Reply #10: I've given lot's of thought to this over the years

[tonkatoy57]

As someone with two worthless degrees in music performance I've thought about this a lot. I've worked it out for myself that there is a difference between a creative artist like a composer, visual artist, or playwright and what I think of as a "recreative" artist.

I know about composition. I've had years of music theory. I've had to write as class assignments two and three part fugues, sonata form compositions, and examples of twelve tone rows. However, I'm not a composer. The worst hack composer in the world can write better music with one hand tied behind their back than I ever could. Sometimes I hear a piece of music that I'm not familiar with and my first thought is, "what a piece of shit". Then I remember that I could never do as well. My point is that I'm in awe of the thought processes and talent it takes to be even a shitty composer.

I was trained to be a "recreative" artist. Aside from the native talent and the years of study and independent work required to master (yeah, right) an instrument there are other gifts and skill sets needed to be an effective interpreter of a composer's thoughts. You need to present musically and intellectually informed performances. You have to know performance practice for many different periods and schools of composition and you have to feel it. The technical and physical portion of it is no different than any skill that requires a great deal of physical dexterity and hand to eye or hand to tongue coordination. We're surgeons or dentists in that way.

Are compostion and performance both creative? Certainly, but the art of the composer is different than the art of the interpreter.