Philosophy of the Performing Arts

performance i: improvisation and rehearsal 157
of thin works. For some improvisations are very tightly structured around
their themes, while some performed works only loosely specify what they
prescribe and allow for considerable freedom on the part of performers.
The crucial difference, for Davies, lies in the practices with respect to which
performers situate themselves and upon which they draw. The practices
governing improvisation and work-performance differ in that “the former
aims at the presentation of real-time music making constrained only by the
grammatical conventions of a style, and the latter is dedicated to the delivery
of a faithful instance of a previously composed work, even if it also has other
purposes” (S. Davies 2001, 19).
In support of Davies’s considered account, we might ask whether, when
a performer improvises on a theme furnished by a performable work, the
performance can serve arguably the central function of a work- performance,
namely, enabling us to better appreciate the work performed. As we saw
in Chapter 3, the aesthetic qualities realized in a work-performance can be
referred analogically to the performable work whose prescriptions make
these qualities of the performance possible. But it is unclear whether we can
refer qualities of an improvised performance of, say, “My Funny Valentine” to
the performable work in this way. For not only will there be violations of the
prescriptions for correct performance of that work, but also (1) the perform-
ers are not aiming to fulfill those prescriptions, even in the initial statement
of the theme, and (2) it is very unlikely that the valuable qualities to be found
in the performance could be realized in a performance that did fulfill those
prescriptions. This is not to say that we couldn’t gain insight into a performable
work from an improvisatory performance that took the prescriptions of that
work as the basis for its theme, for such a performance might bring out values
that could be sought in performances of the work. But even in this case, the
performance will not itself be of the work, since it will not stand in the right
kind of historical-intentional relation to the latter’s prescriptions.
However, while Davies may be right about performances of standards, a dif-
ferent story seems appropriate for cases like “Blue in Green,” which prescribe
that performers use a given structure as a frame for improvisation. It seems
better, here, to view the improvisational frame as a performable work that
constrains performance in a looser way than traditional scores. An improvisa-
tion that takes the prescriptions for “Blue in Green” as its theme is guided by
a frame designed for that purpose, and the performers intend to do what the
work prescribes. In such cases, we can rightly refer qualities of the perform-
ance to the frame, taken as a performable work, admiring or criticizing the
latter for the possibilities it offers to improvisers. The improvised perform-
ance thereby serves the central function of a work-performance in virtue of
also serving as an improvisation. Thus, in this case at least, the goals of work-
performance and of improvisation are in harmony rather than in conflict.