 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: john gibson
Date: 2005-10-15 18:05
Just thought I'd start a new series of thinking about Rock music and it's subserviant relevance to the classics. Mentioned in earlier thread that you should pay attention to Pete Townsends TOMMY as well as his first attempt at getting away from the 2-3 minute "rock and roll song". He started with an 8 minute venture into a "theme" called QUICK ONE WHILE HE'S AWAY. It had a story line as well as movement changes. He then ventured into what has been called ROCK OPERA with TOMMY. A masterpiece as far as I'm concerned.
Granted the MOODY BLUES also went "classical" with some of their music, but I don't think any rockers ever matched or ever will, the thoroughness of orchestration and completion of thought as did Pete and the WHO with TOMMY. Any thoughts?
JG
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Merlin
Date: 2005-10-15 19:37
I'm listening - but I can't seem to hear the clarinets in there...
Anyone for "Sixteen Tons"?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ron b
Date: 2005-10-15 20:39
"Rock Opera"
I've heard the term and, while I haven't heard any rock opera (yet), it sounds like a non-sensical metaphor to me (huh, Tony?)... but, then, what do I know? Not much, it seems because when it comes to the grand pool of modern descriptive terminology almost anything that floats gets thrown in.
- r![[cool]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/cool.gif) n b -
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Neil
Date: 2005-10-15 21:03
I remember back in the early 70's there was a lot of that going on. I heard once that Procul Harum based "Whiter Shade of Pale" on Bach's music. Sometimes the classicalization of rock produced pleasant results, sometimes not so pleasant ("MacArthur's Park" anyone?). Personally, I applaud the Ramones for returning rock 'n' roll to its pure form; songs 2-3 min long, loud, fast, not requiring deep thought.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ken
Date: 2005-10-15 23:20
I believe with evolutionary groups (i.e., Stones, Aerosmith, Elton John, and Grateful Dead) whose music literally bridges a generation gap; the defining influence is a mind's creative snapshot in time. I know Who purists approaching 60 that shun anything post "Tommy" (Can't Explain – My Generation crowd) or after "Who are You" and Keith Moon's final album. Now, when I enjoy the Tommy opera I can't help think of poor Ann-Margaret falling off stage during filming and breaking her [so beautiful] face.
As originally a 60s British Invasion hard rocker, composer/storyteller of rock operas, film soundtracks and theatrical songs, Townsend's music spans 30 years and is legendary. Although, "Who's Next" is arguably Townsend's career crowning jewel his rock opera "Quadrophenia" (1973) is proclaimed among Who hardcore devotees as their "real masterpiece" and not "Tommy." I agree and personally feel Quadrophenia is all the more spectacular as Townsend was (typically) the lone compositional "hot pencil." On Entwistle, I love him particularly on trumpet or horn noodling those simplistic but catchy horn lines. I read Pete's most recent project is a six CD box set, entitled the "Lifehouse Chronicles." It's the supporting music of a BBC radio drama.
Touching on other group members, I believe Roger Daltrey also took a stab at writing soundtracks on "McVicar" (1982) as well as acting stint. Entwistle's first album "Whistle Rymes" also contrasts a mini rock theme.
Another long forgotten but pivotal soundtrack is Elton John's, "Friends" (1970.) Skimming the liner notes, Elton penned much of the orchestration himself. It's cheesy and in spots you just want to shout, "tune it up!" but still pleasingly dreamy with the compulsory FM pop anchor tunes.
Hey, thanks Pete; I graciously missed out on way too many hours of clarinet playing because of you! v/r Ken
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: msloss
Date: 2005-10-16 22:34
You can get into all sorts of debates about one rock group's contribution vs. another, but as for the bigger question of rock opera vs. the so-called classics: I think the principal difference is that the "classics" were written to be performed by others, hence their survivability through the ages. While Tommy has been performed on Broadway, does it really work without the instruments and voices of the original group? Maybe a discussion for another board, but I think as with jazz the contributions of the original artists are elemental to what makes it great. A cover band aping a concept album, not so much. Thankfully, with tape, film, video, etc., we can always go back and watch or listen to the original (or if we are lucky see the original group perform or re-interpret their own work).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mkybrain
Date: 2005-10-16 22:44
this just sort of came to me and if im wrong im wrong, but weren't many of the clarinet concertos and duets played by many today written for a particular person, Brahms-Muhlfield, Mozart-Stadler, Mendelssohn-Baermenn(is that right?), yet people are still playing them and they obviously aren't the original artists. However I can understand what your saying too. Often remakes aren't nearly as good as the original, but sometimes they are. I really like Metallica's Garage Inc. cd, which was purely covers, and i think the pulled it off really well. There are plenty more example of that too. Anyway, just throwing some thoughts out there.
Post Edited (2005-10-16 22:46)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: msloss
Date: 2005-10-17 03:35
Sure, a lot of composers write on commission for a particular artist, and will more than likely write in a way that showcases a capability, sound, etc. that defines that artist or ensemble. Still, most compositions are written with at least some hope that the work will survive the premier and go on to be performed broadly. Much of jazz and rock (I'm excluding extropopcrap manufactured in the studio for the top 40 charts) is created spontaneously around a chart and is as much the product of the performer as the composer. The spirit of it lies in what is unique about each performance and what is unique to the artist's sound and approach (and improvisation). The composition doesn't stand on its own as a classic. What makes it classic is the melding of the composer and performer in the moment, however fleeting.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mkybrain
Date: 2005-10-17 03:43
could you say that what is great about rock and jazz is not the acutaly composition itself but the way the performer plays it and the individual performances themselves. couldn't that be equally said about, to use as an example again, clarinet works. However I agree that most rock and jazz isn't written with the intention to be performed by other groups around the world for generations to come, but just for that moment by that particular group.
Post Edited (2005-10-17 03:45)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Eileen
Date: 2005-10-18 22:29
I'm a Who freak who loves both early (I Can't Explain) and Quadraphrenia era Who. I would highly recommend checking out the new DVD edition of the Kids Are Alright movie which contains the full, unedited performance of the mini-opera, "A Quick One While He's Away" from the Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus movie. Legend has it that the Rolling Stones filmed a circus of acts intending to release a film but decided not to release it (until many years later) because the Who's stunning performance completely blew away the performance of the Stones themselves. Unlike most overly ponderous rock-imitating-classical projects, this live performance crackles with excitement and energy.
I flew to London for Pete Townshend's performance of the Lifehouse project accompanied by the London Chamber Orchestra. I enjoyed it but less would have been more as far as the adding on of extra musicians. (although the violin solo on Baba O'Riley was amazing). Townshend's songs were best performed in the second half by Pete solo on an acoustic guitar.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
