POLARITY | 15 QUESTIONS FEATURE

Pathos Trio about Interpretation

“We want to explore endless possibilities.“

When did you first start getting interested in musical interpretation?  

Felix: As an ensemble we’ve all had experiences working with composers during our time in music school as undergraduate / graduate students. So as soon as we were in college that was when each of us developed our own individual interests in wanting to create our own musical interpretations through collaborating and working with composers.

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

Marcelina: When we first started Pathos we took inspiration from groups like Square Peg Round Hole, TIGUE, Kraken Quartet, and Son Lux. Those trios [and quartets], while they’re classically/contemporarily trained musicians who went to music schools, create and write their own music that blurs the line and crosses multiple genres of music such as pop music, minimalist music, electronic / synthwave / low-fi music, and alternative rock.

We wanted to take that approach with our group in taking / utilizing classical / contemporary techniques and aesthetics and apply them to mainstream genres of music that we as a group are interested in, such as heavy / progressive metal, hard rock, alternative rock, synthwave music, electronic music, and other similar genres of music.

The result of this is us reaching out to composers or rather artists who we research and find already work in a similar matter, writing for multiple genres of music and collaborating with them to create what we feel are unique pieces of music that appeal both to classical / contemporary audiences and mainstream audiences.

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

Felix: I can’t recall examples of interpretations coming across our radar that totally surprised us. But rather early on when myself, Marcelina, and Alan (our original pianist) started working together, we saw the possibilities of this potential trio that eventually became Pathos - looking at groups Marcelina mentioned in her earlier answer as our examples of inspirations and knowing the initial spark and chemistry myself, Marcelina, and Alan had working together.

We knew early on that we had something special with this group, and that we wanted to take note of what groups like Square Peg, TIGUE, and so on were doing, but put our own heavier, darker spin on our music and the pieces we would eventually commission.

What, would you say, are the key ideas behind your approach to interpretation? Do you see yourself as part of a tradition or historic lineage?

Marcelina: A lot of our approach is taking our individual backgrounds in being classically / contemporary trained musicians and apply classical / contemporary techniques we use on a daily basis towards our commissions we create with artists.

That music draws from non-classical genres of music we as a group have strong interests in. This includes heavy / progressive metal, black metal, hard rock, alternative rock, synthwave music, electronic music, and other similar genres of music.

We definitely don’t try to follow tradition (as you can see from what I just described haha) and we purposefully are always working towards refining our own identity and aesthetic as a quasi chamber music/alternative rock trio. We’re very unapologetic in embracing that.

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

Felix: Like most chamber ensembles, the composers we commission write their music in traditional Western notation, so whenever we perform we’re always reading from sheet music, and we all have our own iPads where we read our parts from.

In some cases for certain pieces that are easier,  we have some of our repertoire memorized.

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?

Marcelina: Our perspective on this I think is that of course we as the artists want to make sure we’re fulfilling the composer's wishes for the music they write.

However I think in our case with Pathos we really like to be hands on in the process of the pieces that are being written for us. And so during the commission process we are always going back and forth with ideas with our composers and so it becomes a whole collaborative process where there’s input from us as the artist that goes into the final pieces.

In that respect it's almost like both Pathos and the composer work together to create a unique piece of music that both sides end up being happy with.

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?

Will: When it comes to our commissions, of course, our goal in a live performance setting is to make sure we play as accurately to the music as possible. But obviously in real life we, as people, make mistakes, so we know this and aren’t immune to making mistakes from time to time whether that be in a performance setting or in rehearsals.

But asides from that there is always room for interpretation where we might add more weight or feeling into certain passages when we play, which affects the presentation of the music a lot.

What role does improvisation play for your interpretations?

Will: When it comes to our repertoire, almost all of our music is written out, so usually there’s not a whole lot of room for improvisation. There’s only two pieces in our rep where we have sections to freely improvise.

Overall it's something we’re looking into possibly incorporating more into our music going forward potentially.

Interpretations can be wildly different live compared to the studio. What is this like for you?

Felix: I’d say in our case that’s partially true. I think it’s less about differences in interpretations and more so about how the music gets presented in a live setting vs a produced, polished studio recording.

In a live performance you get obviously the raw, unedited sounds of what you’re playing vs when recording in a studio you can edit / mix / master things as much as you like so things sound polished and exactly as you want.

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

Marcelina: With our music in particular we’ve made it a point to shoot high quality music videos for all of our commissions. Usually when we first present our commissions to audiences its always through the premiere of these music videos, so folks are digesting and getting first impressions of our music through our music videos.

Because of that the performance setting, where we play, and who we’re playing for plays a massive part in our interpretation. More importantly, it plays a huge role in how we go about planning to present our music.

For example if we know we’re playing for a classical / new music audience in a new music venue we’ll prepare to play the music more dry and “as is”, whereas if we played the same music for a more mainstream audience in a rock venue, then we would consider needing to slightly amplify ourselves, use led coloured programmed lights and then have projection work playing in the background to as a visual element to our performance.

So all in all both the audience and performance space plays a huge role in how we decide to present our music in public. We always keep that in mind and plan our programming of music accordingly.

With regards to the studio situation, what role do sound, editing possibilities and other production factors play for your interpretation?

Will: Editing sounds in a studio, no matter who you are, always can play a big factor in how you want your final result track to be like.

In our case we try to strive towards sounding as close to how we sound in a live setting as possible, while finding a good balance in how to we mix the electronic components of these pieces into the final mix / edit / master of our recordings.

Some works seem to attract more artists to add their interpretation to it than others; some seem to even encourage wildly different interpretations. From your experience, what is it about these works that gives them this magnetic pull?

Felix: I think it's the idea of giving the artists agency to create their own thoughts and inserting them into a blank canvas / template that makes pieces like that super interesting, as long as the base structure of the piece and concept is cool and interesting / well thought out.

It's also the idea of granting the artist freedom to insert their own ideas into a piece that I’m sure artists find that to be appealing and compelling to want to perform.

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.

Felix: I think this can be said with all of our music honestly. Because there’s so much going on with each piece in our repertoire there’s always room for getting slightly to moderately different results in the presentation of these pieces.

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

Marcelina: Nothing ever feels definitive when it comes to interpretations. As artists we’re always striving to create and make new interpretations and changes to how we perform our music. If we were aiming to make the same interpretations all the time then it would make performing our music live pointless.

Making changes to our interpretations and what we do shows growth in wanting to explore the endless possibilities of what we can do with our music.