What does "Too many details" mean and why is it harmful?

[Polarius T]

In discussing music performance, everybody knows some shorthands are needed and stereotyping goes on in assigning "types" and "characters" to the conductors, orchestras, and soloists involved. One such stereotyping device that I see being steadily circulated is that conductor X's performances are marred because there are somehow "too many details" audible in his performances.

Why is that wrong? This is not a pun question; I simply don't understand the objection. If the composer went through the trouble of painstakingly marking down everything in finest possible detail, down to the smallest dot and then footnoting it, too, why shouldn't the musicians try to reproduce all that aurally, as is their job to do? It must have been the composer's intention that the score be faithfully followed in all its dimensions and details, or what?

Is it burdening our ears (but not eyes when reading the score?) overly if they must follow closely how the developing line is unfolding while simultaneously paying attention to all the nuances and details contained in all those textures, gestures, and even singular sounds struck by the instruments? Why would it be so: listening to multiple signals simultaneously is (or, evolutionarily speaking, should still be) easier than sight-reading the same for a symphonic piece, right? Or is it about something else entirely?

I don't think the point is to say that the broad picture is thereby necessarily compromised and the structural proportions get distorted to the same degree, let's say. It's not a zero-sum game to begin with, and the conductors against whom this objection is usually levelled, or at least the one brought up in this connection recently (Abbado), are often known precisely for their "keen sense of proportion and architecture" (as one of the more regular posters here put it not long ago).

I'm assuming this is not a criticism directed at the audio engineers responsible for the recording, since it is the performing artist who's being singled out specifically.

So, what's the devil in the detail, if any?

And is there a Mahler symphony that's more detail neutral or detail resistant than others (one that "suffers" especially clearly from all of its details being rendered audible).

Please don't ask me what the "detail" here means since I haven't heard any explantion myself, either.

 

-PT

[sperlsco]

It's hard to give my thoughts outside of the original context of someone mentioning "too many details".  However, I've heard parts of performances where a conductor brings out harmonic details as if they are the main point of the music.  In turn this might detract from the long line of the music.  I've read similar criticism of piano performances, where the left or right hand is (over)-emphasized. 

Similarly, I've heard ear candy emphasized at the expense of tempi. 

[Polarius T]

I know what you are talking about, Scott, and could give instant examples of the kind of exaggerations you refer to. But beyond blowing details out of proportion to disrupt various balances, or focusing on them excessively at the expense of the work's architectural clarity, what I had in mind is simply “too many details” or, what’s frequently used to imply the same, “fussing with details,” which doesn’t then mean anything is deducted of the long line at the same time. The complaint seems to be about nothing other than the mere quantity of details made audible.

The opposite of this “fussing with details,” being lax or cavalier about the fine print in the composer's score, would then have to be commendable. That to me sounds like an absurd proposition; hence my question.

So it seems this must be nothing but one of those contentless clichés that to many start ringing somehow meaningful and true once they've been repeated often enough.

-PT

[stillivor]

Yes, the composer writes aload of detail. Doesn't follow that you're supposed to hear every one. Each one is supposed to be contributing to the whole, but many details can do just that without having to emerge to front centre stage.

I like the comparison( I once came across),  with a tree. All the leaves contribute to the total effect, but you don't have to make out every one in detail.

In the other hand,  changes of emphasis are part of the tools of the performer's trade. They can result in very different performances. Maybe conductors subject to the criticism have confused emphasis with a fresh approach.

Or something.

    Ivor

   

[stillivor]

Just to add; i like playing in the end of M1 and M7 a lot in different performances. A clear way to notice how different conductors bring out different details.

 For example, at the end of 7, just before the last rushing flurry from the strings, some play the brass chords very starkly, heavily emphasised with near-silence between, where others play the whole thing more legato.


   Ivor

[Polarius T]

I like the comparison( I once came across),  with a tree. All the leaves contribute to the total effect, but you don't have to make out every one in detail.

But those leaves would all still have to be there, right? Or otherwise it would be a different tree?

Or at least you should have the chance of focusing down on the individual leaves if you so wish, shifting between seeing the "tree gestalt" and looking at the individual leaves? There are some who love the expression "micromanaging" (a term really belonging to another field of human activity) for this same "fussing with details" which, again, to me indicates nothing pejorative at all: you need to control the small as you need the large, and in "details" it's really all about how specific or precise you are prepared to get (or capable of getting).

By extension then couldn't we say that you don't need to necessarily hear all of those details, either (we probably can't do that anyway, for reasons having to do with restrictions in our physiological apparatus and the richness of many scores); but I think you should play them all regardless?

Otherwise we're talking about "interpretation" (choosing which details to include and which to omit, which to underline and which to downplay) as I think you are in your second post -- or how'd you think? Seems to me in it you're talking about how different people "see" (interpret) the same passage differently, not about whether some particular detail is paid attention to or not.

Thanks for the comments.

-PT

[stillivor]

Thanks.

Don't see your point about focusing on particular details if you want to. Where has the performance gone in that scenario?

No,I don't mean performers can pick and choose what to play, except in very limited ways - I think that mostly because the composer is paramount.

Yes, the differences in performances partly arise out of the varying emphases, as I was pointing to in the M7 example.

 When I hear an extraordinary performance, sometimes it's because the performer has found a fresh work dug out of the old score. They've seen a way to play what's there that we might not have suspected was there at all.

It's amazing to me that performers can find such a thing. I think they can legitimately show and express what even the composer might not have realised they'd done when composing it.

   Ivor

[Polarius T]

Don't see your point about focusing on particular details if you want to. Where has the performance gone in that scenario?

For example try the Boulez BBC Proms take on the Janacek Sinfonietta, linked in that "Janacek Mania II" post of mine just below/above: At the start you are struck by more "holistic" impressions related to overall performance criteria such as the slowness of the opening fanfare, for instance, but then at the second hearing already you start paying attention to everything new that you never heard in that piece before, thanks to Boulez' attention to details others now seem to have glossed over in the past. So you sort of "switch" to another level of specificity in your listening, provided your preconceived notions of how this piece should be played allow you go that far.

When I hear an extraordinary performance, sometimes it's because the performer has found a fresh work dug out of the old score. They've seen a way to play what's there that we might not have suspected was there at all.

It's amazing to me that performers can find such a thing. I think they can legitimately show and express what even the composer might not have realised they'd done when composing it.

Exactly, and especially your last point is really important; again I think a good example is provided in the Janacek by Boulez above. Great works are defined by just that sort of inexhaustibility and "freedom" from context including the artist's own intentions. You don't have to have Ancerl or Kubelik, for instance, performing your Dvorak and Janacek or, even better, Robert Kajanus doing your Sibelius* to enjoy the music of these composers or get an "authentic" experience of it. It's better than that, probably.

-PT

*Kajanus and Sibelius were inseparable at work and leisure; a mixture of the two going on here:


Sibelius far right, Kajanus 2nd from right.

Kajanus too had a nice sauna:

[stillivor]

Oh I see what you mean about the ability to focus on what you want.

Yes and no. I agree there are performances that allow you to hear what you can't in others. And there is a lot composers write that isn't supposed to be pick-outable.

And then there are grey areas. I was lucky to be at the recording sessions for M1 under Horenstein in '69. (Phhhhht ding!!)

At one point, Harold Lawrence's voice came over the louspeaker from the control room saying,"Ah, Mr.Horenstein, we thought in the last take the clarinet was rather loud." (It's early on in the first movement).

Jascha's reply, "Yes I know Mr. Lawrence; it's part of my interpretation."

So the conductor felt that was something that was to be heard loud and clear. But it was one of the details that counted against the recording when M1 was put under the microscope for the BBC's Building a Library .

So it's one thing to hear what you want to; it's another to have a great performance.

   Ivor

[Polarius T]

I think the expressions here can be a bit vague -- as is often the case with stereotyping (otherwise it wouldn't really work to begin with). I would think what in this case is often meant is simply the level or degree of precision or specificity attained: the "refinement" of the playing accomplished. To use your nice tree analogy, and actually take it a step further, I'd say what we have here is not the tree with its leaves but their image on the screen, their representation. Then you might agree with me that in high definition that tree looks better no matter what, even if you can make out the leaves much better if you want.

So I think the issue is really about something like how "high" or "low resolution" (or fidelity, if you ask me) the rendering in question might be, to use another analogy from technology. Now why some people would have a problem with the more "hi" end might have to do with many things. For instance, it might be comparable to the question why homophonic music is usually still preferred to polyphonic music these days (more effortless to follow if you just have to pay attention to the broad outline -- melodic or dynamic -- of the unfolding work). Or why mono recordings sound "better" to some (simply less information for the ear to process). In other words, that it might be more taxing to follow several things going on simultaneously, especially if one was brought up on relatively lower level resolution recordings and media than what we have today, as most of us were. All that "detail" then seems like something extraneous, distracting, and hence detrimental to our enjoyment of the piece.

You can tell I'm mostly guessing here.

And you are right that that might still have nothing to do with how great the performance is; but I'd suggest in some other ways we on the whole are today generally more accustomed to and also expect receive more information than in the past. (Remember how people used to think at the introduction of 78s that realism was just astonishing and simply couldn't be bettered from that?)

Apropos your Horenstein anecdote (what did you have to do/be to get in btw?), my earliest Mahler explorations were mostly through recordings by the then-highly touted Karajan. I couldn't understand what all the fuss was about; everything sounded so oppressive and lifeless. Then someone gave me a tape of Horenstein's M4 (with Margaret Price). A whole new world opened up in that proverbial flooding bright light, despite the imperfections of the worn-out C tape. I still remember exactly what I was doing and where during the third movement.

-PT

[stillivor]

Yes, I think we're saying it's about how much, and of which , detail(s) a) we want/need to hear; and b) and how much/which the conductor and composer want us to hear.

I suppose each of us decides for ourselves.

i got in to the recordings by writing to the,then  young, label, saying I was a Mahler/Horenstein/little label fan, and asking to attend. i got a phonecall from the owner saying yes, and giving me time/date/place details.

What I didn't have the gumption to do was speak to the maestro. We just exchanged occasional looks.

   Ivor

[Polarius T]

I take that as a friendly amendment.

But now I'm ready to hop off my soapbox and start preparing a new thread on "What Does the Euphemism 'Dull!' AKA 'Boring!' Stand For and How It Is Better Understood."

Or not. Yet someone should.

 

PT

P.S. I was only able to get in by wooing girls with best friends whose fathers were record producers. Today I would no longer subscribe to such ethics but back in those headier days it still seemed like a win-win proposition to me and a hedged bet to boot. But it never got me anywhere near as lofty to be sure.