Finding the "voice" -- which artists are clearly defined ?

[m19834]

I have been thinking about finding the artistic voice in performers.  It dawns on me that individuals do have, probably, a very specific/unique (to them) voice in life.  And, perhaps this comes out (ideally) in everything an individual may do, but also in piano/music.  Perhaps the more clearly defined this voice is, the more potentially moving it is for listeners.  I would now like to be an infinitely better listener.  I believe I currently have a deeper curiousity about the nature of an individual's voice than I did before.  I wonder if it is something that is inherent, perhaps though always some form of balance between nurture and nature.  A kind of statue within the lump of stone.  I wish I could carve statues ... (I wonder if every endeavor in life is ultimately the same thing ?).

Who, for you, are performing artists that have a clearly defined artistic voice ?  And, what characteristics of that "voice" make you wish to truly listen to them ?

[lostinidlewonder]

I am not sure of your definition of "voice".  Are you talking about technique and musical expression? There are certain pianists who I listen to I can tell it is them pretty fast, the most obvious for me are Gould, Hamelin, Horowitz and Richter. This is only because they have an extensive list of recordings and each one has this supreme technique and an individual way on interpreting the music as a whole.

I find more out about a performer by the repertoire that they choose. Often playing standard is very high but what separates performers is the music that they choose to learn. Like how Gould immediately makes you think about Bach.

[m19834]

Yes, okay.  Well, these things are probably all related but, I think that internally, as a performer/artist, there is a certain "point" where an individual feels a particular kind of connection or so with what they are "saying."  I don't know, it's like each person's soul is generally "about" something; what kinds of things they believe in, what types of things make them sad or happy or scared ... and this comes out in their music, no matter what they are playing (though perhaps the repertoire that they choose or are seemingly drawn to, perhaps this is reflective of that type of thing).

This is a strange example (and I don't necessarily respect these artworks) but, I can always tell a Robert Kinkaid painting because it always has a particular kind of lighting.  No matter what his subject-matter is about, there is always that kind of lighting in the painting and it's as though his paintings become "about" that.  I don't really know exactly why he does that, other than he must think it's neat to do.

Anyway, I just think that there are probably performing artists/musicians who are "about" something, or so.  I think I am not making any sense though.

Thanks for your response .

[birba]

Oh, I definitely agree with you.  I think the more one is able to express oneself - that is, digest Beethoven, for example, and portray YOUR Beethoven - the more of an artist you are.  It's always been my goal in piano-playing.  And I've never reached it, I don't think.  Wilhelm Kempff was a particularly personal interpreter.  And was even criticized for this.  But read Brendel's comments on Kempff's rendition of St. Francis speaking to the Birds.   It's no less than a religious experience.  But you don't even have to go that far.  The way you portray a simple phrase or a passage should definitely speak about you as well as the composer.  So many young winners of competitions these days certainly have the means to do this, but seldom come through.
INteresting subject...glad you brought it up.

[m19834]

Okay.  I am thinking.  Here is something that I can't seem to quite understand.  With singing, for example, a person may not sing a particular piece of music all that well for whatever reason.  It may not have been prepared well enough (one issue) or they may just still be in such a developmental phase of their voice that no matter how "well-prepared" they are, the music is not expressed clearly, etc.  But, a good ear (or teacher) will hear beyond the music and how it was or was not expressed, and they will hear characteristics of a voice itself that they can/will work with/on.  Over time, the voice itself will continue to develop and blossom into its own expression, somewhat regardless of the music that is being expressed (in other words, a not so nice of piece could actually be quite beautiful when a developed musical voice is singing it). 

What's strange is that it seems there is something dinstinguishable between the "voice" vs. the "music" or the piece.  And, I think the same is true for pianists.  There was a time in particular where I was sitting in one of my student's lessons, listening to them play a piece that I can't even recall (though it was not a particularly wonderful piece), and the playing itself was not necessarily particularly stellar, yet, the voice that I heard in the individual touched me.  I could hear who that person was/is ... or, at least that experience invoked in me a bit of a new world (perhaps it was only my own perception ?).

My question is though, what are we really aiming for ?  And, when does everything line up ?  Does a piece of music have its own kind of "voice" and then the person has their own kind of "voice" and then the instrument has its own kind of "voice" (or capabilities) and at some point everything just lines up so that each component is being exploited to its fullest ?  What is that called ?

etc. etc. ...

[dan101]

I think the question has been dealt with quite nicely. Your performance speaks when technique, the composer's intent and your personality are in perfect balance.