The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians

[xRisingForce]

He challenged me to start a thread on this, so I will. I'll start by posting the beginnings of our discussion, which began in a thread about what your greatest acheivement as a musician was.

[xRisingForce]

MYSELF.

Just to respond to everyone first:

-In my heavily biased opinion-

In the realm of classical music, too much emphasis is detracted from the composer and too much recognition is placed on the performer. None of the known performers do any composition whatsoever, and if they do, the underlying reason for their fame speaks volumes anyway. Technical mastery is impressive, and especially so when carried out flawlessly, but anything that can be acquired through "monkey see, monkey do" should lose its sheen. The secret to technique lies in practice, carrying an oxymoronic connotation of sorts due to the rather simplistic nature of practice and the obvious relevance of its merits. The merits alone point toward the explanation behind practice's existence.

Strictly speaking in the classical realm, if performers don't compose, then all they have going for them on a musician's level is this laughably esoteric concept they always fall back on in arguments: interpretation. Interpretation is the sole determinant of a performer's depth. Interpretation basically entails three things: rubato, dynamics, and articulation, all at the performer's discretion. Does mastery over the trivialities (another oxymoron) that even infants could comprehend, make them so deserving of our respect? Does respect, garnered through competitions against other classical "musicians" and classical judges, carry any sort of weight or bearing, when classical music is an institution whose very foundation revolves around the ability to emulate rather than create, to be spoonfed skewed musical perceptions of what's right rather than self-realize? This is an industry that whores so much money by producing a jizzfest of knockoffs of the same piece when the only thing differing is this inane concept called interpretation. Training oneself to the point where one can dictate whether Horowitz or Wilhelm Kempff possesses a higher level of interpretation is somewhat like a mental placebo, so to speak.

That being said, at the end of the day, when I see the passion on Kempff's face while he's playing Beethoven's Third Movement of Moonlight Sonata, or just by hearing what came of Perlman's efforts to commit Paganini's 24 Caprices to audio, I can't help but respect them. The thing is though, I respect Beethoven and Paganini so much more. Perlman is incredible because he's the first person to be able to duplicate the 24 Caprices with enough accuracy to commit them to vinyl, but in the end all he hasn't composed a thing and all he's doing is calling forth an insane amount of pyro-technicality. It's not impressive when a computer plays it through midi, so by the same token it's only sensible that it's not impressive when a human does it, unless you think it's impressive being able to copy a computer (in which case I retract my entire argument and erase my account). If I copied David Blaine's entire act, I'd be called a knockoff and given no attention. If I copied Houdini's entire act, I'd be regarded as a genius because of my ability to mimic his unreal level of showmanship and finesse. If 50 people copied Houdini, we'd all experience what would happen if one person copied David Blaine. Funny thing is, no one bothers to call any classical musician a Beethoven knockoff, or a Chopin knockoff.

Most "art" these days is either completely meaningless or completely worthless. We live in a day and age where you can accurately call Stairway to Heaven a great form, the Mona Lisa an incredible song, and a beautiful samurai form a nice portrait. We live in a day and age where shit can pass as art. Art's been tainted by things such as MTV and it's acquired this strange, liberal, and too open-ended global understanding that's completely different than the understandings held by the artists themselves. A three chord song passes of as a genius composition that can top the charts, and you can probably find three paint blobs of contrasting colors in some avant-garde museum in France that's supposed to represent some obscure perception of reality, which is what the seller uses to argue his price of 5,000 euros. Whenever Houdini is as old as Beethoven is now, maybe we'll start seeing what's acceptable or not in the art of deception through a different lens.

Now that's out of the way, as a musician, I don't really have a greatest accomplishment, just really small things here and there that carry a lot of meaning to me. Some of these accomplishments are:

- 99% of the time I'm second guessing myself. I'm almost never happy with where I am musically, so when I surprise myself (which is extremely, extremely, extremely rare), it gives me a good feeling because I actually feel like I'm competent at something. Here are some of those few times:

- Finally coming to the understanding that art is just expression, and being able to consciously express myself to the fullest whenever I pick up an instrument, or listen to music.

- Receiving a special comment or email. I receive plenty of half-assed comments like "COOL! jajajajaja," but once in a while I get something like,

"thats some unbelievable improve dude, whenever i watch one of your vids it always makes my day seem a little brighter... kudos."

or

"Hey,

first I should excuse for my lame English, because I'm a bloody German

Just want to say that you are one of my favorites on youtube. Not that I have any others lol. Ever day when I come home from work I immediately turn on some of your videos. Wonder if you have a CD or something like that? Would be nice to get some of your stuff as mp3. I really think your one of the best guitarist on the whole planet. You have a really rare talent and you probably one of the best guitarist on the whole planet, keep it up! Also I like the kind of music you play. Definatly my style But also makes me kind of sad, because I know I will never get in range of your skill on guitar :smile:"

It gives me a reason to play music other than for myself. It's the most humbling thing to see how you can be so meaningful to a complete stranger.

[xRisingForce]

MEPH.

In the realm of classical music, too much emphasis is detracted from the composer and too much recognition is placed on the performer. None of the known performers do any composition whatsoever

this ain't true. there are a large number of famous performers who have done fantastic arrangements, adaptations, and original compositions that are well known. you saying this tells me that you're a well spoken but musically illiterate person...else you would have remembered liszt, paganini, bach, buxtehude, chopin, debussy...

Technical mastery is impressive, and especially so when carried out flawlessly, but anything that can be acquired through "monkey see, monkey do" should lose its sheen. The secret to technique lies in practice, carrying an oxymoronic connotation of sorts due to the rather simplistic nature of practice and the obvious relevance of its merits. The merits alone point toward the explanation behind practice's existence.

if there's one thing i've learned in college, it's that practice is in no way simplistic and easy. while your statement above says 'you get good by practicing, duh' with a bunch of bling added on to make it look good, you should know that practicing is in no way an easy thing to do. it's possibly one of the most learning to practice was one of the most valuable things i learned at college, in all reality. just because you're technically good doesn't mean that you're truly a good musician.

Strictly speaking in the classical realm, if performers don't compose, then all they have going for them on a musician's level is this laughably esoteric concept they always fall back on in arguments: interpretation. Interpretation is the sole determinant of a performer's depth. Interpretation basically entails three things: rubato, dynamics, and articulation, all at the performer's discretion. Does mastery over the trivialities (another oxymoron) that even infants could comprehend, make them so deserving of our respect? Does respect, garnered through competitions against other classical "musicians" and classical judges, carry any sort of weight or bearing, when classical music is an institution whose very foundation revolves around the ability to emulate rather than create, to be spoonfed skewed musical perceptions of what's right rather than self-realize? This is an industry that whores so much money by producing a jizzfest of knockoffs of the same piece when the only thing differing is this inane concept called interpretation. Training oneself to the point where one can dictate whether Horowitz or Wilhelm Kempff possesses a higher level of interpretation is somewhat like a mental placebo, so to speak.

this entire paragraph is an enormous load of bullshit, fyi. it also proves that your definition of music doesn't extend beyond HOSHIT INSANE GEETAR SOLO because you don't understand that. is the jazz pianist at your school as good as Herbie Hancock because he can comp chords too? of course not, and it's not because of Herbie's insane knowledge of style and his crazy technique. it's because Herbie's got a pocket so deep that a four-year-old could play in it and sound hot. interpretation is one of the most difficult things to really, truly understand for non-musicians because of the depth behind it, just like in an incredibly complex piece of artwork or a beautiful sunset or anything like that. and the fact that you're saying that a performer's ability is determined solely by interpretation is just as wrong. stage presence, interpretation, research skills, and the ability to theorize and execute a musical idea are all important aspects of a performer's ability - while we often laud interpretation because of the fact that it gets the lion's share of the time in the news, those are all just as important. interpretation is by no means trivialities, either - if someone went through to play a really great solo piece and hit every note, but it sounded lifeless and dead, is that a good performance? no! it's the interpretation that MAKES it art, not in spite of it.

That being said, at the end of the day, when I see the passion on Kempff's face while he's playing Beethoven's Third Movement of Moonlight Sonata, or just by hearing what came of Perlman's efforts to commit Paganini's 24 Caprices to audio, I can't help but respect them. The thing is though, I respect Beethoven and Paganini so much more. Perlman is incredible because he's the first person to be able to duplicate the 24 Caprices with enough accuracy to commit them to vinyl, but in the end all he hasn't composed a thing and all he's doing is calling forth an insane amount of pyro-technicality. It's not impressive when a computer plays it through midi, so by the same token it's only sensible that it's not impressive when a human does it, unless you think it's impressive being able to copy a computer (in which case I retract my entire argument and erase my account). If I copied David Blaine's entire act, I'd be called a knockoff and given no attention. If I copied Houdini's entire act, I'd be regarded as a genius because of my ability to mimic his unreal level of showmanship and finesse. If 50 people copied Houdini, we'd all experience what would happen if one person copied David Blaine. Funny thing is, no one bothers to call any classical musician a Beethoven knockoff, or a Chopin knockoff.

more bullshit. you're just writing words with no idea to what they mean. particularly since your first sentence screws with everything you just said. although i think your houdini metaphor raises an interesting question, you're forgetting something. houdini didn't do his act with the idea that people would do it over again. beethoven and wagner and bach and palestrina wrote music to be performed, over and over and over again - and the people we say are fantastic performers are the ones that can do that music EXACTLY as it was in the composer's head.

Most "art" these days is either completely meaningless or completely worthless. We live in a day and age where you can accurately call Stairway to Heaven a great form, the Mona Lisa an incredible song, and a beautiful samurai form a nice portrait. We live in a day and age where shit can pass as art. Art's been tainted by things such as MTV and it's acquired this strange, liberal, and too open-ended global understanding that's completely different than the understandings held by the artists themselves. A three chord song passes of as a genius composition that can top the charts, and you can probably find three paint blobs of contrasting colors in some avant-garde museum in France that's supposed to represent some obscure perception of reality, which is what the seller uses to argue his price of 5,000 euros. Whenever Houdini is as old as Beethoven is now, maybe we'll start seeing what's acceptable or not in the art of deception through a different lens.

don't get me wrong, i agree with you here. society has lost a lot of depth of understanding in the art work in the past few hundred years. that said, i'm a modernist when it comes to artwork. that does not mean, however, that all art nowadays is worthless, or that the art that's been done in previous times is not any good either.

do i understand the point you're attempting to get at? not really - as a performer it doesn't make much sense to depreciate your role. you saying that anyone can do what you do on guitar (which wasn't really all THAT impressive, honestly, learn more than one thing to do with a flat VI chord already) by just repeating endlessly. but you don't have soul when you do that, the spirit of the music is gone when you drill endlessly like that. there's more to a performance than notes and rhythms - and until you understand that (which, it's not a concept that an infant can understand, trust me on that), you really aren't as good as you think you are. in general, no one is, but you definitely aren't.

edit - argument and counterargument: done. let's restrain further posting to the PM box to prevent this thread from getting off-topic.

[xRisingForce]

MYSELF.

this ain't true. there are a large number of famous performers who have done fantastic arrangements, adaptations, and original compositions that are well known. you saying this tells me that you're a well spoken but musically illiterate person...else you would have remembered liszt, paganini, bach, buxtehude, chopin, debussy...

I definitely know all of them, and I'm glad you know them too. They're really great composers. Kinda why I didn't include them in my argument against musicians that stick to exclusively performing (which include most of, if not all, members of most philharmonics for example). Paganini's a rather special case, because he was probably more known for his electrifying performances and showmanship than his amazing compositions (which are amazing beyond a doubt, but his ability to write polyphonic music is questionable and if he can't graduate beyond writing single-line violin pieces.. he sorta loses some of his grandness.) And I also recognize that all of these composers are performers, but I thought it was just the most understood concept that a composer be able to perform his own works (haha, in this day and age I can't even get away with saying something like that.). The inverse isn't true, however, which was kinda my initial point.

if there's one thing i've learned in college, it's that practice is in no way simplistic and easy. while your statement above says 'you get good by practicing, duh' with a bunch of bling added on to make it look good, you should know that practicing is in no way an easy thing to do. it's possibly one of the most learning to practice was one of the most valuable things i learned at college, in all reality. just because you're technically good doesn't mean that you're truly a good musician.

You're preaching to the choir. You're the charismatic loud pastor with saliva flying out like a rapper drops curse words, and I'm the all-black choir who hears your message every single Sunday. I couldn't give two shits less about how fast someone is. Obviously the most important thing is whether the speed was a consequence of an emotion the artist felt he could only express with blisteringly fast runs, and not the opposite. Technique for the sake of technique seems almost contradictory. I think practice starts and ends with technique, and only serves as a means to further technique. Disregarding instruments with easy access to subtleties (i.e. the bend on a guitar or saxophone), technique is all about expressing a phrase the most efficiently, sorta like how I wouldn't downpick an entire arpeggio if I had sweep picking at my disposal.. but I don't think I would be any better off in that regard (or any, really) if I had a teacher. You'd have to be pretty short of just retarded to try and downpick an Yngwie song or try and play Fantasie Impromptu with just four fingers. In the end, technique is just a means of efficiency. You don't learn how to better interpret a piece by practicing it, interpretation is all theory and practice is active. Practice is making yourself comfortable with the technical aspects of the song, and familiarizing yourself with the theory. And in that sense, you do get good by practicing, and it looks like you agree with me. Ever hear, "Practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect?" The only thing you can build on a crooked foundation is an unstable building.

I've never practiced a day in my life, at least by conventional means. I just play a lot, or at least, I used to, and that was the easiest thing in the world. What you guys do, cooped up in small practice rooms playing songs you probably don't even want to play and having to perfect them over the course of several months, yeah, that's tons of work, grueling work that I'd hate to be doing. So, kudos, I guess. I wish I'd played more when I had the chance, because for playing for four years I'm not really where I want to be. I'd agree with that a lot of my licks are sloppy.

this entire paragraph is an enormous load of bullshit, fyi. it also proves that your definition of music doesn't extend beyond HOSHIT INSANE GEETAR SOLO because you don't understand that. is the jazz pianist at your school as good as Herbie Hancock because he can comp chords too? of course not, and it's not because of Herbie's insane knowledge of style and his crazy technique. it's because Herbie's got a pocket so deep that a four-year-old could play in it and sound hot. interpretation is one of the most difficult things to really, truly understand for non-musicians because of the depth behind it, just like in an incredibly complex piece of artwork or a beautiful sunset or anything like that. and the fact that you're saying that a performer's ability is determined solely by interpretation is just as wrong. stage presence, interpretation, research skills, and the ability to theorize and execute a musical idea are all important aspects of a performer's ability - while we often laud interpretation because of the fact that it gets the lion's share of the time in the news, those are all just as important.

Wow. Just wow. Look at yourself man, you know a sentence in my autobiography and you're already spitting off presumptuous claims about how I view music. Yngwie, out of 282 artists in my music library, is the only guitar driven artist I have. I mean I could just stop there. Seriously.

It's the most painfully obvious thing that you wanted to segue into that Herbie Hancock phrase because you heard your teacher say it in Jazz improv class and since then, have wanted to use it in any context so badly. Aside from that, let me clarify my definitions to you such that they're beyond a shadow of a doubt. Composer: one who composes. Performer: one who performs. LOL. I didn't mean for you to take any implication of live performance, but the misconception is easily understandable. Someone who merely plays and doesn't compose is what I meant by "performer." Music is an auditory art, so I'm talking from a purely auditory perspective. As for the Herbie Hancock remark, I completely agree, but I respect him for his ability to compose. I've never seen the dude live, I could care less what his stage presence is like. You see an artist live after you've heard their recordings. Tell me, why do you go to concerts? To see whoever's playing, right? Exactly, the primary appeal of concerts lies in the visual and social aspects of it, not the auditory. The audio for live shows sucks more often than not anyway, because there're the acoustics of the venue to account for, as well as a shitton of reverb and sound bleeding. Not to mention the balance is always geared to favor the guitarist, but everything's so loud it just ends up sounding like someone puking (joke). Capturing the audience's attention well is in the vein of entertainment, not composing. My whole argument here is that people who just play others' works suck, so however well one's stage presence may be is somewhat irrelevant, because in the end he still hasn't composed a thing.

About theorizing and executing musical ideas- tell me, do you do any original thinking, or do you just regurgitate what your teacher tells you? I'm pretty sure you just play your pieces for him or her and you get corrected and taught what's "right". It doesn't seem like there's any theorizing or anything musical about institutional education, whatever song you're playing, the hardest part's already been taken care of. And I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to argue that interpreting any of the legendary classical pieces would be harder than it was for them to compose the pieces. Vivaldi actually went out of his way to meticulously outline what every section was supposed to represent (this passage is indicative of ice skating, etc.). You've got composing taken care of, and your teacher to spoon feed you the interpretation. I really don't get what the hard part is.

Your comment on research skills caught my interest. Could you give me an example of what type of research you've done to perform a piece, and why?

interpretation is by no means trivialities, either - if someone went through to play a really great solo piece and hit every note, but it sounded lifeless and dead, is that a good performance? no! it's the interpretation that MAKES it art, not in spite of it.

Well duh. But don't think you deserve a pat on the back just because you're able to play a piece back with emotion. Any human with sense of emotion should be able to do that. There are millions of people who've played Beethoven, but there's only been one Beethoven. Out of those millions, whom have had the creative capacity to actually, I dunno, CREATE, rather than emulate?

more bullshit. you're just writing words with no idea to what they mean. particularly since your first sentence screws with everything you just said. although i think your houdini metaphor raises an interesting question, you're forgetting something. houdini didn't do his act with the idea that people would do it over again. beethoven and wagner and bach and palestrina wrote music to be performed, over and over and over again - and the people we say are fantastic performers are the ones that can do that music EXACTLY as it was in the composer's head.

Stop being so dense. I can respect Horowitz and Perlman as amazing human beings, and as amazing performers. But being a performer doesn't carry nearly the connotation as being a composer does. It doesn't matter if Beethoven wanted his pieces to be played by others, the fact that he wrote it still remains unchanged, in stone. I mean I play Beethoven from time to time and I'm a crappy pianist, but I don't think he's greater than I just because I can't replicate his works well. I think he's greater than me because he can compose with an air of greatness far greater than what I could hope to even dream of.

don't get me wrong, i agree with you here. society has lost a lot of depth of understanding in the art work in the past few hundred years. that said, i'm a modernist when it comes to artwork. that does not mean, however, that all art nowadays is worthless, or that the art that's been done in previous times is not any good either.

Definitely. The self-expression which unarguably drives all art is timeless. Judging a piece's worth by its spot in time is just as fallacious as calling a gay person a communist.

do i understand the point you're attempting to get at? not really - as a performer it doesn't make much sense to depreciate your role. you saying that anyone can do what you do on guitar (which wasn't really all THAT impressive, honestly, learn more than one thing to do with a flat VI chord already) by just repeating endlessly. but you don't have soul when you do that, the spirit of the music is gone when you drill endlessly like that. there's more to a performance than notes and rhythms - and until you understand that (which, it's not a concept that an infant can understand, trust me on that), you really aren't as good as you think you are. in general, no one is, but you definitely aren't.

edit - argument and counterargument: done. let's restrain further posting to the PM box to prevent this thread from getting off-topic.

I never said that anyone could do what I did on a guitar, but I'm not denying it. Technically speaking, it's not really impressive at all, but who the hell listens to music for technique. If your reading comprehension skills were up to par, you might've even caught this!

:shock:

99% of the time I'm second guessing myself. I'm almost never happy with where I am musically.

:shock:

[xRisingForce]

MYSELF (CONT).

(which wasn't really all THAT impressive, honestly, learn more than one thing to do with a flat VI chord already)

You're probably referring to the jazz video, right? You've seen one of my videos, and you make this retardedly ignorant assumption about my guitar playing. Christ, and I thought I was narrow-minded at times.

but you don't have soul when you do that, the spirit of the music is gone when you drill endlessly like that. there's more to a performance than notes and rhythms

I'm guessing you hate Yngwie J. Malmsteen? I think I could've done a better job on note choice at the end solo, but for the most part I didn't play a note that I didn't want to or think wouldn't fit. I mean I'm not a purist of any genre, so I guess I should apologize to all jazz musicians for using distortion and a whammy bar. I know there's more than notes and rhythms, and you're probably going to say, "The WAY you play the note." I've heard that about a thousand times, and then some. I kind of hate how teachers have to be so cryptic, but I can't really blame them since that's probably how they were taught anyway. What goes in goes out, there's no magical quality to it. The WAY one hits a note is the same thing as breaking it down into timing, clarity/articulation, and dynamics. There's nothing else to it really.

P.S.: Also, don't rag on me for my style man. I know five years olds who have better argumentative ammunition so don't stoop to that level- you don't need it. I'm not going to apologize for not dressing like a token videogame fan. At the end of the night, does my choice to wear a ring or a watch affect you in any small degree of significance?

[xRisingForce]

PROMETHEUS.

Mmmm.. taking part on this xRisingForcex VS Prophet of Mephisto argument, I have to stand on RisingForce's side.

Performers are truly overrated. The fact that you see the music coming throught them, sometimes makes people think they made that music, when they actually did not. The amount of musical elements you can control in a piece as a performer are LIMITED, VERY LIMITED, and normally you have to stick strictly to the damn paper, playing exactly all the notes written on it.

The strict, musical-school-taught performers are extremely overrated. They just do what is in the paper. If they do an arrangement of the piece, cool, is their life... but when they play the piece the way it is, they're just playing what someone else thought once. Let's get a cool methaphor.

A composer is someone who creates a cool, catchy phrase.

For example:

"The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. " - Albert Einstein.

If I now repeat the phrase, I will become an interpreter of it (and not it's composer). Since my voice sucks I will be a bad interpreter of it. But, give the phrase to someone with a cool voice and a cool image... imagine Bruce Willis saying

"The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. "

Okay,.. sounds cooler because of the voice, but the message is STILL THE SAME . Bruce Willis NEVER discovered that E = M*C^2 , he just said the damn phrase

To be a music-college performer, you need technique and MECHANICAL TRAINING... Just moving the fingers... over and over.. practice the movement,.. get speed. It's really a lot of work, but it's not the intelligent training Prophet of Mephisto says.

I've spent 8 years learning piano in a music college, and got highest marks, but i stopped because i was bored and i was sick of playing someone else's pieces.

Jazz performers are different. A jazz piece is an excuse for interpretation, creating a whole world from 5 or 6 pentagrams. A jazz partiture is, in some way an attemp to create an "organised improvisation". Jazz musicians are on the border of composition, so... they're not really overrated. They almost create from very few notes that are written on the pentagrams.

To be a jazz performer, you need INTELLIGENT training... specially like playing with bands and such.

I realised that a couple of months ago, when i started learning jazz. Still , I havent got a band, but im trying to figure out some stuff to practice.

But... WTF?... I think you guys should create a thread in the forum and keep discussing this there.

[xRisingForce]

MEPH.

being a composer myself, i can tell you that while composition is hard - really hard - performing is more so because as a composer, you have an eraser.

as for research, as a vocalist i never perform a piece before i learn what it's about, and what the composer was into when he wrote it. as a saxophonist, it's the same way. i recently did a piece called Tableaux de Provence on my senior recital. had i not researched it, i wouldn't have known that it was a tribute of sorts to Maurice's time in Provence, France, or that the name (in a slightly obscure dialect of french) means Pictures of Provence, or that each movement was inspired by a unique experience that she had there. THAT makes for a much different performance. just being able to play a piece isn't enough - you've gotta be able to go back and say, 'this is why i did this, and this'.

and by the way, most performers don't have teachers to tell them what to do where on a piece. i haven't had a teacher actually tell me what to do somewhere on a piece in months and months and months. i do my own research, my own listening, and my own studying of the piece.

that's all i'm going to say regarding this argument. if anyone wants to start a thread, that's fine - just link me there. but i'm not going to continue to post.

[xRisingForce]

being a composer myself, i can tell you that while composition is hard - really hard - performing is more so because as a composer, you have an eraser.

as for research, as a vocalist i never perform a piece before i learn what it's about, and what the composer was into when he wrote it. as a saxophonist, it's the same way. i recently did a piece called Tableaux de Provence on my senior recital. had i not researched it, i wouldn't have known that it was a tribute of sorts to Maurice's time in Provence, France, or that the name (in a slightly obscure dialect of french) means Pictures of Provence, or that each movement was inspired by a unique experience that she had there. THAT makes for a much different performance. just being able to play a piece isn't enough - you've gotta be able to go back and say, 'this is why i did this, and this'.

and by the way, most performers don't have teachers to tell them what to do where on a piece. i haven't had a teacher actually tell me what to do somewhere on a piece in months and months and months. i do my own research, my own listening, and my own studying of the piece.

that's all i'm going to say regarding this argument. if anyone wants to start a thread, that's fine - just link me there. but i'm not going to continue to post.

It takes a Newton to develop calculus, and a smart high school kid to pass a test on it. Guess which one you are?

The two arts of composing and performing are so inextricably linked people carelessly use words that denote one position to encapsulate both.

Passing the test signifies an understanding of the what, an understanding that barely grazes the surface in relation to an understanding of the why. When you do have that deeper understanding, your knowledge will be marred by two things. Firstly, the fact that it was acquired through a group effort diminishes the overall depth of your understanding. Secondly, the fact that it was artificially acquired implies

1. Your musical intuition has shortcomings because your sense of musical aesthetics is incongruent with conventional/institutional music theory, and/or

2. You just suck at music.

And that's where the line blurs. Inventing the why still and always will carry a fuller and more profound connotation than an understanding of the why because comparatively, inventing something entails numerous things mere understanding does not. For example, having the capacity to invent something like calculus speaks volumes about Newton's mathematical and analytical genius.

Performing is definitely an art and can be the most technically demanding slave labor in getting a piece up to public presentability, but at the end of the day you'd better not think of yourself any higher than an actor.

[Fishy]

In the realm of classical music, too much emphasis is detracted from the composer and too much recognition is placed on the performer.

You know you could have stopped at here, and people would've politely agreed or disagreed. There's a reason you've garned so many heated responses in musical discussions here, its because you spout a thousand lines of irrelevance which, while eloquently phrased, doesn't really do much more then make you look pretentious.

[xRisingForce]

You know you could have stopped at here, and people would've politely agreed or disagreed. There's a reason you've garned so many heated responses in musical discussions here, its because you spout a thousand lines of irrelevance which, while eloquently phrased, doesn't really do much more then make you look pretentious.

No, I think the reason I've garned so many heated, deep, and most importantly enjoyable discussions is because I'm audacious in challenging wrongly accepted thought, the thought that classical institution perpetually indoctrinates their students with. The blindness of its adherents is a bit more than obvious as shown by the intellectual depth of the most relied upon defenses. Also, if I had stopped there- who the hell states an empty thesis???

Calling solid reinforcement "a thousand lines of irrelevance" not only makes you look stupid and arrogant, but literarily incompetent and argumentatively flaccid.

I guess some people are just above having to refute key points to refute an entire argument; I can just strawman to win an argument because I'm Fishy.

[Fishy]

No, I think the reason I've garned so many heated, deep, and most importantly enjoyable discussions is because I'm audacious in challenging wrongly accepted thought that's perpetually indoctrinated through the agency of institutional learning. The blindness of its adherents is a bit more than obvious shown by the intellectual depth of the most relied upon defenses. Also, if I had stopped there- who the hell states an empty thesis???

Calling solid reinforcement "a thousand lines of irrelevance" not only makes you look stupid and arrogant, but literarily incompetent and argumentatively flaccid.

I guess some people are just above having to refute key points to refute an entire argument; I can just strawman to win an argument because I'm Fishy.

1. Thank you for insulting me.

2. Let me clarify then. You are over-complicating your arguements, and decorating them in an very arrogant and pretentious way. Theres a difference between using big words and being coherant. You arguments are strung out and end up in the "flaccid" area as a result.

3. I was making the point that part of the problem with these discussions is that you say too much. You expand a line into a paragraph when there is no need which just makes it annoying and arduous to respond to, and then you do exactly what you just did, and label everyone else arrangant and illiterate when they make a simple point, furthering your pretentious airs.

The irony here is that I generally agree with your original point, just that the way you argue it is incredibly annoying, and it doesn't look like you take any points onboard. You just say no, and then state your opinion as truth.

Your 'thesis' doesn't have to be empty, but it could be a hell of a lot simpler then you're making it. If anything I'm just letting you know perhaps you should simplify your arugments, and you'll get a lot faster, more fluid and more concentrated response, more about the subject, and less about who is prententious and who is close-minded.

[xRisingForce]

1. Thank you for insulting me.

2. Let me clarify then. You are over-complicating your arguements, and decorating them in an very arrogant and pretentious way. Theres a difference between using big words and being coherant. You arguments are strung out and end up in the "flaccid" area as a result.

3. I was making the point that part of the problem with these discussions is that you say too much. You expand a line into a paragraph when there is no need which just makes it annoying and arduous to respond to, and then you do exactly what you just did, and label everyone else arrangant and illiterate when they make a simple point, furthering your pretentious airs.

The irony here is that I generally agree with your original point, just that the way you argue it is incredibly annoying, and it doesn't look like you take any points onboard. You just say no, and then state your opinion as truth.

Your 'thesis' doesn't have to be empty, but it could be a hell of a lot simpler then you're making it. If anything I'm just letting you know perhaps you should simplify your arugments, and you'll get a lot faster, more fluid and more concentrated response, more about the subject, and less about who is prententious and who is close-minded.

Well then I guess the first thing I should do is apologize. When you respond to my entire argument with a one liner, and especially one like "You could've stopped here," the notion that you agree with me isn't a first thought. My initial post was lengthy, yeah, because I was outlining all my points. And from there on out, responses to my post were lengthy just by circumstance, so mine to theirs were as well. I can break down the reason I wrote every sentence for you if you want. There're no unpurposeful spacefillers in my writing.

Trust me, in real life I don't think I'm inflating my view of myself by saying I'm pretty affable. When in Rome, I do as they do, you know? When I step into elitist classical territory, I don't make it a habit to make unprovoked attacks, but I try and get my point across a little more than neutrally.

I'm not a narrow-minded guy. I give everything a chance, and the reason why I don't take many points onboard, as you like to say, is because they're not new to me. I still have a ton to learn, but on issues that I've already carefully and meticulously formed opinions on are pretty set in stone. If you won't attack me for "writing lengthily", I'll give you a perfect example.

Let's say a certain person is mentally ill. One of the detriments of that illness is a severe inability to control his anger, and consequently, an inability to communicate well with people, paving the way for social anxiety syndrome which leads to social withdrawal, capping off with his social status as a recluse. You see how everything is resemblant of the characteristic before it? If this guy brutally murdered a man and a news story was done on it, people would start forming opinions. The point to be noted here is how different the initial level of intellectuality of various people is. You put four guys together in a room, one guy says it's in his blood to be a serial killer, the other guy says him not interacting with society is the problem, one guy blames his failure to see a shrink for his inability to converse regularly, another says he's not societally active enough; they're all right, in a certain sense. Quoting anything but the primary reason (mental illness) as the fundament behind the act of murder is however, a bit fallacious. And in particular with music, the thought process of those four manifests itself in plenty of blatantly observable ways.

The way I approach anything and everything is to think in such a way that someone can take my point of view, and see how six other commonly held points of view stem from it. It seems both the most logical way to think, and the most logical point of view.

On a good note anyway, it's cool that we fundamentally agree on such an accepted issue.

[Fishy]

Thanks for the apology, and I also apologize for not expanding on my point initially, but I think my point still stands even in comparison to what others wrote:

There's no unpurposeful spacefillers in my writing

I picked a random paragraph:

You're preaching to the choir. You're the charismatic loud pastor with saliva flying out like a rapper drops curse words, and I'm the all-black choir who hears your message every single Sunday.

You made your point in 5 words, and then didn't really add anything to it in the next 27. One example of many cases where you could seriously reduce the amount you've written, therefore reducing the amount of information that can be misinterpreted, and meaning you'll get a better response to your point, and come off far less pretentious.

Its all very well saying that everything you write has meaning (oddly the same comment you made about yngwie's writing a while back) but you're falling into the trap of assuming that everything that you say has a value, when in some cases, you have to be able to concede that perhaps some of your additions aren't necessary or even helpful.

You of all people should know; when a composer writes some overly complicated music it makes it a lot harder for people to interpret it accurately and so it is harder to enjoy it, much like a writers argument. Your mental illness paragraph is fine, but again, you could make the point so much more easily without a longwinded example. You basically just said "people interpret things in different ways", but you threw in 4 different opinions about what caused a murder, an by that that point people may be getting bored and frustrated with the irrelevant context of the example.

It is well-written, but it is not concise. Arguments should be both if you want them to be come over properly.

[Shadow Wolf]

Great thread. I read the whole thing word for word, but I do have to agree with Fishy that the points could still be made with a significant reduction in adjectives. The longer you take to say something, the less likely it is it will be read. Writing is like sculpting. You're trying to form a perfect, 3 dimensional picture of whatever it is you're talking about. So chisel away everything you don't need. In the famous words of Mark Twain, "jettison the superfluous."

[OceansAndrew]

Glad to see you guys being civil. Banana stickers for you all.

Here's a few more points to discuss.

When I step into elitist classical territory

Seems to be a sweeping generalization that is causing most of the communication issues. Sure there are classical elitists, but there are also rock elitists (just go into guitar center and find any employee on the guitar floor. Wankers. ), and jazz elitists (don't even get me started. Wankers x2 ;-)). Point being, most classical fans aren't elitist at all.

http://www.minnesotaorchestra.org/season/index.cfm

Check out the calendar there, half of the shows are pops concerts, and for what could be considered 'classical', it is always mentioned by the composer. Also, there are 60+ people in the orchestra and I can't find any of their names on the web site. There are soloists occasionally, but are the other 60 or so not considered performers?

[xRisingForce]

Great thread. I read the whole thing word for word, but I do have to agree with Fishy that the points could still be made with a significant reduction in adjectives. The longer you take to say something, the less likely it is it will be read. Writing is like sculpting. You're trying to form a perfect, 3 dimensional picture of whatever it is you're talking about. So chisel away everything you don't need. In the famous words of Mark Twain, "jettison the superfluous."

Alright, thanks a lot for the feedback. Why say "I have a poodle dog" when it's poodle implies the animal, right? I'm more curious on what your opinion of the subject matter is.

You made your point in 5 words, and then didn't really add anything to it in the next 27. One example of many cases where you could seriously reduce the amount you've written, therefore reducing the amount of information that can be misinterpreted, and meaning you'll get a better response to your point, and come off far less pretentious.

There is a pretentious overtone to that statement. Just saying "You're preaching to the choir" seems flat compared to what you get when you expand on it in that subtlely snide fashion. It drives the point home, it makes clear my initial awareness regarding the topic. I couldn't reduce it to just five, because that gives off a completely different impression than what I was going for.

I don't see why that wasn't realized. There was no misinterpretable information, in fact there was no information in there at all aside from the fact that I'm blatantly aware of the subject matter. It's almost like you're telling me to stick to writing three chord songs so I can have an overall better public recepetion.

Its all very well saying that everything you write has meaning (oddly the same comment you made about yngwie's writing a while back) but you're falling into the trap of assuming that everything that you say has a value, when in some cases, you have to be able to concede that perhaps some of your additions aren't necessary or even helpful.

Maybe. Your understanding of my comment is from the wrong direction- I don't aimlessly write and then bullshit respective meanings, I feel what I want to write first, and then write. At any rate, conceding isn't the problem. I'll take this into account because my wording does seem dense at times.

You of all people should know; when a composer writes some overly complicated music it makes it a lot harder for people to interpret it accurately and so it is harder to enjoy it, much like a writers argument. Your mental illness paragraph is fine, but again, you could make the point so much more easily without a longwinded example. You basically just said "people interpret things in different ways", but you threw in 4 different opinions about what caused a murder, an by that that point people may be getting bored and frustrated with the irrelevant context of the example.

Of course, of course. But difficulty of interpretation is consequent of what the writer/composer was trying to express/convey, and how. The thing is, you're exactly right about my paragraph. That's an extremely basic understanding, because the connotation of your paraphrase and my paragraph are different to the point where we're not even conveying the same fundamental message. The message that I'm trying to relay is that there's more than likely a single root cause for a given occurrence, but the cause manifests itself into various and deceivably veracious suppositions which characterize the beliefs that most people cling to. So so so so different than "People interpret things in different ways." You toss "irrelevant" around far too thoughtlessly.

Seems to be a sweeping generalization that is causing most of the communication issues. Sure there are classical elitists, but there are also rock elitists (just go into guitar center and find any employee on the guitar floor. Wankers. ), and jazz elitists (don't even get me started. Wankers x2 ;-)). Point being, most classical fans aren't elitist at all.

Hahaha, true true. I'm not saying elitism is exclusive to the classical realm, just that it's a bit more synonymous with its advocates than any other genre. Rockers are out getting buzzed/hammered, and Jazzers are off smoking hooka, talking about world peace, and the latest hollow bodies. And remember: we're not discussing casual fans, but people who define themselves as musicians of a respective genre. A casual classical fan's knowledge of classical music's probably altogether defined by "Fur Elise" and "Minuet in D." Some brownie points if they're aware of "The Well-Tempered Clavier."

http://www.minnesotaorchestra.org/season/index.cfm

Check out the calendar there, half of the shows are pops concerts, and for what could be considered 'classical', it is always mentioned by the composer. Also, there are 60+ people in the orchestra and I can't find any of their names on the web site. There are soloists occasionally, but are the other 60 or so not considered performers?

I'm not sure where you're coming from. At any rate, this orchestra isn't a good experimental control because they are so involved in orchestrations of these poppy, mainstream tunes. That in itself is probably a modern occurrance, reasons for which I'll list below. Concering the musicians, getting to that point entails a lot of the criticism I prior assesed. And with such a classically cultivated/trained mindset, they probably approach pop music in much the same replicative and emulative mindset they approach classical with.

Also, the motivation towards any sort of transcription of mainstream music is probably rooted in making the music more commercial and marketable/lucrative. Did you read about how John Mayer didn't believe in the pop-jazz trash he wrote (funny because it wasn't hard to see that coming); he did it to gain a foothold in the mainstream community so when he finally did compose purely from hisself, all ulterior motives removed, it's stuff that he definitely wouldn't have gotten famous for. But it sold.

[Kanthos]

Music as an art form always has been and always will be about creation. The most basic level of that creation is interpretation: playing someone else's music with your own feeling, which is significantly different than playing someone else's music in the style of some other performer. Beyond interpretation, there's improvisation and composition. Which of the two is more valuable is subjective: a performer typically creates up to 10 notes at a time on a single instrument while a composer can write for any instrumentation he or she desires, but doesn't do so in realtime as the music is being played.

While I believe improvisation and composition are more powerful skills than interpretation, musicians who interpret music well and in their own style are still a rarity and deserve recognition above the average musician.

[xRisingForce]

Music as an art form always has been and always will be about creation. The most basic level of that creation is interpretation: playing someone else's music with your own feeling, which is significantly different than playing someone else's music in the style of some other performer. Beyond interpretation, there's improvisation and composition. Which of the two is more valuable is subjective: a performer typically creates up to 10 notes at a time on a single instrument while a composer can write for any instrumentation he or she desires, but doesn't do so in realtime as the music is being played.

While I believe improvisation and composition are more powerful skills than interpretation, musicians who interpret music well and in their own style are still a rarity and deserve recognition above the average musician.

Well, I can say I almost agree with you. Think about it: emotions are the genesis of art; it's our purely human need for self-expression which has led to the inventions of all these different arts. What makes music fundamentally unique is that it aims to do so primarily through pitch, and then rhythm. So the essence of art is self-expression, and consequently, creation is the necessitation to realize any art.

What I don't agree with is your basic assesment. I absolutely agree on all points made about interpretation's value but interpretation is not in the same vein as improvisation and composition. I strongly believe that improvisation is the genesis of composition, and they both stem from the same inner inspiration (because think about it, the essence of composition is organized improvisation).

Interpretation in terms of classical music is extremely limiting in that composers like Vivaldi had explicit constraints on freedom which were not to be broken, and rightfully so as the piece is his. When you interpret videogame music, you give birth to OCRemix, which is basically an amalgamation of videogame songs the people have tailored to suit their own sense of musical aesthetics. And that aesthetic, is what guides improvisation.

[Shadow Wolf]

Before I begin, it's important that you understand where I come from musically. You might call me a seasoned listener. Music is a huge part of my life, and defines much of my personality. I am strongly affected by it. In the sense of classical training, music theory, composition VS. interpretation, etc., my opinion on the subject matter at hand is largely irrelevant, due to the fact that I have no classical training, I play no instruments, and I'm coming completely from a listener's perspective. My analysis, therefore, is coming from the perspective of the feelings that music invokes, which I think most here will agree is the overarching purpose of all art at the end of the day, to invoke feeling. With all that said, I fall somewhere in the middle of the road.

I agree in one sense that composition is more difficult than interpretation, because a composer such as Beethoven was taking on the enormous task of literally transcribing his emotions into music, to show the world for all eternity what he was FEELING when he wrote a symphony. A composer is trying to give you a window into their world, to let you in for a moment and allow you to share the awesome power of their feelings. In my untrained mind, that's where the greatest difficulty for a composer comes from, trying to let people into your heart and mind through that music.

On the other hand, because I've tried this before, I can certainly say that interpretation can be more difficult than composition. Sometimes, if you're lucky, composition will just come to you. It's unfortunate that I don't play any instruments, because I've awakened in the middle of the night before with a full symphony composing itself in my head. It was an extraordinary experience, literally hearing my emotions form themselves into music, and I wish I had had a way to transcribe it.

However, in my mind, it can be a far greater challenge to interpret the works of another composer in such a way that you add your own life and emotion to it. The challenge of doing that is, in fact, the entire basis of this site's existence. When I think of 'interpretation,' I do not imagine just playing a composer's compositions note for note, exactly as they did. You can add a part of yourself to anything you play, and learning to do that, to share the composer's vision while also portraying how it made YOU feel, is an extraordinary challenge. A man could play Beethoven's 5th, note for note, and it would sound beautiful, just as Beethoven wrote it. But it would move me far more emotionally to see that the performer of that piece is completely absorbed by it, and throwing everything they have into sharing in Beethoven's emotions. It's an honor to be able to do that.

On the subject of how classical musicians are trained, I think it's extraordinarily important that they learn, play, and are forever exposed to classical works. Playing someone else's compositions is an achievement, because in doing so you have gained knowledge and experience. With greater knowledge and experience of 'the rules' for lack of a better word, comes a greater ability to bend those rules and create something completely new. In other words, make sure the roots are planted firmly, and the tree can grow wherever it wants to go.

EDIT: With regards to how interpretation is being defined, it seems to me that an 'interpretation' is more of a finished product, created after you've 'improvised' on a 'composition.' Improvisation is, to a degree, the mother of composition. But if I listen to a song, hear a chord progression, and think "That was disappointing, I wish they would've done [insert idea here]..." Am I not improvising AND composing at the same time? If I put those ideas down when I play the song, if I incorporate them, haven't I improvised on someone's original composition to create my own interpretation of it? It seems to me that we're talking here about steps in a natural process, Composition being the first, followed by improvisation and finally interpretation. In another sense, Even writing a song "from scratch" requires use of basic musical tones, so no one REALLY starts at zero. So in a sense even an original composition is an improvisation based on pleasing tones, leading to an interpretation of those tones. It is, in a very fundamental way, a sort of "Triforce" of musical concepts, and none can truly exist without the other.

That, in a (large) nutshell, is my opinion.

[Kanthos]

Interpretation in terms of classical music is extremely limiting in that composers like Vivaldi had explicit constraints of freedom which were not to be broken, and rightfully so as the piece is his. When you interpret videogame music, you give birth to OCRemix, which is basically an amalgamation of videogame songs the artists have tailored to suit their own sense of musical aesthetics. And that aesthetic, is what guides improvisation.

I wouldn't say improv is the genesis of composition. They're similar, yes, and some composers do improv, but for some people, like me, it's the other way around. When I improv, I'm playing what I already hear in my head; were I to compose and arrange a piece instead, I'd be writing down what I've heard, not what I've played. A good composer doesn't necessarily play anything or improv well; theyr'e just gifted with exceptional creativity, however they derive it.

Interpretation becomes a much bigger thing in music after the classical period. A good interpreter breathes new life into the original piece. If we don't see that as a creational process, it's possibly because we don't have the ear to pick up the subtle differences. I know that I can't determine significant differences in interpretation between recordings of the same piece, and I wouldn't call myself a seasoned listener of classical. I'm still at the stage where I listen for the composition, not for the interpretation. I think interpretation here is much like mixing: a small and subtle change can make a big difference if you can notice it but is lost on the majority.

[Brushfire]

When I need to express myself, I draw shitty comics about my friends in Paint.

Also kudos for the novel length dialouge between you and Mephi. I think I will wirte a comic about that.

[Fishy]

There is a pretentious overtone to that statement. Just saying "You're preaching to the choir" seems flat compared to what you get when you expand on it in that subtlely snide fashion. It drives the point home, it makes clear my initial awareness regarding the topic. I couldn't reduce it to just five, because that gives off a completely different impression than what I was going for.

So basically, you couldn't miss an opportunity like that to be snide?

I don't see why that wasn't realized. There was no misinterpretable information, in fact there was no information in there at all aside from the fact that I'm blatantly aware of the subject matter. It's almost like you're telling me to stick to writing three chord songs so I can have an overall better public recepetion.

I said I picked a random paragraph and took the first example of you being over-complicated, I didn't say it perfectly encapsulated everything thats wrong with your arguments. Also if your message (which that case was simple, "you're preaching to the choir an it is quite annoying") is simple enough for three chords, why write a 20 minute symphony? You're trying to get a message across apparently, why make things difficult.

Maybe. Your understanding of my comment is from the wrong direction- I don't aimlessly write and then bullshit respective meanings, I feel what I want to write first, and then write. At any rate, conceding isn't the problem. I'll take this into account because my wording does seem dense at times.

Thats all I'm trying to point out. If it appears dense, think about re-phrasing it in a simpler manner.

That's an extremely basic understanding, because the connotation of your paraphrase and my paragraph are different to the point where we're not even conveying the same fundamental message. The message that I'm trying to relay is that there's more than likely a single root cause for a given occurance, but the cause manifests itself into various and deceivably veracious suppostions which characterize the beliefs of what most people cling to. So so so so different than "People interpret things in different ways." You toss "irrelevant" around far too thoughtlessly.

Again with the over-complicating things. You know damn well you don't have to use those words to make your point, but you do it anyway. This is just proving my point: By doing this, you just make it arduous and annoying to respond. I am annoyed that you took my simplification of your point (which really isn't that different) and responded to it in such a complicated way, meaning I am less likely to be bothered to respond therefore; discussion may end because you can't stand making a simple point. Do I really need any more proof then that?

Read my argument before you dismiss it as thoughtless please. I said the context of the example, however analogous, was not relevant, even if the point ending up being fine. People are expecting a point about the subject, not a huge paragraph about something else. Mentally ill people is not what people are talking about here. I use the term irrelevant to describe something that does not have relevance.

[Dhsu]

But difficulty of interpretation is consequent of what the writer/composer was trying to express/convey, and how.

Yes, in this case it is *how* you're conveying your message that is being criticized here.

The thing is, you're exactly right about my paragraph. That's an extremely basic understanding, because the connotation of your paraphrase and my paragraph are different to the point where we're not even conveying the same fundamental message. The message that I'm trying to relay is that there's more than likely a single root cause for a given occurance, but the cause manifests itself into various and deceivably veracious suppostions which characterize the beliefs of what most people cling to.

I think the fact that so many people are misinterpreting you is evidence of how your obfuscated writing results in misunderstanding. For example, "deceivably" doesn't even make sense in this context...you might have meant "deceptively." Using big words is fine, but they should be used judiciously, or at least correctly. And why say "the beliefs of what most people cling to" when you most likely mean "the beliefs that most people cling to"? The two sentences have completely different meanings. Like Fishy said, one could take pretty much any paragraph you've written thus far and point out similar flaws that obscure and/or distort what you're trying to get across.

Regardless of whether you think your style of writing is justified, it is extremely cumbersome to decipher, and you end up coming across as someone who went overboard with their thesaurus. In an age of "tl;dr", people are likely to ignore what you say entirely.

In the end, just keep in mind the advice of Strunk & White: "Omit needless words."

[xRisingForce]

**NOTE**

I just want to make clear the usage of the word interpretation. Because the direction of classical music is outlined so explicitly, I constrained the word's definition to "Control over fluctuations in speed, dynamic, and articulation." Because interpreting videogame music is by nature more lax due to the lack of classical teaching and conditioning, the far more liberal restrictions have ultimately given birth to what we refer to as remixing.

So for the sake of clarity, please don't use remixing within a classical context and please don't use interpretation within a videogame music context.

Before I begin, it's important that you understand where I come from musically. You might call me a seasoned listener. Music is a huge part of my life, and defines much of my personality. I am strongly affected by it. In the sense of classical training, music theory, composition VS. interpretation, etc., my opinion on the subject matter at hand is largely irrelevant, due to the fact that I have no classical training, I play no instruments, and I'm coming completely from a listener's perspective. My analysis, therefore, is coming from the perspective of the feelings that music invokes, which I think most here will agree is the overarching purpose of all art at the end of the day, to invoke feeling. With all that said, I fall somewhere in the middle of the road.

First off I just need to say that you have an amazingly rich opinion, and that I believe we have congruency.

I actually have no formal training either, and have never read a single theory book in my life. I have a self-taught, or rather, self-invented sense of music theory. My theory is really just a collective realization of what makes the clock of my own auditory aesthetics tick. Whenever I think I come up with a new concept, I dig around to see if there's a universally accepted term for it; just for the sake of being able to communicate my ideas through understood terminology. It's the coolest thing to be able to say that you've reinvented the wheel- that is, discovering that your own musical ideology is correct, and you have the stamp of conventional theory and its rules that have been refined for centuries to prove it.

I agree in one sense that composition is more difficult than interpretation, because a composer such as Beethoven was taking on the enormous task of literally transcribing his emotions into music, to show the world for all eternity what he was FEELING when he wrote a symphony. A composer is trying to give you a window into their world, to let you in for a moment and allow you to share the awesome power of their feelings. In my untrained mind, that's where the greatest difficulty for a composer comes from, trying to let people into your heart and mind through that music.

However, in my mind, it can be a far greater challenge to interpret the works of another composer in such a way that you add your own life and emotion to it. The challenge of doing that is, in fact, the entire basis of this site's existence. When I think of 'interpretation,' I do not imagine just playing a composer's compositions note for note, exactly as they did. You can add a part of yourself to anything you play, and learning to do that, to share the composer's vision while also portraying how it made YOU feel, is an extraordinary challenge. A man could play Beethoven's 5th, note for note, and it would sound beautiful, just as Beethoven wrote it. But it would move me far more emotionally to see that the performer of that piece is completely absorbed by it, and throwing everything they have into sharing in Beethoven's emotions. It's an honor to be able to do that.

I think you're pretty close to stating what I've stated. Like I said before, although they're so different, the two arts of composing and performing are so inextricably linked people carelessly use words that denote one position to encapsulate both. If you're a composer, then performance is just the other side of the coin. Thing is, when you're a performer, the inverse of the prior statement isn't so true, simply because of the fundamentally different necessities of execution. The process behind the creation of a piece is just so different than that of learning it, in that a good sense of aesthetics, creativity, being very in touch with emotion, and most importantly, connecting all of them are all integral to composition. Interpreting a piece requires firstly the technicality to learn it, and the next step is where many deviate. The difference in how people deviate is to what magnitude they do so.

I agree with what you've said regarding the emotional connection between performer and piece. Needless to say, that's the only way to really perform a piece. Where your wrong is when you champion someone trying to marry a different perception of the song with the already existing, and by virtue of composer more important one. I personally think that a great composer composes with specific intent regarding every subtlety and emotive emanation, so if your emotions are different from what the composer intended, suffice to say you felt wrong.

The very concept of interpretation is flawed because ideally, there should be room for none. And if there is, well, then what's the point of the composition? The biggest failures in cinematography are those with intentional open-endings. Why in the world would I paint a beautiful foreground just to make mass prints of it so millions around the world could draw their own backgrounds? In fact, I have seen that, and those are art books which capitalize on the insatiable market for instruction. It's funny because in this vein of realizing what a composer wants to convey, submissions are criticized here for making generous use of the "source material."

After removing the bias towards hi-fidelity music, how many of you have heard remixes that you've liked more than the actual song itself? And incredulously, if for some odd reason the remix is better, that's the most tremendous shame for the composer. It's a slap in the face to tell the composer, "Hey, I can express exactly what you want, better than you." That's impossible, which is a bit contradictory and humorous because that's is the only way you can feasibly draw a direct comparison between remixing and composing. Because the essence of remixing is to tailor a song to suit a personal sense of musical aesthetics, and that aesthetic is what guides improvisation, one can argue that remixing does require a certain amount of compositional skill.

I saw a Stairway to Heaven flamenco remix. Think about that for a bit. The entire reason flamenco is played is to induce that wild, animalistic lust for rhythmic movement. Why the hell would you ever put Stairway to Heaven in such a context? There's a very fine line between interpretation and bastardization. So many "remixes" on this site have crossed that line.

But, since we're on OCReMix.. so long as you stay within the boundaries of what emotion(s) the original is supposed to evoke, then remixing is alright. Doing so while retaining enough of the original to warrant a "remixed" status is quite difficult because the melody is what primarily dictates the mood, and the harmony a more specific declaration of it, so it's the only possible way to change the melody would be through subtle note choices and embellishments. This would be very similar to turning a shade of blue lighter, or darker.

I don't particularly like the term "remix" because it carries a connotation of changing a song entirely, while staying the same. That's a friggin' paradox. Remixing is taking blue, mixing it with yellow, getting green, and trying to argue that the green product is still blue. Changing anything significant about the song significantly gives it a completely different color- what remixing is is creating a new song entirely, and we need a separate term to reflect that.

If we can come to a conscious consensus that what we perceive as remixing flies as an unnamed concept and that there needs to be another word for it, then I think people would be a lot more open minded towards the concept of it, because accusations of bastardization would pretty much be out of the picture.

On the subject of how classical musicians are trained, I think it's extraordinarily important that they learn, play, and are forever exposed to classical works. Playing someone else's compositions is an achievement, because in doing so you have gained knowledge and experience. With greater knowledge and experience of 'the rules' for lack of a better word, comes a greater ability to bend those rules and create something completely new. In other words, make sure the roots are planted firmly, and the tree can grow wherever it wants to go.

That, in a (large) nutshell, is my opinion.

It's not playing the composition that's an achievement, it's understanding everything about the piece and letting that come through as the interpretation, and needless to say, the understanding has to come first. That's why I always try and understand a piece before I perform it, so I can have the deepest knowledge of how the creator understands it.

[xRisingForce]

I wouldn't say improv is the genesis of composition. They're similar, yes, and some composers do improv, but for some people, like me, it's the other way around. When I improv, I'm playing what I already hear in my head; were I to compose and arrange a piece instead, I'd be writing down what I've heard, not what I've played. A good composer doesn't necessarily play anything or improv well; theyr'e just gifted with exceptional creativity, however they derive it.

Interpretation becomes a much bigger thing in music after the classical period. A good interpreter breathes new life into the original piece. If we don't see that as a creational process, it's possibly because we don't have the ear to pick up the subtle differences. I know that I can't determine significant differences in interpretation between recordings of the same piece, and I wouldn't call myself a seasoned listener of classical. I'm still at the stage where I listen for the composition, not for the interpretation. I think interpretation here is much like mixing: a small and subtle change can make a big difference if you can notice it but is lost on the majority.

Oh no my friend, they are inseparably linked in that your own sense of musical aesthetics primarily accounts for your own unique sense of them. Why would you ever play or compose something that sounds bad to you, lol. You're supposed to do that with improvisation. You're supposed to hear it in your mind first, because your mind's the only asset you have that's infinite. And that is the key link between composition and improvisation. Thinking in singular terms of an instrument puts a considerable constraint on what you can express and how you will express it. Haven't you ever heard "Think, before you speak."? It's the same way with music!!

If a rock guitarist writes music, he will have a severely bent predilection towards use of the boxed scale, the banal transitions from shape to shape, and an absence of arpeggios. A pianist writing in the vein of a piano will think differently because of what's more easily expressible, like how arpeggios on piano are rudimentary in execution. That's why guitar playing sounds very scalar and piano playing very chordal. It's that one-dimensional mindset that plagues the pursuance of composition that so many are ignorant to. That's why you come up with the melody independent of the instrument, and then express it through the voicing of your desire.

And for the record, a good composer always improvises exceptionally. That's where my entire analysis comes from! They're two sides of the same coin.