Methodology: Data Collection and Curation

The successful execution of this project is predicated upon a meticulously designed and strategically implemented data collection and curation strategy. This section delineates the rationale and criteria for selecting the core musical repertoire, the comprehensive process for curating relevant recordings, and the ethical and practical considerations for conducting musician interviews. The overarching aim is to gather rich, multi-faceted qualitative data that will enable a nuanced exploration of performance practice choices and their impact on listener perception, ultimately contributing to the development of a robust typology of interpretive schools.

Repertoire Selection: Strategic Rationale and Criteria

The project will focus on the symphonic works of three distinct composers, with two to three representative works chosen from each. This selection strategy is designed to ensure both analytical depth within a composer’s oeuvre and breadth across diverse compositional styles and historical contexts, all within the specified timeframe of the mid-20th century to the present and a geographical focus on Europe and the US. The criteria for composer and work selection will be strategically prioritized to maximize interpretive variability and research utility:

1. Interpretive Richness and Challenge: Composers and works will be selected that possess a well-documented history of diverse interpretive approaches, exhibiting significant variations in parameters such as tempo, articulation, phrasing, and instrumentation across different eras and performance traditions. This richness is paramount for identifying distinct “interpretive schools” rather than isolated performance idiosyncrasies. Furthermore, priority will be given to works that inherently pose significant interpretive challenges due to their structural complexity, harmonic innovation, or emotional depth, as these often elicit a wider spectrum of performance solutions. For instance, the symphonies of Beethoven, Brahms, or Mahler offer fertile ground for such exploration due to their continuous reinterpretation and evolving performance traditions.

2. Recording Availability and Diversity: Only works for which a substantial and diverse body of commercially available recordings exists, spanning the mid-20th century to the present, will be considered. This ensures a robust pool from which to curate recordings that represent a broad spectrum of performance practices, including historically informed, mainstream modern, and uniquely influential approaches.

3. Geographical Representation: Composers whose works have been extensively performed and recorded by orchestras and conductors from both Europe and the US will be favored. This criterion facilitates the exploration of potential transatlantic interpretive divergences or convergences, enriching the typological framework.

4. Compositional Diversity within Constraints: While maintaining the focus on symphonies, the selected works will ideally represent different periods or stylistic facets within a composer’s output, where applicable. This approach aims to capture potential shifts in interpretive approaches over time or in relation to specific compositional characteristics. However, given the constraint of three composers and two to three works each, the primary emphasis will be on selecting works that are individually rich in interpretive history, rather than strictly adhering to a chronological representation of a single composer’s output. The balance between “depth” (e.g., different periods of one composer) and “breadth” (different composers) will be strategically managed to prioritize works most demonstrably contributing to the identification of distinct interpretive schools.

5. Scholarly Discourse and Pre-existing Analysis: Works that have already generated significant scholarly discussion regarding their performance history and interpretive challenges will be preferred. This existing discourse provides a valuable foundation for the project’s analysis and helps to ground the emerging typology in established musicological debates.

To ensure the most optimal selection, a preliminary survey of existing recordings and scholarly literature will be conducted for potential composers and works. This pre-study will involve a qualitative assessment of interpretive variability and recording availability, allowing for an informed final decision that maximizes the potential for identifying distinct interpretive schools.

For illustrative purposes, a potential selection could include:

• Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 5 in C minor, Op. 67; Symphony No. 7 in A major, Op. 92. These works are cornerstones of the symphonic repertoire, boasting an immense discography and a history of profoundly varied interpretations, ranging from monumental to historically informed.
• Johannes Brahms: Symphony No. 1 in C minor, Op. 68; Symphony No. 4 in E minor, Op. 98. Brahms’s symphonies present unique challenges for performers, particularly regarding their dense textures, rhythmic complexities, and emotional depth, leading to diverse interpretive solutions.
• Gustav Mahler: Symphony No. 1 in D major; Symphony No. 4 in G major. Mahler’s works, with their expansive scope and often explicit programmatic elements, invite highly individual and philosophically loaded interpretations, making them ideal for exploring the concept of “interpretive schools.”

Recording Curation: A Systematic and Representative Approach

Once the repertoire is established, a systematic process will be employed to curate recordings for each selected work. The objective is not merely to amass a large collection, but to strategically select recordings that exemplify a range of performance practices relevant to the “interpretive schools” concept, moving demonstrably beyond the simplistic HIP vs. modern binary. This will involve:

1. Comprehensive Discography Compilation: For each selected work, a comprehensive discography will be compiled, encompassing commercially released recordings from the mid-20th century to the present, originating from Europe and the US. This initial compilation will draw upon established databases, record labels’ archives, and scholarly resources.

2. Categorization by Performance Tradition and Initial Interpretive Hypotheses: Recordings will be initially categorized based on broad performance traditions or historical contexts. This will include, but not be limited to:

   • Historically Informed Performance (HIP) Ensembles: Recordings by ensembles explicitly dedicated to historical performance practices, often utilizing period instruments, historically informed tempo conventions, and articulation styles.
   • Prominent Modern Orchestras and Conductors: Recordings by established symphony orchestras and celebrated conductors known for their “traditional” or “modern” approaches, representing the mainstream interpretive trends of their time.
   • Recordings Representing Unique or Influential Interpretive Approaches: This crucial category will include recordings that, irrespective of their adherence to historical practices, have been recognized for their distinctive interpretive vision, their departure from prevailing norms, or their significant influence on subsequent performances. This might involve exploring recordings by conductors known for idiosyncratic tempi, specific textural approaches, or particular emotional renderings.
   • Early Recordings (Mid-20th Century): Special attention will be paid to recordings from the earlier part of the chosen timeframe to capture the interpretive landscape before the widespread ascendancy of the HIP movement and to observe the evolution of performance practices.
     Concurrent with this categorization, preliminary interpretive hypotheses will be formulated based on existing literature and initial listening, suggesting potential “interpretive schools” (e.g., a “structural clarity” school, an “emotional expression” school, a “historical fidelity” school). These hypotheses will guide the subsequent purposive sampling.

3. Purposive Sampling for Typological Representation: From these initial categories, a purposive sampling strategy will be employed to select a representative yet diverse subset of recordings for in-depth analysis. The selection will prioritize recordings that demonstrably showcase variations in key performance parameters and align with, or challenge, the preliminary interpretive hypotheses. The aim is to ensure that each hypothesized “interpretive school” is represented by a sufficient number of recordings (e.g., a minimum of X recordings per emerging school), and that the chosen recordings collectively cover the full spectrum of interpretive approaches identified. This will involve selecting recordings that demonstrate significant variations in:

   • Tempo: Overall pacing, significant deviations from metronome markings or conventional tempi, and micro-temporal fluctuations (e.g., rubato, accelerando, ritardando).
   • Articulation and Phrasing: Differences in the length and emphasis of notes, the shaping of melodic lines, and the separation or connection of musical ideas (e.g., variations in legato, staccato, and other expressive articulation marks).
   • Timbre and Instrumentation: The use of period instruments versus modern instruments, variations in orchestral balance, and specific timbral choices (e.g., vibrato usage, brass tone).
   • Dynamics and Balance: Interpretive choices regarding loudness and softness, and the foregrounding or backgrounding of specific instrumental lines.
   • Overall Aesthetic: Recordings that embody distinct aesthetic goals, such as clarity, dramatic intensity, lyrical beauty, or historical authenticity.
     To enhance objectivity in this sampling, a small-scale expert evaluation might be incorporated, where experienced music critics or performers provide blind assessments of selected recordings’ interpretive characteristics. Furthermore, while avoiding acoustical metrics, the technical quality of the recording (e.g., clarity, balance) will be considered to ensure that potential listener perception biases are minimized due to recording deficiencies.

4. Documentation of Metadata: For each selected recording, comprehensive metadata will be meticulously documented. This includes conductor, orchestra, recording date, label, key personnel (e.g., soloists), and any relevant liner notes or critical reviews that provide insight into the interpretive intentions or reception of the performance. This metadata will be crucial for contextualizing the performance choices and informing the analysis.

This systematic and strategically informed curation process ensures that the selected recordings provide a rich, varied, and typologically representative dataset for identifying and characterizing different “interpretive schools.”

Musician Interviews: Sampling Strategy and Protocol for In-depth Insights

Musician interviews constitute a vital qualitative data source, offering direct insights into the interpretive philosophies, decision-making processes, and aesthetic considerations that underpin performance choices. The sampling strategy and interview protocol will be designed to elicit rich, nuanced information from key individuals involved in the selected recordings, directly linking their intentions to the observed performance practices.

Sampling Strategy:

The aim is to conduct semi-structured interviews with 10-15 principal investigators or key musicians associated with the curated recordings. The selection criteria for interviewees will prioritize:

1. Direct Involvement in Curated Recordings: Interviewees must have played a significant role (e.g., conductor, concertmaster, principal player in a relevant section) in at least one of the recordings selected for in-depth analysis. This direct connection ensures that their insights are relevant to the specific performances under scrutiny and allows for “recording-assisted” interview techniques.

2. Representativeness of Interpretive Schools: Concerted efforts will be made to interview musicians associated with different “interpretive schools” as they begin to emerge from the initial recording analysis. This includes musicians from historically informed ensembles, prominent modern orchestras, and those known for distinctive or influential interpretive approaches, ensuring a balanced representation across the developing typology.

3. Experience and Influence: Priority will be given to musicians with extensive performing careers and those who are recognized for their interpretive authority or influence within their respective performance traditions.

4. Willingness to Participate: Given the qualitative nature of the research, the willingness of musicians to engage in thoughtful, in-depth discussions about their craft is paramount.

Recruitment strategies will involve:

• Direct Outreach: Contacting musicians through their professional affiliations, management, or institutional connections.
• Snowball Sampling: Asking initial interviewees for recommendations of other musicians who might offer valuable perspectives on performance practice.
• Leveraging Professional Networks: Utilizing existing academic and professional networks within the music community to identify potential interviewees.

Interview Protocol:

Semi-structured interviews will be conducted to allow for both systematic coverage of key topics and flexibility to explore emergent themes. Each interview is anticipated to last approximately 60-90 minutes. The interview protocol will be developed around core themes, with a particular emphasis on linking musician intentions to specific performance choices:

1. Interpretive Philosophy and Aims:

   • What are your overarching interpretive goals when approaching a work like [selected symphony]? (e.g., historical fidelity, emotional impact, structural clarity, personal expression).
   • How do you define “successful” performance in this repertoire?
   • What role does tradition play in your interpretation? How do you balance tradition with innovation?

2. Decision-Making Processes Regarding Specific Performance Choices (Recording-Assisted):

   • Prior to the interview, selected audio excerpts from the interviewee’s curated recording(s) will be prepared. During the interview, these excerpts will be played, and the musician will be prompted: “In this specific passage [e.g., 0:30-1:15], what specific interpretive decisions did you make regarding tempo, articulation, phrasing, dynamics, or instrumentation? What led to these choices, and what was your intended effect?”
   • How do you arrive at consensus on interpretive matters within an ensemble, particularly when collaborating with a conductor or other principal players?
   • What factors most significantly influence your choices (e.g., score markings, historical context, acoustics of the performance space, personal intuition, audience reaction, or the specific characteristics of the instruments used)?
   • How do you approach the use of historical instruments or historically informed techniques? What are the perceived advantages and disadvantages of these approaches in practice?

3. Influences and Mentorship:

   • Which conductors, musicians, or scholars have significantly influenced your interpretive approach to this repertoire, and in what specific ways?
   • How have your interpretive ideas evolved over your career, and what key experiences or insights prompted these shifts?

4. Perceptions of Their Own and Others’ Performances and Listener Impact:

   • How do you perceive the impact of your performance choices on the listener? What kind of experience do you aim to create for the audience, and how do you believe your choices contribute to that?
   • How do you view different interpretive approaches to the same work (e.g., HIP vs. modern, or other distinct schools)? What do you consider to be their respective strengths and weaknesses?
   • Are there specific recordings or performances by others that you find particularly compelling or instructive, and why? What interpretive elements in those performances resonate with you?

5. Challenges and Rewards:

   • What are the greatest challenges inherent in performing this repertoire, particularly in balancing various interpretive demands?
   • What are the most rewarding aspects of interpreting these works, and what personal satisfaction do you derive from the interpretive process?

Interviews will be conducted remotely via secure video conferencing platforms or in person, depending on location and feasibility. All interviews will be audio-recorded (with informed consent) and subsequently transcribed verbatim for analysis. Immediately following each interview, the interviewer will complete a “reflexive journal” to document non-verbal cues, interview atmosphere, emotional responses of the interviewee, and any emergent insights or unexpected themes, which will be valuable for subsequent qualitative analysis.

Ethical Considerations

Given the involvement of human subjects (musicians), strict ethical protocols will be adhered to throughout the data collection process, in compliance with institutional review board (IRB) guidelines.

1. Informed Consent: Prior to each interview, participants will receive a detailed informed consent form outlining the purpose of the research, the nature of their participation, the expected duration of the interview, confidentiality measures, data storage protocols, and their unequivocal right to withdraw at any time without penalty. Written consent will be obtained from all participants before the interview commences.

2. Anonymity and Confidentiality: Participants will be assured of anonymity and strict confidentiality. While their professional roles may render complete anonymity challenging in all contexts, all direct quotes and identifying information will be anonymized in publications unless explicit written permission for attribution is granted by the interviewee. Data will be stored securely on encrypted university servers, accessible only to the approved research team.

3. Data Protection and Retention: All collected data, including audio recordings and transcripts, will be handled in strict accordance with relevant data protection regulations (e.g., GDPR, if applicable). Data will be retained for a specified period, typically five years post-publication, as per institutional guidelines, and then securely destroyed. The destruction process will involve secure digital deletion of all audio recordings and identifiable electronic files, and physical shredding of any hard copies. Only anonymized, de-identified textual data may be retained for long-term archival purposes, strictly for future research validation or replication.

4. Minimizing Burden: The interview protocol will be meticulously designed to be respectful of musicians’ time and professional commitments, ensuring that questions are clear, concise, and directly relevant to the research objectives. Follow-up questions will be used judiciously to delve deeper into emergent themes without imposing undue burden.

By meticulously planning and executing these data collection and curation strategies, the project aims to build a robust and diverse dataset of curated recordings and expert insights. This rich qualitative data will serve as the foundational bedrock for the subsequent analytical phases, enabling a comprehensive exploration of performance practice choices, their perceived effects, and the development of a nuanced and empirically grounded typology of “interpretive schools.”