# The Hierarchy of Musical Arts



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Among the musicians, I think there needs to be said what a great work they do for the sake of music. They make enormous sacrifices, and if they are successful with what they do, acquire astonishing capabilities.

There are the performers. They work to master a single instrument, but often more. They are mutli-taskers when it comes to following all the directions on the sheet music as well as using discernment of what's not written on the page. They know their instrument inside and out to the point of near-perfect unity between the player's intentions and the sound created by their instrument. I speak of singers too.

There are conductors. They don't touch another instrument except their baton (usually), but their work requires knowledge about the capabilities of nearly every instrument in the orchestra/ensemble in order to give proper direction. They are masters of multi-tasking, being able to direct tempo as well as phrasing, cueing, and expression, plus remembering a whole piece(s) from memory. Most of all, they are masters of knowing themselves and their opinions: what they want out of an ensemble, how to articulate what they want to the ensemble, and how exactly a piece should be performed to their taste.

Then there are composers. Some get away with less knowledge than others, but the greatest ones have in-depth knowledge of the capabilities of instruments they write for. They know inside-out how to arrange music for a variety of instruments, and unlike the other 2 categories, in-depth knowledge of theory is a must. They have extremely creative minds with which they unite their technical abilities. Most of all, they know the deepest complexities and secrets of making music work, which only a handful of people like themselves can completely fathom. Their dedication to the creation of music requires enormous sacrifices of their appreciation of music.

I won't include Musicologists and Theorists not just because their purpose isn't to perform music, but because they would fit into the any of those 3 categories anyway.

So, here's the question. What's the hierarchy of genius?

IMHO, I see composition as the highest musical art, then conducting, then performing as a close 3rd place. Do you agree?


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I do agree with your order, though there is little difference between a performer and an orchestral musician other than the scale of forces which they command. Particularly, solo performers require the same qualities of insight into a score that conductors have, again the only difference being in scale commanded.

Composers stand high above for those qualities which all great artists share; an incredible insight into the human condition.


----------



## GoneBaroque (Jun 16, 2011)

I also agree with your order although I think that your very well thought out list of attributes of each of the groups represents an ideal which sadly is not always achieved. In regard to conductors it is my eeling that those who have been orchestral players make the best conductors. One of my favorites, Klaus Tennstedt only became a conductor after a hand injury ended his days as an orchestral violinist. You mentioned a conductor knowing the capabilites of each instrument. Perhaps the most qualified in that regard was the Hungarian Ferenc Fricsay who could play every instrument except the Harp.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

1. Creators: Composers and Improvising Musicians

2. Interpreters: Non-Improvising Musicians

3. Musical Producers

4. Non-musical Producers: Instrument designers and builders, Patrons, Managers

5. Non-musical consumers: The audience

All pretty important to each other though, seeing as they are in a symbiotic relationship.


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2012)

Yes. Improvising musicians.

And yes, symbiotic (i.e., not hierarchical).


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> ...
> IMHO, I see composition as the highest musical art, then conducting, then performing as a close 3rd place. Do you agree?


I'd agree with that overall, and I loved your opening post. Great reading, thank you.

I would also add that ultimately music is a collaborative thing. Eg. say a cellist like Rostropovich who commissioned well over 100 works for his instrument. Sometimes he collaborated with the composer in bringing the work to fruition, as well as with the conductor or other musicians.

To add to what GoneBaroque said about conductors who knew how to play every instrument, Villa-Lobos was one of those as well. & he apparently had a great memory, conducting a series of concerts of the Beethoven symphonies totally from memory and without scores in front of him. Some of these guys, well many of them, are basically amazing.

& I'd say that when playing repertoire of after 1945, improvisation comes to the fore there. Also of music before, eg. cadenzas. A lot of improvised and semi-improvised things in music. So I think musicians at a certain level will know how to do both non-improvised and improvised playing, and in any case, increasingly the distinctions between these are breaking down...


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Sure, the hierarchy is there, but for contemporaries conductors and musicians occupy a higher plane because for most composers the fame is posthumous, especially in the era where the "greats" have departed, the people who are the most esteemed now are those who are great interpreters of their works. 

I value Anne-Sophie Mutter far more than any composer who lived during the same time.


----------



## Operadowney (Apr 4, 2012)

I don't believe conductors occupy a higher position than performers. I think if anything performers are second to composers, and conductors are a very close third (if not tied for second).


----------

