Tom and Jerry has never really done it for me: there’s a sameness to the cartoons which is quite dreary; but I do love the kinetic energy of its chases with the sprightly almost-made-to-order music playing in the background. Most of it is by Rossini by the way, from his brilliant opera overtures (William Tell, La Gazza Ladra, The Barber of Seville, etc) and some are from the other great showman Liszt. Everybody has heard these tunes and loved them, but few know they love Rossini and Liszt!
Indeed, many of the most well-know tunes in the world are classical music: the Four Seasons, the Choral Symphony, Eine Kleine Nachtmusik are so ubiquitous that it is almost impossible to count the number of ads/events they have been associated with.
The Indian TV audience too has grown up with many of these tunes: that eternally popular jingle from the Titan watch ads is from Mozart’s 25th symphony while the glamorous Old Spice ad, with its surfing dude, has Carl Orff’s Carmina Burana in the background.
So really, the sound of classical music is nothing new to the majority of us: we’ve all heard it and loved it, without knowing...I only wish that more people knew what they loved and listened to it for its own sake, as well as for the pop connections!
Sometime back we had a discussion group where we argued on whether changes in the ORIGINAL of a composition can be allowed. The example given by me to start the fight was Carl Orff'sCarmina Burana in many different versions.
ReplyDeleteThe best response was from a friend of ours from the USA who is one of America's best Art Professors-- Jim Adams. I'm giving his email below. Interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HMQOX3h7ZI&feature=related ANDRE RIEU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKiPOhRCuY8&feature=related NEW AGE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faybrq-2IUo&feature=related ARTY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsFywoG-eMo&feature=fvw MICHAEL JACKSON DOCUMENTARY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEllLECo4OM&feature=related UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS --STUDENTS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd_1PUURXM0&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=ML4oVf-d_DwKC1_0j9bqO3tY57cRRYtb7F ROCK VIDEO ???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfVxKBJhg0I GYMNASTICS FANTASIA !!! JUST FABULOUS.
Jim's comment----
ReplyDelete"Gautam, that's a very interesting question. I've not answered before, because I think it warrants more thought. One of the recipients of your question hit "reply all," and that's fine, because it reveals a common reaction to your question. I haven't done that, because I don't want my answer to seem to be a rebuke. You can forward it, if you like.
One aspect of your question was whether or not people should be "allowed" to change masterpieces. Your respondent picked that up and wondered how that practice could be policed. I think there are more factors to be considered.
I'm a "purist" about some things, but not about all. Your respondent would not like my position, because she (or he) thinks you either are a purist, or you aren't. I think it depends on circumstances. For example, Ted Turner bought the Warner Brothers old movies, and began to "colorize" such classics as "Casablanca," and "The Maltese Falcon." Should he have done that? In my view, as a "purist," No. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg went before Congress to plead for a law against that. The result was that he should be able to do that as long as the original, black & white, version remained available to purists like me. Who would enforce that rule? The Government. (If I had more time, or you, more patience, I could explain why a colorized movie cannot be restored in your home simply by adjusting your set. It's a technical explanation which I'll spare you).
That is a special case. Most of the time, I think the answer is simply a matter of choice. Is it okay to do "versions" of classics. Sure, as long as we have a choice. I can either listen to Carl Orff's "O Fortuna" as he wrote it, or I can choose one of the other versions. I prefer Orff's version. If your friend wants to hear a version by Michael Jackson, she should be able to. I have no problem with that. Should Jackson or Rieu be "allowed" to do their own version? Certainly, as long as I have the option to hear Rene Fleming do it.
I confess to being a "purist," in the sense that I prefer to hear Schubert's original music rather than "Blossom Time." I don't object to Berté's having re-done it. I just prefer the original. So in answer to your friend, I think people should be "allowed" to do what they want to "improve" someone else's work. Just count me out.
Khachaturian wrote a violin concerto. I rather like it. The Irish flutist, James Galway, commissioned a rearrangement for flute. I thought that was okay, and I like both versions. So I guess I'm not a complete purist.
Many years ago, Walter Carlos (now known as Wendy Carlos) put out a record called "Switched-on Bach," using a Moog synthesizer to play some Bach pieces. My students, who consider me a purist, asked me what I thought of that. No problem, I said. I would rather hear Bach on a Moog than on a piano, even when it's played by Glenn Gould. Why? Because contrapuntal music needs to be detailed. By that, I mean that the different strains, or voices need to clearly heard, and not muddled. A harpsichord is capable of separating the different voices, while the piano tends to muddle them. The Moog synthesizer doesn't muddle them.
The point of this is that it is up to each listener's choice of what he wants to hear. I think Schubert knew what he was doing, and I don't think his music was improved by Berté. On the other hand, I can still hear Schubert's original version, so I'm not worried if somebody else would rather listen to "Blossom Time."
I'm with Sushweta. And maybe, with you!
Jim "