Re: GG: the big question

["K. Berry" <kb@cs.umb.edu>]

    I believe that interpretation *is* a creative art, just as
    composition is, but I can't quite convince myself that they are on
    the same level.

Do we need to make level distinctions?

For myself, I'd say that *some* interpretations are ``more'' creative
(even applying a word like ``more'' leads to philosophical problems...)
than *some* compositions; and the reverse.  The very best
interpretations may well have been worked on just as hard by some human
being, for just as long, as the very best compositions.  (Whatever
``best'' might mean here.)

On the other hand, a composition is generally something from nothing (in
particular; of course there is a general background to any human
activity), whereas an interpretation is something from something (namely
the score), so I guess one could make an argument that composition is
more pure, if one was so inclined :-).  (I'm not.)

    GG is on the same level as the Haydns, Beethovens or Schonbergs
    [didn't know there was more than one of each :-)]

:-).  Well, I don't have any problem believing that GG worked just as
hard, knew just as much, and was otherwise ``on the same level'' with
composer X.  His gifts simply did not run to melodic invention, as he
himself almost certainly realized.  For that matter, I've never read
anything at all cogent on the subject of how, actually, melodies happen
[or any other creative act].  Bach said something like ``for the student
who has no melodic gift, let him avoid composition altogether'', and
that's it :-).  Billions of words on harmony; that can be analyzed into
the ground.  But where the themes come from in the first place ...