Damian Oxborough wrote:

>In studies of music criticism I was always taught to think of the
>performer as the composer's partner, their contributions to the final
>product being close to equal.

I don't think they're close to equal at all.  The composition is the
foundation for all that follows.  The performer needs to try to get into
the head and soul of the composer; it is not reciprocal as it would be in
a true partnership.  The performer serves the composer.

I think of my favorite composers and performers.  Tureck a partner with
Bach? Brendel with Haydn? King with Handel? As much admiration as I have
for those artists, I don't see a partnership.

My friend Wes Crone has taken a position toward the other end in
stating that the performance means very little compared to the composition,
because we can read the score and interpret/perform it in our heads.  Well,
that's not going to work for people who can't read music (and that's most
everyone).  And, I think that most who can read music would prefer to hear
it from performers.  So, I end up in a position somewhere between Wes and
Damian.  The composer is more significant than the performer, but I feel
a strong need for the performer.

Probably the best way to look at this is that there are many stages from
composing to putting out a finished product.  Each one is essential, and
music lovers don't take kindly to any screwing up from those involved in
the stages.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]