Music Performance

[Nile577]

Imagine yourself watching a pianist playing a well-known piece. As he plays he pulls emotional facial expressions and throws his head around passionately. Now imagine a pianist sat hunched, poorly dressed, chewing gum and looking utterly bored playing the same piece. To listen to them on cd., you might think they were both excellent performances, yet in real life many people would be swayed into preferring the former.

When classical/composed music is performed, should the demeanour of the player contribute to the merit of the performance? In music performance classes, one can lose marks if one's bow is not sufficiently long at the end of a recital. Is this just? Are the aesthetics of a piece enriched by extravagant head-swirls of a violinist, or a passioned look on the face of a pianist? Is it strange that we go to 'see' a classical concert instead of 'hearing' it? Would it lend a more truly aesthetic experience if the chairs faced away from the stage, allowing for the dynamic spacing of sound but removing the visual stimulus?

 

[Nile577]

I will give three examples to consider which in my view represent different facets of this.

1 - When dramatic performance is necessary to the piece.

Liszt was an extreme virtuoso. He would stride theatrically on stage and hurl his gloves onto the floor to the screams of adoring women. His pieces were often written at a fiercely complex level to demonstrate his exhibitionist virtuosity, sometimes wrapped into a 'Romantic-Realist' context. That is, the pieces were written about specific relationships the composer had experienced as opposed to what might be termed 'Romantic Idealism', which attempts to express the universal in such feelings. His dramatic performance almost became part of the aesthetic itself.

By the same token, perhaps a minimalist Philip Glass piece would best be played without any histrionics, equally contribution to the minimal aesthetic of the work.

2 - When dramatic performance adds to a piece but might not be intended by the composer

I recently saw a performance of Mahler's 2nd symphony in which the choir stood up at a powerful crescendo in the last movement. For those who don't know the work, there is a staggeringly beautiful, extremely gentle choral entry later in the same movement. However, by standing up when they did, the singers added visual impact, underlining the rather intimidating and terrifying forte.

3 - When dramatic performance detracts from the performance.

In my view, this is evident in players who care more about demonstrating their individual ability than lending that ability to contribute to a better realisation of the piece. Such playing is exhibitionist and nearly always dishonest to the aims of the composer.

 

[OldScratch]

Interesting topic:
As with many things I think the dual/multi-sensory experience is often more pleasurable - but why I don't know. Perhaps, not unlike culinary aesthetics. Does the food really taste any better if it is prepared in a visually appealing manner? Probably not in the strictest gustatory sense. Still, the presentation is critical in fine dining, and food photography is something of an artform unto itself.
I also find that music set to film, for instance, often intensifies the aural experience(not film soundtracks necessarily, but documentary accompaniment for instance).
Would the orchestra sound any different looking toward the wall? I don't know. I doubt it would sound any worse or any better...but different, perhaps?? I fear I haven't got a solid answer here...but the visual does lend to the emotion of the experience.

 

[Nile577]

Here is a performance of Wilhelm Kempff playing the famous first movement of Beethoven's Moonlight sonata.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=O6txOvK-mAk

Kempff is my favourite Beethoven pianist because he does not attempt to Romanticise the composer any more than is evident in what is written. His playing of the 'Hammerklavier' Sonata is one of the most beautiful things I know in music. Here he is relatively old and he even hits several wrong notes in the third movement of the work. However, his feel is sublime and for that, this performance of the 1st movement is one of the best I have heard.

I do admit though that watching the video adds to performance. He seems more to 'live' the work than play it. I thought it would be a useful example to share in relation to the question of the thread. Imagine this piece being played by someone looking completely disinterested - would it detract from it as art?

(I realise there is a lot to go on here, so to start perhaps people might want to just share thoughts on the first post?)

 

[Magrathean]

I wouldn't say that performance really adds to the piece directly, but perhaps it has an indirect effect on the artist. Say you heard something brilliant and fell in love with it. Then you go to see the/an artist perform it. If they perform it with passion and feeling (not to the point of showing off, but just what's "right"), you might fall in love further with the artist and want to listen to more things by them and every time you listen to something by that artist you will get the feeling that it's performed extremely well, adding to the "this person is a great artist" => "i like this artist very much" thing. If, on the other hand, the artist is lousy (either overdoing the performance and just coming off as an unsuccessful showoff or not having any passion at all and being boring), you might not go to another concert by them and you will probably regard any performance you hear by them as lousy because of that first experience. Therefore, i think that performance is important to some extent, perhaps not to the current piece but in the long run to one's perception of the artist in general.

There's another kind of situation, though, in which performance does contribute directly to a piece. I guess it happens when the live performance is noticeably better than the audio recording. An example: I love Apocalyptica, and i've seen them live twice. In both performances, Eicca Toppinen is pulling off a rather impressive but clearly-showing-off act, sending his hair flying in a whirlwind as he plays the cello standing or jumping around with his cello (which is a rather heavy object) and playing all the notes perfectly, without a single audible error, while the rest of the band is generally sitting and playing standard-way, but Paavo Lötjönen has an expression on his face which gives away instantly that he's putting his whole spirit into what he's playing and that he loves what he's doing. The guy looks like he's in a state of complete bliss, disconnected from the world and just playing his instrument. On top of the music being as amazing as it always is and even better (because these fellows sound better live than on cd, at least to me), Paavo's expression and Eicca's jumping around made me enjoy the show far more than i would have if all the members had been just sitting there and playing in a normal boring way. It was watching them the second time when it finally hit me just how good they were: not just another nice band, but a brilliant group of talented musicians who knew how to compose beautiful things AND pull off a great performance. So performance does contribute to how much one enjoys the music but obviously not to how the music sounds.

 

[Magrathean]

By the way, i loved that video, not really because of the man's performance (although he did have a rather-appropriate sad/resigned expression on his face during the whole thing) but mainly because he plays great and because i love that particular movement of that particular sonata. Thanks for sharing.

 

[speed]

Imagine yourself watching a pianist playing a well-known piece. As he plays he pulls emotional facial expressions and throws his head around passionately. Now imagine a pianist sat hunched, poorly dressed, chewing gum and looking utterly bored playing the same piece. To listen to them on cd., you might think they were both excellent performances, yet in real life many people would be swayed into preferring the former.

When classical/composed music is performed, should the demeanour of the player contribute to the merit of the performance? In music performance classes, one can lose marks if one's bow is not sufficiently long at the end of a recital. Is this just? Are the aesthetics of a piece enriched by extravagant head-swirls of a violinist, or a passioned look on the face of a pianist? Is it strange that we go to 'see' a classical concert instead of 'hearing' it? Would it lend a more truly aesthetic experience if the chairs faced away from the stage, allowing for the dynamic spacing of sound but removing the visual stimulus?

The visual does have a stimulus. Although I like to think really good music produces visuals on its own; colors, the pythagorean music of spheres.

But still, when I think of opera, I think of a visual stimulus that was planned for and part of composers work, and makes the work even richer than if it stands alone.

Anyway, drawing upon your underlying question, I offer another example: would Glenn Gould's infamous piece be as popular with the visuals of him playing it?--he was an extremely eccentric and shy man. If Glenn Gould dressed in some weird garb, not uttering a word, humming along, played the Goldberg variations and then some showy crowd pleaser showed up right after him, and played the same thing, would people prefer Gould? I think anyone with an ear for music would prefer GOuld, but the common music lover or person off the street would prefer the showy performer. I think thats just the way we're wired as human beings, and only expertise can change this predilection.

 

[Norsemaiden]

How could anyone play Moonlight Sonata in a disinterested way? It would affect how they played it as you really do have to feel the music in a passionate way to play it so that it sounds at its best. The pianist looked as if he was naturally concentrating fully on the piece rather than thinking at all about how he looked on camera.

 

[judas69]

I think people want to believe their favourate band for example, is into the music they perform and genuine about the music they write. I think it boils down to how honest one is as a performer ..where getting into the music and becoming the music is less about showmanship and more about the musician experiencing the music; I think people need to see this ..and I think when the intellect is accepting, the whole being is accepting and open to where the music takes them.

In the same way, I think people admire good actors not simply because they are convincing, but because they believe the act is so good that the person is participating in a form of channeling, something more than what you can see or hear and this creates the magic of performance and music, the mystery we all look for in cinema as is the case with the pianist.

 

[My Man Mahmoud]

I think if you start with the question "What is the purpose of live performance?", the answer here becomes fairly obvious...

 

[Anvil]

When one writes music, you don't think about any physical movements... your focus is on the music, and the music itself. Live performances are basically a way to prove that, "this is actually how we play, it wasn't all synths on the CD you bought." Although during any live performance, it becomes a tendency to "get into" the music, thus creating physical movement and the like.

In regards to classical music, while watching any artist perform, I've found myself watching for the emotion, the emphasis to be put into the music. This of course isn't the same for everyone. When at home, listening to one of my favorite composers, Johannes Brahms, I find myself doing physical movements to the music. Isn't this basically the same idea?

While playing the music, you discover yourself to be in the music, both physically and mentally. Its the same principle when listening to the music. So is it really necessary for the artist to perform antics or movement or emotion while playing his piece? I think it adds to it, knowing that he/she is enjoying themselves playing it; In no way do I feel it's going to take away from the music though. The music is the primary.

 

[hibernal_dream]

I'm one of the few that dislike classical performances. I like to disassociate the music from the performers. Take Beethoven's 6th. I can either associate each movement with a different aspect of nature, which is what was intended by the composer, or I can imagine sitting in a large concert hall, watching the individual performers and being annoyed by the restless child sitting in front of me.

Although I enjoy recitals, music for me is one part performance, ninety-nine parts composition. In fact, i'm amazed that there are still so many recitals. Perhaps it is because back when these pieces were composed that was the only way they could be heard.

 

[OldScratch]

I'm one of the few that dislike classical performances. I like to disassociate the music from the performers. Take Beethoven's 6th. I can either associate each movement with a different aspect of nature, which is what was intended by the composer, or I can imagine sitting in a large concert hall, watching the individual performers and being annoyed by the restless child sitting in front of me.

Although I enjoy recitals, music for me is one part performance, ninety-nine parts composition. In fact, i'm amazed that there are still so many recitals. Perhaps it is because back when these pieces were composed that was the only way they could be heard.

Your last sentence raises an interesting question. Given that sound reproduction we take entirely for granted was altogether unknown in the era wherein many classical works were created...what would the composers themsleves think of the original premise of the thread? Since the live performance was, by necessity, the only way to deliver the experience, would they be horrified to imagine it reproduced otherwise? Or simply overwhelmed that this was possible at all?
That notwithstanding, even in this age of digital recordings and state-of-the- art audio equipment, a live performance invariably sounds different in my ear. I worked in theater for a number of years and would always take note of the difference between an orchestra and a high-dollar sound system. I'm sure there is a fairly simple technical explanation for this phenomenon, but I've never thought about it that much to be honest.

 

[Seditious]

Since the live performance was, by necessity, the only way to deliver the experience, would they be horrified to imagine it reproduced otherwise?

I don't know if they'd be horrified. I mean surely an artist wants to be appreciated and heard, and bring joy to people as often as they can, and there was a time when people would hear their favourite piece of music a handful of times in their lifetime! that's insane to imagine now to all of us with our cd changers and computers and ipods. I can't think how many hundreds of times I've heard songs I love, how I've clipped, listened during the ads, played favourite parts---I wonder if that sort of phenomenon has anything to do with the content itself nowadays. Once it was 'sit down, shut up, and listen start to finish as the composed designed it' and now, who even plays an album from start to finish, or sits around paying attention to all of it if they do? I'd be more curious what they think of this, if they think their art was more respected in their time, and if they think it should be so respected.