During the ‘mime piece’, it looked as if the performers were following the same instructions and were trying to do the same thing, but in fact each performed something different. This distance between what we presume the instructions are, and what was actually performed, was what I found interesting, because it draws one closer into the characters of the performers. The differences were, most likely, unintentional, or the result of difficulties faced by being asked to do unexpected things. Yet it was the unintentional aspect which gains the attention of the audience, while a perfect performance would soon become tedious. From this, we learn that the effect a score has on the performer is equally important as the effect a performer has on the audience using means which are not in the score. Also, mistakes are exciting for an audience, provided that mistakes do not affect the confidence of the performer or result in losing the flow of the performance.

An example could be any improvisation piece which is based around set parameters. There, the same idea can recur in many different forms and contexts, defined both on a conscious and subconscious level. Then, how you play has a much greater priority than the actual musical material, as in the mime piece. Also, as in the mime piece mistakes can be expected, which creates a tension between parameters in theory (which sets up expectation) and in practice (which creates surprise).