Is it still classical if...

[hellindc]

The thread about the Letterman banjo extravaganza elicited for the ump-teenth time, "Is it bluegrass or isn't it?"

Suppose a bluegrass band decides to cover a classical tune. On this board the discussion automatically becomes, "Is that bluegrass?" My question: Is it still classical?

[Pedal Steel Mike]

It depends on who you ask. Within the classical music community there are 2 conflicting schools of thought. The traditionalists say that the music is written in stone and MUST be performed exactly as written. Any deviation is wrong. Period. These people look upon the work of musicians like Tomita and Wendy Carlos as crimes against music. Even Leonard Bernstein incurred their wrath for daring to record something by Beethoven at a slower tempo than what was originally written.

On the other hand, there are those who say “It’s the 21st century. Wake up and smell the new electronic instruments.” To these people, the important thing is the quality of the performance.

Guess which camp I belong to.

[J. Mark Lane]

I think that "debate" may be a little different.

My own view is that there are legitimate and important reasons for "defining" musical genre and styles, and those reasons are especially important for historical musical styles. For example, I think it is worth the effort to "define" bluegrass, and I think it is fair (and even important) to point out that many things that may "sort of sound like" bluegrass are not. The reason is to preserve the integrity -- and existence -- of an important historical musical style or genre.

I feel the same way about "Classical". Of course, a lot of music that gets referred to as Classical is really not -- a lot of it is Baroque, for example, or modern. In these areas, it is even more important to preserve the integrity of the music: these terms refer to historical periods and the music of those periods, not just to some particular combination of musical sounds. So if someone takes a Bach piece and plays it in some innovative manner on a Moog synthesizer, imo it is not Baroque music at that point. The Bach piece should be played on the instrument it was written for (or a close approximation that will yield a comparable tone), and generally in accordance with the music Bach wrote -- that is, tempo etc.

I think there are very good reasons for this insistence on historical accuracy. I think without some diligence in this regard, there will be an increasing homogenization of music, a marginalization and eventually end to pure musical forms, and we will all end up with just one thing called "music," and it will sound like elevator music.

[PCypert]

I think...and I'm rather dumb at times...that most who set out to play classical aren't setting out to play it to break any new ground. Those who are attempting new things usually define themselves as such ie. a modern something quartet or something of the like. I think the debate pops up in BG because it's still less than 80 or so years old. Some feel the genre has room to grow others want to go ahead and bottle it up for continuous copying and stagnation. New things can certainly be done in "classical" music, but probably most wouldn't take offence to not being considered "traditional" classical as that would be their stated attempt.
Paul

[357mag]

I am a bluegrass snop. If it aint high lonesome and if it aint Ralph Stanley, or some body who sounds like Ralph Stanley, its just noise. And as far as grassing up classical? Thats like listening to a symphony orchestra playing Rank Stranger. Its just noise!
There is no room for subjectivity here. I am right and if`n y`all dont agree with me, you are simply wrong. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Pedal Steel Mike]

Mark. With all due respect, I must disagree.

I should point out here that this thread hits very close to home because I've actually recorded 2 CDs of classical music transcribed for pedal steel. The first one, entitled "Firebird Suite" is a program of works by Stravinsky, Debussy. Bartok, and other 20th century composers. The other is my interpretation of the sound track to West Side Story.

Now many of the people who are involved with classical music who have heard my recordings have told me they like them, and some have tactfully told me their tastes lies elswhere. The reviews have all been favorable, but the degree of entheusiasm varies greatly.

But the reaction a very small number of hard core classical music nazis was that I deserve to be shot. I received a piece of hate mail that callem me an (part of our gastro intestinal system) and telling me I had no moral right to even try to interpret this kind of music. Additionally, several people who ought to know better, including 3 college professors, one of whom who teaches at Julliard refused to even listen to my recordings because they already "knew" that it must be some sort of C&W bastardization of the music (It's not BTW.)

I say that it's not important whether a piece of music was played on the instrument for which it was written, or whether it adheres strictly to tradition or not. The only thing that matters is whether or not it's good.

Do you think Bill Monroe and Earl Scruggs (or Muddy Waters or Bob Wills or Mozart or Miles Davis or Elvis or the Beatles) worried about whether or not their music conformed to some sort of tradition? Or do you think they just went ahead and played what they wanted.

Today we are seeing electrified banjos and mandolins playing in bands with telecasters and drums. Whe cares whether you call it bluegrass or country or anything else, as long as it's good music.

There will always be people who play in traditional styles, regardless of genre. And I agree that it's important to preserve those traditions, but it doesn't follow that EVERYBODY has to do so. There has got to be room for both those who carry on musical traditions and those who borrow elements from them and create music that's new and different.

BTW if anybody is interested in hearing some of my recordings, there are 4 MP3s, 2 from each CD, at my web site. (www.mikeperlowin.com) The better reviews are there too.

[AndyG]

A previous post suggested the need to preserve the integrity of a musical genre,or form.Folk music,of which Bluegrass is a component, is a continually evolving and organic style.Bluegrass itself evolved from European Polka`s,British folk tunes etc.,and involves much improvisation-in itself creative and evolutionary.
Classical music,on the other hand,is generally,apart from some notable exceptions,written to be played as the composer intended.
Trying to stop folk music from evolving and changing is like nailing jello to a wall.
Even in the last 50 years or so since Monroe launched his style on the music scene,Bluegrass has changed immeasurably from the folksy styling then,to a seeming quest for ever more speed and technique at the expense of musicality,melodic sense and feel.
As always there are exceptions.

[Bob DeVellis]

It seems to me that there are two separate questions being discussed. One is about what we call a performance and the other is about the ligitimacy of that performance. I agree with Mark that we should apply terms to historical music conservatively. A Dixieland band playing Ode to Joy or Fireball Mail, to me, is neither classical nor bluegrass. It may be an interpretation of music that originated in the classical/bluegrass repertoire, but it's not the pure form. On the other hand, if a Dixieland band wants to interpret Ode to Joy or Fireball Mail, good on 'em. I'll judge the success of that effort by how compelling a performance they produce, not by how orthodox their interpretation of the original work is. Music is art and artists should not be barred from experimentation if art is to flourish. That doesn't mean we have to like what they do; but within very broad bounds, they have the right to stray pretty far from the strict, narrow, interpretation of what they perform. Although those explorations undoubtedly produce more garbage than gems (to my ear at least), the exceptions are well worth the wait. Sometimes a new mix of style and instrument can be nothing short of breathtaking. I would point out that at the time a Loar was first produced, it was intended for something pretty close to a classical repertoire. But its expansion to other forms has been very fruitful if somewhat unorthodox.

So, I say: classify narrowly and with precision when music has historical significance. But acknowledge the legitimacy of sweeping departures from orthodoxy, even though many will not be deemed as artistic successes. The relatively few that are will reward the effort.

[Eugene]

Twist? It is my usual argument. (Semi-facetious: I'm usually too casual to argue on it)

[Michael H Geimer]

"Commonly given beginning and ending dates for the period are 1750 and 1820, but there was considerable overlap at both ends with preceding and following periods, as is true for all musical eras. And some sources even point out 1730 as the beginning year."
- Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_music_era)

I think it keeps things much simpler to discuss styles by period, and/or by instrumentation ... exceptions apply.

Pedal Steel Mike, as much I really like the composers who's work you recorded on steel guitar, an argument could be made that since you didn't start with Classical music (by the terms above at least), then how could you end up with Classical music?

I think Walter Carlos was an exceptional musician. He presented an innovative presentation of Bach's work. But occasional meanderings and interesting variations like his (or PSM's) neither make up a new style, nor do they belong within the 'old' style from which they've been derived. However interesting, they are just 'loose ends' off a larger more unified tapestry.

Same with Bluegrass. I might play the songs, but I often take them out of context, and rearrange things into something else, and generally bring my own modern, metropolitan, post-rock-infuence to the music ... something that's just not Bluegrass anymore, even if the songs started out that way.

So in order to not disturb the past, I'd suggest that PSM's recordings be titled, 'Early 21st. Century Variations on Modern Orchestral works, Arranged for Steel Guitar'.

And I'll stick with calling my stuff, 'Acoustic String Band Music' and continue to point out that we are *not* a Bluegrass band.

I think somewhat narrow definitions are important, as they allow us to make fine distinctions and can lead to better insights about why one style or piece of music is different from another.

FWIW: I don't think 'Elitism' needs to be a part of a narrow definition. Herb Caen once wrote that he came from the generation where 'discrimintation' meant 'good taste'. We all love music, so let's be more discriminating about the terms and descriptions we use.

- Benig

[PCypert]

I think it's a good point. When I first got into mandolin and had heard some "newgrass" or whatever you want to call it it was in the store labeled bluegrass. Thought, heck I like this I can play it. Then the more I looked for this stuff the less and less I found stuff that sounded like it. Found all this "high lonesome stuff". I like the Monroe stuff, but have no interest in playing it myself. The mislabeling led to a long fruitless search on my part. If I want a mandolin orchestra playing classical music I like the name to reflect that. If you said Paul Cypert plays Canon in D and I bought the CD and it was Paul Cypert blowing into a straw for thirty minutes I'd be pretty pissed. I'd probably be pissed even if it was a banjo recording of it. If I shop for something like that I want to know if it's a real recording or some (hate to say it) novelty. There are some good novelties, but I want to know before hand that's what it is. Like the four piece that does metalica songs or whatever.
Paul

[mando bandage]

I've had the extreme pleasure of listening to Bela Fleck, Chris Thile, Mike Marshall and Edgar Meyer and friends play Bach for two hours on a Sunday morning. Is it still classical? Don't know, but more importantly, it's still Bach.

R

[357mag]

Touch`e Mr Bandage. You make a valid point. Its hard to screw up JSB stuff.

[hellindc]

Thanks to all who responded. I've been enjoying the conversation, and learning a lot from it. Maybe we should distinguish between the music and the performance. I agree that there is some usefulness in maintaining criteria for classfication, at least for historical purposes. I would never try to convince someone that a Bach fugue is "bluegrass," but I might try to convince someone that a bluegrass rendering is worth playing or enjoying. "Blue Moon of Kentucky" is bluegrass by my book, but Elvis had a different take.

[PCypert]

Yeah,
I'm all for people who play other genres attempting classical (even though it usually bites when people try). I think they should still call themselves the genre that they are predominantly in. SCI plays Birdland regularly but never try to pass themselves off as a jazz band.
Paul

[Pedal Steel Mike]

This is a little bit off topic, but I've noticed something interesting. Most people born after WW2 were raised on the sound of plucked stringed instruments. Whther it be acoustic string band, or bluegrass, or rock or blues, most of is relate more to instruments in the guitar family thn we do to woodwinds or brass of violins. For us, the sounds of orchestral instruments do not have the same emotional impact.

However, people who grew up listening to traditional classical music have just the opposite perspective. They don't emotionally relate to instruments in the guitar family.

I think the sound of the instruments has more to do with whether or not we like or dislike the music than the actual compositions.

A couple of years ago I met a 20 year old rock and roller who looked upon classical music as "the enemy." I force him to loistend to a recording of Mozart's 'Eine Kline Nachtmusik" played by the Falla Guitar Trio. Yop the kid's surprise, he loved it. His exact words were "For the first time in my life I understand who Mozart was."

But he HAD to hear it played on guitars. If I played him a recording of the music played on the original instrumentation (string quartet) he simply would have tuned out.

This is just one example. There are others.

BTW there used to be a rock band here in L.A. called the J.S. Bach Experience that played Bachs music on loud, heavily distorted eletric guitars with bass and drums. Personally I didn't care for them, but I bet they turned at least a few kids on to Bach's music, who otherwise would never listen to it.

[J. Mark Lane]

I mostly agree with what Benig and BobD are saying.

I do think there are two separate questions being discussed here, and confusion of the two can be a source of real misunderstanding. I am all for anyone playing any kind of music on any instrument there is, period. I am all for music, period. Play Bach on a Stratocaster. Play Monroe on a synthesizer. There are no limits. And the music that can come from these creative experiments can be beautiful. I have all kinds of "interpretations" that "cross over" genre, and I really like many of them.

So it's not a question of whether great music can come from breaking boudaries. It's a question of whether some kinds of music should be carefully defined, so that some things are determined to be outside the definition. For example, I would say if a recorder ensemble played Wheel Hoss, it would not be bluegrass. Similarly, a Bach piece played on steel drums would not be Baroque (of course, Bach was not a Classical composer, and it is incorrect to refer to Bach's work as "Classical music").

This is simply a matter, as I said, of creating boundaries (or rather, recognizing them) in order to give the music more meaning, and to preserve it for what it is. It is not a matter of "judging" any (any!) kind of music. Period.

Deciding where, exactly, all the lines fall, and what exactly deserves to be subject to "lines" at all, is necessarily going to be more of an art than a science. People will disagree. That's great. Discourse is valuable. Different opinions are wonderful. I vote differently than my wife. I still respect her (sometimes).

I hate to even get into the "folk music" debate here. (Head on over to rec.folk and have a blast <g>.) But I do believe that the term folk music *can* (and must) be defined, and there are lots of things that get called folk music that are not. For example, I'm a big fan of John Gorka, and he gets called "folk" all the time. He's not. Whatever you call that, it's not folk music. Is bluegrass folk music? Tough question. It's a relatively new form, identifiable with specific artists who created it, and it emerged largely as a commercial effort rather than a social phenomenon. Those are not the hallmarks of folk music. But it has sort of grown into a social phenomenon...so maybe.

At any rate, I think most people would agree that "Rose of Old Kentucky" played on synthesized instruments for piped in "elevator music" would not be bluegrass. Once you have agreed with that statement, then you have agreed with me in principle, and it's only a question of where the lines are drawn.

[Bob A]

Apropos of nothing much:

PDQ Bach did JSBach on Moog. Still classical? Refreshingly irreverent?
Played on the instrument it was written for - yes, certainly, a keyboard.

"MUST be performed as written"? Well, I thought cadenzas were opportunities for performers of the period to "wing it" pretty freely until Beethoven put his foot down and wrote them the way he wanted them played.

John Challis built harpsichords totally out of synthetic materials. They are fine instruments. The usual crowd of tightly-wrapped tight-lipped types denigrated his efforts, but so what? At least they stayed in tune, and sounded good too.

It's way too easy to get wrapped up in either/or mentalities. Most things in life cannot be reduced to that level of choice. Bluegrass is not easily adapted to symphonic orchestration; yet folk tunes have traditionally been hijacked by classical composers who would expand them into major works. So what? I steal from the dead longhairs with impunity; thier only objection could be based on how poorly I do so.

Good question. I think the best questions are the ones that cannot successfully be answered.

[jim simpson]

"I'm all for people who play other genres attempting classical (even though it usually bites when people try)". PCypert

That makes me think of "Portsmouth Sinfonia plays the classics". Does anyone remember that one? Brian Eno was part of the project and it is side-splitting to listen to.

[Katie]

I don't often post here, but this is a subject near and dear to my heart. #One word + qualifier...post modernism. #This is what it's all about. #I was born and raised on classical. #In 5th grade I was asked my favorite band or musician and I said Stravinsky. #I was absolutely delighted the first time I heard Klezmer Nutcracker. #I play cornetto, and not long ago tried to get some sacbut players to swing a base danse (mostly I jsut related that story so I could say sacbut. #I never get tired of that). #What I've seen is that musicians can be put into two different categories. #There's the musicians who take the business of music very seriously. #They protect it like a work of art in a museum. #It must be preserved. #Then there are the musicians who just delight in music. #They play with it. #I'm writing my history thesis and will eventually get my doctorate, but I'm still in the second group. #Sure I want to know how things were played, but mostly that's because no matter what the century, there were people that delighted in music and "played" it, and I want in on that. #

After a year of playing the madolin and having a blast, I'm just starting to get the urge to play the trumpet again...an instrument I haven't played in 5 years because I was supposed to take it seriously. #Classifications and borders are good. #They help us communicate better and faster. #Just don't get bogged down with them. #They aren't the music.

Katie

[hellindc]

Great comment Katie. Forgive me one cheap shot:

Is it true that France and America had a cultural exchange -- they gave us post-modernism, and we gave them Jerry Lewis?

[gnelson651]

Music is art and artists should not be barred from experimentation if art is to flourish.

"Art is whatever you can get away with." # http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[Jim Yates]

Great quote Glenn. Who's it from?

Is it still classical when Julian Bream plays a Bach lute suite on the guitar?

357mag says it's not bluegrass if it doesn't sound like Ralph Stanley,(I think he might have had his tongue in his cheek when he typed this)but Ralph said his music wasn't bluegrass. He said that Bluegrass is the stuff that Bill Monroe plays.

Ralph has been known to play clawhammer. When I play clawhammer, I'm told,"It's not Bluegrass." I think I agree, but I don't really care.

[Michael H Geimer]

Here's another thought about why it can help to limit the scope of style definitions (I'm gonna use BG as I think it's the easiest example):

There has been plenty of 'expansion' in the Bluegrass style ever since NGR showed up. Even though they called themselves 'Newgrass', no one bothered taking up that term. Bluegrass was what people had heard of, and so that term seemed fine ... to the new, younger, inexperienced listeners.

Since then, that trend has continued and the style has become pretty much an 'anything goes' genre in many people's minds. Everything from YMSB, to Nickel Creek and AKUS is getting filed under the Bluegrass genre.

But about those people who play straight Bluegrass? Suddenly, through no action of their own they've become Elitists ... often viewed as trying to limit things by hanging onto the The Rules, or trying to stop new bands from expressing themselves by claiming Bluegrass even has Rules, etc. when all these people are really trying to do is play music the way WSM (and others) defined the style.

Who changed what? Who's zoomin' who?

I'd like to thnk that Artists (and fans too) who take their work out into the Stylistic Suburbs, might try instead to set up their own town and name it accordingly. Outsiders are just that ... Outsiders.

On Topic: 'Classical' has similarly become a 'dumping ground' for all things orchestral. But, I've also heard a different term used by academic types ... 'Serious Music'. I like that term as it speaks to the purpose of the music as High Art, and sets it aside from Popular Music which serves a much more mundane social function by comparison.

- Benig

[JimD]

I've also heard a different term used by academic types ... 'Serious Music'. I like that term as it speaks to the purpose of the music as High Art, and sets it aside from Popular Music which serves a much more mundane social function by comparison.

Many of us who play and compose classical music despise the term "serious".

It implies that everything classical is serious (which it isn't) and nothing else is (which isn't true either)

I prefer cultivated (meaning something that must be studied - European classical, Indian Carnatic, Jazz etc.) and vernacular (that which is learned by being around it alot -- like language)

OK -- my definition leaves a bit to be desired but I think these terms (which come from etnomusicology) take the value judgement out and leave the "function" and importance of each style intact.

I am probably not being clear enough -- it has been a long day already.

I'll clarify if it becomes necessary to defend my statements. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Michael H Geimer]

Jim, you taken my thought and 'scooted' it forward along the same direction. I think I like 'cultivated' more than 'serious' for all the reasons you've offered.

[gnelson651]

Great quote Glenn. #Who's it from?


Marshall McCluhan

[MandoJon]

The traditionalists say that the music is written in stone and MUST be performed exactly as written. Any deviation is wrong. Period.

But this is a comparatively modern thing. Go back a couple of hundred years and players were expected to come up with their own ornamentation/interpretation and were judged on their ability to do so.

[Pedal Steel Mike]

My CDs were judged, actually pre-judged, by a few people on the basis of what instrument I used.

There are of course, people who do not care for what I've done, but that's different, and I inderstand it. What I don't understand is people who "know" without listening to something that it's "wrong."

I guess this is the same kind of thinking that led some people to tell Pete Langdale at Rigel that he was making his mandolins all wrong because he has new and different designs.

I wonder of Orville Gibson and Lloyd Loar were told the same thing.

[kmiller1610]

I've had the extreme pleasure of listening to Bela Fleck, Chris Thile, Mike Marshall and Edgar Meyer and friends play Bach for two hours on a Sunday morning. Is it still classical? Don't know, but more importantly, it's still Bach.

R
Sooo jealous...... They should record it. I'd buy it in a minute...

[howbahmando]

It's considered perfectly acceptable for "classical" players (as the term is commonly used) to play "transcriptions" - taking a piano piece & arranging it for guitar, a violin piece & arranging it for oboe, a piano piece & arranging it for a full orchestra. So it's not so much a matter of sticking with the original instrumentation; it's just important (to many classical players anyway) to stick to a group of "accepted" instruments. Banjos, electric guitars (steel string acoustic guitars too, in fact), synthesizers, etc are considered outside the acceptable group because they're new, not because they're inherently incapable of playing the music.

Which IMHO isn't a good enough reason for saying a BG band "can't" play classical music. (As long as they actually can.)

[Eugene]

Not at all. There is formal composition for a great many new instruments: electric guitars, electric mandolins, synthesizers, Villa Lobos wrote a fine concerto for harmonica, DeMars wrote a couple for 6-hole Native American flute, etc. It's more important that the notes as composed be preserved as much as possible in transcription.

[Keith Erickson]

Just a comment...

...this whole discussion reminded me of an instrumental music class that I took back in high school. This one morning we had a substitute teacher covering the class. He knew absolutely nothing about music. On this day we were suppose to just listen to music. Another student brought in Hendrix's version of the Star Spangled Banner to listen to as one of the songs on our list to cover and discuss.

The substitute teacher went completely bonkers and threw the kid out of class. It didn't stop there, he wrote the kid up and it was escalated to the vice principal and principal. The sub (who was normally the math teacher) wanted the kid at least suspended from school for a week.

Our regular music teacher returned the next day and ..... http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif ..... well you guessed it, the you-know-what hit the fan. The substitute was never allowed to cover our class again and our student had the "issue" wiped off of his student record. ...but it did get political over nothing and it left an impression that I don't think many of us in that class will ever forget.

Steel Pedal Mike, I feel for you because there are so many folks that really don't know how to think outside the box like you do.

[Paul Kotapish]

There has always been a tug of war between the defenders of idiomatic purity and those who push the boundaries--consciously or otherwise. I think this tension is good for music in general. I like it that The Old Time Herold is vigilant in its defense of hard-core traditional idioms while there are loads of bands out there trying their best to mess with those same idioms in new ways. And I love it that there are purist baroque ensembles playing on period instruments at the same time Mike is figuring out cool arrangements of classical--or baroque or romantic or impressionist or 12-tone--music for the pedal steel.

Of course the most successful purveyors of evolutionary musical forms are usually well grounded in the older, purer strains first. It always helps to understand the structure before initiating deconstruction.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This discussion reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from composer Thomas Beecham:

"The English may not like music, but they absolutely love the noise it makes."

[first string]

J. Mark Lane makes a good point--there is a difference between wanting to restrict definitions, and condemning music that breaks boundaries. But while there is a definite appeal to fixing the meanings of terms, it is a losing battle. In the eighteenth century there was a movement (largely associated with Jonathan Swift) in linguistics towards permanently setting down what words would mean. But of course it failed. Language always has been, and always will be, fluid. Words mean what people use them to mean. And while we may fear that this will lead to the bastardization of certain terms, there is really nothing one can do about it. My guess is that in a century, the common conception of Bluegrass will be anything that involves a banjo or a mandolin. But that doesn't mean that there won't be scholars who understand how the genre evolved from Monroe, all the way through Bush, Thile, and players who are not yet born.

[Arto]

Some time ago a saw a Bach CD in a music shop. The back cover text mentioned it was played "on digital and other period synthetizers".

Made my day! #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif