Why is more prestige associated with being able to play ?

[m1469]

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.

[mike_lang]

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.

[m1469]

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.

[m1469]

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.

[m1469]

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]

m1469, 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.

[m]

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.

[m]

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.

[m]

Be more musical, it helps.

Dear Leonidas,

Thank you for this profound thought. Next time I will try.

P.S. Before I forgot, what do you mean by "musical"?

[leonidas]

Well, think more musically, less theoretically.

[m]

Well, think more musically, less theoretically.

Well, giving this advice how do you know the way I think, first thing?

In fact, you are the first person accusing me of lack of musicality in my performance. Care to elaborate?

[leonidas]

You said it above, and I got that impression.

[m]

You said it above, and I got that impression.

Care to point out where did I say that?

[leonidas]

No.

[viking]

Marik, dont even listen to Leonidas.  He doesn't believe in musical difficulty.  He believes it is a myth perpetrated by Mozart enthusiasts.  He doesn't deserve to be posting on this forum.  But it's probably not his fault.  He's most likely 12 years old.

[indutrial]

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.

Well, as much as I'd love to let you remain as smug as can be, I don't even play piano or any of the classical instruments that are common to symphonies. In that respect, the playing side is certainly something I don't relate to and I have no interest in relating to. I approach music as a listener first and a student of theory/composition/history a distant (yet still important) second.

Your bullcrap about how "music is nothing and everything" and musical "revelation" reminds me of the way potheads talk about Phish concerts. I'm not trying to discount the importance of feeling the music and getting "lost" in the performance of such music, but nothing about that leads me to believe that theory is useless. For all of its feeling and emotion, classical music would not be what it is if there wasn't a certain level of theoretical know-how involved in the composition. Christ, how many good composers thought mathematically and still managed to project heavily-emotional music (Debussy, Bartok come to mind immediately) Nor does the door swing the other way. Arch-theoreticians definitely can take things to a level thats exhaustive to the point of fatigue and uselessness.

What I don't like is how overly-indulgent the nineteenth-century classical buffs and players seem to get with their sweltering emphasis on predictable feelings and their set guidelines for beauty, sadness, etc.... The whole romantic thing is officially tired-out. I say this as a listener.

[ramseytheii]

You people talk like you have never actually met a musical theorist before.  The ones I know are not at all interested in labelling chords, and trying to explain why this chord comes there, and so on.  The ones I know, and I suppose I know the good ones, are the ones that do it because they get incredible pleasure from studying the score; hearing the music internally; and identifying processes with the visceral reaction of hearing.

Once again, we see the anti-intellectual atmosphere attacking those who choose to develop their minds.  It's very typical and frankly unimaginative.  Why don't you shut your traps and read a book?

By the way, Charles Rosen is indeed a pianist, but primarily a theorist, and he is famous.  In fact he was just graced with a half-page spread in the Wall Street Journal.  Also, Adorno is incredibly famous.  Carl Dahlhaus, C.P.E. Bach, Rousseau, these are theorists that everybody in the music world is aware of.

I also would not attach too much value to fame.

Walter Ramsey

[m1469]

I appreciate all of these posts.  I think I have come more to the root of what I am actually thinking.  Somewhere underneath it all, I am just pondering the idea of where music exists  .  And, as Walter has suggested in this last post, some people get extreme pleasure from knowing it other ways besides performing it.  I am not necessarily trying to say that one type of person, whether they be theorist, performer, audience member, I am not necessarily saying that any of these know the music more than anybody else.  It just seems that out of all of these, a performer gets more credit for understanding music than anybody else. 

So, along the lines of what I was just discussing above, I guess the emphasis on performance would suggest that most people think and believe that music has its life through performance.  In that case, it would seem something like wind and how we only know its existence by its interaction with something.  In this case, music would be something like wind and a human being a wind chime of sorts.  However, that just doesn't seem right to me.  I don't think music is like that, or at least it's not limited to it.

And, if music is not limited to performance alone, then what is to say that the audience member who sits and listens is not more of a musician than the performer ?

Something I have been thinking about for several years is that if, for example, a piece of music is in existence and then all the scores are lost and everybody forgets it, would it still exist ?  I just think it still would.  Just because we don't see it or hear it does not mean it's not in existence.  We don't see numbers but they still exist.

Also, even if human interaction is required, why is one particular form of interaction more musician-like than another ? 

[paulpiano]

Quote
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

I don't agree.
As in literature good writers are not necessarily good grammarians (or grammarian specialists)

[danny elfboy]

Anyway music theory is nothing but the means by which music is constructed.
It is completely normal that what is interesting for the world is the end product and that understanding the means by which the end product is attained is not required to appreciate the music at all. Because even a very intuitive and improvisative music can be analyzed theorically but everything about it, including its very nature, its creation and the feelings it conveys to people existed and would exist even without any sort of theorically analysis.

To say that people should care more about theorists than musicians is like saying that when you go to the restaurant you should care more about the knife makers than the cooks. This neither means that theory is not important or irrelevant but the art itself resides in the end product, the means by which the art is produce and made possible are just means.
Like the iron of a sculpture. Do you care for the way the iron was extracted and refined or what the sculpture conveys? I care for the latter and might care for the first only as a sort of personal and unecessary exploration of mines.

Music is an abstract language where no combination of sounds have an universal definition, so the real musical filter is the listening experience of the individual. People are more interested in the musician because it's the only one they can relate to, because there's no way that they can relate their own personal and unique listening experience with the technical objectivity of the theorist, when what they're experienced is absolutely and unavoidably subjective and emotive. It that wasn't the case and music was just some kind of technical brain-game between musicians themselves, the whole concept of music would have died centuries ago and not even an instrument like the piano would exist.

And you do the same, every single moment in your life you care more about the end products than the theorical means behind something. It seems easy to you to claim that everyone should reason like a theorist and know more about what is beyond music but you say that only because music is your thing and you have already a big knowledge about it, try to extrapolate this same concept to all the things you experience in a given day from eating a pizza, using your computer, watching television, look at the sport magazine and you'll see not only how you do the same exact normal thing you accuse others of doing but that it would absolutely be far-fetchedly absurd to expect otherwise.

I do agree that the more someone tries to know about his/her musical skills the more he/she shows to have respect for his/her audience and so I think there should be a balanced middle ground between the importance of theory and intellectual aspects of the acoustic nature of music and the importance of being a good performer and the emotional and communicative aspects of music. Even though I will never agree that the intellectual aspect have any relevance in the "listening experience" because in my opinion the way we experience music is completely emotive and subconscious, analysis is intellectual but the analsys comes later and doesn't occur while you're experiencing the performance (the same for cinema)

I find both performers who try to claim that theorists are useless and both theorists that claim that their analysis should be more important for people than relating with the musician in their listening experience pathetic! Find a damn middle ground for once, for christ sake, and drop all that cancerous egocentrism.

Anyway I think that m1469 had something else in mind when she created this thread.
She wants to know why people always ask "does she/he play?" to determine whether a person posses musicianship. I agree with her that this an absurd argument.
Because a person who focuses on theory doesn't need to put that theory in practice in order for his/her knowledge of that theory to still be useful. For example there are several world-famous couches out there who have all the theory about exercise, physiology, tweaking of metabolism, interval training but they're coach potatoes themselves without a bit of muscles.
People usually ask "why they're so skinny if they're so knowledgeable about putting on muscle mass?". But the answer is that they're only interested in the theory, that they have no desire to be bodybuilders themselves even if they know everything about bodybuilding. On the other hand some champions out there remain champions with an amazing knowledge and control of their stuff without being theorists and knowing all the stuff that the skinny theorist knows. They better consider themselves dependent on each other rather than trying to compete.

But just because someone is a good performer it doesn't mean he/she is not interested in theory or doesn't do his/her best to have a global knowledge of the stuff he/she loves.
On the other hand just because someone is a theorist it doesn't mean he/she does know what he is talking about. So I say screw prestige and focus on musicanship at an individual case per case level. It's so simple.

[m1469]

*pokes danny elfboy's bubble*

*eats a spiceya meataballas*

[electrodoc]

This is a very deep question with many implications. First, I question whether it is possible to perform a work (as opposed to playing through it) without some level of understanding. Whether it is necessary to go into an in-depth analysis is an entirely different matter.

I doubt if composers go into a detailed analysis of their own works while composing. I imagine that they explore motifs and themes, rhythmic structures etc. and then try to bring them together to form a coherent whole. I am sure that Bach had the compositional rules of his day so thoroughly ingrained that he did not need to think about them; and that Beethoven knew precisely which rules he was breaking – and why!

So does the performer need to analyse the work being played. I think that most, if not all, musicians are unconsciously aware of basic structures such as the key of the work, main theme, second theme, development section, recapitulation, etc. Deeper analysis is perhaps not necessary (with perhaps the exception of much contemporary music) although it may be desirable.

Consider the use of language. We do not analyse sentence structure before we speak. If we are writing then we might just check for obvious grammatical errors but I doubt if we do a linguistic analysis of our words, and neither does the average reader. If we consider a play by Shakespeare we can enjoy the performance without having a detailed knowledge and analysis of the play although a deeper understanding might contribute more to our enjoyment. If I go to the theatre I do not want a lengthy lecture on the play. If I have really enjoyed it I might want to study the script and learn more about it afterwards.

The visual arts present more of a problem because there appears to be a language of art and some understanding of that language certainly helps in appreciation. Art up to the impressionist period presents me with no problems because the language is essentially part of my culture. For many years I did not appreciate the work of Picasso but when I read an explanation of one of his paintings (Weeping Woman) I began to appreciate and understand more. Today I can look at some modern works and find beauty and I am intrigued, Other works leave me cold (I think of the Sensations exhibition and the work of Damian Hirst), this despite analysis by learned friends.

Music is perhaps even more problematic because it is the most abstract of the arts. I think that it was MacPherson who stated that there are three levels of appreciation: the emotional response (the level at which the lay listener responds), the intellectual response which demands knowledge of the “language”, and rare moments of the sublime response where intellect and emotion fuse together to take us to a higher level. I wonder whether it is possible to reach the sublime level without both intellectual understanding and the emotional response.

This brings me to the deepest question. What is art, and what is it’s purpose? For me art is not only a commentary on society of the day but I also want it to stimulate me and preferably to uplift my spirit. I do not want to be assailed with ugliness because I can find plenty of that without having it thrust at me in the guise of art.

Sorry to ramble on a bit but I was intrigued by the question.

Wishing all readers a very happy Christmas, a productive and creative coming year, and above all good health.

Best

electrodoc

[mcgillcomposer]

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 ?

Well, it has been my experience that people who play generally understand a lot more about music than those who just analyze it. When playing, you are forced to work with ideas that are audible - the decisions of the composer have an immediate effect on what you are doing.

If you analyze music, your work does not necessarily have to agree with what one hears; I feel that this leads to a lot of analyses that simply do not reflect the composer's conception. Systematic analyses are the worst for this because one will try and stuff everything within its boundaries, even if they do not fit. The watered down conception of sonata form is a good example of this...the composers worth analysing do not follow formulas 99% of the time.

In any case, all of the good theorists that I can think of are also capable musicians (Tovey, Rosen, Caplin, just to name a few). I think the key is to have both - this is NOT to say that one has to be a virtuoso in order to be a theorist...but come on, at least play a *** instrument at a decent level.

It's funny how 99% of the greatest composers were also very capable instrumentalists...

[mattgreenecomposer]

m1469 always comes up with great topics doesn't she/he?!!!

Anyways I was going to post a response but Mcgill kinda touched on it already.  Unfortuantely, most   (not all) theorists know didly poo about how music really works otherwise they would compose well.  Don't take that from me-read Schoenberg's first chapter in his Tonal harmony book!

Most great pianists in general (not all) are also composers and obviously know a great deal on theory.  (Rach, Horowitz, Gershwin, Andre Previn, Liszt, Art Tatum, Brubeck, Chick Corea just to name a few.)
It kinda goes one way and not the other, of course there are exceptions.  No offense to anyone here but I look at theory and musicology as the easy way out for an artist.  Its like being a painter but only re-painting works by people who are dead.  What good is that? If your an artist by nature you should create.  Hope I didnt offend anyone here....

[richard black]

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

That's an untrue generalisation and, I think, a bad way to learn.

But leaving that aside, surely the prestige in playing comes from the admiration of the many for a highly visible skill possessed only by the few. Similarly, non-sportspeople admire runners, footballers, basketball players etc. more than they admire sports commentators. We admire heart surgeons more than we admire medical correspondents. And so on. Some skills are not so visible and therefore not so highly valued - for instance, few will gasp in astonishment at the skill of a machine tool operator.

[ramseytheii]

m1469 always comes up with great topics doesn't she/he?!!!

Anyways I was going to post a response but Mcgill kinda touched on it already.  Unfortuantely, most   (not all) theorists know didly poo about how music really works otherwise they would compose well.  Don't take that from me-read Schoenberg's first chapter in his Tonal harmony book!

Most great pianists in general (not all) are also composers and obviously know a great deal on theory.  (Rach, Horowitz, Gershwin, Andre Previn, Liszt, Art Tatum, Brubeck, Chick Corea just to name a few.)
It kinda goes one way and not the other, of course there are exceptions.  No offense to anyone here but I look at theory and musicology as the easy way out for an artist.  Its like being a painter but only re-painting works by people who are dead.  What good is that? If your an artist by nature you should create.  Hope I didnt offend anyone here....

I can't think of any musicologist who would call themselves an artist on the basis of their musicology. 

And your analogy is hardly apt either; actually, its really a lot of pianists today who play like "painters but only re-painting works by people who are dead."

Walter Ramsey