From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Why no amplified solos?
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:19:39 GMT

In article <BzDoqu.Jv8@mach1.wlu.ca> mart4678@mach1.wlu.ca (Phil Martin u) writes:
>First, let me make it clear that I am not trying to be a smart-ass rock-head
>who doesn't understand the concept or the innate beauty of accoutic recordings.

Look, if you're going to start in with apologies and excuses, you can
just forget it.  I mean, do you really think you can fool us like that?
We know what you *really* think.

----------------------------->>>   8-)   <<<----------------------------------

>"Why do you never hear concerts of symphonic works performed on 'electric'
>instruments?"

(You do, but we'll get back to that.)

>I understand that it really wouldn't work for large orchestras, but it seems
>to me that it could be very effective in a situation where there is one 
>instrument (like a 'cello) accompanied by another (like a piano). Has this
>sort of thing been tried much? It's just that everytime I go to a concert,
>and the soloist goes into a cadenza, I can't help but think of how much more
>interesting it would be to listen to if there were a couple of foot pedals
>hooked up to the instrument. If you watch the likes of Neil Young, or Jimi,
>or Chris Duarte, during the course of a solo they will change the sound of the
>instrument several times by selecting different pedals, switching between 
>different pickups, and putting feedback to use in various ways.

Well, Neil Young and Jimi and Jeff Beck and Pat Metheny and Stanley
Jordan and so on all play their own music, basically.  Sure, they cover
tunes (Jordan loves to do standards), but they make arrangements and
work out their own sound for each number.

Classical Music (tm) is different in that one plays other people's
music in something resembling an "original" arrangement.  (What 
"original" means is another matter.)  And this generally means
doing the cadenza in a style tha the composer might have recognized.
(There are exceptions; try Gidon Kremer's Beethoven Violin Concerto.
The cadenza, by Soviet eclecticist Alfred Schnittke, is really wild.
No wah-wah, though...)

Anyway, within limits, this also means sticking to the instruments
that the composer intended the piece for.  With older music this
is tough, because most people nowadays don't play old-style instruments,
but the Official Esthetic (tm again) includes most performances that 
use 19th-century instruments for older music.

>I'm not saying that this should always be the case, or that 'classical'
>music should strive to sound more like 'rock' music just because I like it
>more. I am just curious to know if this sort of thing is done often, or if
>it isn't, why not? It seems that some of the 20th century stuff I've heard
>would benifit greatly from this type of treatment, as well as providing a
>broader base of sound with which composers and performers could experiment.

Well, the "classical" idea gets in the way, I guess.  Lots of musicians
have arranged CM (tm) for other instruments -- check out the cadenza to
Switched-On Bach's 3rd Brandenburg, or the recordings of the New York
Electric String Ensemble, or Bach on Wood, or John Lewis' Bach arrangements,
etc., etc.

But audiences are purist, in general, and expect the Real Thing (tm), 
which mostly means playing it straight, whatever that means.

Why classical performance is that way is a very interesting question 
with centuries of answers.  The best thing to do, imho, is to come up
with some good performances of your own and take the World (tm) by 
storm.

Roger

Newsgroups: rec.music.classical