The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians

[Shadow Wolf]

You wanna restore some order, Wolf?

Restoration of order isn't my responsibility. I've said my piece and requested intelligent discourse, where it goes from there isn't up to me.

[PhiJayy]

I'm not aware of composers who don't play their own compositions. Ball's in your park.

As everyone knows it is very difficult to become recognized as a composer these days since there are so many around.

So what do composers do?

They allow there music to be performed by someone else and in turn they receive credit and more.

So that being said I am not going to type up a list of composers who have taken this course, because that would just be taken up too much of my time.

I'm sure you personally don't take a liking too people that choose to do this, but remember everyone is there own person.

[DrumUltimA]

Unless a composer writes specifically for his or her own instruments, I would think that most composers could not perform their own compositions, or at least as well as most (good) performers...

[DarkeSword]

I let my computer play all my compositions.

[Dhsu]

I don't really mind the former, because they know their role: as an actor.

I think this is significant, because movie actors often receive publicity on a level MUCH higher than the people who actually wrote and directed the movies do.

[xRisingForce]

wait.. is this directed towards PhiJayy or me? Because I didn't think that Phijayy's post had anything to do with you...

It was in response to Phijayy's post, and now I see where the misconception could've arise, but I still think that he was mocking me.

I've wanted to put my view of performers up there anyway.

[Dhsu]

I think this is significant, because movie actors often receive publicity on a level MUCH higher than the people who actually wrote and directed the movies do.

I'm gonna quote this because it got lost on the last page, and elaborate a little on it by saying that actors are not undeserving of this attention, because what they do is NOT just "monkey see monkey do."

Also something interesting to consider is that one of the marks of a good composer is that he understands how to write for specific instruments...knowing how to write within a specific range and in a specific way that is practical to play. In other words, he is catering to the performer. I think that really highlights the importance of both roles...a composer must respect his performers and vice versa in order for truly good music to be created.

[PhiJayy]

Unless a composer writes specifically for his or her own instruments, I would think that most composers could not perform their own compositions, or at least as well as most (good) performers...

Yeah exactly. Some composers perform, but they rarely do. WelI I know to the least (40%) of composers don't perform.

Has anyone ever seen a performer that is just butt-ugly? If so, rarely. Why not?

Because this isn't what the public wants.

I think this is significant, because movie actors often receive publicity on a level MUCH higher than the people who actually wrote and directed the movies do.

Bingo! Same can be applied to composers/performers.

It was in response to Phijayy's post, and now I see where the misconception could've arise, but I still think that he was mocking me.

I'm really sorry that you feel that way. Seriously. I didn't mean to upset anyone.

[D-Lux]

Sheesh, looks like I'm stepping on some toes here. I only have more respect for you in that you defend your friends at the drop of a penny.

The way I see it, your posting in this thread has turned from in depth classical discussion into "Oops, I misinterpreted what you said. Why don't you say it like this from now on so I don't make that mistake again?" with said discussion masking the quoted words. I'd say that's a pretty good reason you're getting the responses you're getting.

Assumptions seem to be your thing, so I'll play your game for a minute: you and PhiJayy know absolutely nothing about me as of the first time you read this post. I would consider him no more of a friend than you or 95% of this website. He ain't my friend, dawg, so stop classifying people based on text that makes no mention of such classification.

Judging people also seems to be your thing, so again, let's play: PhiJayy made 2 posts in this thread before his "wow Doug" post. One conveyed amazement at your vocabulary, and you brushed it off in favor of getting the topic back on track. His other post apologized for his first post's off-topic nature, and quoted another user's text since it parallels his opinion of your posting. He even said so.

Wanna know why I jumped in? You're acting like this is your email inbox. Just because you made the thread doesn't mean every post is directed at you and requires your response. Feel free to reply to whatever you want, but don't assume undertones and snide comments that just aren't there. Unless your name is Doug, there should be no reason to suspect a snide comment by PhiJayy, since he even quoted the text he was talking about. And it wasn't your text.

I'm derailing this topic not because you're getting away with elitism but because you're being a general ass. Cool off on the condescending comments and you'll rile up a lot less derailment.

I see you're back on topic with discussion, so have at it.

[xRisingForce]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_Clavicembalisticum

If you say that performing this work is easier than composing it was, then you are wrong.

Haha, good to know I'm not a fool anymore.

This really raises some interesting questions that I've been wanting to segue into.

According to your argument, I could write, in the span of one minute, a near impossible piece to play, but really now, difficulty isn't what makes a piece good. While we're all engaged in this argument, can we all use songs that we actually like as referential material? Please?

"Melody is music, music is melody." - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

I, too think the most important dimension is melody, and then harmony because it primarily serves to accentuate the melody. Iffor some reason, Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji wanted to express a radical emotion and the only possible way to do it was through this specific, complicated phrasing, the depth of that kind of insane expression would completely transcend anything I've ever heard. And throughout this endeavor, if Sorabji composed (you know, since this is music) musically rather than technically, any level of technicality would be pure consequence since he composed with the melody primarily in mind. At any rate, I think the real point to be noted here is that Sorabji performed his work.

And here's something you might've overlooked from earlier:

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.

I think this is significant, because movie actors often receive publicity on a level MUCH higher than the people who actually wrote and directed the movies do.

I'm gonna quote this because it got lost on the last page, and elaborate a little on it by saying that actors are not undeserving of this attention, because what they do is NOT just "monkey see monkey do.

This is fallacious because what dictates the actions of the media is, naturally, what sells. Hollywood stars are stars because they're hotter than Peter Jackson. Because sex sells, and you know this. After Playboy, there is no industry more synonymous with sex than Hollywood. I mean, just look at some of the recent cinematic archetypes (i.e. obligatory sex scene).

And it's unfair to say that as well, because there are a ton of great actors in Hollywood as well. Using Hollywood to draw a comparison doesn't work in that the success of Hollywood plays off of the same audience of sheeple that make mainstream music what it is. The same people make Greenday, Blink 182, Dashboard Confessional, Fallout Boy, and the like famous. Another subtle fallacy: thinking that there's a direct correlation between fame and the quality of a composer's music. There is no clear connection between Hollywood actors' success and their ability to express themselves as actors because 1, Sex clouds the industry, and 2, The same sheeple audience are fans of bands like Linkin Park who are lyrically driven.

Modern music is simplistic in that it takes away primarily from what makes music unique (pitch), and shifts emphasis to something that has quite possibly nothing to do with music, lyrics. Without someone singing, modern music loses all value not by an absence of melody, but an absence of words, because the instrumentation simply isn't good enough to function on its own. As such, the melody, harmony, and general polyphony are usually very weak. There's no musical emotion because the appeal is almost entirely lyrical, and when a song's strength is built on lyrics, then it's not music. It's poetry.

Both are important, of course. They can accentuate a song and make it better, sort of like how icing compliments cake, and who eats just icing? The thing people seem to get confused is that although lyrics are crafted for music, music wasn't crafted for lyrics. Poetry is expression through words. Music is expression through pitch.

The reason Linkin Park's music sold like water is because the world's vast amount of teenagers could lyrically connect through the messages so relevant to their puberty. For example, the teenage "nobody understands me" mindset is pretty much the entire creative spark behind "Crawling."

Let's also keep in mind that Peter Jackson profited the most from Lord of the Rings.

Also something interesting to consider is that one of the marks of a good composer is that he understands how to write for specific instruments...knowing how to write within a specific range and in a specific way that is practical to play. In other words, he is catering to the performer. I think that really highlights the importance of both roles...a composer must respect his performers and vice versa in order for truly good music to be created.

Well, that's not so much catering to the performer as it is having to deal with the simple limitations found in any instrument. In writing for guitar you generally include a lot less apreggios because it's extremely difficult to phrase them fluidly, whereas on piano it's a lot more doable, in fact, elementary. In terms of voice, I wouldn't rewrite the melody lower so that Anthony could sing it- I'd hire a soprano.

You wanna check out the two main posts now? They're more recent long ones.

[PhiJayy]

you and PhiJayy know absolutely nothing about me as of the first time you read this post. I would consider him no more of a friend than you or 95% of this website. He ain't my friend, dawg, so stop classifying people based on text that makes no mention of such classification.

Unless your name is Doug, there should be no reason to suspect a snide comment by PhiJayy, since he even quoted the text he was talking about. And it wasn't your text.

Yeah I don't even know him, the best I know about him is the cool remix collaboration of "Lovers Reef," but he obviously seems to understand that I in no shape or form, purposely tried to mock you.

[Dhsu]

The beauty of composition is that it's something which can't be acquired or taught, no matter how artificially, mechanically, or scientifically you try.

This is a romanticized concept of composing and a ridiculous statement in general. There's a reason that composition classes exist.

You are yourself- that is to say nobody's going to "learn" to compose like Mitsuda because if something's incongruent with your special philosophy towards music and its aesthetics, you're not likely to be incorporating it in your repertoire anytime soon.

As a matter of fact, I have heard many, many Mitsuda copycats. It's not very hard for a composer to emulate another's style with some effort.

Also, it's odd that you seem so eager to put composers on a level higher than performers when many performers are composers and vice versa. Would you say that their worth goes up or down depending on what they're doing at the moment?

The way I see it, there are vastly different levels of skill in EVERYTHING. It takes no skill to be a bad composer who plops down generic schlock on paper, but a great performer will be remembered for a long time. Similarly, it takes no skill to be a bad performer who merely plays a score note for note without any feeling of his own, but great composers are memorialized for centuries to come. But to put one above the other is pointless and only succeeds in sowing dissension where none is needed.

[xRisingForce]

The way I see it, your posting in this thread has turned from in depth classical discussion into "Oops, I misinterpreted what you said. Why don't you say it like this from now on so I don't make that mistake again?" with said discussion masking the quoted words. I'd say that's a pretty good reason you're getting the responses you're getting.

Assumptions seem to be your thing, so I'll play your game for a minute: you and PhiJayy know absolutely nothing about me as of the first time you read this post. I would consider him no more of a friend than you or 95% of this website. He ain't my friend, dawg, so stop classifying people based on text that makes no mention of such classification.

Judging people also seems to be your thing, so again, let's play: PhiJayy made 2 posts in this thread before his "wow Doug" post. One conveyed amazement at your vocabulary, and you brushed it off in favor of getting the topic back on track. His other post apologized for his first post's off-topic nature, and quoted another user's text since it parallels his opinion of your posting. He even said so.

Wanna know why I jumped in? You're acting like this is your email inbox. Just because you made the thread doesn't mean every post is directed at you and requires your response. Feel free to reply to whatever you want, but don't assume undertones and snide comments that just aren't there. Unless your name is Doug, there should be no reason to suspect a snide comment by PhiJayy, since he even quoted the text he was talking about. And it wasn't your text.

I'm derailing this topic not because you're getting away with elitism but because you're being a general ass. Cool off on the condescending comments and you'll rile up a lot less derailment.

I see you're back on topic with discussion, so have at it.

I generally agree with you, except yes, I do have to respond to every post, because every post is directed at me. I am arguing my points singly, because quite literally everyone is at a disagreement with my ideas.

Anyway, I jumped the gun on you Phijayy. I hope you'll accept my apology.

[xRisingForce]

wow Doug. I'm seriously thinking about framing those words on my wall.

Composers create what they're feeling, and performers must accurately deliver those feelings. (Well in my own words.)

Just because performer's perform, doesn't mean that there behind the scenes creating wonderful musical compositions. Many people make this mistake, which is so sad.

Wait.. were you not being sarcastic here?

[D-Lux]

I do have to respond to every post, because every post is directed at me.

everyone is at a disagreement with my ideas.

Call me crazy, but I'm going to give you a chance to take back these statements before taking you seriously.

[xRisingForce]

Call me crazy, but I'm going to give you a chance to take back these statements before taking you seriously.

What are you talking about man, the majority of this thread is arguments between me and others.

And I don't care if someone agrees with me on a small level, it's through fundamental congruence that connection can come about. Aside from the first poster, nobody's agreed with any of my fundamental points.

[PhiJayy]

Wait.. were you not being sarcastic here?

By no means was I being sarcastic.

From your point of view I can probably see why you felt that way, but honestly I wanted to praise Doug for posting his original post about composers/perfomers.

It really made sense to me. Next time i'll say something about your post, to prevent you from leaving you wondering.

[DrumUltimA]

Wait.. were you not being sarcastic here?

dude, that post wasn't any more than a summarization of my post...

anyway i have more to say!

"Melody is music, music is melody." - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

I, too think the most important dimension is melody, and then harmony because it primarily serves to accentuate the melody. Iffor some reason, Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji wanted to express a radical emotion and the only possible way to do it was through this specific, complicated phrasing, the depth of that kind of insane expression would completely transcend anything I've ever heard. And throughout this endeavor, if Sorabji composed (you know, since this is music) musically rather than technically, any level of technicality would be pure consequence since he composed with the melody primarily in mind. At any rate, I think the real point to be noted here is that Sorabji performed his work.

See, now you're opening a whole new can of worms. I strongly advise you not to define music in this discussion...if you listen to the works of steve reich, john cage, phillip glass, iannis xenakis, etc, you will find that many composers seek to write music that does not involve melody or harmony.

[Sil]

Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji wanted to express a radical emotion and the only possible way to do it was through this specific, complicated phrasing, the depth of that kind of insane expression would completely transcend anything I've ever heard.

You're doing it again. You're assuming expression is mutually exclusive with emotion. Most people are often surprised by the fact most classical music is emotionless. Expressive, yes, but typically void of any more meaning than the composer's self-satisfaction with his or her own skill.

Sure, anyone can attach their emotions to it whether they're a casual listener or an experienced performer, but rarely is there any inherent pathos in genres like the ones Bach, Mozart, or even Beethoven wrote in. We don't know if Sorabji was expressing an emotion in his work. In any case, his message is not transferable to the performer because it is utterly and eternally ambiguous.

[xRisingForce]

By no means was I being sarcastic.

From your point of view I can probably see why you felt that way, but honestly I wanted to praise Doug for posting his original post about composers/perfomers.

It really made sense to me. Next time i'll say something about your post, to prevent from leaving you wondering.

Well thanks a lot for being able to see from my POV. Arguing with everyone and then reading that, I wasn't really in the benefit-of-the-doubt mood. Which is obviously where you thought I was crazy, haha.

Get Doug over here!

[Dhsu]

Haha, good to know I'm not a fool anymore.

This really raises some interesting questions that I've been wanting to segue into.

According to your argument, I could write, in the span of one minute, a near impossible piece to play, but really now, difficulty isn't what makes a piece good.

A-HA! My point EXACTLY. So now we're not talking about INTRINSIC worth, are we? We are talking about SKILL and what makes something GOOD. Merely creating is nothing to praise...it is when creating something beautiful that one is to be commended.

And it's unfair to say that as well, because there are a ton of great actors in Hollywood as well.

Haha, now you're disagreeing even with yourself.

Using Hollywood to draw a comparison doesn't work in that the success of Hollywood plays off of the same audience of sheeple that make mainstream music what it is. The same people make Greenday, Blink 182, Dashboard Confessional, Fallout Boy, and the like famous.

Sorry, it's hard for me to take anyone seriously who uses the world "sheeple", but I will try. All those bands you just mentioned compose their own music...are they intrinsically better than classical performers even though you don't respect the music they've written?

They can accentuate a song and make it better, sort of like how icing compliments cake, and who eats just icing?

A lot of people, actually...

The thing people seem to get confused is that although lyrics are crafted for music, music wasn't crafted for lyrics.

That is where you're wrong. Plenty of songs are written specifically to fit a given set of lyrics. Musical settings to religious texts have accounted for a prodigious amount of works over the entire history of the art form.

Well, that's not so much catering to the performer as it is having to deal with the simple limitations found in any instrument. In writing for guitar you generally include a lot less apreggios because it's extremely difficult to phrase them fluidly, whereas on piano it's a lot more doable, in fact, elementary. In terms of voice, I wouldn't rewrite the melody lower so that Anthony could sing it- I'd hire a soprano.

Perhaps, but I'm just trying to highlight the beautiful symbiotic relationship that results in performers relying on composers to write the notes, and yet composers relying on performers to play the notes. A composer's most complex ideas and emotions are worth nothing if he can't write it in a form that can be performed.

[xRisingForce]

you will find that many composers seek to write music that does not involve melody or harmony.

That's really interesting. What does the music set out to express, and without a melody or harmony, how?

[xRisingForce]

A-HA! My point EXACTLY. So now we're not talking about INTRINSIC worth, are we? We are talking about SKILL and what makes something GOOD. Merely creating is nothing to praise...it is when creating something beautiful that one is to be commended.

Yes, but if you were going to segue into this it was incorrect to use him as an example because he is a composer, and the entirety of my argument revolves around performers.

Haha, now you're disagreeing even with yourself.

Well, no. Because I don't accept the premise that Hollywood actors are the same as performers in music. And I outlined that specifically.

Sorry, it's hard for me to take anyone seriously who uses the world "sheeple", but I will try. All those bands you just mentioned compose their own music...are they intrinsically better than classical performers even though you don't respect the music they've written?

I don't view those bands as music, because their music instrumentally has no inherent expression. It has to make use of lyrics as a crutch to convey that message. Which I previously outlined. Point in case- there's no comparison to be drawn.

That is where you're wrong. Plenty of songs are written specifically to fit a given set of lyrics. Musical settings to religious texts have accounted for a prodigious amount of works over the entire history of the art form.

Right, like the Bach church piece "Gloria in Excelsis Deo," but the fundamental difference that you're not picking up on is that his music isn't lyrically dependent- it's powerful enough to transcend linguistic barriers and grab footholds all over the world. The instrumentality alone captures the important aspects of the piece; the lyrics augment them. The measure of how good a song is is the quality of the instrumentation after all unmusical impedance has been removed.

Perhaps, but I'm just trying to highlight the beautiful symbiotic relationship that results in performers relying on composers to write the notes, and yet composers relying on performers to play the notes. A composer's most complex ideas and emotions are worth nothing if he can't write it in a form that can be performed.

This is where your notion of a relationship is broken. This only carries weight in a classical/orchestral setting, because in a modern setting, the idea of recording solo is furthered in practicality by the market for studio musicians. I play guitar, bass, acoustic, piano, trombone, and violin, so I know how to compose for all those instruments and their respective families because I've analyzed their functional roles throughout music and am extremely aware of their limits of technicality. I can compose all those parts, and just have studio musicians come and play them. I can also control the interpretation by telling them exactly how specific parts should be played, and this will always work out since studio musicians are seasoned to do so.

In again depreciating the overall role of performers (this time, in the vein of studio musicians):

The most pronounced testament to an performer's unimportance is the relative ease of their replacement.

[D-Lux]

What are you talking about man, the majority of this thread is arguments between me and others.

And I don't care if someone agrees with me on a small level, it's through fundamental congruence that connection can come about. Aside from the first poster, nobody's agreed with any of my fundamental points.

The majority? Yes. Every single post? No.

Again, this isn't your email inbox. Side discussions enhance threads and fuel extra discussion. I'd lean towards not making this thread your personal warzone. It might sour the attitudes and minds of the people who wish to debate with you.

[xRisingForce]

The majority? Yes. Every single post? No.

Again, this isn't your email inbox. Side discussions enhance threads and fuel extra discussion. I'd lean towards not making this thread your personal warzone. It might sour the attitudes and minds of the people who wish to debate with you.

I'm I that wrong in saying every single post? Other than phijayy, how many posts haven't been addressed to me?

You might be able to better understand my point of view if you were completely foreign to OCRemix and started a debate as an utter stranger. The debate is popular, my stance on the subject matter is not. For every post that I try my best to respond to eight others take its place.

It's hard to see the worth of the comment from the people constantly writing intellectually flaccid and sardonic one liners.

Anyway, I'll take that into account. Thanks.