Klarinet Archive - Posting 000395.txt from 2001/01

From: Bilwright@-----.net (William Wright)
Subj: [kl] Composer vs. performer
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:18:49 -0500

We've discussed a performer's obligation to the music's composer
several times. Exactly what do "Make the music your own" and
"creativity" mean if you are a 'proper' performer?

An 'arts' insert in my local newspaper gave several pages to the
(alleged) fact that, a few centuries ago, "performer" was not a separate
category of musician from "composer". Writing your own music
(allegedly) was part and parcel of being a performer, and hence the
issue of responsibility to the composer did not exist. The performer
(allegedly) _was_ the composer unless he was a hack and therefore not
worthy of discussion in the first place.
Lizst and Rachmaninoff performed their own music, etc.

QUESTION: how well does this assertion hold up in the light of
history? Is it completely true, or just an indication of a tendency?
Did the answer depend on the level of affluence? How often did (say) a
wandering minstrel play someone else's music --- not his or her own ---
when performing at an inn or bazaar --- compared to more affluent levels
of performance where a virtuoso performed at court, wealthy banquet, for
a patron, etc?
Has a distinction between composer and performer truly crept into
music during the last century or two where it did not exist before? Or
is my newspaper's insert full of hogwash?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org