From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Classical Music for modern instrument (was Re: The shortest distance between two chords is...)
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:30:25 GMT

In article <CB.93Jan25134212@tamarack13.timbuk> cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
>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.

Alas, it's almost impossible.  The Beatles got away with it, as did 
CSN in a completely different way.  Jazz quartet vocals are another matter
still.  

But in all those cases, the vocals call a lot of attention to themselves,
and also have the benefit of just the right voices.  And very often,
rock vocals *don't* call attention to themselves too much, for the 
simple reason that it makes it hard to hear the words or the rest of
the music.  

This is something that's been on the table of music criticism since abou
the 13th century.  In 14th C England, at Trent, in the Florentine Camerata,
in Mozart's Vienna, in the Vatican in 1903 -- again and again one attempts
to simplify the vocals, strip away the layers of polyphony and get back
to basic singing.  And rock derives much of its greatness from very
basic, often ecstatic singing -- the kind you don't do in any but a very 
simple arrangement.  Rock *was* a simplification of singing, simplifying 
the gussied-up 50's arranged pop.  Doo-wop was trickier, but also
represented a stripping down of arranged styles.

>   ... 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.

Still not the point.  For one thing, there *are* plenty of pop and rock
songs with more than parallel arangements; for another, it's jsut not something
you can use all the time without changing the essentials of the musical
environment.  Rock is based on simple arrangements in terms of vocals
(not in terms of beat, etc.!!!); one can only diverge from that so often.
And if one is to diverge often, one must have something very strong to
offer, as the Beatles did.

(Apologies for the Albert Goldman crack, btw.)

Roger

Newsgroups: rec.music.classical