Distinction between formal and informal solo musical performance: a musico-psychological perspective
Introduction:
Whether we are performers by profession or not, at one time or another, we have to give a "solo" formal performance in public which may involve telling a joke, giving a short speech in public, or attending an job interview. Under these situations, we become the center of attention. Even though we might have spent endless hours preparing ourselves for the performance, yet when the critical moment arrives, our performance may not always turn out exactly as it was intended to be. When confronted with the final performance, we may become nervous, distracted, or uncertain. As a consequence, we might hesitate, stutter, make mistakes, or even forget the contents that we are supposed to present. When presented under a formal context, a performance may falter in spite of many hours of intensive practice.
In a formal musical performance, the solo artist has to perform an entire repertoire (often presenting significant works familiar to the audience) from memory in the concert hall. As a performing musician myself, I could relate to the experience on a personal level - in that I could perform much better during practice sessions at the privacy of my own home, than playing for my coach and peers in the studio. By extension, the performance may suffer further decrements when presented under a formal context (on stage in the concert hall). In fact, this phenomenon is remarkably common even amongst highly accomplished performers (Provost,1994), and is by no means confined to the neophyte performer.
The key question will then be: why does a well-prepared performance run smoothly in an informal context, but otherwise in a formal context? What psychological impact does a change in performance context have on the performer? And how does one’s approach to learning and practice affect the success of the final performance?
In this paper, I will investigate the differences between a formal and informal performance context, and attempt to identify the differences in cognitive processes and physical (e.g. environmental) contexts between informal and formal solo musical performance.
Literature Review
There has been extensive literature on musical performance in cognitive psychology and music pedagogy. This ranges from anecdotal accounts of the musical training and development of musical prodigies (Feldman, 1991; Sosniak, 1985), interview studies of professional musicians on the various stages of preparation for a formal musical performance (Partington, 1995), experiments on memory recall for melodies (Sloboda & Parker, 1985), recognition of musical dynamic patternings (Sloboda & Howe, 1991) to standardized measurement scales for the assessment of musical performance abilities (Watkin & Farnum, 1962).
Albeit instructive, this collective body of research does not concern itself with distinctions between formal and informal musical performance contexts, let alone address the differences in cognitive demands between formal and informal performance situations. In addition, these studies do not regard musical performance as an advanced and complex production task which takes place under a dynamically variable performance environment.
With the exception of exploratory studies on musical performance anxiety in formal performance situations ( Kato, 1985; Sen,1991), which have raised the issue of differences in the physiological and psychological conditions between formal performance and practice in passing, there has neither been any in-depth discussions on the differences of cognitive processes involved between formal and informal solo musical performance situations nor studies related to the cognitive challenges imposed upon the performer as a consequence of such contextual differences.
Therefore, in this paper, I will attempt to address the differences in cognitive processes and physical (e.g. environmental) contexts between informal and formal solo musical performance. With the assumption that decrements in high level musical performance are related to specific principles in cognitive psychology, this paper will attempt to investigate the essential differences between formal and informal contexts of musical performance through a musico-psychological perspective.
An examination of the distinction between formal and informal performance may hopefully cast some light on questions of solo musical performance such as:
(1) Why does a performance work well in an informal performance situation (after elaborate practice) yet doesn’t always transpose itself successfully to a formal performance situation?
(2) What are the differences in contexts (environmental and psychological) in which information is encoded and retrieved between formal and informal performances?
· how do differences in performance environments affect retrieval in formal and informal performance situations?
· how do differences in psychological contexts between encoding and retrieval affect recall in formal and informal performance situations?
Complex Musical Performance
By high level (solo) musical performance, we are referring to a complex performance in which the performer is faced with an "open" or "variable" task, as opposed to a "closed" one (Allard and Starkes, 1991). In an "open" task, the performer has to handle the dynamic contingencies in a "live" performance situation where the performance environment is variable, and that the performer needs to constantly respond and adapt to this changing environment. For example, in a "live" musical performance, the performer has to make instantaneous judgments in relation to the responses of the instrument, the variations in the acoustical properties of the hall, noises created by the audience, and other distractions. On the other hand, a "closed" task occurs in a constant, unchanging environment - in which the performer does not need to make any instant adaptive accommodations to the performance environment. A typical example of a "closed" task would be that of a typist transferring information verbatim from a written to a typed document.
Distinction between Formal and Informal Complex Solo Performance
A distinction between formal and informal performance (in solo musical performance) - in terms of their differences in musical and environmental contexts, and the cognitive processes involved in both modes of performance, may help us better understand the inherent problems facing the musical performer and how such problems are induced. An investigation along these lines may also lay the groundwork upon which we can bridge the apparent gap between formal and informal performance.
Definitions:
Formal Solo Performance
Formal performance refers to a solo, one-take, "live" performance performed on stage with the presence of an audience. For instance: a solo concert pianist performing an entire program on stage from memory, i.e. without referring to the score. The performance occurs in real time, and the performer does not have a chance to back-track or "correct" any errors. In most cases, the solo pianist performs a pre-composed piece of music from memory, and that the pieces are often familiar to the audience.
Informal Performance
Informal performance, on the other hand, refers to situations in which the "performer" is not under the scrutiny of an audience. These include : initial stages of learning a piece, practice in the privacy of one’s practice studio, informal "run-throughs" during coaching sessions or rehearsals of the entire program in the absence of a "live" audience.
The major differences between formal and informal performance lie in:
(1) the nature of the task (practice versus on-stage performance), and
(2) the performance context [both internally (psychologically), and externally (environmentally) ], which therefore
(3) pose challenging cognitive demands upon the performer (since the level of distraction and cognitive interference upon the performer may vary in relation to the performance context).
Taken together, these differences between informal (practice) and formal (performance) contexts can impose a heavy tariff on the solo performing musician. Therefore, in the second part of this paper, I will
(i) identify the contextual and psychological differences between formal and informal solo musical performance;
(ii) examine the underlying cognitive processes involved in formal and informal solo musical performance;
(iii) highlight the problems associated with these differences with reference to a case study, and lastly,
(iv) discuss the implications of such a distinction.
Contextual Differences between Formal and Informal Performance
I. Differences in Encoding and Retrieval Contexts
With reference to the encoding specificity principle (Tulving & Thomson, 1973), memory is improved when information available at encoding is also available at retrieval. For example, the encoding specificity principle would predict that recall for information would be better if subjects were tested in the same room they had studied in versus having studied in one room and tested in a different room (Smith, Glenberg & Bjork, 1978).
The encoding specificity principle when extended to musical performance would suggest that recall of the pieces learnt in the practice studio would be better recalled when these pieces are retrieved (or performed) in the same environmental conditions as that in which practice takes place (e.g. the practice studio) than in an unfamiliar environment (for instance, the concert platform).
Since retrieval will also be enhanced when information available at encoding is also available at retrieval (transfer appropriate processing), this suggests that when an individual practices by making constant visual references to the score while learning a piece of music, it would be necessary for him/her to have the score available as reference also during formal performance in order to enhance retrieval.
A possible explanation of this phenomenon would be: At initial stages of acquiring a new piece of music, the learner needs to refer to the musical text as a performance guide. During this process, however, the learner might inadvertently have established a visually based reference upon which the he/she must rely. By practicing extensively and exclusively with the score, this reinforces the learner’s dependency upon the visual cues given by the score. As this particular context of playing (with the score) is strengthened through repetitive practice, a sudden shift to the context of formal performance where the performer is required to perform without the score (i.e. without the visual references) will make retrieval (without the score) increasingly difficult since the retrieval context and retrieval experience are very different from those encoded during practice and hence are unfamiliar to the performer.
Other extraneous differences in encoding and retrieval contexts may include: (1) having to perform on the concert platform under the spotlight with the presence of an audience, (2) the ambient atmosphere and temperature of the performance environment may be different from the practice environment, (3) having to perform in concert attire, (4) the time of performance (e.g. one might be used to practicing early in the morning, however concert performances are generally scheduled in the evening), or that (5) the results of the performance may bear significant consequences (while informal performances are generally inconsequential). These differences between encoding and retrieval contexts ( in isolation or in combination) serve to impose considerable challenges on the performer.
II. Differences in the Level of Control
As I have previously mentioned, informal performance extends beyond the rendition of a piece under an informal situation. It also encompasses the process of learning and practicing a new piece of music (where the control of thoughts and actions have not yet been fully automatized).
During these early stages of acquisition, the learner is trying to understand, manage and acquire task at hand, which primarily involves establishing and reinforcing an action schema at lower levels of control (Monsell,1996). These control processes may range from error detection (e.g. evaluating the "correctness" of the notes being played) to experimentation and discovery (e.g. focusing on the kinetic and rhythmical properties of the music, or discovering how various parts of the body and movements interrelate).
In contrast, in a formal performance situation the pieces to be performed have already been well internalized both at a physical and cognitive level. The variability of lower level processes has decreased with practice, which in turn spares cognitive resources for the individual to attend to control processes of a higher order (such as making spontaneous artistic expressions and interpretive variations).
III. Differences in Psychological and Affective States
The affective state of an individual during informal performance (the encoding or practice phase) is often quite different from that during formal performance (retrieval phase). For instance, performance anxiety is seldom involved in a practice or informal performance situation . In contrast, a formal performance situation may induce considerable pressure or even trigger anxiety. In a formal performance situation, one is under close scrutiny of the audience, critics and peers. Under these conditions, the performer may perceive that he is being judged, which might prompt him to prove his ability. And if the performance happens to be one of great significance (e.g. a debut performance in a prestigious venue), it is likely that the performer would feel that his reputation is being put on the line. Undoubtedly, these can make the performer feel competitive, anxious or even nervous. If unmonitored, these thoughts may escalate to unrealistic expectations, excessive worry or even impair physical co-ordination and cognitive control processes.
Negative thoughts and/or anxiety inducing affective states may also distract the performer from focusing his/her attention upon the complex task of musical performance. As Sarason (1984) posited, when individuals become more self-oriented with the threatening aspects of the performing situation, they become less capable of processing internal information as well as task-relevant cues from the environment. Vallacher (1993) further elaborates that situations involving competition, audience evaluation, or pressure to do well may "keep the person mindful of high level identities of a self-evaluative nature at the expense of the action’s more molecular representations", and "performance of a complex or unfamiliar action is adversely affected by factors that charge the action with significance." Vallacher (1993 also notes that, self-focused attention (particularly upon negative consequences) while performing a task which has an emotional component to it tends to "impair performance as it reduces attention to task relevant features. This simply disintegrates action and robs it of its normal fluidity and rhythm". In this regard, the performer’s judgments and responses to the contingencies of the "open" performance environment in the formal performing situation might be hampered.
It is noteworthy that while the above mentioned psychological and affective states at an overwhelming level can affect the quality of performance, one might actually need a certain amount of anxiety in order to learn and perform successfully. The Yerkes and Dodson Law (1908) states that "Performance on a moderately difficult task is facilitated by a moderate amount of anxiety and physiological arousal." In other words, performance will be compromised if the level of anxiety level is either too high or too low.
In a similar vein, Csikszentmihalyi (1993) proposed the concept of "flow" during an "optimal" or "autotelic experience". This theory posits that when the difficulty of the challenge matches with the performer’s skill level in the activity, then "the concomitants of flow, which include intrinsic interest, focused attention and ease of concentration" are likely to be present. In Csikszentimihalyi’s attempt to map the level of challenge imposed by the task with skill level of the individual, he established four "challenge-skill quadrants": high challenge/high skill, high challenge/low skill, low challenge/high skill, and low challenge/low skill. These quadrants correspond to four major experiential situations predicted by the flow theory, namely: flow, anxiety, boredom and apathy.
In terms of Csikszentmihalyi’s theory of flow, solo formal musical performance can be considered an example of a complex task involving a high level challenge. In order to achieve optimal performance, one needs to have a high skill compatible to the level of difficulty of the specific challenge at hand. Although it is generally assumed that when a solo musician is ready to present a formal performance, he/she has already attained the skill levels necessary to accomplish the task through intensive training and effortful practice, it is possible that the performer’s skill level could be significantly altered by his perception of his abilities when faced with the contingencies of an unfamiliar performance situation. For instance, as one becomes apprehensive, one’s memory or concentration may falter thus causing one to (i) feel less confident about one’s abilities, and therefore perceive that one’s skill level is lower than it actually is, thus leading to a mismatch between skill level and challenge, or (ii) that the apprehensive state genuinely impairs the cognitive and control processes involved in formal performance, which lowers the skill level relative to the challenge. Both of these conditions can lead to significant performance decrements.
IV. Differences in Variability
A. Internal Variability
As I have previously mentioned, informal performance spans across the phase of learning, practice and informal rehearsals. At initial phases of acquisition, the contents of the musical piece are new and unfamiliar to the learner. The level of cognitive control and physical motor actions are operating at low levels of controlled processing, since such action sequences have not yet been fully automatized within the performer. For instance, while learning a piece, one might be trying to experiment on how one might find an appropriate fingering and pedaling for a specific musical phrase. At this point, one has not yet established any fixed patternings on which one can repeat and reinforce. Hence, the passage may sound very different each time it is repeated (i.e. high internal variability) perhaps with occasional pauses, note and rhythmic inaccuracies, or lack of control in dynamic variations. This high variability is more due to the fact that the passage has not been internalized within the individual (that is, one has not attained a level of physico-cognitive integration) than to any specific deliberate interpretative intentions.
In contrast, in a formal performance, the performer has already established a musically based "action schema" through extensive practice. As a consequence, greater consistency is achieved as the sequence of actions have been internalized through repeated practice - in other words, variability within the action schema is reduced (i.e. lower internal variability). One may contend that considerable variability can still exist between each iteration, yet, I would attribute this more to a deliberately introduced artistic variation, or "controlled variability" than one to due a lack of "internal consistency".
In sum, the internal variability in an informal performance is greater than that of a formal performance.
B. External variability
The environment in which learning and practice occurs (informal performance) remains relatively stable. For instance, the location for learning and practice remains very much the same - one either practices and rehearses in the privacy of one’s home, or that one plays for one’s coach at his/her studio - seldom with the distraction of an audience. Hence, in informal performance situations, there is minimal variability in the environment.
In contrast, the performance environment in which formal performance occurs is often distinctly different from that of learning and practice. The idea of having to perform an entire repertoire alone on stage under a spot light, compounded by the presence of an audience can become distracting, if not debilitating. Furthermore, (with the exception of string or woodwind players, who are fortunate to practice and perform on the same instrument) most instrumentalists, with the pianist in particular must contend with the differences in the qualities of touch, action and acoustic properties of an unfamiliar instrument.
In sum, while an informal performance has greater internal variability than that of a formal performance, it has less external (environmental) variability as compared to that of a formal performance.
The identification of the differences in internal and external variability between formal and informal musical performance may have significant psychological implications on high level musical performance. Premised on the encoding specificity principle, which states that memory is improved when information available at encoding is also available at retrieval (Tulving and Thomson, 1973), our purpose is to match the states of variability of formal and informal as closely as possible.
As I have previously mentioned, at the practice phase, before the piece is being internalized, internal variability is high. That is, while learning the piece (informal performance), one can make errors as the actions sequences have not been fully automatized. Processing is still effortful and controlled. As one practices and familiarizes oneself with the piece, internal variability (of informal performance) decreases thereby gradually approaching that of formal performance.
Meanwhile, the external variability of formal performance is high (due to the contingencies of the dynamic performing environment and psychological impact on the performer) as opposed to that of the informal context (which generally occurs in a static environment). In order to facilitate retrieval, it is therefore necessary to match the external variability of both (formal and informal) conditions. Since it is less feasible to decrease the variability of a formal performance, alternatively, one might introduce variability (which are likely to occur in the formal context) into the informal performance context to make both conditions more similar.
Case Study: An Unsuccessful musical performance
In the next part of this paper, I will present a case study of a personal experience in a solo musical performance. This experience merits study since it illustrates a situation in which almost all conceivable performance conditions were unfavorable. A thorough analysis of this experience may cast some light on how the differences in psychological and environmental contexts between informal and formal performance situations can influence the outcome of a performance.
Background
This performing experience took place in the summer of 1989. Two weeks before my immigration for Canada, I was given short notice for a solo performance. Since I thought that this would probably be the last opportunity for me to perform publicly in my home city Hong Kong, I decided to take the challenge. At the time, however, I did not have a program at hand, nor did I have much experience in public performance. In a pinch, I could only perform the piece which I had played for my piano examination, which was "In der Nacht" from Robert Schumann’s "Fantasiestuck".
At the time when I was notified of the performance, I had not yet committed the piece to memory. I could perform the piece quite musically, however I absolutely had to depend on the visual cues given by the score. In fact, I had never tried performing any pieces in public from memory. I had to refer to the score even in public performances and piano examinations. Hence, this particular event could be considered as my "debut performance" by memory.