Performing versus composing
In the 19th century a phenomenon arose that was virtually not existing before: the emerging of the virtuoso!
Franz Liszt made history by appearing on stage playing music by Bach without a score! This was something completely new.
Many people mark the 19th century as a turning point in musical history: there the distinction between performing artist (virtuoso) and composer originated.
But we may not forget that these venerated virtuosos like Chopin, Liszt, Paganini, and others were genius composers as well!
Chopin nearly improvised his Waltzes (although he took great effort in finishing them) and Bach was able to improvise a fugue on a Royal chromatic theme instantly, played for him by the Prussian King Frederik the Great.
So we know that in the past the boundaries between composing and performing were less clearly distinguishable; many musicians commonly incorporating both. When you only played an instrument it was impossible to be regarded as a true musician.
So, musicians who decide only to perform music from the past, like there are so many nowadays, behave themselves to a certain extent in an anachronistic way.
This anachronism is even so general, that it has become the standard of being a classical musician.
Of course this was instigated by the recording industry whose standards of performing are very high nowadays.
Strangely enough, this more spontaneous way of playing classical music in the past is nowadays inherited by more folkloric music traditions as Blues and Jazz.
Maybe, we could reconsider this. I am convinced that composing and performing should not necessarily weaken the quality of one of the two. I believe that in this context one plus one is three and that being active in both domains can deepen the meaning and capability of both.
Or should we doubt that Bach, Mozart, Liszt and Chopin were able to perform their music well?
In the 19th century a phenomenon arose that was virtually not existing before: the emerging of the virtuoso!
Franz Liszt made history by appearing on stage playing music by Bach without a score! This was something completely new.
Many people mark the 19th century as a turning point in musical history: there the distinction between performing artist (virtuoso) and composer originated.
But we may not forget that these venerated virtuosos like Chopin, Liszt, Paganini, and others were genius composers as well!
Chopin nearly improvised his Waltzes (although he took great effort in finishing them) and Bach was able to improvise a fugue on a Royal chromatic theme instantly, played for him by the Prussian King Frederik the Great.
So we know that in the past the boundaries between composing and performing were less clearly distinguishable; many musicians commonly incorporating both. When you only played an instrument it was impossible to be regarded as a true musician.
So, musicians who decide only to perform music from the past, like there are so many nowadays, behave themselves to a certain extent in an anachronistic way.
This anachronism is even so general, that it has become the standard of being a classical musician.
Of course this was instigated by the recording industry whose standards of performing are very high nowadays.
Strangely enough, this more spontaneous way of playing classical music in the past is nowadays inherited by more folkloric music traditions as Blues and Jazz.
Maybe, we could reconsider this. I am convinced that composing and performing should not necessarily weaken the quality of one of the two. I believe that in this context one plus one is three and that being active in both domains can deepen the meaning and capability of both.
Or should we doubt that Bach, Mozart, Liszt and Chopin were able to perform their music well?