twilexia Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 I'd like to ask that question to all of you. How important is the performer? Here's what I thought about it. You can take an amazing piece like Chopin's Revolutionary Etude and completely destroy it with a bad performance, and at the same time, you can take the most horrible sounding piece (of course this is subjective), and make it listenable with a good performer (like Yo-Yo-Ma). Of course, in the end, I'd say, the best combination is an amazing piece played by an amazing performer. Yo Yo Ma's rendition of Elgar's Cello Concerto is the first thing that comes to mind. ( ). But listening to him play, I feel like the performer is just so incredibly important, and can transform a piece, no matter how good, into something that is simply... priceless. Performers are the composer's ways of communicating with the world. It's as if us composers are the brains, and the performers are the mouths (horrible metaphor, I know, but I dare you to think of a better one). Without a mouth, the brain can never communicate its beautiful message. Quote
SergeOfArniVillage Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 I think the performer is extremely important! Have you ever watched Cyndi Lauper, for example, play live? (If not, look up Cyndi Lauper Boy Blue on YouTube. WOW.) The charisma and emotion put forth by a performer is very important in how it affects the quality of a piece. It's not a necessary thing to have a human play, true, because we have decent electronic midi (and some midi is almost indistinguishable from the real instrument), but it can add a whole new dimension to a piece. Quote
hopper Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 I'd say music is only as good as its weakest component: a good piece played poorly will end up sounding bad, and a bad piece played well will still sound just as bad. And in ensembles too, one bad member can destroy the performance, even if the composition and all the other performers are amazing. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. 1 Quote
HeckelphoneNYC Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 The performer is everything but the piece itself. If a bad orchestra plays an amazing piece, it will be ruined. The performer puts the real music into it. They put in the emotion and musicality that doesn't come from any old joe off the street. Quote
Gamma Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 Does music even exist without the performer? 1 Quote
robinjessome Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 The performer is everything. A performer can ruin a great piece, and save a terrible one. A performer brings the music to life - injecting a spirit and energy while conveying emotion in ways that no piece of paper ever could. Even in electronic formats, somebody had to program/sequence the music - effectively accomplishing the same thing. Without a performance, a piece of music remains nothing more than dots on a page. Quote
DJ Fatuus Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 and save a terrible one. I can't think of an example of this... Quote
robinjessome Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 I can't think of an example of this... You don't think an amazing performance could make anything sound good? Imagine this concert: Yo Yo Ma plays the music of O-Town. Or, Keith Jarrett playing this tune I just wrote: "Turd in a bucket Blues" (It's a blues in F, where the melody consists solely of E-naturals ). :shifty: Quote
Mirchada Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 they say a bad bass player can sink a good band and a good one may save a crappy one ! I believe that it's the same with performers... I mean you can write the greatest piece in the world and have a crappy player and it's ruined... and a good musician can see that a piece isn't good enough and improvise and "decorate" it so that it looks better !! Quote
DJ Fatuus Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 You don't think an amazing performance could make anything sound good? Imagine this concert: Yo Yo Ma plays the music of O-Town. Or, Keith Jarrett playing this tune I just wrote: "Turd in a bucket Blues" (It's a blues in F, where the melody consists solely of E-naturals ). :shifty: I guess so, but for me such performances would involve further improv, composition or at least arrangement. Taking that case to the extreme you get something like the Diabelli Variations. But I suppose it comes down to where you draw the line between composition and performance. you can write the greatest peace in the world Sorry to draw attention, but that's the most beautiful typo I've ever seen. Quote
Mirchada Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 you can write the greatest peace in the world Sorry to draw attention, but that's the most beautiful typo I've ever seen. sorry for the Off topic but just wanted to say , I'm using an automatic writing software and I think it was corrected by this soft (ieSpell) without paying attention to it .. Quote
composerorganist Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 Well wouldn't be THAT confident about the importance of the performer. For a good deal of the foreseeable future the performer will play an important role. Yet what we hear - especially from mp3 recordings has been edited by the studio. Even a concert today that is miked the sound is altered --- I recall how MUCH altered it can be when I heard a string quartet playing in the MOMA garden. I stood near the speakers and then near the live players - very significant difference. It leads one to ask who is the performer? And what is performance? Even unmiked, the acoustic of a performance space plays a central role (certain instruments such as the organ are at the mercy of the building's acoustic) Finally here is a video on audio technology and a new fangled thing called MIDI! (gotta love the tie!) And one asks with the invention of MIDI and advances in audio technology starting in the early 80's, you need to ask who is the performer? Hint, a good deal of traveling Broadway shows use a computer simulated orchestra for the orchestral music to save money - due to the advances in audio reproduction and guess what the invention of midi. And the audience does not know any better. Quote
HeckelphoneNYC Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 sorry for the Off topic but just wanted to say , I'm using an automatic writing software and I think it was corrected by this soft (ieSpell) without paying attention to it .. Weird... but that is a funny typo! Quote
torquil Posted March 11, 2010 Posted March 11, 2010 This is very subjective. For me, some music suffers more from a bad performance than other music does. I find that I enjoy Bach a lot even when the performance is quite poor. Paganini on the other hand, needs to have a higher standard for me to enjoy it as much. The same goes for instrument tone. Some music will suffer more from a bad tone. Torquil Quote
Mirchada Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 ... And the audience does not know any better. Well you and I and at least 7000 members in YC will know !!! :phones: :P Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.