The Intrinsic Worth of Classical Musicians

[DrumUltimA]

When John Cage was studying with Arnold Shoenberg, he was informed that he was basically tone-deaf and that he was going to run into trouble with this. He was also having composition lessons for free, given that he would devote his life to music. So, he found ways to write music that did not involve much tonality, if any at all. If you listen to third construction, it is a percussion quartet made up of chinese toms, congas, tin cans, shakers, etc. He builds sort of "faux" melody out of recognizable rhythmic motifs, and introduces consonance and dissonance by superimposing polyrhythmic figures and permutations (aka, 5:4, 7:4, even (7:5):4!) over them.

Steve Reich and Phillip Glass: minimalists. Steve Reich uses melody and harmony to a limited extent... but he takes one rhythmic figure or melody and repeats it over and over again--in a manner that exposes every detail about that rhythm or melody. Phillip glass has a slightly different approach, he works with cells, adding and subtracting notes after a certain amount of repetitions.

Iannis Xenakis is also an architect. His music is very mathematical. Look for "rebon B" on youtube.

Other good composers to check out are george crumb, aspheregis, franco donatoni, to name a few. All of these people are writing pieces of music that push the definition of music to many.

[DrumUltimA]

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

so are we commenting on the importance of the performer as an individual?

edit:oops sorry bout the double post

[xRisingForce]

When John Cage was studying with Arnold Shoenberg, he was informed that he was basically tone-deaf and that he was going to run into trouble with this. He was also having composition lessons for free, given that he would devote his life to music. So, he found ways to write music that did not involve much tonality, if any at all. If you listen to third construction, it is a percussion quartet made up of chinese toms, congas, tin cans, shakers, etc. He builds sort of "faux" melody out of recognizable rhythmic motifs, and introduces consonance and dissonance by superimposing polyrhythmic figures and permutations (aka, 5:4, 7:4, even (7:5):4!) over them.

Steve Reich and Phillip Glass: minimalists. Steve Reich uses melody and harmony to a limited extent... but he takes one rhythmic figure or melody and repeats it over and over again--in a manner that exposes every detail about that rhythm or melody. Phillip glass has a slightly different approach, he works with cells, adding and subtracting notes after a certain amount of repetitions.

Iannis Xenakis is also an architect. His music is very mathematical. Look for "rebon B" on youtube.

Other good composers to check out are george crumb, aspheregis, franco donatoni, to name a few. All of these people are writing pieces of music that push the definition of music to many.

It seems that such a systematic approach is more for the sake of itself than quality contribution to the music. It's clear that they approach music very.. uniquely, but what would approaching music in this manner add to the expressiveness of the song? Rather, how does it add expressiveness to the song?

Basically dude, my view on the role of a drummer is this: to set the cadence while setting groove. The drummer's there for groove, but primarily, to keep time. You'll find that the simpler songs are usually those with an absence of drums because they can do so given the simpler context, and having drums wouldn't add any relevant dimension.

A song is never completely about rhythm man, pitch is what makes music, music! There has to be a rhythmic balance towards the pitch, but songs can function with a drastic lack in rhythmic variation (Well-Tempered Clavier, Moonlight Sonata Movement 3, Fantasie Impromptu), while the opposite doesn't seem true. Making a song about a cadence is retarded because there's no instantiation of melody nor harmony to supplement. Just think of the limited array of things you could express with rhythm alone. It's hardly enough to constitute an art. I concede that although there are definitely expressions and emotions more about rhythmic than melodic strength (i.e. flamenco), there is still pitch because it wouldn't take long for the song would sound very repetitious without it. As far as I'm aware, pure rhythmic strength drives groove, dance, and other similar animalistic traits in that vein, but that's where it ends.

Sucks for John Cage. Although the story is really motivational.

[xRisingForce]

so are we commenting on the importance of the performer as an individual?

edit:oops sorry bout the double post

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.

That's what the current topic is.

[DarkeSword]

Stop double-posting, please.

[Dhsu]

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.

But you are comparing them to composers aren't you? What I'm saying is that composers are NOT intrinsically better than performers...simply writing notes on a page does not automatically make you more valuable than someone who knows how to play an instrument.

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

Why is it hard for you to accept that there might be great performers as well as great actors?

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.

Oh so now you're the final authority on what is and isn't music, eh?

The measure of how good a song is is the quality of the instrumentation after all unmusical impedance has been removed.

Where are you getting these arbitrary definitions??

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.

Try replacing a Horowitz or Van Cliburn recording with a less famous performer and see if anyone agrees with you.

[xRisingForce]

But you are comparing them to composers aren't you? What I'm saying that composers are NOT intrinsically better than performers...simply writing notes on a page does not automatically make you more valuable than someone who knows how to play an instrument.

Like I saiddddd this only carries weight in a classical/orchestral setting because in a modern setting studio musicians are readily available.

And in this context, studio musicians are expendable. Why is your definition of a composer so narrowly defined? You know like, 99% of most rock artists don't make use of sheets, tabs, or any form of visually transcribing their music, right? The crazy thing about so many modern composers is that they're synonymous with their instruments. Yngwie Malmsteen's music wouldn't interpretable by anyone else simple because of every subtlety and every nuance that's ingrained into his music. Because his music, at the same time, is so characteristic of him. That sort of subtlety is nonexistent classically, maybe because of the primitive designs of the instruments. At any rate, you can't capture that kind of stuff on sheets. The point to be taken from this is that most people who make a living by performing (more often than not, classical musicians) don't do any composing and are expendable, therefore worthless.

Why is it hard for you to accept that there might be great performers as well as great actors?

I trust you've been reading what I've been writing? Kempff, Perlman, Horowitz, Yundi Li, Wynton Marsalis, etc. There's no correlation between them and Hollywood actors though, which is what I'm arguing.

Oh so now you're the final authority on what is and isn't music, eh?

Where are you getting these arbitrary definitions??

Dude, it's freakin' logical. The need for self-expression gave birth to art, pitch and rhythm gave birth to music, and composition, as well as listening, is how we utilize music. Music is, on the most basic level, pitch-driven. What value does a piece carry if the foundation of it is lyrical? Literature has absolutely no similar qualities with pitch! In lyrics' construction (making literature vocal and assigning respective notes) you can see that the purpose of lyrics is to augment music. Music however, does not exist to augment pitch.

Dude, the reason why pop punk is so simplistic is because they need an easy medium to color their poetry with, so they resorted to using four chords (D, A, B, G) because their "music" didn't really call for any musically inherent expressiveness. Their selling points are their lyriccccccs.

Try replacing Horowitz or Van Cliburn with a less famous performer and see if anyone agrees with you.

Did you somehow miss this???

(this time, in the vein of studio musicians)

Do you know what a studio musician is?

I digress since this topic, after all, is about the worth of "classical" musicians.

I doubt many would disagree if i replaced Horowitz with Gould.

The only thing differing in Horowitz's and Kempff's versions of the 3rd Movement of the Moonlight Sontata is "interpretation." All Kempff does is play it at a brisk pace, mp, while Horowitz actually subtlety changes the rhythm of the introductory chords. That's does absolutely no justice to the recordings at all, but it's still notable that this is the only thing differing in the recordings. And I'm sure the differences of all instantiations of specific pieces are too, subtle in their differences.

With such a slight deviation from the way Beethoven probably played it himself (which, if people stuck to his rightful interpretation, would eradicate any lucrative potential of becoming a classical pianist) how does a difference in interpretation account for 230498 recordings of the same piece, and how in the world is that justifiable.

[Fenrir]

Hey risingforce. I may be a musically daft asshat, but I can tell that the way you try to argue is really, really irritating.

I don't claim to know anything about the subject of the fits you seem to be throwing here, but the way you argue your points is really snide, arrogant, and generally befitting of an elementary school playground. You're not going to win any friends with this approach, but I half expect that was never your intention. Pull the throttle back to "reasonable and rational" if you want civilized debate.

And don't play the "everyone's against me" card when you pretty much asked for it.

[Dhsu]

I trust you've been reading what I've been writing? Kempff, Perlman, Horowitz, Yundi Li, Wynton Marsalis, etc.

Yet in literally the previous sentence you say this:

The point to be taken from this is that most people who make a living by performing (more often than not, classical musicians) don't do any composing and are expendable, therefore worthless.

So are they great performers or worthless?

There's no correlation between them and Hollywood actors though, which is what I'm arguing.

Yes, under a very weak premise involving "sheeple." But just to humor you, I'll say that popular classical performers have their own share of mindless fans as well.

Dude, it's freakin' logical. The need for self-expression gave birth to art, pitch and rhythm gave birth to music, and composition, as well as listening, is how we utilize music. Music is, on the most basic level, pitch-driven. What value is there does a piece carry if the foundation of it is lyrical? Literature has absolutely no similarity to pitch! In lyrics' construction (making literature vocal and assigning respective notes) you can see that the purpose of lyrics is to augment music. Music however, does not exist to augment pitch.

You're free to think this, but realize that this is a very, *very* narrow-minded concept of music. I'm going to quote something you yourself said in the very first post:

- 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.

Quite frankly, that hits the nail on the head: music is just expression through sound. While you might not believe me right now, trust me when I say there are ways to do this without any sort of pitch.

Dude, the reason why pop punk is so simplistic is because they need an easy to color their poetry with, so they resorted to using four chords (D, A, B, G) because their "music" didn't really call for any musically inherent expressiveness. Their selling points are their lyriccccccs.

I honestly don't listen to music lyrics...the music itself is catchy enough to warrant my attention. And are you seriously using the number of chords as the qualification for music? Do you know how many famous classical pieces contain 4 chords or less? The whole GENRE of blues is based on three chords, and there are plenty blues pieces without lyrics.

Did you somehow miss this???

(this time, in the vein of studio musicians)

Do you know what a studio musician is?

I know very well what they are, but again you also said this:

The point to be taken from this is that most people who make a living by performing (more often than not, classical musicians) don't do any composing and are expendable, therefore worthless.

So my response remains the same.

And here's the thing...the only thing that separates studio musicians from concert performers is the venue and level of skill. Neither of those is INTRINSIC to the performer himself at all!

[cobaltstarfire]

Different musicians playing classical music are not expendable. Every musician has a different sound, and temperament to how they play. It's not like every trumpet player plays/sounds exactly the same, or every cello, or flute player.

When someone plays music, sure they're doing what the sheet music is telling them, and what the conductor is telling them (one reason some conductors are considered so great, is in how they interpret the music further).

Every musician is going to bring something different to the table, one guy playing a solo in a piece might bring something completely different from the next guy playing the exact same solo. Even in a non solo situation, there's going to be differences in articulation and sound from one muscician to the next.

[xRisingForce]

Different musicians playing classical music are not expendable. Every musician has a different sound, and temperament to how they play. It's not like every trumpet player plays/sounds exactly the same, or every cello, or flute player.

When someone plays music, sure they're doing what the sheet music is telling them, and what the conductor is telling them (one reason some conductors are considered so great, is in how they interpret the music further).

Every musician is going to bring something different to the table, one guy playing a solo in a piece might bring something completely different from the next guy playing the exact same solo. Even in a non solo situation, there's going to be differences in articulation and sound from one muscician to the next.

I completely agree.

The difference between our ideology is you think of the difference that's such a primary consequence interpretation as divine right- i think of it as cardinal sin.

.

I've already responded to this today, visit my forum post if you want to see it.

[Dhsu]

I doubt many would disagree if i replaced Horowitz with Gould.

And you would be wrong. DEAD wrong.

The only thing differing in Horowitz's and Kempff's versions of the 3rd Movement of the Moonlight Sontata is "interpretation." All Kempff does is play it at a brisk pace, mp, while Horowitz actually subtlety changes the rhythm of the introductory chords. That's does absolutely no justice to the recordings at all, but it's still notable that this is the only thing differing in the recordings. And I'm sure the differences of all instantiations of specific pieces are too, subtle in their differences.

With such a slight deviation from the way Beethoven probably played it himself (which, if people stuck to his rightful interpretation, would eradicate any lucrative potential of becoming a classical pianist) how does a difference in interpretation account for 230498 recordings of the same piece, and how in the world is that justifiable.

I'm going to go back to my "music is expression" statement. Performers express themselves through their interpretation. Thus, there could potentially be as many interpretations of a piece as there are people in the world, if not more. Even if Beethoven had a certain phrasing and timing for every single note in mind (which like Sil said is unlikely), he is dead and gone now, and other people are free to arrange and interpret his music as they like.

The difference between our ideology is you think of the difference that's such a primary consequence interpretation as divine right- i think of it as cardinal sin.

Again, you're free to think what you want, but you're only hurting yourself by limiting yourself to such a narrow mindset.

[xRisingForce]

I'm going to go back to my "music is expression" statement. Performers express themselves through their interpretation. Thus, there could potentially be as many interpretations of a piece as there are people in the world, if not more. Even if Beethoven had a certain phrasing and timing for every single note in mind (which like Sil said is unlikely), he is dead and gone now, and other people are free to arrange and interpret his music as they like.

I mean yeah, but that's like saying go ahead and sell mom's most precious belongings so you can buy expensive clothes because she's dead. You think the living state of a person dictates what's right or wrong? The music is still and will always be intellectually Beethoven's.

Again, you're free to think what you want, but you're only hurting yourself by limiting yourself to such a narrow mindset.

You know what you're saying right here? You're saying that because I don't take it up the butt, the spectrum of my sexual arousal is limited.

Just so you know.

[Sil]

The crazy thing about so many modern composers is that they're synonymous with their instruments. Yngwie Malmsteen's music wouldn't interpretable by anyone else simple because of every subtlety and every nuance that's ingrained into his music. Because his music, at the same time, is so characteristic of him.

I think this is a good argument for why performers are so invaluable. Without them you wouldn't have a decent interpretation of music you would otherwise never have heard at all.

You might think performers are a dime a dozen, but let me tell you this: so are composers. For every Mozart or Beethoven there were hundreds if not thousands of others, many of them more skilled than those guys, but they just never made it out of their generation. And in all likelihood it was because their music was interpreted poorly, or maybe not performed at all.

[Dhsu]

I mean yeah, but that's like saying go ahead and sell mom's most precious belongings so you can buy expensive clothes because she's dead.

She'd probably prefer if I sold them actually, although perhaps not necessarily to buy unneeded fancy clothes. But that's analogous to someone having a poor interpretation of Beethoven's music, which I guess opens up an entirely different debate...

You know what you're saying right here? You're saying that because I don't take it up the butt, the spectrum of my sexual arousal is limited.

Just so you know.

Technically that's true. But now we're talking about a very different form of expression...

[xRisingForce]

I think this is a good argument for why performers are so invaluable. Without them you wouldn't have a decent interpretation of music you would otherwise never have heard at all.

That's actually the opposite aim of my paragraph. The BEST interpretation is that of the composer's, because how could anyone know what he wanted to express more than himself?

You might think performers are a dime a dozen, but let me tell you this: so are composers. For every Mozart or Beethoven there were hundreds if not thousands, many of them more skilled than those guys, but they just never made it out of their generation. And in all likelihood it was because their music was interpreted poorly, or maybe not performed at all.

There were hundreds of people more skilled than Beethoven and Mozart during the classical and romantic periods? I REALLY want to hear that music.

[cobaltstarfire]

The difference between our ideology is you think of the difference that's such a primary consequence interpretation as divine right- i think of it as cardinal sin.

Well gee I guess everyone should stop playing music, because they're doing some sort of "cardinal sin" by having different tones and articulations, might as well get robots to play the music, only to realize how dead music sounds when it's played exactly perfectly.

Why are you even bothering with this argument, you're not going to change how anyone feels about music and how it is done any more than someone is going to change your opinion.

[xRisingForce]

Well gee I guess everyone should stop playing music, because they're doing some sort of "cardinal sin" by having different tones and articulations, might as well get robots to play the music, only to realize how dead music sounds when it's played exactly perfectly.

Why are you even bothering with this argument, you're not going to change how anyone feels about music and how it is done any more than someone is going to change your opinion.

.

Click that.

And welcome to the debate.

[xRisingForce]

Yet in literally the previous sentence you say this:

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.

Yes, under a very weak premise involving "sheeple." But just to humor you, I'll say that popular classical performers have their own share of mindless fans as well.

The premise is anything but weak. It was well supported.

You're free to think this, but realize that this is a very, *very* narrow-minded concept of music. I'm going to quote something you yourself said in the very first post:

Quite frankly, that hits the nail on the head: music is just expression through sound. While you might not believe me right now, trust me when I say there are ways to do this without any sort of pitch.

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 honestly don't listen to music lyrics...the music itself is catchy enough to warrant my attention.

Awesome!

And are you seriously using the number of chords as the qualification for music? Do you know how many famous classical pieces contain 4 chords or less? The whole GENRE of blues is based on three chords, and there are plenty blues pieces without lyrics.

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 using the number of chords to base shit.

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

And here's the thing...the only thing that separates studio musicians from concert performers is the venue and level of skill. Neither of those is INTRINSIC to the performer himself at all!

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.

[Dhsu]

That's actually the opposite aim of my paragraph. The BEST interpretation is that of the composer's, because how could anyone know what he wanted to express more than himself?

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?

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, 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. Then again, you may very well be of the school of thought that playing Bach on piano is blasphemous, in which case I'll just let you think that and move on.

There were hundreds of people more skilled than Beethoven and Mozart during the classical and romantic periods? I REALLY want to hear that music.

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

[cobaltstarfire]

I'm not clicking on anything nor joining a "debate" because this is an exersize in futility, and you making a bunch of annoying double posts with a rude flair to your typing style.

[Shadow Wolf]

You know what you're saying right here? You're saying that because I don't take it up the butt, the spectrum of my sexual arousal is limited.

Just so you know.

It's almost locktime, children! Gather round, and we'll count the minutes together!

[Sil]

There were hundreds of people more skilled than Beethoven and Mozart during the classical and romantic periods? I REALLY want to hear that music.

This is ultimately where your argument loses credibility. You are putting classical music on the pedestal and saying the original composers' intent is ultimately the best. I'm a composer and I don't think my own interpretation of my own music is necessarily best. Why would anyone else think any differently? Beethoven's and Mozart's music survived because of their interpretations by performers. Heck, Mozart and Beethoven didn't even get a chance to interpret their final, and arguably "best" works (they were too dead.)

[xRisingForce]

I'm a composer and I don't think my own interpretation of my own music is necessarily best. Why would anyone else think any differently?

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.

Just click that link. Every question you've fired off me has already been answered in there and I don't want to waste energy.

[Sil]

There were hundreds of people more skilled than Beethoven and Mozart during the classical and romantic periods? I REALLY want to hear that music.

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.