|
Grex > Music > #41: The death of the classical music recording industry |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 77 responses total. |
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.
|
twenex
|
|
response 50 of 77:
|
May 16 15:52 UTC 2007 |
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.
|
edina
|
|
response 51 of 77:
|
May 16 15:54 UTC 2007 |
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.
|
twenex
|
|
response 52 of 77:
|
May 16 17:31 UTC 2007 |
That's another one...
|
tod
|
|
response 53 of 77:
|
May 16 19:19 UTC 2007 |
All Along the Watchtower by Hendrix is a good remake. And Sinatra's version
of My Way.
|
richard
|
|
response 54 of 77:
|
May 16 19:26 UTC 2007 |
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"
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 55 of 77:
|
May 16 21:13 UTC 2007 |
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?
|
durrett
|
|
response 56 of 77:
|
May 17 00:43 UTC 2007 |
Joe Cocker's live version of "feeling alright" rocks.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 57 of 77:
|
May 17 04:46 UTC 2007 |
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"?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 58 of 77:
|
May 17 11:40 UTC 2007 |
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
|
tod
|
|
response 59 of 77:
|
May 17 18:23 UTC 2007 |
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
|
mcnally
|
|
response 60 of 77:
|
May 17 19:38 UTC 2007 |
Some suggestions that probably will *not* be adopted:
"Witchy Woman" by the Eagles
"Venus in Furs" by the Velvet Underground
<suggest your own..>
|