# Why Classical Music is Different from Other Art Forms



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

Hello everyone. I had a most interesting revelation the other day about what sets music apart from literature, art, etc.

It occured to me that with, for example, paintings, there are two parties involved: the _painter_ and the _enjoyer_. Same with novels: the _author_ and the _reader_.

By contrast, with music, there is the _composer_, the _interpreter_, *and* the _listener_. And in my opinion, there is much more involved when there are three parties "contributing", per se, to the artistic experience.

Just a thought I had. I was hoping it might prompt some interesting discussion.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

It's an interesting idea. One of my interests used to be film, and one thing that always struck me about it was how many people's artistic visions contributed to a film - thousands of people involved in creating the settings, the costume and makeup, the music... not just the actors and the director. 

But with film (unlike classical music) you generally only get to see one take on a story. There are exceptions, such as Dracula, where there are something like a dozen interpretations of the story. But there's only one Casablanca, one Vertigo, one Breathless. That's too bad, I suppose, but in a realistic world it has to be that way. 

Perhaps part of the fun of classical music is hearing people interpret a work differently, although I have to admit that I haven't yet had time to get into that kind of thing much.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

This would be true for all performing arts so including theatre and some others...


----------



## Mephistopheles (Sep 3, 2012)

It's an interesting distinction, but it's not always clear-cut. In literature, there are plays which are given many different interpretations, and poetry is often read aloud by performers. I'm less knowledgeable about visual art, but I believe some people/galleries can put a great deal of effort into curation, which means your experience is not just between you and an individual artwork, but between you, the artwork, and the environment that the curator has made.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I avoid this mental 'exercise' by considering the making of music (composition&performance) to be an art, not an Art.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> By contrast, with music, there is the _composer_, the _interpreter_, *and* the _listener_. And in my opinion, there is much more involved when there are three parties "contributing", per se, to the artistic experience.


sometimes the composer and the interpreter are the same person. And altough i know that many insist that often the composer is not the best interpreter of his music, i think that today a composer should record on a lp his own version of his own music. Peckinpah of his "Bring me the head of Alfredo Garcia" said: ""Good or bad, like it or not, that was my film."


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

science said:


> But there's only one Casablanca, one Vertigo, one Breathless.


Actually, there are two Breathlesses, assuming you're referring to Godard's _A bout de souffle_. The other one stars Richard Gere.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

a deeper or better understanding can apply for painting and theatre. so your distinction is not that good.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Elliott Carter said what Mephistopheles suggests above. In theatre, you can have many different interpretations of eg. a Shakespeare play. Not only in a different production, but he's been interpreted into many different languages. Carter sees music as interpretation as quite like that.

I was reading a book by Andrew Ford and he said that every performance is like a failure. There is no 'perfect' performance. That is enshrined in the score. & even the most sophisticated systems of notation in a score have their limitations. So maybe (& this is purely my thought) the 'perfect' performance of a piece will only occur inside the composer's head?

This can go on for ages and it applies to music outside classical. Look at how there are 'cover versions' of old stuff coming out all the time, from the latest rock performers today. Same with jazz, they've been playing 'jazz standards' for yonks. Some of them by composers who are also classical in some respects (eg. Gershwin or Ellington).

So there are these intermediary things in music. & other things too, eg. acoustics. That can make a helluva lot of difference as to how I enjoy live music (or not). There are all these sorts of variables, both tangible and non tangible.


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

emiellucifuge said:


> This would be true for all performing arts so including theatre and some others...


Yes, I was waiting for someone to mention theatre, which would also apply as well. Ironically, I am only really involved with music and theatre, both being the "three-party" type. Anyone heard of elocution? As Mephistopheles suggested, poetry is performed, as are prose passages. And of course, regular theatre is done as well, as is much Shakespeare. It is a very fun and engaging way of combining the performing arts with literature.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Composers, playwrights, screenwriters and choreographers, all depend upon executants for their works to be realized.

Those making works for others to perform are completely dependent upon the executant: the authors must know the craft involved in performing, and write for and assume an existing level of technical and interpretive skill on the part of the performer(s).


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Composers, playwrights, screenwriters and choreographers, all depend upon executants for their works to be realized.


Not all composers depend upon interpreters. Plenty perform their own works, or they record or sculpt the music alone in a fixed medium, and can make it sound exactly as they want it without needing to rely on others (who often mess things up).


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^Electronic music can be a curly one here as it can be fed into a computer and then played through speakers. This thread is relevant to that:
http://www.talkclassical.com/4490-do-you-consider-laptop.html
I think it is an instrument - eg. you can't play some of the same sounds on an acoustic instrument, for example - and the composer does put the things together (and sometimes plays various sound files in no set order, each performance can be different in that way, similar to CAge's chance based procedures).


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

Music is not an entity on its own. It exists only when it's heard. It doesn't have a material/physical support like paintings, literature, or other arts. Music is emotion in development. That's why is so different.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> Not all composers depend upon interpreters. Plenty perform their own works, or they record or sculpt the music alone in a fixed medium, and can make it sound exactly as they want it without needing to rely on others (who often mess things up).


Note that _@PetrB_'s statements do not include the word 'all'. Are you making a [Latin word here] argument?

 [emoticon employed facetiously]


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Note that _@PetrB_'s statements do not include the word 'all'. Are you making a [Latin word here] argument?


Not that I agree with BurningDesire, but he did say 'all'.



PetrB said:


> Composers, playwrights, screenwriters and choreographers, *all* depend upon executants for their works to be realized.
> 
> Those making works for others to perform are *completely dependent* upon the executant: the authors must know the craft involved in performing, and write for and assume an existing level of technical and interpretive skill on the part of the performer(s).


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

IMO, mostprofessional performances (and recordings) are good enough that the merits of the original conception shine through. With regard to the performing arts on the stage, this is why I love many modern interpretations of operas. They have a flexibility that is not as constrained as orchestral or chamber works. In most cases, too, the initial musical idea is more important than the actual executions. There is a lot of leeway in the many variables involved in putting together a performance. Flaws in one part can be covered over by excellence elsewhere.

Musical ideas are also way more important in modern works where the traditional notion of beauty is turned on its head. Most of the time a composer explores his or her ideas in sound to show or test the limits of what might be done. Most people cannot spot errors in these modern works outside of basic judgements on sound quality. 

Going the other route, melody and harmony usually make a big difference in how a piece is percieved. These are, IMO, factors that are completely independent of performance. Those factors which are dependent on performance are tempo, dynamics, and, in recordings, recording accuracy/remastering. I don't see a lot of difference between solo performers in terms of quality. To me, solo performers perform a work to such a high standard that the differences, although idiosyncratic, rarely make a dent on whether the composer produced a great work or not. The only exception to that are HIP recordings where there choice of instrument eg. piano vs harpsichord. Singers also have more variable characteristics than instrumental performers, IMO, but I don't find differences to be too jarring.


----------

