Expression in Performing

[Monsieur Croche]

Technique is expression. 

Yet... technique is not all that is going on when a performance is deemed 'expressive.'

Yet... without technique, a performer can not give a phrase a dynamic contour, nor properly articulate the minute things which give a phrase its character. 

It seems a number of listeners somehow equate expression with a performer's overt emoting on stage, or I don't know -- perhaps a specific prowess in the ESP department? :-) 

With intent that others would like to discuss the what, and how, that has instrumental * performers "make the music expressive."
~~~* I've limited discussion to instrumental only, i.e. expressive through instrumental means only,
~~~~ to exclude the textual influence of title, or inclusion of a verbal program, or sung text.
Over to you...

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Technique encompasses an enormous amount of things when performing..

It's more than just 'playing the notes correctly.' From my experience, without good technique a performer will be unable to adequately perform a phrase with their intended musicality because they don't have full control of their sound.

Without good technique, there can be no full control of one's sound. Without full control of one's sound then intended expressivity is lost.

[some guy]

I would have thought that this would be provocative. But it doesn't seem to have done any provoking.

Is everyone simply in agreement with what M. Croche has said here? Jessop and I both are, but surely there are members who differentiate between expression and technique and who have different ideas.

[James]

Technique encompasses an enormous amount of things when performing..

It's more than just 'playing the notes correctly.' From my experience, without good technique a performer will be unable to adequately perform a phrase with their intended musicality because they don't have full control of their sound.

Without good technique, there can be no full control of one's sound. Without full control of one's sound then intended expressivity is lost.

Technique is one thing, but the musical ideas and how they are developed are paramount to that I'd say. It should follow that progression, not the other way around. Come up with an solid idea and figure out how to play it, and more importantly how to build upon it without loosing sight of that seed - so folks listening to you can follow. And play it till it's natural and fully imbedded in your playing, it's like breathing & organic. You can have all the technique in the world but if you don't have anything interesting to state and develop than it's going to sound like that. There is loads of music out there that on the surface seem very technically impressive, but what they say musically is just bullshit; it don't amount to much - it's empty and-or incoherent. It's akin to dropping a bunch of random sentences down that have no relationship to one another, just idea after idea. No one sane communicates like that. And conversely you have players that have very limited vocabularies; marginal, or even crude technique, but they are able to work with what they got and make a strong coherent musical statement with it.

[Florestan]

To paraphrase Einstein

Technique without expression is lame, expression without technique is blind.

Ideally they should go hand in hand but if hard pressed to choose between them, I'll take Cortot's expression over his notoriously less-than-perfect technique, or Lipatti's ailing technique over the expressiveness of his last recital, any time.

[Mandryka]

It's akin to dropping a bunch of random sentences down that have no relationship to one another, just idea after idea. No one sane communicates like that.

It made me think of this poem.  The poem reminds me of Cage's music for some reason

J.H.Prynne's 'Blue Sides at Rest' [2004]

'Partition blurred caloric engine his spiral transfusion

playful to flex, inherent tuneful quantity. Both recessive

to malabsorb, lapse of thought. Neither remembered this,

neck flushed allumette profusion, caressment. Up through

by a turn in apical thrill conveyed to famish, ingenious

breast cured to breathe. Sweet droplets immune in a flurry

laid aside get a shift. Her beveled spectral glide furnish,

unusual: maps to gene margin prior frivolous ought soon

to lift off ransom by choice, cantilena. Flitting under her

breath in catches, bird on briar hydroxy filament he raids

a temper vane limit venture payout. Imitate less. Apart

low rent voices motion entire neighbour despite dowel.'

[Florestan]

J.H.Prynne's 'Blue Sides at Rest' [2004]

'Partition blurred caloric engine his spiral transfusion

playful to flex, inherent tuneful quantity. Both recessive

to malabsorb, lapse of thought. Neither remembered this,

neck flushed allumette profusion, caressment. Up through

by a turn in apical thrill conveyed to famish, ingenious

breast cured to breathe. Sweet droplets immune in a flurry

laid aside get a shift. Her beveled spectral glide furnish,

unusual: maps to gene margin prior frivolous ought soon

to lift off ransom by choice, cantilena. Flitting under her

breath in catches, bird on briar hydroxy filament he raids

a temper vane limit venture payout. Imitate less. Apart

low rent voices motion entire neighbour despite dowel.'

What's the point of this nonsense, I wonder?

If it were 1924 and the whole Dada thing, I'd understand it. But to come in AD 2004 with such babble... 

[PerfectWagnerite]

yeahno kidding, prose like that has gone extinct like the dinosaurs. It doesn't even make any sense.

[Heck148]

I've been performing professionally for over 40 years...it's all about communicating with the listener.

I've always regarded effective and artistic musical performance as a sort of 3 sided affair, somewhat similar to the old YMCA Mind/Body/Spirit idea, without the religious overtones.

"Body" = this is the pure technique, and all that it includes - posture, breathing, hand position, articulation, technical facility, ability to physically play the music as written, all of those physical things that go into performing.

"Mind" = the study, the scholarship, the knowledge of styles, of music history, its development..correct styles and understanding of performance practices and how they've evolved over the years.

"Spirit" - this is the expressive element - finding the drama, the flow of the music, "getting into it"....presenting phrases as part of the complete work, presenting the logic and emotion of that particular composer's efforts in the work you are performing.

all are important - and are really necessary for a great performance - but fine performances may result with different strengths of the elements - ie -
a performance may be note-perfect, totally accurate, sparkling clean technique, flawless rhythm, but without expression, without phrasing, without involvement by the performer - it is totally boring, uninteresting to the listener, and of rather questionable value overall.
an accurate performance played in completely wrong style sounds ridiculous...
OTOH - a performance may be a little sloppy, perhaps not quite perfect in execution, but be loaded with expression, and persuasive phrasing, that grabs the listeners' attention...such a performance may have great musical value, even if not technically perfect. 

[Florestan]

I've been performing professionally for over 40 years...it's all about communicating with the listener.

I've always regarded effective and artistic musical performance as a sort of 3 sided affair, somewhat similar to the old YMCA Mind/Body/Spirit idea, without the religious overtones.

"Body" = this is the pure technique, and all that it includes - posture, breathing, hand position, articulation, technical facility, ability to physically play the music as written, all of those physical things that go into performing.

"Mind" = the study, the scholarship, the knowledge of styles, of music history, its development..correct styles and understanding of performance practices and how they've evolved over the years.

"Spirit" - this is the expressive element - finding the drama, the flow of the music, "getting into it"....presenting phrases as part of the complete work, presenting the logic and emotion of that particular composer's efforts in the work you are performing.

all are important - and are really necessary for a great performance - but fine performances may result with different strengths of the elements - ie -
a performance may be note-perfect, totally accurate, sparkling clean technique, flawless rhythm, but without expression, without phrasing, without involvement by the performer - it is totally boring, uninteresting to the listener, and of rather questionable value overall.
an accurate performance played in completely wrong style sounds ridiculous...
OTOH - a performance may be a little sloppy, perhaps not quite perfect in execution, but be loaded with expression, and persuasive phrasing, that grabs the listeners' attention...such a performance may have great musical value, even if not technically perfect.

+ 1

But then again this is just plain common sense. 

[James]

Finding & having your own voice as a musician helps above all and infiltrates all the levels Heck is talking about, Body, Mind, Spirit (in a broader sense than what he outlines tho) - that go into music making. Being passionate, as opposed to pedantic. And many great ideas & songs that utilize vocals can easily work in a purely instrumental domain - because the strength of the ideas are there and tested proof positive, it's the musicians personal creativity & ingenuity, way with the music, that breath new life into it.

[Pat B]

all are important - and are really necessary for a great performance - but fine performances may result with different strengths of the elements - ie -
a performance may be note-perfect, totally accurate, sparkling clean technique, flawless rhythm, but without expression, without phrasing, without involvement by the performer - it is totally boring, uninteresting to the listener, and of rather questionable value overall.
an accurate performance played in completely wrong style sounds ridiculous...
OTOH - a performance may be a little sloppy, perhaps not quite perfect in execution, but be loaded with expression, and persuasive phrasing, that grabs the listeners' attention...such a performance may have great musical value, even if not technically perfect.

I agree with this completely. Yet whenever somebody writes something like "performance X is technically perfect but emotionally empty," I can't help but read that as code for "I didn't like it but can't describe why." (I may have done this myself once or twice.)

[Monsieur Croche]

To paraphrase Einstein

Technique without expression is lame, expression without technique is blind.

Ideally they should go hand in hand but if hard pressed to choose between them, I'll take Cortot's expression over his notoriously less-than-perfect technique, or Lipatti's ailing technique over the expressiveness of his last recital, any time.

^Two performers who unquestionably had formidable technique. 

The idea of a few wrong notes as 'technique problem or lack' I think came along with the pseudo 'perfection' of recordings, i.e. a synthetic 'every note right' perfection.

A few wrong notes from performers of the caliber you've mentioned is "Just a few wrong notes," or as it goes, "Sometimes a Cigar is Just A Cigar."

P.s. I hold to maintaining that without technique, unless you're gifted with a powerful ability to broadcast via ESP, there is no 'expression' possible.  The criteria for demonstrating it includes listening without watching or seeing the performer, ergo, recordings, or 'in the dark.'

P.p.s. Which Einstein?

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Bad technique results in injuries. Recently I was informed by a pianist that I could wreck my right hand 4th and 5th fingers if I continue playing the piano the way I've been teaching myself! Thankfully she has given me some exercises to do to address this problem.

[Monsieur Croche]

"performance X is technically perfect but emotionally empty."

I feel exactly this way about every Hamelin recording I've happened upon via youtube or an FM station regardless of whatever rep he is playing -- I can recognize/identify that playing within seconds of walking into the room where it is going on. 

Everything is in place, phrasing, articulation, dynamics, technical understanding of the structure; certainly he is one of the more/most accurate of players with a dazzling pyrotechnical ability -- yet, for all that and all that playing, I don't hear any music coming out. ...this one strikes me as a 'music typist at the piano,' and it sounds so lacking to me in any of the essentials that I feel compelled to turn it off.

[Monsieur Croche]

Bad technique results in injuries. Recently I was informed by a pianist that I could wreck my right hand 4th and 5th fingers if I continue playing the piano the way I've been teaching myself! Thankfully she has given me some exercises to do to address this problem.

Teaching yourself how to play the piano =
taking lessons from someone who has nothing but questions and none of the answers.

Laddy, a few exercises quickly given out after a few moments of observation - unless given you by a master pianist / pedagogue - is not going to correct something like that. 

If you were not taken some time with talking about and trying posture and arm alignment, hand position, etc. you could be in just as much trouble as before 'the intervention.'


Best regards.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Teaching yourself how to play an instrument =
taking lessons from someone who has nothing but questions and none of the answers.

Laddy, a few exercises is not going to correct something like that.  If you were not taken some time with talking about and trying posture and arm alignment, hand position, etc. you could be in just as much trouble as before 'the intervention.'

Too true, and this is what I was told by my pianist friend as wel! I did have two years of lessons a few years ago and haven't played anything since (apart from Hanon exercises).

[Turner]

A Chopin mazurka played by Pachmann, Paderewski, Rosenthal, Rachmaninov, Friedman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6IWR60Eizs

Moriz Rosenthal plays a Chopin waltz + some mazurkas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmpbwCCm7Ws, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MStF_PeC-k0

I doubt purists of technique or score-truthfulness would like this very free and flexible approach, yet Rosenthal for example studied with a pupil of Chopin. In many ways this is all quite wonderful, if one doesn´t care about the limits of the sound of historical recordings.


 

[Mandryka]

I doubt purists . . .

What's a purist? Is it a pejorative? Is there a link between purity and (lack of?) expression?

. . . score-truthfulness. . .

Is the idea that those early pianists were being misleading?

[James]

P.s. I hold to maintaining that without technique, unless you're gifted with a powerful ability to broadcast via ESP, there is no 'expression' possible. 

And what of 4'33", or the blank canvas (with the long winded explanations tacked to them) .. I suppose this non-art tries for ESP? They are without any technical requirements, thus nothing is expressed, unless the public are later 'told' what it is supposed to be about with 'words'. A chancer's game.