I'm teaching a course titled "Performance: Analysis and criticism" next semester as an upper-level Honors College elective (shameless plug). So I've been reading a lot in the field of performance studies lately and thinking about performance-related issues. The one top of mind today is the curious case of William Hung.
William Hung was a contestant on American Idol about three years ago (2004 season). And he was bad. In fact, he was so bad that he was good.* Perhaps it was good that he was bad. See for yourself:
The quality of his voice is bad (WH: "I have no professional training in singing." SC: "Really? That's the surprise of the century!"). He hits most of the pitches (a better batting average than some AI contestants). His choreography is bizarre. So why did he capture the hearts of so many? He performs all over the world now, has music videos and an album out--he's making a career in music (or seems to be).
My question is this: what makes a good performance? Is William Hung's performance good? According to my previous paragraph, I would probably say "no, it's not good." But I can't help but think that he probably makes more money as a musician than I do. I might answer my question with another question: If it's a bad performance, then why do people want to see it?
I'm reading Christopher Small's Musicking. In this book he argues that "music" is actually a verb: it's something people do. Not only is it something musicians do (both professional and amateur), but it's something the audience does, something that anyone involved in mounting a musical performance (he seems to have a particular affinity for the people that clean the hall). Furthermore, a musical performance creates a system of relationships between all involved. The book very carefully unpacks the relationships created.
In light of that information, it could be that people like William Hung not necessarily because of his musical performance but because of the relationships he creates. I'm pleased that the video clip includes the pre-interview and the interaction between Hung and the judges. If Hung were just another bad singer, I think America would have dismissed him. If he were just another bad singer with a "what do the judges know?" attitude, he would have been dismissed even more quickly. But it's his sincerity and humility coupled with his bad singing and awkward dancing, I think that won him millions (thousands? hundreds?) of loyal fans.
As per my post on ethics below, we might also take intention into account. Hung says after his audition something to the effect of "I have no regrets: I came out here and did my best." I, for one, believe him. To take an intentionalist stance, he intended to come out and give the best performance of which he was capable. I think the quotation at the beginning of the paragraph gives evidence of that, and I think he did give the best performance of which he was capable. He didn't really sound like Ricky Martin, but he's incapable of sounding like Ricky Martin. To take an anti-intentionalist stance, we must look at individual interpretations of the performance. Click here to read some fan mail addressed to Hung. Most of the letters go something like this: "True, you're not a great singer. But you tried and you've inspired me to try. Keep following your dreams." Here I would argue that the relationships created in the course of performance far outweigh the musical content of the performance alone.
For those readers who aren't fans of American Idol, feel free to substitute the name Florence Foster Jenkins anytime you see William Hung above. Listen to her perform Mozart's "Queen of the Night" aria here... consider yourself warned...
*A friend of mine in high school once recounted a story of a writing assignment he submitted in elementary school. The story began "Once upon a time there was a spaceship that went so fast that it went slow." He got an F--the teacher evidently couldn't make it past that first sentence.
William Hung was a contestant on American Idol about three years ago (2004 season). And he was bad. In fact, he was so bad that he was good.* Perhaps it was good that he was bad. See for yourself:
The quality of his voice is bad (WH: "I have no professional training in singing." SC: "Really? That's the surprise of the century!"). He hits most of the pitches (a better batting average than some AI contestants). His choreography is bizarre. So why did he capture the hearts of so many? He performs all over the world now, has music videos and an album out--he's making a career in music (or seems to be).
My question is this: what makes a good performance? Is William Hung's performance good? According to my previous paragraph, I would probably say "no, it's not good." But I can't help but think that he probably makes more money as a musician than I do. I might answer my question with another question: If it's a bad performance, then why do people want to see it?
I'm reading Christopher Small's Musicking. In this book he argues that "music" is actually a verb: it's something people do. Not only is it something musicians do (both professional and amateur), but it's something the audience does, something that anyone involved in mounting a musical performance (he seems to have a particular affinity for the people that clean the hall). Furthermore, a musical performance creates a system of relationships between all involved. The book very carefully unpacks the relationships created.
In light of that information, it could be that people like William Hung not necessarily because of his musical performance but because of the relationships he creates. I'm pleased that the video clip includes the pre-interview and the interaction between Hung and the judges. If Hung were just another bad singer, I think America would have dismissed him. If he were just another bad singer with a "what do the judges know?" attitude, he would have been dismissed even more quickly. But it's his sincerity and humility coupled with his bad singing and awkward dancing, I think that won him millions (thousands? hundreds?) of loyal fans.
As per my post on ethics below, we might also take intention into account. Hung says after his audition something to the effect of "I have no regrets: I came out here and did my best." I, for one, believe him. To take an intentionalist stance, he intended to come out and give the best performance of which he was capable. I think the quotation at the beginning of the paragraph gives evidence of that, and I think he did give the best performance of which he was capable. He didn't really sound like Ricky Martin, but he's incapable of sounding like Ricky Martin. To take an anti-intentionalist stance, we must look at individual interpretations of the performance. Click here to read some fan mail addressed to Hung. Most of the letters go something like this: "True, you're not a great singer. But you tried and you've inspired me to try. Keep following your dreams." Here I would argue that the relationships created in the course of performance far outweigh the musical content of the performance alone.
For those readers who aren't fans of American Idol, feel free to substitute the name Florence Foster Jenkins anytime you see William Hung above. Listen to her perform Mozart's "Queen of the Night" aria here... consider yourself warned...
*A friend of mine in high school once recounted a story of a writing assignment he submitted in elementary school. The story began "Once upon a time there was a spaceship that went so fast that it went slow." He got an F--the teacher evidently couldn't make it past that first sentence.