Liz Garnett articulates a problem I often have: what to say to singers who ask how the performance went. I never know what to say, and it’s not always because I don’t want to admit it was awful. Often I just don’t know. Liz explains why:It’s not surprising, then, that directors find it hard to say how a performance went the moment they come off stage. They’ve just had an extended musical experience in which they’ve been living moment-to-moment within the music without accessing the mental register needed to answer any question, let alone one about the peformance. [sic]
It’s a totally different approach, and something which non-conductors often don’t realize: our job is completely different in performance than it is in rehearsal, and Liz is just pointing out that our concentration on the performance aspect makes it difficult to give the type of evaluation we do in rehearsal.
Liz thinks that the singers themselves probably have just as good an idea about how the concert went, but I’m not sure I agree. Most singers seem to evaluate strictly based on their own personal performance: if they made a couple of mistakes, or were in bad voice that day, they’ll say the concert didn’t go well, regardless of how well the rest of the ensemble performed.
Then there’s the matter of listening to the recording afterwards…
Tom Carter says
So, in #1 above, such a director may focus continually on what’s NOT perfect, and what they need to do to make the ongoing performance even better. If their thoughts are thus focused, regardless of the actual performance experienced by singers or audience members, they may tend to “see/hear the negative.”
Due to #2 above, regardless of the director’s will and artistry, the concert will have a great tendency to be less impactful than if the director empowered the singers.
Such a director, when asked about the performance, is going to be pigeon-holed by their own focus during the concert, AND will create a less than fully impactful performance — regardless of how “perfectly” they craft the sound. They’re stuck, in other words. Even if magic is occuring outside of their control, they are very likely to miss it due to their focus. They’re also stuck by the fact that they have limited the “howwasitness” of the concert itself by disempowering the singers (albeit unintentionally). Bottom line: A technically-focused director who has created a compliant choir will limit the impact of the choral performance — regardless of the technical excellence they’ve facilitated.
On the other hand, if a director is in that Zen-like dance between empowered artists and empowering director, they are no longer focused on the pursuit of perfection. They’re now in the realm of elusive qualities like “presence,” “joyful give and take,” “human connection,” and “the moment where Meaning + Music = Magic.” (And of course, the technical elements have to be excellent to begin with lest they pull negative focus — “Magic” hardly ever occurs with “Mush.”)
When such a director is asked, “How did the performance go?” or “How were we?” the question is almost moot. Most everyone at the concert experienced and thought about the music differently, including the singers. This “in the moment-ness” and vital personal and collective commitment is very different, creating a palpably different experience for all — noticeably different than the one the singers would have had their (and their director’s) predominant focus been “creating technical excellence.” The key, though, is that the singers experienced it so they KNOW how the concert was. They don’t even need to ask. They were an integral part of the process, not just part of the result as controlled, quantified, measured, and judged by their director.
Hope that makes sense.
John Howell says
Patricia Valiante says
Ronald Richard Duquette says
James Janzen says