|
Grex > Music > #41: The death of the classical music recording industry |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 77 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 25 of 77:
| 
May 2 19:20 UTC 2007 |
re #23 I mean by some people's attitudes, you'd think they'd tell Yo
Yo Ma he shouldn't even bother re-recording the great Brahms cello
concertos with his nearly three hundred year old Davydov Stradivarius
cello. I mean Brahms has been done before right and people are
satisfied with their collections?
|
cross
|
|
response 26 of 77:
|
May 2 19:29 UTC 2007 |
Can you smell the self-righteousness?
|
richard
|
|
response 27 of 77:
|
May 2 19:35 UTC 2007 |
re #26 what self righteousness? I just think too many people these
days fail to see classical music as an evolving art form. They think
Brahms is Brahms is Brahms. Beethoven is Beethoven is Beethoven. The
classical music recording industry is dying out because too few see
the value of new interpretations anymore. Once they have a catalogue,
thats it.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 28 of 77:
|
May 2 19:40 UTC 2007 |
So, Richard. Do you think artists should be allowed to sue people who
take the music they wrote and "reinterpret" it? Like, say, Weird Al?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 29 of 77:
|
May 2 20:31 UTC 2007 |
Moreover, there aren't enough artists recording standards these days,
or doing covers of Beatles songs. It's a dang shame.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 30 of 77:
|
May 2 20:52 UTC 2007 |
I'm not fond of classical music. It's not what I want to listen to. I do have
a few recordings (well, mp3s, on my iPod) because I got interested in the
particular work, but on the whole, I don't buy it, old, new, reinterpreted,
or whatever. On the OTHER hand, I have several versions of some of my favorite
folk songs, just because I love hearing lots of different voices and different
variants of the lyrics -- though, on the GRIPPING hand, some people ARE the
definitive singers/interpreters of the songs in question, and I wouldn't want
to hear any other versions at all. (Ask me about "Matty Groves" sometime, if
you want to hear why I adore the Fairport Convention version above all others,
and not the one with Sandy Denny singing lead, either. Which makes certain
people (hi, KRJ!) wince, because I'm so so wrong about that.)
|
slynne
|
|
response 31 of 77:
|
May 2 20:55 UTC 2007 |
I can sympathize with richard's frustration about people having
different tastes than he has. I know that I sometimes feel similar
frustration when favorite tv shows are cancelled. But even so, richard,
it is kind of arrogant to call other people's personal tastes "wrong"
or even to imply that their tastes are part of some problem.
|
richard
|
|
response 32 of 77:
|
May 2 20:57 UTC 2007 |
re #29 there are plenty of artists doing beatles covers and other songs
by them. They are next month in fact releasing a heavily hyped new
album of Lennon covers to raise money for Darfur, "Instant Karma: The
Campaign to Save Darfur." REM does John Lennon's #9 Dream, Green Day
does "Working Class Hero", Christina Aguilera does "Mother", the Cure
does "Love", Black Eyed Peas do "Power to the People" and Willie Nelson
does "Imagine" among others.
I mean I suppose if you had the Beatles "With a little help from My
Friends", why would you want Joe Cocker's cover version? A song is a
song right and your collection is complete with just the original? Or
if you have Dylan's "All Along the Watchtower", why bother spending
money on the version Jimi Hendrix put out right?
re #31 I am not in any way calling other people's personal tastes
wrong. It has nothing to do with a particular person's "tastes", it
has to do with persons being unwilling to try new things. The
classical music industry is losing its customer base because its
customers don't want to try the new samples.
|
slynne
|
|
response 33 of 77:
|
May 2 20:59 UTC 2007 |
Oh and I also wanted to comment about things like works of literature
being reinturpreted. It turns out that they often are and if you pay
attention, you might see the same story being told over and over again.
You know Pyramus and Thisbe becomes Romeo and Juliet becomes West Side
Story, etc.
|
richard
|
|
response 34 of 77:
|
May 2 21:13 UTC 2007 |
re #33 yeah but you are talking total re-writes, stories based on other
stories. Much of art is derivative of earlier art. However, West Side
Story doesn't bill itself as Romeo and Juliet.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 35 of 77:
|
May 2 21:48 UTC 2007 |
Re #32: you prove my point. None of those groups became famous for doing
Beatles covers.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 36 of 77:
|
May 2 22:30 UTC 2007 |
Richard also fails to note that doing "remakes" of popular music is far
different than rerecording the same score with a different orchestra. A better
comparison would be when orchestral works are rearranged for smaller groups.
|
slynne
|
|
response 37 of 77:
|
May 2 22:42 UTC 2007 |
resp:34 That is true. But some people buy the movie version of West
Side Story and never bother to see every other interpretation of it
ever put on by anyone. ;)
|
jep
|
|
response 38 of 77:
|
May 3 14:16 UTC 2007 |
I doubt many artists create pieces with the intention that they would be
used by future generations. Dante, Brahms, Rodin, Virgil and Picasso
all created works which were relevant to contemporary audiences. So did
The Beatles, Warhol, Disney and Faulkner. I doubt if any of these
artists would be much bothered that anyone in a later time would
re-interpret their work. I bet they'd all be thrilled that anything
they did would still be relevant at all a hundred or a thousand years later.
|
naftee
|
|
response 39 of 77:
|
May 4 03:16 UTC 2007 |
re resp:20
You're right that music requires the intermediary of a performer. but that's
it. Every single person who attends a performance of Mahler's ninth symphony
will come home with their own unique "interpretation" or perspective of the
work. It's the same as every person who reads Bukowski's "Ham on Rye" will
have their own opinion of the whole novel. Composers write music to be heard,
not just performed; just as writers wrote novels to be read, or painters
created paintings to be seen.
In fact, the performer's job is precisely to be as invisible as he can. He
should study the work, find out what the composer is trying to say, and convey
that message to the audience. Sure; the performer's personality will show
through his performance. But that's a quirk, and not a means to an end.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 40 of 77:
|
May 4 12:24 UTC 2007 |
Your view, if accepted, also points out the contradiction between
"classical" and popular music. The idea that the performer should
disappear in subservience to the composer's intent is not an article of
faith in pop music. In fact, people tend to enjoy fairly radical
reinterpretations in which the evolution of the song itself is key, not
stict maintenance of the composers intent. Hell, we don't even really know
if the early composers wanted their own scores to remain petrified in one
style or not, although it is my understanding that at least some left open
areas for some form of improvisation. One apt comparison might be to look
at pop music "tribute" bands. Are people really interested in buying some
imitator's note for note recreation of Pink Floyd, or are they more
interested in something more radical, like Dub Side of the Moon? I think
classical music suffers when it lacks this perspective.
|
jep
|
|
response 41 of 77:
|
May 4 17:58 UTC 2007 |
If the performer was not important, no one would ever applaud. No one
would ever think of applauding upon hearing a recorded piece, would
they? You applaud to show your appreciation to the musician. The
conductor bows in acknowledgement of the applause at the end of a
classical (art music) performance. These are signs of a human event,
not a mechanical one.
|
krj
|
|
response 42 of 77:
|
May 4 18:16 UTC 2007 |
Have you never seen applause at the showing of a motion picture? :)
|
remmers
|
|
response 43 of 77:
|
May 4 18:23 UTC 2007 |
Re #40 re #39: Indeed. In early "classical" music (Baroque period
through the era of Mozart and Haydn, more or less), it's my
understanding that some improvisation on the performer's part was
expected in a lot of situations. Later on, as the cult of the composer
as superstar developed, improvisation was deemed less appropriate.
But even so, in the music of any period or genre -- sure, in learning a
piece the performer should consider the composer's intent and try to
respect it, but that doesn't mean that two different performers will
arrive at the same conclusions or that they shouldn't bring some of
their own style to the work. In performing a work, even if you feel
constrained to play it note for note as written, there's usually room
for interpretation in such matters as tempo, dynamics, and articulation,
all of which can affect the listening experience is significant ways.
Re #41: I don't think naftee is saying that the performer is
unimportant, rather that his or her duty is to reproduce the composer's
intent faithfully -- which can require considerable skill and is
certainly applause-worthy. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the
performer should become "invisible", however. (See previous paragraph.)
|
edina
|
|
response 44 of 77:
|
May 4 18:33 UTC 2007 |
I felt that Alanis Morrisette's interpretation of the Black Eyed
Peas' "My Humps" was both completely faithful to the original, but yet
managed to create a totally different message. YMMV of course. ;-)
|
marcvh
|
|
response 45 of 77:
|
May 4 18:45 UTC 2007 |
How about Baby Spice's cover of "Downtown"?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 46 of 77:
|
May 4 19:19 UTC 2007 |
Luther Wright and the Wrongs, Rebuild the Wall is a country version of
Pink Floyd's The Wall. I liked it.
|
slynne
|
|
response 47 of 77:
|
May 4 19:47 UTC 2007 |
I always loved Aztec Camera's version of Van Halen's Jump. Talk about
an interpretation!
|
naftee
|
|
response 48 of 77:
|
May 4 19:57 UTC 2007 |
re 40 If I understand correctly, you're talking about bands playing their own
music. In this case, I'm sure that the imitation band will try to copy
as much as possible what the original band does, since there are recordings
available of the originals. With art music ("classical music"), unless you're
dealing with the twentieth century, there aren't any recordings available of
the composers conducting their own works. Strictly speaking, I don't think
that it's fair to compare the thousands of different interpretations of
Beethoven's works with a band whose job it is to imitate.
I'd be also wrong to point out that musicians imitating what others do does
not exist it art music. It does. There are accepted "standard" tempi for
Mozart's and Beethoven's symphonies. But those are a result of an overall
average tempo as a result of the numerous performances.
Composers differed on their opinions of interpretations of their works, as
well. Brahms hated any performance of his symphonies where the tempo in a
movement was strict from beginning to end. He would also approve of two very
different performances of his works, if he judged that the performance were
done sensitively. On the other hand, Stravinsky would be extraordinarily
severe in his critiques of performances that did not follow exactly the tempi
or expressions indicated in the score. These are points that the conductor
or performer should take into account.
I'll admit that my opinion is that the performer should try to convey as much
as possible the composer's exact intentions. But, as I mentioned above,
sometimes the composer wanted the performer to do what he thinks is best.
Also, attending an art music concert is very much like watching a Shakesperian
play. There are numerous points in common.
re resp:42 I've never quite understood the applause after a display of
fireworks.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 49 of 77:
|
May 4 22:51 UTC 2007 |
I admit my analogy is a bit off, in particular because most pop music
lacks the "conductor" element. However, when you look at the way classical
music is re-recorded compared to the way pop music is re-recorded,
classical is much more toward the "tribute band" side of the spectrum.
While I know virtually nothing about the current state of classical music,
I'd guess you could count all the "radical remakes" on one hand. And while
I am aware that some conductors are known to be more determined to impose
their own personality on someone else's music, even then I think you find
far fewer, total or percentage-wise, than you'll finding musicians willing
to radically remake pop tunes.
John Mellencamp once made an interesting comment about the songs he wrote.
He said they're like children. You do your best with (recording) them and
then you let them go to see how they do after that (in the hands of others
or in his own later re-works). I don't think you can find a similar
attitude among the composers of classical music.
|