# How do you feel about classical musicians covering pop/rock tunes?



## cellogrl (Apr 4, 2014)

On youtube there is a lot of classical musicians covering pop and rock tunes. Do you think it's good, reaching a new audience or do you think it isn't good or productive for the classical music world?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

cellogrl said:


> On youtube there is a lot of classical musicians covering pop and rock tunes. Do you think it's good, reaching a new audience or do you think it isn't good or productive for the classical music world?


It's bound to happen in any genre, like in jazz, Miles Davis covering a Scritti Politti song; but the old paradigm of CM is inherently in opposition to doing 'arrangements' of anything; its purists seem more concerned with static, fixed forms of masterpieces which do not change.

CM seems more suited for being a self-contained genre, which might assimilate a folk fragment or two before morphing it, but 'second hand' arrangements degrade one of the main paradigms of CM, which is composing vs. performers. By notation, the composer becomes the main creative force, and the performers become secondary in importance, in a division of labor. "Arrangements" of pop tunes degrade this essential element.

It seems that this phenomena of classical musicians covering pop and rock tunes is more symptomatic of CM's assimilation into the capitalist marketplace, and its commodification, like all other popular commodities; and that this watering-down of the CM paradigm and mission purpose is driven more by highly-trained classical musicians who suddenly find themselves 'irrelevant' in today's popular marketplace. Popular music holds most of the power, now, because that's where most of the money is.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

If some musician trained his instrument for many years to learn all about it, finished conservatory to got degree in his field and ends up playing riffs from songs by Metallica on cello, well, I'm not the person that should feel bad about it.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

What music the musician 'covers' is his call. I don't see it having any significant, or even measurable effect on "the classical music world".


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

If an arrangement is of a pop/rock song that is more off the beaten track then I think that might be more interesting than covering an oft-heard megahit. Thomas Ades made a chamber arrangement of Cardiac Arrest by Madness - I don't like Madness at all but Ades's arrangement is a fun listen.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

If one wishes to view, say, a symphony as a "fixed" artistic form, that is a defensible position which places Beethoven's Fifth on an artistic par with, say, the _Mona Lisa _by DaVinci and the _Hamlet_ by Shakespeare. These works all have a "museum quality" to them, which is not a bad thing.

Of course, in a significant way the Beethoven and the Shakespeare remain incomplete as art forms until performed. Unlike a painting, the _Mona Lisa_, the "art forms" of music and theatre remain cooperative ventures with the music score and the playscript being [mere] blueprints. So, in a meaningful way, _every time a classical musician "touches" a classical composition, there is a change at hand_. But that is the nature of the art.

Sometimes a work of art is bowdlerized. This happens in various ways and can be for the good or for more questionable reasons. It's true even of the most "fixed" works of art -- paintings. How many times have we encountered the Mona Lisa outside of her natural habitat in the Louvre in Paris? The image is literally everywhere: in print ads, on TV commercials, on T-shirts .... But it is the status of the work which makes such bowdlerizations work. Which is actually a good thing, for the work and for the artist. It is a hedge against obscurity, and obscurity for an artist or his/her work is the worst possible sin.





















Classical music "tunes" have long been incorporated into popular music -- Tin Pan Alley didn't shy from borrowing from opera tunes, show tunes abound with classical licks (_Kismet_ and Borodin comes immediately to mind), and folks like Eric Carmen ("all By Myself" features a lift from Sergei Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 2 in C minor and "Never Gonna Fall in Love Again" is based on the third movement from the same composer's Second Symphony -- to this day, Sergei Rachmaninoff's estate receives royalties on those two songs!), and Barry Manilow found promise in it ("Could It Be Magic" sampled Frédéric Chopin's Prelude in C Minor, Opus 28, Number 20). Again, this lends credence to the quality of the original.

So, when we reverse the process, and a classical artist takes on popular music, restyling it to fit the scope of his own artistry (I think of pianist Christopher O'Riley's takes on the music of Radio Head), what we essentially have is the recognition of_ quality _in the popular music format. There's nothing wrong with recognizing quality. Symphony orchestras, string quartets, marching bands have taken on tunes by the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Metallica, Michael Jackson ... because the music is good. And what's wrong with good music?

Interestingly, a "classical" piece tends to be written more with a fixed arrangement in mind than, say, a pop song or a jazz number. This is a matter for possible debate, as came up on another thread concerning arrangements of Schubert's songs. I favor such changes in the arrangement. It doesn't bother me that a guitar is used in lieu of piano for the _Winterreise_, or even that the song cycle is arranged for accordions. I don't believe Schubert would have minded, either. Even to take his Fifth Symphony, say, and render it for an orchestra of accordions. A great piece of music is worth the effort.

Some people will object to any changes in a "classical" piece of music. And many of these same old farts will grumble because Yo-Yo Ma is playing bluegrass on his Strad!!! Let them grumble. It's probably the only life these poor folks have. For my own uses, if the music is good and sounds good I'll pay to listen. And that is probably what the artist appreciates most.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

I don't usually like it. Millionrainbows mentions Miles Davis above, but Jazz has pretty much always used popular songs for its source material.

I certainly have no use for pop tunes sung in opera voice (or arias sung by Sting or Bono). Worst of both worlds there, middlebrow dreck.

And I'm not anti-pop or anti-rock. I just don't think performing rock tunes with classical instruments works at all. It seems to be premised on the notion that what's most pertinent about Classical is the instrumentation. Well, that's wrong. It misunderstands the music from both sides. 

There may be some exceptions, of course.


----------



## Mister Man (Feb 3, 2014)

I think it's corny and cheesy, so I don't watch or listen.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

I am always impressed when artists can combine aspects of popular music and classical music in a coherent and meaningful way, be it George Gershwin or Tangerine Dream or whatever.

But simply lifting a classical piece and shoving it into a "rock band" arrangement (or vice versa) just seems cheap and desperate. That's why I still cringe at the mere thought of ELP's "Pictures at an Exhibition" and the like.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Nothing wrong with it in principle, usually irritating in practice. A century ago, when popular music and classical music were closer in style and execution, classical musicians could "cover" popular songs to the delight of audiences. Even as late as the forties, a singer like Jane Froman could bring a full, operatic mezzo-soprano to romantic ballads and show tunes and be adored by the troops in WW II (gorgeous singer, by the way). Popular music now has little in common with the classical tradition, and in my admittedly limited experience most attempts by classical musicians to perform it are failures (though I do kinda like Rene Fleming's take on Joni Mitchell...)

The best thing to help people appreciate classical music is classical music well-performed by classical musicians. But I guess there are always sexy photos of nubile violinists intended to seduce the pop audience who aren't browsing in that section of the store anyway.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Mister Man said:


> I think it's corny and cheesy, so I don't watch or listen.


exactly! Its like your Dad dancing at a wedding - not a pleasant thing to witness


----------



## DrMuller (May 26, 2014)

I think it can sometimes work and sometimes not.


----------



## Whistler Fred (Feb 6, 2014)

Really, it's two different styles. The techniques, particularly for singing, for classical music usually sound all wrong when applied to pop and rock, and visa versa.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

DrMuller said:


> I think it can sometimes work and sometimes not.


Please give me a few examples of when it 'works' and I'll check them out


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I don't really care, though it might bother me if Paul Lewis (for example) performed with candelabra and excessive smiling.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

They other way around is usually much more horrific!

/ptr


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Headphone Hermit said:


> Please give me a few examples of when it 'works' and I'll check them out


You might try out Takemitsu's versions of folk and pop tunes for guitar, if you don't know them.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> The best thing to help people appreciate classical music is classical music well-performed by classical musicians. But I guess there are always sexy photos of nubile violinists intended to seduce the pop audience who aren't browsing in that section of the store anyway.


You mean, like this one?


----------



## Whistler Fred (Feb 6, 2014)

SONNET CLV said:


> You mean, like this one?
> View attachment 45304


Er..really?


----------



## Majed Al Shamsi (Feb 4, 2014)

SONNET CLV said:


> You mean, like this one?
> View attachment 45304











Someone should introduce them to one another.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

SONNET CLV said:


> You mean, like this one?
> View attachment 45304


And now she's a grandmom with tats. :devil:


----------



## carlmichaels (May 2, 2012)

Good question. I don't have a vast frame of reference on this one. I'm not against it. It's not necessarily desperate (as pointed out, how many jazz vocalists have made a respectable living performing nothing but "standards"). It's a niche and these days making anything work is a challenge. I like what Vanessa Mae has done, and the 2Cellos guys, but not much else comes to mind. This thread is just the kick I need to explore some new avenues.


----------



## stevens (Jun 23, 2014)

-Yes its very "corny and cheesy" and usually worse than the original. -The same applies when pop and rock musicians play classical pieces ...no good!


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2014)

I 'feel' nothing of any significance. Do I mind? Not in the slightest!


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Miles Davis covering a Scritti Politti song;


He did? Post a link please, I'm struggling to untangle who covered whose song!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

It's a fact of life that many ordinary orchestral musicians who play classical music in orchestras do (or used to do) pop sessions on the side just to make a living


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I've stated before I think orchestras often sound silly when they try to rock. It too often comes across as the elevator music version of a rock or pop song. Yet classical has borrowed from popular tunes since forever and vice versa. Creativity can arise from the collision of cultures.

On a side note, I for one still enjoy ELPs Picture at an Exhibition. It really doesn't take itself very seriously and is an exhilarating exercise in barely controlled chaos. You just have to be in the right frame of mind for these things.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

The Boston Pops has been commissioning arrangements of pop songs for 80 years -- ands their audience seems to enjoy them.


----------



## CypressWillow (Apr 2, 2013)

Kinda like using a race horse to pull a plow, wot?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

The fact is that the value of a lot of popular music is in the sound, the arrangement, the personality of the singer. If a classical musician tries to reproduce a pop song what remains is the least interesting part, a repetitive melody over unimaginative chord changes. So those who make those attempts not only don't make a great favor to that music, but they demonstrate also that they don't understand either where's the value of it.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

GGluek said:


> The Boston Pops has been commissioning arrangements of pop songs for 80 years -- ands their audience seems to enjoy them.


Oh, yeah, I forgot about the Boston Pops. I remember when I was a kid hearing the Boston Pops' recording of I Wanna Hold Your Hand. I thought it was cool. I wasn't into classical back then, but I always watched the Boston Pops' shows on PBS.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

SONNET CLV said:


> If one wishes to view, say, a symphony as a "fixed" artistic form, that is a defensible position which places Beethoven's Fifth on an artistic par with, say, the _Mona Lisa _by DaVinci and the _Hamlet_ by Shakespeare. These works all have a "museum quality" to them, which is not a bad thing.


I agree, and many CM listeners think this way about it. In this view, music carries a 'program' which is the 'DNA' of the composer. In this view, the classical repertoire 'work' is tied to the 'performance-as-text,'* and is thus tied to the notated work in an inviolate way.

*This "Biblical" orthodox view of classicism gives ultimate credence to 'the work' as an unchanging entity of permanence (scripture), and the performance as a 'reading' of a 'text';

That's the orthodox view of the work as inviolate text.

This orthodox, historical view is appropriate for the older functions and paradigm of art music, which is now dead and gone. But if you are a 'believer,' that view is still viable.



SONNET CLV said:


> Of course, in a significant way the Beethoven and the Shakespeare remain incomplete as art forms until performed. Unlike a painting, the _Mona Lisa_, the "art forms" of music and theatre remain cooperative ventures with the music score and the playscript being [mere] blueprints. So, in a meaningful way, _every time a classical musician "touches" a classical composition, there is a change at hand_. But that is the nature of the art.


Well, that is a more flexible position which puts more importance on the performance, with the idea that the performance at that time embodies the work. This more flexible view is that the *performance is tied to the notated work as self-defined *in that_ it presumes to supplant or subsume 'the work' at the moment of performance. _*The performance thus stands on its own *for consideration, such as Glenn Gould's Bach performance/recordings.

I think the "performance" aspect of Classical, which got separated when the composer and notation divided them, needs to come back, and CM players are going to have to improvise and 'take solos' like we see in Yo-Yo's Silk Road Ensemble. This means, generally, more ear and less eye; more flexibility and less rigidity.



SONNET CLV said:


> There's nothing wrong with recognizing quality. Symphony orchestras, string quartets, marching bands have taken on tunes by the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Metallica, Michael Jackson ... because the music is good. And what's wrong with good music?


And what's wrong with being viable in the marketplace, now that CM is not the only game in town? I think real the motivation is to entertain and give people tunes they recognize, in a (somewhat) pitiful & desperate attempt to remain relevant in today's capitalist marketplace.

But doesn't this degrade the raison d'etre of classical music, to be the embodiment of man's highest aspirations, musically speaking? That would include content as well as execution. If you're a believer in the old paradigm, this is so.



SONNET CLV said:


> Some people will object to any changes in a "classical" piece of music. And many of these same old farts will grumble because Yo-Yo Ma is playing bluegrass on his Strad!!!


I think what Yo-Yo is doing with the Appalachian Suite with Mark O'Connor and Edgar Meyer is admirable, but on the other hand...this whole thing can be seen as classical music's effort to 'redefine itself' and become 'reanimated' in the way that folk, jazz, & popular musics are *'living' musics* which embody the aspirations of their performer/composer/musicians, and which morph into different forms when cross-bred with other cultures, as jazz did with tin-pan alley songs and Bossa Nova, and fusion.



SONNET CLV said:


> For my own uses, if the music is good and sounds good I'll pay to listen. And that is probably what the artist appreciates most.


Yes; the key is that it be viable and of high quality, and sincerely connecting to another genre or tradition, like Yo-Yo's Silk Road Ensemble. I'm not talking about 'schmaltz' like I think Boston Pops is, too lightweight. There must be an informed and intelligent sensibility, otherwise, you might as well listen to Broadway musicals.

Broadway has really shown the most liveliness and adaptability, as a form of 'modern opera;' but the more 'absolute music' nature of classical music makes it much more difficult to fuse with other traditions.

I think the key here is that we need to think of folk and jazz traditions as 'classical' traditions of their respective genres, in the sense that they are a root source which is authentic, and has a history, if only of a couple hundred years or less.

Classical music which seeks to meld with these traditions needs to be informed of the styles and manner of playing, and concepts, of these folk and popular traditions, take them seriously, and use the same high standards in presenting them. I think Yo-Yo Ma, Edgar Meyer, and Mark O'Connor are doing this.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Yes, I remember that arrangement too. The interesting thing is, back then a Symphony orchestra was incapable of "swinging" -- pop arrangements all sounded staid and stiff. For whatever reason (better training, more open to pop styles) today's orchestras are much better at it.


----------



## techniquest (Aug 3, 2012)

Sometimes the most bizarre of genre 'mash-ups' can really work. This one for example


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The Los Angeles Guitar Quartet has done a lot of interesting stuff with pop material.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Blancrocher said:


> You might try out Takemitsu's versions of folk and pop tunes for guitar, if you don't know them.


Thank you for that - I had a quick listen yesterday and will give it some more attention soon.

There don't seem to be many other suggestions of 'where it works', though


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Regrettably, pop tunes pay the bills better than Classical.


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2014)

I have tossed the idea around of trying to do variations on themes from popular music (not necessarily POPULAR popular music...just stuff from various rock/electronic/pop/whatever I like)... But yeah, I agree with a lot of the sentiments here.

Cute at best, obnoxious and misleading at worst.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

techniquest said:


> Sometimes the most bizarre of genre 'mash-ups' can really work. This one for example


Ya but I don't think this is really a "mash-up" considering the melody in the piece isn't anything like a Gregorian Chant melody.

So it's basically just a "pop/musicals" tune through and through, but sung in reverb voices that are sort of reminiscent of old chants, but not in their particular style.

So ya, sorry to be "that guy".


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Regrettably, pop tunes pay the bills better than Classical.


Not regrettably in the viewpoint of the cynic who'll make note that a rock band's annual "drug tab" is probably more than that of the average classical string quartet's.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

This sums my feelings:


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

cellogrl said:


> On youtube there is a lot of classical musicians covering pop and rock tunes. Do you think it's good, reaching a new audience or do you think it isn't good or productive for the classical music world?


I don't really care.

What does irk me slightly is when people call something "classical" or "classical crossover" purely because it's being played on something like a violin, by a string quartet, an orchestra, etc. etc.

As for "reaching a new audience", the idea that people are suddenly going to fall in love with Mozart or Beethoven or Mahler or Brahms purely because they hear one of their favorite songs being played on a violin seems a little silly to me.


----------



## spradlig (Jul 25, 2012)

I've never heard a performance of a pop or rock song by a classical musician that I liked. For that matter, I rarely like performances of pop or rock songs by other _pop or rock_ musicians (that is, "covers").

I'll echo what some other respondents have written. In pop or rock music, it is hard to separate the music from the performer and the way a recording is mixed (I almost always prefer studio recordings to concert performances). When someone tries to perform someone else's song, the results are often ugly.

If a classical musician performs a pop song, I don't think it will encourage anyone to listen to classical music. So no, I don't think it's productive for the classical music world. But I don't think it harms the classical music world either. If it puts some extra dough in some classical musicians' pockets, that's a good thing.



cellogrl said:


> On youtube there is a lot of classical musicians covering pop and rock tunes. Do you think it's good, reaching a new audience or do you think it isn't good or productive for the classical music world?


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

I think rock and particularly metal music is far more coverable than pop by classical musicians. Metal in particular often has an emphasis on musicality over vocals, especially when the vocals are growled. String sections in particular are very common in covering metal bands, since they can easily transpose guitar parts. Apocalyptica is a pretty well known string group that covers metal songs. Here's them performing Metallica's One, and Tool's Lateralus, respectively.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

cellogrl said:


> On youtube there is a lot of classical musicians covering pop and rock tunes. Do you think it's good, reaching a new audience or do you think it isn't good or productive for the classical music world?


I've got no problem at all with it. The boundaries between these things, high and low art, have been blurred for ages. Back in the 19th century, the market for salon music was pretty big. Brahms did a good deal of it, so too Dvorak, Saint-Saens, Elgar. It also funded their highbrow works. When asked by a lady why his salon pieces where so pretty, Brahms said that it was because his publisher asked him to make them like that.

Going further back, music made to order was a huge part of the output of composers in the Baroque and Classical eras. All this highbrow distinction really got going once music entered the mass market - such as with sheet music, then with recordings. Theorists felt a need to distinguish between music of highbrows and that of the masses. Of course you can guess which is worthy of canonical status, and which isn't.

But it flies in the face of reason, for example the waltzes of Johann Strauss II where the popular music of their time. His music was admired by the likes of Brahms and Schoenberg and its still played, just as high quality as their is. Its survived posterity, which is a huge test of music having some sort of quality or durability over time. So if an orchestra today plays a Strauss waltz, they are basically playing what was a pop tune. But so what? Brahms praised his music and Schoenberg did arrangements of it.

But as I said the reality is that today, and for much of the 20th century, this hasn't been such a big deal. As people have suggested, Gershwin was the first classical composer to do crossover. You've also got people who went into rock, pop and jazz with classical training. Two of my favourites in that regard where Burt Bacharach and Dave Brubeck, both taught by Darius Milhaud. Dionne Warwick said in an interview that singing all those rhythm and key changes in Bacharach's songs is a big technical challenge.

As many musicians have said, there's only two types of music, good and bad. Its a cliche of sorts, but it still holds water to some extent, especially when you look at what has survived the test of time. A hell of a lot has, from lowbrow to highbrow to in between. In terms of what they compose and play, musicians have accepted this as reality long ago. Good music crosses barriers - which I think look increasingly artificial - of genre, style, technique, etc. So I just enjoy it for what it is, good music, in any genre. Theorists are saying this too now, and the old ways of thinking of music with a need to divide it is looking like the most worn cliche of all. Time to ditch all this divisive ideology? I certainly think so.


----------



## Fang (Jun 27, 2014)

I don't think they are necessarily that different. It's all melody, harmony, rhythm and structure to me and for the most part they share a lot of similarities. Other than that what the music wants to say is very important as there are many good rock songs and some good pop songs that have something to say. Some of them might be closer to the way a today's classically trained musician thinks as the composers haven't died hundreds of years ago. Having said that I believe when they do things like that they are going out of the classical genre and the results should be judged by the rock and pop audience.


----------

