Body movements : The Opera singer vs The Pianist. What's the deal ?

[m1469]

I realize that body movement for performers has been discussed several times before.  I would just like to ask some questions regarding the comparisons between the study of vocal art and pianistic art.  There are a number of aspects I find interesting.

1.  In vocal music, it is accepted that there is a story.  Movements are trained, expected and accepted in singers to help convey the story of the music.  Even choreographed, including specifics about eye focus and so on.  Vocalists are expected to act.  Why is this un-acceptable in piano performance ?

2.  Just because there are not words in a solo piece of piano music, does it really mean there is not a story that needs to be acted out ?  And why would we as pianists be any less responsible for conveying that story than a vocalist ?

3.  Is our body any less a part of our instrument and even character of a piece as a pianist vs that of a vocalist ?  If so, why ?  If not, why not use it to help us express the music and the story of the music, clearly ? 

4.  Is singing supposed to be more visual than piano-ing ?


I am asking right now because of two things.  I am suspecting that my concept of what I am doing at the piano is in need of a complete hop in roads.  Also, I have been exploring a couple of things.  In person, when I am with people very close to me, I am a very animated with my body.  I use it to express things, especially that of humor.  Also, in singing, one is ideally supposed to use the entire body to express the music.  So, I experimented a little with a Haydn sonata I am working on.  I let myself be in it and my entire body be involved as a character, not just tool.  It was so enjoyable to play and I felt like the music made much more sense and I felt like I was really playing the music using the piano vs sitting there rumbling through notes.  It felt more natural for me as a person.

Now, I realize it will be different for everyone, but, why is movement so tabu with piano when it is not with something such as singing ?  I mean, what's the difference ?  Words are just sounds, just like tones from the piano are just sounds.


m1469

[palika dunno]

thanks for this wonderful thread. I totally agree with you. We're you inspired by Lang Lang to write this?  btw, did you see lang lang live at carnegie hall (the dvd!)?
Im tired to read all those topics like "who can play what an how fast?" thats why I was very happy to read this.

regards
palika 

[bernhard]

I believe this is linked to the concept of “absolute music”, or in other words, music without a programmatic conception.

In Opera (for instance), there is a text, a script, and the music is there to serve the script. But a Bach fugue (for instance) has no specific text or script it follows.

Most composers actively resented the imposition of literal “meanings” onto their music, and most would not title their pieces – and usually disliked when editors did so.

Mendelssohn’s songs without words have all been subtitled by editors/critics, but Mendelssohn himself never endorsed it (apart form 3 or 4 of them where he supplied the title). Same with Beethoven’s “Moonlight” and so on.

This is not to say that such pieces will not evoke all sorts of personal, idiosyncratic and private imagery, but that is exactly the point: such imagery will be personal, idiosyncratic and private, and I for one resent having someone’s else inner evocations slapped at my face. One of the biggest mistakes of my life was to go and see Disney’s Fantasia, since it wrecked forever my enjoyment of those pieces (I cannot listen anymore to Beethoven’s sixth without seeing dancing hippopotamus).

When a pianist starts making faces and exaggerated body movements to point out to me what s/he is feeling/imagining - and by implication what I should be feeling, I resent it, I dislike it, I abhor it. Not only it is rarely convincing (these people are hammy actors at best), as it is often ridiculous and completely turns my attention and concentration away from the music. If I wanted to see musicians stomping their feet to the rhythm, shaking their heads to the beat, or making intense faces to demonstrate how much emotion is going through them as they play, I would go to rock and country music concerts.

I believe that Richter in his old age, got it right: He played in the dark with just a spot light on the score (he stopped playing from memory as he got older). When asked about it by Monsaingeon (on the video “Richter the Enigma”): “what about your face?” he sneered with derision: “My face? What about my face? It is irrelevant”. This way he could move and grimace without it being in any way between the music and the audience.

Of course this is my personal opinion and taste, and for what it is worth, I don't care for opera. (Although I – sometimes - enjoy the music on CD).

And don’t get me started on humming pianists.

(On a completely unrelated side note: Today I saw this book in my local music shop with a provocative title: “Is Language a Music?”)

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[BoliverAllmon]

I agree with Bernhard. I don't like pianists trying to make me feel a certain way when they play. The same thing goes for worship leaders in church. I hate those that try to make something happen. Just let it go and let each person experience it as they will. As for humming pianists. I find that humming is very helpful. It helps with the memory and the over all catabile expression in the music. I do not now or will ever condone humming aloud. Learn to hum in your stinkin' head!!!

boliver

[mrchops10]

Kudos, m1469: this is an excellent way of approaching a topic that is much referred to, but rarely debated. In response, I must disagree with the illustrious Bernhard here in his analysis of absolute and programmatic music. It is interesting he should point of the hippopotamuses in Fantasia's version of Beethoven's 6, because while this is clearly an outlandish image, Beethoven's 6 is an explicitly programmatic work. Though this is rare in Beethoven, here he purposefully provided descriptive titles to each movement, and he himself named the whole thing "Pastorale." Similarly, Czerny is full of programmatic explanations of Beethoven's work stemming from the composer himself: the finale of the Tempest sonata (not Beethoven's name, of course) suggests by the movement of a horse (Beethoven's comment).

Performing a work of music is a little like performing a Shakespeare play, for now let's say Hamlet. Does Hamlet actually go mad? readers always wonder. On the page, the play invites this ambiguity, as well as many others; however, eventually an actor creating the role has to choose whether Hamlet is crafty, insane, or both. It's similar to playing a fugue: we will bring out some voice that appears particularly interesting to us, but at the expense of the loss of importance and intensity in another voice. This quandary doesn't exist on the page, but it does exist in the performance.

Absolute music, "pure" music, in other words, becomes impure the moment we touch it. We bring to it our own story, our own visualizations and emotions. When our story touches the music in the right way, as Bernhard notes, it forever changes the music. Think of pretty much any Stanley Kubrick film in addition to Fantasia; for me, Beethoven's Ninth always carries with it the fiercely ironic image of a man riding a nuclear bomb to global destruction from "Dr. Strangelove." It is unforgettable and terrifying, and always there in the back of our minds as a comment on that symphony, a question of whether man's evolution really brings him closer to Paradise, or to Apocalypse.

The great problem with acting on a stage is that most musicians are so bad at it. This is why pianists, like opera singers, ought to study acting. We have lost touch with this after a century of record listening, which has separated completely the visual and the aural, but the stage is a messy place full of elements, all of which we should use to our advantage and in service to the music. It can be subtle, like Radu Lupu or Rubinstein, or extravagant like Horowitz and Liszt. However, no matter what you feel about him, try not to look like Lang Lang at the piano.

[xvimbi]

I don't think pianists should be acting, as in acting out a pre-conceived story. However, I find it a bit much to expect a performer to not show ANY emotions. The performer is trying to evoke emotions in the listeners. Are we going to forbid the performer to show his/her own emotions? If one does not want to see what the perfomer is doing and get influenced by it, then one can always look somewhere else or close the eyes. Richter's solution is silly in my opinion. Why not turn the audience around or give them blinders? I for one don't mind when performers move around, as long as it is not too much or obviously artificial. I also like it when listeners move with the music; again, not too much. I think it shows that they are listening actively and enjoying themselves, an aspect that has all but vanished from the scene. Everybody is just sitting there, holding their breath. What ever happened to a good brawl during a Mozart concerto or a Berlioz symphony?

[prometheus]

You can only experience music to its fullest with your eyes closed. The signals of the eyes create 'noise' in the brain, disrupting the musical experience.

Things like singing along, moving a bit do help musical experience. But with movement I do not mean dancing. Dancing is disrespectul towards the music. How can you listen if you are thinking about moving your body?

[rc]

I'm with Xvimbi on this one. Especially on how Mozart concerto's lacking the human drama of a good brawl! 

When the mannerisms are artificial it's almost like the performer's trying to catch attention for himself, a "hey, lookit me!" kind of behavior... Resentful.

Unintentional mannerisms though, are usually a result of 'being in the moment', which also shows in the music, which I think is great. A little like when you suddenly realize you've been whistling along to the radio, or find yourself groovin' out mid-groove.

I also agree with Bernhard in the matter of people pushing their interpretations on others, it's terribly inconsiderate. Mannerisms don't really bother my image (half the time I'm not paying attention to the performer anyhow), but when some announcer or critic gives some gushing, detailed, romantic-vomit interpretation on a piece... It makes me angry. Worse is when some jackass has put illustrations of characters in a book, creating a discrepancy between what my imagination is trying to form and what that jerk has put on the front cover!

However, I've never had any movie screw up my image on music, I don't have much troubles seperating the imagery from the music. Usually when something catches my ear I'll completely forget about the movie. One thing I like to do is listen to certain music in different environments, or imagining different little programmes/feelings for the piece... A flexible listening interpretation.

m1469's experiment with her Haydn sonata; I figure that if your body naturally wants to get into the music, it would take more energy to supress that than to just let it happen. If it helps you to get into the music, then that's a great tool. They say it's helpful for musical interpretation to move in relation to the music (flowing motion for flowing music, harsher motions for harsher music...). It's an interesting experiment, I'll have to give it a try sometime.

[m1469]

Well, I am gobbling down all of these responses. 

Here is part of the thing.  I don't personally care whether people actually see my body movements, that's not why I do them.  But, I do wish for the music to sound alive and I want to live inside of the music.

Also, on a fundamental level, how is worrying so much about our movements "technically" any different/better/separated than involving our entire bodies in the expression of the music ?  I mean, should we only physically feel it in our arms, shoulders, hands, fingers, back ?  And then there is this remaining part of our body and our soul which is somehow disconnected ?

(he he... I just had to include the soul  )


m1469

[timothy42b]

m1469,

I have thought about this topic quite a bit.  I am primarily a trombone player.  I only took up piano because my blood pressure had dropped, and my doctor decided I needed maximum possible frustration added. 

On trombone and while singing, I move naturally and unintentionally, a small motioned dance in place.  Almost all performers I know of do this.  A few symphonic players sit motionless, probably they are all deer hunters on the weekend!  Dave Taylor, the fantastic NYC jazz bass trombone player, moves so much I bet he wears out a pair of trousers every gig. 

I think two things at least contribute to this.  One is the pulse, and the other is the room acoustics.  Of course, while playing an instrument or singing, there are fewer constraints on your posture than on piano.  As long as you can get the angle to the mouth correct and enough freedom to get a breath, you can move fairly freely. 

Pulse:  I am realizing slowly that time on trombone is subtly different from time on piano.  For one thing, pianists rarely play with others, and use much more rubato.  For another, I can't start a note instantly like the piano can.  It takes a finite amount of time for me to get my air moving, move my tongue, start my lips vibrating, start the air in the horn vibrating, then finally start the air in the room vibrating.  If I start on the beat I am late.  Hence I must always anticipate.  You can't count it, you have to feel it.  The motion is part of how to feel this.  Yes, of course the motion relates as well to the emotion of the music, if present, but - time is emotion is motion. 

Room acoustics:  Trombone and voice are highly directional.  Room acoustics are a function of a highly complex multipath reflection process.  Your ears are directional AND spatially located.  If you are being attentive, your ears are moving to gather the maximum amount of feedback and allow you to adjust.  Piano is not as directional and you can't influence the timbre or direction in the room as much, so the motion may not be as required. 

Enough babbling, I hope it was somewhat understandable. 

[Nordlys]

Interesting comparison with singers. They are definitely more used to acting out the music than we are.

There seems to be controversy about this. There are gradual differences from sitting completely still (like S. Richter did), to moving the arms and the body in accordance with the rhythm, to being an actor who shows every emotion through the body. This kind of acting was probably more usual in the romantic era, when it was more expected that the pianist should be an "entertainer", in the best sense of the word. Today it is regarded as more suspicious.

But, maybe it depends on the music? For example when playing "theatrical" music like Liszt, wouldn't it look strange to sit completely still? Personally I prefer to see some movements, but it can be annoying when they seem compulsive. Alternating between being very still, to move more, according to the music, I would think is natural.

Music which is not so extrovert, like Debussy, I would prefer played by a pianist who doesn't move too much, and preferebly move in big, slow movements.

I have two quotes from Debussy himself. It is interesting to see what he thinks about it:

[musicians] more interested in the orchestral pantomime than in anything really artistic. The attraction that binds the virtuoso to his public seems much the same as that which draws the crowds to the circus: we always hope that something dangerous is going to happen. M. Ysaÿe is going to play the violin with M. Colonne on his shoulders. Or M. Pugno will finish by seizing the piano between his teeth... None of these acrobatics materialized. (Concert critique in La Revue Blanche, by Debussy)

Of all French conductors, M. Cortot [he was at the time well known as a conductor] is the one who has learned most from the pantomine customary among German conductors . . . He has Nikisch's lock of hair (although he is in fact Hungarian), and we find this most attractive because it waves passionately at the least nuance in the music. See how it falls, sad and weary, at any hint of tenderness! So much so that it prevents any communication between M. Cortot and the orchestra. Then, at the warlike passages, it proudly stands on end again, and just at this moment M. Cortot bears down on the orchestra and threatens them with his menacing bâton. [...] He is young, and he has an open-minded love of music; good enough reasons why we shouldn't be too hard on him for using gestures that are more decorative than they are useful. (Critique in Gil Blas)

[bernhard]

I don't think pianists should be acting, as in acting out a pre-conceived story. However, I find it a bit much to expect a performer to not show ANY emotions. The performer is trying to evoke emotions in the listeners. Are we going to forbid the performer to show his/her own emotions? If one does not want to see what the perfomer is doing and get influenced by it, then one can always look somewhere else or close the eyes. Richter's solution is silly in my opinion. Why not turn the audience around or give them blinders? I for one don't mind when performers move around, as long as it is not too much or obviously artificial. I also like it when listeners move with the music; again, not too much. I think it shows that they are listening actively and enjoying themselves, an aspect that has all but vanished from the scene. Everybody is just sitting there, holding their breath. What ever happened to a good brawl during a Mozart concerto or a Berlioz symphony?

Yes, I agree up to a certain point.

The performer must. of course move! And as long as this movement is necessary i have no qualms with it. However a lot of pianists (and singers for that matter) perform movements that are not necessary - either because they don;t know better - or worse still because they are faking the movements in the hope of getting a certain "meaning" across (that is, they don't trust the music and their musical rendition to do it, so at the appropriate moments they must look to the ceiling, roll their eyes and look, well, "meaningful")

It is a bit like these fitness videos where people are doing the most excruciating routines and yet keep smiling - as if they were having the time of their lives. However, the rigidity of their smiles betray what they are truly feeling.

This is something I have seen singers do lately: they keep smiling - which makes it difficult for them to sing!

As for brawls during concerts I am all for it  , but I don't think Mozart was engaged in them was he?

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[ahinton]

I don't think pianists should be acting, as in acting out a pre-conceived story. However, I find it a bit much to expect a performer to not show ANY emotions. The performer is trying to evoke emotions in the listeners. Are we going to forbid the performer to show his/her own emotions? If one does not want to see what the perfomer is doing and get influenced by it, then one can always look somewhere else or close the eyes.

This is a fascinating topic and one which seems so far to have elicited a greater degree of intelligent and thought-provoking responses than most.

At the risk of seeming pedantic, I would gently take issue with the notion that
The performer is trying to evoke emotions in the listeners.
It should surely be borne in mind that the perfomer's aim here is to ensure that the listeners' emotional faculties are engaged not directly by him/her but by the music which he/she is performing. Rakhmaninov was contemptuous of the idea of performers displaying their own emotions while performing - and not only for the reason given here, but also because he prized the utmost economy of physical movement in performers in order that they could concentrate as much as possible of their physical and mental energies on the often physically demanding task in hand. Overdoing physical movements while performing, for example, some of the more large-scale works of Sorabji could be disastrously exhausting at the expense of the aural result that the performer presents to the listener; watching Jonathan Powell at work in them is, frankly, about as boring as his performances themselves are exciting, beyond the fact that his performances are notable as models of practical physical economy. Rakhmaninov's stance was one which was to manifest itself in a number of later pianists, notably one who idolised him above all other - Michelangeli. Whilst Rakhmaninov's attitude to performance - which often seemed to be one in which he preferred to regurgitate a recording of what he had worked at in the practice studio - may seem horrifyingly unRomantic and disengaged, but proper understanding of the fact that it was anything but that is possible only when taken in tandem with the way he played and the effect that his playing had on his listeners. Not "showing" emotions when performing instrumental music on the concert platform is not analogous with not having any, but the emotions are supposed to be contained in the performance of the music rather than in any kind of physical efforts in that performance - this is what, by definition, separates the public performances of those in the acting and dance professions from those in the music profession. Richard Strauss's attitude to conducting had much in common with Rakhmaninov's to piano playing in terms not only of the virtue of the utmost physical economy itself but the reasons for encouraging it in performers. None of us surely wants extraneous visual stimulations of any kind to interfere with our concentration on what is primarily intended to be an aural experience.

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

He should also not forget that listening requires great skill as well. It is not so very easy to listen really well.

[m1469]

Yes, I agree up to a certain point.

The performer must. of course move! And as long as this movement is necessary i have no qualms with it.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

But, what criteria, exactly, truly qualifies a movement as necessary vs one that is not ? 


It seems to me there are infinite layers. 




m1469

[ahinton]

He should also not forget that listening requires great skill as well. It is not so very easy to listen really well.

This is very true - and it supports what I have been endeavouring to persuade - that the sheer mental concentrative powers that performers have to maintain - not only in themselves but in their listeners - are such that anything which may interfere therewith will likely serve only to undermine to some extent the effectiveness of the performance.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

But, what criteria, exactly, truly qualifies a movement as necessary vs one that is not ? 

It seems to me there are infinite layers.

I do not seek to speak for Bernhard (whom in any case I do not know) but what I think he refers to are physical movements which are not specifically essential to producing the sound that the performer seeks to produce. We are principally considering piano playing here - in which it is evident that more movements will be necessary for that end than would be the case for a clarinettist or oboist, for example, for no better reason than that the piano keyboard and pedals occupy a far greater physical area to be covered than that in which such a wind player would operate - i.e. the relatively small length of such a hand-held instrument. Likewise, the organist uses more of him/herself to achieve what he/she does - although there is, of course a big difference here in that - video links excepted - no one listening is likely to see what the organist is doing physically other than the stop-assistant and/or page-turner, so the risk of audience distraction is less than might be the case with players of most other instruments. In piano terms, physical movements other than those absolutely necessary to port the hands to the areas of the keyboard required at any given moment are extraneous to the performance and I think that it is these to which Bernhard refers; they may also be counter-productive to the performance from the performer's point of view, since they sap energies needed for the task in hand. In short (and mindful of what i understand to be the backdrop for m1469's original enquiry), "emoting" is the job of the composer in his/her music, not that of the performer in visual terms, because the composer will have written music to be listened to, not "seen" for the sake of it. One has only to consider what Michelangeli "looked like" when he performed to understand this at its most potent; nothing in his physical stance gave anything about the music away - only the sounds that he conjured from his instrument did that - and how!

Best,

Alistair

[m1469]

I do not seek to speak for Bernhard (whom in any case I do not know) but what I think he refers to are physical movements which are not specifically essential to producing the sound that the performer seeks to produce. We are principally considering piano playing here - in which it is evident that more movements will be necessary for that end than would be the case for a clarinettist or oboist, for example, for no better reason than that the piano keyboard and pedals occupy a far greater physical area to be covered than that in which such a wind player would operate - i.e. the relatively small length of such a hand-held instrument. Likewise, the organist uses more of him/herself to achieve what he/she does - although there is, of course a big difference here in that - video links excepted - no one listening is likely to see what the organist is doing physically other than the stop-assistant and/or page-turner, so the risk of audience distraction is less than might be the case with players of most other instruments. In piano terms, physical movements other than those absolutely necessary to port the hands to the areas of the keyboard required at any given moment are extraneous to the performance and I think that it is these to which Bernhard refers; they may also be counter-productive to the performance from the performer's point of view, since they sap energies needed for the task in hand. In short (and mindful of what i understand to be the backdrop for m1469's original enquiry), "emoting" is the job of the composer in his/her music, not that of the performer in visual terms, because the composer will have written music to be listened to, not "seen" for the sake of it. One has only to consider what Michelangeli "looked like" when he performed to understand this at its most potent; nothing in his physical stance gave anything about the music away - only the sounds that he conjured from his instrument did that - and how!

Best,

Alistair

Well, okay.  I appreciate your response and everybody else's as well.  I understand what Bernhard is referring to in terms of only movements needed to produce certain sounds at the piano, and the bottom line is that I agree whole-heartedly. 

But, I can hear a difference in the actual tone and character of a note played on the piano when I allow myself different calibers/amounts of inner freedom.  I would say that tone quality and tone character still fall under the category of technique as it comes down to how a person approaches and touches the piano.  And inner freedom allows me to accomplish whatever physical feats I may encounter better than without inner freedom.

For each individual, the inner freedom is accomplished in the individual's own way.  Perhaps for some it is by moving a lot, and for other's it is hardly moving at all.  So I guess my question is, who are we to say what is really required and what is not ?  I would venture to say that for some who are compelled to move A LOT, if they were to hold as still as possible, they would not play as well.  They need to move in order to play.  Though I am sure every performer can feel the difference between what they need and what they do not.  I guess I just don't understand why it bothers some people so much ?

In terms of what I was posting in about originally, I have found that with singers, having fixed eye positions, for example, becomes an aspect of the very technique of singing and performing.  It better allows the music to be expressed. 

I just don't really understand the difference between having a fixed eye position and having a certain hand position, unless we think of piano playing as a physically isolated activity ?

I am not trying to be argumentative, I am just trying to understand.  I do not have fixed eye positions when I play, but I do notice that sometimes, when my gaze is not on my hands,  I can connect better with the music and the act of playing the piano.  Shouldn't I pay attention to that ?



m1469

[xvimbi]

At the risk of seeming pedantic, I would gently take issue with the notion that
The performer is trying to evoke emotions in the listeners.
It should surely be borne in mind that the perfomer's aim here is to ensure that the listeners' emotional faculties are engaged not directly by him/her but by the music which he/she is performing.

That's a misunderstanding, because what you said is what I meant, i.e. the music that the performer produces should evoke emotions in the listener. I did not mean to imply that the performer should evoke emotions in the listener through displaying his/her own emotions.

Overall, it should be completely irrelevant to the listener what the performer is actually doing. Music is an aural experience, as you so clearly stated. The listener should close the eyes to avoid any visual distractions. Then who cares, whether Rachmaninoff is sitting stiffly, or Lang Lang is bouncing around, it is the music that counts. I don't mind a tear running down a performer's cheek, or a flushed face, nor some other, drastic, Scriabin-like, representation of a performer's feelings. I don't care, because I am listening, not looking. That's why I think, let them do whatever they want.

[prometheus]

This is very true - and it supports what I have been endeavouring to persuade.

For some reason I typed 'he' instead of 'one'. While I was refering to everyone it seems I was refering to either Rachmaninoff or Powell or someone else. This of course wasn't aimed at anyone.

[timothy42b]

That's a misunderstanding, because what you said is what I meant, i.e. the music that the performer produces should evoke emotions in the listener. I did not mean to imply that the performer should evoke emotions in the listener through displaying his/her own emotions.

It would seem that you are both rejecting the idea of the performer being an entertainer, maybe as having some connotation of being inferior to that of "musician." 

[xvimbi]

This is very true - and it supports what I have been endeavouring to persuade

Actually, it is almost always "better" to endeavour to convince, not persuade

[xvimbi]

It would seem that you are both rejecting the idea of the performer being an entertainer, maybe as having some connotation of being inferior to that of "musician." 

Not really, at least what concerns me. As I said before, I can personally live with anything a performer is doing, as I believe I can separate between the different components (aural, visual, etc.). Everything has its place, even goofy performances, such as those by Victor Borge (I love this guy!). Entertainment has all but been lost in the Classical scene. The radio show "From the top" might be a sole exception. In one of my earlier posts, I was lamenting about the absence of brawls from today's concerts )

[maryruth]

I played for a wedding this summer and the mother of the bride actually came up to me before the wedding and said, "You play so beautifully, dear, but you really need to smile.  You have such a lovely smile!"  I was absolutely flabbergasted.  I thought, "I'm just the background music for this church ceremony...I'm sightreading the music you chose at the last minute!  You expect me to smile, too?!!!" 

[ahinton]

Actually, it is almost always "better" to endeavour to convince, not persuade

Now who's being pedantic?! Would what I have been endeavouring to do be materially different if had I claimed to have endeavoured to convince rather than persuade?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

the music that the performer produces should evoke emotions in the listener. I did not mean to imply that the performer should evoke emotions in the listener through displaying his/her own emotions.

Overall, it should be completely irrelevant to the listener what the performer is actually doing. Music is an aural experience, as you so clearly stated. The listener should close the eyes to avoid any visual distractions. Then who cares, whether Rachmaninoff is sitting stiffly, or Lang Lang is bouncing around, it is the music that counts. I don't mind a tear running down a performer's cheek, or a flushed face, nor some other, drastic, Scriabin-like, representation of a performer's feelings. I don't care, because I am listening, not looking. That's why I think, let them do whatever they want.

This is absolutely correct, of course. However, I do not think that it covers all aspects of the matter. There are two main considerations here - those of the audience and those of the performer. If, as is suggested above, the audience either doesn't look at the performer or is not distracted by his/her physical movements when he/she is performing, then there's no problem for the audience. However, if the performer makes sufficient physical movements which are entirely superfluous to the practicalities of sound production, those movements may risk exerting an adverse effect on the sound produced and the energies required to make them may tire the performer unnecessarily.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I think that the principal points at issue here are the differences between physical movements made by the performer that are wholly germane and necessary to the goal of sound production and those which are not; the latter would appear to fall into a category more appropriate for acting (where physical movement and gesture accompanies dialogue as part of the expression) or dance (where expression is entirely dependent on physical movements). In this specific respect, acting may accordingly be seen as a kind of "halfway house" between instrumental music performance and dance performance in terms of the aims involved.

My only other observation here is along the lines of one which I exemplified earlier - which is that the more physically demanding a piece is to perform, the more important it is for the performer to conserve his/her energies in such a way as to allow them to be directed only at the performance itself - i.e. the sound production. The importance of this consideration is also greater for instrumentalists who have to use more physical energy in that sound production; that is to say (at the risk of over-simplification), organists and pianists at one end of the spectrum, wind players at the other and string players somewhere in between. In general terms, instrumental playing differs from acting and dance in that it is indeed only the aural end result that matters to the recipient - i.e. the listener.

Best,

Alistair

[timothy42b]

I played for a wedding this summer and the mother of the bride actually came up to me before the wedding and said, "You play so beautifully, dear, but you really need to smile.  You have such a lovely smile!"  I was absolutely flabbergasted.  I thought, "I'm just the background music for this church ceremony...I'm sightreading the music you chose at the last minute!  You expect me to smile, too?!!!" 

Yes, a classic case of failure to communicate.

You thought she paid for a piano player - production of sublime music being the only requirement.

She thought she paid for an entertainer - she expected that to include a smile, fancy dress, perhaps a joke or two, etc. 

I guess you could have charged extra for the smile!  but in this case she IS the customer. 

[jazzyprof]

I disagree with the notion that music is a purely aural experience.  It is a felt experience.  One of the greatest percussionists alive today (Evelyn Glennie) is stone deaf.  Beethoven went deaf and was still producing great music.  We can experience music through our entire bodies and (to borrow from m1469) souls.  It seems unnatural  to artificially cut off the flow of music through our bodies (performer and listener) by enforcing absolute stillness...except for the motion of the fingers.  There is also a visual component to a live performance otherwise we would not bother to attend concerts by live performers.  If music were purely an aural experience then there would be no difference between paying $50 to sit in a concert hall to listen to a great CD of your favorite pianist and paying to see that pianist live.  A live performance is a total experience that engages all our senses.       

[ahinton]

I disagree with the notion that music is a purely aural experience.  It is a felt experience.

A live performance is a total experience that engages all our senses.       

Whilst I do not disagree with this contention, the fact remains that any physical movements made by the performer that are not absolutely necessary for the sound production of his/her performance may risk diminishing the end results; as I observed, we should look at this subject both from the audiences' and the performers' standpoints.

Best,

Alistair

[xvimbi]

Now who's being pedantic?! Would what I have been endeavouring to do be materially different if had I claimed to have endeavoured to convince rather than persuade?

Just to quickly continue this little side track: there is a world of difference between 'convince' and 'persuade'. Convincing requires cogent arguments and implies some degree of objectivity. Persuading, on the other hand, implies working against somebody's will, without cogent arguments.

[prometheus]

Persuade doesn't imply someone is being convinced against her/his will, but that that person already has a view on the matter. While someone who is being convinced has not taken any stance on the point discussed yet.

Coerced implies against someones will, it is a synonym of forced. Persuade and convince are synonyms of each other also, eventhough there is a subtle difference.

[xvimbi]

Persuade doesn't imply someone is being convinced against her/his will, but that that person already has a view on the matter. While someone who is being convinced has not taken any stance on the point discussed yet.

What??

Don't tell this to a scientist! Scientists have very well defined stances on things, and they are convinced that they are right. However, often, new experimental results make it necessary to revise their stance. The new data 'convince' them to revise their model.

It seems you have the meanings reversed, if anything. Anyway, enough with this little linguistic squirmish

[prometheus]

You are a scientist? Really? I must say I am suprised.

Well, if I reversed the meanings then that is even less supportive to your argument. Because in that case 'persuade' would be the gentle one of the two. But as I think about it, I am not sure if there is an actual difference between the two. But then again english isn't my primary language so I may lack a feeling for these things.

[ahinton]

Persuade doesn't imply someone is being convinced against her/his will, but that that person already has a view on the matter. While someone who is being convinced has not taken any stance on the point discussed yet.

Coerced implies against someones will, it is a synonym of forced. Persuade and convince are synonyms of each other also, eventhough there is a subtle difference.

Whatever the possible arguments for and against the use of "convince" and "persuade" (and I certainly never sought to "coerce" anyone!), the fact is that the ideas that I put forward on this subject remain the ideas I put forward on this subject, irrespective of whether or to what extent any reader may have been "convinced", "persuaded" or otherwise thereby; accordingly, it would be preferable that any comments in response concentrate on the arguments themselves rather than the question of how they may or may not strike any member of the forum readership!

Best,

Alistair

[sportsmonster]

if you play a romantic beutiful piano piece.....you need to move like you are in love and blink with your eyes to the audience. ans stick your thung out of the mounth and shake your hipps.  and slowly start humming with the piano while you feel the pianos keys in a very sensual way. and put a colgate handsome smile on your mouth while it is shining between you teeth....and then start kicking with your legs under the piano in a very flirting way.

am i on the right track?

[prometheus]

I never even understood the relation between romantic music and love, anyone care to explain that?

[ahinton]

if you play a romantic beutiful piano piece.....you need to move like you are in love and blink with your eyes to the audience. ans stick your thung out of the mounth and shake your hipps.  and slowly start humming with the piano while you feel the pianos keys in a very sensual way. and put a colgate handsome smile on your mouth while it is shining between you teeth....and then start kicking with your legs under the piano in a very flirting way.

"sportsmonster"'s sense of humour is evidently not lacking. However, I think that the originator of this thread was making a more serious and genuine enquiry about the subject under discussion and it would be a disservice not to take it at least as seriously as it was clearly intended to be. Most performers who overdo physical movements in their performances do not do so as a direct consequence of the kinds of motivation as illustrated by "sportsmonster", as I am sure he or she would be the first to admit. The issue would seem still to remain open for further consideration...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I never even understood the relation between romantic music and love, anyone care to explain that?

They will, dear "prometheus", they will; as for me, I will do no such thing, for I am a mere composer, so what would I know?...

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

I should rephrase 'love' as 'being in love'.

[sportsmonster]

ops...there goes my reputation ...........one more thing:

Where do you remember the sound of a piece of music? Is it in your head, in your ears, in your fingers? It seems an odd question yet the answer is elusive. Where do you consult yourself to play a piece you know? Where do you hold the sound?

the answers to these questions may well not be the answers of others. In fact, had different answers at different times. The correct answer isn't the issue but rather the process of beginning to understand that music is an experience of the whole body and not just the obvious parts.

An easily overlooked possibility is that body movement itself holds some vital information. Different pianists move very differently when they play.

can this be a reason for using your body more?

[m1469]

... music is an experience of the whole body and not just the obvious parts.

This is my whole point and the fact that people accept this with singers and do not think of it nor accept it as such with pianists and I don't understand why... and now I just feel like I am back at the very beginning of my questions in this thread 

[sportsmonster]

who cares if they accept it or not.
the question is "who" accepts it....your teacher?.....your father?......is it people with authority, to stop you from doing what you believe is right? if not, just do it.
and your audience probably wont care how much you move your body.....and if that makes the piano piece sound better, the audience probably wil be more happy

and the biggest freedom is when you play alone in quiet. then you can do whatever you want and disappear in to the music and wake up hours later.

[lostinidlewonder]

Sometimes in the heat of the moment we may overexaggerate things. I know for sure when I am in an important concert that sometimes I lean more into F sounds or push myself back at the end of a big chord or dramatic section, perhaps overexaggerated movements to produce the desired sound. If I play P sounds I may come closer to the keyboard almost saying to the audience, listen to this, it is much softer, listen more carefully. But I don't think these things should be put on. If you do it, it is because you are compelled to do it. But these are only exaggerations of what you would do normally, not obscure weird gestures or facial expressions.

If you are a person who cannot keep their hands or body still in normal conversation then I think it would be believable that you move more strangely at the piano. When I watch pianists who give a little talk before playing, if they are very eloquent in their hand gestures while speaking they are usually ones who make stranger gestures at the piano but which look more natural because it is a more inbuilt mannerism. However if you have someone who stands as still as stone while speaking, but then moves all crazy at the piano, this looks really strange and almost as if it is put on. Unless this person is eccentric and that personalily comes through when they speak, or unless that person can project their extreme emotional connection with music to the audience, it just wont be believable.

If you have a mental disorder like Helfgott for instance, then it may be believable that you make strange sounds while you play or other eccentric gestures. Otherwise people will keep saying, what is the reason for it? Why so over the top? Why is he/she doing it like that?

Perhaps if the peformer can explain with words a particular emotion of the piece and wants to highlight it with their facial expressions or body, then perhaps the audience may be more accepting to melodramatic movements. It might be a guide to help us know where we are in the piece, for people who don't know much about the music. They might think, "Oh this is the angry part they where talking about, look at his face really angry, must be the angry part, oh yes it sounds like it."


Experienced listeners to piano can do without the excessive movements of the body, it doesn't guide them in their listening as an inexperienced listener. They know what territory they are in when listening to music, they know what to anticipate, they know what notes are to come. However if an expereinced listener anticipates the intensity of emotion in a particular section, fury or sudden explosions of sound, dramatic movements on the performers behalf in those places might be nice to see because we say, Oh yes this is most definatly the climax of the peice, extra movement of the body really highlights it and increases the excitement. Likewise a totally devistating section of music, something of supreme sadness would be nicely expressed by a body which looks "deflated", physically depressed itself. It just supports what the emotion of the piece is presenting.

If there are exaggereated movements in places which are not climaxes of the piece then it looks strange. Sometimes a performer can think there are climaxes everywhere which then becomes a problem, the piece then starts to play them not the other way around.

[crazy for ivan moravec]

i personally believe that the music is everything when a performance is going on. i wouldn't care how a performer does his job in bringing the music out. as long as he can touch his audience in a good way, move them to tears or any other emotion, that would be the most important thing to achieve. if he moves/acts too much that it distracts the audience to a point that the music is secondary, then it is not good.

anyway, we as performers should have the goal of being able to affect our listeners. as artists, we are here to be instruments in making or changing the lives of other people thru music.

so, u can be unique in your way of making people feel the music you bring to them.

this is how i get affected: if you become too extroverted during performance like lang2x, it distracts me. plus, i don't really get affected by his music. however, i wouldn't mind a lang2x performance IF his actions would serve the music to help affect me. it's just that i find his movements too artificial that it distracts me, and that's a different story. i'd rather listen to someone who plays with more warmth, like rubinstein, even if he does not have to move much.

i'd like a performance wherein i wouldn't have to think as a musician while listening- watching out for notes, phrasings, colorings, etc. i'd rather enjoy the performance as a whole and get touched! i learn a lot this way. on the other hand, i also do my analytical listening with recordings, in which i also learn a lot.

but when i get distracted by something (during a performance) that a performer does (like too much actions), i can't help but start becoming critical about the performance of the music itself, simply because i cannot enjoy it anymore. and it's difficult to go back to the zone once im distracted.

hope i gave an insight with my opinion.
all the best.

Crazy

[ahinton]

Let's get right back to the several specific and sensible questions asked by the originator of this thread:

1.  In vocal music, it is accepted that there is a story.  Movements are trained, expected and accepted in singers to help convey the story of the music.  Even choreographed, including specifics about eye focus and so on.  Vocalists are expected to act.  Why is this un-acceptable in piano performance ?
It is not so much "unacceptable" as unnecsessary, for two reasons. Firstly, the singer's sounds come from the singer him/herself - in other words, his/her body is itself the instrument that produces the sound - whereas the instrumentalist uses parts of his/her body to operate a piece of independent machinery (if I may be forgiven for describing the greatest Cremonese stringed instruments or Viennese pianos as "pieces of machinery"). Secondly, the singer usually sings words, whose meaning, by definition, is independent of musical meaning and sufficient of itself as verbal expression; when words are set to music, the end product is usually a composite expression involving both words and music in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, whereas instrumental music, even when programmatic (which is often not the case anyway), conveys its message by means of musical sounds alone.

2.  Just because there are not words in a solo piece of piano music, does it really mean there is not a story that needs to be acted out ?  And why would we as pianists be any less responsible for conveying that story than a vocalist ?
See 1. above. Of course it does not mean that there is no "story" as such; even if the piece is non-programmatic, it may tell its own "story", but it does so without using words and so cannot be accounted for in words - accordingly, the music does not of itself call for the performer to "act", in terms of adding gesture to assist in conveying what it expresses.

3.  Is our body any less a part of our instrument and even character of a piece as a pianist vs that of a vocalist ?  If so, why ?  If not, why not use it to help us express the music and the story of the music, clearly ?
Again, see 1. above. When performers are not making sounds with their bodies - i.e. singing - and are presenting an expression by means of music alone rather than in combination with words, then it seems fair to ascribe far less expressive relevance to instrumentalists' body movments as to those of singers; the instrumentalist needs to make all the moves necessary to produce the sounds from his/her instrument, but that's the extent of necessary movement for such a player.

4.  Is singing supposed to be more visual than piano-ing ?
Whether or not it is "supposed" to be so, the above hopefully demonstrates that it would to some extent appear to be so. The reason I add the phrase "to some extent" is that I am mindful of the contributor to this thread who put forward a very valid argument about recordings; clearly, when one listens to an audio-only recording of music, whether sung or played, any visual element is lost to the listener in any case, so any performer - singer or instrumentalist - has, since the dawn of recorded music, had to bear in mind that his/her performance must be sufficiently expressive by dint of musical sounds alone.

Another factor here might be that of perceived value judgements. It is not inconceivable (well, almost not!) that a physically demonstrative pianist might give as powerful a performance of, say, Rakhmaninov's Fourth Piano Concerto as the famous one by Michelangeli; if two such performances were of equal validity and greatness as expressions of the composer's intentions, one might be tempted to ask oneself why the demonstrative performer needed to make many of his/her extraneous movements if Michelangeli (or the composer himself, for that matter) could achieve equally fine results by means of the greatest possible economy of body movement.

Best,

Alistair

[timothy42b]

3.  Is our body any less a part of our instrument and even character of a piece as a pianist vs that of a vocalist ?  If so, why ?  If not, why not use it to help us express the music and the story of the music, clearly ?
Again, see 1. above. When performers are not making sounds with their bodies - i.e. singing - and are presenting an expression by means of music alone rather than in combination with words, then it seems fair to ascribe far less expressive relevance to instrumentalists' body movments as to those of singers; the instrumentalist needs to make all the moves necessary to produce the sounds from his/her instrument, but that's the extent of necessary movement for such a player.

Best,

Alistair

You made some interesting points, but your distinction of vocal vs instrumental musician is not convincing.

Clearly most instrumental musicians, whether soloists or section players, make FAR more motions than are necessary to play the instrument.  This is indisputable.  These motions are usually but not always less extreme in the more classical forms and more extreme in more popular styles but they are always there.  Examples abound.  Any rock guitar player.  Yo-Yo on cello.  Bob Havens on trombone.  All known violin soloists.  Kenny G on sax.  Etc.

Now I think your argument must reduce to saying piano is somehow fundamentally different, not only from voice, but from the other instruments.  This may very well be true but I don't think you have yet made a case for it.

In fact, I think you are arguing from a moralistic viewpoint:  Unnecessary motion is intrinsically bad, and we will forgive vocalists who have no choice, but not pianists.  I don't buy it.  Playing behind a screen is okay for auditions, but will leave an audience cold. 

Ah.  Here's an approach.  Is piano fundamentally different from accordion?  Yet on one we can move much more freely than the other.  Hmmmh. 

[ahinton]

You made some interesting points, but your distinction of vocal vs instrumental musician is not convincing.

Clearly most instrumental musicians, whether soloists or section players, make FAR more motions than are necessary to play the instrument.  This is indisputable.  These motions are usually but not always less extreme in the more classical forms and more extreme in more popular styles but they are always there.  Examples abound.  Any rock guitar player.  Yo-Yo on cello.  Bob Havens on trombone.  All known violin soloists.  Kenny G on sax.  Etc.

Now I think your argument must reduce to saying piano is somehow fundamentally different, not only from voice, but from the other instruments.  This may very well be true but I don't think you have yet made a case for it.

In fact, I think you are arguing from a moralistic viewpoint:  Unnecessary motion is intrinsically bad, and we will forgive vocalists who have no choice, but not pianists.  I don't buy it.  Playing behind a screen is okay for auditions, but will leave an audience cold. 

Ah.  Here's an approach.  Is piano fundamentally different from accordion?  Yet on one we can move much more freely than the other.  Hmmmh. 

Moralising? Moi?!

Best,

Alistair

[bernhard]

I do not seek to speak for Bernhard (whom in any case I do not know) but what I think he refers to are physical movements which are not specifically essential to producing the sound that the performer seeks to produce. We are principally considering piano playing here - in which it is evident that more movements will be necessary for that end than would be the case for a clarinettist or oboist, for example, for no better reason than that the piano keyboard and pedals occupy a far greater physical area to be covered than that in which such a wind player would operate - i.e. the relatively small length of such a hand-held instrument. Likewise, the organist uses more of him/herself to achieve what he/she does - although there is, of course a big difference here in that - video links excepted - no one listening is likely to see what the organist is doing physically other than the stop-assistant and/or page-turner, so the risk of audience distraction is less than might be the case with players of most other instruments. In piano terms, physical movements other than those absolutely necessary to port the hands to the areas of the keyboard required at any given moment are extraneous to the performance and I think that it is these to which Bernhard refers; they may also be counter-productive to the performance from the performer's point of view, since they sap energies needed for the task in hand. In short (and mindful of what i understand to be the backdrop for m1469's original enquiry), "emoting" is the job of the composer in his/her music, not that of the performer in visual terms, because the composer will have written music to be listened to, not "seen" for the sake of it. One has only to consider what Michelangeli "looked like" when he performed to understand this at its most potent; nothing in his physical stance gave anything about the music away - only the sounds that he conjured from his instrument did that - and how!

Best,

Alistair

Alistair is right: this is exactly what I mean by “necessary” movements.

I will give an example. I recently saw a video of Helene Grimaud (who, albeit pretty I find a most indifferent pianist), playing Rach 2. She had this very irritating mannerism of looking up to the ceiling, throwing her head back and rolling up her eyes on the slow lyric passages. That movement was not only completely unnecessary to the act of producing the necessary sounds in the piano, as it interfered with it. The moment a more difficult passage appeared her countenance changed dramatically: her movements became minimal, her face was stony with concentration and her general demeanour was much more appropriate. Quite simply, she could not afford any extraneous motions that id not pertain to the necessary technique. From my personal point of view, I would have derived much more pleasure from the performance had she displayed the same economy of movement (and why not use the word “elegance”) throughout the performance, instead of reserving it for the hard bits. Instead of enjoying the lyrical parts, her histrionics cause no small degree of annoyance. (Her neck was bent back so much that I was in pain!)

If the histrionics were required to produce a certain sound (which I do not believe in, anyway, since the piano does not have this response to “touch”, and the babblings about it being most superstition), how come she stopped doing it the moment the going got tough? So, clearly the histrionics were an added layer aimed at showing the audience how much “taken” with the music she was. Even this, however, I would argue is fake, since the amount of practice she did on that particular piece would have immunised her to any such primeval emotional responses (and it looked faked, anyway).

Consider the magician David Copperfield. Does anyone really believes he is genuinely surprised that the elephant disappeared? (I don’t like his histrionics either, by the way – but in his case, at least, the acting is important and legitimate, shame it is such hammy acting).

As for the people who suggest I should close my eyes, I must disagree. You see, as a teacher, I am very interested in the way these pianists move. So I could add to my list of pet hates, the movie directors who insist on showing shots of the innards of the piano, and of the grimaces the pianists are making, when I want them to show their hands (and bodies).


Best wishes,
Bernhard.