What Makes a Performance a Performance?

[Essyne]

I heard an argument that a performance was not a performance w/o any type of audience.

Thoughts?


EDIT: ^ lol, no other way to really word this prompt. . . hope it doesn't sound too ignorant/"unintelligent" for the PS gods  .

[indutrial]

I heard an argument that a performance was not a performance w/o any type of audience.

Thoughts?


EDIT: ^ lol, no other way to really word this prompt. . . hope it doesn't sound too ignorant/"unintelligent" for the PS gods  .

If you're a schizophrenic or an otherwise bipolar personality, playing in a secluded environment could actually be quite the lucrative performance. As long as one has ears, the act of making any sound always implies a self-contained performance.

This post is like an overstuffed pinata just waiting to explode into a crap-ton of faux-philosophical pedantry. It's like that "tree falling in the forest when no one's around" quagmire.

[Essyne]

Well, I believe that one can truly learn from - how did you so generously put it? - "a crap-ton of faux-philosophical pedantry;" although I do give you props for a very, erm, colorful simile. I may view it as quite the lucrative post, so, I assure you (regardless of whether or not you actually need my assurance  ) that it's entirely relevant. One does not have to be so proud as to view any topic of discussion as a personal riff or challenge.

So, back on topic - and all pessimism aside, please, as I am interested in open-minded opinions (although, technically, you have given yours. . . ) - is it still considered a performance if one is not listening to one's self? It may or may not be arguing textbook definitions, but this topic is compelling. Have any of you ever played and just. not. listened.? Been so into the Music that you just don't acknowledge the fact that you are "performing" or "playing" for anyone? Have you ever gone PAST the stage of performance and just. been. Music. personified.? Is that possible? I aim to make it happen.

I must, therefore, conclude that this potential show of pedantry ( ) actually interests me very much.

[Bob]

I suppose there is almost always an audience.  Even if you're performing in your head, you're probably imagining one.

Even for the a recording, there's an audience, at least in theory even if no one ever listens to it.

And if you're performing alone, you're still performing for yourself.  Audience of one.

I suppose I agree then.  There is always an audience.  Unless it's a more general meaning of performance, like a display or showing, but anything could be considered a performance in that case.

If you're not even listening to yourself?  I suppose, but you're still the audience in that case, just an audience that isn't listening.  Possible. 

Music personified?  Yes, possible.  Ideal I suppose.  (Bob supposes a lot.) 

Practicing... to performing... to just being?  Why not?  Although just being the music is still performing to me.  Just a different way of looking at the situation -- A situation where music isn't meant to be performed.  It just is.  Just exists.

I wonder if you could also say it's always practicing?  Even if you're not focusing on fixing things, you're still getting a workout and still making some of progress, esp if you've got extra abilities from the stress of performance -- like 'really' knowing a piece after it's been burned in by a performance.

The original question -- What makes a performance a performance?  Something to perform (fixed of improvised), a performer, and an audience. 

The performer being there could be why just playing a recording isn't quite the same.

I suppose there's an element of uncertainty or uniqueness about each performance too.  Maybe that's part of it.  Although it could just be a CD.  Doesn't have to be live.