Originally posted by sophial:
Wonderful post, Betty!

I find it so much easier to enjoy an emotionally and musically communicative performance, even if there are some mistakes, than one that is technically secure but boring. I recently attended a concert in which an advanced piano student gave a very nice performance in terms of getting the notes right in a technically demanding piece, but it was tepid in dynamics, phrasing was less than incisive, and it just became a blur of notes rather than piece of music that communicated any idea or sense. I've heard too many performances like this to think this is just an isolated incident. I hope that our training of young pianists is not so oriented toward technical virtuosity that they are not learning musicality and communication of ideas through the music, which is the whole point.

Sophia [/b]

Originally posted by John Citron:
I agree this is a great post. I too have gone to quite a number of technically perfect performances, but they were as musical as the chair I was sitting in. The performers went through these great gyrations as though they were putting emotion into the music, but nothing came out that way. For some reason thier playing didn't touch my soul.

After awhile I found myself day dreaming and counting the pieces left on the program.

John [/b]

Originally posted by Morodiene:
This is a very good observation. When/if I find myself spacing out, that is most often due to the fact that the performer is not communicating. This is an art, and you can hear it. One doesn't have to see someone making huge gestures to get it. [/b]

Originally posted by Betty Patnude:
The question was asked as: "When a performance fails, whose fault is it?"

It would be kinder and more information gathering to assess "What about this performance proved to be less than enjoyable for me?"

Talking about the difficulty of the piece, characteristics of the composer's style, the quality of the piano and acoustics, the lack of an appreciative audience, the performer playing less well than expected according to his or her reputation, lots of things to "discuss".

Assigning blame is a heavy number no matter where it comes from - and probably the performer will be hardest on himself.

I think great live performances are very situational or conditional. It would have to be a synergistic combination of the composer, the music, the performer, the piano, the acoustics, the interest and comfort level of an appreciative audience.

Our favorite sports team don't always win the games over their rivals either. We have winning streaks and losing streaks. Overall, we must be sympathetic to the human condition in life.

I would be grateful for a fine performer giving a fine performance, but I would not be critical of the person if it went less than well. I would probably be interested in the pianist overall career and not single out this one performance as being the beginning of his professional demise. Perfection is not what I look for, it is participation in an arts event as a supporter that pleases me most. A live musical human event - a communication.

To demand perfection when excellance would be reward enough, and then to appreciate the performer as he is on this particular day at this particular time would be enough reward enough for me. [/b]

Originally posted by calpiano:
I suppose that by a performance that fails I mean a performance that does not get all of the messages in the music across to the audience. I was really debating about the two sides of the coin: how clearly must the composer present the musical elements in order for the composition to be successful? What if there are so many elements, or even so many variations of the same element, that the listener can't pick up on the material fast enough? How astute of an ear should the listener have in order to be a good musically informed audience?

[/b]

Originally posted by John Citron:
She played the Schumann Fantasie, which left me tingling all over. She didn't have to wave her arms and body all over the place to do it either.

Originally posted by BruceD:
It appears to me that some composers think that their music is not sufficient in and of itself to express what the composer wants it to express.

When "new" music - i.e. music by living composers that seems to be conceived outside the bonds of traditional compositional techniques and traditional musical vocabulary - needs to be "explained" by the composer in a written or spoken preamble to the work, I am pre-disposed to have a negative reaction to the work. That doesn't mean that I can't be pleasantly surprised, but if a work of art cannot stand on its own, if the composer feels it needs explication: "What I was doing in this section ..." "What I was trying to convey with this texture ...", "I want the listener to understand that...", then it does not succeed as a work of art.

If the work does not, on its own, succeed as a work of art but needs to be "explained" by the composer, then it surely is the composer's fault if a performance of the work "doesn't get through" - to use the original expression.

Regards, [/b]