From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Subject: Re: Classical Music for modern instrument (was Re: The shortest distance between two chords is...)
In-reply-to: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU's message of Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:56:57 GMT
Organization: pubs
	<CB.93Jan21140340@tamarack13.timbuk>
	<1993Jan21.215657.17376@Princeton.EDU>
Date: 25 Jan 93 13:42:16 CST

Roger Lustig writes:

   >I've been wondering the same thing for a long while--not only the limited chords
   >used, but the brain-dead harmonizing.  

   As I pointed out earlier, what kind of harmonizing would be less brain-dead
   and at the same time wouldn't interfere with the things the music's trying to
   do, which is get people dancing or the like?
...
   Anyway, so what?  Popular voice-leading isn't *supposed* to be fancy,
   anymore than most Baroque solo vocal music is supposed to have fancy
   part-writing.  You've got your melody, your bass, and that's it.
...
   The trouble is, most of the "resources" of classical Western music --
   tricky four-part writing, lots of modulation, chromatic harmonies, etc. --
   are quite irrelevant to the purposes of most popular music.  Likewise,

I don't want tricky, fancy, or self-conscious, and I want to retain the music's
spirit and momentum.  I just think, since they so frequently use two or more
voices singing different notes, they could think just a little about doing more
with those notes.

   ... Eclecticism has been part of pop music -- a big part -- since 
   the late 60's.  In the 70's we had to suffer through tons of pomp-rock
   (things like Emerson, Lake, and Palmer; Yes; etc.), and what you hear 
   since then is partly a reaction to that.  Nowadays, Paul Simon alone 
   uses more different resources than most classical composers ever did;
   and if you can look me in the eye and tell me that Billy Joel's songwriting
   shows no evidence of his training (listen to his basslines!) we're miles
   apart.

In an earlier follow-up, I tried to clarify that I'm not asking rock to be
anything but rock.  I don't like eclecticism in any art--art doesn't work for me
until its influences are synthesized into something more than "in the style of".
For example, black blues in the hands of northern-English working-class guys
became something new and their own, not just derivative blues.  When I speak of
"resources" I don't mean heavy-handed borrowing--maybe just a little more
flexibility.  Are parallel thirds the *only* way they can think of to harmonize
two voices?  As I said, sometimes these guys are pretty creative with chords
(which aren't derived from classical practice), so I know the musicians have it
in them.

   >[Footnote: NPR had a segment about a new album by Elvis Costello with--yes--
   >string quartet.  This is a definite exception to the above; it's surprisingly
   >good.]

   The Beatles used a quartet several times: Yesterday, Eleanor Rigby,
   She's Leaving Home.  Yet much of their music didn't use anything like
   that, and was just as good.  This is beginning to sound like the
   Albert Goldman School of Criticism -- things with strings or big bands
   are better, because more civilized and cultured and closer to the standard
   of "classical" music than those that are not.  Is Charlie Parker With 
   Strings your favorite Bird album?

NO, NO.  I never meant to imply that a string quartet confers legitimacy and
quality (and I think strings are fatal in jazz).  I just found Costello's new
wrinkle a little amusing.  What I actually liked was that (possibly suggested by
the instrumentation) he or someone was doing more with the harmony.  In this
case, the techniques had some relation to common practice, but I'm not looking
for that in pop generally; in fact, I'm surprised that Costello's work
transcended the derivative results that might have been expected (possibly
analogous to the English transformation of blues).

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com