The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians

[xRisingForce]

I'm sorry, I forgot to respond to this directly.

Though I have no proof that more skilled composers might have existed, I am simply extrapolating this from the notion that even today the more "skilled" composers go largely unnoticed as well, even in the wide world of academia or the concert hall.

No worries. And that's what scouring YouTube is for- everyone gets their 15 minutes o fame.

[bustatunez]

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

I personally agree, but, please stop talking.

[Wintermute]

...sounds like SOMEONE just flunked out of music school.

I personally agree, but, please stop talking.

...and what he said too.

[Sil]

And I doubt your compositions carry the depth that someone like Yasunori Mitsuda's, does.

OUCH! That's a long shot. Mitsuda does write some nice music, but what do you mean by "depth?" I remember discussing long ago how he has a knack for the Irish instrumentation and catchy melodies, but no talent at all writing for full orchestra as per the Xenosaga orchestrations (and I say this as someone who's studied orchestration for many, many years.) We actually have very different styles: him being a game composer and me being unable to decide if I'm a Neo-Romantic or a James Horner-wannabe.

[xRisingForce]

OUCH! That's a long shot. Mitsuda does write some nice music, but what do you mean by "depth?" I remember discussing long ago how he has a knack for the Irish instrumentation and catchy melodies, but no talent at all writing for full orchestra as per the Xenosaga orchestrations (and I say this as someone who's studied orchestration for many, many years.) We actually have very different styles: him being a game composer and me being unable to decide if I'm a Neo-Romantic or a James Horner-wannabe.

It's all in that [>]

[xRisingForce]

And yet even his own interpretation varies slightly between each performance, perhaps because his mood has changed, or maybe because he just wants to try something different. If even the composer can interpret his own piece various ways, why is it such a crime for another person to do the same?

Just by the virtue that HE'S the composer, lol. That's no different than saying, "Hey Harry we're best friends, you can screw your wife, why can't I?"

It takes a Newton to develop calculus, and a smart high school kid to pass a test on it.

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 that your musical intuition has shortcomings because your sense of musical aesthetics is incongruent with conventional/institutional music theory.

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.

SO.. say I go to a Beethoven concert and even if I was able to understand what Beethoven wanted to achieve with that specific day's performance of Fur Elise.

1. Just by virtue of not being Beethoven I can't think exactly like him

i) I can't replicate Fur Elise dynamically because my interpretation, although congruent with that single performance of it, is defined by that single performance

2. Deviating from i) would be wrong because of 1.

Outlined here

Another thing to remember is that it's possible for a composer to be concerned only with the melody and harmony without caring about dynamics or phrasing, perhaps because he doesn't really care, or is a bad composer

Yep, that's why people don't listen to him or her, lol.

or didn't have the technological capabilities at the time (for example, Bach harpsichord pieces have no dynamics). It's then up to the performer to decide what interpretation brings out the composer's musical ideas best.

How can a performer's understanding of the depth of a song be fuller than that of the composer's?

But you can't, because none of those "worthless" performers played it.

I know. I was just trying to get him to admit that it was an overblown statement.

[Sil]

It takes a Newton to develop calculus, and a smart high school kid to pass a test on it.

How can you say that any number of those kids wouldn't have developed it as well? Or to take calculus and make it better? Not the best analogy, but I see what you're saying.

But you're not making a convincing case as to why the composer thinks his interpretation of his notes, notes that in all cosmic possibility could have been written by someone else at some other time, is the only legitimate interpretation, that is, if he does think that at all. What if tomorrow we found out Beethoven's Fur Elise was ripped off another composer? What if it was originally meant to be played Allegro con fuoco? If we truly knew how the music was to be interpreted, we would have millions more dynamic markings than we already do. But no, the composer understands his or her music will ultimately be left up to interpretation, so that's how we should understand it too.

[Dhsu]

Ok, let me lighten up my language a bit. I think they're amazing, great performers. Basically, Beethoven was fully capable of and did play his pieces publicly. Art's nothing if it isn't appreciated right? Beethoven was able to both create his art and get it publicly recognized. What would happen if there were no classical composers? Then what would Horowitz do?

I'm not sure what symbiotic relationship you speak of, because the dependency seems very one-sided to me.

Let's turn that around: what would happen if there were no performers? Then what would composers who couldn't perform do? Like Sil said, they're forgotten.

You're telling me that without clearly defined pitches, you can just use any sort of noise to create a piece that has the depth of a song like "Corridors of Time."

I didn't say ANYTHING about depth, but since you asked, then yes, I'm sure there are percussion pieces that have just as much depth as anything Mitsuda ever wrote. You might not LIKE it personally, but it's music all the same.

No, lol. Everything about pop punk as an art form is amateur, stagnant, and banal. That extends into the lyrical content, four note melodies, the trite chord progression played with the exact same rhythm and dynamic, the pop-punk enunciation of vowels, ETC. It's ALL that, and THEN some that makes pop punk a terrible genre.

I'm not even going to touch this. You're digging your own hole here.

Blues is one of the most killer genres ever, but the great blues chord progressions are anything but three in number.

Yeah, but I said "based on."

That's not true. The nature of being a studio musician is that jobs are hard to find because the first thing that you have to come to terms with as a studio musician, is that you're dispensable and an actor in that your entire part's been written, down to the scene where you have to flick your ears when you're angry because that's just one of your idiosyncrasies. Maybe you can ad-lib if you're lucky.

Classical musicians in orchestras stay with the orchestras for a very long time, and famous classical pianists are mini celebrities. Horowitz may have been a humble man. But his undeterrable pursuance of classical music shows that through what he did, he found a something of worth.

The self images are completely different.

Why are you making this distinction? I thought your argument was that performers as a whole are expendable? I'm getting very mixed messages here...it sounds like a lot of the time you're implying that you respect studio musicians more because they "know their role," but then you praise concert pianist like Horowitz.

I think we're making some progress here. I'm not so interested in changing your mind anymore (although it would be to your own benefit) as much as I am interested in sorting out your main ideas, and I think I'm almost there. Which is good because it's almost time for bed.

[xRisingForce]

Let's turn that around: what would happen if there were no performers? Then what would composers who couldn't perform do? Like Sil said, they're forgotten.

Not really, since Beethoven publicized his work himself.

I didn't say ANYTHING about depth, but since you asked, then yes, I'm sure there are percussion pieces that have just as much depth as anything Mitsuda ever wrote. You might not LIKE it personally, but it's music all the same.

This doesn't even seem the slightest bit possible to me- rhythm in a singular context just doesn't have a lot of emotionally expansive potential.

Why are you making this distinction? I thought your argument was that performers as a whole are expendable? I'm getting very mixed messages here...it sounds like a lot of the time you're implying that you respect studio musicians more because they "know their role," but then you praise concert pianist like Horowitz.

Earlier in the thread there's a parallel to this. Yes performers on a whole are expendable, but this thread is specifically about Classical performers because studio musicians are aware their status as an actor before they get their job.

I think we're making actually progress here. I'm not so interested in changing your mind anymore (although it would be to your own benefit) as much as I am interested in sorting out your main ideas, and I think I'm almost there. Which is good because it's almost time for bed.

I really want to give this thread one more go.

[Sil]

Not really, since Beethoven publicized his work himself.

Why? Just so everyone else can go fuck it up?

[Dhsu]

Just by the virtue that HE'S the composer, lol. That's no different than saying, "Hey Harry we're best friends, you can screw your wife, why can't I?"

You and your sex analogies. Comparing performing a piece of music to having sex is completely specious. How about we take your mother/child analogy from earlier...there are bad mothers, just as there are bad composers. Just because you spawned the child doesn't mean you will treat it properly. A performer might be analogous to a babysitter...yes, you're expected to follow the parent's instructions, but most likely she will leave certain things like lunch and games up to your judgment i.e. INTERPRETATION.

How can a performer's understanding of the depth of a song be fuller than that of the composer's?

Like I said, there are many cases in which the composer didn't have that sort of depth in mind...he's only concerned with the notes, not the performance. So in this case, it's true that the performer doesn't know the composer's intention (because the composer didn't intend anything regarding that particular aspect), but they can use their own experience and skill as a performer to highlight the parts that the composer did create intentionally.

Not really, since Beethoven publicized his work himself.

I repeat, what would happen to composers that couldn't perform their own work? If Beethoven had no one to perform his work, he could publicize all he wanted, but with no one to perform, there would be no one to listen, and he'd still be forgotten.

This doesn't even seem the slightest bit possible to me- rhythm in a singular context just doesn't have a lot of emotionally expansive potential.

Like I said, you may not believe me. But that doesn't stop it from being a true. And the real point isn't that rhythm has tons of emotional potential, but it's there, and that's what makes it music.

Earlier in the thread there's a parallel to this. Yes performers on a whole are expendable, but this thread is specifically about Classical performers because studio musicians are aware their status as an actor before they get their job.

Yeah, the reason I asked was to get you to clarify your views on classical performers. How can you call someone like Horowitz great if he's no better than a studio musician who doesn't know his role? And why do you keep talking about actors when you've already adamantly stated that they can't be compared to musicians??

[xRisingForce]

You and your sex analogies. Comparing performing a piece of music to having sex is completely specious. How about we take your mother/child analogy from earlier...there are bad mothers, just as there are bad composers. Just because you spawned the child doesn't mean you will treat it properly.

Yes, but I am of the opinion that not just anyone can be a parent. It's a biological right, but an moral infringement when that child's life suffers because of severe maternal shortcomings. And how that translates into music.. I'm not sure if I can say it without being gunned down.

Music isn't for everyone.

Like I said, there are many cases in which the composer didn't have that sort of depth in mind...he's only concerned with the notes, not the performance. So in this case, it's true that the performer doesn't know the composer's intention (because the composer didn't intend anything regarding that particular aspect), but they can use their own experience and skill as a performer to highlight the parts that the composer did create intentionally.

Ok, I understand you here, but let's talk about the composers whose music is most commonly played by the very performers we're talking about- that'd be more relevant. You're absolutely right that a lot of composers don't take into account those finer elements, and that's what makes them amateur. If you can find someone who has a deeper understanding of "Spring" by Vivaldi than Vivaldi himself, I will shut my mouth.

Music isn't for everyone.

[xRisingForce]

How can you say that any number of those kids wouldn't have developed it as well? Or to take calculus and make it better? Not the best analogy, but I see what you're saying.

Simple. Because they wouldn't be smart high school kids, lol. They'd be seven year old college graduates.

But you're not making a convincing case as to why the composer thinks his interpretation of his notes, notes that in all cosmic possibility could have been written by someone else at some other time, is the only legitimate interpretation, that is, if he does think that at all.

Musicianship is as unique as a snowflake- no two are the same. For someone to have their own sense of musical aesthetics which guide their composition as exactly as Beethoven's would be damn near impossible. And humans are infinitely more complex than snowflakes.

What if tomorrow we found out Beethoven's Fur Elise was ripped off another composer? What if it was originally meant to be played Allegro con fuoco? If we truly knew how the music was to be interpreted, we would have millions more dynamic markings than we already do. But no, the composer understands his or her music will ultimately be left up to interpretation, so that's how we should understand it too.

This is just retarded. You won't, because stealing leans more towards an extreme side of the spectrum. There would be just as little an inclination to plagarise two pieces as there would be one. If Beethoven steals music, he would've had to have stolen the dense majority of it; do you really think that could've eluded public eye with his ascension to public awareness? I don't think so.

Why? Just so everyone else can go fuck it up?

What are you talking about, no. Beethoven publicized his piece through performance because he composed it. It's not really rocket science.

[Sil]

Like I said, there are many cases in which the composer didn't have that sort of depth in mind...he's only concerned with the notes, not the performance.

This is true. Oh, so true. Many performances of Mozart move people to tears, many do not. What was Mozart's original intention? $$$$$$$$$$

Like I said before, classical music up until the Romantic era was hardly emotional or expressive at all. If anything, it was expressing a devotion to God or a devotion to skill or a devotion to dinner parties. I'm sure one could even argue the best interpretation of a Bach fugue is one played by a computer. Write the notes and let the performer sort it out: that's the classical way (and the impressionist, and the expressionist, and the avant-garde-ist, etc.)

[Shadow Wolf]

This doesn't say anything to me because I have no idea how skilled you are.

And I doubt your compositions carry the depth that someone like Yasunori Mitsuda's, does.

Well then it's time to back the fuck up. You're talking with Jeremy Robson, who happens to be, hands down, my favorite remixer EVER, and a damn good composer as well. Holmes knows his shit. Don't make me go all fanboy now, I tried to be nice earlier.

[Sil]

Musicianship is as unique as a snowflake- no two are the same. For someone to have their own sense of musical aesthetics which guide their composition as exactly as Beethoven's would be damn near impossible. And humans are infinitely more complex than snowflakes.

At what point does music become so complex that the composer can finally say "This is the only way to interpret this music?" 10 notes? 100? 1000?

What if I said one of Beethoven's super-emotionally charged final quartets borrows a phrase from a Bach fugue? What if I said Vaughan Williams took a power and uplifting English anthem by Tallis and turned it into a somber and dramatic piece for strings? Aren't these guys going against your "law of ultimate interpretation?"

What are you talking about, no. Beethoven publicized his piece through performance because he composed it. It's not really rocket science.

Why make your work known if you know someone is just going to screw it up with their own un-composer-like interpretation? Why bother adding tempo markings?

[xRisingForce]

Aren't these guys going against your "law of ultimate interpretation?"

Nope! You're ignorant of, well, anything about my music philosophy really.

And if you were a bit more compliant you'd probably have read the post that I'm about to link to you, for the fourth time.

part 1

part 2

Why make your work known if you know someone is just going to screw it up with their own un-composer-like interpretation?

Because I for one, am going to protect the integrity of my pieces.

[Dhsu]

Ok, I understand you here, but let's talk about the composers whose music is most commonly played by the very performers we're talking about- that'd be more relevant. You're absolutely right that a lot of composers don't take into account those finer elements, and that's what makes them amateur. If you can find someone who has a deeper understanding of "Spring" by Vivaldi than Vivaldi himself, I will shut my mouth.

Well, I was more referring to cases like Bach where it was technologically impossible to have things like dynamics or legato, so they didn't specify anything in that regard. In that case, it's the modern performer's responsibility to do what he feels is best for the music. Unless you feel that everyone should stick to playing Bach on clavichords.

Anyway, just to clarify, are you saying that in the specific case that the composer had a specific interpretation in mind, classical performers are expendable because they should only play what the composer intended. If so, I guess I can understand such an opinion.

However, like Sil said, that would immediately disqualify countless compositions from famous composers like Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. They wrote them out of need, not emotion. It was their job...they just wrote the notes, like someone would write a business letter or a software program, with nothing particularly "deep" in mind. For all you know, they couldn't have cared less about how their music was performed, as long as they got their paychecks.

[Sil]

Nope! You're ignorant of, well, anything about my music philosophy really.

I know what you're philosophy is. You think that if a piece meant for flute is played on clarinet, it's a bad interpretation. You think meaning is the be-all and end-all of why music exists. Meaning as an ends unto itself. In other words, the meaning is the meaning. I can play an E and then you can play an E and I can say "No, that isn't what I meant at all, you got it all wrong!" You're infusing sequences of sounds with the abstract and berating others who don't conjure the same emotions and images that you did when you sequenced them. Okay, if that's what you want to think, go right ahead. I will not stop you. But PLEASE never assume you or anyone else is the ultimate authority on what OTHER people have written. Just don't be so presumptuous to think that other composers CARE how well their music is interpreted, because they only CARE as much as they're willing to put down little extra bits of info to explain just what the hell is going on when they hand the music to another person.

[xRisingForce]

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I really don't want to disrespect you man, but when you baselessly accuse me of retarded things like not being able to play flute lines on clarinets, that's all the value to me your post amounts to.

Why?

Because I'm asking you to give me a chance so you can see how I see things, but you keep dismissing it. Why you keep doing it, I don't know.

All I can say is that you're not any more dignified than however snide and arrogant you're perceiving me to be. Your analysis of me wasn't even a hit and miss. Well, it might've hit me had you been facing the other direction.

[DrumUltimA]

Rising Flame, I HIGHLY reccomend you read alex ross' "The Rest is Noise" before you go passing any more judgement on what is music and what isn't.

You're telling me that without clearly defined pitches, you can just use any sort of noise to create a piece that has the depth of a song like "Corridors of Time."

Once again, John Cage, also perhaps some Ligeti and Stockhausen-- great examples of composers who use NOISE. And they're not just like, average whoevers. These are the Mozarts and Beethovens of OUR time. Also, I love Yasunori Mitsuda but his music is certainly not as deep as you're making it out to be...he's one of my favorite video game composers for sure, but I wouldn't put his music on the same level as say, Reich, John Adams, John Britton, and a lot of the other composers of our time...

And for the record, music is for EVERYONE. I was a bit taken aback by that comment.

As for Sil's comments... do you really refuse to believe that composers like to hear other peoples interpretations? This isn't the first time I've heard that from a composer...

[Sil]

xRisingForce:

Hold the bleep on there, buddy. You said that playing a flute line on clarinet is a cardinal sin.

[Dhsu]

The conclusion I'm getting here is that the ultimate performer would be a robot programmed with the composer's interpretation.

And my response is that very often, composers (even very good and famous ones) can't or or simply don't want to provide such a specific interpretation. And that is why we need performers who will.

I'd like to get a more direct response about my bad mother analogy though...you stated that some people shouldn't be composing, but the fact is that they do. Is it still the performer's responsibility to adhere to the composer's amateur concept of interpretation?

[Fratto]

I think you must have either missed my post from earlier, or you ignored it due to my sarcasm. Reading it could have helped you. I'm not going to sift through your numerous posts just to quote them, but you'll know what I'm referring to.

I am a classical musician. I am a studio musician. I am a jazz musician. I was, and may be again, a rock/pop/whatever musician. I don't feel any more or less replaceable when I'm playing tuba in the symphony as I do when I'm playing bass trombone in the jazz orchestra. Grouping musicians together by venue is foolish and wrong.

Beethoven was actually my specific example in my post of a composer needing performers. Beethoven could only play his own piano and solo viola pieces. He would have a hard time accompanying himself, and would therefore need a piano player (or another violist) if he ever wanted to perform accompanied solos. Symphonies! If you think his symphonies were not a huge part of vast popularity and ability to transcend generations, then you're also foolish and wrong. Now imagine little Ludwig with his viola trying to play the 5th Symphony. Awesome! Or no. He could not play trombone. He could not play bassoon. He could only play one string part at a time.

Guess what he needed and used? Performers! It's not rocket science!

You also conveniently dismissed Dhsu's orchestra program. It mentioned only the composer and none of the performers. This is how it goes all the time. No one ever goes to the symphony and sees "Conductor Joe, Trumpets Bob, George, and Frank, Clarinets Gina, Ashley, and Shannon! Oh, and that Beethoven guy wrote the song." No! You have dozens of very talented people all grouped under one heading which is usually only three letters long (e.g. DSO), while the front of the program and an entire article inside are dedicated to the composer and another paragraph (at least) about the song. You have a line with your name and instrument stapled in back. All the glory belongs to the performer, though. Hardly.

Music without words isn't real music. Pop punk isn't music because it's lyrically driven, therefore those people aren't musicians. This is ludicrous. That's like saying that the Beastie Boys are not musicians because of their rap (lyric driven) style. Then what do you think of "Transitions" in terms of music? It's incredible and instrumental. Are they more valuable during that song than they are when they're singing or rapping? Is Eric Clapton or Stevie Ray Vaughan any less valuable to music because they are also singers? No to all questions. No.

The human voice is a fantastic instrument. The reason that pop music doesn't change past four chords with one rhythm and one dynamic (this is an ignorant fallacy, but for the sake of your argument we'll pretend) is because since it's vocally driven it doesn't need to. It's not necessarily lyrically driven as much as it is vocally driven. The intensity, musicality, interpretation, feeling, emotion, and soul are all in the voice of the singer and the mood of the harmonies. The voice is an incredible instrument. Learn that.

Thieves evade the public eye all the time. Also, generations forget things. The number of people that think Soft Cell was the original performer of "Tainted Love" is huge. No one even knows any other songs by Soft Cell. Their biggest hit isn't even their own. How many people know that? The song was hugely popular and remains a staple of 1980s culture. Fast forward 150 years. If anyone remembers Soft Cell, they won't remember that their only hit was a rip off of a funk/soul song. I doubt that Beethoven stole all his songs, but I like to play devil's advocate on occasion.

As for your views on music and your claims, I'd be curious to know how far removed from you are from immigration. You have a dominantly Western view of music and Eastern music probably scares you. Music outside the US and Western Europe is very rhythmic and some have no pitch at all, though the music may be downright sacred to them.

Interpretation can mean many things. If I crescendo a little on a long note to make it go somewhere even though it's not specifically written to, then that could be interpretation. Maybe a rubato somewhere that isn't marked to. You consider that a cardinal sin. Maybe you overlay sloppy electric guitar (with your embellishments) over the top of different kinds of music that doesn't specifically call for electric guitar. That's also interpretation. Other people may consider distortion and embellishments a cardinal sin. It works both ways.

Lurk moar in music.

[Skrypnyk]

I like how the original person xRisingForce called out (Mephisto) hasn't even posted in this thread. Yet everyone else in the community is.

My apologies if someone else already pointed this out, I just wanted to post in epic thread 2008.