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

[George]

This topic came up on another thread. I don't have my answer yet, as I wish to ponder this more, but right now I am leaning towards equal.

[Brian]

I generally find that, when the performer makes himself or herself "more important" than the composer, I don't enjoy the results. That's not a perfect rule, of course.

[Bulldog]

Both are essential, but I have to go with the composer who is the foundation. 

Tureck is my favored Bach keyboard artist, but take her out of the equation and there are plenty of other great Bach performers remaining.  Take Bach out of the equation, and there goes the neighborhood.

[Renfield]

Requesting clarification: the specific performer, say, p1, or the performer qua performer?

In other words, are we talking about one vs. another performer, or "the performer" in general?

[George]

Tureck is my favored Bach keyboard artist, but take her out of the equation and there are plenty of other great Bach performers remaining.  Take Bach out of the equation, and there goes the neighborhood.

When you put it that way, it makes it hard to say the composer isn't more important. My thinking was that they are both equally important because without the performer, we would be able to hear Bach. I should quickly add that I don't mean equally important, meaning that the pianist can then rewrite the score.

[George]

Requesting clarification: the specific performer, say, p1, or the performer qua performer?

In other words, are we talking about one vs. another performer, or "the performer" in general?

The performer in general.

[Renfield]

The performer in general.

Right.

[aquablob]

I have chosen not to vote in the poll, as interesting as it may be. In fact, I choose not to vote because of how interesting and complex the question is.

There are so many different types of music, with so many different meanings for different people(s). The very definitions of "composer" and "performer" are not, in fact, universal or clear. But even if we apply our own definitions, we find that significance of each varies from culture to culture, and then also from individual to individual.

Now, I am fully aware that the question posed relates specifically to what we'd call "Western art music" a.k.a. "classical music," but even here, I think we'll find historically and culturally varied conceptions of "composer" and "performer." In the European tradition, the very notion of individual composers (i.e. that a composition is somehow the "property" of the person who wrote it, or that the composer would sign his/her name on a completed work) was not widely accepted until the 14th century! And what about composers of the Baroque Era, for whom "borrowing" (we'd call it "plagiarizing") the works of others for their own compositions was really no big deal?

And where does improvisation fit in with all of this? Beethoven was renowned for his improvisational abilities, and many of his compositions (and parts of many more) were likely originally conceived as something much more akin to "performance" than "composition." On the other hand, what about improvised cadenzas in, for example, a Mozart concerto? Or a continuo part realized by a harpsichordist on the fly?

Here is an even more basic question that must be answered: where does one draw the line between "interpretation" and "composition?" Take, for example, Rachmaninov's famous recording of Chopin's Op. 35 sonata, in which the former essentially (and intentionally) reverses the latter's dynamic indications in the third movement.

I abstain!

[Todd]

A simple question, really.  The composer.  No composer, no music. 

[Renfield]

A simple question, really.  The composer.  No composer, no music. 

No performer, still no music.


The way the question is set up, it's like asking if the fuel or the oxidant is more important for combustion.

Both are entirely essential - as, regardless of which one is missing, nothing will happen unless you have both.

[Todd]

No performer, still no music.

Not always.  Think Conlon Nancarrow's music for Player Piano, for instance.  So, no composer, no music.

[aquablob]

No performer, still no music.

Could one reading a score while "listening" in one's head be considered a "performer?"

[George]

Could one reading a score while "listening" in one's head be considered a "performer?"

Not in the sense that this poll is addressing. I was referring to the common definition of performer.

[aquablob]

Not in the sense that this poll is addressing. I was referring to the common definition of performer.

Yes, I know; just playing D's A. I will now

[Mark G. Simon]

Western classical music is definitely composer-centric. The ideas, feelings, personality being conveyed are those of the composer. The performer exists only as a means to bring those across; definitely a secondary role.

That being said, some repertories allow the performer a greater role in contributing musical ideas than others. Baroque music, for instance offers performers a wide range of options for ornamentation and continuo realization. Aleatory music often gives performers a greater hand in creating the actual sound than the composer.

[Renfield]

Not always.  Think Conlon Nancarrow's music for Player Piano, for instance.  So, no composer, no music.

But cannot it be argued that the Player Piano is, in this case, the "performer" of sorts? The facilitator of the music?


(Note that I might be reading more philosophical gravitas in the question than was originally endowed. On the "practical" level, you're right.)

[Symphonien]

Both are entirely essential - as, regardless of which one is missing, nothing will happen unless you have both.

I don't know about you, but if I had to choose between a world without any music at all versus a world with scores I'd take the latter.

[nut-job]

A question that truly makes no sense.  If what is meant is really the performer "in general" than it is absurd.  Without a performance there is no music, just as without a composition there is no music.  Of course both are necessary.  (And what would reading a score mean if no one had ever heard music performed?) 

If the question is whether an individual performer contributes more to the experience than the composer the question is nearly as absurd; in classical music of course not.  Imagine classical music without Richter.  Well, we'd have Gilels, Ashkenazy, Pollini, Arrau, Katchen, Rubenstein, Schiff, Horowitz, Kempff, name your own half-dozen favorites.  The loss would be imperceptible.  Now imagine classical music without Beethoven, imagine the hole that leaves.

[DavidRoss]

Is this a trick question?

Will it be on the final?

[Renfield]

I don't know about you, but if I had to choose between a world without any music at all versus a world with scores I'd take the latter.

Does unperformed and 'unperformable' music count as music?

Would we assume that performers disappeared, or that they did not exist to begin with? I'm largely working on the latter assumption, that's why I said I might be seeing more "philosophical gravitas" into the question than was intended.