Technology and The Nature of Performance

If we take the musical score to be central in performance, what factors affect 
the unpredictability of the performances that arise from it, and what can we 
glean from these conclusions?  What is the status of recorded music of whatever 
variety, especially in or as 'live performance'?

First of all, we can assume that there are a potentially infinite number of 
interpretations of any given score, and that these interpretations are based on 
the skill and knowledge of the performer.  For instance, for any given piano 
piece, the range of the infinite number of interpretations will be limited by 
the skill of the performer - if a performer is extremely skillful then the range 
of interpretations will be smaller - in the sense that each performance would be 
more likely to more closely resemble the score and, indeed, other interpretations
 by the same performer.  Interpretations by performers of a similar level of 
skill would be more likely to resemble each other than that of poorly skilled 
performer.  Of course, this would not effect the fact that the possible 
interpretations would still be infinite, but that, if you like, the calibrations 
of this infinity would be narrower.  An unskilled and unknowledgeable performer 
would produce the most unpredictable and random results, (in this case I will 
assume that the person is a willing subject and so will attempt the exercise 
with their best efforts).  What, for instance, would happen if you presented, 
with the instruction 'please play this', the score of a Mozart Piano Sonata to 
someone who could not read music, and perhaps, indeed, had no knowledge of what 
a piano was.  In this case, the response to the score would indeed be 
unpredictable.  If you asked someone who knew what a piano was, but did not know 
how to read music then the result might be more predictable - a faltering and 
inaccurate attempt to interpret the esoteric symbols.  If the person knew how to 
read music but had no experience of playing the piano the results would probably 
be more predictable still.  It can be seen that in this situation that the 
number of possible circumstances that could occur equals the number of people 
alive at any given time - roughly 3,500,000,000.  Of these, the vast majority 
would be of the highly faltering nature reflecting the vast majority of people 
who would be unable to read music.  A significant minority (I would estimate) 
would be slightly, (but not much) better, reflecting the number of people with 
some knowledge of the piano and/or music notation and a tiny minority would be 
highly skilled and knowledgeable in both.

Therefore it is not unreasonble to suggest that unpredictability of any given 
performance of a score is in inverse proportion to the skill and knowledge of 
the performer.  However, is this really the case?  Would anyone attend a 
performance of anything if they knew precisely how it was going to be?  What 
would be the point?  Of course, a skilled performer will vary their performance 
according to the 'interpretation', which may depend on their mood, the 
circumstances of the performance, the audience to whom they are performing, etc.,
 and, as has been mentioned above, within certain guidelines, there are still an 
infinity of performances available, it is just that usually these variations will
 be within fairly strict guidelines: you would not expect to go to a concert by 
a professional musician in which they (genuinely) walked forlornly around the 
instrument not knowing what was expected of them, or attempted to play the score 
upside-down.  You would certainly expect a recognisable performance of the piece 
and quite possibly, depending on your knowledge of the performer and the piece 
itself, you may have a fairly specific  concept of how the piece was going to 
sound.

This introduces another concept - that of the listener.  We can, I think, accept 
that the role of the listener is of equal importance in this situation because 
even if the performer is the only person present, they are presumably fulfilling
 the role of the listener themselves - and this whether or not we choose to 
argue as to whether there is such as a thing as 'performance' or 'interpretation' 
without a listener - we will assume that there is.  If the performer is the only 
listener then presumably the above rules will apply - the expectations of the 
performer/listener will be in accordance with the skill and knowledge of the 
performer/listener, at least approximately.

Therefore, we can reasonably say that the listener  has an equally active part 
in the nature of the interpretation, according to their knowledge and 
expectation.  In a similar way to the performer, a listener who has acquired 
a great deal of knowledge of a particular score would presumably be more 
sensitive to more subtle nuances of interpretation than someone who was hearing 
a performance of the score for the first time.  This makes it extremely difficult
 to say where the true nature of 'interpretation' lies - presumably in a 
combination of score, performer and listener.  And how, then, does this effect 
the nature and value of the inherent unpredictability of the score?

Is Performance the same as Interpretation?
Is it possible to give a good performance that includes a poor interpretation?  
Or a bad performance, but with a good interpretation?  Is this a meaningful 
distinction?

What about the attitude of the listener?

The Quality of Interpretation depends on the skills, knowledge and attitude of 
both the performer and the listener
So, a performer might feel that according to their criteria, they have given a 
good performance.  However, a listener might feel the opposite.  How is this 
possible?

Quite clearly, a listener might pay £200 for two tickets to a concert by a 
reknowned artist.  The listener has all their recordings and considers them 
a fine interpreter of X's music., and the performer has programmed a particular 
favourite of the listener.  The listener awaits the occasion with some 
anticipation and tells all his or her friends, enthusiastically, of how much 
they are looking forward to it.   The listener plans to take his or her fourteen 
year old child to see the performance as an example of, in their opinion, fine 
music exquisitely performed. The listener attends the concert only to discover 
that, because the performer has had a particular personal experience, the 
programme has been changed, but fortunately for the listener, the favourite 
item is still there.  When it comes to this item the performer remarks that, 
due to this same personal experience, he or she has had a revelatory experience 
which has shown them a new way of interpreting the piece.  The performer begins
 to play the piece.

Obviously, much of the way in which the listener responds to the subsequent 
interpretation depends on their own psychology.  They may be more than happy 
to experience a new way of looking at something they know very well.  
Alternatively, they could be horrified that, having spent a lifetime learning 
and developing a particular style and method of interpreting this piece, a 
moment has changed all that and the interpretation is now no better than many 
others that were previously considered only ordinary.  At the same time, of 
course, the listener's child sits, bored to tears and hating every moment of 
what sounds like the same thing he or she has heard and hated a hundred times 
before.  Behind them, the experienced critic writing for a national newspaper 
considers this performance against one they reviewed a few months earlier, and 
behing the critic sits the performer's mother, weeping with joy at the ecstacy 
the performance induces, irrespective of such details as aesthetics, tempo and 
articulation.

Predictability depends on Interpretation/Performance
Clearly none of these interpretations is of necessity more valid than any other. 
 All responses represent different levels of skill, knowledge and attitude.  
They also represent different perceived levels of predictability.  They also 
represent different areas in which predictability is on the one hand, desirable, 
and on the other, undesirable.  In other words, we may want more unpredictability
 in the performance of a piece we find rather dull.  We may want certain, basic 
areas of the music to be unpredictable, but would appreciate a few more 
improvisatory moments when it comes to certain details - we may find that the 
adoption of a certain tempo is not rewarding, but that the way in which that 
tempo moves into another to be interesting.

How Predictable do we want music to be?
Is the nature of Performance Communal or Singular?  Does an audience have an 
affect on a member of the audience/the performance?

What is the status of a recording?
A recording is clearly a particular case in this argument, and, due to its 
comparative modernity, it is difficult to give a particularly strong case about 
it.  In social terms, recording has had a big effect on live performances of 
music, but whether this is to the advantage of live music or to its detriment 
is difficult to determine at the moment. One thing that is clear is that at the 
moment a recording is a static event.  The surrounding acoustic may be changed 
but the recording is static.  If the recording is edited then it is a different 
recording.

Types of recorded sound
There are many methods of recording sound, just as there are many methods of 
recording visual images.  In terms of the technology involved, one of the 
fundamental premises of progress in this area has been to increase the fidelity 
of the reproduction.  In other words, to make it as indistinguishable from the 
'live' sound as possible.

Why do we want to record sound or listen to recorded sound?
In addition to the technology, however, there is an aesthetic point.  Presumably,
 the speed of progress in development of means of sound recording and 
reproduction that are increasingly faithful to the 'original', is a refection 
of considerable demand.  Why does this demand exist?

Recordings of Live Performances/Studio Recordings
	Glenn Gould
	David Deutsh - Virtual Reality
	If we were unable to distinguish between live and recorded sound, what 
effect would it have on our appreciation of music?
	The spectacle of live performance
	The danger of live performance
	The effect of adrenaline on live performance
	Our dislike of deception (miming) - but is 'open' miming any better?
	Use of sequencers/recordings - is this acceptable if done openly?
	Tape music - what is the difference between a tape of a live piece and a 
tape piece?
	The predictability of Taped music - is this desirable?
	Can/do we want to overcome it?
	What about amplification?

Beethoven's Metronome Marks

Composing a Score as opposed to composing a tape piece