Who's more important - composer or performer? Or, are they equal?

[Superhorn]

  Of course the composer is necessary for classical music to exist at all, but we should not minimize the importance of the performer. Without  first-rate performers, the greatest classical music is helpless.
  The performer should not be merely a vehicle to play the notes accurately, but must use his or her imagination to bring the music to life.
Of course some composers,such as Stravisnky have demanded that performers not"interpret" their  music but"realize" it and not add their own personalities to the music, but many composers have expected performers to use their discretion and  be creative. There is no one "right' way to perform a piece of music.
Composers have interpreted their own music differently at different times when conducting or playing the piano etc, and these differences have been documented by their own recordings, such as Stravisnky'w own different recordings of the same works of his.

[Mandryka]

For me the performer is at least as important, and in some cases more so.

I think it was Bolet who said that a composer may spend a few months working on a score;  the performer may spend years working out how to play it. And that gives the performer a certain authority, certain rights and privilages in my book.

Why on earth should anyone think that the act of interpretation and communication  is less creative than the act of composition?  Why should we think that the poetic genius of Beethoven is a superior form of Genius to, say Annie Fischer's?

Sometimes performers can take not-so-great composition and turn them into cosmic universe shaking experiences. I can think of examples from Sviatoslav Richter (some of his Liszt)  and Glenn Gould (Liszt/Beethoven)  and Michelangeli (Mompou)  and (moving away from the piano) Reiner (Heldenleben).

One analogy I find helpful is this: the composer is like the architect, and the performer is like the interior designer. I think Interior Design is very important.

[George]

Thanks for your post, Mandryka!

You make a lot of very good points. I am glad I am not alone in thinking that the performer is just as important as the composer.

You, me, and 4 others. Who are the mysterious 4? Will they reveal themselves.

We six start a club.   

No president, for we are all equal. 

[nut-job]

Thanks for your post, Mandryka!

You make a lot of very good points. I am glad I am not alone in thinking that the performer is just as important as the composer.

You, me, and 4 others. Who are the mysterious 4? Will they reveal themselves.

We six start a club.   

No president, for we are all equal. 

It may be worth pointing out that your apparent hero, who appears in your little picture, said publicly and unambiguously that the regards the performer as a servant to the composer.  It took me 10 seconds to find this quote from Richter on Wikipedia:

The interpreter is really an executant, carrying out the composer's intentions to the letter. He doesn't add anything that isn't already in the work. If he is talented, he allows us to glimpse the truth of the work that is in itself a thing of genius and that is reflected in him. He shouldn't dominate the music, but should dissolve into it.

[George]

It may be worth pointing out that your apparent hero, who appears in your little picture, said publicly and unambiguously that the regards the performer as a servant to the composer.  It took me 10 seconds to find this quote from Richter on Wikipedia:

You should have taken a few more seconds to actually listen to his recordings.

Have you heard his Tempest? His Schubert D 960? His Schubert D 894? His actions don't match his words.

[Mandryka]

You, me, and 4 others. Who are the mysterious 4? Will they reveal themselves.

Actually 5 -- I hadn't voted.

I'll do it straight away.

In another forum we had an interesting discussion about Glenn Gould's Hammerclavier. I had always thought he was deviating radically from the score, it sounds so different from anyone else.

But someone who knows how followed the performance with the score,  and said that the deviations were pretty minor -- the odd change in dynamics, a tendency not to emphasise sforzandos much, and maybe more importantly the odd place where he rolls the chords a bit (some of the chords have a 10th span)

On analysis the striking quality of the interpretation comes just from his way of communicating his understanding of the musical gestures Beethoven was making, and his skill at bringing out the inner voices.

The point I want to make is that sometimes unusual interpretations can actually be following the score -- but doing so in a novel way, maybe deviating from performance traditions which have accrued around the score.

And it seems pretty well a matter of convention which aspects of the composer's intentions we feel comfortable about ignoring. Nobody (as far as I know) takes any notice of Wagner's stage directions. Very few people take any notice of Beethoven's metronome markings. Some people are  horrified by the way Gould treats the dynamics in Mozart's Turkish March sonata, but these same people accept the way Rachmaninoff plays Chopin's second sonata. and hardly anyone plays the Hammerclavier like Schnabel, even though Schnabel would say he was "following the score" -- lots of double standards around if you ask me.

[aquablob]

The point I want to make is that sometimes unusual interpretations can actually be following the score -- but doing so in a novel way, maybe deviating from performance traditions which have accrued around the score.

Well said.

[drogulus]

    I would like it to be the composer, because most mutations are harmful, and usually it's the composer or a particular work that I'm interested in. There will be occasions where the performance is particularly fine, yet the best of these still can only draw attention to the quality of the composition unless the composition is itself of little interest.

    When I go home after a great concert my reaction often is that I want to hear more of that work or composer and not the ensemble that played it, or perhaps the ensemble playing that particular music. The composer will tend to come first in any case where the composers music was the motive for attending the concert, which means most of the time.

    I'm not terribly interested in concertos as such, and prefer those quasi-symphonic ones like the Brahms piano concertos. I enjoy the Rachmaninov concertos perhaps because I think he's a pretty good symphonist. So even here I'm focusing on the composer.

[nut-job]

You should have taken a few more seconds to actually listen to his recordings.

Have you heard his Tempest? His Schubert D 960? His Schubert D 894? His actions don't match his words.

They most certainly do; he was so successful precisely because he was focused on the most fundamental aspect of his craft, bringing the composers intentions to fruition.  I suspect that Richter would have been upset to know how much the cult of personality that has grown up around him has interfered with appreciation of the actual music he was performing.

[George]

They most certainly do; he was so successful precisely because he was focused on the most fundamental aspect of his craft, bringing the composers intentions to fruition.  I suspect that Richter would have been upset to know how much the cult of personality that has grown up around him has interfered with appreciation of the actual music he was performing.

I'm sorry but you don't know what you are talking about. Since this is your third threadcrap in this thread, I won't be paying attention to your posts anymore.

[nut-job]

I'm sorry but you don't know what you are talking about. Since this is your third threadcrap in this thread, I won't be paying attention to your posts anymore.

Boo hoo!   

[Dr. Dread]

Boo hoo!   

You've crapped your last crap, buddy. 

[sul G]

And the harpist

(sorry - someone had to)

[Dr. Dread]

And the harpist

(sorry - someone had to)

nyuk nyuk

[Mandryka]

Re Richter and composers intentions.

In every performance I've heard he takes the opening movement of D960 Molto adagio , even though the score indicates Molto moderato.

I suspect that this practice of slowing down Schubert comes from a Russian performance tradition -- though Richter may have taken it to extremes. When you listen to Schubert played by people who haven' t been so influenced by the St Petersburg Piano school, like Kempff and Schnabel and Brendel and more recently Lewis, the take it faster.

[George]

Re Richter and composers intentions.

In every performance I've heard he takes the opening movement of D960 Molto adagio , even though the score indicates Molto moderato.

Exactly my point. The same can be said of D 894. I think the result is breathtaking and I am grateful that he interpreted these works in this way. I feel similarly about Celibidache's Bruckner and Pogorelich's Chopin.