.
b. The interpretative direction: The results aim to formulate and articulate the role of the musical interpreter and interpreters in performing arts. It seeks to allow interpretative pluralism and hermeneutical normativity to coexist and to justify, providing criteria (a posteriori) for evaluating interpretations without implying that a musical work can only be interpreted in one, ideal way.
c. The artistic direction: The analysis aims to justify the aesthetic ambiguity of the musical work, potentially applicable to other aesthetic domains, particularly in performing arts.
d. The aesthetic direction: The project asserts and justifies distinctions between musical interpretation and musical performance, as well as between musical interpretation and musical understanding. It seeks to justify the aesthetic ambiguity of the musical work through a specific declination of aesthetic realism.
3. Target Audience
The four research directions of the project potentially appeal to four target groups at the ZHdK:
a. Music interpreters, who can engage with concrete examples of musical interpretations to reflect on their hermeneutic practice.
b. Interpreters in other artistic domains who can contemplate the function and modality of interpretation in their respective fields from the analyses.
c. Artist (particularly inthe domain of performin arts) which vcan reflect on the relation between artwork and possible interpretation, in a pluralistic, still normatively regulated way.
d. Aesthetic and art philosophical researchers who can draw insights on the role of the interpreter in art from the analyses presented.
4. Outcomes
a. Publications: The primary outcome will be a monograph in English presenting an articulated theory of musical interpretation. Additionally, other contributions and articles will present themes and theses of the project.
b. Conferences: The project aims to present its developed themes and theses in various international conferences.
c. Collaboration with other institutions (e.g., the Musicological Institute of UZH and/or the Universities of Bern and Basel).
5. Bibliography (Selection)
Bar-Elli, G. (2002) “Ideal Performance”, The British Journal of Aesthetics 42/3: 223–242.
Briesen, J. (2020) Ästhetische Urteile und ästhetische Eigenschaften, Vittorio Klostermann.
Budd, M. (2008) “The Acquaintance Principle” in Budd. M Aesthetic Essays, Oxford University Press: 48–61.
Compton, E. A. Z. (2012) A Dispositional Account of Aesthetic Properties, ProQuest LLC.
Cook, N. (1987) A Guide to Musical Analysis, Oxford University Press.
—— (2014) Beyond the Score: Music as Performance, Oxford University Press.
Danuser, H., (1994) “Interpretation” in Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Bärenreiter, IV S. 1053-1069
—— (2016) "Execution—Interpretation—Performance: The History of a Terminological Conflict" in De Assis,
Davies, S. (1991) “The Ontology of Musical Works and the Authenticity of their Performances”, Noûs, 25/1: 21–41.
—— (2003) “The Multiple Interpretability of Musical Works” in Themes in the Philosophy of Music, Oxford University Press: 245–263.
De Assis, P. (2018) Logic of Experimentation: Reshaping Music Performance in and through Artistic Research, Leuven University Press
Ganche, E. (1921) Frédéric Chopin : Sa vie et ses oeuvres, 1810-1849, Mercure de France.
Ingarden, R. (1989) Qu’est-ce qu’une œuvre musicale, Christian Bourgois Éditeur.
Krausz, Michael (1993) Rightness and Reasons – Interpretation in Cultural Practices, Cornell University Press
Levinson. J., (1990) “Aesthetic Supervenience” in Levinson, J., Music, Art and Metaphysics, Cornell University Press: 134–158
Mumford, S. et Anjum, R.L. (2018) “Powers and Potentiality,” in: Engelhard, K. et Quante, M. (ed.), Handbook of Potentiality, Springer: 261278.
Reicher, M. E. (2015) Einführung in die philosophische Ästhetik, WBG.
Ridley, A., (2003) “Against Musical Ontology”, The Journal of Philosophy 100/4 : 203–220.
Rosen (1972) The Classical Style, W. W. Norton & Company.
Ruta, M (2020) “Ontology of Music and Authenticity –A Pragmatic Approach” in Claviez, T. Imesch, K., Sweers, B. (Eds.), A Critique of Authenticity, Vernon Press: 159-181.
Siegmund, J. (2022) “Musik als Tätigsein oder: Was bedeutet Verantwortung von Subjekten in musikalischen
Beziehungen?” in Feige, D. M., Nieden, G. zur (Hg.) Musik und Subjektivität, Transcript.
Simoniti, V. (2017) “Aesthetic Properties as Powers”, European Journal of Philosophy 25/4: 1434–1453.
Vetter, B. (2013) “Multi-Track Dispositions,” The Philosophical Quarterly 63/251: 330352.
—— (2014) “Dispositions without Conditionals”, Mind 123/4: 129–156.
—— (2015) Potentiality, Oxford University Press.