No, it probably *shouldn't* be; but I've not heard a convincing argument - from my ears or via anyone else's - that there is much value beyond this. Sure, it's enjoyable on certain levels, as a fun orchestral toccata, but I've not heard much depth beyond that. But sometimes that's enough.
The Dvorak/Black-Eyed Peas mash-up is a different beast: there's a little bit of melodic overlap (the first five notes of Dvorak's theme), but no one could say that Humps is an arrangement or transcription of the New World Sym. There are various similar exx of hiphop drawing on little riffs from 19th-century symphonic classics. A kind of musical bling? I'm sure someone in academia is working on that ...
Re Ian's piece (without having heard it): the real difference isn't so much that he writes about his reasons for using a certain text, it's that it sounds like he's doing something critical and transformative with it. There's a feeling listening to the Turnage that it's an attempt to *recreate* (not transform) an original, to transplant it into an unfamiliar scenario, but doing so in such a way (through a heavy 80-piece orchestra instead of Beyoncé and an agile digital studio) that compromises so much of the original. That whole business of compromise, translation, transplantation, etc could be interesting in itself. Other composers - Michael Finnissy, say - think about this sort of thing, but I don't think Turnage is concerned with any of that (although it sounds to me from what you say that Ian is at least thinking about some of these dimensions, which is far preferable, I think).
"I don't think Turnage is concerned with any of that"
Which is to say: the motors for this piece, what drives it forward and give it extension in time (and thus justify its existence) derive either from the Beyoncé original, or from some off the peg structural devices (such as a basic A-B-A form in which the original material goes away in the middle then returns at the end). A more critical piece would have as its motor some sort of development of those processes of compromise etc - an extension of the cracks between the original and the transcription, say. The artefacts of a compromised translation would become the musical material, overtaking the transcribed original itself - or at least entering into some sort of dialogue with it.
That's all a bit prescriptive maybe, but it's a vision of an alternative approach.
I'd love to see some speculation in the other direction! I mean there's obvious incorporation of classical music into some songs -- my fave is Nadiya's "Amies Ennemies," which samples and then quotes Chopin.
More ChopinkoganbotSeptember 21 2010, 16:03:24 UTC
My favorite is Donna Summer's "Prelude To Love"/"Could It Be Magic," an arrangement of Chopin's Prelude 20 that bleeds into a song (written by Barry Manilow) that borrows from that Chopin prelude.
No, it probably *shouldn't* be; but I've not heard a convincing argument - from my ears or via anyone else's - that there is much value beyond this. Sure, it's enjoyable on certain levels, as a fun orchestral toccata, but I've not heard much depth beyond that. But sometimes that's enough.
The Dvorak/Black-Eyed Peas mash-up is a different beast: there's a little bit of melodic overlap (the first five notes of Dvorak's theme), but no one could say that Humps is an arrangement or transcription of the New World Sym. There are various similar exx of hiphop drawing on little riffs from 19th-century symphonic classics. A kind of musical bling? I'm sure someone in academia is working on that ...
Re Ian's piece (without having heard it): the real difference isn't so much that he writes about his reasons for using a certain text, it's that it sounds like he's doing something critical and transformative with it. There's a feeling listening to the Turnage that it's an attempt to *recreate* (not transform) an original, to transplant it into an unfamiliar scenario, but doing so in such a way (through a heavy 80-piece orchestra instead of Beyoncé and an agile digital studio) that compromises so much of the original. That whole business of compromise, translation, transplantation, etc could be interesting in itself. Other composers - Michael Finnissy, say - think about this sort of thing, but I don't think Turnage is concerned with any of that (although it sounds to me from what you say that Ian is at least thinking about some of these dimensions, which is far preferable, I think).
Reply
Which is to say: the motors for this piece, what drives it forward and give it extension in time (and thus justify its existence) derive either from the Beyoncé original, or from some off the peg structural devices (such as a basic A-B-A form in which the original material goes away in the middle then returns at the end). A more critical piece would have as its motor some sort of development of those processes of compromise etc - an extension of the cracks between the original and the transcription, say. The artefacts of a compromised translation would become the musical material, overtaking the transcribed original itself - or at least entering into some sort of dialogue with it.
That's all a bit prescriptive maybe, but it's a vision of an alternative approach.
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jpiPXwcr0c
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlXwOWvcHno
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment