What do you consider to be a satisfactory performance?

[asuhayda]

I often find it nearly impossible to play through any piece without making at least one (but usually more than one) note mistake - regardless of difficulty.

And even if I do manage to get through a piece note perfect, that still doesn't account for things like rhythmic inaccuracies, dynamic misinterpretations, etc..

So basically, perfection is unattainable - as everyone knows.

Thus, this has forced me to redefine my notion of a good performance of a given piece. 

I am curious, what do other people consider to be a satisfactory performance? This may help ease my mind about it as well. 

So, at the end of the day, what criteria is sufficient to make you say "I'm happy with how I performed" ... or are you also never happy about how you perform a given piece?

[gleeok]

To be honest, I'm never fully satisfied with any of my performances.

Although its only indirectly related to how satisfied you feel about a performance, in my opinion, one of the best things is to feel the emotion of playing "that" piece and when you finish it, take a deep breath, and say "wow! that was hard, but I made it to the end!". These moments are just amazing.

[j_menz]

A satisfactory performance is one where the audience doesn't demand their money back. 

[49410enrique]

A satisfactory performance is one where the audience doesn't demand their money back. 

or in the case of a free performance, do not demand payment for their trouble.

[emrysmerlin]

Being satisfactory is far from being well performed. I'd say playing all the right notes would be enough for the satisfactory level.

[danhuyle]

Playing at the standard of recordings. That's what everyone wants and expects of performances, at least pianists who are listening to your performance. Pianists who do listen to your performance have x-ray vision meaning they KNOW everything about what you're playing.

[emrysmerlin]

Also having a good piano sound would be important.

[asuhayda]

Being satisfactory is far from being well performed. I'd say playing all the right notes would be enough for the satisfactory level.

reaaaaaallly? ... hmm ...  I must clarify that I am not asking what the audience considers to be satisfactory.  I am asking what you (the performer) would consider to be satisfactory.

If playing all the right notes is a minimum requirement for a satisfactory performance, then Rubenstein and Horowitz along with a myriad of other legendary pianists never had a satisfactory performance in their lives.

I'm going to have to disagree with this.  It's too much of an oversimplification.

[asuhayda]

Playing at the standard of recordings. That's what everyone wants and expects of performances, at least pianists who are listening to your performance. Pianists who do listen to your performance have x-ray vision meaning they KNOW everything about what you're playing.

This is exactly why Glenn Gould stopped giving live performances. 

And I believe you are correct about other pianists... but I do not believe that all pianists are like this. Because I believe the X-RAY goggles to be a fault.  They are not seeing the bigger picture of a performance if they are so narrowly focused on whether a performer is making mistakes.  Too many mistakes is one thing, but the margin of error is too high to be so singularly focused on note clarity alone.  Plus, it shows a great deal of arrogance and very little empathy for a performer.  And, I don't believe that any one of us can say with a straight face that every performance we've ever played has been crystal clear.  So, why do we have the right to judge so harshly? Because we paid for it?  That's the equivalent of being a heckler..  everyone is a critic and very few have ever done anything of significance themselves.  We shouldn't be so quick to judge.  The nerve it takes to play a difficult piece in front of 100's or 1000's of people is too much for most people.

Lastly,  you are being fooled if you are comparing live performances to recordings.  A recording studio is a controlled environment and the music is ... I hate to say it... produced.  Glenn Gould himself admitted that his recordings were almost never one take.  He often spliced sections of different takes together to make a whole piece.   I guarantee you that recording artists still do this today.  So, holding a live performance to that standard is often unrealistic.  Can it be done? Sure, but more often than not, even the best pianists in the world will duff a note or two.  Music is much easier to nail when there is no pressure on you to hit it in one try.

[werq34ac]

I personally consider a satisfactory performance one where I was able to communicate what I wanted with the audience.

[rmbarbosa]

A satisfactory performance? Well, when I do feel what I`m playing and I do play what I`m feeling.

[asuhayda]

I personally consider a satisfactory performance one where I was able to communicate what I wanted with the audience.

agreed.

[emrysmerlin]

reaaaaaallly? ... hmm ...  I must clarify that I am not asking what the audience considers to be satisfactory.  I am asking what you (the performer) would consider to be satisfactory.

If playing all the right notes is a minimum requirement for a satisfactory performance, then Rubenstein and Horowitz along with a myriad of other legendary pianists never had a satisfactory performance in their lives.

I'm going to have to disagree with this.  It's too much of an oversimplification.

If we're talking about romanticism as the focus then yes I think I did oversimplify my post although this is also partially due to me reading the first post too quickly. When we play pieces from Mozart and Bach, the important thing is to not mess up the notes. If you're not trying to imitate Glenn Gould playing the Goldberg Variations, having the right touch etc. then baroque/classical period works are best to be more careful than to fully engross yourself to the music while performing (in front of a crowd), so that the audience doesn't start thinking that you're not good. And also being able to sound like mediocre professionals playing, yep we need that too.

For pieces from the romantic period you'd have to read all those notes about how to play it. Then listen to maybe 5 or so recordings from different people and try to have your own interpretation than you'd have it recorded and listened to so that you're sure it doesn't sound bad. Finally you can perform it and hope you won't mess up the notes since giving the audience a bad performance is the worst thing that can happen to make your performance "unsatisfactory."

[asuhayda]

so that the audience doesn't start thinking that you're not good.

Respectfully, I'm not asking what the audience thinks.. the audience will think what they think. You and I as performers have no control over that.  You could play everything perfectly with perfect articulation and clarity and dynamics.. I guarantee that there will always be one knucklehead in the audience that doesn't like what you played.  It's inevitable.

So, it seems that your definition of a satisfactory performance is to play all the right notes with respect to Classical/Baroque and to play with logical interpretation with respect to Romanticism.  Awesome! Wow. I wish that I could set standards like that. But I'm human and I make mistakes.  As do the majority of other musicians. 

I agree with werq34ac in that I have something I want to say to the audience.  If I feel that I communicated the idea, then I am happy with the performance. If not, then no.  I don't believe that any art is about being perfect as humans are imperfect... we are sharing parts of our imperfect souls.  Thats just my shabby romantic ideal though.

[alfrunner440]

Why do people go to concerts? It is not that they do not have anything better to do for the evening. They are there to be entertained and to enjoy the music. I went to a performance by Murray Perahia, and I being a musician heard every clunker he made and believe me he made a whole lot of them. I am very sure that he was not very satisfied with the way he played, but the audience simply loved it. They even stood up, shouted Bravo and wanted an encore.

So then what constitutes a good performance. As it was so very well put in a prior posting, so long as the audience does not ask for its money back, you fulfilled your obligation for the evening. You played, entertained them and they enjoyed every minute of it.

[zezhyrule]

I've been to a performance before where the pianist made one small mistake and then another and they just kept piling up until it completely fell apart. It was so horrible, I felt bad for him  It's silly, the audience probably didn't even notice the first small mistake he made. But he couldn't stop thinking about it I guess and just... killed it, heh.

So pretty much, any performance where that doesn't happen to me is satisfactory enough

[asuhayda]

I've been to a performance before where the pianist made one small mistake and then another and they just kept piling up until it completely fell apart. It was so horrible, I felt bad for him  It's silly, the audience probably didn't even notice the first small mistake he made. But he couldn't stop thinking about it I guess and just... killed it, heh.

So pretty much, any performance where that doesn't happen to me is satisfactory enough

YOU SAW THAT!? 

[cheewee]

A good performer is not one that tries to be perfect, but one that expects mistakes then learns to incorporate them in their performance; because there will always be mistakes.

[jesc]

I've been to a performance before where the pianist made one small mistake and then another and they just kept piling up until it completely fell apart. It was so horrible, I felt bad for him  It's silly, the audience probably didn't even notice the first small mistake he made. But he couldn't stop thinking about it I guess and just... killed it, heh.

Yeah, thinking about it makes it worse. It happened to me. I made a mistake, then kept thinking about it. When the passage was repeated, the most ironic thing happened. I was thinking about what went wrong so as not to repeat the mistake again. I was trying to recall it so much that when the said passage came, I repeated exactly the same mistake.

couldn't forget that one...

Back on topic: A good performance to me is when the pianist is able to successfully communicate his/her interpretation of the piece. How that interpretation is received by the audience depends on them.

[musicluvr49]

For me right now, as a college student, my idea of a satisfactory performance is where I don't let little mistakes interrupt what I want to convey to the audience with my music. I already know I'll make mistakes, so I just have to train myself to keep going when I perform, without really acknowledging that I made the mistake. I have done this completely successfully a couple of time, and the audience didn't even seem to notice the 4-5 mistakes I made. Either that, or they didn't care

[carlinton]

Once the listeners enjoyed your performance and make positive comments, then you can say that your performance was satisfactory. As musicians, I think we should try to fulfill one main objective. Which is to performance so that our audience can enjoy and feel what we are playing. 

[werq34ac]

Once the listeners enjoyed your performance and make positive comments, then you can say that your performance was satisfactory. As musicians, I think we should try to fulfill one main objective. Which is to performance so that our audience can enjoy and feel what we are playing. 

But shouldn't we be able to perform satisfactorily without an audience? The audience's reaction to a performance shouldn't be used as a measure for satisfaction, just because music is so subjective. Just because I didn't like someone's playing doesn't mean it was a bad performance and that they shouldn't be satisfied with it.

However, the 2nd part of what you said I agree with. As musicians, we should play so that our audience will enjoy our performance. A good performance is one that speaks. Whether the audience decides to listen and like it depends on the audience.