Inner Game Revisited

When I wrote my review of the classic performance book The Inner Game of Music, I knew that a lot of people wouldn't like it.  It wasn't the most glowing review, to be sure, and the book itself has a lot of ardent fans around the world of musical performance.  One such ardent fan is Liz Garnett, a friend of mine from the UK who publishes her own performance related blog, focusing mostly on harmony singing.  (Liz is also listed in the OTS Coach Directory)  So in light of her comments, I'd like to clarify some of mine!  Hopefully the back-and-forth will be useful for everyone.

I'll quote a few paragraphs from her article, and respond.  First we talk about Self 1 and Self 2:

[Tom's] first point of contention is the division between Self 1, the nasty inner critic, and Self 2, the honest musician who would do a much better job if Self 1 would only shut up and let them get on with it. Tom finds this device unhelpful, and thinks a more holistic, rather than ‘schizophrenic’ approach will be better for performers. But I think that’s actually the Inner Game’s point: the Self1/Self2 idea is presented as a way to describe an essentially dysfunctional state that the book aims to help us leave behind. Describing the split is necessary if people are to diagnose that they have the problem.

The first thing to realize is that we're discussing models and metaphors here, not hard facts.  Of course there is no Self 1 and no Self 2 - they are inventions of Tim Gallwey, which he defines as everything that works for you, and everything that doesn't.  Everyone has things that work for them and things that do not!  It doesn't take a stroke of brilliance to realize that we want to get rid of the latter.

Having said that, a metaphor has value if it works, and this one has worked for a lot of people.  There are many paths to the promised land!  I just don't find the Self 1/Self 2 breakdown a particularly useful model for me.

Next topic is what should the performer hold in their head.  Inner Game of Music author Green says it doesn't much matter - anything to distract you from your negative self-talk and head games.  And to some extent I think that's fine.  I think it would be better to have something up there that pertains to the purpose of the piece, which I have called the "scene."  Liz takes exception to that term:

The focus on the ‘scene’ betrays a very character-based, verbally-defined performance context. Plays have explicit scenes, songs evoke scenes: the performer has a concrete persona to inhabit in these artworlds. But instrumental performers (who are the ones who might be focusing on their instrument) often have a much more intangible set of musical ideas to communicate to their audience. The soloist who is going to build the long, highly structured stretches of musical time in a Brahms sonata into coherent experience needs focal points that will take them into that abstract imaginative world. It’s not ‘navel-gazing’, it’s an important mental skill for that artistic world, just as the ability to focus creating scenes is an important skill for the singer.

Again, if focusing on your instrument works for you, have at it!

I'm a singer, and hardly an instrumental performer at all (not since high school!), but even so I suspect that the very best instrumental performers have something going on in their heads that is more explicitly about the artistry, and less about simply distracting their Self 1.  If the goal is just to rid yourself of stage anxiety, and that's a worthwhile goal for sure, do what you need to do.  If you want to reach higher, it's not going to happen by itself!  It takes focus on the emotional content of the music.  At least, that's my two cents.

I suggested also that "relaxed concentration" may not be the ideal emotional state for all performances.  Liz kind of disagrees with that, and refers to a book called "Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience" that I have not read.  So I've ordered it!  I'll read it before I comment on it.  Looking forward to that one.

Finally, in my original article I didn't comment much on the trio of Awareness, Will and Trust, and that's basically because, let's be honest, I just didn't get it.  Liz feels it's very important, and I suspect she is right - I hope she will consent to write a blog article about it that helps me understand it better!

Thanks, Liz, for the lively discussion!