3 ms·
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 oth
by thirteenfingers 9y 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 9y agoWeren'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.