Steven Schwartz writes:

>Small point on Bob Draper's intriguing reply to the brave Charles
>Dalmas:
>
>>Doesn't rhythm imply repetition and isn't such a thing absent from much 20c
>>music?
>
>Not at all.  This confuses rhythm with metre.

Let's get this straight.

Rhythm - the basic pattern of movement of the notes.  Normally repetitive,
but it can be random.

Meter - using an example, 3/4 means there are 3 quarter notes or their
equivalent in a measure.  4/8 means there are 4 eight notes or their
equivalent in a a measure.  Beat - The main emphasis in a measure.  In
3/4 time, there is usually 1 beat in a measure (good example:  Strauss
waltzes), in 6/8 time usually 2 beats (example:  Beethoven scherzos), in
4/4 time there are typically 4 beats (example:  Mozart 1st movement
symphony 41).

>>Sorry to be pedantic again, but according to this a composer does not
>>write music. It only becomes music when it is performed. Can this be
>>right?
>
>I have a question: Are architectural plans a house?

Moving right along...  The composer hears sounds in his head.  He gives
his best shot at writing them down on paper.  He then polishes them.  It
is the performer's job to make sense of what's on the paper.  Really the
partnership is about 60/40.  The composer getting more emphasis because it
was his musical idea.  The performer less because all he has to do is play
it back.  Granted there is the problem of interpretation.  Composition is
subjective hence more difficult.  Performance is objective.  Any real
musician should be able to figure out what the composer is trying to say by
knowing who the composer is, the style and era of the piece, etc.  If I'm
wrong then no wonder no one likes classical music anymore.

Saying it another way, the whole idea of performing is so that music can
reach a wider audience.  One man can't play his songs forever.  It is in
this way that music composition differs from architectural design:  The
house is straightforward, and music isn't.  It's even less straight forward
for the composer of the piece (taking it for granted that I'm an average
composer).  Music's unstraightforwardness seems to suggest that the
performer is the real hero.  He's not.  (Side comment:  In classical music
we have that established.  We buy CDs by who wrote it and what the piece
is; not by who performed it, as it is with much of the pop business.  I'm
convinced that most of the pop artists are only there to show off their
bodies (ie.  Brittney Spears, Backstreet Boys, etc.) If you had an
orchestra without music and the conductor said "Go" you'd have nothing.
The eternal question:  Which came first the chicken or the egg? In music,
first the composer writes the piece, then the performer plays it.  Not the
other way around (Unless you're transcribing cadenza's).  However, without
the composer, the performed is limited only to improvisation.  The only
style of music can't be free form.

One last time, trying to be more clear.  The most simple of music is made
of rhythm.  Melody and harmony are extras that add depth and make it more
digestable and enjoyable.  If you're waiting for a train, you can whistle
an invented tune.  This is improvisation.  If you have time to kill (or
money to earn).  You take the improvisation, clarify and deepen it, and
write it down.  This is composition.  The performer takes the piece, tries
to figure out what the composer was saying, and once he's sure of himself,
plays it back.  A composer can be a performer can be an improviser.
However, the role of composer is most important of all three because he
takes the music and writes it down for future preformers to play.
Performers die, manuscripts don't (unless they get lost, but most composers
have written enough so that their music lives on).  Sure performers might
be really good at what they do, but in the end they only interpret, they
don't create.  And you would hope they don't create (unless they're suppost
to as directed).  Can you imagine what would happen if a translator for one
country to another added in some extra irritating words to what a foreign
diginitary said? It could be war!

One more time again, this time probably clearest.  Music is a language
just like English, German, Italian, etc., but only more nebulous.  I doubt
anyone on this list would say they're of greater importance than Charles
Dickens because they read _Great Expectations_ and he "only wrote the
book." In music, the performers read and play the music; the music the
composer wrote.  Hence putting the composer at a higher level than the
performer.

By now you list members are probably confused or angry or both.  Hopefully
you understand what I'm trying to say.  The last was the closest to what I
was trying to say.  For this reason I was thinking of getting rid of the
other three, but they had some good parts, so I figured who cares?

Joseph Sowa
[log in to unmask]