The experience of emotion during playing

[ted]

I am not a performer, but I have always been curious about the degree to which players, in any idiom, actually feel emotion, and cultivate the propensity to feel emotion, during performance, in the moment. If they do, does it help or hinder their playing ? Or is the player objectively trying to evoke emotions in the audience by cold processes of technique and ratiocination ? It seems obvious that in playing traditional classical music, such emotions must surely be either vicarious, what has been traditionally associated with a piece over the years, or personal, in the sense that the player brings to bear feelings strictly his or her own, concerning the piece from his past experience. "This piece always reminds me of when dear old Uncle Bertie died."

In other words, is the cultivation of an emotional state, vicarious or personal, part of a performer's practice routine, an integral and permanent aspect of every piece ? If so, it must be very tiring. Someone tell me, I really don't know.

[hfmadopter]

I could really ramble on over this topic but it would all be as it fits me personally. My music is very much about emotion, it's a very personal connection to delivering a presence about the Music itself, not the notes as a page layout. And this is all the more so within my own compositions as I'm sure is not hard for anyone to grasp that concept. Best I can tell you without offering myself up as a sacrifice to the forum analysts..

[keypeg]

You have to be able to convey emotion.  If your heart is pounding with emotion and your hands clam up in the process, the audience won't receive anything from your pounding heart.

[ffchopinist]

My own answer to that is a resounding "yes, definitely." Anyone can have outstanding technique with enough drilling and practice, but what sets true musicians and artists apart from people who can simply play the piano is being able to feel and convey emotion through the music, or "having something to say" when they play a piece.  In addition to just conveying or imagining the composer's emotions for a piece, I find that the best pieces provide the pianist an outlet for his/her own emotions.  Playing certain pieces can also be a bit "therapeutic," and being able to express oneself through music can help one get through bad days, frustrating experience, sad times, angry times, and fun / happy times.  Play Rachmaninoff's Prelude in C Sharp Minor when you're angry or upset at something, and I guarantee you will feel better afterward.  Chopin in particular is great for bad days and sad days... or any day at all really.    When possible, authentic emotion and connection to the piece tends to lead to the best performances, in my opinion... for pieces where it would be a stretch to imagine emotionally, I find that it helps to picture a particular scene or mood to evoke while playing.  (In particular, picturing a scene in the mind naturally is part of playing Impressionistic pieces by Debussy, Ravel, etc.)  Hope this helps shed some light on the pianist's inner psyche, though I am an amateur and can't speak for all pianists!   I'd be curious to hear what other piano-players think about the topic of emotion, too.

I am not a performer, but I have always been curious about the degree to which players, in any idiom, actually feel emotion, and cultivate the propensity to feel emotion, during performance, in the moment. If they do, does it help or hinder their playing ? Or is the player objectively trying to evoke emotions in the audience by cold processes of technique and ratiocination ? It seems obvious that in playing traditional classical music, such emotions must surely be either vicarious, what has been traditionally associated with a piece over the years, or personal, in the sense that the player brings to bear feelings strictly his or her own, concerning the piece from his past experience. "This piece always reminds me of when dear old Uncle Bertie died."

In other words, is the cultivation of an emotional state, vicarious or personal, part of a performer's practice routine, an integral and permanent aspect of every piece ? If so, it must be very tiring. Someone tell me, I really don't know.

[iansinclair]

In my humble opinion, you have to have emotion to play well, or sing.  Indeed, you have to be able to really feel emotions!  However, I don't think that this is something you can cultivate -- rather, you can allow it to be, and this is something which you can do in all aspects of your life.

I don't mean that in the modern "let it all hang out" sense; I find that disgusting or insulting in people (and yes, before you ask, I'm one of those "stiff upper lip Britishers") but the emotions have to be there -- and one of the best places to express them is through your music.

Further, if you have read some of my other comments, I feel that you must have something to say with your music -- and that the lack of this and lack of emotion in playing is one of the most serious faults I find in players, particularly in younger players (where it often isn't a fault; it's just that they haven't had the chance to develop or experience emotion yet -- but even so they should be careful to avoid technical prowess with musical excellence).

[dcstudio]

the emotion... it takes several forms.   Some of the most moving experiences I have ever had as a musician came when I was accompanying young singers in all-state vocal competitions.  When they would win and get to play in the big recital in front of 1500 people it was a pretty big deal.   I had one little girl who had just been to her grandmother's funeral the week before.  She won her division and sang Homeward Bound in the recital...  I remember feeling it so deeply that day that I had to really focus to keep back the tears.  That's a hard feeling to describe...  to sit at the piano watching the singer and supporting them... and to see the audience's reaction as both an observer and a full on participant... I don't think there's anything like it...

I accompanied one of my piano students at all-state for her vocal division pieces...  she had her piano piece down pat...  so I spent the last few lessons before all-state focusing on practicing with her on her vocal pieces.   We practiced so much together that our moves were perfectly in sync --she sang "I enjoy being a Girl" from Flower Drum Song--she won her division of course...but it was the recital that was really great.   She performed flawlessly...and so did I. That performance was so full of just sheer excitement and joy--that I also felt like crying...  We got a standing ovation which was very rare..   Then as I was leaving my old piano teacher came running up to me out of breath and laughing... "That was great!!!" he said, "the facial expressions your moves all of it...WOW!"

Coming from the man who was once my teacher...  WOW...  that was "emotional" as well.

[dcstudio]

ok... so I realize you probably mean emotion that comes from the music alone...  in order for that to happen you must have some kind of personal connection to the piece of music you are playing.  The first time it happened was when I played the first mvmt of the Moonlight... I was very young and I had just learned that Beethoven was deaf at the end of his life.   I remember feeling so sorry for him and at the same time somehow connected to him while I played the sonata at my little tiny recital in a spit and you miss it town in Ohio.

Though the music itself does draw an emotional response... there's more to it than that I think.  I have never just been overwhelmed with emotion while playing something... unless it was because of the images, ideas, memories, or whatever that particular piece brought to mind.

[louispodesta]

I am not a performer, but I have always been curious about the degree to which players, in any idiom, actually feel emotion, and cultivate the propensity to feel emotion, during performance, in the moment. If they do, does it help or hinder their playing ? Or is the player objectively trying to evoke emotions in the audience by cold processes of technique and ratiocination ? It seems obvious that in playing traditional classical music, such emotions must surely be either vicarious, what has been traditionally associated with a piece over the years, or personal, in the sense that the player brings to bear feelings strictly his or her own, concerning the piece from his past experience. "This piece always reminds me of when dear old Uncle Bertie died."

In other words, is the cultivation of an emotional state, vicarious or personal, part of a performer's practice routine, an integral and permanent aspect of every piece ? If so, it must be very tiring. Someone tell me, I really don't know.

My "technique" coach, Dr. Thomas Mark, recently published a book on this subject, entitled "Motion, Emotion, and Love." https://www.amazon.com/Motion-Emotion-Love-Artistic-Performance/dp/1579999018  This book will address most of your questions, and then some.

For further reference, I suggest you visit his website:  www.pianomap.com, which was related to his widely academically utilized first book:  "What Every Pianist Needs To Know About The Body."

[ted]

Thanks for the link, the book looks interesting.

[indianajo]

I'm a cold analytical techie, except when it comes to music.  When I feel like expressing emotion, I play music.  Sometimes on the record player, some times listening to the radio where pieces surprise me, sometimes when I play the piano or organ.
Practicing of course is very analytical in the beginning, but the first time you play some pieces with hands together, is fun.  Then when you get them up to speed, even more fun.  Then after long practice I do little volume, accent, and (rarely) speed tricks to make a piece even more interesting.  
I play a lot of flash pieces, since I like that sort of thing.  Lecuona Maleguena I learned when I was 11. Baby Elephant Walk and Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies on organ are my latest flashy pieces.   I play some pieces to get angry - Moonlight Sonata Mvt 3 is perfect for feeling as neglected as smelly old Beethoven.  Some pieces are for feeling sad or lonely - some winter pieces, R. Dwight Funeral for a Friend Candle in the Wind or Blue Lagoon, Abilene.  Pictures at an Exhibition has two haughty processions of nobles, two flippy children's larks, two travelogs in the Russian vast emptiness,  two crashing tantrums, a big broad Busby Berkely show to finish.  Count on Him is dismissive or wry, as I found the real Count Basie to be. 
Recently I've gotten into nostalgia, where I play six of the hundreds of old hymns I sang as a child in the South,  in a little country church on Sunday AM.    I've found a group of old people out there that love to sing hymns to live piano, and aren't afraid of something different every Sunday.  They are a great handful of people, with a rare spirit these days.  

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I think it's often unclear what precise emotion is depicted by a piece of music. Sometimes it is obviously joyous, and sometimes obviously sad, but I believe a lot of music is far more nuanced than that. What's important is that the performer plays expressively, which is a matter of imagination, perception, and technical control.

I suppose it's not really that different to acting. If the performer is overcome by the emotion felt, the net result might be very convincing but it's probably far more likely to be hysterically incoherent. Thus I believe the performer must be internally clear about what he/she wishes to project and how to do it, but not so involved as to lose control. I guess it's a balancing act. Certainly playing music can have a cathartic element to it, probably this is more appropriate as a private act though.

[iansinclair]

...What's important is that the performer plays expressively, which is a matter of imagination, perception, and technical control.

I suppose it's not really that different to acting. If the performer is overcome by the emotion felt, the net result might be very convincing but it's probably far more likely to be hysterically incoherent. Thus I believe the performer must be internally clear about what he/she wishes to project and how to do it, but not so involved as to lose control. I guess it's a balancing act. Certainly playing music can have a cathartic element to it, probably this is more appropriate as a private act though.

Exactly.  The real key to it is in that first sentence I left in you quote.  It is quite possible for the performer to be taken up by the intensity of the emotion -- either that clearly expressed by the music or by her or his associations with the music, all as influenced by her or his imagination and understanding.  But.  If she or he does not have the technical control to manage that and express it, the result will be, as you say, catastrophic.  Either hysterically incoherent (I love that!) or sometimes a complete inability to continue.  And the more intense the emotion, the better the technical control has to be.

If the technical control is there, though, the result can be intensely, perhaps overwhelmingly (for the audience) satisfying.  I conducted a Faure Requiem once during which I was under tremendous emotional pressure, for reasons we needn't go into, but -- quite literally thank God -- both my chorus and soloists and orchestra and myself had enough technical control to project that.  I was able to draw it out of my players and singers.  At the end we had total... absolute... silence for perhaps half a minute.  Then a standing ovation.  It can happen.

[dcstudio]

I play some pieces to get angry - Moonlight Sonata Mvt 3 is perfect for feeling as neglected as smelly old Beethoven.    

my  smelly old MS mvmt 3 tends to arouse anger in others...lol..  which is due to my neglect to practice it regularly.   

[kevonthegreatpianist]

my  smelly old MS mvmt 3 tends to arouse anger in others...lol..  which is due to my neglect to practice it regularly.   

it's not that difficult. you just need to have alberti bass skills

[dcstudio]

it's not that difficult. you just need to have alberti bass skills

yes I know young kevonthegreatpianist.. I am 51-- andI learned it at 19...    but you are absolutely right...it is NOT that difficult at all.  It does take a run through now and then thought to keep it in the fingers...or else it comes out pretty smelly...   

lot of 16th notes to keep even...  and then there's those trills.

I have been known to perform it without preparing it first...     not a good move.

[kevonthegreatpianist]

yes I know young kevonthegreatpianist.. I am 51-- andI learned it at 19...    but you are absolutely right...it is NOT that difficult at all.  It does take a run through now and then thought to keep it in the fingers...or else it comes out pretty smelly...  

lot of 16th notes to keep even...  and then there's those trills.

I have been known to perform it without preparing it first...    not a good move.

but the 16th notes aren't that difficult. the fantasie-impromptu and chopin's 10/4 were highly based on this movements are much more difficult.  

and im not that young, there are ppl on this forum younger than me, tho not much

[dcstudio]

but the 16th notes aren't that difficult. the fantasie-impromptu and chopin's 10/4 were highly based on this movements are much more difficult.  

and im not that young, there are ppl on this forum younger than me, tho not much

perhaps I was unclear....the MS 3...irregardless of the perceived difficulty of the 16th notes...requires a run through now and then to be performance worthy...   


it would be wise to wait until you can actually play these pieces before you attempt to make such a comparison...  or is that what you are meaning to suggest here?   

and you are that young to me...  I have shoes older than you 

[vansh]

my  smelly old MS mvmt 3 tends to arouse anger in others...lol..  which is due to my neglect to practice it regularly.   

People say my ending of La Campanella sounds apocalyptic. That wasn't exactly what I was going for though.

[dcstudio]

People say my ending of La Campanella sounds apocalyptic. That wasn't exactly what I was going for though.

yeah.. F$#@ em!  and I never say that lol.

btw--I see you're learning the HR 2--kudos to you...  I have wanted to play that one since the first time I saw bugs bunny's play it on Saturday morning cartoons when I was just a wee little pianist, 

post it when it's ready please. 

[kawai_cs]

I don't care about a musician's emotions when they play. I actually truly loathe exultation in any form it might take. As somebody wrote above, the artist's aim should be to evoke emotion in audience and that is what a good artist does. A weak performer might want to distract the attention from his faulty performance with his exultation.

[dcstudio]

I don't care about a musician's emotions when they play. I actually truly loathe exultation in any form it might take. As somebody wrote above, the artist's aim should be to evoke emotion in audience and that is what a good artist does. A weak performer might want to distract the attention from his faulty performance with his exultation.

I am confused...  why would a musician experiencing emotion during a performance be an act of exultation?   If the artist's aim is to evoke emotion in the audience...how can he do that without experiencing it himself?---which you say is exultation..?  are you saying that a performer should seek to evoke an emotional response from his audience--yet be sure to not experience it himself..

am I missing something? 

[kawai_cs]

What I mean is that music is not about the performer. I do not care what they feel because it is irrelevant. When I listen to great music I think: wow, what a great composer and NOT, wow, what a great performer. I noticed that when I listen to a very good rendition the performer is translucent - they seem to be just conveying the musical idea of the piece intended by composer - it feels very natural and consistent. Whereas somebody excessively showing emotions draws attention to themselves and actually focuses on themselves. I hope I was able to explain it so that it makes some sense

[dcstudio]

What I mean is that music is not about the performer. I do not care what they feel because it is irrelevant. When I listen to great music I think: wow, what a great composer and NOT, wow, what a great performer. I noticed that when I listen to a very good rendition the performer is translucent - they seem to be just conveying the musical idea of the piece intended by composer - it feels very natural and consistent. Whereas somebody excessively showing emotions draws attention to themselves and actually focuses on themselves. I hope I was able to explain it so that it makes some sense

wow...yes, it makes sense and I am sensing that you have had a really bad experience that was musically related--bad teacher?  have you quit playing altogether? 

as a performer myself... I have to feel it or no one else will...  and yes I draw attention to myself--I draw in the energy from the room and send it back out through my hands.   If you are that "focused on yourself" you will forget the music you are playing.  Really, although the mind does wander while your performing--there is still a baseline level of concentration and recall involved that is essential to playing... your mind can only wander so far...and you can only think about a finite number of things whilst performing at the piano...  not much room for--"hey look at me aren't I cool?"  --- well, there is a little room for that.

but exultation...?

[outin]

I kind of agree with kawai... I don't think it's necessary for the performer to actually feel to be able to deliver emotion to the listeners. At least in my experience. When I sing people say that it's emotional, yet I don't feel any...I just do things with the music that I know will produce that effect Or maybe that's not it entirely...the music tells me how to do it and then by some miracle people respond to it.

And it seems to be the same with piano. Played for a small audience last week and later was told by my teacher that there were parts where it was very emotional. Well, I think I know which parts she was referring to and those where the parts when I felt comfortable in playing and was able to let the music take over. Yet I cannot say that *I* was feeling anything special...it was all in the music and I just delivered. So it's the composers who know how to evoke people's emotions and we just get it all served on a plate 

Of course it could be just people like me, I never was much of an emotional person.

[amytsuda]

I can't play anything without feeling emotions, like I can't listen any music without feeling emotions. Isn't music itself filled with every possible feelings, as far as it is not 12-tone system? Of course, it has nothing to do with the mood of the performer on that day - no music is written with one mood. But I can't help feeling the sigh, tension, surprise, longing, expansion, sparkles, humor, resolution, fatal end, whatever the composer puts in each phrase. Even impressionistic music conveys certain mood and color that evokes mood. Whatever, I just can't help it, before the discussion of if we should or should not.

[swagmaster420x]

I kind of agree with kawai... I don't think it's necessary for the performer to actually feel to be able to deliver emotion to the listeners. At least in my experience. When I sing people say that it's emotional, yet I don't feel any...I just do things with the music that I know will produce that effect Or maybe that's not it entirely...the music tells me how to do it and then by some miracle people respond to it.

And it seems to be the same with piano. Played for a small audience last week and later was told by my teacher that there were parts where it was very emotional. Well, I think I know which parts she was referring to and those where the parts when I felt comfortable in playing and was able to let the music take over. Yet I cannot say that *I* was feeling anything special...it was all in the music and I just delivered. So it's the composers who know how to evoke people's emotions and we just get it all served on a plate 

Of course it could be just people like me, I never was much of an emotional person.

I can relate!

[hardy_practice]

I kind of agree with kawai... I don't think it's necessary for the performer to actually feel to be able to deliver emotion to the listeners.

That discussion is on rhetoric and goes back to Quintilian - which is where I suggest you start rather than reinvent any wheels.

I can't play anything without feeling emotions, like I can't listen any music without feeling emotions. Isn't music itself filled with every possible feelings, as far as it is not 12-tone system?

Shows your ignorance of 12-tone music.  Getting rid of emotion in music would be a very tall order.

[swagmaster420x]

That discussion is on rhetoric and goes back to Quintilian - which is where I suggest you start rather than reinvent any wheels.

REinvent wheels Where

[ted]

The replies to my question give me pause for much thought. There obviously exists considerable variation among pianists about it. Perhaps it is time to chime in with my own situation. These days I am rarely moved by music. Well no, to be precise, music does generate a deep, highly active mental state in me, it is just that I doubt emotion is the right term to describe it. In fact it is hard to pinpoint a suitable word for what does happen. It isn't Wordsworth's "emotion recollected in tranquillity" because nothing is recollected. It is a fusion of my mind with abstract beauty, whose ineluctable progress I simultaneously create and observe, a mathematically chaotic collection of feedback loops; a massive vortex of self-reference. It is probably (I'm talking about free playing) the most intensely pleasurable experience in my life, yet I think emotion is a singularly inapt word to describe it.

I remember an experience many years ago in Manila, when, to elude those ubiquitous little blue men with guns, I ran up to the top floor of the Silahis Hotel on Roxas Boulevard. The unused, silent ballroom there reeked of many a stale debauch, but it was the view from the window which fascinated me; the inherent contrast in my solitary observation, in stasis, of the teeming metropolis nineteen floors below, a tumultuous mass of activity and emotion of every kind. That was, and still is, the best analogy I can think of to describe my feelings when I play or listen, particularly in my own improvisation.

A point of stasis within tumult.

[swagmaster420x]

The replies to my question give me pause for much thought. There obviously exists considerable variation among pianists about it. Perhaps it is time to chime in with my own situation. These days I am rarely moved by music. Well no, to be precise, music does generate a deep, highly active mental state in me, it is just that I doubt emotion is the right term to describe it. In fact it is hard to pinpoint a suitable word for what does happen. It isn't Wordsworth's "emotion recollected in tranquillity" because nothing is recollected. It is a fusion of my mind with abstract beauty, whose ineluctable progress I simultaneously create and observe, a mathematically chaotic collection of feedback loops; a massive vortex of self-reference. It is probably (I'm talking about free playing) the most intensely pleasurable experience in my life, yet I think emotion is a singularly inapt word to describe it.

I remember an experience many years ago in Manila, when, to elude those ubiquitous little blue men with guns, I ran up to the top floor of the Silahis Hotel on Roxas Boulevard. The unused, silent ballroom there reeked of many a stale debauch, but it was the view from the window which fascinated me; the inherent contrast in my solitary observation, in stasis, of the teeming metropolis nineteen floors below, a tumultuous mass of activity and emotion of every kind. That was, and still is, the best analogy I can think of to describe my feelings when I play or listen, particularly in my own improvisation.

A point of stasis within tumult.

Wow! That was extremely descriptive. I feel like you would resonate with this quote by Nabokov:
"It seems to me that a good formula to test the quality of a novel is, in the long run, a merging of the precision of poetry and the intuition of science. In order to bask in that magic a wise reader reads the book of genius not with his heart, not so much with his brain, but with his spine. It is there that occurs the telltale tingle even though we must keep a little aloof, a little detached when reading. Then with a pleasure which is both sensual and intellectual we shall watch the artist build his castle of cards and watch the castle of cards become a castle of beautiful steel and glass."

His full notes on what writing means to him is here:https://www.en.utexas.edu/amlit/amlitprivate/scans/goodre.html

[hardy_practice]

Hey, nice one Ted.  Yeh, emotion is for the immature - music is so much bigger.

[ahinton]

Hey, nice one Ted.  Yeh, emotion is for the immature - music is so much bigger.

Oh. Well, in that case, I'd better collect up all my scores and pass them through the shredder a.s.a.p.

The emotional state of the performer when performing in public is one thing; the emotions conveyed in the music being performed is quite another. The performer has to be in total control at and of the moment; the composer will have had (and needed) more time to develop his/her expressions when engaged in the act of composition. A performer's rôle is not to emote all over the place but to convey the composer's thoughts and emotions directly to his/her audience; in other words, it's a kind of intermediary rôle.

Best,

Alistair

[dcstudio]

Oh. Well, in that case, I'd better collect up all my scores and pass them through the shredder a.s.a.p.

The emotional state of the performer when performing in public is one thing; the emotions conveyed in the music being performed is quite another. The performer has to be in total control at and of the moment; the composer will have had (and needed) more time to develop his/her expressions when engaged in the act of composition. A performer's rôle is not to emote all over the place but to convey the composer's thoughts and emotions directly to his/her audience; in other words, it's a kind of intermediary rôle.

Best,

Alistair

lol...you tell 'em.   

and..for the record this thread is about experiencing emotion while playing.  NOT conveying emotion as intended by the composer to the audience...  that is as stated an intermediary role--but that wasn't the question.

there were no parameters given as to what kind of situation we would be in or why would be experiencing this emotion.   

There are a series of emotions that run with every performance that are not directly related to the music--and then there are triggered emotions which come from the memories of the performer which relate to the thematic elements--and feeling those is not wrong nor is it immature.

I think the problem is you don't like the over-emotional "sad clown face" pianist who looks like he's about to cry at the top of each crescendo...I don't like him either...  a lot of it seems fake to me.  This is more like ACTING and not experiencing actual emotion...   

Just because I experience emotion while I perform does not mean I act like Lang Lang...  experiencing emotion while playing... and expressing emotion while playing... are two different things entirely.

[swagmaster420x]

I personally think if you are genuinely experiencing emotion while you are playing , it is a sign whatever you are playing will convey emotion more effectively to the audience.

[outin]

and..for the record this thread is about experiencing emotion while playing.  NOT conveying emotion as intended by the composer to the audience...  that is as stated an intermediary role--but that wasn't the question.

Maybe you should read the OP's post again.
"Or is the player objectively trying to evoke emotions in the audience by cold processes of technique and ratiocination ?"

That brings us directly to the idea of "intermediary role". At least if the technique and rationalization are based on what the composer wrote.

BTW. I make a distinction between "emotions" and "sensations". I do get strong sensations from music, both while listening and playing , but I would not call them emotions.

[ted]

I do get strong sensations from music, both while listening and playing , but I would not call them emotions.

That's right, so do I. You express it much more succinctly than I did.

[hardy_practice]

I'm referring to those who focus on the emotional element as if it's the be all and end all - the last refuge of a musical scoundrel.  They do a disservice to the art.   

[vansh]

yeah.. F$#@ em!  and I never say that lol.

btw--I see you're learning the HR 2--kudos to you...  I have wanted to play that one since the first time I saw bugs bunny's play it on Saturday morning cartoons when I was just a wee little pianist, 

post it when it's ready please. 

It'll probably be a long time before I post it though -- I knew going in that Hungarian Rhapsody 2 and La Campanella were sort of "reach" pieces to improve my technique and would take time to become performance ready, since previously I had only done stuff like Fantaisie-Impromptu and Hungarian Rhapsody 11. It's more likely that I'll post Un Sospiro first since it seems to only be a step up from F-I rather than the several steps up of HR 2 and La Camp.

Regarding the OP, I do think of particularly evocative things when I'm playing, depending on the situation. To me when playing in public the question is "what are you trying to convey to the audience?" and thus I think of certain people from my past and try to think about how I would be singing each piece were I able to communicate with them only by singing notes (i.e. not words). It's more to help the phrasing of the music basically, and does need to be held in control a bit, if I overdo it I lose track of the piece and start losing my place and pressing wrong notes.

From a performance perspective I don't think the emotional state of the pianist is nearly as important as his (or her) ability to convey something to the audience, and so in that sense it is very much like what an actor does.

[ahinton]

lol...you tell 'em.   

and..for the record this thread is about experiencing emotion while playing.  NOT conveying emotion as intended by the composer to the audience...  that is as stated an intermediary role--but that wasn't the question.

there were no parameters given as to what kind of situation we would be in or why would be experiencing this emotion.   

There are a series of emotions that run with every performance that are not directly related to the music--and then there are triggered emotions which come from the memories of the performer which relate to the thematic elements--and feeling those is not wrong nor is it immature.

I think the problem is you don't like the over-emotional "sad clown face" pianist who looks like he's about to cry at the top of each crescendo...I don't like him either...  a lot of it seems fake to me.  This is more like ACTING and not experiencing actual emotion...   

Just because I experience emotion while I perform does not mean I act like Lang Lang...  experiencing emotion while playing... and expressing emotion while playing... are two different things entirely.

Your last paragraph here is the most important, if I may say so.

Michelangeli - and his great hero Rachmaninov - displayed almost no outward signs of personal emotional experience during their performences, which is not at all to suggest that they were not undergoing such experiences at those times but that they sought not to permit them to risk getting in the way of their transmissions of the composers' thoughts to the audience and, of course, in Rachmaninov's case, that was sometimes his own whenever he was performing his own music.

That said, the business of giving performances of one's own or anyone else's music requires that any emotional experience du moment on the performer's part must be kept under the strictest control so that the emotions conveyed by the music itself are not compromised by such possible interference from the performer. I do not at all pretend that this is an easy thing for the performer to master - indeed, it's the very opposite - but mastered it must be; it might therefore be argued that the hardest thing to do in this situation is to perform one's own music as Rchmaninov, Busoni, Medtner and many other great pianists (since we're talking first and foremost about pianists on this forum).

Best,

Alistair

[louispodesta]

With all due respect (and, I really mean that), you guys have sat there in lessons and taken anything that you "great teacher" said to you as gospel.  However, when I post a highly respected written cite, you guys go back to you my opinion/your opinion, discourse.

And, I finally figured it out, at least I hope I am wrong, as to how you arrive at this mindset.  You do not use traditional libraries for research and data sources.  You just Google it!

Otherwise, regarding this particular post, why would you not peruse (which I cited earlier) the most recent published commentary on this subject by my "technique" coach, Dr. Thomas Mark.  His new book "Motion, Emotion, and Love." beats this subject to death.

https://www.amazon.com/Motion-Emotion-Love-Artistic-Performance/dp/1579999018

Parenthetically, in regards the comment of "kawai," Thomas Mark, nor I, display any physical emotional mannerisms when we perform.

[dcstudio]

Your last paragraph here is the most important, if I may say so.



That said, the business of giving performances of one's own or anyone else's music requires that any emotional experience du moment on the performer's part must be kept under the strictest control so that the emotions conveyed by the music itself are not compromised by such possible interference from the performer. I do not at all pretend that this is an easy thing for the performer to master - indeed, it's the very opposite - but mastered it must be;

Best,

Alistair

no doubt... well said.   the emotions I experience range from complete and utter awe--to fear--sadness--and even anger...   and my face is expressive sometimes when I am not trying to put on a poker face.   If the music is the cause of my emotional response it is always because of some personal connection I have to it.  In a formal setting I will keep it all in...

in jazz--I make all kinds of faces and let myself express as I will....but jazz,unlike classical--thinks that is a good thing...  but even then I don't do the melodramatic weepyface..lol

[hardy_practice]

the most recent published commentary on this subject by my "technique" coach, Dr. Thomas Mark.  His new book "Motion, Emotion, and Love." beats this subject to death.

Does he start wit Quintilian?

[pianoplunker]

I am not a performer, but I have always been curious about the degree to which players, in any idiom, actually feel emotion, and cultivate the propensity to feel emotion, during performance, in the moment. If they do, does it help or hinder their playing ? Or is the player objectively trying to evoke emotions in the audience by cold processes of technique and ratiocination ? It seems obvious that in playing traditional classical music, such emotions must surely be either vicarious, what has been traditionally associated with a piece over the years, or personal, in the sense that the player brings to bear feelings strictly his or her own, concerning the piece from his past experience. "This piece always reminds me of when dear old Uncle Bertie died."

In other words, is the cultivation of an emotional state, vicarious or personal, part of a performer's practice routine, an integral and permanent aspect of every piece ? If so, it must be very tiring. Someone tell me, I really don't know.

"Emotional" is too vague and too obvious at the same time. The piece that reminds you of someone dying might be a piece that reminds someone else of falling in love or anything else beautiful, sad, or amazing.  For me the emotional nature of music will come to me, not the other way around. I dont practice "emotions" but do practice technique and dynamics.  I have a responsibility to use technique and dynamics when perfoming , not slumping over and crying all over the keys - although it has happened a few times.

[louispodesta]

Does he start wit Quintilian?

Dr. Mark would be most glad to answer (as always) any question you or anyone else might have through his website at www.pianomap.com.   As a former philosophy professor at Columbia, he has spent most of his entire adult life with the epistemology associated with intellectual inquiry.

[hardy_practice]

Dr. Mark would be most glad to answer (as always) any question you or anyone else might have through his website at www.pianomap.com.   As a former philosophy professor at Columbia, he has spent most of his entire adult life with the epistemology associated with intellectual inquiry.

I thought not.

[louispodesta]

I thought not.

In, that I cannot walk as a normal person, have atherosclerosis, psoriatic arthritis, and autism, I do not have the time to run down every arcane source listed in a reply.  I am, instead, trying to find the time and energy to practice four hours a day.

Also, as a social activist philosopher, I am not enamored with Aristotelian dotting your I's and crossing your t's.   Therefore, when you asked about the methodology Thomas Mark used in writing his book (in regards Quintilian) I responded the best way I could.

Have I memorized his entire book?  No, I have not.

So, if you genuinely want to discuss the Quintilian nature of his book, then just ask him.  Conversely, if you want to take on the mantle of troll number two, then have at it.

However, do not attempt to infer an empirical approach to the argument associated with this particular post with the highly intellectual statement of:  "I thought not."

[hardy_practice]

The prime essential for stirring the emotions of others is, in my opinion,first to feel those emotions oneself.  It is sometimes positively ridiculous to counterfeit grief, anger and indignation, if we content ourselves with accommodating our words and looks and make no attempt to adapt our own feelings to the emotions to be expressed. What other reason is there for the eloquence with which mourners express their grief, or for the fluency which anger lends even to the uneducated, save the fact that their minds are stirred to power by the depth and sincerity of their feelings? Consequently, if we wish to give our words the appearance of sincerity, we must assimilate ourselves to the emotions of those who are genuinely so affected, and our eloquence must spring from the same feeling that we desire to produce in the mind of the judge. ...and that we should be moved ourselves before we attempt to
move others.

THE INSTITUTIO ORATORIA OF
QUINTILIAN
BOOK VI.
ii. 26-29

And that's just a taster.  Why re-invent the wheel when you've already got a Rolls?

[dcstudio]

. ...and that we should be moved ourselves before we attempt to
move others.

THE INSTITUTIO ORATORIA OF
QUINTILIAN
BOOK VI.
ii. 26-29

And that's just a taster.  Why re-invent the wheel when you've already got a Rolls?

hey that sounds pretty interesting...  thanks for posting --  I am going to check that out and it's beautifully written--translated...cool.

[hardy_practice]

https://archive.org/details/institutioorator02quin contains books IV, V and VI.  Would certainly have been well thumbed by Bach (CPE quotes it).  Beethoven too probably.

[dcstudio]

https://archive.org/details/institutioorator02quin contains books IV, V and VI.  Would certainly have been well thumbed by Bach (CPE quotes it).  Beethoven too probably.

hey, thanks...  I just learned something new on PS... imagine that.