Two Types Of Performance

[murathan]

Thats my own idea. It is much argued in Facebook groups. If these two could identified and separated like this, there is no debate actually. There are two types of performance:

1. Show: It is about the player themselves. They play a piece in a Show manner. It involves smiling, costume, hat etc. and aims an impact to the audience in every way. They are short, generally speedy or a well known piece. Public tend to like this type of performance.

2. Concert. Or documentation/archive performance. It may involve / promote the artist in the end but the main purpose is the music itself. There is no need and purpose of show there. Thats not personal.

There are different mixes of these two but every performance could be evaluated like this. Because of social media and internet culture, even symphony orchestras adding show parts in their concerts in these days, to "connect" with the audience in a way.

 

[Frank Barocco]

Very interesting categorization.

The way I see it, some genres of music are naturally more showy, with rock artists almost as a rule having to have what they would call "stage presence" and if they have a guitar half the time even "airf*cking". Not without exceptions but it's the trend. A lot of them go out of their way to accessorize like peacocks.

In many other genres there is a lot of variation. As a psychologist, I observe a lot of the player's personality in it. Some people are more introverted and play without exuberant movements and without drawing attention to themselves and without dressing to make a statement, rather putting the spotlight on the music. Others are expansive and exhibit exuberant and extravagant movements and facial expressions (which, personally, to me is always off-putting and cringe-worthy). I find it hard to understand how some movements could help the execution of the piece - some movements appear to be the opposite of efficiency (throwing your arms around, almost falling from the chair, and headbanging). With classical music to me that appears borderline offensive, but that is just me.
I read in the past that some people in audiences are caught by that especially if they would otherwise be bored by the music itself, and it supposedly helps those audience members connect with the emotions of the piece. To me it has the opposite effect. I don't need the player to show me which emotions to feel, just like I don't need a laugh track on a sitcom to know when to laugh. If the scene was funny I'll laugh. If the music is touching I'll feel it.

In accordion jazz I see that same degree of variation - some play efficiently and without much body/facial expression even if the music is expressive, and others move a lot. Though Art van Damme is my favorite jazz accordionists in terms of music, his occasional airf*cking is unseemly to me. We know you're good and that you love the music, Art.

 

[murathan]

I believe all unnatural mimics will make a negative effect to the advanced listener while it gives some entertainment to the others. Music is about reflecting ideas with sounds. The market wants more than that. They want it to be a lifestyle in Rock music for example. There is always a visuality problem in music I guess. People likes what they see than what they hear. Its understood again in YouTube music videos. Doesnt matter how good or bad a music is, YouTube says people are here to watch.

 

[Caps]

. To me it has the opposite effect. I don't need the player to show me which emotions to feel, just like I don't need a laugh track on a sitcom to know when to laugh. If the scene was funny I'll laugh. If the music is touching I'll feel it.

Ewww Laugh Tracks - I really really hate them. I will often turn off a show if it has a laugh track - I find them both disturbing and insulting.

 

[murathan]