Temianka's Voice in Lecture-Recital History
By the 1950s, when Temianka began lecturing at his performances, the United States had already established a history of lecture-recitals. Musicians like British-born composer Emma Maria McFarren already toured the country, performing various lecture-recitals in the later 19th century. Some conservatories and music societies around the globe adopted lecture-recitals and historically-focused concerts before the outbreak of World War II.
With such a rich history of lecture-recitals, how did Temianka's predecessors influence his own style when giving performance lectures?
Two historically prominent lecture-recitalists show strong similarities to Temianka's method of delivery and overall outlook on the "performer-artist" relationship: Johann Nikolaus Forkel and Edward Baxter Perry.
Forkel's "Kenner" and "Liebhaber"
Born in 1749, German musicologist Johann Nikolaus Forkel was one of the first known lecture-recitalists, and also famously the first biographer of J.S. Bach. His work was massively impactful in the world of music education, with many of his concepts echoing through the work of artists and lecturers today.One important distinction Forkel made in his time was between Kenner — professionals or experts, and Liebhaber — amateurs or the uneducated. Worried that the musical world was in a state of decline, Forkel thought it was essential to educate Liebhaber and make them more musically literate, resulting in a larger portion of the general public that could apply an analytical lens to music, and distinguish quality pieces from amateur works.
In order to achieve this goal, Forkel began to give lectures alongside concerts that were being performed at the Collegium Musicum at the University of Göttingen, of which he was the director.
Much like Temianka's performance commentaries, Forkel's lecture-recitals were directed broadly at concertgoers as opposed to academics or fellow artists. One major theme of Forkel's lecture-recitals was about training audiences to listen actively during a performance, with the intention of applying musical concepts to what they were hearing.
Forkel spent many of his onstage lectures explaining concepts like musical rhetoric and acoustics — topics that he believed would help listeners "decipher" music as opposed to merely absorbing a performance at face value.
It could be said that both Forkel and Temianka saw the unique position a performer had in both playing for and lecturing to an audience. Temianka's understanding of the "performer as an educator" is mirrored by Forkel's approach to making Liebhaber into Kenner through musical demonstrations and accompanying commentary.
Though Forkel established the idea that music listeners are responsible for having a deeper understanding of a piece beyond mere enjoyment, his lectures demonstrate that he believed a performer was the best catalyst for demonstrating the tools listeners could use to do so.
Other similarities between the two artists lie in their assertions that it is a public good to maintain a sense of musical literacy, distinction between "good" and "bad" music, and general dialogue even among the most casual listeners.
In a 1966 New York Times article, Temianka spoke at a panel by the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, in which he "warned against the danger of the arts in a democracy becoming a spectator sport." By this, it appears that Temianka feared audiences would only passively enjoy music as entertainment, and not as an art form to be more closely examined.
Essentially, Temianka wished to avoid the Liebhaber of his time simply remaining Liebhaber. His solution: make lectures fun, engaging and captivating for unfamiliar audiences.
This choice of content is where the two differ in their lecture style, with Temianka's inclusion of narrative-focused anecdotes and historical references contrasting Forkel's emphasis on music technique and theory. Overlap did exist, however, such as Temianka's verbal explanations of musical forms.
Perry: Looking Beyond the Mechanical
Edward Baxter Perry may have been one of few blind pianists in the late 19th century, but this did not stop him from pioneering the world of lecture-recitals, giving over 3,000 performances — complete with verbal annotation — during his lifetime.In his book, "Descriptive Analyses of Piano Works," Perry includes many written versions of his live performance notes, as well as an explanation for his efforts to educate audiences.
Parallels between Temianka and Perry quickly become apparent in the pianist's introductory paragraphs, where he explains that a more humanistic tone is necessary when explaining music to an audience:
"True interpretation of music depends not only on the player’s possession of a correct insight into the form … of a (musical) composition, but also on the fullest obtainable knowledge concerning the circumstances and environment of its origin..." — Edward Baxter Perry
Perry's introduction continues, explaining that observing the "mechanics" of a song — much like Forkel discussed — are only one way of enjoying music. Exploring why a piece was created in the first place, and what circumstances shaped that piece, Perry explains, is something concertgoers don't just crave — they need it in order to have a full understanding of a composer's work.As a result, Perry's lectures often included detailed examinations of musicians and their experiences in history, such as Beethoven's friendship with Count Waldstein of Vienna or Chopin's musical inspirations. In parallel, Temianka's performance commentaries delved into the human stories behind the compositions of Debussy or the evolution of the various instruments.
Storytelling in this way provided an additional layer of commentary that both Perry and Temianka used as extra context for musical performances, whereas Forkel's technical analyses were not as concerned with specific historical events or biographical information.
However, just like with Forkel, not all of Perry's lecture techniques corresponded exactly with Temianka's. Firstly, Perry presented his historical insights in a formal, straightforward diction, while Temianka was more apt to infuse some humor or opinion in his references to musical history.
Another significant departure from Perry's style can be found in Temianka's usage of personal anecdotes to both familiarize himself with an audience and provide insights that are drawn from current events instead of a historical perspective.
For instance, one of Temianka's lectures describes singer George London, a contemporary of his, as a talented linguist and storyteller, remarking about how the man was capable of cracking jokes in different languages. The commentary even goes on to list London's various hobbies.
These glimpses beyond an artist's musical background and into their character as a person — something Perry rarely examined — was a staple of Temianka's performer's commentaries.
Performance Lectures Today
Since Temianka's passing in 1992, lecture-recitals, concert introductions and performance commentaries have become significantly more popular and accepted in the public sphere.Technology has continued to embrace and metamorphize music commentary, much like Temianka wished to do in his time. Live performance commentaries, music podcasts, concert livestreams, digital music forums and shows on television or streaming have all provided the opportunity for everyday listeners to dive deeper into the music they appreciate.
Even the most popular artists today often include commentary tracks with their album releases, with performance commentary extending beyond classical music into other genres.
In some ways, it's harder today to avoid lecture-recitals, performance commentaries or music analyses than it is to find them.