This may be so blindingly obvious that no one has said it (and it is not very relevant to snobbery) but

In classical music, the music is now regarded as primarily the composer's work and we listen to different interpretations.  But the notes and orchestration typically remain the same.

In pop or rock, the music is regarded primarily the interpreter's work, and though they may perform a song recorded by someone else, it is regarded as a different beast.

Or have I got that wrong?

= take a sh*t load of drugs before listening. 

For much music from Beethoven onwards that is true up to a point, though it should be qualified in through the 19th and early 20th century in light of star performers and singers who took a great deal of liberties with the text. And indeed the focus, with respect to start virtuosi, often remains to this day upon the performance as something existing in its own right (and people go to concerts and buy CDs to hear the performer rather than so much which music they are playing/singing) - performers such as Fischer-Dieskau, Brendel, Rosen, Gardiner, who promote their work (or whose work is promoted by others) in a different way, emphasising a certain form of fidelity, are more of the exception than the norm.

EDIT: I missed the word 'now' in the statement to which I was responding: nonetheless, this form of understanding of classical music (in terms of what Lydia Goehr calls the 'work concept') is by no means necessarily equally true at other times in history.

Yes in most cases, though for progressive rock there is a greater 'compositional' focus (prog usually involves original composition, the more extended/experimental varieties of which are rarely taken up by others); also for that essentially created electronically/in the studio (including an awful lot of dance music from the late 1980s onwards), the 'performer' isn't really perceived as important (though the DJ may take their place).

In jazz, the situation is somewhat divided: there has been identified (including by Gunther Schuller) a significant divide between those musicians appreciated primarily as interpreters (e.g. Louis Armstrong, Art Tatum, Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie) and those more so as composers (e.g. Jelly Roll Morton, Duke Ellington, Charlie Mingus, Ornette Coleman - though all of these were of course distinguished instrumentalists). Schuller believes that it is the former category who have made the greater impact upon listeners.

I don't know Gil Evans' version, but Little Wing seems to be a song that travels well for some reason. I've got a version of it played on classical acoustic guitar and Derek and the Dominos produced an amazing (IMO) version of it, of course. However it's possible to bugler it up completely as well - I've got a CD of Nigel Kennedy playing Hendrix, which my niece bought for me - it's all pretty dreadful

I suppose he could be trying to drive listeners back to the original, Richard; but it seems a strange objective.  When I chose the example I was actually thinking of the contrast between Evans's obviously affectionate arrangements and the (to quote your description) crassly functional orchestrations you refer to earlier.  I'm glad you made it clear that Evans was very fond of Hendrix's work, as I neglected to mention it.


I agree with every word you say Andy.  I like Mr Claptrap's version too - and the song is strong enough to sound good when a half-competent pub band just try to do a faithful copy of it.  I think the problem with Gil Evans's version is that he almost seems to be trying too hard and takes a lot of the soulfulness out of it.  The Kennedy Album is a big mistake in my opinion.  I've only heard it once but that was enough to make me wonder whether I want to stay on for his jazz gig after the Elgar prom next Saturday.

Oh yes, I recall that song (dustin the turkey's popularity peaked in my mid-childhood I think; I had at least two of his albums).