Performance Anxiety Question for Nonsense Eliminator (and an

[ZeroMan]

NE wrote:

The adrenaline surge is what makes that possible -- however, sometimes it also leads to massive disasters. Inderal seems to level things out; if I wanted to listen to levelled-out playing, I have a perfectly good CD player.

Zero:

OK, at the risk of turning this into a soapbox lecture against the use of performance "enhancing" drugs, I want to ask- is the availability of so many perfect recordings of the repertoire responsible for the climate where performers now feel they have to take these drugs?

People are worried about making mistakes. Some worry more about the embarassment, but for others its the worry that they may not place well in an audition or contest, or lose the job they already have.

Everyone makes mistakes and sometimes it is justified when a performer is let go if he or she makes too many of them. But maybe a major factor is that many audiences are going to live performances expecting the same "leveled out" perfection of a recording. Those expectations are relayed to the management, to the conductor and eventually to the musicians. Now it's more about NOT making mistakes instead of making music; playing like a recording, because that is what people expect.

Auditions were always demanding, but now I can imagine how much more demanding they are. "Don't make a mistake!" means more than "Am I the musician they want for the job right now?"

BTW, I get this impression as a person who has done far more listening than performing. I don't know if it's an accurate impression, and that's why I want to run it by NE and any other player here who has performed at a high level. I completely understand that there are performers who have a real problem that they could not address through more traditional methods. But am I to believe that 70% of the professional musicians in orchestras today have a serious problem with performance anxiety? Right now I'm thinking that the burden of an impossible standard has been placed on them.

If or when my playing develops to a high level, will I "need" those drugs to "compete"? I have been seeing a lot of posts on various forums by trumpeters making the leap.

Has taking drugs to control performance anxiety truly become a fundamental part of performing at a high level?



Peace,

Thos.

[Nonsense Eliminator]

Zero --

The availability of "perfect" recordings is the more-or-less standard explanation for why orchestras today are so focussed on mistake-free playing. I'm not sure it's the whole story, but it's a start.

The problem with assuming that orchestras have only demanded perfection in the digital age is that people like Fritz Reiner and George Szell were infamous for not tolerating error. There were lots of iron-fisted conductors "back then" and because player contracts weren't as strong as they are now, music directors could fire players basically on a whim. Compared to those situations, playing in an orchestra today is probably a walk in the park -- except you can't compare the situations. Musicians today work in a completely different environment -- one which places higher demands on the players. First, Reiner and Szell were demanding perfection from the best of the best. Today, lots of conductors and audition committees for low-level orchestras are listening for missed notes. The New York Philharmonic can expect to find a player who plays accurately AND musically. The Podunk Philharmonic will be lucky to find a player who does one or the other. More often than not, the choice is based on bad notes, not good ideas. The penalty for inaccuracy does not seem to be proportionate to the caliber of the orchestra.

The other factor making life more difficult today than in the past is the amount of rehearsal. By the time you count up the breaks and whatnot, orchestras typically rehearse a program for between four and eight hours. On the low end of the scale, you simply hope to get through everything. On the high end, you probably get to play everything twice; more than three times likely means you screwed it up badly enough that the conductor decided to rehearse it. There is no time in today's schedule for things like Reiner's famous repetitions of the Zarathustra call. It's a lot harder to walk onstage feeling confident about a solo you've played twice than one you've played five times. If, on opening night, you're still trying to make sure things hold together and stay in tune, it's pretty hard to think about music.

There's another side to this, too: most orchestras have a larger, broader repertoire than they once did. The repertoire used to be pretty much Haydn to Brahms, with some occasional Handel or Richard Strauss. There's a lot more Bach today than fifty years ago, and tons more Bruckner, Mahler, Stravinsky, etc. -- and, of course, all the music that hadn't been written then, both "classical" and pops. This has three results: pieces come up less frequently; players are expected to be competent in more styles; and the music that has more recently entered the repertoire has, by and large, much harder trumpet parts.

In this kind of discussion, people tend to focus on wrong notes. However, there are a lot of other technical standards which are higher or different now. Conductors today tend to want a dark, broad, rich sound -- and that sound is harder to produce than an actual trumpet sound. One thing which I think is definitely more important now than it was is intonation -- there are some classic recordings that have tuning issues that would never make it to the stage today, never mind onto a CD. Couple that with less rehearsal time, and you have a real problem: you can learn the licks at home, but you can only fine-tune the pitch in rehearsal. I also think orchestras tend to play more loudly than in the past; accuracy generally becomes more difficult at higher dynamic levels, and a chip at forte might be a huge clam at fortissimo.

So, while the standards have gone up or remained the same, rehearsals have gotten shorter, repertoire has gotten bigger, and the number of musicians to whom those standards are applied has increased. So musicality tends to fall by the wayside.

So -- where do the drugs fit into this? Musicians have been using drugs to calm their nerves for a long time, but until Inderal the drugs of choice were alcohol and tobacco. Betablockers don't have the downside of the non-prescription choices, so there's less reason not to use them. Musicians earn more than they used to, so they can afford more of them. I'm not sure what to make of this 70% figure. I'm not sure to whom it applies. What is a "major" orchestra? Big 5? Fifty-two week season? Fully professional? Does that mean 70% have tried? 70% sometimes use? 70% always use? And the $64,000 question: If you replaced it with a placebo, what would happen? I suspect that the biggest benefit is not that you're not nervous -- it's believing that you're not going to be nervous. For a lot of people, the psychological boost that gives them seems to be enormous.

I think a lot of people buy into the following reasoning: "I was nervous. I didn't play well. I need Inderal." That logic holds only if the reason for the unsatisfactory performance was only nerves. As I said in my other post, a lot of the time the REAL reason is lack of preparation. Inderal may mask the jitters than come from being under-prepared, but it won't mask the under-preparation.

At the end of the day, at least 30% of the orchestral community doesn't use Inderal. Clearly, it can be done. In my case, I don't think taking beta-blockers would do a damn bit of good. I like to feel a little on edge -- it keeps me attentive and focussed. The whole reason I decided to make a career of trumpet playing was the adrenaline rush of playing great music well. Why would I take a pill to undermine my passion for music?

[Strawdoggy]

Great post.

[JeroenJongeling]

For what it's worth: Nonsense, I couldn't agree more with your post, Bravo!

I can recommend people with perfomance anxiety problems to get into Yoga. It's helping me a lot, trying to get things in the right perspective mentally.

[musiclifeline]

beta blockers are a quick fix, and like all quick fixes, people can become reliant on them past the point of good sense... solutions like yoga, breathing exercises, Silva counting (whatever the real name for that method is), etc are for people with the patience to learn them. not to be cynical, but that excludes 70% of musicians (and people in general for that matter). probably the same 70% that use beta blockers.

the point i'm making is that these other methods have benefits outside of the performing arena. beta blockers don't. other methods naturally focus your concentration and energy for more than just the period of time a pill would be effective. practicing your butt off to be the ultimate in preparedness is not always a realistic goal, but having a unified mind and body through techniques like yoga is. and it beats your body fighting your mind with beta blockers.


[ This Message was edited by: musiclifeline on 2003-02-25 13:50 ]

[ZeroMan]

GREAT POST NE. Thanks for taking the time to answer my question.

I welcome more feedback and information.

Peace,

Thos.

[trombapaul2]

Outstanding topic Zero and equally outstanding reply NE. I too look forward
to that rush of adrenaline. My best performances have been while scared
sh*#less (but still in control). I get worried about what's coming out of the
horn when I don't feel it.

Paul

[pushyred]

The more you perform, the less nervous you'll become. It's just like anything else. If you only play a solo in front of an audience once every 10 years, you're gonna be nervious.

Regarding drugs; I've never used a beta blocker, although I wish they'd been around when I was in school. Now I just avoid caffine (no matter how tired I may feel) drink plenty of water and of course, the most important weapon against nervousness is thorough preparation.

Having said all of that, here is an alternative of which I just learned and I encourge you to try it. I would especially encourage any teachers out there to use this to help their students become.

It comes from my husband's saxophone teacher and woodwind repair guru, Bill Street. He tells is students that just before they play a recital to look up at him sitting in the audience and "give him" all of their nervousness. As simple and perhaps silly this may sound to some, it really works! I think it speaks to the fact that on stage can feel like a very lonely and vulnerable place. By doing this for our students, we let them know that they are never really alone.