I was intrigued by the argument between András Schiff and the so-called “Devil’s Advocate” over the interpretation of Bach (András Schiff: why my Goldberg Variations do a dance with the devil, 6 August). There are surely two aspects to this. One is that writing music is a gamble: once composers are dead, they can’t control how their works will be treated. A live composer can give guidance and with luck might find sympathetic interpreters. Michael Tippett, with whom I was closely associated for the last 28 years of his life, had to face constant misunderstanding, disbelief and even abuse, from professional performers and conductors. His contrapuntal orchestration and his use of irregular, so-called “additive” rhythms, in which notes were often grouped across the bar-lines, were early on treated with disbelief, even scorn. He had to wait for a younger generation of musicians (eg conductor Colin Davis, the Lindsay Quartet, and pianist Paul Crossley) to take his instructions seriously and work hard to realise his intentions.
As to Bach, his music was interpreted in many different ways in his own lifetime and it included continuo parts that were improvised. It has been realised in countless different ways ever since. To be dogmatic about it is inappropriate. That might make sense with Webern or Boulez, but it’s the variety of interpretations that keeps Bach alive and meaningful.
Meirion Bowen
London
