Continuing from the Oxbridge thread...

Surely music is, ultimately, a performance rather than an academic subject?

I can see how academic research can inform one's own performance but it still results in performance.

I know what you're getting at - no matter how much you study, you can't be a musician unless you can perform. However, I guess some people just enjoy academia (not me!). For example, you can study Art at University and become a historian/critic/writer etc, or you can study art at art college and go into graphic design/classical art etc. I guess it's the same with music.

I don't know.

Lot's of people seem to treat music as a mathematical discipline. Others (me included) see it more as a language. It's certainly a means of communication.

Maths, languages and communication get studied academically, so why not music?

Fine art is another field that could be said to be about performance but I don't think one has to be Hockney to study it.

I think knowledge can enhance enjoyment of a piece. I remember listening to The Firebird Suite in the car once - a piece of music I've loved ever since Yes used it to open their live shows many moons ago - and my son was explaining which intruments represented which characters. It added a whole new dimension.

I think music might be pointless without performance, and performance brings music to a much wider audience, but I don't think that stops it being a subject for academic enquiry in its own right.

There was a time when critics, of whatever medium, were derided for being failures in that particular art. However, now I think many critics and commentators are drawn from the pool of successful artists and performers.

I also think that studying music academically means you can perform it better, such as knowing the period style, etc, so you don't play Mozart like Hindemith, or play everything the same. Knowing how a fugue is built up means it's easier to understand what is going on under the fingers, etc...

I did performance this year at uni, but I'm not doing it next year. 2 reasons: I'm not good enough to progress to the third year with solo performance, so if I did it in second year it would really limit my options later on and I prefer and am better at Composition.

Goes the other way round too: Some brilliant performers struggle with analysis and what's actually happening in what they're playing. Doesn't mean they can't play it well though (but yes, it might limit them)

Music is about performance. But say, if you did go all the way througb uni without being assesed on perfomance, then did a pgce and taught in a secondary school, it wouldn't necessarily make any difference compared with someone who had. In things like History and analysis, they also teach you something about music appraisal, so despite not having been assesed, you would have a rough idea about how to improve kid's performances.

AND you are still exposed to playng music all the way through, even if you're not assesed.

To be able to play a piece well, you must study it. You must research when it was composed and why it was composed. You then must understand where the composer was coming from. You have to be the composer, understand every emotion that was going through their mind.

The only way to do that is by studying. It's not fun but it's the best way.

Background knowledge is great - and the more the better - but at the end of the day "music" is something to be performed and listened to. It amazes me how some pupils seem to have an inbuilt sense of style and period before they know anything much about the context of what they're playing. Obviously this understanding should be built on as much as possible, but the best way to nurture it is to experience - by playing or listening - as much real music as possible. I think the music should come before the academia. If a student reaches a certain level, then that's the time for really delving deply into history, analysis, etc.

Of course you don't have to be a performer to study, appreciate and understand music. It *can* be an academic subject.

Being a performer is another aspect of it.

Yes, that's true too!

Before 'performing' , you should know well what you are performing...

I was once sitting with a friend , then she told me that she's learnt a new piece , I then asked her about a composer , and the answer was " How would I know.. And what difference does it make ??? "

I don't think of her as a musician now...