Dear Friends,

If you haven’t seen this article, you may have heard about it. Check it out before going on.

In his editorial of August 13, Allan Kozinn raises some interesting points about live performance and goes to great lengths to defuse anticipated attacks. Despite some initial instincts, I am not interested in attacking or even disagreeing with him that much—the horn is a difficult, slippery instrument, “cracked” notes from any section can mar performances, and horns often seem to be the most frequent (or at least most audible) violator. What is difficult, for those of us who make a living in front of live audiences, is understanding the framework for his argument. Mr. Kozinn clearly wants perfection, even expects it, in the end questioning whether individuals, “reliable” professionals, have prepared themselves responsibly for their performances. If he truly believes that the individuals he mentions are not behaving professionally or responsibly, he needs to meet them in person, and perhaps walk a bit in their shoes, not base his evaluations of how hard it is on his recollections of his school experiences. No matter what Mr. Kozinn’s perception or source of distraction, it is important to remember perfect performances truly appear only on edited recordings. Today, the line of comprehension between recorded and live performance is blurrier than ever, partly because professional (and amateur!) musicians have raised their level of performance. They are to be congratulated, and the bar of performance (and expectation) is higher than ever.

But at what cost? The pressure to be perfect removes some of the integral elements of live performance. If one looks at the Olympic games going on right now, some of the winning times or scores are quite inspiring, but many more are inspiring simply in the attempts to achieve, particularly in terms of personal bests (and remember, the Olympics is not an amateur competition anymore). Many who appreciate the act of live performance stay away from some of the top ensembles because they are TOO polished—they can get that on their iPod or at home on the couch in front of a sound system. Often, they opt for the more personal experience of enjoying the excitement of the attempt. Though the performances are less perfect, they are infused with a different spirit. Witness the popularity of college sports, in some cases more so than professional leagues.

Further, one could project from this editorial that, from a reputable source like the NY Times, audiences will follow his lead and turn up the heat on performers who, in turn trying to be even less human, may do more harm to themselves in overdoing their practice causing injuries, or worse, resort to other coping devices that people feel sorry about but rarely acknowledge their complicity. And how unreasonable is it to think that parents reading this editorial may now steer their children away from the horn because they fear a future commentator may feel the obligation to “tell it like it is” and skewer their child?

To me, what is missing here, despite Mr. Kozinn’s best efforts to defuse responses to his opinions, is the genuine acknowledgement that there are human beings on the stage. I certainly empathize with Mr. Kozinn, and his desire to encourage improvement of horn-playing in live performance, though misplaced, is appreciated. I would like to point out, however, that there are few jobs that involve real-time activity in front of a crowd. Writers for newspapers have the benefit of editors, opportunities to change the finished product, etc. before the product is released. What would reviews of performances look like if they had to be written in real time, with an audience watching the writer, without opportunity to change words once written? When the New York Times and its writers make mistakes, they do the professional thing and take responsibility for their actions, hoping that readers understand that there are human beings involved who make mistakes sometimes, despite their very best efforts. Professional musicians, like those mentioned in Mr. Kozinn’s review, take that responsibility very seriously and acknowledge their human-ness every time they step on stage. It would seem that a similar appreciation for the human-ness of live musical performance could be embraced by those observing the act.

Live music is not about perfection, it is about the event and the achievement in the attempt. It makes those moments of true perfection even more special, but does not have to detract from performances that are less perfect. Those who evaluate the musicality of a performance on missed notes often miss some of the best music ever performed. On the other hand, musicians who have been badgered into trying to be technically perfect are not that interesting to listen to. Perhaps the answer is somewhere in the middle. If it were only about perfection, all we would need is the edited recording—and it would certainly have to be edited, and not just because of the horns.

Respectfully,

Jeffrey Snedeker
President, International Horn Society