Future echoes of the Classical tradition

[~Leslie]

To allay the fears of some that say classical music is in deep trouble, I will readily point out that there has been much orchestral music created for movie soundtracks in the past 40 years, and although most of the outstanding musicianship that occurs on today's contemporary scene hardly gets any airplay on the radio, and remains relatively obscure to the main public, many of these players and composers are classically trained to varying degrees.<P>Despite our obvious mutual disdain for cheap, repulsive pop music , most of us will agree that certain groups in the past 30 years which have had a firm grasp of harmony which has been built in a simple way, deriving itself from the classical tradition, incorporating some catchy lyrics,and maybe even a few symphonic passages, this is often enough to gain some marginal success with the buying public. <P>Barfle mentioned Rick Wakeman from "Yes", someone was it you Shos? mentioned Emerson, Lake and Palmer's rendition of Mussorsky's Pictures at an Exhibition, these being two progressive rock bands from the seventies, who attempted to breath new life into the classical sound by fusing it with rock.<P>The Moody Blues enjoyed a gratifying symphonic excursion when they recorded "Days of Future Passed". Even earlier, the Beatles took a stab at it. <P>For semantic's sake, this music really isn't "classical", though orchestral,or maybe played by classically trained players, it has not stood the test of time, only then, would it be considered truely classical. <P>It occurred to me this evening, as I was listening to Al Dimeola's Grande Passion , that more and more, music is still undergoing a wild transformaton, making it even far more difficult to sort, separate and label the styles melting within the pot as the world's finest musicians on today's scene attempt to push music forward into the new millenium. <P>Thanks to the internet, ppl will be less reliant on the radio and media to decide what to listen to and to buy. Exposure to everything is now imminently possible, regardless of how obscure or unknown. <P>My prediction is that the next 25 years promise to be an exciting period for the future of music, and the echoes of classicism , will somehow remain a viable, integral part of the equation.~<p>[This message has been edited by ~Leslie (edited 02-13-2001).]

[serge urtizberea]

I hope you're right. It's regrettable how little exposure pure c.m. receives today. <P>The recent phenomenon of 'crossover' classical was a good try at bringing c.m. inot the mainstream, but I think it's not working as well as it hoped. People like Charlotte Church singing Welsh songs and the Three Tenors singing carols... no one really associates that with 'classical' because it is too far removed. But film music is alive and well. I suppose we can live with that form of commercialized classical, can't we?

[shostakovich]

Hi Leslie. We make a complementary pair. Within the same hour I was singing the funeral oration of classical music, and you were predicting its rebirth. Reincarnation does require death before renewal. Maybe we're both right. Your estimate of 25 years is a reasonable growth period for a personality to be established.<P>I was watching part 10 of Jazz last night. The word "fusion" came up in connection with Miles Davis. You've used that word. Is Miles Davis in your vision of "fusion"? I only saw 3 of the 10 episodes. I thought most speakers were within the bounds of restraint in a restricted musical area. The one that bothered me was Winton Marsalis. He's a wonderful talent. I expected his knowledge of classical music would have made him one of the most balanced of commentators. I was disappointed in him. Any comments?<BR>Shos

[~Leslie]

<P>Serge, I agree with you that the evolution into crossover is too slow and sometimes too shallow, to suit the tastes of devoted classical followers. However, I am optimistic that it will rekindle an interest in classical, both by the performers, and the listeners. <P>

[~Leslie]

<BR>Shos, Yes it was Miles who started the foray into fusion. The man was a walking revolutionary in the history of jazz. He couldn't play fast bebop like Charlie "Bird" Parker, or John Coltrane, but he knew how to make each note count, and he scouted out and surrounded himself with the very best talent, many of which themselves since, have gone on to re-shape the evolution of jazz. Scott Yanow in Allaboutmusic.com has the best writeup I have ever seen about Miles and his contribution to contemporary music. <P>It is true that Wynton (and his brother Bradford) are both classically trained AND jazz musicians. That in itself is a feat, most classical players lack the swing feel it takes to play jazz, and are uncomfortable with improvisation, as well. <P>The big problem I have with Wynton is that he dismisses the post Miles/fusion music, because he feels that it is not jazz in its purist form. That it is being played on electric instruments and has evolved too far away from the mainstream/bigband/bebop jazz as documented in the Ken Burns series. It is this point of view that adversely effects the generation that I came from, at Berklee. <P>Wynton is a very outspoken orator and has done much to promote jazz, including bringing it out of the backstreet smokey nightclubs and onto the concert stage.<P>I am grateful that the world got to see Billy Holiday, Louie Armstrong, Dizzy Gillespie, and Duke Ellington, even if the series had strong racial overtones of despair, addictions, and strife. <P>But true balance will only be attained in my eyes, when my generation gets the nod that we too, were a continual force in jazz.~ <P>

[~Leslie]

This is the view of another classically trained well known jazz pianist on the controversial subject:<P><BR>"Regarding Ken Burns's (or is it Wynton Marsalis's?) "Jazz": Now that we've been put through the socioeconomic racial forensics of a jazz-illiterate historian and a self- imposed jazz expert prone to sophomoric generalizations and ultraconservative politically correct (for now) utterances, not to mention a terribly heavy-handed narration (where every detail takes on the importance of major revelation) and weepy-eyed nostalgic reveries, can we have some films about jazz by people who actually know and understand the music itself and are willing to deal comprehensively with the last 40 years of this richest of American treasures?" Keith Jarrett - from a letter to the editor, New York Times Arts section

[~Leslie]

I also found it very interesting that Wynton repeatedly referred to classical music as European music. Herein lies the rub:<P>As Americans, we tried desperately to cut loose from the European tradition of music and art by adventuring into new genres and forms without the rich cultural European heritage of schools and teachings to draw upon. Although the European art seems somewhat static now, our well is also beginning to run dry, as it has not the centuries of tradition to draw upon. Thus the message in popular music is getting more and more watered down, with the media placing too much emphasis on what sells, ie the top 40, the best sellers and so on. <P>I have some more thoughts on this but this is enough for the time being. ~

[serge urtizberea]

The idea of c.m. being European music is, well, incisive. The truth readily appears to be that the great majority of what is considered true c.m. comes from Europe, mostly from fairly "middle class" WASPs for other middle class or aristocratic WASPs. There is such diversity in music, but the realm of cultured music hardly, if ever, comprises anything like Chinese folkmusic, or African tribal music, or anything (God help me) "ethnic". That facet of musical art is found on the fringe of the fringe of the music business, lumped into the "world music" category, and treated worse than c.m., if that's possible. <P>I totally believe you, Leslie, when you say that American music dared to be far more eclectic than the European standard. We, in a way, should be very glad for the wide array of music style that we can sample from. Even the worst kind of pop music is valuable in its own right. If it satisfies the intended audience, should we really say it sucks? If the focus remains on what is popular, maybe that isn't entirely a bad thing. The world of pop/r&b/rock/rap moves so quickly and many of its star attractions are so evanescent. Just because Shaggy is peaking the Billboard charts now doesn't mean the world is changing its taste. Five years on, where will he be? Where will Christina or Puff Daddy or Britney be? There are relatively few stars or groups who last. Madonna, Celine, the Stones, George Michael (ugh), the Tragically Hip... the mainstays are few and far between, but they become mainstays because their music is often satisfactorily worthwhile after the bloom is off the rose. I don't know if anyone has bothered to write a book cataloguing the progress of popular culture through its music, but I can imagine what an entertaining read it would be. Flavors of the month, trotted out one by one, year by year, ready to be mocked by the readership. "Can you believe I used to have a crush on Donnie Wahlberg?!" some twentysomething might say, or "Remember when we thought Samantha Fox was so hot?" two guys might say to each other one night while going through their tape collections in the attic. Meanwhile, the people who had the lasting power get fondly remembered. A microcosm of culture gauged by those who failed to be better than one-hit wonders. Music can be mercilessly cruel to many aspiring songsmiths.<P>I find it neat that the same phenomenon plays out to the same degree in c.m. I mean, how many composers do we ever really talk about? 10? 15? How many composers are so "well-known" (term used loosely) that a first name is not required? The world of c.m. is built on the selected works of a relatively tiny number of composers. For every popular composer, there's a dozen no-names who probably spent their life trying to make music their livelihood. Beethoven was the most famous composer in the world in his time, but do you ever wonder if he ever thought how his life would be if he were one of the dozens of composers in Vienna who tried to make a name for themselves in music but failed? Could you imagine yourself as a composer when Mozart or Beethoven or Liszt were at their peak-- not getting the exposure their music may rightfully be due? I wouldn't be able to bear it! There's only room for one top dog.<P>We hear on the radio and sample at the music store the same works over and over, but once in awhile, we come across a little gem from an unknown composer or from a rarely-trolled part of a famous composer's oeuvre. These works are in a way just like the one-hit wonders of p.m.<P>People eventually choose the right thing, given enough time; that's what I've come to think. If people stopped playing Beethoven in favor of whatever was in vogue at the moment, once the thrill passed, back to Luwig they went. If people stopped talking about the Beatles or listening to them in favor of the music of the fast-car-&-power-lunch Me Decade, eventually they'd come around again, as evidenced by the fact the Beatles' chart-topping-singles album is about to become the world's best selling album ever. If people are all over Britney right now because she's really hot and can sing catchy music, there's no reason to think she'll have any staying power in five years. The tried and true make it in the end.<P>It would be a nice diversion to see if the music of obscure composers could be more regularly dredged up and brought to the light. We could learn valuable things from it, perhaps even kickstart a shortlived fascination with "unknown c.m." and even determine if their obscurity was rightly earned. But, in the end, I have no doubt that we'd go back to our trusty Beethoven nine and say, no wonder those composers never made it-- they never wrote like THIS.

[~Leslie]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by serge urtizberea:<BR>Hi Serge, I had to post along with you because you had alot to say here, and I could never remember all you said.<g> <P><B>The idea of c.m. being European music is, well, incisive. <P>Yes it is. Almost prejudicial, isn't it? Between that and the prejudice of time itself, is it any wonder c.m. is suffering? <P> The truth readily appears to be that the great majority of what is considered true c.m. comes from Europe, mostly from fairly "middle class" WASPs for other middle class or aristocratic WASPs. There is such diversity in music, but the realm of cultured music hardly, if ever, comprises anything like Chinese folkmusic, or African tribal music, or anything (God help me) "ethnic". <P>Then you agree that globalization and technology will eventually pull and shape music everywhere, together?<P>That facet of musical art is found on the fringe of the fringe of the music business, lumped into the "world music" category, and treated worse than c.m., if that's possible. <P>Yes, and the market and recording industry have had a big hand in this. <P>I totally believe you, Leslie, when you say that American music dared to be far more eclectic than the European standard. <P>Yes, the prevailing "Don't Tread on Me!" sentiment that we wanted emancipation from Europe ever since we dumped that tea into the Boston Harbor. Or something like that. <P><BR> We, in a way, should be very glad for the wide array of music style that we can sample from. <P>It will get better, even if free sites like Napster go kapoot, the industry will have some growing pains, but the overall outlook for art is better, more accessible to the public. In other words, the recording industry will have to readjust, and reassess, and they simply won't be able to call all the shots. <P><BR> Even the worst kind of pop music is valuable in its own right. <P>Stop right there, Serge. This is where I aesthetically have to draw the line. <P><BR> If it satisfies the intended audience, should we really say it sucks? <P>Yes we can, I do it all the time. I'm prepared to back that up too with a healthy arguement, whenever necessary. Somebody's gotta do it. <P>If the focus remains on what is popular, maybe that isn't entirely a bad thing. <P>It IS bad, because they are dragging music through the dirt, garbling it, over-singing it, dumbing down the message, and using pretty faces, sexy bodies, and obscene angry punks to substitute for the REAL DEAL. <P><BR> The world of pop/r&b/rock/rap moves so quickly and many of its star attractions are so evanescent. Just because Shaggy is peaking the Billboard charts now doesn't mean the world is changing its taste. Five years on, where will he be? Where will Christina or Puff Daddy or Britney be? <P>I think you already know the answer to that, Serge. <P>There are relatively few stars or groups who last. Madonna, Celine, the Stones, George Michael (ugh), the Tragically Hip... the mainstays are few and far between, but they become mainstays because their music is often satisfactorily worthwhile after the bloom is off the rose. <P>Off the top, the only artist I can think of that I can even take seriously that is still kicking hard in this category you just mentioned, is Sting. The rest of the music I listen to (besides c.m.), is seldom if ever aired on the radio, sometimes it accidentally gets aired on the smooth jazz stations, or public radio. <P><BR>I don't know if anyone has bothered to write a book cataloguing the progress of popular culture through its music, but I can imagine what an entertaining read it would be. Flavors of the month, trotted out one by one, year by year, ready to be mocked by the readership. "Can you believe I used to have a crush on Donnie Wahlberg?!" some twentysomething might say, or "Remember when we thought Samantha Fox was so hot?" two guys might say to each other one night while going through their tape collections in the attic. <P>Yes, well, we were all teenagers once, and nostalgia and music go hand in hand. <P><BR>Meanwhile, the people who had the lasting power get fondly remembered. <P>Time has a way of sorting things out. <P> A microcosm of culture gauged by those who failed to be better than one-hit wonders. Music can be mercilessly cruel to many aspiring songsmiths.<P>I find it neat that the same phenomenon plays out to the same degree in c.m. I mean, how many composers do we ever really talk about? 10? 15? How many composers are so "well-known" (term used loosely) that a first name is not required? The world of c.m. is built on the selected works of a relatively tiny number of composers. For every popular composer, there's a dozen no-names who probably spent their life trying to make music their livelihood. Beethoven was the most famous composer in the world in his time, but do you ever wonder if he ever thought how his life would be if he were one of the dozens of composers in Vienna who tried to make a name for themselves in music but failed? Could you imagine yourself as a composer when Mozart or Beethoven or Liszt were at their peak-- not getting the exposure their music may rightfully be due? I wouldn't be able to bear it! There's only room for one top dog.<P>The cream always rises to the top, Serge.<P>Nowadays that obscure composer can have his own website, post MP3's everywhere, and be on Napster! Just kidding, Napster's in trouble, but there will be more, just watch. <P>We hear on the radio and sample at the music store the same works over and over, but once in awhile, we come across a little gem from an unknown composer or from a rarely-trolled part of a famous composer's oeuvre. These works are in a way just like the one-hit wonders of p.m.<P>People eventually choose the right thing, given enough time; that's what I've come to think. If people stopped playing Beethoven in favor of whatever was in vogue at the moment, once the thrill passed, back to Luwig they went. If people stopped talking about the Beatles or listening to them in favor of the music of the fast-car-&-power-lunch Me Decade, eventually they'd come around again, as evidenced by the fact the Beatles' chart-topping-singles album is about to become the world's best selling album ever. <P>You can't argue with nearly 40 years of staying power. Nor with 200+ years.<P><BR> If people are all over Britney right now because she's really hot and can sing catchy music, there's no reason to think she'll have any staying power in five years. The tried and true make it in the end.<P>Take away her pretty bod and tresses and what do you have? Does she even write her own tunes? Like say Joni Mitchell? A far more credible songstress if you ask me. <P>It would be a nice diversion to see if the music of obscure composers could be more regularly dredged up and brought to the light. We could learn valuable things from it, perhaps even kickstart a shortlived fascination with "unknown c.m." and even determine if their obscurity was rightly earned. But, in the end, I have no doubt that we'd go back to our trusty Beethoven nine and say, no wonder those composers never made it-- they never wrote like THIS.<P>You can say that again. ~<P></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><p>[This message has been edited by ~Leslie (edited 02-18-2001).]

[denison rosario]

Who discusses on Jazz in a site destined for the classic, he should not have the one to speak on the true great masters of the music; this place should call himself in general Adult Music.with... <BR>The incentive lack that the classic music has today already is not enough, they still want to worsen more... <BR>Me, to example of another members, I am thinking of leaving of this forum.

[~Leslie]

Denison, Be sure to tell that to Leonard Bernstein, George Gershwin, and Igor Stravinsky. Sign me, Leslie (who is a she, not a he)~

[shostakovich]

Denison, I'm surprised at your post. There's a topic I started called "Music as a Religion". One of the main thrusts was musical tolerance. The web site is not strictly for classical. I think EVERYONE posting in the bulletin board has a love for classics, and Beethoven in particular. That's our COMMON BOND. But our personal journeys have taken us to uncommon ports. We're free to share or ignore the non-classical insights. You are deeply imbued with feelings for the music that we (all?) respect most. It would be a loss to me/us if you left the bulletin board. I would enjoy arguing/discussing musical issues one-on-one with anybody.<BR>shostakovich@beethoven.com

[serge urtizberea]

I must admit that Denison's disdain for jazz is surprising, given its close association with classical. I am also surprised at Leslie's replies to my post; so short and condensed! I miss the florid prose!<P>The debate about the merits of pop music-- at least from my POV-- must be taken with a grain of salt. I am so unfamiliar with older pop or classic rock it shocks me occasionally. On Rock 'n Roll Jeopardy!, the history of popular music appears so complex and wide-ranging, and I know positively none of it. Anything I say about p.m. usually revolves around the music of the past decade, which has frequently been decried as the most decadent ever. A person who is truly talented at writing or singing music cannot ever be considered less 'worthy' as artists than people skilled in more elite plateaus of art, can they?

[~Leslie]

<BR>Hi Serge, <P>Well , you already know my criteria for evaluation, it becomes fairly easy to sort things out from there. <P>Yes I was shocked too, particularly because Latin Jazz is the hippest of the hip, imho.<P>Sorry, sometimes the poet in me takes a brief nap. Yes the last decade, phew! what a disaster, very little nutritional value in the forefront. Everything that's happening is strictly behind the scenes. What I'd really like to do is discuss this issue in instant msg so we don't rile the staunch classicists. <P>Then I thought: maybe I might be going insane,...I mean, projecting a classical revivalism, yeesh! who can afford a full orchestra budget anymore besides Hollyweird? <P>In all fairness the only way to push music forward is to cast off the shackles of structuralization (is that a word?)such as seen in past genres , not just merely put a slightly different spin on some existing form, calling it good. It ain't gonna happen that way. <P>WE've already seen the more modern instruments such as the moog synthesizer tackle classical through artists such as Walter & Wendy Carlos and Isao Tomita with moderate success. I would like to see more of these, exploring today's instruments, but that in itself I fear, won't be enough.<P>What next?? I keep pressing on inside, because I know the answer lurks intuitively beneath the surface of consciousness. But where? Stay tuned.........<BR>******************************************<BR>As for jazz, I have a soft spot for improvisors (and complicated chord changes too), and Beethoven was a great improvisor. This is one of the reasons I personally favor him over most other composers, of course there is that fiery emotion, which I strongly resonate with. <P>Welcome to our new forum members . Yes, for a classical bunch, we are the ultimate in the hip and coolness.~<BR><p>[This message has been edited by ~Leslie (edited 02-20-2001).]

[shostakovich]

Hi Leslie. I meant to thank you a while ago for posting Keith Jarrett's biting letter about "Jazz", but somehow got sidetracked. I'm still not clear on whether your Berklee generation is pro or con electronic instruments. I'm guessing "con", but am not sure. Do you have names of people to watch for? I felt moderate fuzzies about Tomita and Carlos. I heard or read that Wendy IS Walter after a sex change. Can anyone confirm that?<BR>Shos

[~Leslie]

<P> ~#:0 This Forum is full of surprises! That's why I like it so much! I don't know if she is he. <P>My generation is definately all for pushing music forward, even if it means utilizing the newer instruments. However, that does not mean that we dismiss acoustic instruments or ANYTHING salient from the past right back to and including Gregorian chants! (I still remember: thou shalt not parallel an octave or a fifth! HA!)<P>Could it be that because of economical reasons, most of the writers of today are tapping into the medium of the electronica instead of the orchestra? Or is it because of the newness of the sound? Maybe it is a little of both. The movie industry and Broadway seem to have hung in there though, and composers aspiring to work in the orchestral medium will have to concentrate in these areas, as a matter of survival. <P>Shos, I will post some things for my classical friends to listen to, they will be largely instrumental in content, and the genres will be almost impossible to define, because they embrace all that has gone before. I need to consult my friends before I submitt these compositions to this highly critical audience.~

[jnowacki]

"Wendy" Carlos is, indeed, the former "Walter". The sex change operation was performed back in the late '70's or early 80's, and his/her parent label (CBS)was confused enough to issue an lp with "Walter/Wendy Carlos" as the perfromer!<P>-john-<p>[This message has been edited by jnowacki (edited 02-21-2001).]

[treebeau]

Walter Carlos recorded "Switched on Bach" which I still have as an LP record. It was later released, as Mr. Nowacki says, using the name Wendy, and I think I have the CD.<P>Tongue in cheek alert!!!<P>His/her next release was simply titled "Switched!"<P>Regards,<BR>Tim B.<BR>

[~Leslie]

Treebeau!! LOL!! Maybe Wally was a thinking futurist,to promote his music to the younger generations, like a fashionably Baroque David Bowie or Boy George. ~#:P ~#:^I<BR>Yeesh, wasn't he wearin a wig and knickers on the front cover too?~

[Nicole Marie]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by denison rosario:<BR><B>Who discusses on Jazz in a site destined for the classic, he should not have the one to speak on the true great masters of the music; this place should call himself in general Adult Music.with... <BR>The incentive lack that the classic music has today already is not enough, they still want to worsen more... <BR>Me, to example of another members, I am thinking of leaving of this forum.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I hope you will reconsider leaving. This is an open forum. In my opinion the best thing about music is that all styles can mix well together. Wynton Marsalis playing Bach, the London Symphony playing Led Zep. If music didn't mix and ideas were not exchanged then we'd be living in fish bowls. <P>Dension please reconsider. I think you will find, musicaly, these are some very interesting times we live in.<P>