Liszt v. Chopin debate & performers

[heldig]

Reading through all the posts about the merits of one composer compared to another, and various pieces compared to others:

          I can't help wondering if rather than some of these composers or pieces being 'problematic', it is the performer who fails to understand, or convey, the spirit of the piece?

          Perhaps it is better to look at the shortcomings of the performer instead of 'blaming' the composer?
         

[larse]

What is interresting, is that music is not substantial. Which means that No music actually exists until someone play it...physically. So no music exists without the performer. Now that the composers are all dead(that's not true, though), there's us left to perform their pieces...to let them live and breathe. Now, there is another interresting aspect in this. Since an interperetation of a piece is never similar. Or rather, although similar, there is never, or there should never be, two identical interpretations. This is interresting, because of, when you look at the musical aspect, the composition is written right in front of you as it is performed or played, and NEVER twice. Unless recorded, you would never hear the same piece twice.

Which means: There are two people involved in a composition. The composer and the performer. And the one is exactly as important as the other. In pop/rock history, cover-performances always seem to suck ass. In classical music, cover-performances is the whole point. Or at least some of it. And this is what makes classical music so wonderful. You don't need your own tunes, because the old ones are so great they are still known 300 years after their composers death.

Wow, what a world we're living in!