John,
This is actually an excellent example because it highlights the
generational difference I'm talking about.
Your generation views songs as analogous to theatrical roles, which we
expect can and should be played by many different actors over time.
Theatre is necessarily mutable, and it's generally expected that many
actors can and will play the same role over time.
My generation views songs as analogous to movies, which are released
in a fixed, immutable form. When you watch the late Jules Dassin's
brilliant film _Rififi_ at an repetory cinema, or on DVD, it's the
same movie audiences saw when it was originally released. (Allowing
for digital remastering, etc.)
_Rififi_ is a very influential film. Many, many filmmakers have
borrowed or adapted elements from it, especially the spectacular and
innovative 28-minute heist sequence. But nobody's made a modern remake
of it -- and if they did, it would probably be much inferior. And
nobody expects to measure the quality of a movie by how many times
it's been remade by other directors.
Cheers,
- Darcy
-----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
On 3 Apr 2008, at 1:08 PM, John Howell wrote:
At 6:40 AM -0400 4/3/08, dhbailey wrote:
I personally think any of Coltrane's originals can stand up to
reinterpretation (just as most pieces of music can) and if they
don't match the original, that's fine. They can't because the
original depends on the tone and personality of the original
artist. That doesn't mean that the reinterpretation fails for
people who haven't heard the original.
It occurs to me, David (and Darcy), that it might be easier to
understand this if we can step outside the realms of either pop or
jazz and look at it through the lens of a different, if allied art,
namely, theater.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
