How much emotion is too much?

Question

as a singer, we are often warned about experiencing our own emotions to the point where they interfere with the standards of performance we'd like to deliver. we are also taught that the expression of our emotion ( without feeling it in the moment) helps the public to tune into and experience their emotions, which is what we want. If Canio really sobbed in "Ridi, Pagliaccio" or Rodolfo cried his "Mimi!" it would hurt their voices. What are the limits for instrumentalists like?

Answer 1

Ideally, *any* emotion on the stage would be too much. However, for that to make more immediate sense, it's necessary to be more precise about the nature of that emotion in the first place. We live in an age when the mere having of an emotion is believed to validate it, to grant it importance, and by implication bestow that validity and importance on the host to that emotion as well. Were that true, ensemble performances of any kind could get very interesting indeed, but I'll come back to that thought in a moment.

What is usually referred to simply as 'emotion' is actually *subjective* emotion, in reality only quantifiable and made meaningful to the individual prone to the emotion in question itself, at the time of its occurrance. Others can observe its physical or behavioural effects but they cannot actually experience it. It's not transferrable. For that reason, it can also more fruitfully be called 'anecdotal' emotion: it can only be approached through a narrative. (Significantly, early usage of 'anecdote' referred to an item of gossip.) Two illustrations from daily life:

Scenario #1: We are seated in a train, minding our own business, and opposite sits another passenger doing the same. From one moment to the next, the passenger opposite us convulses with all the signs of severe emotional distress.

Scenario #2: We are seated in a train, minding our own business, and opposite sits another passenger doing the same. We notice the passenger opposite taking a letter out and reading it. Shortly thereafter, the passenger opposite us convulses with all the signs of severe emotional distress.

Likelihood is, we will react with annoyance and irritation to scenario #1, while scenario #2 likely provokes our spontaneous concern and solicitude. Why? Because the context of the letter, and what surrounds it, allows us readily to draw an analogy with a comparable experience of our own, and it is this that stimulates empathy in us that motivates our subsequent (re-)actions to objectively the same core emotional events. Transferred to the theatre, with no prior knowledge of the play in question, were we in our seats and merely confronted with a curtain up on exactly the moment, in Act5 Sc.3, where King Lear, bearing the lifeless Cordelia's body, exclaims 'Howl! Howl! Howl!', the experience might well provoke a reaction in us comparable to being confronted with a particularly noisy rag-and-bone man; after 4¼ hours of prior experience of the play, however, the old king's horrible exclamations cause an audible shudder to run through an entire auditorium reacting as one: shared context, both communal and for each individual specifically, makes emotion based on empathy possible.

This is at the heart of the contract between the stage and the audience. The stage provides every ounce of context possible, exercising all the artfulness of craft it can muster, if needs be using smoke and mirrors, to enable the members of the audience to draw the analogy that makes an empathetic emotional response possible. Put differently, in terms of this particular contract, only one party has access to and is subject to emotion, and that party is the *audience*.

It should now be easy to see that were the stage to be as subject to anecdotal emotion as the auditorium is meant to become, all context would be lost. The actors (now it should be plain as a pikestaff why these are called what they are called!) can only do what is needed to make the required emotional response in the audience possible. Were they, at the same time, subject to such an emotional response themselves, the stage would be *empty*: all chiefs and no indians, and all are sitting in the stalls!

All performers, therefore, of necessity must leave all their personal anecdotal emotions at the stage door. We are the actors, the ones who *do*, to enable others to experience what is necessary to make the entire experience of the work in question come to life. In the laboratory of our rehearsal rooms, we use our own anecdotal empathetic emotion in reponse to the work we perform, to construct a performance that is scrupulously engineered to make the audience eventually experience an emotion analogous in intensity to our own from the rehearsal room, when they are in the auditorium. While we are actually bringing that about, on the stage, rational control is everything: we are consumed by control, control. control. That's what makes the magic of an emotionally stirring performance possible. **For the audience.**

The spectre of an entire opera company, a symphony orchestra with or without a soloist, a theatre company, any ensemble, on stage with each of its individual members subject to their own personal anecdotal emotions, all in pursuit of a performance, is just too absurdly horrible to have to imagine for any longer than strictly necessary... :-)

Answer 2

When I'm playing cello, I find it very helpful to record myself using a good digital recorder. Sometimes when I think I might have included too much emotion or made the dynamics, phrasings, etc. too extreme, I am surprised when I listen to my playing on the recording. It's either just right or not enough! (then again, I've only been playing cello for 5 years, piano for ten... I have a lot to learn on these matters.)

So I would advise getting a digital recorder. Mine is Olympus Digital Voice Recorder, WS-300M. It has good sound and within my budget. It's also very easy to use one you flip through the manual. However, when you're recording your singing/playing, be SURE to go to Menu, Mic Sense, and then "Dict" for a clear sound. The Diction setting focuses in on the one spot where the sound is coming from. The other setting records everything within hearing range. (which you WOULDN'T want in your case.)

(note: if you don't feel like spending much money, a microphone to plug into your computer also works. You can download a free recording program called Audacity off the internet that works very well.)

Answer 3

there is a point for instrumentalists also where too much emotion is too much .... when it interferes with the natural flow of the music and the actual playing of the notes ... it also comes in-play in acting where the moment becomes too intense and the performer loses concentration and doesn't even know where to go next

the live performer (actor singer instrumentalist) has to maintain a balance between the emotional moment and the technician ...( could that be why we can be so over emotional?) the resulting problem for individual performers/instrumentalists would be different depending on the instrument (out of breath for winds and singers, jumbled fingers for pianist and string players, memory loss for actors and singers) not to mention (which I will anyways) not being true to the composer and the mess it can create with the ensemble and the flow of a piece unlike singers the results would not cause permanent damage

but I totally disagree with not feeling it in the moment helping the public ... for singers it is just so much more difficult task that internal technician has to just guide the emotional through that moment (maybe that's why so many opera singers seem like split personalities ;) since you have to be to perform technically well and consistently with "over the top" emotions

Answer 4

Vesti La Giubba (ridi pagliaccio) is by far my favorite tenor aria, and a beautiful example of high emotions in music. and I feel as long is the singing is correct and you are emoting through facial expressions and body language while being dynamic with the music then the emotions cannot become too much. Listen to Franco Corelli singing that aria, because I think it is perfect vocal-emoting. I think the threshold is the same for instrumentalists saying this: do not pervert the intentions of the composer, and don't let it become hokey, find truths in the emotions and follow those.

Answer 5

cellos rock: No you're correct. I've been playing piano for 13 years and violin for 4 1/2. My piano teacher is always telling me to be more extreme because 'just right' is not going to work in a big concert hall.

I think for instrumentalists (at least for piano and strings because I can't speak for the others), it's not so much of trying to control our emotions because for us, it doesn't hurt to really experience the emotions in our pieces, since we don't use our voices to perform. For us, we've to in fact think of exaggerating because that's the only way the emotions of the pieces can be heard by the audience. I've found out, like the answerer above, that when I feel that I'm doing too much, it's usually just enough to another person. And when I feel that I'm showing just the right amount, it's usually too little to audiences. Same goes for my dynamics. But usually, when the results of our 'emoting' end up affecting our technical and interpreting sense, then it's too much. Like if I were to really start crying while performing on stage, and it makes me play all the wrong notes and mess up my phrase sense, then it's too much. But that actually doesn't mean that I can't really cry when playing a sad song, especially if the song really speaks to me. I just have to be careful to do it discreetly (no tears streaking my face, though a bit in the eyes is fine) and I've to always keep in mind the interpretation of the piece (which I'd worked out before performance). And no purposely 'choreographed' expressions like what some pianists do. It gets distracting AND irritating after a while. In other words, I've to keep my head on my shoulders for the sake of doing the piece justice.

Like singers, we're also taught how to express our emotions without feeling it at the moment, through the use of tone colour, dynamics, articulation, intelligent rubato, how we approach a note (whether the attack is direct or gentler), how we start and end phrases, etc. And usually these techniques work well enough for those of us with a decent musical sense. But nothing beats experiencing the emotions directly while playing, because that's really how we can make audiences cry or laugh - since we don't have the advantage of showing them through the human voice (which is always the most expressive, I feel).

I would take a guess though, that wind players probably have similar limits to singers, since they use breath to perform and can't play well if they're doing chaos to their breath support.

Answer 6

Lang Lang = too much

there's 2 problems. outwardly showing too much emotion (like Lang Lang) can be distracting to the audience (and you always get the feeling it's partly choreographed). and trying to make a piece too "emotional" can be bad as well (too much rubato, or ignoring the composer's instructions to add your own emotion are both bad). go on youtube (or the Gewandhaus in Leipzig!) and look at Ricardo Chailly conducting - he is very emotional but it is not overly done IMO (although there was a funny moment last night when he threw his baton into the audience during an encore)

Answer 7

My emotions are like surgical tools and or weapons, and like all such tools and weapons, they must be wielded with both skill and control... I have honed my control over my emotions to such an extent that others have at times said that I was more like a machine with a heart, cold and made of stone. With a mind of clockwork gears, aloof and ruled by absolute logic... An utterly inhuman monster without a trace of emotion... And yet, beneath my perpetual outer calm which is all that the world has ever seen of me, the primal and elemental chaos of my emotions still rage in an eternal maelstrom... Do I run? No, I am eternally at war...

Answer 8

Well Lynn, I had to add my two cents. LOL! It depends on the piece and what it is. I never sing my spirituals the same way I would sing arias or oratorio work. Not to say I don't sing arias and oratorio with emotion, because I do. I will say this. I loved Callas, because she didn't care if emotion showed up in her voice. This is why her memory is still alive, unlike much of her competition. Too much technicality becomes too much of a disconnect. Sometimes as classical singers (and instrumentalists at times), we get way too disconnected from what we are trying to display to the audience. Although I think it is very important to be technical, we shouldn't become robots. The audience is bored with robots, and we are already losing an audience of classical enthusiasts. We've got to remember its the art that is important, and emotion is part of the art.

I tend to be more "Callas" like when I sing spirituals. I guess because I know the stories my grandparents told me of how they grew up, and I look at how well their children and their children's children grew to be. When I sing them, I do get personal. On two separate occasions, I sang "Take My Mother Home" by Hall Johnson. On both occasions towards the end, I choked up, my audience cried, the pianist cried, pretty much everyone was sniffing at the end (including my mother at one of the performances. LOL). I guess because people could relate on a personal level, and the power of the story behind it IS SO POWERFUL. I think on those occasions, it is ok. I think choking up at the end of a Verdi aria (which is usually depressing) would get awkward. I think on personal recitals, as long as you keep your professionalism you can bring emotions to the table. It is an intimate connection between you and your audience. Now if an artist is sniffing and howling, missing rhythms, and he/she can't make it through a song without a handle on any of your emotions, that might mean the artist should see a shrink. LOL!

Instrumentalists? Well back in the day when I was actually a decent pianist (LOL), I could get away with my emotions more, because I would hide my emotions behind my piano. Once I was playing around on the piano in the chorus room, and it was particularly a hard day for me. And I just bared my heart out on that piano not thinking anyone was listening. The custodian came to me and told me he had tears in his eyes from the song I was playing. Now, if my emotion can touch a person without intention, emotion is a good thing. I think people run from having too much emotion because they fear they can't control their emotion. I think that could be insecurity or nerves. I know when Pavorotti and Callas sang, it was ripped with emotion. If we know our work and if we are secure in our technique, emotion is good for our work. I think people wouldn't think classical musicians were so boring if we gave a little more passion in our performance. That's for singers and instrumentalists. But again, if the performer is one of those who has major issues, they should seek help and not use performing as a way to deal with their mental problems. LOL!

Answer 9

On piano, I think adding too many rubatos is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DISGUSTING. And also exaggerated dynamics. People sometimes interpret to a point it's obnoxious. I think changes should be subtle and detailed. Small changes along with a well-planned interpretation speak much more than crying and 'expressing' yourself exactly when you're performing.

Answer 10

Too much can be defined as passing the point of loss of control. I don't see how reining in of the performers emotions aids the audience, protect their voices yes.