The role of perfection in classical music
Posted by: mikeeschman on 28 March 2009
When you first develop an interest in classical music, and begin the search for the music that speaks to your soul, one of the issues that is brought into stark relief is the issue of performance practice. If a performer's execution is less than perfect, but his conception of the piece is illuminating, how does that affect the value and the meaning of the work itself?
In other types of music, this issue is generally not paramount, because performers of other musics typically do not develop the range of technical mastery that is typical of classical musicians.
But it is a central issue in performances of classical music, precisely because some performers have literally achieved perfection. In achieving that perfection, have these performers diluted, distorted or otherwise damaged the musical meaning of what they play?
The first thing that occurs to me is that a player who plays perfectly has the option of playing any music they like, any way they see fit, whereas a player with technical deficiencies must craft an interpretation with his deficiencies in mind, so that his flaws inflict the least amount of damage to the message of the music. The performance habits of all musicians quickly become second nature, and stamp there character on every performance.
As a listener, i am excited to hear a flawless performance, in part because perfection is an exciting concept that is rarely encountered in human life. I am stunned and elevated to a high state of hopefulness and joy at the appearance of the pristine and flawless.
If I have a central belief that colors and guides every one of my listening sessions it is this : a good performance stands outside time and space in its own sphere of influence, and puts your being in direct spiritual contact with the composer at the moment of creation, with the performer acting as the medium that establishes and allows this communication.
Technical flaws stain that communication. If you attended a performance of Hamlet, and the actor portraying Hamlet spoke with a lisp, you might conclude that the lisp added to the power and the emotion of his performance. If you did, i would call that a wrong-headed idea. For me, clarity in speech is central to the character of Hamlet. It is important for me to hear what Hamlet says.
One of the things that happens when you hear a perfect performance is that your idea of what is possible emotionally in that piece of music is expanded. Broad, dramatic strokes that had moved may seem trite and overblown in the light of perfection. Nuance and subtlety can achieve a finer level of graduation, and stand out clear and undistorted in the perfect performance. This is simply not so otherwise.
For these reasons, the recordings that I cherish most are the perfect performances. Anytime I want to hear a flawed reading, it is available to me. I want to taste, and bask in the presence of the perfect while I can. These perfect performers have elevated their understanding and emotion to a higher plane.
It takes everything to the next level.
Long live perfection :-)
Posted on: 29 March 2009 by mikeeschman
quote:
Originally posted by munch:
It would be nice if you could keep it a bit more simple.
I get half way down a page and give up.
I dont want to read a book.
But thats just me.
Stu
my last post was 6 sentences. that would be six sentences about three beethoven sonatas - two apiece ...
do you have an interest in these sonatas?
i think they are great fun to talk about.
Posted on: 29 March 2009 by mikeeschman
quote:
Originally posted by munch:
I read all your threads and posts.
But some times they just go over my head.
Stu
that's something i would like to correct.
can you give me a for example?
Posted on: 29 March 2009 by soundsreal
Interesting thread, especially your opening statement. I've never thought of a musican as technically perfect, due to the fact that it's all subjective. I view it more like if it was wonderful or not. You may like someone's voice or finger's on the keys, I may not. When I hear a recording, I'm listening for the emotion/content, not the technical/perfect. Same as listening live. I know of two very famous performers now who I would assume are technically brilliant, but who leave me cold. What does that say? So I look for the wonderfulness of a recording. And yes, very yes, I love the Pollini performances. If someone else doesn't, that's fine. There are plenty of other recordings. I still say they're wonderful.
Posted on: 29 March 2009 by soundsreal
Oops, sorry, I meant the Maurizio Pollini recordings of the last three Beethoven sonatas. While you could say they were technically brillant, someone didn't like them, some of us do. So for me technical perfection(if it exists) isn't the factor that gets my emotions going. Oh, I suppose if someone played some glissando (let the keys rip) perfectly due to their finger technique, it might thrill me, but the rest of the piece would have to fall into place as well. Is that clearer?
Posted on: 29 March 2009 by mikeeschman
quote:
Originally posted by munch:
See to me that means nothing.
What are the Pollini performances?
Stu
An Italian pianist named Maurizio Pollini, who is the student of another Italian pianist Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli, recorded the last three Beethoven piano sonatas sometime in the 80s on DGG. It is still available.
Some of us think these performances by Pollini are beyond sublime. Others of us think it is cold and trite, in part because Pollini's playing is so beautiful.
I maintain that Pollini's playing so beautifully is a good thing.
That's it in a nut shell.
Posted on: 29 March 2009 by King Size
The moment I saw the title of this thread I was reminded of Salvador Dali
“Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it.”
and maybe even more telling in the context of this thread is the proverb
“A beautiful thing is never perfect.”
Sorry but I just don't see perfection as an absolute that can be achieved. Furthermore if it was attainable it would need to be judged against universally agreed criteria, and the likelihood of said criteria finding universal agreement is even more remote.
So while perceived perfection should be strived for it cannot and must not be achieved. Surely perfection in art equals the death of art?
Posted on: 29 March 2009 by fred simon
Mike, I was only addressing your explanation of part writing, which suggested that the multiple voices were confined to a single hand, and that they were paired with a trill. Obviously, it most often occupies both hands (or as I like to think of it, the three hands), and is not paired with a trill by definition.
Best,
Fred
Posted on: 29 March 2009 by fred simon
Regarding perfection in musical performance ... avoiding clams (what many musicians call mistakes) is certainly a desirable ideal, and certainly attainable.
Perfection in this sense is not just an ideal in Western classical music, but in some forms of jazz, rock, and bluegrass, for instance. I'm a big fan of Alison Krauss and Union Station, have many of their albums and have heard them live more than once. In both contexts they play as note perfectly as I have ever heard music played ... each note impeccably chosen, impeccably in tune, and impeccably in time, retaining all emotive power and soul. The excellence of their execution is absolutely on par with the best Western classical musicians.
I think it's a common cultural misconception to associate "mistakes" with higher artistic value ... it's certainly not always the case. Obviously some mistakes can be happy ones, especially in the context of improvised music. But in a performance of Beethoven's Moonlight sonata, for example, if the pianist were to play a low C natural octave at the very beginning instead of the written C#, it would definitely be an undesirable mistake that would rob the music of its intent and emotive power. Why preserve this mistake in a recording?
A minor clam in a live performance usually comes and goes quickly ... the listener hears it just once, and fleetingly. It has little ability to harm the overall effect of the music, especially if the performance is otherwise successful. But to preserve this mistake for posterity, to hear it every time one listens, is to make the mistake an unintended part of the composition, which it obviously isn't. If it can be surgically removed from the recording without disrupting the organic flow of the performance (and these days that kind of surgery is easier and more seamless than ever), why not?
That said, you all do know that most classical recordings of the last 50 or more years have been edited to varying degrees, right? You've been listening to them and, presumably, fully enjoying them, perhaps without even realizing this.
The bottom line is: perfection (i.e., lack of mistakes) does not automatically equate to sterility, nor do mistakes equate to enhanced artistic value ... they are completely independent measures.
Best,
Fred
Posted on: 30 March 2009 by Mat Cork
quote:
Originally posted by fred simon:
The bottom line is: perfection (i.e., lack of mistakes) does not automatically equate to sterility, nor do mistakes equate to enhanced artistic value ... they are completely independent measures.
Fred - really great post. I think generally, you're probably right. But of course we listen personally. For me personally, mistakes are the human element and enrich music. Imperfections are especially important in singing Fred - I really can't abide folk who sing with perfect diction and stay not perfect. I could fill a book with singers I love, who can't sing in pitch, and are hard to understand (John Martyn for example)...it's a human experience.
I don't know then Fred, if most listeners would agree with you. Having though about it, I wouldn't.
Posted on: 30 March 2009 by Whizzkid
Fred,
I'll say again I think people are confusing perfect with right if I play Beethoven Moonlight Senata and play it note for note in time set out on the score am I playing it perfect because someone else might play the same piece in slightly different time to me but still fall into the timing of the piece. If it was not possible to do this then there would be no virtuoso performers that add their humanity to the piece which is made up of slight deviences from the rigidity of the written score. In other words there are too many things within a piece that can alter the overall feeling of the music to ever achieve perfection. All you do is correspond a performance with the notion of rightness that is being achieved and that rightness is different from person to person I find Alison Krauss' music to be very very bland and lacking any emotional content and that could be because its so "perfect" same with Dire Straits and music of that elk but find these links very stimulating and full of joy. The Piano playing is just electric
but is it note perfect or does it sound right to certain ears.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hAn9LghULAOr this piano playing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBFan0Hva9QDean...
Posted on: 30 March 2009 by Steve2701
Sheesh, all this and having to learn how to count as well - just to 'enjoy' classical music?
My Agnetha, Bjorn, Benny & Annifrid collection have no fear of ever being removed in favour of it at this rate.
Is it realy so difficult to just sit there and happily enjoy a piece of music about which you know zip - other than it sounds flippin good?
Posted on: 30 March 2009 by mikeeschman
quote:
Originally posted by Steve2701:
Sheesh, all this and having to learn how to count as well - just to 'enjoy' classical music?
My Agnetha, Bjorn, Benny & Annifrid collection have no fear of ever being removed in favour of it at this rate.
Is it realy so difficult to just sit there and happily enjoy a piece of music about which you know zip - other than it sounds flippin good?
of course you can just listen. or you can learn to count beats, which incidentally would improve enjoyment of all music.
it's just a forum, not a university final.
but others might like to talk about this stuff. as long as it's not required of you, exactly who does it hurt? why shut them up?
Posted on: 30 March 2009 by mikeeschman
quote:
Originally posted by fred simon:
Regarding perfection in musical performance ... avoiding clams (what many musicians call mistakes) is certainly a desirable ideal, and certainly attainable.
I think it's a common cultural misconception to associate "mistakes" with higher artistic value ... it's certainly not always the case. If it can be surgically removed from the recording without disrupting the organic flow of the performance (and these days that kind of surgery is easier and more seamless than ever), why not?
The bottom line is: perfection (i.e., lack of mistakes) does not automatically equate to sterility, nor do mistakes equate to enhanced artistic value ... they are completely independent measures.
Fred nicely sums up the issue. beautiful post.
Posted on: 30 March 2009 by Mat Cork
I think many understand that Steve, and it unlocks a massive world of music. But some don't and will enjoy a massively narrower field of music, but in a more technical considered manner.
My dad despite his aging years collects and restores sports cars...he loves to know the workings of every nut and bolt. I'm not really that interested in all that, but I do love to jump in and thrash the things. Two different approaches to the same medium.
Posted on: 30 March 2009 by soundsreal
There's a perfect example of someone who thinks something's perfect when another doesn't i.e. Alison Kraus and Union Station. Boring most often comes to mind. They've had a few good songs. In these parts where she comes from, she's viewed with yawning respect, and that's about all.
Posted on: 30 March 2009 by Derry
There are no truly objective criteria which describe perfection in music, so all one can express is an opinion which often, after analysis, is simply "I prefer this because..".
If you enjoy music more by counting each note, timing the metre with a stop-watch, deciding how many hands were at work on the piano - great.
I "simply" listen and enjoy.
Posted on: 30 March 2009 by Whizzkid
quote:
Originally posted by soundsreal:
There's a perfect example of someone who thinks something's perfect when another doesn't i.e. Alison Kraus and Union Station. Boring most often comes to mind. They've had a few good songs. In these parts where she comes from, she's viewed with yawning respect, and that's about all.
And this why she is so popular in the wider world perfectly played bland saminess sells so they keep producing it.
Dean....
Posted on: 30 March 2009 by BigH47
quote:
Alison Kraus and Union Station. Boring most often comes to mind.
With those musicians I don't think so. Boring no way. Amongst others in the same genre, I don't know, "in your parts" you probably only listen to that sort of music and are spoilt for choice or hung for listening to some thing else!!!
Posted on: 30 March 2009 by soundsreal
All right, MrBig, before taking any more shots, let me explain. She grew up close to me, I've heard her at festivals when she was relagated to playing third stage, when she was frumpy and had absolutely no stage presence. She could play, to be sure, but was not a great act. Over time, she was groomed for a successful career. She's had a few wonderful hits. I had many of her cds, and I still own the grt hits vinyl. Yet, when I see her perform, if it's not a song I really like of hers, I fall asleep. I know she's won tons of awards, that's fine and dandy. But bluegrass crowds don't always respond to that. They need some emotion to keep the flow going, and Alison just doesn't deliver that very often. So that was why I used her to counterargue that someone technically great can nevertheless be not perfect when it came to overall enjoyment. If you like her, fine. I, and many people I know, don't really, although we respect her. If you were following the threads you would have seen my "tastes" complimented
on two of my fav pianists being Maurizio Pollini and Arturo Michaelangeli. If you had mentioned Diana Krall, another one I could fill a room full of ardent detractors, we'd still have a disagreement. And I'd find her "technique" much less accomplished than Alison's. Also, to take note of your address, I do believe they've hung many more people in your area through the years than mine.
Posted on: 30 March 2009 by Sister E.
quote:
Originally posted by mikeeschman:
When you first develop an interest in classical music, and begin the search for the music that speaks to your soul, one of the issues that is brought into stark relief is the issue of performance practice. If a performer's execution is less than perfect, but his conception of the piece is illuminating, how does that affect the value and the meaning of the work itself?
In other types of music, this issue is generally not paramount, because performers of other musics typically do not develop the range of technical mastery that is typical of classical musicians.
But it is a central issue in performances of classical music, precisely because some performers have literally achieved perfection. In achieving that perfection, have these performers diluted, distorted or otherwise damaged the musical meaning of what they play?
The first thing that occurs to me is that a player who plays perfectly has the option of playing any music they like, any way they see fit, whereas a player with technical deficiencies must craft an interpretation with his deficiencies in mind, so that his flaws inflict the least amount of damage to the message of the music. The performance habits of all musicians quickly become second nature, and stamp there character on every performance.
As a listener, i am excited to hear a flawless performance, in part because perfection is an exciting concept that is rarely encountered in human life. I am stunned and elevated to a high state of hopefulness and joy at the appearance of the pristine and flawless.
If I have a central belief that colors and guides every one of my listening sessions it is this : a good performance stands outside time and space in its own sphere of influence, and puts your being in direct spiritual contact with the composer at the moment of creation, with the performer acting as the medium that establishes and allows this communication.
Technical flaws stain that communication. If you attended a performance of Hamlet, and the actor portraying Hamlet spoke with a lisp, you might conclude that the lisp added to the power and the emotion of his performance. If you did, i would call that a wrong-headed idea. For me, clarity in speech is central to the character of Hamlet. It is important for me to hear what Hamlet says.
One of the things that happens when you hear a perfect performance is that your idea of what is possible emotionally in that piece of music is expanded. Broad, dramatic strokes that had moved may seem trite and overblown in the light of perfection. Nuance and subtlety can achieve a finer level of graduation, and stand out clear and undistorted in the perfect performance. This is simply not so otherwise.
For these reasons, the recordings that I cherish most are the perfect performances. Anytime I want to hear a flawed reading, it is available to me. I want to taste, and bask in the presence of the perfect while I can. These perfect performers have elevated their understanding and emotion to a higher plane.
It takes everything to the next level.
Long live perfection :-)
I'm sorry Mike but I think this is, to put it politely, absolute nonsense. If you want "perfection" remove all humans from the chain of music reproduction and get a computer to play it. Perfect, sterile and against everything music is supposed to stand for. Long live perfection(whatever that is)? Long live emotional involvement, spirit and the joy of life -this is what music is supposed to be about. And it applies to all genres, not just classical music.
Yours,
Sister E
Posted on: 30 March 2009 by soundsreal
My vote's with the sister! Well played....
Posted on: 30 March 2009 by Steve2701
Well Mike, I'm sorry, but you are making out that listening to classical is a very 'elitist' thing to do - and those that listen to 'lesser music' or play it are not as accomplished.
‘’When you first develop an interest in classical music, and begin the search for the music that speaks to your soul, one of the issues that is brought into stark relief is the issue of performance practice. If a performer's execution is less than perfect, but his conception of the piece is illuminating, how does that affect the value and the meaning of the work itself?
In other types of music, this issue is generally not paramount, because performers of other musics typically do not develop the range of technical mastery that is typical of classical musicians’’
I have to take huge issue with that statement alone as it is utter rubbish and denigrates all of the work put into practice by other types of musicians.
As for perfection - Sister E above has put it absolutely correctly, just program some computer to play sampled instruments and you will have your perfect, flawless, perfectly timed piece of ‘music’ sans any emotion whatsoever.
As for me getting more enjoyment out of music by sitting on the couch – score propped on my knee, without my shoes & socks on (I only have 8 fingers & two thumbs) - then pressing play on my perfect reproduction system – er, I don’t think so. No matter what the music is.
Posted on: 30 March 2009 by mikeeschman
quote:
Originally posted by Steve2701:
I have to take huge issue with that statement alone as it is utter rubbish and denigrates all of the work put into practice by other types of musicians.
As for perfection - just program some computer to play sampled instruments and you will have your perfect, flawless, perfectly timed piece of ‘music’ sans any emotion whatsoever.
As for me getting more enjoyment out of music by sitting on the couch – score propped on my knee, without my shoes & socks on (I only have 8 fingers & two thumbs) - then pressing play on my perfect reproduction system – er, I don’t think so. No matter what the music is.
my first point is simply that there are more notes per bar of music, generally, in classical music than in other forms of music. there are single bars with more than a hundred notes in them in beethoven's last three piano sonatas.
because there is more to play, and because it's been around for 400+ years, classical musicians spend more time learning to play what they have to play. they have more music to learn.
jazz musicians now face a similar problem.
a computer would literally play every note wrong. fred simon explains it perfectly in the post where he talks about "clams". perfection is regularly achieved by working musicians of every ilk.
reading a score is nice, and can enhance the experience. if you can read a score and don't; so be it.
this music thing is a hobby. hobbies don't need to be defended. you just get what you can out of it, and move on. i think i've been pretty clear in explaining myself. if that's not good enough, so it goes.
the only thing that disappoints in both sister e's post and your own is the absence of a single sentence about the music - something more than just "feel the emotion, feel good!"
isn't that what it's all about.
i'm not here to fight, i'm here to discuss.
Posted on: 30 March 2009 by mikeeschman
quote:
Originally posted by JamieL:
Classical music was not an option open to African Americans in the first half of the last century, so many expressed their abilities in jazz.
There are also certain instruments that virtuosity in classical music is far behind other types of music, drums (as opposed to percussion) and to an extent the guitar.
jazz players have the same problems classical players do, in mastering 100 years of music.
as for other types of music, i have to say i just don't know, because i don't hear much anymore.
i was trying to restrict my comments to classical music, because i spend a fair amount of time there. i didn't want to make a generalization otherwise, but it appears i did.
opps :-)
i consider myself corrected, and hope you think me corrected as well ...
Posted on: 30 March 2009 by Sister E.
Mike,
My reply was all about music and I don't mean notation or the ability to read scores. You seem to be using 1000 words to say basically what could be said in a few, ie that the ability to read music and the understand the grammar of music can aid enjoyment and appreciation.
You seem more interested in telling the world about your abilities to understand every bar of a score than demonstrating any great love of the music itself and what it means to you. And in my view, the words" perfection" and " music " simply shouldn't share the same page.
Sister.
