Creativity, originality and value in Western classical performance: A review and a model

For today’s performers within the Western classical tradition, an imperative for originality persists among the public, educators, policy makers, and artists themselves – the assumption being that great performances are achievable only through unique artistic insight. However, when examining such per-formance through the lens of the common view of creativity (one that does not distinguish between creativity, originality, and value), it becomes difficult to imagine what the precise source of this insight might be and to predict in

what form(s) it will best be received. Certainly, Franz Liszt is commonly cited as one of the foremost musical innovators of all time, but where exactly does his innovation lie – in his ability to conjure up and captivate audiences with uniquely moving renditions of familiar tunes, in his efforts to compose new pieces that (at the time) extended the limits of the piano technique and offered musically significant contributions to the repertoire, or perhaps in his incomparable showmanship and ability to leave audiences in states of rapture or frenzy (depending on his desired effect)? Clearly, we could argue that creativity was present in all of these various pursuits, but where does that leave us in terms of understanding fundamental principles of creativity itself ? In many respects, confused.

In contrast, by distinguishing between the concepts of creativity, originality, and value, researchers can begin to gain a greater appreciation of: (1) the (conscious and non-conscious) exploitation of psychological mechanisms that enable unique thought and behaviour; (2) the ways in which individuals reconcile such thoughts and behaviours with their knowledge of what has happened before; and (3) how the public will typically respond to certain types of innovation. As a great deal of theoretical and empirical work in psych-ology since the 1950s has purported to focus on the first of these, we draw upon examples in music performance in order to offer an initial theoretical analysis of the more culturally and socially driven concepts of originality and value. Music performance – and particularly that within the Western classical tradition – is a particularly apt domain for such an analysis and subsequent research to take place. There are closely confined stylistic boundaries for what is usually acceptable as a performance; although conventions change over time, they tend to be widely shared by the concert-going public. Creativ-ity in performance, therefore, must occur in relation to these boundaries if the performance is to be deemed appropriately original and/or valuable at all.

As a result, researchers do not need to impose false or ecologically invalid contextual constraints in their investigations.

In terms of originality, of all the outcomes within a given creative tradition, the largest number should be distributed normally around a hypothetical mean of perceived originality (as described above in Section 9.2.2). Figure 9.1 depicts this relationship graphically. The accuracy of this graph hinges on two criteria. First, the domains of endeavour to which the distribution applies are only those for which a degree of originality has come to be expected; solo music performance is an example par excellence. A distinctive, individualised approach to performance, for instance, may not be advisable for a section violinist within a symphony orchestra; individuality would need to be sacrificed for common ensemble goals and/or the musical vision of the conductor. However, if that violinist were to pursue a parallel career as a soloist, performances given within this context would be expected to differ somewhat from those of other violinists. Second, the performances to be included in Figure 9.1 can only be those that meet, at the very least, basic acceptability within the socio-cultural, stylistic, and/or professional 172 Williamon, Thompson, Lisboa, and Wiffen

constraints of the particular creative tradition. When the violinist above gives a solo performance of Bach’s Sonata in G minor, they must have the basic technical proficiency required to play the piece. Without this, the perform-ance will not be deemed professionally acceptable by informed audiences (or even uninformed audiences), and it could not, therefore, come to be repre-sented in this distribution (in the same way that a distribution of the height of adult men in Europe should not, by definition, include the heights of male infants and toddlers, as they do not qualify as “adults”).

Although Figure 9.1 proposes a normal distribution around a hypothetical mean of perceived originality, it does not suggest that outcomes in close proximity to the mean will necessarily be similar in substance. For example, two performances of a Chopin prelude may possess dramatically different qualities – in terms of phrasing, articulation, dynamics, tempo, and (if di ffer-ent editions are being used) actual notes played. Both may be perceived as being of high quality, while also judged by audiences as being neither completely derivative nor radically unlike all versions that preceded them.

Extremely derivative and radical performances would fall, respectively, to the left of line A and to the right of line B, the implication being that they will occur less frequently within the distribution. In cases to the left of line A, the public will support only so many derivative performances in a given tradition;

in cases to the right of line B, all Western classical performances will be so tightly embedded within the aforementioned boundaries that it would indeed be rare for individuals to break established rules so completely.

Having proposed this normal distribution of originality in performance, it is instructive to consider further the relationship between perceived originality Figure 9.1 A hypothetical normal distribution of perceived originality (see text for

explanation).

and perceived value. In other words, how does the mean value ascribed to performances of, say, Bach keyboard works, differ between those that are perceived to be more, or less, original than the norm? To give a feel for the kind of shape this relationship may take, let us consider some examples of well-known performers and performances. We should begin by noting that perceived originality is partially a function of the period and cultural environment of consumption, as well as to current conventions of perform-ance practice (see Butt, 2002). Accepted interpretive conventions at the time of writing differ substantially from that, for example, of the interwar period (e.g., the use of rubato in Baroque repertoire). What was perceived as uncontroversial or derivative in one period may be highly controversial or orig-inal in another. Of course, certain controversial performances may continue to excite a wide range of responses through different periods; conversely, uncontroversial performances of one era may well become controversial at a later time.

Thus, at any given point in time, performances of the highest mean value across a given population of relevant listeners are likely to be those by emi-nent performers of repertoire in which they are widely acknowledged to be authoritative exponents. These performances achieve a degree of originality – certainly more than the “bare minimum” – but fall within the constraints of accepted stylistic conventions and show keen awareness of performing tradi-tions within the chosen repertoire. Such stylistically informed performances are largely uncontroversial, in the sense that they do not typically provoke argument or challenge conventions. Their high mean value thus comes with relatively little variance. Murray Perahia’s performances of Mozart’s piano concertos (in which he directs the orchestra and plays the solo part) are a useful example of this type of performance. Perahia’s performances are widely held to be both refined and communicative. He is known to consult a wide range of source material and mediates his experience of recent main-stream performing tradition with knowledge of eighteenth-century perform-ing conventions. He employs analytical techniques in order to develop interpretive strategies. The violinist Hilary Hahn has become similarly recog-nised as an authoritative interpreter of Beethoven’s Violin Concerto. Hahn chooses to play Kreisler’s cadenza and adopts an interpretive style partly derived from traditions originating with Kreisler himself. The performances of Perahia and Hahn are both highly valued by audiences and critics alike.

There are, however, many interpretive approaches that defy convention, and these will inevitably excite more controversy. They are likely to be idio-syncratic and to challenge accepted tenets of performance practice. Glenn Gould’s approach to performing Bach on the piano was, and still is, regarded as distinctive and highly original, particularly in terms of the articulation and projection of motivic material. Gould’s Bach is certainly not unpopular, but over the relevant population of informed listeners, opinions differ widely about its merits. It is not hard to find people who value Gould’s interpret-ations above all others; at the same time some react very negatively to them 174 Williamon, Thompson, Lisboa, and Wiffen

and to a degree that is unlikely to be engendered by, for instance, András Schiff’s urbane and measured performances of the same works. The mean value of Gould’s Bach is probably somewhere below the level of Schiff’s – after several decades, it is still considered to lie outside the mainstream – but the variance of opinion thereon is much greater. If Gould is the obvious exemplar, there are certainly others. A recent instance of marked originality in interpreting mainstream repertoire is Gidon Kremer’s recording of the Beethoven Violin Concerto with the Chamber Orchestra of Europe under Nikolaus Harnoncourt. This is a challenging account of the work, as Kremer communicates far more urgency than contemporary listeners are used to hearing (e.g., in such performances as that of Hahn mentioned above). Other contemporary performers whose originality of interpretation stimulates such controversy include the pianist Arkady Volodos and the cellist Mischa Maisky. Past performers who may be argued to belong in this category have included the pianist Vladimir Horowitz and the violinist Bronislav Huberman.

In all these cases, it seems that the variability of opinion is wide but that the mean value is somewhat below that of the most popular performances.

Moving towards interpretations that have even higher originality but verge on the eccentric, it seems that the mean value declines further while the divergence of opinion begins to decrease. Returning to Glenn Gould, his performance of Brahms’s Piano Concerto No. 1 in 1962 with the New York Philharmonic Orchestra under Leonard Bernstein provides a particularly striking example. He performed the first movement at such a slow tempo and distorted Brahms’s dynamic indications to such an extent that Bernstein pub-licly dissociated himself from the interpretation prior to its commencement (Bazzana, 1997). This interpretation, while undoubtedly highly original, was not a critical success and has not subsequently been adopted by other per-formers. On the relatively few occasions that Gould performed works from the Romantic period, he routinely adopted a far dryer articulation than is traditionally expected, partly by means of touch and partly by the restriction of his use of the sustaining pedal. Gould’s performances of this repertoire meet with far less approval among listeners than his Bach recordings; they are widely agreed to be of relatively low value.

What of performances that are viewed as having originality below the

“norm” level, but still above the “bare minimum”? At the extreme, consider a computer-generated performance based on some set of basic generative rules (Clarke, 1988; Todd, 1985). Such a performance may be viewed, on aver-age, as just acceptable as a performance in its own right, but with little to distinguish it from others – in other words, on or just above the bare mini-mum level of originality. It seems likely that such a performance would have a relatively low mean value and that this would be widely agreed upon.

A competent student performance that supplements the characteristics of the computer performance through stylistic awareness and by incorporat-ing further expressive devices, but nevertheless fails to reveal significant ori-ginality, would likely have some intermediate mean value (probably more

worthwhile than the computer, but not in the same league as an eminent professional).

Figure 9.2 is an attempt to represent graphically the relationships we have described. The x-axis reflects mean perceived originality of some performance across a relevant population of listeners, with the zero point corresponding to the “bare minimum” originality. Thus, a performance of Bach’s keyboard music would be ascribed some level of originality compared with other per-formances of Bach’s keyboard music by informed listeners, and not compared with performances of, for example, jazz standards, popular songs, or even piano pieces by Brahms. The y-axis reflects mean perceived value; here, zero is the minimum point below which a performance is considered to have no aesthetic merit whatsoever. With all other things being equal (i.e., factors such as popularity, fame, and reputation of the performer set aside), we propose that the “originality value” curve will be positively skewed, as the most highly valued performances will typically fall within well-established traditions and, as a matter of course, be original only within constrained boundaries. The amount of perceived originality corresponding to the peak level of mean value is, therefore, relatively low (cf. Martindale and Moore’s 1988 research on prototypicality effects, which suggests that favourable

Figure 9.2 The originality–value curve, depicting the relationship between mean perceived originality of a performance and mean perceived value of that performance, across a relevant population of listeners. The curve represents a hypothetical “all other things being equal” scenario, where factors such as popularity, fame, and reputation are not considered. The zero point on the x-axis corresponds to the “bare minimum” level of originality, below which a performance is generally agreed to be identical or only trivially different to some previous instance. The zero point on the y-axis is the minimum point below which a performance is considered to have no aes-thetic merit. The error bars on each point reflect the variance around the mean value judgements.

176 Williamon, Thompson, Lisboa, and Wiffen

responses are positively related to stimuli that typify their representative category; see also Repp, 1997, for a compelling example of this musical domain).

As described above, variance around the hypothetical mean value judge-ments is likely to differ in relation to originality, and we have depicted this with error bars on each point in Figure 9.2. Variances to the left of the peak, where the hypothetical computerised and student performances lie, are likely to be uncontentiously small. Moving up to and over the peak, the variance may increase slightly, but only slightly; this is where we would expect to plot uncontroversial and widely popular performances, such as Perahia’s Mozart, Hahn’s Beethoven or Schiff’s Bach. Moving down the curve, the variance increases dramatically for a period. In this region, we might place Gould’s idiosyncratic Bach, controversial but still very popular with some. As the curve continues to move downwards asymptotically towards zero, the variance decreases as performances become both more original and less acceptable.

The variance here is similar to that of the derivative performances to the far left of the curve, although the reasons why these performances are valued less may, of course, be rather different.

We noted above that perceived originality is partially a function of period and culture. Consequently, the curve should itself be viewed as reflecting a relationship that is subject to change. The kurtosis (or “peakedness”) of the curve may change depending on the value that a society places on originality per se. For a society in which originality is a highly prized feature of a per-formance, the curve would take on a flatter shape, as a greater number of performances could feasibly fall near the peak. For one in which the original-ity of a performance is generally less important, the curve would take on a more peaked shape.

It is also important to note that the relative position of certain performances on the curve is itself subject to change. Were it the case that Gould’s inter-pretation of the Brahms concerto had been embraced by other performers and gradually adopted as the mainstream approach, then from this later position it would no longer be perceived as highly original (although it would, of course, be possible to say “this performance must have seemed highly original then, but it does not seem so now”). A real example of a similar, if less pronounced, change is the way that the historical performance practice movement has redefined the “norms” for the performance of so-called “early”

music (and, increasingly, nineteenth-century music) over a number of years.

In general, then, we accept that there can be no absolute, everlasting placement of specific products on the originality–value curve. We do propose, however, that the value judgements made by groups of informed individ-uals will tend to follow the basic shape and principles of the curve. One implication of the curve as it stands is that the amount of originality corresponding to the highest mean value is relatively small. This is deliberate;

while there is much talk about the need for “originality” and “creativity”

by the public, educators, policy makers, critics, and perhaps most of all by

artists themselves, it is not clear that originality, as such, is valued much at all in Western classical performance. The popular call for “originality” is, arguably, a conflation of concepts of precisely the kind we have attempted to criticise.

9.4 Conclusions

In this chapter, we have argued for the need to draw a more careful distinction between the concepts of creativity, originality and value. Through clari fica-tion of the conceptual framework in the way we have suggested, it becomes apparent that a great deal of work is still needed to explain the connection that exists between individual creativity and the wider social context in which it is situated. In particular, research should begin to explore the relationship between degree and frequency of creativity in the individual, and the extent to which these correlate with the perceived originality and value of their creations. This seems a more fruitful endeavour than treating the three aspects in complete isolation or, as is more common, simply assuming the existence of positive correlations between them.

References

Bazzana, K. (1997). Glenn Gould: The performer in the work: A study in performance practice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Beardsley, M. C. (1962). Aesthetics: Problems in the philosophy of criticism. New York:

Harcourt Brace.

Boden, M. (1991). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. New York: Basic Books.

Boden, M. (1994). Creativity: A framework for research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 558–570.

Boden, M. (1998). Creativity and artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 103, 347–356.

Butt, J. (2002). Playing with history. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Clarke, E. F. (1988). Generative principles in music performance. In J. A. Sloboda (Ed.), Generative processes in music: The psychology of performance, improvisation, and composition (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Davies, S. (2003). Themes in the philosophy of music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406.

Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Freud, S. (1964). Leonardo da Vinci and a memory of his childhood. New York: Norton.

(Original work published 1910).

Gardner, H. (1993a). Creating minds. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1993b). Seven creators of the modern era. In J. Brockman (Ed.), Creativity (pp. 28–47). New York: Simon & Schuster.

Goldblatt, D. (1984). Self-plagiarism. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 43,

Goldblatt, D. (1984). Self-plagiarism. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 43,