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

[Bunny]

I had to vote for the composer.  I'm a very amateurish pianist, but I derive as much pleasure from noodling at the easier repertoire of Bach and Beethoven as I do listening to a great performance of the Goldbergs or Waldstein.  If the performer were even close to equal in importance, I would hate the sound of my own playing.  So for me, the 3 most important things in music are composer, composer, composer!

[DavidRoss]

I voted "composer" right off the bat, it seeming an obvious no-brainer...but as I've scrolled through the thread, I've wondered whether I'm missing something and don't understand the question George is asking.

George--can you explain what you had in mind?

[sporkadelic]

In general terms I would say that composers are more important than performers, but my own music collection is performer-centric.  That is, I'm more likely to buy a recording of familiar repertoire in a performance of particular interest than to buy a recording of a work I don't know.

[aquablob]

I voted "composer" right off the bat, it seeming an obvious no-brainer...but as I've scrolled through the thread, I've wondered whether I'm missing something and don't understand the question George is asking.

I think you understand it just fine; one or two other posters and I have taken it upon ourselves to "wax philosophical" and thereby unnecessarily complicate the matter. Ignore us!

[Renfield]

I think you understand it just fine; one or two other posters and I have taken it upon ourselves to "wax philosophical" and thereby unnecessarily complicate the matter. Ignore us!

Well, hey, there's a question of whether the matter is as complicated as to wax philosophical about it or not!

That's what I'm most inclined to investigate, what the question is really asking. Call it habit.

(Though thankfully we have George right here to tell us what he means, to avoid things getting complicated in earnest. )

[Dr. Dread]

[aquablob]

[Kuhlau]

In general terms I would say that composers are more important than performers, but my own music collection is performer-centric.  That is, I'm more likely to buy a recording of familiar repertoire in a performance of particular interest than to buy a recording of a work I don't know.

Interestingly, you and I voted (I assume, given your post) the same way, yet our approaches to collecting and listening to classical music are completely opposed: I'm more likely to buy recordings of works I don't know, regardless of performer.

FK

[Renfield]

[George]

George--can you explain what you had in mind?

Sure, on another thread the idea of the performer being more important than the composer came up. I think it was Don who said that he felt that Richter was being held in higher regard than Bach. He expressed that he felt that Bach was more important than Richter. I got to thinking about this, (not about Richter being more important than Bach but the performer (in general) being more important than the composer) especially because this topic has come up before on this forum.

I have already decided that I don't think the performer is more important than the composer, to me this is of course ridiculous. Without the composer, the performer would have nothing to perform. On the other hand, without the performer, the composer's work would just be ink on paper, never heard by anyone. So then I thought that perhaps they are equally important. Each of their roles is essential, of course I mean with respect to dead composers, for a modern living composer could serve both purposes.

[Sef]

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

.... or John Cage 4'33''. No performer - still music?

[George]

I voted for equally important. I'm wondering who are the other 4 people?

[karlhenning]

The composer refuses to seed a fraction of his authority to the musician.

You mean cede. (Just saying.)

[DavidRoss]

You mean cede. (Just saying.)

Doesn't that depend on the nature of the relationship?  (See whatziznamethisweek's comments elsewhere re. sodomites.)

[karlhenning]

You mean cede. (Just saying.)

Doesn't that depend on the nature of the relationship?  (See whatziznamethisweek's comments elsewhere re. sodomites.)

Ack!

Also, the composer is a musician, too, James.

[DavidRoss]

Ack!

Sorry.  I'm in a very weird mood today and my funny bone seems to be even more off-kilter than usual.

[karlhenning]

No worries.

[George]

Sorry.  I'm in a very weird mood today and my funny bone seems to be even more off-kilter than usual.

Did my explanation make sense?

[Bulldog]

I have already decided that I don't think the performer is more important than the composer, to me this is of course ridiculous. Without the composer, the performer would have nothing to perform. On the other hand, without the performer, the composer's work would just be ink on paper, never heard by anyone.

That's not always the case.  Many of us can look at a score and hear the music in our heads.  In this situation, the work is more than "ink on paper".

[George]

That's not always the case.  Many of us can look at a score and hear the music in our heads.  In this situation, the work is more than "ink on paper".

True, I was just thinking of the majority of people who listen to classical music. I assume that they do not know how to do what you describe. I studied music and although I could do what you say for a single melody, once chords and other voices enter the picture, I am unable to do it.