Following up on the last post, I've been thinking about several things that I'll try to at least touch upon.
First off is the issue of adapting trance or trance-like elements to a classical music setting. The reverse has been done many times, quite successfully I might add. In fact, classical music has been adapted to or sampled in just about every kind of music, and when it is done competently it works.
Why then, does it seem that when other styles of music are performed "in a classical style" they seem to fall quite short of the mark? How many times I've heard "the Beatles for orchestra" or "such-and-such a band in the style of Mozart," and it never works for me. It sounds contrived. It sounds like a square peg trying to be forced into a triangular slot. If I hear one more person ask me if I've heard Metallica play with an orchestra...I'm sorry, but it does not sound quite right. The thing about setting rock music to an orchestral setting is that (a) the music was not originally conceived with an orchestra in mind and (b) the original music lacks a certain "compatiblility." The second point is a more subjective one, yes, but I feel it's true. Metallica is really playing with an orchestra. There is no sense of fusion. Rock/metal/pop can be combined with an orchestra, but the piece has to allow room for the sounds of the orchestra. Otherwise you're just writing a song and trying to cram 52 extra pieces in afterwards.
So, is classical music the problem then? Is it not "adaptable" or "flexible?" Can it not accomodate other sounds and styles? I hope this is not the case, for it would just prove further that there is a rift between the two worlds. But the problem for me is that it can work one way, but does not seem to be quite as successful the other way. Specifically regarding trance elements in classical music: I think it's possible, under certain circumstances. Trance is often conceived on a large scale, with very gradual development. Single pieces are usually upwards of six minutes long, trance compilations span two full compact discs and concerts will last five or more hours. A symphony could be compared to a compilation disc. While the symphony may only have three movements to the disc's 14 tracks, and the symphony will draw on only a few contained themes compared to the contrasting tracks on the disc, I think they share in their development of moods and ideas. So with regards to the music itself, there is no reason it couldn't be played by an orchestra.
However, I see several problems arising. How closely does one follow the adaptation? For instance, an orchestra cannot produce electronic sounds (assuming a live setting using only acoustic instruments) which is a trademark of trance, dance and electronica. Nevertheless, if you try to put together a trance track piece by piece in an orchestra as you would in a studio, that's where I think you fall short. Then you're trying to recreate instead of adapt. If you want to recreate, use the original materials and means. Still, one has to question how effective a translation can be without some of the most important original elements--which also includes the thumping bass beats. Do they stay? One of Glenn Gould's problems with rock music is that it has an unchanging tempo. There's no room for it to breathe, he said. I can only imagine what kind of a reaction he would have had to five hours of constant pulsing.
There is also the issue of mood and setting. Going to a trance show is an experience wholly separate from a classical music concert. Part of the experience of trance is movement. It's about getting out on the floor and dancing and not just enjoying the music aurally, but feeling it. Could an orchestral setting capture this? Not the whole thing, no. I think you could apply trance elements if you were clever about it, but trying to recreate the whole of it would leave you feeling like something is missing.
That brings me to the next issue. Regarding the setting I presented in my last post (about jogging), I don't think you can recreate that in music. At least, it would be pointless to. Suppose I found some way to organise and notate it such that I had four distinct sections that were reproducing the proper rhythms of the music, my heart, my breathing and my footsteps. What then? Would I actually try to mimic the original sounds? Or would I attempt musical interpretations of them? That seems unnatural. And I think that's where music that attempts to capture the sounds of nature does not succeed. Writing a piece with birds singing and leaves rustling in the wind is as futile as going out into the forest and asking the elements to work with you--could the birds be a little louder?, and would that dog stop barking for just a moment?, and why is it raining today?
1 comment:
A few thoughts in response to this blog:
1. One could argue that, amongst genres, classical music is the most adaptable of them all, since "classical" encompasses so many different periods and styles, including the explosion of styles within the classical music world over the past 100 years. This is not to suggest it is 'better' in any way, just to suggest that you could look at it slightly differently than you have done.
2. You say that "the Beatles for orchestra" type of treatments do not work for you, which is fair enough; they tend not to work for me either FWIW. But your post starts out by exploring the question of whether a genre of music (trance) is adaptable into a classical setting, which is different than asking whether the music of a particular band can be made to work this way (in a classical setting).
To me, your question of the adaptability of other genres into classical is much more open-ended; I firmly believe that you can adapt any genre into classical, and a number of contemporary classical music composers have attempted this over the past forty years or so, sometimes quite successfully.
When these compositions work, I think it is because they adopt aspects of the genre from which they borrow, and the finished product sounds like an excellent composition in the incredibly-wide contemporary classical genre.
But I doubt die-hard rock fans think of this kind of music as rock and roll, any more than anyone thinks that Metallica with an orchestra is classical, or that the Moody Blues and other groups that were fond of orchestral accompaniments for their songs are classical.
My point being, therefore, that genres borrow from one another, and it has always been that way, right back to the medieval period.
BTW, speaking of trance, at the last Sound Symposium a flutist friend of mine performed a set of mainly my music, but there was a composition for flute and CD by an Australian composer (name escapes me right now) that was trance music. Mind you, the CD had all electronically-generated sounds (I think), so you could argue that it was easier to pull off a convincing emulation of trance music, but if you were willing to experiment a bit, I am pretty sure you could come up with something that would be recognizable as being a contemporary classical composition with a heavy trance influence. It's certainly worth a shot!
Post a Comment