Why is more prestige associated with being able to play ?

[Mayla]

vs, being able to truly appreciate music in another way ?  Why would being a concert pianist have any more prestige than a theory expert who sits alone inside an office all day would have ?  I mean, does one truly demonstrate more musicianship ?

Why do pianists who can play but not understand what they are playing still get more recognition as being a musician, than somebody who can understand music but not play ?

[thalbergmad]

What is more enjoyable? Watching Man Utd V Arsenal or listening to 2 ex footballers talk about it for 30 minutes after the match.

Theory experts are not very stimulating or at least not to music enjoying concert goers.

If a group of theorists hired out Carnegie Hall, how many would turn up?

It is people who display the end product that are recognised, wrongly or rightly.

Thal

[zheer]

  Why do spice girls sell millions of CD yearly,why does posh spice appear on every magazine?.The answer to that is coz they are entertaining, people rather be entertained than educated.

[michael_langlois]

I believe that the pianist and the theorist understand the music in different ways.  One looks from a compositional standpoint, that is, how the piece is constructed and why a particular effect may be achieved, while the other approaches from a communicative standpoint, that is, from the perspective of what must be transmitted, what stirs the soul of the audience, and what is really being said.  In my humble opinion, the performer often comes to know more than the theorist, as both grasp the technique (one of composition, the other of performance), while the performer, having worked with the piece hours upon hours, and lived with it year after year, develops a sort of spiritual insight which the theorist does not - there is a mystical element to music which goes beyond tonal harmony, melody, form.

In short, the theorist and the performer both study the means to the end (whether it be compositional or pianistic technique), but the performer alone is able to study the end.

Best,
Michael

[Bob]

It depends what they're giving the audience.  I can't see a theorist passing on the intent of the composer.  "Look it's a major triad!  But we didn't expect that, did we?"

They could do the same with a book I would think.

The performer is imparting the thrill of the music.  The listener gets to experience living music.

And then there are some theory people that are extremely dull and boring, working in minutiae.  

Even if it were a bad performance, you still get the live music element.  If it's a bad presentation by a theory person, ouch.

[dmc]

Musical theorists are nuts-and-bolts types who are into much more musical minutiae than the average lay (i.e. non-musical) person cares about.  They can tell you WHY the music sounds the way it does vs the pianist who uses the those nuts and bolts to generate the sound.  Which of the two do you think most folks relate more to ?   Also, remember that to non-musical people, what we do is both baffling & magical.  I had a co-worker once marvel at how pianists are able to keep track of "so many notes".  My first instinct was to ask "Whats the big deal ?".  But he's right - There are a lot of notes.  He just doesn't understand the methods/theory we use to organize & remember them.  Nor would he care.  He just loves how it sounds.

[Mayla]

Well, I appreciate the responses.  The thing is, it seems that the respondants to this thread are talking about people/audience members/"non-musicians" who do not know that much about music.  And, while this is part of what I am talking about, I am also very much talking about people whom also consider themselves as musicians.  I often see people on the forum remarking about "so and so can teach, but can s/he play ?"  -- this type of thing.  Today it just struck me as quite curious that people would think this way.  So, I repeat my question, why does playing have more "prestige" ?  It seems that you are saying that either people who think this way are mostly just laymen, which leads me to believe that if "musicians" think this way, they must not know much about music.

And, when I am talking about performers getting "prestige" I mean, specifically, that others seem to think that performers are the epitomy of musicianship (some kind of musical genius just because they can move their body a certain way), when in a lot of cases, they could actually be perfectly clueless in terms of actual musicianship.

Well, that's relatively close to what I want to say anyway.

[soliloquy]

 Why do spice girls sell millions of CD yearly,why does posh spice appear on every magazine?.The answer to that is coz they are entertaining, people rather be entertained than educated.

Do you live in the year 1998?

[thalberg]

I don't think performers are clueless at all.  Not in the least.  Take Murray Perahia, for example.  At the master class I attended, he demonstrated incredible theory knowledge and composition knowledge. 

Performers have fame, because they're always in the public eye.  And fame often translates into prestige.

Theory people might be brilliant and get a post at Juilliard or Yale--which is prestigious--but they will never have fame.  I mean, who here has heard of Carl Schachter?  (Awesome theorist.)  He has prestige IMO.

Think of fame and prestige like pounds and dollars.  They're both money, but one can buy you about double what the other can.

[Mayla]

I don't think performers are clueless at all.  Not in the least. 

Well, I certainly didn't give a blanket statement saying that if you are a performer you are clueless.  I said that *some* are MUSICALLY clueless, and that is actually true.

[thalberg]

Well, I certainly didn't give a blanket statement saying that if you are a performer you are clueless.  I said that *some* are MUSICALLY clueless, and that is actually true.

Yes, it is actually true.  Musically clueless performers who have prestige for no reason are annoying.

[thalberg]

Do you live in the year 1998?

I do.  That was the year "Oops, I did it again" came out.  Great song. 

[leonidas]

People who make music will always be more interesting to music fans than writers and critics on music.

Also consider the fact that much of what many people appreciate and admire about pianists isn't really at all musical, it's the brain and coordinational skills required to perform the feats that impress most.

[invictious]

Would it be more interesting to watch two guys fight with chickens, or would it be more interesting to watch this old guy talk about it.
I'd definitely say the former.

A theorist strives to analyse music, but a pianist strives to COMMUNICATE the music. Obviously the latter if much more accessible, rather than reading:

"In the recapitulation, the chromatic second theme of the first subject group starts in the relative major and modulates through G minor"

Try this, go to some random dude, say this to him, and see his response,
then play a piece for him, and see his response.

Something to watch and listen to is much more stimulating and accessible, rather than reading pages of text, to me anyway.

[counterpoint]

I like this thread!

Interesting question, interesting answers.

[teresa_b]

The obvious answer to the question is, the (effective) performer transmits the "Wow" factor. 

As an aside, many of you, in describing the "direct" experience of music (in performing it) are describing the Buddhist way of "knowing," while the analyst/theorist is "knowing" the music in an intellectual, but not direct way. 

It's akin to the chemist knowing the H2O molecular structure of water, contrasted with the knowing of water by taking a drink. 

Teresa

[rc]

Well, I appreciate the responses.  The thing is, it seems that the respondants to this thread are talking about people/audience members/"non-musicians" who do not know that much about music.  And, while this is part of what I am talking about, I am also very much talking about people whom also consider themselves as musicians.

I don't think you can really seperate music from the lay-audience.  The way I see it, music ought to be enjoyable for everyone.  I think there's a danger in getting too academic and theoretical with music, that you may lose sight of being able to communicate with people.

I think the average, casual music listener can tell the difference between decent/good/great performances based simply on how well it communicates to them.  But the casual listener doesn't have as much experience with the music as a musician, something may sound good to them because they haven't heard any better.

So, I think it's valid that a good performer should be more highly valued because they can make the music accessible to the most people.  It's all about people.

[bob3.1415926]

I think if you remove the lay-audience, then it does start to shift a little. For example, at a new work's premiere, if both the performer and composer were present, I imagine that more people (musicians/non-lay-folk-types) would be interested in talking to the composer than the performer (I certainly would be). This is only my guess though, I've never been at such an event. However the performer remains the face you remember, because (s)he is on stage for the entire recital, whereas the composer may only say a brief hello at the very start/end.

As for someone who is neither a performer nor composer, but instead vastly knowledgeable about music theory, it seems a little odd to me. Why learn all stuff that if you're not going to try and utilise it to create something? The phrase 'all the gear, no idea' springs into mind. If they are v knowledgeable but an awful composer, then unfortunately that's the way of the music-world. No prestige for them, it's a meritocracy.

On a side, music historians are a different matter, no disrespect intended towards them, I find music history fascinating, but I wouldn't expect a historian to have a fantastic knowledge of music theory.

But in the performer/composer 'battle' for prestige, the composer seems to win in the end. Not many performers from 150+years ago are still remembered if all they ever did was perform. Although this may change now we can record music.

[Mayla]

hmmmm... well, these are interesting responses.  Honestly, I am most interested in the fact that even musicians seem to revere "effective" performers most as though it is the very essence of music itself.  But then what is effective, really ?  For many people on this forum and in my everyday life it seems to be speed, repertoire size, and showmanship (which may not have anything at all to do with musicality).  How much is Liszt revered and why ?  Yes, there are other topics within this, apparently.

But, when one of us decides to be a good musician and a good pianist, I think most people aim to "play fast" -- "play loud" -- "be impressive" .... communication is reduced to this. And, for all this talk about communication in general, what is being communicated ?  A performer's life ? hmmmm.... that seems suspicious.

In any event, what I am saying is that it seems to me that on a fundamental level, piano students revere fast fingers over things like history and theory -- and treat these fast fingers as communicators of music.  And what I don't understand is why people don't have a higher standard ?  Why do so many people accept this as a sufficient musicality ?  

If you don't think you do accept this as a sufficient musicality, then why are we satisfied with a performer who cannot explain what is actually happening theoretically in the piece ?  Or, with a performer who cannot help another to truly learn ?  Why do we have a double standard and expect that a teacher should be a top level performer (and be on the concert circuit) but a performer should not have to be capable of teaching ?  

As a matter of fact, it seems that many people accept that a performer does not need to know a thing about anything, really, beyond his own hands and arms (and sometimes not even beyond his fingers).  They are not expected to know a thing about composition, theory, history ... just so long as they "touch our hearts" ... but, what in the world are they communicating and "touching our hearts" with if they don't know anything besides their hands and arms ?

At the time I just find it all a bit curious.

[leonidas]

Mayla, I think you are missing the point, I personally don't think any research into compositional theory and history about the composers life is necessary.

Sure, it can be fun, but everything is there in the score or recording.

Pianists learn it first completely literally, without applying any subtlety, like a basic MIDI would sound.

Then the process continues of it's own volition, incidentally, even accidentally.

Performers familiarise themselves with the MUSIC, and experiment with it *musically*.

All the theory in the world won't tell you as much about a piece as listening to an effective performance of it does.

[indutrial]

In any event, what I am saying is that it seems to me that on a fundamental level, piano students revere fast fingers over things like history and theory -- and treat these fast fingers as communicators of music.  And what I don't understand is why people don't have a higher standard ?  Why do so many people accept this as a sufficient musicality ? 

If you don't think you do accept this as a sufficient musicality, then why are we satisfied with a performer who cannot explain what is actually happening theoretically in the piece ?  Or, with a performer who cannot help another to truly learn ?  Why do we have a double standard and expect that a teacher should be a top level performer (and be on the concert circuit) but a performer should not have to be capable of teaching ? 

At the time I just find it all a bit curious.

In the right contexts these days, the over-technical bullshitters and crowd-pleasers do get brushed over. For instance, in NYC's underground jazz scene, virtuosity is old hat and most audience members don't really give a damn if the musicians can blaze through a handful of standard bebop tunes and would rather see the musician bring something unique to the table. Most of the players try to set up unique groups and compose their own tunes. Overall, everything becomes more original. Most over-technical jazz musicians end up just gigging the rest of their lives, playing 3rd or 4th chair in some cheesy TV-show band while they sit around talking about how much better their chops are than the first chair guy's.

Even in rock music, a lot of the technical wizards have (thankfully) been filtered into the tech-rock/prog/fusion scene, which is almost like a catch basin for tools and losers. A band like Dream Theater is only taken half-seriously these days, because their over-technical hangup has caused them to be perpetually out-of-touch and horribly unoriginal. They practice scales and 32nd notes all day, but when it's time to write it's like "oh sh*t, who's originals are popular now, let's try doing something like that."

The whole "touch our hearts" thing is one of the most tiresome critical malaises out there, bringing musical discourse as far down to a popularity contest as possible. Because of the way that's affected concert scheduling, at least in my area, there is pretty much never any performances of post-1900 classical music (unless some pianist decides to do Rhapsody in Blue or something) and the entire schedule is Beethoven, Mozart, Vivaldi's Four Seasons and Tchaikovsky around Christmas time. Plus, we get the occasional classical superstar who rolls in and gives us a bunch of classical/romantic virtuoso crap (YAWN!!!) and charges $40 for nosebleed seats. The choir college nearby teaches a lot of great music, but their public performances are always either Sunday Mass, or some Bach or Mozart works like Requiem or the St. Matthews Passion. Oh yes, and Handel at Christmas time.

I've argued in many places before that musicians need to smarten up and drop the "technique is king" mantra. Having no sense of music history and no idea about how compositions are written makes you a half-artistic entertainer. End of story.

[marik]

I personally don't think any research into compositional theory and history about the composers life is necessary.

This is your personal opinion, which as a professional I surely do not share.

Sure, it can be fun, but everything is there in the score or recording.

Sure, everything is in the score, but considering music is a language, one has to know the language first, in order to see that "everything", or at least something.

Pianists learn it first completely literally, without applying any subtlety, like a basic MIDI would sound.

While (I am sure) there are plenty of those (who THINK  they are pianists) do that, the real pianists (at least those whom I know) do not do that.

Performers familiarise themselves with the MUSIC, and experiment with it *musically*.

No.

All the theory in the world won't tell you as much about a piece as listening to an effective performance of it does.

This is a typical thinking of a music "consumer".
From standpoint of those who actually "recreates" (i.e. performes) music this assertion is wrong.

Best, M

[leonidas]

In the right contexts these days, the over-technical bullshitters and crowd-pleasers do get brushed over. For instance, in NYC's underground jazz scene, virtuosity is old hat and most audience members don't really give a damn if the musicians can blaze through a handful of standard bebop tunes and would rather see the musician bring something unique to the table. Most of the players try to set up unique groups and compose their own tunes. Overall, everything becomes more original. Most over-technical jazz musicians end up just gigging the rest of their lives, playing 3rd or 4th chair in some cheesy TV-show band while they sit around talking about how much better their chops are than the first chair guy's.

Even in rock music, a lot of the technical wizards have (thankfully) been filtered into the tech-rock/prog/fusion scene, which is almost like a catch basin for tools and losers. A band like Dream Theater is only taken half-seriously these days, because their over-technical hangup has caused them to be perpetually out-of-touch and horribly unoriginal. They practice scales and 32nd notes all day, but when it's time to write it's like "oh sh*t, who's originals are popular now, let's try doing something like that."

The whole "touch our hearts" thing is one of the most tiresome critical malaises out there, bringing musical discourse as far down to a popularity contest as possible. Because of the way that's affected concert scheduling, at least in my area, there is pretty much never any performances of post-1900 classical music (unless some pianist decides to do Rhapsody in Blue or something) and the entire schedule is Beethoven, Mozart, Vivaldi's Four Seasons and Tchaikovsky around Christmas time. Plus, we get the occasional classical superstar who rolls in and gives us a bunch of classical/romantic virtuoso crap (YAWN!!!) and charges $40 for nosebleed seats. The choir college nearby teaches a lot of great music, but their public performances are always either Sunday Mass, or some Bach or Mozart works like Requiem or the St. Matthews Passion. Oh yes, and Handel at Christmas time.

I've argued in many places before that musicians need to smarten up and drop the "technique is king" mantra. Having no sense of music history and no idea about how compositions are written makes you a half-artistic entertainer. End of story.

I'm not sure where to begin, but I disagree with the majority of the above.

Honestly, it sounds like the usual bitter reaction to having slow fingers. Amusing but infantile all the same.

[leonidas]

Sure, everything is in the score, but considering music is a language, one has to know the language first, in order to see that "everything", or at least something.

The 'language' of every individual piece is self-contained, it needs no thought, just ears and attentive listening.

This is your personal opinion, which as a professional I surely do not share.

Professional musician or theorist?

If the former, you really ought to.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I personally don't think any research into compositional theory and history about the composers life is necessary.

Sure, it can be fun, but everything is there in the score .

I totally disagree. The score cannot give the same level of psychological insight into what was going on in a composer's mind when he composed the music as can be gained from a familiarity with the relevant parts of the composer's life history. All the musical instructions may be within the score, but often they can be interpreted in more than one way. And a knowledge of the composer's life history must surely help in interpreting the composer's intentions.

Pianists learn it first completely literally, without applying any subtlety, like a basic MIDI would sound.

You've obviously never met a good sightreader then..

[leonidas]

I totally disagree. The score cannot give the same level of psychological insight into what was going on in a composer's mind when he composed the music as can be gained from a familiarity with the relevant parts of the composer's life history. All the musical instructions may be within the score, but often they can be interpreted in more than one way. And a knowledge of the composer's life history must surely help in interpreting the composer's intentions.

The music gives the insight.

If it's good music, you don't need to know anything else, it speaks for itself, and speaks more directly than a million words about it could.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

The music gives the insight.

If it's good music, you don't need to know anything else, it speaks for itself, and speaks more directly than a million words about it could.

Nonsense. Attempting to Understand the composer's state of mind when he wrote the music is obviously beneficial to interpreting it.

[Derek]

vs, being able to truly appreciate music in another way ?  Why would being a concert pianist have any more prestige than a theory expert who sits alone inside an office all day would have ?  I mean, does one truly demonstrate more musicianship ?

Why do pianists who can play but not understand what they are playing still get more recognition as being a musician, than somebody who can understand music but not play ?

Haha, I think it is up for debate whether theory buffs really understand the music either. They might be able to spout a lot of hot air, but hot air != understanding.

*finds passage of symphony* *calls it something complicated sounding* *feels accomplished*

[leonidas]

I didn't say it wouldn't help at all, particularly for those who haven't/can't experienced the 'revelation' of learning what the music is about just from hearing it.

Music is music, and it's doing a poor job if it needs an explaination.

Music is at once about nothing and about everything.

[marik]

The 'language' of every individual piece is self-contained, it needs no thought, just ears and attentive listening.

First, you confuse the concept of "music language" and "language of individual piece".
Second, in any case, they are unseparable.

Professional musician or theorist?

If the former, you really ought to.

Just wondering, what makes you feel you are entiteled to tell me WHAT I "really ought to"?  

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Just wondering, what makes you feel you are entiteled to tell me what I "really ought to"?  

He knows you will never be able to match his legendary ocean etude interpretation. 

[leonidas]

@marik

I was assuming you're a musician.

Be more musical, it helps.