perfection is an illusive concept, and in a performance it may be judged on at least two different levels:
objective and subjective.
objectively, it is possible to have a "perfect" performance:
all the notes were played with accuracy, pitch and rhythm-wise, intonation was accurate. tempos were appropriate, - IOW, all of the notes were there in the right place.
these are all things that adjudicators listen for when judging the various forms of musical performance festivals and competitions, at all levels...
subjectively - this is much tougher to gauge, since so much depends upon the preference, the mood of the listener...the performance was too fast, too slow, too loud, too soft, too rushed, not enough energy, etc, etc..
the same performance may be received differently by 5 audience members all sitting right next to each other. they alll heard the same notes, played the same way, but it affected them all differently.
in this regard, perfection is most difficult or impossible to define...
"consensus" seems to be about the best we can do...however, this really doesn't matter - because it's the individual listener's own reaction that really counts...if it sounded perfect to that listener, on that day, then that's what it is....at least to that individual.
on this topic, I'm reminded of an anecdote I recalled from a so-called music teacher, a number of years ago, which to me, totally negated the concept of individual taste....the topic of "greatest live performance you've ever heard"...
this guy said he had gone to hear Maria Callas sing. it was near the end of her career, but she was stilll a big draw, and he was really looking forward to it...his recap:
<<gee, you know, she seemed to struggle a bit, she cracked some notes, there were some intonation problems, some difficulty,
it really wasn't all that great - but the audience went totally crazy...wild with applause, throwing flowers - they were totally delirious....
so I guess it's the greatest thing I ever heard!!>>
