[Slow_Hand]

I’m not sure how useful that framing is because improvisation is effectively composition in real time. By writing down an impromptu or something that was played on the spot it becomes composition when it’s crystallized in this way.

Chopin predates audio recording, so it’s not as if someone recorded his performance and then transcribed it like people do today with jazz solos. I’m assuming that Chopin was the one to transcribe and publish after he had a good idea because few would have the recall to do so accurately.

Sometimes compositions are generated spontaneously by the composer (one pass) and sometimes they require extensive labor and refinement.

It’s not to say that classical music doesn’t also include improvisation, and I agree that there’s not a clear divide between classical mentality and modern sensibilties. Although today, the composition (if not scored) ends up taking it’s final form as an audio recording. More and more the composition exists untranscribed in the DAW session.

[zoogeny]

What I'm getting at is that the literate quality of the music as a defining principle (or differentiator) is lessened if the actual practice was improvisation that preceded it being written down. If a composer improvised the music first and wrote it down second, then it is hard to claim that his writing it down was a significant differentiator in it's composition. This is compared to modern music that is improvised, developed than recorded (and often not written down).

The argument against my point would be, but the people learning the music (i.e. studying it) later started with the written music and went from there. And that is a differentiator for their own development as composers. That would be compared to modern musicians studying modern pop music where they start with a recording and go from there.

My point is that the differentiation is in the contemporary study of music and less in the method of composition.