Dear Chris, I'm SO tempted to reply in detail to your message, but I have to say: don't get me going!!!
David R [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.rastallmusic.com On Jan 21, 2007, at 10:22 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All, > > With the possible exception of jazz, classical > music is confronted with a uniquely problematic > practice right now that prevents it from becoming a > successful commercial item: its made up of the same > _exact_ stuff over and over. To use Pachelbel as an > example - outside of specialists, who knows any other > piece of music by JP other than the infamous > "Variations Over a Ground Bass in D Major?" Yet there > is a whole body of work by this guy including organ > works, choral music, etc. Why is it that we don't > hear more? There are a number of complex issues such > as audience expectations and promotional issues, but > the core responsibility lies with the fact that > performers themselves just don't play JP's other stuff > very often. > Look at pop music (I use it in a very broad sense > of "not classical") on the other hand. Covers exist > but most acts are always presenting _new_ music. > (This music is, of course, not new stylistically - it > consistently follows rather narrow formulae.) If our > genre is going to survive, classical musicians need to > at least delve into some of the great unknown > repertoire out there more often. > Discovering neglected gems was the operative > philosophy of the Early Music movement when it first > began, but now we too have largely ossified into > predictable patterns of the same pieces by the same > composers again and again. Just look to see how many > different recordings of Dowland are out there. Now > look to see how many recordings of the music of, say, > Buddy Holly, you'll find by people other than Buddy > Holly himself. Undoubtedly you'll find folks > recording a Holly song here or there, but when its > done it is rather like an added spice that makes up > the meal of one's career built on other, previously > unheard, songs. > Yes, all of this concentration on a few items was > at the urging of record companies who saw that it was > easier to package, market, and sell classical albums > to the consumer if they were classified by > recognizable-name composers and "greatest hit" > repertoire. That was in the past. But now - look at > the serious trouble that record companies are in today > because of this narrow corporate mindset! Performers > need to lead the charge into other modes. > Here, I'm mainly talking about what already exists > in the back-catalog. I haven't even mentioned the > utterly unholy option of performers championing newly > composed music. > > > Chris > > > > --- David Rastall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Ho! Ho! >> >> Here comes the voice of the big elitist: the worst >> possible thing >> for classical music is for it to become popularized. >> In the world of >> pop culture, to loosely paraphrase Oscar Wilde, the >> only thing worse >> for classical music than *not* being talked about is >> for it to *be* >> talked about. ;-) >> >> David R >> >> >> >> On Jan 20, 2007, at 9:54 AM, Daniel Shoskes wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 9:39 AM, EUGENE BRAIG IV >> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> lushly lifeless interpretation of Pachelbel's >> Canon directly into >>>> their brains. >>> >>> With the Canon's new fame?? >>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> To get on or off this list see list information at >>> >> > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> www.rastallmusic.com >> >> >> >> >> -- >> > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > ______________ > Never miss an email again! > Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ > > --
