4 ms·

As an improvising musician, I think "composition" is viewed very narrowly, through a classical lens. In classical music, the performer's duty is merely to inter

• thirteenfingers 10y ago
  Classical composer and performer here. You just hit upon the one aspect of my chosen genre that drives me batshit insane. I've had countless arguments with other performers about how rigid one has to be when performing any given classical composition. I'm told over and over again that, for example, Glenn Gould's unorthodox interpretations "aren't musical", but when I press my interlocutors for a justification of that statement, all they can offer is "it's not what the composer intended", which only begs the question. Composers aren't infallible, and they definitely don't always see or hear all the possibilities inherent in their own music. The whole division-of-labor between composer and performer is, I think, both a strength and a weakness in classical music. It's a strength because it's allowed composers to concentrate on exploring the possibilities of musical ideas and working out something marvelously and intricately crafted in advance. It's a weakness because it encourages this hard-set absolute-textual-fidelity mentality among performers, and discourages them from really leaving their individual mark on a performance (unlike in jazz). The great classical composers are among my heroes, but they weren't gods, and performers shouldn't treat them as such.
  • Neeek 10y ago
    Weren't most big name composers from all "classical" periods prolific improvisers also? Stories of Bach's fugue battles come to mind so I don't think the two have to be mutually exclusive. I think it's more that transcribed music is as close as we have to recorded music from periods before vinyl which inevitably draws a certain crowd of purist. To me it feels like a subculture within the classical space.
• hellofunk 10y ago
  You grossly misunderstand and under-appreciate the role of a classical performer. It is true that they strive to honor the wishes of the composer. But if they all did this the same way, there would be no need for musicians. Instead, each interprets the world of the composer through the lens of their own individual creativity. Performing music is as much of a creative art as composing music. There is nothing narrow, closed, or "merely" about it.
  • beat 10y ago
    The need for musicians in classical music was because they didn't have any other way to play it. I imagine most of the classical composers would have loved modern recording, and not bothered with composing for other musicians, if they could have avoided it. I think of Conlon Noncarrow, who composed mostly for player pianos. Human beings couldn't play his compositions. He was driven to the player piano by the limitations of human performers.
• hammock 10y ago
  I see what you are saying, however the best classical performers are well-known for their own personal characteristics they impart to the music they perform. Perhaps a violin in an orchestra is supposed to do what they're told, but they are told what to do by the conductor, who himself interprets a composition in the way he wants. And the best conductors are known for their brilliant interpretations, not their fidelity to the composer's intent. Perhaps classical music has this reputation because there are a lot of really terribly uncreative musicians who would sound awful if given rein to improvise within looser constraints. I have met many musicians who are excellent ordertakers but not what I would call "musical" outside of that.
• stevehiehn 10y ago
  That makes sense. I think 'gardening' is a metaphor for composition at an abstraction level where and artist's paint is semi/non deterministic algorithms