| |
|
I think this needs its own discussion area; it stems out of something harmony and exp were mentioning on the Late Shift.
Basically: how have alternate interpretations of the same piece of music shifted your expectations? This is mainly something that comes up with classical music, but there are equally valid points to be made in pop directions.
The thing that struck me, walking up the road, about Wendy Carlos' interpretaions of Bach is that they're simple 20th century applications of what we already knew - the pieces that are written for klavier are equally applicable on any keyboard instrument, and so the synthesizer is just a logical extension of that. They have to be approached in entirely different ways, though, for each instrument; Bach on a harpsichord is not played the same as Bach on a piano, obviously.
I've got five different recordings of the Goldberg variations. A naxos piano version (relatively good), Glen Gould (which is an acquired taste, and I haven't quite acquired it yet, though some of his touch is spellbinding), Andras Schiff (on Penguin Classics. Which is remarkable - a complete bargain, and a remarkable performance). Also, looser interpretations: the Jacques Loussier Trio playing it, in their jazz manner - but with a remarkable respect for the original Bach. I respect Loussier a lot, though his Vivaldi is only so-so, the Ravel is not good at all, and the Satie is barely interpretation - just a jazz group playing Satie, basically. And finally:
Uri Caine. Amazon link here. Caine takes the Bach aria, and plays it straight. He then goes off into 72 variations; many of them Bach's own, but as many Caine's. And "variation" no longer means variation of the notes, but also of the instrumentation. There are arrangements for klezmer band, for brass group, for Hammond, for soul band, arrangements played entirely electronically, some scratch ones if I recall, not to mention variations in the styles of other classical composers which are fun, but short enough not to be irritating. I love it; as with Loussier, there is a degree of respect there, but what he does is fascinating. More successful at some times than others, obviously.
Caine's also attacked Mahler, Wagner and Schumann. I'd be most interested to hear them.
So yes. What alternate interpretations should people be aware of? What are your opinions on it? I mean, is there ever any reason for lounge jazz covers? The Mike Flowers Pops? Or people like Caine, attacking the classics? Incidentally: I feel what I'm talking about is more than just a mere "cover". But maybe you'll disagaree with me there. Also: has your love of the original been broadened by other versions? Do you prefer the alternate to the original? |
|
|
