# Performers who make music sound better than it is



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mark Twain joked that Wagner's music is better than it sounds. Contrarily, I've occasionally observed that music can sometimes sound better than it is (or, at least, can be made more attractive to me) if the right artist is performing it. For example, I have little interest in Portuguese _fado_, but find the voice of Amalia Rodrigues so mesmerizing and moving that while she is singing there is no music I would rather hear. In a more classical vein, much of the music of Bellini and Donizetti doesn't normally hold my attention, but when Maria Callas sings their operas they take on an unaccustomed dramatic power. I could cite many other such examples, such as the virtual transformation of much 18th-century music by contemporary period-practice ensembles.

The question arises: can a performance in such cases make music sound better than it is, or is the music really as good as it can be made to sound, having qualities that most performers simply cannot reveal? What examples would you cite of artists or performances that have altered for the better your perception of music?


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> The question arises: can a performance in such cases make music sound better than it is, or is the music really as good as it can be made to sound, having qualities that most performers simply cannot reveal?


I doubt if someone could make something sound better than it is. So I'd opt for the "or".


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Mark Twain joked that Wagner's music is better than it sounds. Contrarily, I've occasionally observed that music can sometimes sound better than it is (or, at least, can be made more attractive to me) if the right artist is performing it. For example, I have little interest in Portuguese _fado_, but find the voice of Amalia Rodrigues so mesmerizing and moving that while she is singing there is no music I would rather hear. In a more classical vein, much of the music of Bellini and Donizetti doesn't normally hold my attention, but when Maria Callas sings their operas they take on an unaccustomed dramatic power. I could cite many other such examples, such as the virtual transformation of much 18th-century music by contemporary period-practice ensembles.
> 
> The question arises: can a performance in such cases make music sound better than it is, or is the music really as good as it can be made to sound, having qualities that most performers simply cannot reveal? What examples would you cite of artists or performances that have altered for the better your perception of music?











First and foremost, I'd cite Maria Callas' 1953 Florence performance of Cherubini's (or whomever's; given all of the revisions and tamperings to the score) _Medea_. Case in point being the way she performs the ending cut of the opera, "_E che, lo son Medea_."

This is eighteenth-century style music-- but she makes it sound anything but. Her acting out every syllable of text _like her life depended on it_. The completely-original voice inflections she brings to the table to suit every emotional nuance of the drama-- and of course the unrivaled ferocity of the delivery. . . all done with perfectly-executed musical singing; but at the same time, so overpoweringly-_dramatic_, that I forget that its singing at all.

That's verisimilitude of a very high order indeed.

Only a genius like Callas can pull it off.

Dame Gwyneth Jones, for instance, an absolute Straussian powerhouse in her prime, didn't remotely approximate Callas' high-water mark when she did it in the late sixties.









I can listen to Callas' Medea-- infinite and endlessly; whereas I've only listened to Jones' once.

Same score.

Different principals.

It's entirely possible to make something sound better than it is.

That's artistry.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

I was bored to tears with the Four Seasons...mostly thanks to cafes and bookshops everywhere.
The Venice Baroque breathed new life into it for me. A classic example of musicians specializing in period instruments.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Same score.
> 
> Different principals.
> 
> ...


I know it will seem like quibbling, and your example was terrific, but isn't it still a case of:

_is the music really as good as it can be made to sound, having qualities that most performers simply cannot reveal?_

On the other hand, if you argue that the artist actually _changes_ the music to make it sound better than it was originally written - then it is not the same music, is it?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Strange question. Without the performance there is no sound. So before it is performed, a composition is just symbols on paper. So how can you say something sounds better than symbols that have no sound? All that can be done is to compare various performances and interpretations.

For example, I'd rather listen to Coltrane performing the same piece as Julie Andrews.


----------



## Ivansen (Aug 8, 2014)

My take on this is that nothing can be better than it is, as a simple logical statement.

However, if the question is meant to be something like: Can one dislike a piece of music in all but one variation/performance? Or can one read a piece of sheet music, find it poor, and then like a performance. Yes, I think both are entirely plausible, as illustrated by the examples above.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> The question arises: can a performance in such cases make music sound better than it is, or is the music really as good as it can be made to sound, having qualities that most performers simply cannot reveal? What examples would you cite of artists or performances that have altered for the better your perception of music?


I think that a fresh interpretation can help to show people what is already in the music. Even cases such as Marschallin Blair cites above are more bringing out a certain latent side of the work rather than inventing aspects that simply did not exist.

I am frequently amused and frustrated when CD reviewers claim that this or that conductor was able to "make sense" of a poorly structured work simply by changing tempos or emphasis other such things. Without actual alterations to the score, a conductor can't change the structure. If it works, that's because it was always right and an interpretation simply had to be found that fit it. If it doesn't, you can try to smooth it over all you like, but the problems will always be there.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> I think that a fresh interpretation can help to show people what is already in the music.


This is my view. Rather than great performers making music sound "better than it is", I'd say the issue is more with lesser known composers, only available through performances that fail to capture the potential of the music.

I was listening to Rubinstein's 2nd symphony this morning (probably my favorite of his, in the 7-movement version). I love the ideas, but there are moments that seem sloppy, and given the current obscurity of Rubinstein, I'm not sure if this is the fault of his music or the obscure Marco Polo recordings. Interesting to contemplate what some things would sound like at the hands of the BPO or VPO and an acclaimed conductor.


----------



## JACE (Jul 18, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> I am frequently amused and frustrated when CD reviewers claim that this or that conductor was able to "make sense" of a poorly structured work simply by changing tempos or emphasis other such things. Without actual alterations to the score, a conductor can't change the structure. If it works, that's because it was always right and an interpretation simply had to be found that fit it. *If it doesn't, you can try to smooth it over all you like, but the problems will always be there.*


Plato. One. Ideal.



starthrower said:


> Strange question. *Without the performance there is no sound.* So before it is performed, a composition is just symbols on paper. So how can you say something sounds better than symbols that have no sound? All that can be done is to compare various performances and interpretations.


Aristotle. Many. Particular.

I guess I'm saying: How we answer this question depends largely on how we think and feel about music -- and about how we think and feel about EVERYTHING!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Vesteralen said:


> I know it will seem like quibbling, and your example was terrific, but isn't it still a case of:
> 
> _is the music really as good as it can be made to sound, having qualities that most performers simply cannot reveal?_
> 
> On the other hand, if you argue that the artist actually _changes_ the music to make it sound better than it was originally written - then it is not the same music, is it?


Well, Callas would agree with you and not myself. She would always say, following her mentor Tullio Serafin, that everything that needed to be expressed in the text has already been provided for by the music of the composer.

But I think that's a bit demure, myself--- because if that were truly the case, then an unusually perceptive singer like Gwyneth Jones would be able to equal what Callas in fact _did_.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I guess one way of thinking is, a good performer can make you _think_ a piece is better than it is.

When I was really into Satie, I found a lovely piece titled "Prayer." The recording I have is very sensitively played, and it is very peaceful. It was found untitled in a stack of his manuscripts, and the person who discovered it thought it should have that name.

Then some musicologist found out Prayer was not a standalone composition but was actually just the piano accompaniment Satie wrote for some unknown song someone was singing in a cafe. It made me feel silly that I was able to be fooled. But apparently many were fooled with me.


----------



## JACE (Jul 18, 2014)

Manxfeeder said:


> It made me feel silly that I was able to be fooled. But apparently many were fooled with me.


But you weren't "fooled"! Who cares what it was for, how it was intended!

Music is not a machine. If you responded to it, then it was REAL -- which is precisely why Satie gave his compositions such meaningless, absurd names (about fetuses and pears and whatnot; I can't remember the particulars right now!). He was saying the meaning is experienced in the consciousness of the listener. Not on the page, as an _abstraction_.

...I guess I'm betraying my Aristotle/Many/Particulars bias.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Sviatoslav Richter. He makes some Debussy piano music sound better than it is.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

It's an interesting point, and sorry to come back to Callas, but she did have this ability to bring out something in a score nobody had previously thought was there. There is a passage in *La Gioconda* just after she has saved Laura by swapping the poison her husband has given her for a sleeping potion. I always _loved_ this passage in Callas's version, but when I eventually heard it in other performances, it just sounded rather banal and trite. Return to Callas and I get the same thrill from it. Did Callas find something that wasn't there, or was she able to unlock something other singers could not see? It's an interesting conundrum.

Schwarzkopf did something similar in operetta, which she gave no more concession to than if she were singing Mozart. There is a passage, a few words only, in the second act finale of *Die lustige Witwe*, where Hanna realises her little trick has worked and Danilo does indeed love her. _Allein lebt er mich, nur allein_, she sings, and suddenly this short phrase lights up and it sounds for all the world like something written by Richard Strauss. It never sounds quite the same in any other performance.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Sviatoslav Richter. He makes some Debussy piano music sound better than it is.




Go back to talking about Persichetti and nothing else!


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Charlie Parker*

This discussion reminds me of a story my clarinet teacher told me when I was in college.

I have no idea if it was true but my clarinet teacher was a freelance classical/jazz musician from Chicago so it may be accurate.

Parker was performing at a jazz club in Chicago. He was taking requests from the audience. One of the members requested "Chicago, Chicago, Its' My Kind of Town".

After the gig one of the more astute members of the audience approached Parker and asked him why he played such a trite tune.

Parker's response, "Yeah, I know the tune is a real loser. The challenge was to make it swing."


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Without actual alterations to the score, a conductor can't change the structure.


Are you sure? Consider repeats. Solti observed the repeat in the finale of Schuberts Great C Major but didn't in the opening movement, therefore making the finale the longest movement. You can also do it the other way round, making the symphony top-heavy, so to speak.
Or tempo choices. With Bruckner, for instance, slight adjustments in tempo can significantly shift the weight in favour of certain movements. In the 5th, for instance, some conductors extend the adagio to 20 minutes, bringing it closer to the long first and fourth movements. Others keep it at 15 minutes, where the difference is much greater.
Of course, this is just structure in terms of duration of movements.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Andreas said:


> Are you sure? Consider repeats. Solti observed the repeat in the finale of Schuberts Great C Major but didn't in the opening movement, therefore making the finale the longest movement. You can also do it the other way round, making the symphony top-heavy, so to speak.
> Or tempo choices. With Bruckner, for instance, slight adjustments in tempo can significantly shift the weight in favour of certain movements. In the 5th, for instance, some conductors extend the adagio to 20 minutes, bringing it closer to the long first and fourth movements. Others keep it at 15 minutes, where the difference is much greater.
> Of course, this is just structure in terms of duration of movements.


All of these amount to differences in interpretation rather than structure, although interpretation certainly affects the way we hear the structure of a work.

Take the first movement of Bruckner's Third for an example. Tintner takes it at a relatively slow tempo, so the movement lasts half an hour, while Young and Inbal take it at about 23 minutes. The structure of the movement itself holds up either way, and it still bears approximately the same relationship to the rest of the movements. Now, with any performance of the revised version, especially the later one, the movement's structure is compromised and it feels weakened no matter what tempo is chosen.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Well, Beecham was famous for taking admittedly second tier works and making them sound better than anyone else was able to. I have no ideas if that counts as making music sound better than it is or not. But making an otherwise pedestrian piece sound fesh and likable has to be some sort of talent.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> All of these amount to differences in interpretation rather than structure, although interpretation certainly affects the way we hear the structure of a work.
> 
> Take the first movement of Bruckner's Third for an example. Tintner takes it at a relatively slow tempo, so the movement lasts half an hour, while Young and Inbal take it at about 23 minutes. The structure of the movement itself holds up either way, and it still bears approximately the same relationship to the rest of the movements. Now, with any performance of the revised version, especially the later one, the movement's structure is compromised and it feels weakened no matter what tempo is chosen.


Yes, my point referred to the macro structure, so to speak. In which case Bruckner is perhaps not as good an example as I thought, since given the vast dimensions of his symphonies, getting a feel for the overall structure is probably difficult either way.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Couac Addict said:


> I was bored to tears with the Four Seasons...mostly thanks to cafes and bookshops everywhere.
> The Venice Baroque breathed new life into it for me. A classic example of musicians specializing in period instruments.


I love fresh interpretations of the 4 seasons, because usually they are played so stodgily. Fabio Biondi's performance on the Europa Galante label is another really vibrant interpretation of those pieces.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

So far there seems to be a preponderance of opinion in favor of music being as good as it's finest interpreters can make it sound. But let me propose an example from another performing art, acting. Is it conceivable that a trivial or poorly written play or film, with characters of no great depth, should seem better than it is, and move us more than its action or dialogue would seem to justify, or more than it would were we to read it off the page, when performed by great actors of tremendous intelligence and charisma? Have we not felt this actually occurring when watching stage or screen? And if we have, in what way would our experience of music be similar or different? Is it really inconceivable that an artist - whether actor, singer, or pianist - could bring some dimension to a performance, some dimension of subtlety or depth inherent in their own mind, emotions, and experience of life, which has no necessary source in the work they are performing (the work as written by the playwright or notated by the composer), but which adds to our experience of the work and makes us feel, for the duration of the performance, that that extra quality is part of the work itself? Is it really true that anything a performer can do with, or to, a work of art is actually a part of the work itself? And if a work really must be every bit as profound and moving as it can be made to sound by a great performer, wouldn't it also be true that it must be every bit as shallow and boring as it seems when rendered by a poor one?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> So far there seems to be a preponderance of opinion in favor of music being as good as it's finest interpreters can make it sound. But let me propose an example from another performing art, acting. Is it conceivable that a trivial or poorly written play or film, with characters of no great depth, should seem better than it is, and move us more than its action or dialogue would seem to justify, or more than it would were we to read it off the page, when performed by great actors of tremendous intelligence and charisma? Have we not felt this actually occurring when watching stage or screen? And if we have, in what way would our experience of music be similar or different? Is it really inconceivable that an artist - whether actor, singer, or pianist - could bring some dimension to a performance, some dimension of subtlety or depth inherent in their own mind, emotions, and experience of life, which has no necessary source in the work they are performing (the work as written by the playwright or notated by the composer), but which adds to our experience of the work and makes us feel, for the duration of the performance, that that extra quality is part of the work itself? Is it really true that anything a performer can do with, or to, a work of art is actually a part of the work itself? And if a work really must be every bit as profound and moving as it can be made to sound by a great performer, wouldn't it also be true that it must be every bit as shallow and boring as it seems when rendered by a poor one?


Finally, a catechism I can _believe_ in; and so beautifully articulated._ ;D_


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

This may be a facile response but I think that if a performer/orchestra/conductor extracts something special of a certain work, it is because that something special is inherent to the music. It may not have been revealed up until that peformer/orchestra/conductor revealed it, but it has indeed been there in the music ever since the composer inked the notes on paper.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> which has no necessary source in the work they are performing


You make a great argument, Woodduck. I guess my quibble is with the phrase above. If it has no necessary source in the work they are performing, then it seems that the actor must be altering or transforming the work in some way so that it is no longer the product of the writer, but more of a collaboration between author and performer. In that case, it does not sound better than it is - it sounds like what it is - something different.

But, this is nitpicking of the highest order. So, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> So far there seems to be a preponderance of opinion in favor of music being as good as it's finest interpreters can make it sound. But let me propose an example from another performing art, acting. Is it conceivable that a trivial or poorly written play or film, with characters of no great depth, should seem better than it is, and move us more than its action or dialogue would seem to justify, or more than it would were we to read it off the page, when performed by great actors of tremendous intelligence and charisma? Have we not felt this actually occurring when watching stage or screen? And if we have, in what way would our experience of music be similar or different? Is it really inconceivable that an artist - whether actor, singer, or pianist - could bring some dimension to a performance, some dimension of subtlety or depth inherent in their own mind, emotions, and experience of life, which has no necessary source in the work they are performing (the work as written by the playwright or notated by the composer), but which adds to our experience of the work and makes us feel, for the duration of the performance, that that extra quality is part of the work itself? Is it really true that anything a performer can do with, or to, a work of art is actually a part of the work itself? And if a work really must be every bit as profound and moving as it can be made to sound by a great performer, wouldn't it also be true that it must be every bit as shallow and boring as it seems when rendered by a poor one?


Is even a bad pizza good? :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> Is even a bad pizza good? :lol:


Only if baked by Maria Callas.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Only if baked by Maria Callas.


Or served by Klemperer.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

If it has Limberger and sauerkraut on it, forget it. We're trying to be serious here.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> If it has Limberger and sauerkraut on it, forget it. We're trying to be serious here.


Kraut yes, limburger DEFINITELY NOT. :lol:


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

I love it when a conductor is able to put emphasis on essential long term parts of a work, especially in symphonies. This is what separates the good performances from the great ones.

One thing I posted in the current listening thread recently was Mahler 4 Ricardo Chailly Barbara Bonney, and one thing that really impressed me was a certain connection in the first and fourth movements. There is a polarizing E minor horn solo in the middle of the development section of the first movement, and a similar E minor horn solo comes back in the first orchestral interlude in the song final movement. Both horn solos are played with such incredible force and emphasis, and, most importantly, _similar_ force and emphasis so that it is an important "deja vu" moment. It's like we go straight back to the lingering uncertainty and terror that was hinted at in the first movement. Other conductors do not do this as powerfully.

Of course, as people are saying on this thread, this is a connection that was already there in the composition itself, but nevertheless was so well emphasized here in the performance.

One thing that's a bit controversial but in my opinion certainly possible is that a conductor can bring out connections that the composer didn't think of. I mean, of course the composer is aware of the unity of the work and the notes he wrote, but often it's not always clear how that unity is best brought out. For example, in Tchaikovsky 5, the motto theme is clear and present in all four movements (especially in the last movement), but how does one best conduct it in each time its heard to bring out it's maximum effectiveness and role in a linear emotional narrative? That's never an obvious thing, even probably to Tchaikovsky himself.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I read somewhere that most composers are appalled on first hearing their works performed. The interpretation is never anywhere near what they intended. I don't know if that holds true when for instance the composer is also conducting, but it stands to reason a composer may not be the best interpreter of a work any more than a songwriter necessarily is. 

As to which works sound better than I once thought they were, I've gone on record as almost hating Mozart. But goodness me! When Mitsuko Uchida plays his piano music it is profoundly moving.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Is it really inconceivable that an artist - whether actor, singer, or pianist - could bring some dimension to a performance, some dimension of subtlety or depth inherent in their own mind, emotions, and experience of life, which has no necessary source in the work they are performing (the work as written by the playwright or notated by the composer), but which adds to our experience of the work and makes us feel, for the duration of the performance, that that extra quality is part of the work itself?


Why does it have to be "extra"? Are the feelings you mention due to our own particular circumstances at the moment, or are they due to the performer's interpretation itself?



Woodduck said:


> Is it really true that anything a performer can do with, or to, a work of art is actually a part of the work itself? And if a work really must be every bit as profound and moving as it can be made to sound by a great performer, wouldn't it also be true that it must be every bit as shallow and boring as it seems when rendered by a poor one?


This is posed as being a difficult question, but I don't see it as a problem at all. A good performer is able to realize what is in the work already, or else substitute for it with their own personal talents. A poor performer is unable either to realize what is in the work or to bring much of anything else to its realization.

A work is not made any worse by having a new interpreter that is worse than any previous interpreter. That seems ridiculous.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

The argument that if a performance of a supposedly lesser piece of music makes the piece shine that the shine was 'always in the piece,' is I think taking an academic premise of logic a bit too literally, especially when performers are involved. Performers have, it is to be hoped, all the requisite technique and musicianship, but those same qualities which make one performer that much more remarkable over another with the same technical skills -- innate charisma, a palpable power to communicate -- has that performer also more than able to 'bring more to the score than is inherent in the score.'

Ask just about any relatively experienced performing musician: it is entirely possible with all the tricks of the trade, _and imagining /acting - believing the piece to be of more interest and depth of 'intent' than it is,_ to bring extra -- as in external / outside of -- qualities to a score which is lacking in either musical interest, integrity or 'content.'

Similarly, a performer can also -- via a tremendous application and manipulation of technique -- bring remarkably good sound forth from an instrument which has very little good quality to offer, and no, some of this is _*mental projection,*_ nowhere implicit or explicit in the score.

A standard challenge for a player in training is to render some of the most doggedly academic and uninteresting pieces of music (usually etudes -- for pianists, the Czerny Etudes often are cited in this context) with as much musical aplomb as possible. This _is_ one aspect of the craft expected of a good player and all pros -- the playing of dull or lesser pieces in such a way that what is brought to it makes up for the lack.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Weston said:


> I read somewhere that most composers are appalled on first hearing their works performed. The interpretation is never anywhere near what they intended. I don't know if that holds true when for instance the composer is also conducting, but it stands to reason a composer may not be the best interpreter of a work any more than a songwriter necessarily is.


This does seem to be a common experience, though I'm always happy to read about composers who were deeply affected by performances of their own works--who felt that a given conductor, orchestra, or performer _really_ understood them. Shostakovich, for example, occasionally broke down in tears when he heard his own works played well--as when Karajan and the Berliners played his 10th symphony in front of him. Though he wasn't given to such gestures, he even got up onto the stage to embrace the maestro. Mind you, this wasn't a first performance.

As to the thread's question, I'd say Richter playing Schubert's G major sonata. Not sure anyone knew quite what was in that work till this magical pianist brought it out--perhaps including Schubert! Richter himself wouldn't like my saying this, of course: he claimed, very plausibly, that it was up to performers to play the notes as written, period.

And yet I'm not always sure where Schubert ends and Richter begins when I listen to the sonatas.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

As a counter-example: Many poets reading their own work actually make the poems sound less good than they really are.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

PetrB said:


> The argument that if a performance of a supposedly lesser piece of music makes the piece shine that the shine was 'always in the piece,' is I think taking an academic premise of logic a bit too literally, especially when performers are involved. Performers have, it is to be hoped, all the requisite technique and musicianship, but those same qualities which make one performer that much more remarkable over another with the same technical skills -- innate charisma, a palpable power to communicate -- has that performer also more than able to 'bring more to the score than is inherent in the score.'
> 
> Ask just about any relatively experienced performing musician: it is entirely possible with all the tricks of the trade, _and imagining /acting - believing the piece to be of more interest and depth of 'intent' than it is,_ to bring extra -- as in external / outside of -- qualities to a score which is lacking in either musical interest, integrity or 'content.'
> 
> ...


There seems to be a line. On one side, if someone says that the "shine" was always in the piece, that somewhat takes away from the virtuosity of the performer who revealed that shine. On the other side, if someone claims that it was the performer to make it sound _better than it actually is_ (to use the OP's way of putting it), that would detract from the composer and his/her work.

I do feel that the shine is in the piece, but after reading your post, I agree with you that that's perhaps taking that premise of logic too literally. As you say, the human element, the charisma, communication, etc. is not something to be taken lightly as it is vital to classical music where there are countless musician ensembles and performers playing the "same" piece of music.

On the flip side, to take your example, can we say that after a great performer with charisma, communication powers and other intangibles has brought a "dead" piece to life, that the composer and the composition also deserves a bit of that praise?


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

I think that there exist very good partnerships of performer and composer, which make the performer and composer both sound better than they usually do.

Is that "better than they actually are"? Depends on whether you think we are our true selves when we're with our favorite companions, or whether those companions make us better than we actually are.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Performers have, it is to be hoped, all the requisite technique and musicianship, but those same qualities which make one performer that much more remarkable over another with the same technical skills -- innate charisma, a palpable power to communicate -- has that performer also more than able to 'bring more to the score than is inherent in the score.'
> 
> Ask just about any relatively experienced performing musician: it is entirely possible with all the tricks of the trade, _and imagining /acting - believing the piece to be of more interest and depth of 'intent' than it is,_ to bring extra -- as in external / outside of -- qualities to a score which is lacking in either musical interest, integrity or 'content.'


But this begs the question: couldn't they bring the same to any score? In other words, they're not bringing extra value to a score that has little so much as bringing the same amount of value in a probably more noticeable way as they would to any piece.

A poor piece well-performed can definitely be more enjoyable than a masterwork massacred.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> A poor piece well-performed can definitely be more enjoyable than a masterwork massacred.


I would go a bit farther. I would say that a poor, or merely lesser, work performed by a musician with imagination, personal charisma, and a beautiful tone, can be more enjoyable than a masterwork performed "correctly" but without those qualities (which admittedly might be viewed as a massacre by some). To say that a great actor could move us reading the telephone directory may not be fanciful, and I would rather hear Elisabeth Schwarzkopf sing Christmas carols than Deborah Voigt sing Brunnhilde (both of which I actually have heard). As a vocal student and performing musician (voice and piano), I believed that my job was to make whatever I played or sang interesting and worth hearing, whether I thought it was interesting or not. A single note, or any sequence of notes no matter how brief or trivial, can be brought to life through tone quality, dynamic variety, and the manner in which notes are attacked, released, and bound together. If a piece of music suggests to me various ways in which this can be done, and seems to call for a rich variety of expressive effects, I judge the piece to be rich in inherent meaning and value and I try to do it justice. But even if the piece seems superficial or obvious, interesting only on the surface or not interesting at all, I must still draw upon my knowledge and skill in the language of musical expression to make the piece say something and to make my listeners feel something in response to it. A pianist who accompanied me once paid me the compliment of saying that I never produced an unfelt sound; and although I can't believe I was ever that good, I do think that the irresistible impulse, and the unfailing ability, to make sound as such say something - regardless of the particular qualities of the music being performed - is the mark of a true musician.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I would go a bit farther. I would say that a poor, or merely lesser, work performed by a musician with imagination, personal charisma, and a beautiful tone, can be more enjoyable than a masterwork performed "correctly" but without those qualities (which admittedly might be viewed as a massacre by some). To say that a great actor could move us reading the telephone directory may not be fanciful, and I would rather hear Elisabeth Schwarzkopf sing Christmas carols than Deborah Voigt sing Brunnhilde (both of which I actually have heard). As a vocal student and performing musician (voice and piano), I believed that my job was to make whatever I played or sang interesting and worth hearing, whether I thought it was interesting or not. A single note, or any sequence of notes no matter how brief or trivial, can be brought to life through tone quality, dynamic variety, and the manner in which notes are attacked, released, and bound together. If a piece of music suggests to me various ways in which this can be done, and seems to call for a rich variety of expressive effects, I judge the piece to be rich in inherent meaning and value and I try to do it justice. But even if the piece seems superficial or obvious, interesting only on the surface or not interesting at all, I must still draw upon my knowledge and skill in the language of musical expression to make the piece say something and to make my listeners feel something in response to it. A pianist who accompanied me once paid me the compliment of saying that I never produced an unfelt sound; and although I can't believe I was ever that good, I do think that the irresistible impulse, and the unfailing ability, to make sound as such say something - regardless of the particular qualities of the music being performed - is the mark of a true musician.


If musical or literary texts were completely self-interpreting, then a computer-generated 'read-to-text' version Shakepeare's_ Henry V_ "Saint Crispin's Day Speech" would be as dramatically compelling as a reading by Laurence Olivier or Christopher Plummer.

Who needs Maria Callas when you have metronome markings?


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Can performers make music sound better than it is? Yes, they can. As has been said above, indifferent poetry or plays can move an audience when recited or acted by people who know how to use their voices. And history shows that 'fashions' make us silly - we think things are fabulous and are truly moved, but looking back on such things, we cringe, when it's no longer cool. 

'There's nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so', & I agree with those who say that the question should be 'can performers make us think music is better than it is', but the idea is inherent in the original question anyway - it must 'sound better' to an audience made up of beings influenced by atmosphere, fashion, crowd emotions etc. 

Not to say that a piece of music dismissed as hackneyed and unsubtle may not have hidden beauties that have never before been brought out, and were inherent in the piece. Or the original critics may have been right.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> If musical or literary texts were completely self-interpreting, then a computer-generated 'read-to-text' version Shakepeare's_ Henry V_ "Saint Crispin's Day Speech" would be as dramatically compelling as a reading by Laurence Olivier or Christopher Plummer.
> 
> Who needs Maria Callas when you have metronome markings?


But the score does not dictate interpretation. Rather, the score is the basis for all possible interpretations.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> Originally Posted by Marschallin Blair
> If musical or literary texts were completely self-interpreting, then a computer-generated 'read-to-text' version Shakepeare's Henry V "Saint Crispin's Day Speech" would be as dramatically compelling as a reading by Laurence Olivier or Christopher Plummer.
> 
> Who needs Maria Callas when you have metronome markings?
> ...


I'm in deeply-moved agreement.

The score's the guideline, but not necessarily the baseline.

Making a musical phrase 'sing' and 'emote' is a tacitly-understood art which comes from one's own experiential realm of intelligence, taste, and judgement. . . and knowing _how_ music affects_ one's self_. These are not qualities which can be quantified and written down with any type of scientific precision as 'instructions'; they're not things that can be formulated, rule-book style like a logarithm.

For instance, by way of illustration--- switching gears and speaking of literary qualities: You can teach someone meter, assonance, rhyme, literary tropes, complex metaphysical conceits, metaphors, iambic pentameter, tetrameter, hexameter, or whatever. . . but it wouldn't necessarily make them a good poet if they followed everything to a 'T' by the rules and tricks of the trade. A distinctly human perception of _what_ to focus on and _what_ to emphasize-- is something that is quite incapable of exact formulation. An art is not a science.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

He could:


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> Andreas: He could.


Interesting non-sequitur.

He could. . . 'what'?


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Interesting non-sequitur.
> 
> He could. . . 'what'?


See title of thread: make the music sound better than it is.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I remain fixed to the premise that performers can't make music sound better than it is.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> I remain fixed to the premise that performers can't make music sound better than it is.


You are well-named, Bulldog! Can a duck take on a dog? Let me try to restate your thought by inverting and expanding it, and tell me if I'm reading too much into it.

"Any musical work, no matter what it consists of, whether a single note or many thousands of notes arranged into an operatic tetralogy, has as much aesthetic excellence, conceptual meaning, and expressive content as any performer can make any listener feel or believe that it has."

"Now just wait a darn minute...!" [voice of Jimmy Stewart]

Still chewing that bone?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I think you've got it. Now I have to get back to my bone (actually two bones).


----------



## Rhombic (Oct 28, 2013)

I've certainly seen performers making music sound WORSE than it actually is. Especially significant memories of a somewhat stuttering R. Strauss Horn Concerto no. 1 (the orchestra was almost sight-reading... a shame if it is compared to the rest of the repertoire) and a really bland and dull Borodin's Symphony no. 2 conducted by Gergiev at the 2013 BBC Proms (Prom 41, if I remember correctly) - now, excuse me for criticising such a master.

In terms of improving the piece, I must only add that it is not improving it, but catching the music in a more sophisticated way, reaching the full understanding of the score and the instruments: actually discovering the proper way of performing that piece of music. Karajan's rendition of Beethoven's seventh symphony is particularly exemplifying.

A new question comes to mind. Does a perfect performance exist, at least in theory? A perfect way of understanding the different instruments' function and importance in the work so as to deduce a perfect performance?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> There seems to be a line. On one side, if someone says that the "shine" was always in the piece, that somewhat takes away from the virtuosity of the performer who revealed that shine. *On the other side, if someone claims that it was the performer to make it sound better than it actually is (to use the OP's way of putting it), that would detract from the composer and his/her work.*


_But that is 'the admitting to' -- i.e. some works actually need every bit of the performer's help, including sham, trickery and deceit, to bring anything from a piece which innately is only a hair worthwhile. With that supplied by the performer, the barely worthwhile and uninteresting becomes worthwhile and interesting to the audience.

The lesser music needing this is not so uncommon. The ability of the performer to transcend the shortcomings in the quality of the writing in the score is somewhere in between "not a miracle, not rocket science, but very much a reality which creates (auditory) illusions" -- there you go. "Magician," while being very conscious there is a trick to it _


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Rhombic said:


> A new question comes to mind. Does a perfect performance exist, at least in theory? A perfect way of understanding the different instruments' function and importance in the work so as to deduce a perfect performance?


The notion of a "perfect" or ideal performance is based on the premise that a musical score is a complete blueprint or exhaustive visual representation of a piece, needing only to be read and comprehended thoroughly and executed perfectly for that definitive performance to result. That premise is wrong. No system of written symbols can ever define or delimit the actual sound of music as performed by a sentient, intelligent, feeling human being. If it could - if the art of musical composition and performance were ever to become an exact science and musicians were judged by precise objective criteria - music as we have known and loved it would die.

I would rather die first.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> The notion of a "perfect" or ideal performance is based on the premise that a musical score is a complete blueprint or exhaustive visual representation of a piece, needing only to be read and comprehended thoroughly and executed perfectly for that definitive performance to result. That premise is wrong. No system of written symbols can ever define or delimit the actual sound of music as performed by a sentient, intelligent, feeling human being. If it could - if the art of musical composition and performance were ever to become an exact science and musicians were judged by precise objective criteria - music as we have known and loved it would die.
> 
> I would rather die first.


Very well said. If I may add this passage which seems very relevant to this matter, it's from a Tom Service article, "_Classical music... above all, of course, the repertoires of anything composed in the pre-recording era - was never meant to be turned into a single perfected realisation of anything: these musical "works" - whether they're Bach's Passions or Mendelssohn's symphonies or Chopin's piano music - are more like assemblages of musical possibility, which exist as the sum total of their scores, their editions, their range of interpretative choices, and even their range of representations in writing, thinking, and listening to and about them."_

The article - http://www.theguardian.com/music/to...lassical-music-recording-industry-paul-morley


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> If I may add this passage which seems very relevant to this matter, it's from a Tom Service article, "_Classical music... above all, of course, the repertoires of anything composed in the pre-recording era - was never meant to be turned into a single perfected realisation of anything: these musical "works" - whether they're Bach's Passions or Mendelssohn's symphonies or Chopin's piano music - are more like assemblages of musical possibility, which exist as the sum total of their scores, their editions, their range of interpretative choices, and even their range of representations in writing, thinking, and listening to and about them."_


While I agree with that, I do have the feeling that I've come across recordings of certain works that compell me to believe that there couldn't be another recording more to my taste. These aren't "single perfected realisations" in an objective sense, cause there can't be any. But there are recordings that have spoiled me forever, and every other recordings of the same work is a disappointment and seems "wrong". This is not even a case of narrow-mindedness but rather of having experienced an overwehelming feeling of identity of something with oneself.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Andreas said:


> While I agree with that, I do have the feeling that I've come across recordings of certain works that compell me to believe that there couldn't be another recording more to my taste. These aren't "single perfected realisations" in an objective sense, cause there can't be any. But there are recordings that have spoiled me forever, and every other recordings of the same work is a disappointment and seems "wrong". This is not even a case of narrow-mindedness but rather of having experienced an overwehelming feeling of identity of something with oneself.


I think your experience is common. I have such feelings for certain performances too. I've noticed, though, that my convictions about how a performance "should" go have loosened up over the years, as have my convictions about how life itself "should" go, and my convictions about a lot of things. The performance that seemed ideal to me ten or twenty years ago may not seem so now. In my teens and twenties I was always searching for that perfect interpretation, comparing and ranking recordings according to how nearly they approached my ideal. Forty years later, though I still have preferences and a few (but very few) performances I hold as incomparable, I am eager to be surprised by new interpretations of familiar works which will enable me to hear them in ways I hadn't considered. But I really can't say whether this is more a matter of becoming more open in my old age or of getting tired of the same old same old. Both, I imagine.


----------

