Archive of the former Yahoo!Groups mailing list: The Mellotron Group

previous by date index next by date
previous in topic topic list next in topic

Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] So - The train wreck finally wrecked

From: lsf5275@aol.com
Date: 2011-07-27

No, I think you are right. But classical music was written and performed before there was any ability to duplicate it. Orchestras and ensembles were created to interpret those creations (with obvious varying degrees of skill) for the masses. The only way to share music was to perform it. The intricacies of a Beethoven quartet or a Verdi Opera make them attractive to perform live because there is no expected standard. We don't say that the orchestra is a Beethoven cover band. We don't listen to Virgil Fox and say, "that sucks compared to when I heard Bach do it," even if we're not Virgil Fox fans.
 
Pop songs lose their luster because they cease to be interesting. I don't consider relevance. I don't put on Moody Blues albums any more to just sit and listen to, however, when I'm in the shop and the iPod is shuffled, I song of theirs may come up now and again. There are more than 10,000 songs so it is not frequent. But when I hear one, I enjoy it.
 
In a message dated 7/26/2011 6:28:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, tronbros@aol.com writes:
 

The main difference in all this is that within rock and pop you have a definitive recording, be it Strawberry Fields or Nights.  Nobody really wants to hear a copy, there is no score, it was captured once in a particular way.  Classical music is realised through the interpretation of scores, modified endlessly by the vision of conductors and the sonority of individual orchestras.  Therefore the audience for pop will diminish as you move away from the time of it's original creation.  Okay, the Beatles defy this theory a little.  Thomas Tallis wrote in the 16th century and is still performed.  Nights in White Satin will fade as it is the sum of unique parts one day in 1967 and that cannot be replicated closely and regularly.  Classical music can be.  I may be wrong.......

M

On 26 Jul 2 011, at 22:08, Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@gmail.com> wrote:

 

On 26/07/2011 21:17, lsf5275@aol.com wrote:

 

No, your point was about Justin Hayward. He was just part of his generation.

Actually my point wasn't specifically about him at all.  Someone else brought him up.

Much of his music is/was timeless and will be relevant long after we are gone. People will rediscover Tuesday Afternoon,and Nights in White Satin over and over again. His relevance might be to a narrower audience, but no musician is relevant unless someone thinks they are... ever. All it takes is one. More is better, though.

That's just simply not true.  The difficult thing is that I think you know it.   If something is an entity that 'people will rediscover' then it is an apparent truth that it has to be undiscovered first,and that process is well underway.  They may well be your personal favourites, but ask your average 20 or 25 or 30 year old what they know about The Moody Blues (to name your specific) and the overwhelming likely answer will be a blank stare back at you. No one know. No one remembers. Far fewer ever care. Music is an evanescent thing, so get used to it and enjoy what you have. At best they might name NiWS.  But that's all, and that is by an Herculean effort.

His audience is narrower is because his audience is dying slowly.  That is how stuff works.  And I have no issue with that at all.

Mike