Technique leading to emotion

[mcdiddy1]

Hi, I am just curious what are your thoughts of how technique and emotion interact.  In my opinion technique allows the emotions of the music to shine through. I feel the performer should be like a magnifying glass to the music. The performer should bring out all the beautiful details of the music. The differences in performers is how intensely the performer is able to bring out the beauty of the music and their power to communicate it to the audiences. What are your thoughts?

[quantum]

I think of techniques as tools.  Skill comes in not how many tools you have, but how well you know to use them.  With such a subjective subject as emotion, many people can interpret a performance in a multitude directions.  IMO, it is more about evoking the emotion of each individual listener through music rather than making the music itself emotional.  

[mcdiddy1]

I think of techniques as tools.  Skill comes in not how many tools you have, but how well you know to use them.  With such a subjective subject as emotion, many people can interpret a performance in a multitude directions.  IMO, it is more about evoking the emotion of each individual listener through music rather than making the music itself emotional. 

I agree with you on this. How do you feel the performer can evoke emotions in each individual listener?

[invictious]

I think of techniques as tools.  Skill comes in not how many tools you have, but how well you know to use them.  With such a subjective subject as emotion, many people can interpret a performance in a multitude directions.  IMO, it is more about evoking the emotion of each individual listener through music rather than making the music itself emotional. 

Very true, although I would like to also supplement with some of my own thoughts.

Indeed, it is about how you use the tools. However, there are times when you are really limited with your tools, and you need to expand your inventory.

I believe the general doctrine is that emotion is not possible without technique. The caveat is that having wonderful technique does not necessarily equate to being able to evoke emotions, which is as quantum said, it is how you utilise the technique.

As to mcdiddy1's questions, I believe there is no definite answer. If there is an answer, then I guess everyone would be a Horowitz!

[ted]

I agree with all that has been said. For me, the trouble is that "emotion" is a blanket word covering a multitude of mental states. For instance, as I am getting older, I frequently find myself in states, especially during improvisation, which the word "emotion" falls far short of adequately describing. Nonetheless these states are supremely important to me, and constitute most of the reason I play at all. Is immersion in spontaneous abstract beauty to be considered an emotion ? It isn't in the usual associative sense of the word, but it is becoming practically everything for me lately. Technique, physical, and more importantly mental, certainly facilitates the release of a wider variety of abstract beauty.

So for me, yes, technique (not in the trivial, show-off bravura sense though) plays a vital role in generating forms of abstract beauty, if that be construed as "emotion". It can, and frequently does happen that way around. I hasten to add that this appears to be a process of late middle-age, and that when I was young, technique was a tool to express emotion. Perhaps this happens as hormone levels decrease.

 

[keyboardclass]

Is immersion in spontaneous abstract beauty to be considered an emotion ?

I have no interest in emotion - it's a response, not a state of being.  Your definition gets to the meat of the matter.

[fleetfingers]

Emotions are reactions we have to the music itself, and the emotions are more likely to be evoked in a listener if the performer is skillful in rendering the music. In other words, you need good technique to bring out the emotions that the music calls for.

[mcdiddy1]

I agree with all that has been said. For me, the trouble is that "emotion" is a blanket word covering a multitude of mental states. For instance, as I am getting older, I frequently find myself in states, especially during improvisation, which the word "emotion" falls far short of adequately describing. Nonetheless these states are supremely important to me, and constitute most of the reason I play at all. Is immersion in spontaneous abstract beauty to be considered an emotion ? It isn't in the usual associative sense of the word, but it is becoming practically everything for me lately. Technique, physical, and more importantly mental, certainly facilitates the release of a wider variety of abstract beauty.

So for me, yes, technique (not in the trivial, show-off bravura sense though) plays a vital role in generating forms of abstract beauty, if that be construed as "emotion". It can, and frequently does happen that way around. I hasten to add that this appears to be a process of late middle-age, and that when I was young, technique was a tool to express emotion. Perhaps this happens as hormone levels decrease.

 

Really intresting comments, so you in simpler terms you play music not for the effect it gives to the listener but for the abstract beauty you create using music? If you do, do you feel the music intent is for the sensations that are created in the listener, the performer, or both?

[ted]

Really intresting comments, so you in simpler terms you play music not for the effect it gives to the listener but for the abstract beauty you create using music? If you do, do you feel the music intent is for the sensations that are created in the listener, the performer, or both?

Yes. In the end, I have to feel I am creating something beautiful according to my own understanding of that term. It may or may not have immediate emotional association, or indeed, may acquire an unpredictable emotional association upon later listening. That is just my personal stance; abstract beauty is paramount for me and always has been. Listeners ? I never know what effect it has on them. Does any player, especially an improviser, ever really know ? I rather enjoy the possibility of a listener hearing and seeing things I am unaware of. For me that is part of the mystery and magic of music. And surely music and its effect is a real enigma, real magic. Surely when we play we do not  employ all our hard-won technique simply to communicate bald facts, impress people and reiterate obvious emotions ? I don't think I would bother if that were all there is to it. The best creative playing for me casts a spell and hopefully releases, in the listener's and performer's minds, ideas the existence of which they were not aware, and which enrich their psyches.

The answer to your second question is therefore "both".

[lostinidlewonder]

The emotional response from a listener sometimes however requires the performer to say a few words. Sometimes no matter how well you play the listener simply needs to know the "story" attached to the piece before hearing it to appreciate more fully the emotion connection. Piano music is without words so it is more difficult to know exactly what the piece is trying to tell us as opposed to music with words which encourages the emotion through the lyrics. Some people say the music stands on its own, but I am not on that boat, it often stands on its own but those who are educated a little about the piece before listening to it will always appreciate what they observe much more. I remember the single note tear drops of the water spirit from Ravel's Ondine a striking bit of imagery that many people who knew about Ondine who attended my concerts said they never thought about and the description fit it perfectly. Through reciting the poem and relating it to parts of the piece beforehand (water spirit sees man, shy water spirit flirts with man, spirit and man dive into water, spirit and man come to the underwater palace, they rise back up to the surface of the lake, he rejects her love, she cries, she laughs remembering her immortality and dives back into water), it opened the audiences emotional response (who didn't know about the story) to the piece quite profoundly I thought.

[ted]

Oh I agree. There is nothing wrong with a programme if it is a good one. I once improvised a set of quite good pieces I still listen to on a priori images of the Philippines. The fact that 95% of my playing does not have this property likely amounts to a personal option and certainly not a universal rule for everybody.

A funny instance of programme and ambiguity close to me involved my piece "Song of Aragorn". (I did actually write out many dozens of pieces in my twenties and thirties - I wasn't always the total improviser I am now.) I had just read Tolkien, and composed a few things under its influence. My aunt became obsessed with this piece right up to her death, and was quite adamant concerning its programme. "Oh no Teddy", she asserted vehemently,"It isn't about that at all. It describes a perfect love such as I once had, and you must change the name to 'Perfect Love'" Of course I didn't, but all humour aside, the incident helped me to realise that any listener has the unalienable right to impose any programme on anything.

Quantum, on this forum, it seems to me, has a wonderful gift for improvising on a programme. His "Attack of the Flies" and "March to School" are so good, and the associations so strong, that once formed, the listener has little inclination to dream up any other.

I didn't actually know about that Ravel piece, which I like, but there I suppose my own ignorance becomes apparent. Certain famous music and brilliant pieces have programmes altogether too old-fashioned for me - people on horses galloping until they drop dead and the like. Was Chopin 25/11 really intended to simply depict the weather ? I cannot possibly force myself to imagine these things with any benefit, so I form my own private images.

And you are right that any sort of a programme can help the new listener. We who possess fecund imagination tend to assume everybody else does too, and that of course is not true at all.

[ahinton]

I have no interest in emotion - it's a response, not a state of being.  Your definition gets to the meat of the matter.

You need to visit a neurologist!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Emotions are reactions we have to the music itself, and the emotions are more likely to be evoked in a listener if the performer is skillful in rendering the music. In other words, you need good technique to bring out the emotions that the music calls for.

So doesn't the composer need to have any or to be bothered with such things?

Best,

Alistair

[keyboardclass]

You need to visit a neurologist!

Emotion in the arts is a 19th century concept.  Give me the finer feelings any day!

[ahinton]

Emotion in the arts is a 19th century concept.  Give me the finer feelings any day!

I wasn't referring specifically to emotions "in the arts" but to emotions in general terms; however, as far as emotional involvement in music goes, the notion that only the recipient (the listener) and the intermediary (the performer / interpreter) needs to concern itself with or can be affected by such a consideration is bizarre, to say the least.

Best,

Alistair

[keyboardclass]

however, as far as emotional involvement in music goes, the notion that only the recipient (the listener) and the intermediary (the performer / interpreter) needs to concern itself with or can be affected by such a consideration is bizarre, to say the least.

Consider a very seasoned composer listening to another's work.  Are they going to zero in on the emotion or the technique through which that was attained?  As Sir Olivier said to Dustin Hoffman - "It's called acting, dear boy." 

[fleetfingers]

So doesn't the composer need to have any or to be bothered with such things?

Best,

Alistair

As a composer, you have specific emotions in mind that you are wanting to communicate through the music....I assume? Do you feel that the emotions you're trying to communicate in your music manifest themselves in the way you intended if the performer skillfully plays the music? I simply wanted to reiterate the point that you need a good technique as a pianist to perform music in such a way that it has the intended emotional effect on the listener. I would assume that, when composing, you imagine the music being played by a master. From what I've gathered since being a member of the forum, your works are played by skilled professionals. In that way, the composer can be lumped into the category of "listener". But, yes, the emotion in the music was put there by the composer. 

[thedoctor4]

Very interesting topic . In my opinion, there are two types of pianists.
Those who seek emotional satisfaction themselves during their performance and those who try to make their audience feel the emotion.
The first type of pianist, plays for himself in order to satisfy their ears and feelings.In their way of thinking if that is achieved , the listener also "feels" the piece.
The second type of pianist, has as a primary thought to pass the emotion of the music to the audience.He does not care that much for personal satisfaction, because in his way of thinking the main object is what the listener hears and not that much what the pianist feels.
A good example of the first type of pianist is Sviatoslav Ricther.
An example of the second type of pianist is Rubinstein or Horowitz.
However both types of pianists must have a good technical ability in order to provoke emotions.

[keyboardclass]

Surely the two types of pianist are those who think there are two types of pianist and those that think there are not?

[ahinton]

Consider a very seasoned composer listening to another's work.  Are they going to zero in on the emotion or the technique through which that was attained?  As Sir Olivier said to Dustin Hoffman - "It's called acting, dear boy." 

Like any other listener, the composer will presumably respond in whatever way the performance that he/she listens to invites or encourages him/her to do - in that way (and specifically in the present context) the composer as listener is no different to any other listener - but see also below...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

As a composer, you have specific emotions in mind that you are wanting to communicate through the music....I assume?

I would not say that it is a calculated as that.

Do you feel that the emotions you're trying to communicate in your music manifest themselves in the way you intended if the performer skillfully plays the music? I simply wanted to reiterate the point that you need a good technique as a pianist to perform music in such a way that it has the intended emotional effect on the listener.

The answer to that is inevitably yes, although different listeners' emtional responses to the same performance will vary.

I would assume that, when composing, you imagine the music being played by a master. From what I've gathered since being a member of the forum, your works are played by skilled professionals. In that way, the composer can be lumped into the category of "listener". But, yes, the emotion in the music was put there by the composer. 

When composing, what the "inner ear" hears is indeed the kind of performance that the composer desires, to be sure - so the composer is always as "listener" in that sense, getting as he/she does to listen to the music internally before anyone else gets an opportunity to listen to it in actual live or recorded performances.

Speaking for myself, the point about emotions from the composer's standpoint is that is it not possible to be specific in categorising and describing particular emotions inherent in a piece because they can be expressed in and through music in ways where words alone just won't achieve the same result; as these can't immediately be accounted for and explained in words by the composer, the performer and listener is unlikely to be able to do so either, but that doesn't make the emotional thrust of the music any less potent for the composer, the performer or the listener. Again, speaking for myself, I certainly never go about a piece thinking that I wish to convey this, that or the other emotions; the music must convey what it wants to do and it's up to me to use such technique as I have to ensure that it does so clearly.

Best,

Alistair

[keyboardclass]

Like any other listener, the composer will presumably respond in whatever way the performance that he/she listens to invites or encourages him/her to do - in that way (and specifically in the present context) the composer as listener is no different to any other listener - but see also below...

So a Formula 1 driver sees the same race as a normal spectator?

[ahinton]

So a Formula 1 driver sees the same race as a normal spectator?

I suggested nothing of the kind and submit that your analogy here is in any case flawed. If you care to read the entire sentence that you quote in the context of the remainder of what I have written on the subject, you should be able to infer that, although individual listener responses will inevitably vary from person to person (regardless of whether each such listener may be the creator, the intermediary or the "end user"), the music still conveys what it conveys; of course the composer, performer and listener will have different inputs and involvement in the music and what it conveys - the first two of them active and the last passive - so the notion that you put forward above clearly makes no sense.

Best,

Alistair

[keyboardclass]

although individual listener responses will inevitably vary from person to person (regardless of whether each such listener may be the creator, the intermediary or the "end user"), the music still conveys what it conveys;

I'm afraid not.  It only 'conveys' what the recipient will accept.  There's no piece of music not recreated by the listener - it's the tree falling in the forest scenario.

[yveqq]

a slight fluctuation in dynamics or a simple dab on the soft pedal can change the colour of each note drastically and enhance the emotion in the notes and harmony arranged by the composer. imo technique allows the interpreter to manipulate his/her instrument to produce the tones that stimulates the ear.

[ahinton]

I'm afraid not.  It only 'conveys' what the recipient will accept.  There's no piece of music not recreated by the listener - it's the tree falling in the forest scenario.

I'm afraid so - but I also agree, more or less, with what you write! Everything is recreated all the time by the composer, the intermediary and the "end user" listener, but none of that alters the fact that emotions are present at all stages, even if none can be pinned down into convenient "explanatory" verbal description.

Best,

Alistair

[keyboardclass]

but none of that alters the fact that emotions are present at all stages,

That's a good point - attempt to write a piece that doesn't elicit an emotion.  I'm not sure it can be done.

[ahinton]

That's a good point - attempt to write a piece that doesn't elicit an emotion.  I'm not sure it can be done.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I have no intention of making any such attempt!

Best,

Alistair

[mcdiddy1]

That's a good point - attempt to write a piece that doesn't elicit an emotion.  I'm not sure it can be done.

Thats a interesting comment. When you say that , I think of minimalism and John Cage's 4'33 and if there is a lack of emotion in there. You can even describe the emptiness of silence as being an emotion. Funny thing is a pianist actually preformed the piece at my school once. I think I will assign that piece to students who do not finish learning their recital piece in time...lol.