The Great and the Good
Is it possible to define what separates truly great performances from merely very good ones?
Mark Wigglesworth 12:35pm GMT 20th July 2012
Giving a great performance obviously entails much more than playing all the right notes, or even, as Eric Morecambe would have said, doing so in the right order. Though technical perfection is an essential ingredient, it's only a means to an end, and it’s perfectly possible to transcend the odd inaccuracy simply through the power of commitment and depth of expression. In fact, technique is ideally something an audience is unaware of at the time and in the greatest performances, the performers themselves can seem almost invisible.
There are some performances where every note matters and every silence re-focuses the intensity. Every nuance is explored, every shade coloured, every phrase sculpted, every rhythm danced, every line sung, every structure understood, and every drama acted out. The bold and the subtle receive equal value, emotions and logic are portrayed in perfect harmony, and an indefinable meaning and purpose swims alongside a simultaneously free-flowing sense of spontaneity that relegates to the listener’s subconscious the realisation that everything has been thought through.
Great performances push the boundaries of musical ideas to their limits, revealing an all but infinite canvass of expression on which composer, performer, and listener can each play their part. If the lines of what is appropriate are crossed, extremes for their own sake appear mannered. But one should always feel close to the edge - a sense of danger in which anything could happen. Risking failure is an important prerequisite to ultimate success.
Every great performance is unique and a major part of that derives from the artistic honesty of the performer. When performers are consistently sincere, their performances are as unique as they are. You cannot specifically lie of course – it’s hard to pass off a G sharp as an A natural - but listeners sense if at the deepest level musicians are being disingenuous. Disingenuousness comes from disengaging your true self from the performance. Instead you either copy what most people do, and make a musically generic choice, or you copy someone else specifically, and end up with a self-conscious imitation. Neither generates great results.
Most classical music lovers agree which pieces of music are great or not. Not withstanding a wide range of personal preferences of taste, there is a general consensus as to what these masterpieces are. But when it comes to judging performances themselves, there is rarely unanimity. This subjectivity suggests that a significant contribution to great performances are listeners themselves - our receptivity clearly determines how the specific experience will feel. Unfortunately, synchronicity is beyond our control. One can go to a concert with great expectations and end up disappointed just as often as one can be swept off one’s feet by something for which one was completely unprepared. So though the performer’s contribution might be definable, it's hard to say what it is about the particular mood of a listener that turns something memorable into something unforgettable. The crucial component that listeners bring is as mysterious and unpredictable as the human spirit itself.
Comments
Sadly contentfree. Anyone can write generalities like this. Without examples showing how one performance excels and another bores this is mere mind doodling.
Mark, I commend you on another excellent post. I think dco didn't read you well.
Despite I have some reservations or, maybe I need some clarifications on very few issues you raised, I can comprehend the essence of your views and I can agree with them.
Just to give, however, an example (also to our friend dco): Years ago, when I was young and foolish (as a young beginner), I went to my professor of music with a "new" recording of Shostakovich's first Piano Concerto with a "new and promising" talent. When my professor listen to it, he smiled and then, he made me listen to a recording of a mature old pianist. Then, he asked me if I could see any difference. I admitted that the "old" pianist had this "sparkle" beyond the amazing technic and virtuosity of the "new and promising". Then, my professor told me: "Now, you may realize the difference between an excellent and a brilliant performance" (The Great and the Good).
Parla
How much did Mark get paid for writing this? It was too much.
DCO's comments may be true in a particular sense: not everyone will agree on whether a performance is great. This remains a deeply personal consideration even if most may agree on the question for a given performance.
After an adolescence spent with R&B, blues, and Motown, my violinist roommate at university and his cellist girlfriend took me along to a recital in early 1967: Jacqueline Du Pre and Stephen Bishop, an all-Beethoven program accompanying their EMI recording.
That performance changed my life, propelling me years later to study for a degree in music history and to a career involving study of musical theater. It would be impossible to pin down in exactly what way the performance was great, but Mark Wiggleworth's attempt to address such a question is not in my view 'content-free' - rather, it does demonstrate that after one has exausted all the aspects which most listeners can agree upon in a fairly objective manner, such a judgement remains personal.
Parla, can you remember the name of the artists you describe? I would like to hear them. Thanks.
I disagree that Mark's post lacks content. But at the risk of having my head chopped off, I'm going to stick out my neck and give an example. For me, the Kyrie of Palestrina's Missa Papae Marcelli as sung by Pro Cantione Antiqua conducted by Bruno Turner is a great performance. This performance--using a total of 10 voices: three counter tenors, three tenors and four basses--makes performances by ordinary choirs seem positively bland. The counter tenors have an almost plaintive quality that lends emotion to the words and, because (with counter tenors being the highest voices) the music has to be transposed downwards, the entry of the basses has an almost double-bass growl that is quite spine-tingling. There are also two parts where a counter-tenor voice floats high above the rest. I have no idea whether Palestrina wrote the music like this (I can't hear the same effect with the use of a traditional choir, and it would need a very high soprano) but the effect is extremely beautiful. Please note, before you consider shooting me down in flames, that (unlike other posters here) I can't read music never mind sing or play any instrument.
Aha. The various folks who described performances they consider great are to be lauded. I especially liked Laraine's post but all were worth reading. I think it very difficult to describe performances in a way that conveys their wonderfulness. Harold Schonberg - the late senior music critic of the New York Times - could but he had been honing his art for decades. So kudos to all. I suggest the G start a section on readers' and critics' opinions on best performances - me, to show my bias, revere Josef Hofmann - but no more generalities, just specifics.
hmm, reminder to self - check for grammatical booboos before hitting send.
Thank you, DCO.
What makes a great performance for me is a combination of the work, the artists and conductor, if they are all to a really high or higher than normal standard.
3 great concert performances I recall;
Shostakovitch 15 - Philharmonia/Sanderling (years ago)
Rachmaninov 1 - BBC Phil/Noseda
Sibelius 1 - Concertgebouw/Jansons
(The last two being recent-ish proms)
Mark
I am not a professional in the field but I think that every person evaluated a little different. It depends a bit on the preferences previous knowledge of each one. Someone feels a concert is totally amazing, and the other person just mediocre. It depends on my mood even on a respective day. dco I hope that was not too general.