56 new of 77 responses total.
Again, Richard, you are looking at it from the point of view of a connoisseur willing and able to purchase the latest high-priced release. CDs last. The music on them easily migrates to newer, lighter, smaller devices (iPods). I'm happy with my collection. I seldom buy new classical recordings yet I thoroughly enjoy classical music. I'm the problem, I guess.
re #23 Maybe you are part of the problem Mary. You shouldn't just be satisfied with the old recordings in your collection. You should want to hear modern musicians new interpretations. Suppose you have the best cello works ever written, as they were recorded in the seventies, and feel your collection is complete. So you won't buy any new cello works. This would mean you have missed out on all the great work Yo Yo Ma has done re-interpreting the great cello works during the last decade and a half. It would be a music experience you are depriving yourself of having. Now Yo Yo Ma has sold plenty of records by now, but new artists like him won't have the same chance. The labels aren't putting out nearly as many records anymore. Because people like Mary won't buy them anymore.
You know, I knew that Mary was the catalyst for the breakdown of polite and cultured society - now it's good to know we have proof. ;-)
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?
Can you smell the self-righteousness?
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.
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?
Moreover, there aren't enough artists recording standards these days, or doing covers of Beatles songs. It's a dang shame.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re #32: you prove my point. None of those groups became famous for doing Beatles covers.
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.
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. ;)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Have you never seen applause at the showing of a motion picture? :)
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.)
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. ;-)
How about Baby Spice's cover of "Downtown"?
Luther Wright and the Wrongs, Rebuild the Wall is a country version of Pink Floyd's The Wall. I liked it.
I always loved Aztec Camera's version of Van Halen's Jump. Talk about an interpretation!
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.
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.
For Richard's information, I like Joe Cocker's cover version of With a Little Help... so much that I mayactually prefer it to the original.
There are a bunch of covers that are better than the original, number one in my mind being Manfred Mann's "Blinded By The Light", originally written by Bruce Springsteen.
That's another one...
All Along the Watchtower by Hendrix is a good remake. And Sinatra's version of My Way.
I really like Sheryl Crow's cover of Cat Stevens, "The First Cut is the Deepest" Of course not saying it was necessarily better than his original: "I would have given you all of my heart but there's someone who's torn it apart and she's "taken" almost all that I've got but if you want, I'll try to love again baby I'll try to love again but I know The first cut is the deepest, baby I know The first cut is the deepest 'cause when it comes to being lucky she's cursed when it comes to lovin' me she's worst but when it comes to being loved she's first that's how I know The first cut is the deepest, baby I know The first cut is the deepest I still want you by my side just to help me dry the tears that I've cried cause I'm sure gonna give you a try and if you want, I'll try to love again but baby, I'll try to love again, but I know The first cut is the deepest, baby I know The first cut is the deepest 'Cause when it comes to being lucky she's cursed when it comes to lovin' me she's worst but when it comes to being loved she's first that's how I know The first cut is the deepest, baby I know The first cut is the deepest"
If you're so concerned, Richard, why not get some people together and volunteer to do a small-time music appreciation seminar for young people?
Joe Cocker's live version of "feeling alright" rocks.
Ugh. I don't like Joe Cocker and his massacre off a decent Traffic song is at the head of the list of reasons why. Blech. But how did we get from "classical music" to "classic rock"?
We were discussing the idea of remakes and the widely different views between classical music and pop music as to the validity of radical remakes. I agree that simply pointing out radical pop music remakes does not really address why the differences exist
Speaking of song choices.. Dear Todd, Hillary needs your help. We've been working on an important issue -- the kind that can make or break a campaign. And your input is absolutely critical to ensuring that we make the right decision. That's right -- we're picking our campaign song. We've got a great selection up in an interactive poll on our website, with artists like Shania Twain, U2, KT Tunstall, the Dixie Chicks, and more. Visit the site, listen to the songs, and make your choice. Or you can suggest one of your own. http://www.hillaryclinton.com/campaignsong Thanks for participating. And don't miss Hillary's announcement of the song contest on YouTube -- you won't want to miss it. Trust me. Patti Solis Doyle Campaign Manager Hillary for President
Some suggestions that probably will *not* be adopted: "Witchy Woman" by the Eagles "Venus in Furs" by the Velvet Underground <suggest your own..>
Bleed For Me by the Dead Kennedys Super Freak by Rick James
"Barbie Girl" by Aqua
I think we have a winner with "Super Freak"..
"Don't Cha" by Pussycat Dolls
Hahahahah!!!!
That would only work if she staffed her cabinet with strippers who would dance behind her while singing it. Failing that, "My Humps" would also be a good choice (not the Alanis Morissette version.)
I find it insulting if a woman doesn't try to use sex appeal as leverage therefore I suggest Hill come out dancing like Shakira to "Money Maker" by Ludacris
This response has been erased.
They could re-work the theme song "Aquarius" from the musical "Hair": This is the dawning of the age of Hillary The age of Hilllarrry! Harmony and Understanding Sympathy and trust abounding No more falsehoods or derisions Golden living dreams of visions Mystic crystal revealation And the mind's true liberation Hillary! Hillary! When the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligns with Mars Then peace will guide the planets And love will guide the stars This is the dawning of the age of Hillary The age of Hillary Hilllllarrrry!
As if. I love her but truly believe that HRC will split this country faster than a melon at a Gallagher show.
Bring back insane madmen like Ross Perot!
See this is the problem with classical music, you can't even do an item about it without it drifting. Because classical music doesn't hold people's attention. Heck, I'm even doing the drifting myself! I'd say Mozart is turning over in his grave, but of course they don't know where that is exactly as he died broke and couldn't afford one. Even then people weren't appreciating the music enough were they?
no man, she definitely needs an elvis song. "Devil in Disguise"
re #72 Mozart was probably disinterred after 7 years since that was the custom at the time to reuse plots. They'd take the bones of John Doe and bust em up into a powder and rebury along with the new corpse.
So he was de-composing.
I'm sorry, but it's against the law for women to make puns.
I like Jeff Buckley's "Hallelujah" cover. Sp?
You have several choices: