Dear Chuck... THANK YOU for those comments on (mis)interpretation of popular song...I have pasted them in several locations (with your name redacted) for people to see. Jim
________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Chuck Israels Sent: Thu 30-Mar-06 12:42 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Finale] TAN: req fake book recommendation On Mar 30, 2006, at 8:59 AM, Andrew Stiller wrote: > Chuck Israels noted the poor quality of songbooks post 1960 (I > mistakenly deleted his posting so I can't quote it). > > I realize that he was talking about recent publications of old > standards, not of recent music, Yes, that's what I meant, but even some old ones vary in quality. I've heard pretty poor piano accompaniments to Cole Porter songs used by Ben Heppner's accompanist (for one example). I'm all for people with trained voices singing popular songs, as long as the rendition at least approaches the accepted standards set by the better performers of that material, just as I'm happy that Rufus Wainwright sings L'Invitation au Voyage. (Not the best I've heard, of course, but pretty decent, and it introduces his audience to that wonderful song at what I consider to be an acceptable, and certainly heartfelt, level.) I just don't enjoy ignorant performances - where "classical" singers go slumming. Ugh! I'm always surprised that people who are supposedly trained in the nuances of interpretation can be so far off that it's embarrassing when they sing popular material. The result sounds as if they've either never heard it, or that they mistakenly believe they are elevating the material by performing it in grossly pretentious and bizarre ways. When I hear that kind of thing, it casts doubt, in my mind, on the integrity of all of their other work. Makes me think they have no more understanding of the stuff they normally perform than they do of the pop stuff. End of OT rant. > but I thought it would be worth mentioning that piano-vocal > publications of rock music, of which I have many, vary tremendously > in quality, and some of them are very good. The best, not > surprisingly, tend to be those in which the original accompaniment > is keyboard-based: The Doors, for example, and Joni Mitchell. Good to know this. Chuck > > Andrew Stiller > Kallisti Music Press > http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ > > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Dear Chuck... THANK YOU for those comments on (mis)interpretation of popular song...I have pasted them in several locations (with your name redacted) for people to see. Jim ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Chuck Israels Sent: Thu 30-Mar-06 12:42 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Finale] TAN: req fake book recommendation On Mar 30, 2006, at 8:59 AM, Andrew Stiller wrote: > Chuck Israels noted the poor quality of songbooks post 1960 (I > mistakenly deleted his posting so I can't quote it). > > I realize that he was talking about recent publications of old > standards, not of recent music, Yes, that's what I meant, but even some old ones vary in quality. I've heard pretty poor piano accompaniments to Cole Porter songs used by Ben Heppner's accompanist (for one example). I'm all for people with trained voices singing popular songs, as long as the rendition at least approaches the accepted standards set by the better performers of that material, just as I'm happy that Rufus Wainwright sings L'Invitation au Voyage. (Not the best I've heard, of course, but pretty decent, and it introduces his audience to that wonderful song at what I consider to be an acceptable, and certainly heartfelt, level.) I just don't enjoy ignorant performances - where "classical" singers go slumming. Ugh! I'm always surprised that people who are supposedly trained in the nuances of interpretation can be so far off that it's embarrassing when they sing popular material. The result sounds as if they've either never heard it, or that they mistakenly believe they are elevating the material by performing it in grossly pretentious and bizarre ways. When I hear that kind of thing, it casts doubt, in my mind, on the integrity of all of their other work. Makes me think they have no more understanding of the stuff they normally perform than they do of the pop stuff. End of OT rant. > but I thought it would be worth mentioning that piano-vocal > publications of rock music, of which I have many, vary tremendously > in quality, and some of them are very good. The best, not > surprisingly, tend to be those in which the original accompaniment > is keyboard-based: The Doors, for example, and Joni Mitchell. Good to know this. Chuck > > Andrew Stiller > Kallisti Music Press > http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ > > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
