I think we need to make a distinction between music styles, it is quite 
pointless comparing Bach and Led Zeppelin. 
I personally like both and don't know with which method I should make a 
judgement. In the end any judgements about music are always coloured by the 
listeners social background and that of the composer. The idea of a universal 
genius for all time is an illusion that in our post-modern times has little 
relevance.
 
The interesting thing about ALK performance was that he was playing to 
accompany dancers and the sort of performances that can be found on the Sting 
CD with it's romantic rubato would be impossible for a dancer to use.
As we have no recorded performances of renaissance music and the romantic 
tradition is also not representative of renaissance performance, rock music 
performance that places more emphasis on the "beat" is maybe closer to the way 
a renaissance musician may have played. But in the end we have no proof, but 
dancers do need a steady beat.
 
You speak of "subtle layers of the interrelations of pitches and dynamics", I 
can do this when listening to many rock CD's including the new My chemical 
romance CD or Led Zeppelin IV.
 
I have just read an interview from Sting for an american early music magazine 
where he praises Dowland for dealing with the subject DEATH, something that 
modern pop and rock music does not. Well he does not have to worry, the new MCR 
album is a concept album about mortality and should sail into the top of the 
billboard charts.
 
I do not claim that rock music is the only important music in the last 35 
years, but I think that Roman and even sting should be careful about making 
blanket statements about a genre that they don't seem to understand.
 
best wishes
Mark
 

-----Urspr=C3=BCngliche Mitteilung-----
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [email protected]
Verschickt: Fr., 27.Okt.2006, 16:29
Thema: Re: [LUTE] Re: Blackmore, was : A "normal" voyce ?


--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The ability to play fast or cleaner at at least
> possible somewhat to judge.
Yes, so is faster or cleaner, better?  According to
you, no.

> I was not talking about musicians playing abilities.
> For instance ALK, told me that he rarely listen to
> classical CD's because the 
> ensemble playing was often so bad, that his ideal of
> ensemble playing can be 
> heard on hard rock CD's. If you have heard him play
> Can She Excuse compared 
> with the Sting version, I can see what he means.

So, in support of your arguement that we shouldn't
make distinctions between styles of music, you give a
example of a musician who believes that the playing in
one style of music is better than another?  Then you
finish by implying that his version of a song is
better than Sting's.  
 
> 
> What is the point in judging one musical style
> against another?
> In the end no one will listen if they enjoy
> something else, 

There are many reasons for liking a piece of music and
many levels of enjoying music.  Most people only
listen for what they like.  But like Ives said "What
has sound to do with music?"  I love Bach for a
variety of reasons.  On the other hand, while I don't
especially _like_ the surface sound of Webern's music,
I listen to it in another way, appreciating the subtle
layers of the interrelations of pitches and dynamics. 
I also like Bill Monroe, but I sure don't apply the
same expectations.

Chris

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Reply via email to