# Fads, Fashions & Cliches...



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Someone has an 'original idea' (lightbulb plinks on) & it becomes all the rage, in no time becoming the usual version - though still praised as 'edgy', 'ground-breaking' & 'irreverent' by journalists & others who've just caught up.

Example from literature: Laurence Olivier in his film stresses Hamlet's nigh-incestuous interest in his mother's doings & now every production has the Prince of Denmark bouncing on Gertrude's bed; & there's the Nasty Madness of Ophelia fashion that contradicts the text about her turning all to prettiness...

I suppose there must be some examples of 'ground-breaking interpretations' of classical pieces that have now been done to death? Or more general trends that you've noticed?


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Or maybe not! Thanks anyway...


----------



## Karabiner (Apr 1, 2013)

Maybe the frequent usage of harpsichord and cello for realising basso continuo. Nothing wrong with that but I enjoy hearing combinations of instruments as b.c. and it's a factor when I'm buying recordings of Baroque period music.
Also hi, first post


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I'm honoured! Welcome, Karabiner. I only joined myself about a month ago & am totally hooked. Hope you enjoy the forum as much as I do!


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Well, this was a non-starter!  (Apart from Karabiner, to whom, much thanks.)

Maybe Shakespeare appeals to a wider audience, and to those who fancy themselves a bit rather than knowing a lot; and selling tickets may depend on 'modernising', 'making it relevant' etc which seems more allowable with drama anyway.

Whereas classical music draws in more genuinely cultured people (not 'pseuds') & you couldn't introduce something that wasn't grounded in the tradition without attracting widespread contempt; so new fashions may genuinely add something?

Oh good, she said, I've managed to turn this useless thread into a compliment to TC users. 

Now, goodbye, cruel world - I'm off to xjoin the circusx crawl under the table.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I missed this thread somehow. I for one find the uybiquitous use of clippy cloppy woodblocks in 20th /21st century music to be overused, no longer edgy, and now downright silly sounding. I'm over it. It's time to move on.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I think the Kronos Quartet was the first to have cutting-edge-haired, fashionably dressed rather than tuxeoded, performers playing contemporary classical music mixed with rock arrangements. It seems like now there are no end of these ensembles presenting themselves as cutting-edge because they wear black T-shirts. 

And who was the first cute-chick string ensemble? Not being pejorative, but it bothers me when a group is put together around the superficial. (I know, it's all a marketing trick. But the Beaux Arts Trio became famous not because of their looks but because of their fingers.)


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Not to mention The Mediæval Bæbes - a British ensemble of female musicians founded in the 1990s by Katharine Blake and included some of her colleagues from the band Miranda Sex Garden (originally a trio of madrigal singers), as well as other friends who share her love of mediaeval music. 

Hmmm!


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Manxfeeder said:


> And who was the first cute-chick string ensemble? Not being pejorative, but it bothers me when a group is put together around the superficial. (I know, it's all a marketing trick. But the Beaux Arts Trio became famous not because of their looks but because of their fingers.)


Who are these ensembles? I need to know.

I mean, so I can -- you know -- avoid them.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Ingenue said:


> Someone has an 'original idea' (lightbulb plinks on) & it becomes all the rage, in no time becoming the usual version - though still praised as 'edgy', 'ground-breaking' & 'irreverent' by journalists & others who've just caught up.
> ....
> I suppose there must be some examples of 'ground-breaking interpretations' of classical pieces that have now been done to death? Or more general trends that you've noticed?


Holy Minimalism has spawned many composers doing it, even though the guys who started it like Arvo Part, Gorecki, John Tavener and so on where being ground-breaking in the 1970's and '80's, I don't know whats the use of other composers copying them?

Some are critical of the HIP (Historically Informed Performance) going right up to the mid-late 19th century. So you got Chopin done on pianos of his time (or replicas) as well as Berlioz's works done on period instruments. I think Bruckner has also been done this way. Brahms & Schumann definitely. & this isn't new, in an interview Glenn Gould did, he jokingly referred to these "archeological pursuits" and said that soon nothing would be able to be done on a Steinway, apart from Rachmaninov's concertos and even they might be a case for purists to insist they're done on a early 20th century Bechstein or something. I got no strong views about this, other than I am not that interested in period performance of everything, and getting too "archeological" as Gould joked. There's been research lately to suggest that in previous centuries interpretation was more fluid and less focussed on 'perfection' so anything we do to replicate previous eras is grounded in our own era's obsession with perfection (which funnily enough was reached via things like splicing and retouching in recording technology - hardly 'period' is it?).

But anyway, I guess anything can be rehashed or taken to an extreme. Its not the thing itself thats the issue, its whats done with it...


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Holy Minimalism has spawned many composers doing it, even though the guys who started it like Arvo Part, Gorecki, John Tavener and so on where being ground-breaking in the 1970's and '80's, I don't know whats the use of other composers copying them?
> 
> Some are critical of the HIP (Historically Informed Performance) going right up to the mid-late 19th century. So you got Chopin done on pianos of his time (or replicas) as well as Berlioz's works done on period instruments. I think Bruckner has also been done this way. Brahms & Schumann definitely. & this isn't new, in an interview Glenn Gould did, he jokingly referred to these "archeological pursuits" and said that soon nothing would be able to be done on a Steinway, apart from Rachmaninov's concertos and even they might be a case for purists to insist they're done on a early 20th century Bechstein or something. I got no strong views about this, other than I am not that interested in period performance of everything, and getting too "archeological" as Gould joked. There's been research lately to suggest that in previous centuries interpretation was more fluid and less focussed on 'perfection' so anything we do to replicate previous eras is grounded in our own era's obsession with perfection (which funnily enough was reached via things like splicing and retouching in recording technology - hardly 'period' is it?).
> 
> But anyway, I guess anything can be rehashed or taken to an extreme. Its not the thing itself thats the issue, its whats done with it...


It depends on what you meant by "perfection". Perfection in sound is actually far from the HIP realisation, if you listen to their performance. By perfection in sound, it is actually a modern orchestral realisation by some maestros, for example under the great Herbert von Karajan - his recordings with the Berlin Philharmonic for examples strived and achieved in "perfect sound", very uniform sounds, for examples with the strings. HIP practice does not have this perfect sound necessarily by the construct of the imperfect, handmade ("primitive" version) instruments themselves. Musicological "perfection" arguably might be a HIP aspect, but speaking to HIP performers in reality, nobody really admits that they are just in it for a discovery of the past, but using it as a means to make older music reachable to modern ears. You could also argue for musicological "perfection" with the Philharmonic orchestras as well. I disagree with any performer today thinking they have the "only" interpretation, whether HIP or not. It is only a souless performance that fails, and includes perfect sound performances played note by note, for example.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Weston said:


> Who are these ensembles? I need to know.
> 
> I mean, so I can -- you know -- avoid them.


Avert your eyes . . . here comes the Ahn Trio!









And now for something surely to appeal to all classical lovers, Bond!


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

Reminds me of


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Ralfy said:


> Reminds me of


Holy smokes!

"We band of chipmunks." Love it! You obviously have the same view that I do out my back window.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 29, 2012)

Hmm yes, there's two of them, even better.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Ingenue said:


> Maybe Shakespeare appeals to a wider audience, and to those who fancy themselves a bit rather than knowing a lot; and selling tickets may depend on 'modernising', 'making it relevant' etc which seems more allowable with drama anyway.
> 
> Whereas classical music draws in more genuinely cultured people (not 'pseuds') & you couldn't introduce something that wasn't grounded in the tradition without attracting widespread contempt; so new fashions may genuinely add something?


Ahem - what was that I was saying about 'genuinely cultured people'?


----------

