Technique, Musicians, and Expression of Emotion In Music
Posted by: u5227470736789439 on 23 April 2006
Technique, Musicians, and Expression Of Emotion In Music
Dear Friends,
Last week I read in a thread that some members felt that performing musicians tend to loose sight of the emtional message in music, and concentrate on the technical aspect somewhat at the expense the emotional side.
I thought it might be interesting to start a Thread discussing this premiss, which I naturally disagree with to a large extent.
I think it certain that some musicians are technicians first and foremost, whose talent and interest happen to be in the technical area. Sometimes these individuals reach the very top of the profession, but I don't think they represent all the is most interesting or engaging in musical performance practice, and certainly they do not represent the majority of performing musicians. Occasionally, there is a tendency for non-musicians to judge musicians on what they say rather than how they perform music, and of course this is wrong as some of the greatest musicians are and were famously inarticulate when faced with speaking or writing. Furtwangler had to work very hard indeed to express himself clearly, and his methods of rehearsing were markedly non-vocal!
Some others are and were indeed very lucid in language, but it still was not their first means of expression, so to judge them on that basis is still somewhat flawed, I would think.
So how has the confusion arisen? I think mainly because musicians have to analyse what it is that they do when they perform a piece. Firstly they have to comprehend what the piece is about, and in the process work out all the technical aspects and the those aspects (of expression and emotional content) to do with what the music means beyond the notes. But once they have grasped the meaning of a piece, the technical side then extends to involve methods of expressing this through the medium of their instrument. It is no good thinking that a piece has a nervous, quick expressive content, for example, if the sonority employed is then soft, smooth and mellow; so the expressive sonority must be fitted to the expressive effect desired. On strings, for example this nervous effect can be achieved by bowing the string nearer the bridge, and using relative short bows strokes, among other things, so the issue becomes one of technique and analysis, but this does not actually mean the musician has lost sight of the expressive meaning ( and by now having analysed the situation, also, the technical expressive means). He is employing his technique for expressive means, which is different to obsessing about technique. This is why an adequate technique is a pre-requisite if successful performance in music.
A truly great artist will leave the impression on his audience that he is playing the music impromptu, in the apt expressive and stylistic way, without a hint that the performance is a long way from being so artless or simple. He will use his technical armoury totally at the service of the music, where as the lesser artist may be tempted to show what a phenomemnal technique he has, because he cannot fully probe the depths and meanings of the music at the emotional expressive level, and wishes to divert attention from that deficit. The range of performers will soon be seen as being rather large in this variation, as soon as you actually listen to the resulting readings of a number of artists in the same piece.
The idea that any performance stands much chance of being a success as the result of being improvsed on the spot, without preparation and thought, will soon seem obvious. [Boehm said that improvisation was the enemy of the great recreative artistry, and anyone who thinks that Furtwangler was an improviser need only to listen to two performances of the same music ten years apart to realise that the details were in fact completely organised, and the structural perception the same in all but small details. What varies is elements that vary for all artists and in other circumstances for all people, such as the mood on the day, and the conditions of performance or work. That causes a lot of variation for most musicians over time]. There are so many decisions to make, the simplest being speed, dynamic, and expressive tone colour of the very start! The end of the piece must be almost heard in the first notes! Thus the actual time spent performing a piece is rather small compared to the time considering it from so many angles. The different personal characteristics of the musicians inevitably come out in this process, for every individual perceives things differently!
There is no reason to suppose that soloists, conductors, or principal players have a monopoly on this either. Orchestral musicians are often the equal of their most famous, high-profile cohorts. Some of the most musical players never make it beyond rank and file, but given the moment will bloom in way thought hardly comensurate with their actual level of technical ability, or the demands of musical job they occupy as a living!
The problem arrises when a musician is asked to talk or write about a piece of music, and then sets off on a mainly technical discussion! Of course, he has already done the expressive consideration and comprehension work, and his description is apt to centre on how, technically, he will bring the music to life. Thus the listener may find himself quite sure that the consideration of the music in hand is all technical, and that the musician has less contact with the music than the listener. This is quite clearly very often, completely wrong. The musician will have spent far longer on it it and thought far more penetratingly on the musical expressive content than all but a tiny minority of his listeners. Most musicians would rather play a piece having done the ground-work, than attempt the fruitless task of describing its emotional effect in words. If musicians were literary giants and could do this effectively, then we would not find music had anything to add to the beautiful words used to describe it! Even great literary men like GB Shaw utterly failed to adequately describe the music they loved!
Of course there are listeners who may think themselves more expert on one piece or another than this artist or that, but I would think the listener is in the wrong job in that case!
Any thoughts, dear Friends? All the best from Fredrik
Dear Friends,
Last week I read in a thread that some members felt that performing musicians tend to loose sight of the emtional message in music, and concentrate on the technical aspect somewhat at the expense the emotional side.
I thought it might be interesting to start a Thread discussing this premiss, which I naturally disagree with to a large extent.
I think it certain that some musicians are technicians first and foremost, whose talent and interest happen to be in the technical area. Sometimes these individuals reach the very top of the profession, but I don't think they represent all the is most interesting or engaging in musical performance practice, and certainly they do not represent the majority of performing musicians. Occasionally, there is a tendency for non-musicians to judge musicians on what they say rather than how they perform music, and of course this is wrong as some of the greatest musicians are and were famously inarticulate when faced with speaking or writing. Furtwangler had to work very hard indeed to express himself clearly, and his methods of rehearsing were markedly non-vocal!
Some others are and were indeed very lucid in language, but it still was not their first means of expression, so to judge them on that basis is still somewhat flawed, I would think.
So how has the confusion arisen? I think mainly because musicians have to analyse what it is that they do when they perform a piece. Firstly they have to comprehend what the piece is about, and in the process work out all the technical aspects and the those aspects (of expression and emotional content) to do with what the music means beyond the notes. But once they have grasped the meaning of a piece, the technical side then extends to involve methods of expressing this through the medium of their instrument. It is no good thinking that a piece has a nervous, quick expressive content, for example, if the sonority employed is then soft, smooth and mellow; so the expressive sonority must be fitted to the expressive effect desired. On strings, for example this nervous effect can be achieved by bowing the string nearer the bridge, and using relative short bows strokes, among other things, so the issue becomes one of technique and analysis, but this does not actually mean the musician has lost sight of the expressive meaning ( and by now having analysed the situation, also, the technical expressive means). He is employing his technique for expressive means, which is different to obsessing about technique. This is why an adequate technique is a pre-requisite if successful performance in music.
A truly great artist will leave the impression on his audience that he is playing the music impromptu, in the apt expressive and stylistic way, without a hint that the performance is a long way from being so artless or simple. He will use his technical armoury totally at the service of the music, where as the lesser artist may be tempted to show what a phenomemnal technique he has, because he cannot fully probe the depths and meanings of the music at the emotional expressive level, and wishes to divert attention from that deficit. The range of performers will soon be seen as being rather large in this variation, as soon as you actually listen to the resulting readings of a number of artists in the same piece.
The idea that any performance stands much chance of being a success as the result of being improvsed on the spot, without preparation and thought, will soon seem obvious. [Boehm said that improvisation was the enemy of the great recreative artistry, and anyone who thinks that Furtwangler was an improviser need only to listen to two performances of the same music ten years apart to realise that the details were in fact completely organised, and the structural perception the same in all but small details. What varies is elements that vary for all artists and in other circumstances for all people, such as the mood on the day, and the conditions of performance or work. That causes a lot of variation for most musicians over time]. There are so many decisions to make, the simplest being speed, dynamic, and expressive tone colour of the very start! The end of the piece must be almost heard in the first notes! Thus the actual time spent performing a piece is rather small compared to the time considering it from so many angles. The different personal characteristics of the musicians inevitably come out in this process, for every individual perceives things differently!
There is no reason to suppose that soloists, conductors, or principal players have a monopoly on this either. Orchestral musicians are often the equal of their most famous, high-profile cohorts. Some of the most musical players never make it beyond rank and file, but given the moment will bloom in way thought hardly comensurate with their actual level of technical ability, or the demands of musical job they occupy as a living!
The problem arrises when a musician is asked to talk or write about a piece of music, and then sets off on a mainly technical discussion! Of course, he has already done the expressive consideration and comprehension work, and his description is apt to centre on how, technically, he will bring the music to life. Thus the listener may find himself quite sure that the consideration of the music in hand is all technical, and that the musician has less contact with the music than the listener. This is quite clearly very often, completely wrong. The musician will have spent far longer on it it and thought far more penetratingly on the musical expressive content than all but a tiny minority of his listeners. Most musicians would rather play a piece having done the ground-work, than attempt the fruitless task of describing its emotional effect in words. If musicians were literary giants and could do this effectively, then we would not find music had anything to add to the beautiful words used to describe it! Even great literary men like GB Shaw utterly failed to adequately describe the music they loved!
Of course there are listeners who may think themselves more expert on one piece or another than this artist or that, but I would think the listener is in the wrong job in that case!
Any thoughts, dear Friends? All the best from Fredrik
When I was a young musician, I read an article called "Freedom Through Discipline to Freedom Again", which discussed the stages a musician must go through to become an artist. We start with total freedom. Some never acquire the needed discipline and become what the author called a "tyro". Perhaps talented, but lacking the techinque for true performance.
Others become locked into the technical phase and become "dillitantes" - extraordinary technique, but lacking in the freedom and looseness of the artist. It is only by acquiring the technique and then discarding it for the sake of the music, can the performer attain true artistry.
So how does this relate to real life? When I was doing music for television, many producers judged musicianship solely by the absence of mistakes. Because of time constraints, musicians became so conscious of errors that they often sacrificed the music in the process.
I think young musicians today are often forced to pursue technique as that is what is prized most in piano competitions, etc. Unfortunately, their teachers, like poor sensei, neglect to give them the last lesson, which is to abandon all technique and search for the meaning of the music.
Anyway, that's what I think.
Others become locked into the technical phase and become "dillitantes" - extraordinary technique, but lacking in the freedom and looseness of the artist. It is only by acquiring the technique and then discarding it for the sake of the music, can the performer attain true artistry.
So how does this relate to real life? When I was doing music for television, many producers judged musicianship solely by the absence of mistakes. Because of time constraints, musicians became so conscious of errors that they often sacrificed the music in the process.
I think young musicians today are often forced to pursue technique as that is what is prized most in piano competitions, etc. Unfortunately, their teachers, like poor sensei, neglect to give them the last lesson, which is to abandon all technique and search for the meaning of the music.
Anyway, that's what I think.
Dear ROTF,
I agree totally with that distinction - the amount of utter dross being created today in the name of popular music is truly depressing (and, perhaps, one of the reasons why most of my record buying these days is in the classical and jazz spheres).
Dear Fredrik,
I think you are perhaps being a little over-harsh as to the utility of reviews (both here and over in the other thread). That said, I cannot recall the last time I read a useful equipment review in a magazine; however, what was your very informative and useful hi-line thread if not, to some extent a review. What is at fault, in technical hi-fi press is the quality of the writing and the fact that they rarely tell you anything that is of huge use. Much the same could be said of the greater part of classical music reviews and there are but one or two writers in the Gramophone who both write well and have something useful to say. But I don't think that is the fault of the medium inherently.
To some extent, there is a culture these days which I like to term HIPer than thou (HIP, for the blissfully ignorant, meaning historically informed performance). Now, I'm not against HIP per se (in fact, Mackerras goes in for it to a great extent, but as a tool to inform his practice rather and get a good performance rather than an end in itself). However, I am not sure (particularly from reading these boards and others) that I am alone in misliking this trend and remain optimistic that the balance will swing back the other way. Principally because some of the key players who have driven it thus (and here are may be getting a touch controversial), such as Norrington and Gardiner, are not, to these ears at any rate, either the most musically gifted around, but more so because they lack the sorts of insights of their own that so many in the previous generation of conductors brought. Surely it will only require some new interpreters to come along who do have something to bring..... Anyway, I remain hopeful that something along those lines will happen.
Having said that, I do believe there are a number of very excellent musicians around today. Sadly, their efforts are often ill-documented on the silver disc. Take, for example Donald Runnicles (as a local boy he is something of a festival favourite). I suspect the reason his discography is so small is that in recent years he has been in America and due to the current terms of the musicians' union, recording is simply not economical. Still, he gave a wonderful Mahler 3 last year, with the excellent BBC Scottish (which, frankly, exceeded in quality all but one of my accounts on dics - if my computer hadn't been dead at the time I would have preserved the radio relay
) as well as a fine Verdi Requiem. This year he is, if memory serves, bringing Bruckner and Mozart so it will be interesting to judge that. I must say, that some (though by no means all) of the records to come out of the LSO Live label have been exceedingly fine, such as the Jansons Mahler 6 and the Davis Sibelius 3 and 7, of which, I shall be astonished if a finer account exists. I've detailed many of the wonderful records Mackerras has made recently elsewhere. Several years ago I heard Daniel Harding give a finer Beethoven 7th than any I have on disc (yes, including Kleiber), and I cannot wait to see how the current BBC Scottish man, Ilan Volkov, develops. On a smaller scale, I have been much impressed, both in concert and on disc, with the Belcea QT, both in their readings of the Britten quartets and in in a wonderful concert of Schubert, Beethoven and Haydn they gave at last summer's festival that was one of the chamber music highlights. And tonight I am off to hear Paul Lewis play Beethoven sonatas, of whom I've had excellent reports from past festivals.
That said, the 'HIPer than thou' state is still too prevalent. I have been astonished at recent threads over at the 'other place' on Beethoven and Furtwangler where Norrington is held as an ideal and Furtwangler lambasted (though it's possible they've simply been listening to the wrong recordings).
regards, Tam
I agree totally with that distinction - the amount of utter dross being created today in the name of popular music is truly depressing (and, perhaps, one of the reasons why most of my record buying these days is in the classical and jazz spheres).
Dear Fredrik,
I think you are perhaps being a little over-harsh as to the utility of reviews (both here and over in the other thread). That said, I cannot recall the last time I read a useful equipment review in a magazine; however, what was your very informative and useful hi-line thread if not, to some extent a review. What is at fault, in technical hi-fi press is the quality of the writing and the fact that they rarely tell you anything that is of huge use. Much the same could be said of the greater part of classical music reviews and there are but one or two writers in the Gramophone who both write well and have something useful to say. But I don't think that is the fault of the medium inherently.
To some extent, there is a culture these days which I like to term HIPer than thou (HIP, for the blissfully ignorant, meaning historically informed performance). Now, I'm not against HIP per se (in fact, Mackerras goes in for it to a great extent, but as a tool to inform his practice rather and get a good performance rather than an end in itself). However, I am not sure (particularly from reading these boards and others) that I am alone in misliking this trend and remain optimistic that the balance will swing back the other way. Principally because some of the key players who have driven it thus (and here are may be getting a touch controversial), such as Norrington and Gardiner, are not, to these ears at any rate, either the most musically gifted around, but more so because they lack the sorts of insights of their own that so many in the previous generation of conductors brought. Surely it will only require some new interpreters to come along who do have something to bring..... Anyway, I remain hopeful that something along those lines will happen.
Having said that, I do believe there are a number of very excellent musicians around today. Sadly, their efforts are often ill-documented on the silver disc. Take, for example Donald Runnicles (as a local boy he is something of a festival favourite). I suspect the reason his discography is so small is that in recent years he has been in America and due to the current terms of the musicians' union, recording is simply not economical. Still, he gave a wonderful Mahler 3 last year, with the excellent BBC Scottish (which, frankly, exceeded in quality all but one of my accounts on dics - if my computer hadn't been dead at the time I would have preserved the radio relay
) as well as a fine Verdi Requiem. This year he is, if memory serves, bringing Bruckner and Mozart so it will be interesting to judge that. I must say, that some (though by no means all) of the records to come out of the LSO Live label have been exceedingly fine, such as the Jansons Mahler 6 and the Davis Sibelius 3 and 7, of which, I shall be astonished if a finer account exists. I've detailed many of the wonderful records Mackerras has made recently elsewhere. Several years ago I heard Daniel Harding give a finer Beethoven 7th than any I have on disc (yes, including Kleiber), and I cannot wait to see how the current BBC Scottish man, Ilan Volkov, develops. On a smaller scale, I have been much impressed, both in concert and on disc, with the Belcea QT, both in their readings of the Britten quartets and in in a wonderful concert of Schubert, Beethoven and Haydn they gave at last summer's festival that was one of the chamber music highlights. And tonight I am off to hear Paul Lewis play Beethoven sonatas, of whom I've had excellent reports from past festivals.That said, the 'HIPer than thou' state is still too prevalent. I have been astonished at recent threads over at the 'other place' on Beethoven and Furtwangler where Norrington is held as an ideal and Furtwangler lambasted (though it's possible they've simply been listening to the wrong recordings).
regards, Tam
Dear Fredrik,
Of course Alan Blyth remains one of the, now very few, reasons the Gramophone has anything worth reading in it. What marks him out, like all great reviewers, is that even when you are at odds with him (as I am, over, say, the Bohm Ring) you get something from the writing which illuminates the music under discussion. However, such reviewers are, very sadly, a rare breed today. But then this is perhaps inevitable when the country's foremost classical magazine will insist on waxing lyrical about the merits of music download without berating the quality on offer.
Frankly I don't know why I haven't cancelled my subscription.......
regards, Tam
Of course Alan Blyth remains one of the, now very few, reasons the Gramophone has anything worth reading in it. What marks him out, like all great reviewers, is that even when you are at odds with him (as I am, over, say, the Bohm Ring) you get something from the writing which illuminates the music under discussion. However, such reviewers are, very sadly, a rare breed today. But then this is perhaps inevitable when the country's foremost classical magazine will insist on waxing lyrical about the merits of music download without berating the quality on offer.
Frankly I don't know why I haven't cancelled my subscription.......
regards, Tam
quote:Originally posted by Earwicker:
but one should try to avoid them as far as possible.
.. bit like typos!!
