Philosophy of the Performing Arts

152 performance as art
Third, they argue that there is an intimate connection between improvisa-
tion and interpretation. They maintain that, just as all performance requires
interpretation, so all interpretation requires improvisation:
Every performance requires the performer to improvise ... A player will
respond to a variety of elements in performance. While melodies and harmo-
nies may be specified in advance, the precise realization of dynamics, rhyth-
mic subtleties, timbre, intonation, and articulation arises at the moment of
the performance, and will vary (often considerably) from performance to
performance, even when the piece is played by the same musician. (Gould
and Keaton 2000, 145)
Finally, they offer an example intended to show that spontaneity is not a
necessary condition for improvisation. They cite a performance of Haydn’s
Cello Concerto in D by the cellist Lynn Harrell in which Harrell added a
series of decorative notes not prescribed in the score, apparently both for
aesthetic reasons and as a vehicle for self-expression. Harrell’s interpolation,
they maintain “is undeniably a case of improvisation” even though Harrell
“most likely worked out the sequence before the performance,” so that the
performance was not spontaneous (Gould and Keaton 2000, 146).
Do these arguments threaten the consensus view that spontaneity is
the core of improvisation? The first thing to note is that proponents of the
“spontaneity” view explicitly acknowledge both the place of improvisation
in the classical musical tradition and the ways in which jazz improvisation
is embedded in a tradition of playing. Alperson notes that “the history of
Western music is replete with examples of musicians such as ... Bach,
Handel, Mozart, and Beethoven, all of whom were well known for their abil-
ity to improvise complex musical pieces” (1984, 22), while Davies discusses
a famous improvisational performance by J. S. Bach, of which more below,
and also cites the following account, by a near-contemporary, of Mozart’s
prodigious improvisational talents:
Even in the sixth year of his age ... one had only to give [Mozart] the first sub-
ject that came to mind for a fugue or an invention ... he would develop it ... as
long as one wished ... he would improvise fugally on a subject for hours ... he
would extemporize with inexhaustible inspiration. (S. Davies 2001, 13)
There is no suggestion here that improvisation can serve as the distinguishing
mark of jazz as opposed to classical performance.
As for the ways in which improvisations are embedded in a tradition upon
which the improvising musician draws, both Alperson and Davies dwell on
this at some length. Alperson cautions against thinking that the spontaneity
of an improvisation means that it is created out of nothing: “Even the freest