that is, that jazz propelled the performer to spotlight. But Ihave reservations with this:

>yeah with jazz it played a big part. not even going to deny
>that. but classical... it was a given that didn't revolve
>around the individuals so much. the compositions far out
>lasted the performances. of course during the hey day there
>were no recordings, and what remains is merely the accounts of
>performances far and few between. every now and then you hear
>about a stellar soloist (really rare), a great conductor
>(often the composer himself), or a talented orchestra. but
>those were all given for the realization of the composition.
>it wasn't inherent in the performers themselves.

I think the reality was probably more difficult to characterize (and knowing the trends of historical scholarship in general, there's probably a lot more being written about performance in the eighteenth and nineteenth century these days; it would be worth an ebsco search, for sure...). Soloists weren't *that* rare, and by the mid-nineteenth century composers were shifting toward a more recognizable role. Not sure about the prominence of orchestras.

And we can't understate the degree to which composers, conductors and musicians (namely soloists) intermingled. Not unlike jazz - where you have band leaders like Ellington or Davis handpicking their co-players and writing tunes around their outfit - composition was more collaborative than it might seem.

What that does to your general statement (if anything)... I'm not entirely sure. :)

-thebigfunk

~ i could still snort you under the table ~