What, Actually, Is a Bad/Wrong Performance?

[Spotted Horses]

I can't say I know that performance - but to take Lenny's Nimrod as an equivalent; for sure it pushed the boundaries/norms for the piece as "usually" performed but it is not diametrically different from the score indications which was what I meant.

Bernstein's Enigma Variations was the first recording of that piece I had ever listened to. I liked it, and didn't realize that there was anything "wrong" with it.

Thinking of it makes me nostalgic, because in those days getting a new CD was an event!

[Florestan]

Please give me an example of a bad action and an example of wrong action, and explain what makes it bad or wrong.

As a rule of thumb, a bad/wrong action is one which results in one or more human beings being directly harmed, either physically or morally.

Stealing, killing, raping, libelling --- these are examples of bad/wrong actions. (I haste to add that a starving person stealing food, or a soldier killing an enemy in war combat are ambiguous cases and might not qualify).

It's not limited to humans, actually. Gratuitous cruelty against animals is also bad/wrong.

[Florestan]

I remember there being a particular way a specific passage was played in the first recording I had of Schubert's 9th (and separately Mozart's 35th).  When I heard other recordings I was unhappy that nobody else played it that way.  It took me awhile to appreciate that it was probably just played wrong in those first recordings, and I liked how it was played wrong.

Not wrong, just different.

[Florestan]

Imagine someone who has given his life to correct performance - one with nothing inconsistent with the score. There are musicians like this - I think Leonhardt was one, and Toscanini was another.

For these people, correct performance has a structuring role in their lives, just as avoiding human suffering has a structuring role in your lives. Though of course, they may well agree that harming people is much more serious.

That's why they can say that, for them, playing the music in a way which is inconsistent is bad - and I think they mean that it's a bad performance.

They can very well say that. But once again, what for them is bad/wrong, for other people is good/right, and viceversa. There is no criteria to decide who is right and who is wrong other than the personal, subjective preference/pleasure of a specific, flesh-and-blood listener --- iow, there is no right or wrong, bad or good performance in the abstract, per se, qua performance; it's always good or bad, right or wrong for someone.

[Brian]

A bad performance is a performance in which the performer failed to achieve what he or she was trying to achieve, which is itself subjective or perhaps best judged by the performer. 99% of the time when I read a performance is bad, it seems to me that what is being described is a performance that the person commenting simply didn't like.

Though I like this definition, I would add that unfortunately there are still some cases (empty virtuosos, artists hired to record super-obscure repertoire) where the performer may not have any artistic goal in mind to achieve besides getting from start to finish. Even in the case of some great artists - there's a discussion in the Gieseking thread about the pianist seemingly (?) sight-reading scores without any time to consider his approach to the music. (I haven't heard the recordings; just bringing them up.)

[Mandryka]

They can very well say that. But once again, what for them is bad/wrong, for other people is good/right, and viceversa. There is no criteria to decide who is right and who is wrong other than the personal, subjective preference/pleasure of a specific, flesh-and-blood listener --- iow, there is no right or wrong, bad or good performance in the abstract, per se, qua performance; it's always good or bad, right or wrong for someone.

I deleted that post. I've learned the hard way not to try and do philosophy on line, it just always ends up with misunderstandings and ad hominem ripostes.

[Florestan]

I deleted that post. I've learned the hard way not to try and do philosophy on line, it just always ends up with misunderstandings and ad hominem ripostes.

I am not aware of any ad hominem that I directed at you, Howard --- but if you felt insulted I apologize, it was completely inadvertent. 

[Florestan]

empty virtuosos

Such as...? 

[Mandryka]

I am not aware of any ad hominem that I directed at you, Howard --- but if you felt insulted I apologize, it was completely inadvertent. 

No that's not what I meant. No need for you or anyone else here to feel they have upset me. Far from it!

[Brian]

Such as...? 

I don't think many achieve a level of international fame; I'm thinking more of fourth-place-at-the-competition types.

[Florestan]

I don't think many achieve a level of international fame; I'm thinking more of fourth-place-at-the-competition types.

Well, such people might be empty virtuosos --- or simply people whose artistic vision is out of tune (pun) with that of the jurors.   

[Florestan]

No that's not what I meant. No need for you or anyone else here to feel they have upset me. Far from it!

I am relieved.

Just to be clear: I have the utmost respect for people earnestly devoted to their artistic vision, such as Leonhardt and Toscanini. Where I respectfully but firmly disagree is in that theirs is the only correct vision.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Anything by Arthur Schooenderwoord.

[Florestan]

Anything by Arthur Schooenderwoord.

Hah!         

[Opus131]

I think a good peformance is whatever is able to bring out all the objective elements in the music to the fore in very sharp relief. After that comes iterpretation and style, which are subjective and a matter of taste (the relativity inherent in intepretative choices can be observed in how many times one's favored interpretation just so happens to be the one that was heard first), where as the ability to bring out all the notes, all the details, the various harmonic and rhythmic elements in an incisive and clear way is purely objective.

A good example for me is to compare the Gulda Beethoven set with that of Gilels. Both performers differ a great deal in both their style as well as their interpretative choices, but one thing they have in common is just how much detail both are able to bring out of the music (and how much of it is purely objective, there is no heavy intepretative layer as one can find for instance in someone like Barenboim).

I consider this for instance to be near perfect playing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAWXMUkWlhM

Which doesn't mean one shouldn't be allowed to disagree with some of his interpretative choices if one is so inclined, but for me it's hard to argue this isn't a GREAT performance, preference in style notwithstanding. 

So following the logic of the argument, i suppose a bad performance is anything that makes a mess or a complete mush out of the structural or logical flow of the various "objective" musical elements of a given work. Notice that this can happen even in the presence of high technical competency, as i think musical understanding is not guaranteed merely because a performer happens to be a virtuoso. Just because your fingers can do dazzling things doesn't mean there's any superior understanding going on in your head.

[KevinP]

I can overlook playing errors so long as it's not an official, major label release. I have a Bach B-minor Mass in which the french horn (which only appears in one movement) hits an absolute klunker. But it's an old live recording that wasn't intended to be released. I brace myself when that point approaches, but I accept it.

I'm more sensitive to issues of musicianship involving playing together. A good example is a pizzicato chord where the players aren't tight and it sounds unrhythmically strummed, or worse: just one player is off. You hear this a lot in amateur orchestras. Even then, you kind of have to accept it; that's what an amateur orchestra is. Another issue is when the players don't hold their notes for the exact same time, with one player cutting off slightly before another, or one fading out and the other cutting off. A good conductor wouldn't let that happen, but they're not all good conductors.

I'm less forgiving with tempo and dynamic choices, but even then I don't dismiss it as a poor performance, just one I don't like.  These are subjective issues, even if they sometimes make you wonder how something marked 'allegro' can be so plodding or a pp so loud.

[Opus131]

I personally always look for the highest and most penetrating level of playing first, then after that i just force myself to adapt to the style of interpretation.

An example is the Talich Beethoven set, the one on Calliope. Their playing is so penetrating, they have such a profound insight into the music, that it is hard for me to set aside, even if the style is a bit of an acquired taste, especially on the early quartets. Luckily of course there's contenders. The 60s Julliard set for the early and middle quartets, the Smetata for the late quarters and so forth, but i still value detail and insight into the structure of the music over style.

[DavidW]

I can overlook playing errors so long as it's not an official, major label release.

That Bernstein BPO Mahler 9.

[Opus131]

For me, a fool, I don't think I've heard a single performance I could or would label bad/wrong, as I've always found something to take away - a sound I haven't heard, a nuance never touched, etc.

Using Beethoven's Piano Sonatas as an example - I enjoy Kuerti just as much as Fisher; Afanasiev as much as Backhaus, Richter, etc.

I think the truly bad perfomers are rarely heard as those never make it as far as actually be able to issue recordings.

At worst, you get competent but not entirely up to par musicians. This is probably one of the reasons this question isn't as simple as some would have it. If you managed to make it into a recording studio, it means you were already a cut above the norm.

During the brief time i tried learning piano, i had one teacher who was one of the best virtuosos in my modest, small town school. I heard him play the Brahms's Rhapsodies once in a recital and his technique was very good but the playing was kinda flat or even sterile. He played expertly but without a single personal touch. That's probably the norm among those who never issue recordings.

I've encountered many recordings i wasn't very fond of during the years but i can't really remember many i would have called truly "bad". Bad players just wouldn't make it that far.

[Luke]

I was listening to this atrocity the other day (in a different edition) and would beg to offer an example of a CD which speaks to the contrary of the above couple of posts............