Editorial

In our previous edition Thomas Stevens emphasised the problem of the notion of musicality and of the basic subjectivity which it creates. He ended his remarks with a question: "Is it possible to have an international standard or perspective in music performance which allows for legitimate national, regional, or personal conceptual or stylistic differences?" This question deserves an answer and I would like to invite those of you who have ideas on the subject to send them to us.

I think we must first of all consider the three key elements of interpretation:

1. the collective cultural code, which poses the greatest number of problems by reason of its subjective complexity. It is partly a code of intellectual, affective and physical perception and recognition, one which is determined by tradition, habit and the teaching, generation after generation, of a style of playing and interpretation which imprints itself on the mind. Thus one musician, failing to recognise the style of playing of another, will laugh (smile, hoot...), will make fun of him; briefly: a perfect example of lack of communication, where the misunderstanding (sic) arises from closed minds and a lack of information.
2. the personality of the performer. What he has to say, the substance which he gives to the sound, to his own sound, and above all to the sincerity he manages to introduce into his interpretation (the ring of truth which it is so easy to find among blues singers, for example, who are immediately distinguishable from their feeble commercial imitators).
3. The extent of the performer's faithfulness to, and comprehension of the score, the written code. This is an area in which we brass players still have much to learn. Amongst strings, singers, woodwind and pianists one often finds performers who are greater than the composer's work. These masters of their art have achieved independence (non-dependence) of musical spirit, enabling them to tackle the foundation of the creative thought and reveal its movements clearly.