Sax on the Web Forum banner

What makes a performance engaging?

12K views 49 replies 17 participants last post by  differencetone 
#1 ·
I am interested in why one performance grabs you attention the entire time, and others don't. I see about 10 symphony concerts a year, 4 big name jazz shows, go to a jazz club once a month, and about 4 times a year i am able to see more nontraditional music. in almost all the shows there comes a point where is top paying attention, it rarely has to do with the quality of music, and sometimes i can't wait to leave. but atleast twice a year i see something that truly holds my interest the entire time. Much in the way that a cd can be well put to gether annd organized in a way where you engaged throughout its entirety an concert can do the same.

I dont think that the quality of composition and playing are the most important factors in a concert. i saw Houlik play a concert for 2 hours solo, the music and performance were unreal, but I didn't feel engaged the entire time. conversely i saw Phillipe Geiss play an hour long concert were he talked about his music and even though compared to the quality of music that was put out at other shows, i found him much more engaging to watch and listen to.

I want to explore with you folks on sax on the web what the similarities and differences are between engaging and no engaging concerts. this could include showmanship, program, quality of playing, your mood, anything. I think we have to collective experience here to come to some thought provoking conclusions
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Big question!
I suppose sometime people are fascinating just to watch, people who are different or attractive. Mostly, for me, talent holds my attention. It affects me deeply when I hear a superb musician, especially if they are able to transfer their emotions into their instrument.
I was lucky enough to hear a jazz pianist here playing at the Novatel Hotel recently. His playing made me cry (in a good way) I've also been lucky enough to sing jazz with him recently. We hope to do some gigs together soon. I also think, if you play with people that good, it kind of raises you to a higher level, too. That's the real buzz........................

I'd also add, that sometimes it depends on our own mood, as to how we perceive the music. Sometimes as Ella says in 'Angel Eyes': ''Drink up all you happy people, the laughs and the joke's on me''
Good topic though.
 
#4 ·
If you are asking for comments on what makes a performance engaging then it really comes down to one thing in my opinion and that is having the ability to transcend that boundary between “stage” and “audience”.

If I think of the performances that have had a profound impact on me, then that is one thing they have all had in common. Albeit some have achieved this in different ways.

Branford Marsalis Quartet - Group improvisation was the best I have seen bar none.

Paul Simon featuring Michael Brecker - Musical brilliance of all.

Sting - Ten Summoners Tales Band (Sting, Miller, Sancious, Colliuta) - The Ability to re-harmonize popular standards and perform the brilliantly live.
 
#5 ·
There might not be a more subjective question.

The above list by our Australian friend probably wouldn't hold my interest for more than a few seconds, and I'm sure I've seen some things that left me absolutely stupefied that would bore him to tears.

Try as I might, I am at a loss for words as to how to explain what makes an engaging peformer, strictly from my own experience as a discerning audience member. I guess it's like what a historical supreme court justice said about obscene material, "You know it when you see it".
 
#6 ·
An excellent thread. I think that in music there are the four dimensions of this world and then there is a fifth artistic dimension that is transcendent. There are a few musicians I know who have this. One, a professional guitarist, will try out a guitar in the shop and play a few chords, that we all could play, and every other customer and the assistants turn around to listen and watch.
Another is a classical saxophone player. We were doing a recording with a string ensemble and soprano saxophone, and one of the violinists invited a professional photographer to come to photograph the session. The first thing the photographer asked as he entered the church was 'who is that musician playing the trumpet-like instrument, it is astounding, I've never heard anything like it'.
There is a magical quality that comes over with the music, a communication that is above technique, sound and notes; I believe it is to do with conviction, honesty, spirituality, genuineness, and a complete and utter dedication to your instrument and music. I sincerely hope this doesn't come over as snobbish but now when I do recordings I only use musicians that I sense have this magical quality.
I first really noticed this when I became bored with the blues which I used to love at school, I just assumed I had moved along and was no longer interested. Then I accidentally heard an old master bluesman on the radio ; the first four bars were him singing "You know how it feels" followed by two notes on the guitar. That was all that was needed, just perfect blues from a master and I realised I had not lost interest, I had just heard a lot of blues that did not have this conviction.
When I write music now, I no longer think so much about technical innovation, formal sophistication etc., I think about the transcendental quality (I am not saying I succeed of course). The great bluesmen have it, some psych folk singers can have it, all the great musicians in all styles have this transcendental quality; this is what I think we must all emulate. In the same way as the atom contains smaller things, protons and neutrons etc., I think even one note contains other elements that we sense but almost can't analyze.
 
#7 ·
An excellent thread. I think that in music there are the four dimensions of this world and then there is a fifth artistic dimension that is transcendent.
Ian thats an excellent analogy. In fact its better than mine and probably galvanizes it for me. Its the 5th dimension - Almost like the matrix if you like - The ability to walk through walls musically. Thats the fifth dimension you talk about.
 
#10 ·
Interesting question. During my brief time as a University lecturer in performance it became necessary to actually try to analyse this . And I agree with other posters much can be very subjective and much can be very hard to pin down.

But with this kind of thing you have to try to take out as much of the subjectivity as possible, a student band needs to know why they got a certain mark, and what they can improve about their performance.

We used various criteria, obviously musical technique and expression came into it, but the other elements were:

  • Image (or deportment). This can go beyond what you are wearing, it includes the way you hold your instrument, the way you walk/run/dance/stand, coping with mistakes/disasters.
  • Production. This includes the way a set is put together, the tunes, the order and variety of tunes, any stage props or lighting you have organised.
  • Engagement with the audience. Smiling, talking, frowning, joking, eye contact
  • Information: programme notes or telling the audience what you are playing, why you are playing it.
  • Communication with other band members. Cues, conducting, listening, looking.
  • Playing Technique, expression,

What we found useful was to apply marks for each category (including technical mastery of the instrument) depending on the style of music. So for example a ska band could choose to have image and production weighted more heavily in the final assessment than technical mastery of their instrument.

Yes, this might sound a bit artificial, but it actually worked very well - ended up with a lot more "great performances" rather than the previous more typical student "recitals", the students were happy because they understood feedback based on this system rather than "well, we just didn't think it was that good...".

And best of all is seeing so many of them very quickly becoming successful performing and recording artists.
 
#11 ·
Interesting question. During my brief time as a University lecturer in performance it became necessary to actually try to analyse this . And I agree with other posters much can be very subjective and much can be very hard to pin down.

But with this kind of thing you have to try to take out as much of the subjectivity as possible, a student band needs to know why they got a certain mark, and what they can improve about their performance.

We used various criteria, obviously musical technique and expression came into it, but the other elements were:

  • Image (or deportment). This can go beyond what you are wearing, it includes the way you hold your instrument, the way you walk/run/dance/stand, coping with mistakes/disasters.
  • Production. This includes the way a set is put together, the tunes, the order and variety of tunes, any stage props or lighting you have organised.
  • Engagement with the audience. Smiling, talking, frowning, joking, eye contact
  • Information: programme notes or telling the audience what you are playing, why you are playing it.
  • Communication with other band members. Cues, conducting, listening, looking.
  • Playing Technique, expression,

Yes, this might sound a bit artificial, but it actually worked very . . . . well "
I don't think its artificial at all. I think its a brilliant list of criteria that makes absolute sense, but even more so connects directly to the "5th Dimension" in a real way. I applaud you for including image, engagement and communication especially. Id love to know the process you went through to get to these. Bravo.
 
#17 ·
In this day of modern recordings, we often have a good idea what to expect from a live performance.
One of the professors here, our music technology professor, and I were talking about a topic very similar to this before the end of last semester. What he said was that people now, with the wealth of recordings available, are less likely to sit and be engaged for even 50 minutes of music. Not to say that this encompasses every listener or concert goer, but think about it. Now we're able to listen to things repeatedly, skip around and listen to parts out of sequence, etc. Back in the 17, 18, and 19th centuries (pre-recordings), if you wanted to hear music (of course once it was a public ordeal and not a private one), odds are that you'd go to a concert hall, sit through an orchestra or opera and odds are you would be totally immersed. Recordings aren't the only things that have pushed us away from this. Said professor said when he was in his undergrad, they had a class where all you did for 2 hours, twice a week, was critically listen to the longest pieces in the different musical periods. He said this class forced him to learn how to just sit and listen. Also, in our digital age, people just don't have patience anymore. With all of the leading technological developments around now, it's all about fast and faster and new and newer.

Now, most of what I have said is a bold generalization and doesn't encompass individual tastes in music or anything. It's just a summary of the arguments our music technology professor threw at me and I thought were interesting. For me, though, I need a performer to seem like they're engaged in the music. I want them to pull me in and to tell me what the music they're playing is, whether it be Brahms, Beethoven, Rzewski, Albright, Debussy or whoever. As long as they are confident in their playing and can portray that, odds are that I'll be engaged.
 
#16 ·
These are very good comments, and ideas. so pete is saying that body language has a huge role to play. i saw a cellist plat the shostakovich and before he bowed the first note he gave the audiance an evil glare, and it set the mood of the piece perfectly. I think having music memorized has a huge part to play It removes a barrier from you and the audiance.

There are also in my belief is a pre-performance aspect as to weather the audiance comes, and what they come expecting. I have found as i listen to classical music that i enjoy the concert much more if i know the composer very well, or i know the piece. it give me a sentimental quality to the listening, and i usually hear things in the live performance that i cant hear on record.

there is also dreawing the right audiance to the show, some poeple will like a video game miusic concert just because of what it is, but my musican freids who went to see such a concert were unengaged and left the concert saying that they could have done a lot better.

You need to give the audiance a reason to come, and a certain element of satisfying their expectations of the performance, and at the same time surprising them with new twists and surprises that will trun on the crowd you invited.

Tim McCallister gave a masterclass at the symposium. He told the student to vary their style within a piece to keep the audiance interested in their playing as well as the composition. ie. varying the way you play legato between two legato sections in a piece, or the way you play fast in two sections of a piece.

check out this video it's an analysis of trent Reznor from NIN and how he engages audiances to come to his concerts and buy his cd's btw, you can download his cd for free, but people still buy them.

http://www.savvymusician.com/blog/2009/12/the-success-formula-for-selling-music/
 
#19 ·
Pete & Ian - thank you for your posts. Lot of food for thought in there. You both mention how some simple but often overlooked details can make the musical performance quite engaging. Perhaps individually the little things don't provide much effect. But, the sum total, taken together, add up to a substantial, qualitative effect!
 
#20 ·
I agree with a lot said here: variety, meeting expectations, hearing music you know and love, engaged musicians etc. I do think as a musician there is a balance to be struck between being 'totally engaged' in what you are doing and not excluding the audience. I'm not sure how to meet that balance yet myself, but I guess I'll work out a comfortable level with practice. I also agree that people have been less disciplined over time to listening, unless they want to - it is less forced upon us these days. But, of course we can force it upon ourselves.
For myself I love to hear a song I know done well. Or, a new song done in the style I love. Or, if it's just damn good, a song done in any style.
 
#26 ·
People always say honesty, usually in jazz circles, can you define what that means to you and people who you know.
 
#23 ·
I also think it is important to understand the performance from the audience's standpoint. In the U.K. classical concerts are often advertised as 'cutting edge, innovative etc.'; yet audiences, in my experience, don't think along those lines.
It is important to pay attention to what you say to the audience. I was at one concert recently and the musician presenting the music made a snide remark about 19th Century music. As I like 19th Century music it made it feel like a personal criticism of me. He also said the arranger - one of the ensemble - was a "genius arranger"; this meant audience members could not go up afterwards and say the arrangements were "very good", as it had also been declared they were genius, and very good is a level below genius.
There is embarrassment among contemporary composers in the U.K. at the thought that classical music is always, at one level, entertainment and to be enjoyed. This does not mean you patronize the audience, but you have to be aware that the latest avant-garde composition by an in composer, using an ingenious algorithmic technique, is just more contemporary music to most audiences. Sure there is a dedicated contemporary music audience, but if you play to a wider audience you need to acknowledge that. I have friend who is very intelligent, obsessed with classical music, and gives everything a fair listen. So if he gets nothing out of the very complex contemporary music then you have to accept it may be a minority taste. When performing you have to accept this I believe.
Programme notes and introductions are a way of letting the audience know the performers and composers are all human and they want (at least I hope they do) to communicate with the other humans who make up the audience.
 
#25 ·
we must acknowledge that not all music is equal . all music can be play well, and in a meaningful way. some music is still better.

Pre performance conduct and concert conduct are important aspects of what can make or break a performance. if you advertise your Beethoven and Mozart concert as cutting edge music for the new centry, you will attract the wrong audience, and keep the audience that would enjoy your concert away from it causing a failure.

there is some paradox in complementing something before it has been heard. even in the bios of performers, i hate looking at a full page bio and all that it is is a boring list f all the places and people a person has played with. it creates expectations in the performer, and like wise when there is nothing there you assume their performer is not as good. I prefer bios and program notes that are amusing, or interesting. if your a classical violinist who plays dixieland with your friends in private that is much more interesting to know than an entire page of symphonies you have performed with.

since we are now exploring what can break a performance i just want to say that i hate it when the conductor repeats the program notes in between songs.
 
#28 ·
The performance can't be engaging if the performer is not engaged. For me to be engaged, the performer has to communicate something, expressing a feeling or an interesting or exciting musical idea. Then again, there are certain genres of music that don't engage me, regardless of how engaged the performer is. There are some very popular groups whose music and playing leaves me cold, if you catch my reference. But it's an interesting question to ask about recorded music, where you're not in the presence of a performance. There is some recorded music that has engaged me for many years. Some music engages us because we listened to it at important stages in our lives, such as when we were teenagers or when we were forming our musical tastes. But some of the most engaging recorded music for each of us is because we hear in it some expression of feeling, some effort to communicate to the listener. For many on this board, I suspect there are great recorded jazz performances that will always be engaging. For others, there are classical performances, or blues, or rock. For me, there are recordings of Vladimir Horowitz that will always be engaging, and King Curtis, live recordings of Van Morrison, and a variety of others. What's common to all of them is depth of feeling and commitment to the performance and expression. A truly engaging performance, by an engaged performer, can send chills through you.
 
#29 ·
The performance can't be engaging if the performer is not engaged.......... For many on this board, I suspect there are great recorded jazz performances that will always be engaging. For others, there are classical performances, or blues, or rock. For me, there are recordings of Vladimir Horowitz that will always be engaging, and King Curtis, live recordings of Van Morrison, and a variety of others. What's common to all of them is depth of feeling and commitment to the performance and expression. A truly engaging performance, by an engaged performer, can send chills through you.
Well said.

I find one of the hardest questions is "what type of music are you into?"

How can I say "jazz" when I like Ornette Coleman, Earl Bostic and Lee Konitz, but also hat a lot of other jazz?

What you are saying is that the whole thing is (obviously) subjective, although we might all agree that a trio tucked in a corner of a hotel foyer with their noses stuck in a real book and 5 minutes between numbers talking to each other might not be an engaging performance.

As a performance teacher I had to tell the students ther should communicate with the audience, but then many people would find the Miles davis approach of turning your back quite engaging. As a youngster I went to see the Mothers of Invention. Frank Zappa walked on stage and said "Hi, we're the Mothers of Invention, if you don't like us you can go **** yourselves". Needless to say I was totally engaged but of course, 20 years on, there I was telling students to write clear and articulate programme notes or smile and be nice to the audience! Hey ho.
 
#33 ·
What makes the music engaging?

does the composition turn you on, many reasons for this, all varied, all specific to a persons background and the type of music for the evening.

is the performer doing things to the composition, stylistically, when they play fast do they always play fast the same way, do the add embellishments, play with time, are they Rachmaninoff and re write entire sections of music?

in other words does the performer creat expectations within their playing and satisfy or dissatisfy them in a way that keeps you on your toes.
 
#39 ·
so I assume that you have listened to and enjoyed his recordings? was that the only time you saw him? was is the raga? was the point of the raga to put you to sleep or capture the feeling of the evening? was he having an off night? do you typically enjoy hindustani music? I know that was off topic but it's an issue in the way people view music. "well I saw this guy once and he sucked, but i haven't listened to a lot of his recordings, of the full breath of the type of music he plays so the musical style he is in must suck, and he sucks to i'll never see him or an indian concert again."

not saying this is you, but i think it' s a cultural attitude that is detrimental to music. the topic was brought up in another thread about what jazz is dyeing.

I try to see a person 2 or three time before i judge their live performance, also I listen to their recordings in depth and in pain if they really do suck before i make a judgement on them as a whole.
 
#43 ·
Yes, yes and yes. Hey I would've gladly given you my tickets. Shankar's a long way from ambient music though. Brian Eno, whose music I love, and own three CD's worth, is a different kettle of something - and it's ambient.

Ps; I also don't like Norah Jones.

Pps; Shankar was simply an example to illustrate a point. The end.
 
#44 ·
I like those albums too. Nora Jones is a daughter of Ravi Shankar but her music isn't similar. I don't like her music either. I think he has another daughter who does good music if I am not mistaken.

Speaking of great performances, you would like this, probably already heard it, Jon Hassell & Maariffa Street 2009 2/7:

 
#47 ·
A really engaged recording I've heard is 'After the Rain' by Kenny Garrett or 'Alabama' by Garrett or Coltrane. Really passionate songs themselves, but I feel they both portray that engaging sense of emotion. Two of my favorite tunes, and the best of Coltrane imo.

I tried taking notes to see if I could become an 'engaged' performer but I got to engaged and dropped the pen :)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top