Poll
Question:
Who's more important - composer or performer? Or, are they equal?
Option 1: Composer
Option 2: Performer
Option 3: They are Equally Important
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.
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.
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.
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?
Quote from: Bulldog on February 09, 2009, 02:59:34 PM
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.
Quote from: Renfield on February 09, 2009, 03:02:59 PM
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.
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! :)
A simple question, really. The composer. No composer, no music.
Quote from: Todd on February 09, 2009, 04:42:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Renfield on February 09, 2009, 04:46:44 PMNo performer, still no music.
Not always. Think Conlon Nancarrow's music for Player Piano, for instance. So, no composer, no music.
Quote from: Renfield on February 09, 2009, 04:46:44 PM
No performer, still no music. :)
Could one reading a score while "listening" in one's head be considered a "performer?"
Quote from: aquariuswb on February 09, 2009, 05:03:34 PM
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.
Quote from: George on February 09, 2009, 05:05:32 PM
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 :-X
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.
Quote from: Todd on February 09, 2009, 04:49:07 PM
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.)
Quote from: Renfield on February 09, 2009, 04:46:44 PM
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.
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.
Is this a trick question?
Will it be on the final?
Quote from: Symphonien on February 09, 2009, 07:43:30 PM
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.
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!
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?
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.
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 10, 2009, 08:15:53 AM
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! :D
Quote from: aquariuswb on February 10, 2009, 09:27:07 AM
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! :D
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. ;D
(Though thankfully we have
George right here to tell us what he means, to avoid things getting complicated
in earnest. 8))
(http://www.cooltownstudios.com/images/chicken-egg.jpg)
Quote from: mn dave on February 10, 2009, 09:45:40 AM
(http://www.cooltownstudios.com/images/chicken-egg.jpg)
(http://www.myspaceantics.com/images/myspace-graphics/funny-pictures/walking-chicken-egg.jpg)
Quote from: sporkadelic on February 10, 2009, 09:06:41 AM
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
Quote from: aquariuswb on February 10, 2009, 09:49:14 AM
(http://www.myspaceantics.com/images/myspace-graphics/funny-pictures/walking-chicken-egg.jpg)
:D
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 10, 2009, 08:15:53 AM
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.
Quote from: Todd on February 09, 2009, 04:49:07 PM
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? ???
I voted for equally important. I'm wondering who are the other 4 people?
Quote from: James on February 10, 2009, 04:46:13 AM
The composer refuses to seed a fraction of his authority to the musician.
You mean
cede. (Just saying.)
Quote from: karlhenning on February 10, 2009, 11:33:39 AM
You mean cede. (Just saying.)
Doesn't that depend on the nature of the relationship? (See whatziznamethisweek's comments elsewhere re. sodomites.)
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 10, 2009, 11:36:22 AM
Quote from: karlhenning on February 10, 2009, 11:33:39 AM
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.
Quote from: karlhenning on February 10, 2009, 11:46:19 AMAck!
Sorry. I'm in a very weird mood today and my funny bone seems to be even more off-kilter than usual.
No worries.
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 10, 2009, 11:49:08 AM
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?
Quote from: George on February 10, 2009, 10:31:47 AM
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".
Quote from: Bulldog on February 10, 2009, 11:57:50 AM
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.
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.
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.
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. 8)
Quote from: George on February 16, 2009, 08:57:45 AM
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. 8)
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:
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: nut-job on February 16, 2009, 09:31:24 AM
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.
Quote from: George on February 16, 2009, 08:57:45 AM
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.
Quote from: Mandryka on February 16, 2009, 12:38:15 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: George on February 16, 2009, 09:37:41 AM
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.
Quote from: nut-job on February 16, 2009, 02:01:41 PM
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.
Quote from: George on February 16, 2009, 02:07:40 PM
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! :'(
And the harpist
(sorry - someone had to)
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.
Quote from: Mandryka on February 16, 2009, 09:14:12 PM
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.