Name: Guy Braunstein
Occupation: Violinst, conductor
Nationality: Israeli   
Recent release: Guy Braunstein's Abbey Road Concerto is out via Alpha.

If you enjoyed this Guy Braunstein interview and would like to find out more about his work and current live dates, visit his official website. He is also on  Facebook, and Instagram.



When did you first start getting interested in musical interpretation?

When I was seven years old, and had just started playing the violin, I was working on a very easy (and quite stupid) piece for beginners. I played all the notes as written and so did the next student. But we played very differently – I was wondering why.

45 years later, I’m still wondering!

Which artists, approaches, albums or performances captured your imagination in the beginning when it comes to the art of interpretation?

This is hard to answer, because there are so many! Leonard Bernstein, but also Ray Charles; Jascha Heifetz, but also Charlie Chaplin; Artur Rubinstein, but also Pablo Picasso.

You know, for me the question of interpretation, artistry and performance goes far beyond the realm of classical music. All art is connected somehow.

Are there examples for interpretations that were entirely surprising to you personally and yet completely convincing?

I wouldn’t say surprising, just very different to my own interpretations. A great example would be violinist Ivry Gitlis playing Bartóks second Violin Concerto.



I can assure you, that I play every single note differently – but I was still overwhelmed by his artistry!

What do you personally enjoy about the act of interpretation? Are you finding that this sense of enjoyment is changing over time?

We all change with time. The more life experiences we consume, the more it would reflect in our interpretation.

I cannot say that I enjoy the act of interpretation – I just accept, that it happens.

How much creativity is there in the act of interpretation? How much of your own personality enters the process?

That depends on the piece. Some works leave a lot of room for one’s creativity. Other works – much less.

I definitely prefer the pieces that allow me to experiment and to search for a certain emotional expression.

Could you describe your approach to interpretation on the basis of a piece, live performance or album that's particularly dear to you, please?

Rudolf Serkins' recording of the late Beethoven piano sonatas influenced me tremendously. He was loyal to every little detail the composer wrote and still managed to bring so much of his own personality.



This is exactly what I am aiming for when approaching a piece: This recording is a must listen for any musician!

What was your own learning curve/creative development like when it comes to interpretation - what were challenges and breakthroughs?

I’m sorry to disappoint you, but creativity and learning are a long journey that never ends. If you are lucky, you progress in small steps.

If there is any major leap or breakthrough, I would like to hear about it myself …

In many cases, the score will be the first and foremost resource for an interpretation. Can you explain about how “reading” a score works for you?

I would even go one step further: In all (!) cases the score is the main resource. Every single time! The better the composition is, the more difficult it is to interpret. You have to work like an architect.

Start from the “bigger picture” – if music was a building, you would first think about the structure, the outlines, the overall style. Then you work your way inwards, think about the placement of windows and doors, balconies, attics, cellars – those are the smaller phrases.

At the end, you decide about the colours of curtains and where you would put your lamps, tables and all your decorative knick-knacks – these are the smallest details, but they are the ones that make your building or interpretation unique and special.

One of the key phrases often used with regards to interpretation are the “composer's intentions”. What is your own perspective on this topic and its relevance for your own interpretations?

I’m a bit embarrassed to say this, but often times, if we have a recording of composers performing their own compositions, I don’t particularly like them! To name a few: Bartók playing his own “Contrasts,” Rachmaninov conducting his third symphony ...



… or Strauss conducting “Ein Heldenleben”.



Obviously they knew best what “the composer wanted”. I don’t know what it is, but I like other interpretations of these works better.

But funny enough: Rachmaninov himself said that Vladimir Horowitz’s interpretation of his third Piano Concerto was better then his own! Unbelievable, isn’t it?



I am infinitely fascinated by radically different or even “wrong” interpretations – the tempi of Toscanini, Kempff's Goldberg Variations. Are there extreme interpretations that you enjoy as well? Do you personally draw a line – and if so, what happens when we cross it?

I would like to first raise a question myself: What is a wrong tempo? The perfect tempo for Brahms’ Violin Concerto in Vienna’s Musikverein would not work necessarily in another hall. The right tempo of today would feel wrong the next day.

The “bigger picture” is the most important. Any tempo or other means of interpretation that would not serve the bigger cause are, in my opinion, wrong.

When you have the score in front of you, what's your take on taking things literally, correcting possible mistakes, taking into account historical aspects etc?

Even the greatest of composers were just human. We all make mistakes.

I usually try to figure out what story is being told in a piece and only then, I will try to figure out the role of the smallest details in the score.

Usually, what seems like a possible mistake, makes sense in the end. When it doesn’t – I’m in trouble.

With regards to the live situation, what role do the audience and the performance space play for your interpretation?

As performing instrumentalists, we have a big challenge in front of us: Without using words, we have to tell the audience the story that we gathered and understood from the score.

Isaac Stern was the very best at doing exactly that. When he played the “Spring Sonata” by Beethoven, you could feel the trees, see the flowers and smell the earth – just by listening and looking at him play. The ultimate storyteller!



Artists can return to a work several times throughout the course of their career, with different results. Tell me about a work where this has been the case for you, please.

I conducted Brahms’ Second Symphony multiple times over the years. The results were very different every single time.

To break it down even more: The piece hasn’t changed in these 10 years – I have.

Part of the intrigue of interpretations is that the process is usually endless. Are there, vice versa, interpretations that feel definitive to you?

Some interpretations would go out of fashion, some others would always sound right. Why?

There are two very different things when it comes to interpretation. There is the very essence of the composition – the structure, harmony, counterpoint, these never ever change. Other things like rubato, glissando or vibrato have to do more with aesthetics.

When it comes to that, the trend changes every generation or two. Things that sounded perfect in 1940, sound funny or wrong to us now. But one has to remember – these are aesthetics, not the essence.