Philosophy of the Performing Arts

156 performance as art
not by dictating what they should do but by providing a framework within
which the acceptability of improvisational moves is determined. How such
constraints operate in a given case is up to the company – our modified version
of Something to Tell You is simply one example of how Ibsen’s text might func-
tion as such a constraint. A theatrical analogue of the second type of musical
improvisation on a theme, where the theme has been designed as a framework
for improvisation, can be found in some fringe theatrical performances where
the actors are provided, either by other actors or by the audience, with subjects
upon which to improvise. This is a well-used device in comedy improvisation
performances. As long as participants and audience have a shared understand-
ing as to how the choice of a subject constrains the performers in their improv-
isations, this will count as improvisation on a theme as the term is being used
here. Unclear cases arise when it is less clear that the performers’ activities
are subject to such constraints, as in the kinds of open-ended improvisations
proposed by Jarrett. It would presumably be incorrect to describe the Köln
Concert , or even its first “movement,” as an improvisation on the theme of the
Opera House intermission bell! We might talk in such a case of “improvisation
from a theme” rather than improvisation on a theme.
Where the theme upon which performers improvise is provided by the
score or text of a performable work, do we have a performance of that work?
Certainly, we talk of such improvisations in this way, and this is how they are
catalogued on recordings. But, as we saw in Chapter 6, it may be convenient
to talk in this way when the performable work is merely an ingredient in a per-
formance. In fact, philosophers have disagreed quite markedly over whether
improvisations on a theme are, or can be, performances of performable works.
Stephen Davies has, at different times, identified himself with both sides in
this debate. In earlier papers,^2 he maintained that improvised renditions of
standards like “My Funny Valentine” are performances of those works.^3 The
performable works are to be viewed as comparatively thin – all that they
prescribe for their playing is a melody and an associated chord sequence. But
in this respect they are comparable to folk songs like “Wild Mountain Thyme”
which admit of many acoustically different legitimate performances.
Davies’s considered position,^4 however, is that, as suggested at the end
of Chapter 6, work-performance and improvisation have competing aims.
In improvising on a theme, it might be said, the performer uses it “as a
springboard ..., a foundation from which the performer pushes off.” The
performer of a performable work, then, “is always answerable to the piece,”
whereas “we expect a successful improvisation to explore hitherto untried
ideas.” Furthermore, as we have seen, improvisers pursue, and are appreci-
ated for realizing, different kinds of values in their performances from those
pursued in work-performances. Davies, however, is skeptical as to whether
these are the key distinctions between improvisations and performances