What is a good performance/interpretation etc?

[princessmoose]

How do you decided if you like a performance or what is good and what is not a good performance/interpretation of a piece? I find it hard, say when listening to a professional musician playing a concerto, or an orchestra playing a symphony, to be able to say why it was good, or why it wasn't. Most performances at that level are just mind blowing to me so they all sound good, but I've heard some people say they don't like so and so's performance of something, it was bad, and I've been thinking, hmm I thought it was quite good.

The only time I've been able to really say something about a performance at a professional standard was comparing Glenn Gould's performance of Mozart Sonata K309 against Schiff's. I instantly disliked Gould's. I can make comments on lower standard performances, and tell the difference between a good and bad performance, but when it comes to real high standard stuff, I'm baffled.

How do you form opinions, and what do you look for etc?

[jod]

A good perfomance is one where the performer/s instantly communicate with you. Often you get wierd sensations such as the hairs on the back of your neck standing up on end, or you gawp. The response is very deep and you don't actually know why it happens. In an OK perfomance, you hear the music, but it fails to really engage you.

The best way to be able to guage this is to go to a lot of concerts. You will know instnatly wherther it was a good performance or an ordinary one. It is harder to guage a good perfomnce when it is retold through elctronic media ie Radio, TV or recording, but it is still possible to know.

Also as the response is very personal, you may have differnt ideas about what works or not.

Nat, I know this sounds like a rambling, but go with your gut, if the performance fails to move you then its not great, if it brings the music alive then it is.

[princessmoose]

Thanks.

I sometimes read reviews of performances I've really liked and the reviewer, who is usually a well respected musician, has slated it, so I must be going wrong somewhere!

[jod]

At College during one Contemporary Music Festival I got involved in an intellectual arguement with the Music Critic from the Times. He loved what he had heard. I hated it, in a pre concert talk, the artists talked about their musical aims and stated that they did not want to write "cliche ridden music" The trouble was they still repeated musical devices and I felt they were developing their own Cliches. When I told the Critic this, and was able to argue it quoting bits of the performance he went very red in the face. The review in the Times was not so glowing after that!

[anacrusis]

I agree with JoD - you do have to go with your gut feeling. If my own instrument is being played, I can pick up on whether technique is sound; if it's a piece I know well, I will probably have some gold standard in my mind with which to compare it; if there are several players, I can tell if they are together and in tune - but that's only the very basic level of assessment of "good or not-good" - after that it's down to how the music speaks to you. The hair on the back of the neck thing is a great gauge; and if you get that when you yourself are playing, you know you've arrived!
(Or are sitting in a draught. ;D)

[meepmeep]

jod said:

Also as the response is very personal, you may have differnt ideas about what works or not.

Nat, I know this sounds like a rambling, but go with your gut, if the performance fails to move you then its not great, if it brings the music alive then it is.

Totally agree with JoD here - don't assume you must be wrong just cos the critics don't agree with you. What moves you might be very different from what moves another person.