I didn’t even notice the moment come and go, but I passed a milestone in October.
Although I find it impossible to believe, sometime this past fall, I passed 20 years since my last serious rock band broke up.
The fact that it’s been 20 years would seem to make it absolutely clear that I never looked back, and I suppose that’s true. I never tire of the music I play now, and this is the music I’ve loved since my earliest childhood. I can no longer imagine another major detour from what I’m doing.
But that’s not to say I don’t miss the music I used to play, and I often think about blocking out some time to write and record some rock stuff. Watch this space, one day it will happen. Meanwhile, I guess I can finally start ranting and grumbling like the miserable old bastard I’ve grown into.
As anyone who has ever taken lessons can testify, there’s a lot more to playing Beethoven and Mozart than just giving a passable rendering of the notes themselves. That’s why musicians spend years pushing themselves to their limits in music school, learning tone production, style and mastering their technique.
This is why most classical musicians are so dismissive and snippy about classical imposters- those ex-pop stars and crossover hacks who come along with a huge marketing and PR team and make a fortune calling themselves “opera” singers. When you know 25 world-class singers with talent and looks out the wazoo struggling to make ends meet working at Ikea, waiting tables or answering phones while memorizing Wozzeck, seeing someone who has never performed without a microphone get rich calling themselves an opera singer is agony. Call me dismissive and snippy. The music deserves better, as do the thousands of gifted and serious artists who can’t get an audition, let alone a record deal.
However, in our desperation to appear relevant, the classical world has been committing the same crime. There was a time when for any “classical” musician to admit listening to any rock or pop music was to lose all credibility as a serious artist. Now, classical performers are coached to not even admit listening to the music they play for a living. We are all required to love pop and pop culture. How many times have you heard a singer or violinist say “oh, I don’t really listen to classical music at home. I love Radio1!” For many of us, our idea of “reaching a younger audience” is telling them that playing Brahms is just our day job, and that what we really love is X Factor. Does this make sense?
At the same time, we have so lost faith in our ability to reach young listeners with Bach and Stravinsky, that we’re looking anywhere and everywhere we can to find classical artists who can “do” pop and rock too.
The problem with this approach is that for most young listeners raised on Metallica, Radiohead or Iron Maiden, the “classical” takes on this music are just unbelievably lame (with some notable exceptions). Just as it is easy for classical musicians to spot an imposter in our midst, so too, a true rock fan can immediately hear that 99% of classical musicians attempting rock arrangements don’t understand the rhythmic language of the music, don’t understand how rockers phrase and have no sense of the nuances and signals that are all a part of any music that is good enough to be loved by people who love music. Most classical musicians don’t understand what aspects of a rock song come from the blues and which come from country , skiffle, latin or funk roots. Playing the notes of a rock song may not be too challenging for a classically trained player, but our training ought to have told us that there is more to music than playing the notes
And sometimes, we’re not just clueless, we’re outright disrespectful. I have a “no slagging off” policy here at Vftp, but I was pretty gobsmacked last night by Nigel Kennedy’s “performance” of Jimi Hendrix’s “Purple Haze” at the Sky Arts South Bank Show Awards. Here is a much tighter and better played version of the same arrangement with most of the same schtick, but without the teeth grinding discomfort of an audience that looks like they would rather be stuck in traffic or having a root canal. It’s less incompetent than it is just embarrassingly un-hip (the “Stranger in the Night” quote makes me want to rip my own lungs out through my ears):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOLkRlbVYcI
Okay, I admit it, the ending is kind of fun, but I can’t imagine Jimi would approve of the Pied Piper act. Being the authority figure who shows the masses the way was not his thing- he was too humble a cat for that. His authority came from his artistry and charisma.
Anyway, last night with Bond was not right.
It was doubly surprising because I’ve heard Kennedy speak warmly of Hendrix so many times- he comes off as a nice guy who loves rock and respects it. Hendrix for me was the most gifted and serious musician in rock history. Everything he recorded was full of imagination, aspiration, taste and class. His performances could be wildly flamboyant and his lifestyle tragically reckless, but I challenge any reader to find one note he played on any recording, live or on studio, that isn’t beautifully phrased, imaginatively conceived and played with a beautiful and complex sound. I have a collection of his home demos, just Jimi putting ideas down at home with his guitar as they came to him. Everything is hip, everything has feel, everything has phrasing and shape, and every note means something. Even his longest and loosest improviations, like Voodoo Chile, have a sense of arch, of purpose, with organic dynamics and sensitive interaction with the rhythm section. Even when using his guitar to evoke the horrors of war in a piece like “Machine Gun,” Jimi’s playing, however full of anger and anguish, maintained a soulful beauty.
As a musician, Hendrix was as driven as they come. He was obsessed with his sound- he fought the limitations of his equipment throughout his career, always trying to get closer to his ideal guitar tone. That sound was really in his hands- he had an extraordinary vibrato and was able to use his plectrum and fingers to get a huge range of colors. He had the same gift as Miles Davis, David Oistrakh and Josef Hoffmann- one note in any piece on any instrument, and you know it is him. Distorted or clean, electric or acoustic, loud or soft, nobody had a bigger range or a stronger or more recognizable “voice” than Jimi.
How depressing then to see his music appear at an awards show celebrating the arts played with such amateurish hackery. Why not use the platform of a national TV broadcast to give a performance of Hendrix that did justice to the composer’s legacy? I must have listened to Kennedy’s Elgar Violin Concerto recordings 200 times (I always thought it would be great to do the Elgar with him, but that dream probably dies the moment I hit “publish” on this post!)- how could such a gifted musician make such a meaningless joke of a Jimi Hendrix song? Does he think Hendrix would have played Elgar with the same hokey goofiness? A version of Purple Haze with no stop times, no changes of feel (listen to all the ways Mitch Mitchell plays around with the basic groove in Jimi’s versions below) is not Purple Haze.
If we want to reach out to Hendrix fans, this is not the way to do it- anyone who likes Jimi enough to be touched by the gesture would be horrified by the results.
And why is it always “Purple Haze” that gets massacred by the wedding string quartets, function bands and world-class violinists of the world? I blame Kronos!
Actually, it was brave of Kronos to do it back then (that was filmed in 1988), so props. Still not very funky, though. You lose the soul and replace it with agression. Jimi was a powerful player, but not an agressive one. Anger in his music is a moral anger. So, major props to them for trying, for daring, for risking, but a respectful thumbs down on the result.
People, it is the first song on his first album (at least on the North American release). Playing “Purple Haze” doesn’t exactly demonstrate you’ve put much time into exploring the world of Jimi Hendrix (though I know Kennedy has). It’s like the white guy who says “I love the blues! I saw BB King on the Tonight Show last week- I didn’t get to hear the whole song because I had to go to bed, but I love the way he smiles when me plays his guitar, he calls it something like Myra.” The whole classical Hendrix phenomenon is awfully white (I know, this is the pot calling the kettle white)- trying to appropriate a quite complicated artform without really absorbing the whole style and culture from which it comes in a meaningful way. At least listen to the whole first album before you start murdering the songs!
Also, classicians (classical musicians)- I must tell you that Jimi Hendrix is not someone whose music ought to be, er, fucked with. Jimi was our Mozart and our Mahler. He was the lost-too-early Schubert and the Haydn who invented it all. He was Shostakovich, our conscience, Schumann our poet and Liszt, our demonic virtuoso. Turning his music into a joke by wandering into the audience like a bad nightclub singer is about as tasteful as using “A Survivor from Warsaw” in a margarine ad. Those who know his music well would say of him what Schikeneder said of Mozart: “his work is beyond all praise. One feels only too keenly, on hearing this or any other of his music, what the Art has lost in him.” Imagine how you will feel when someone does “Urlicht” on Pop Idol before you mess with Jimi.
Hendrix himself quickly outgrew Purple Haze. Amazingly, his whole recording career only spanned about four years. During this amazingly short time, his growth as a composer, songwriter, singer and instrumentalist is simply staggering. At the end of his life, he used to get very frustrated by the insistence by fans and promoters that he play his early hits like “Purple Haze” and “Foxy Lady.” If he was alive today, I doubt he would do the song at all, but if he did, I think we’d get some kind of very thoughtful re-working of it, not a half-hearted one-chord mashup.
Here’s how he played it on the record (you’ve heard this before, it’s the first song on the album)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnFSaqFzSO8
And here’s how he played it in 1970. Live, heavier, looser, funkier, angrier… Note how he’s embellished and varied the main riff. Note what he keeps of the original guitar solos and what he adds. Listen to what Mitch Mitchell has added to the drum part. Note how much funkier Billy Cox’s version of the bass line is. Be sure to watch right to the end, or you’ll miss the cadenza played with his teeth. Note also that he quotes the Star Spangled Banner, which is cool because it was politically relevant and references his performance of the complete work, but does not quote “Stranger in the Night”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xax3tIOb0Pg
I fear we’re not really trying to reach out to lovers of other genres in an honest and respectful way, but to tick the same cheesy mass-marketing boxes as the latest focus-group tweaked plastic pop acts. Down this path lies ruin- ask the rockers. Rock, once the dominant music of a generation, is losing its market share fast- far faster than classical. It’s happening because record labels and radio stations long ago stopped taking the music seriously. The very creativity that has made Hendrix’s music so enduring is just what most modern record labels seek to avoid at all costs. What would Simon do if Jimi Hendrix showed up on X Factor?
Music lovers aren’t stupid- if you want them to buy a new record, it should be just as good as their old records. It should offer you the chance to experience a “wow’ moment like the one you felt when you first heard Abbey Road, A Love Supreme or Bruckner 9.
And trust me, if there was an easy way to meld rock and classical with convincing results, I would be doing it. It’s been 20 years since I played Purple Haze, complete with guitar solo behind my head (playing with your teeth, however, is HARD and painful- I could sort of do it but never like him), and I have never stopped missing it. At one point I had just about every Hendrix song in my fingers- learning that repertoire and that language took years and years of hard work and practice. Learning to do it right meant hundreds of hours listening not only to Hendrix, but the the music that influenced him. If I could figure a way to do a cello choir version (there are at least TWO on CD here and here) of Machine Gun that was one one-millionth as cool, moving and soulful as the original (which is not to say the existing versions are uncool. I quite like them, especially Haimovitz’s, which is pretty faithful to the original. I dig it.), I’d be the first one to sign up. If I could come up with an arrangement of Foxy Lady for chamber orchestra and me, that was any good, I’d be doing it.
This isn’t to say we should attempt to broaden our horizons and learn new musical languages, only that we should take other musical languages and cultures as seriously as we take our own. Let’s try not to be amateurish hacks. I’m not at all against most of the Hendrix takes listed above- it was only when “not-as-cool” turned into “bad and jokey” that I got inspired to write this rant. We should be just as humble in taking on the challenges of Hendrix as we are about the challenges of Mahler, and we ought to be just as honest with ourselves and each other about when we’ve risen to the challenge and when we still have work to do.
___________________________________
I feel I should post a sample of Jimi at his finest to illustrate the range and depth of his genius, but I fear it is wasted on most classical fans. This is probably too big, too bold, too beautiful, too sad, too wild, too original and too good for most novices. Are you ready for this music? Is this like dragging a Madonna fan to a Bruckner symphony? You know what, I suggest you don’t listen. Go listen to the Radio 1 crap you profess to like. You’re probably not up to this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4WqmWuqj-w
UPDATE-
Also- after posting, I did a quick thread check for Nigel Kennedy’s performance last night on Twitter. Near as I can tell, everybody loved it and thinks its refreshing and fun. Wel, there goes me…
God Bless You. That Kennedy performance was embarrassing to me as a human being.
Truth be told, I find that most of the classical-meets-rock stuff is not very good. There are really only a few artists whose music translates even remotely decently to a classicized approach. I played a show a couple years ago with this touring “Zeppelin with Orchestra” act that was pretty good…there’s some complexity to Zeppelin’s music and the riffs therein that make it at least somewhat cool with an orchestra (Kashmir actually worked REALLY well and would make a pretty sweet encore for any regular-ass concert). Radiohead CAN work in some cases, but they also have such a reliance on electronic stuff that it can be difficult to really get it right. That Metallica album with the San Francisco Symphony is fucking hideous. I have a “Symphonic Beatles” album that is also pretty schlocky, although the Beatles music can occasionally get a pretty acceptable classical run.
I was never a rock musician, so you would know much, much better than me, but I just feel like the two worlds are somewhat irreconcilable, and the attempts to make yourself seem cool by playing Purple Haze on violin are pandering of the kind that would make a politician blush. I just find them to be wildly different emotional experiences. I’m all for reaching out to as many people as possible, but it just seems that people like Kennedy or Kronos or whoever are trying to sell classical music as another form of the same experience, and no matter how hard you try to spin it, it just isn’t. I don’t feel the same listening to Bruckner 9 as I do listening to OK Computer as I do listening to Night Train as I do listening to The Chronic, even though all are complete fucking masterpieces.
For me personally, classical music is the only place for me to get transcendence. I love The Mills Brothers, but they don’t offer transcendence. They offer me something else: simple joy. Old songs sung beautifully in great arrangements…they just make me smile. I love Mississippi Fred McDowell, but he doesn’t offer transcendence, either, just a shoulder to lean on musically when you need the release that only the hardest Delta Blues can give. But if I need to go on an emotional journey, I won’t be looking to the Black Keys, even though I love them.
I don’t know…it’s touchy for me, I guess. It just feels so disingenuous. Help!
Maestro,
You’ve got it exactly! This is the most exceptional critique of the great classical-rock conundrum I’ve ever read. It’s the voices of folks like you — who love, know intimately, and can play both languages/cultures/styles/traditions/whatever-the-best-term-is — that should be heeded by the rest of the crowd.
I’m particularly struck that the last time I nearly passed out over a rock-arrangement monstrosity, the tune was, of course, “Purple Haze!”
As a classical guitarist, I feel the weight of all the issues here quite keenly. You can imagine how complicated and fraught this subject gets for us, particularly given that a good majority of classical guitarists (in the US anyway) come to the instrument through blues or rock or country before turning to the classics. What to make of competing love for such different musics that all work on the same instrument! Toss in the contemporary scores that call for electric guitars or electronic processing, and it can be bewildering for guitarists to sort out how (or if) to marry so many disparate ways of using the instrument.
Bravo, and thanks for sharing your seriously important insights on an issue that so many in the classical music community really don’t handle well sometimes.
Educate me, please, if you will.
I just listened to (but not watched as the visuals are not material to my purpose) the “Band of Gypsys” video. Why is that number classified as rock music? It’s flat-out, blues-based jazz (and damn good jazz at that). Or am I missing something — or everything?
ACD
Fine post, Kenneth. Thanks.
This is a truly searching post Ken.
What is motivating a performer to perform and if it is just egoism, do the audience become complicit by allowing themselves to be amused or taken in by shuch “antics”.
Of course, great music can take a lot of stretching from its original form and still communicate something of its original iconic content, so we shouldn’t get too purist. At one level this is just fun – amusing and playful fun.
The problem arises when the audience can’t tell the difference and join in the charade. Then everyone is happily deluded that they’ve sampled the real thing, when in fact, they’ve experienced an absurd parody. Audiences are too often easily manipulated by empty gestures, because they don’t have the tools to judge or prefer to live in happy delusion. To coin an old addage – audiences don’t like music, but quite like the noise it makes.
At the risk of opening a can of worms, you could say the same about period instrument performance. When does “authenticity” simply mean the application of a stylistic veneer that attempts to show that all other approaches are “inauthentic”, including the original often enough?
Is it OK just to applt an alien aesthetic to stand out from the crowd? If you can’t win by the rules of good taste, then just change the rules. When Hendrix is played by a band of renaissance lutes and sung by a madrigal choir in period costume, we’ll know civilsation has come to an end.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Kenneth Woods- A View From the Podium » (Please don’t) rock on dude -- Topsy.com
ACD
I think you have hit the nail on the head- Hendrix at his best ties together all those threads. Machine Gun is deeply, deeply informed by the real country blues aesthetic of the Mississipi Delta, right back to Robert Johnson. It’s obviously informed by Coltrane’s a Miles Davis’ explorations of modal jazz. It uses all the theatricality and electronics of rock music. It’s groovy as hell. Somehow, he pulls all those threads together. At the end of the day, it’s music, and great music defies genre even when it exploits it.
Brian-
I can’t thank you enough for the kind words. It’s great to hear from you, and I’m really pleased to know I’m not the only one straddling the two worlds who has these sorts of reactions.
All best and thanks again!
Ken
As a major Jimi Hendrix fan, I don’t want to quarrel with anything you say here, except your statement that Nigel Kennedy quoted “Stranger in the Night” in his performance of “Purple Haze.” To quote something is to make it a part of what you are playing and this is not what Kennedy intended. In fact, he stopped playing “Purple Haze” for as long as it took for him to play “Stranger in the Night,” which represents an in-joke between him and those in the audience who know what he is doing…………it’s the equivalent of a wolf-whistle directed at a pretty woman and never intended as any more than that. When he has finished with it, he returns to “Purple Haze.” Whether it’s appropriate to do that is not, of course, for me to say. I really do not think anybody in the audience thinks they’ve heard “the real thing” when he plays this piece. He himself says that it is 50% Hendrix, 50% Kennedy.
In the context of his time, Hendrix was giving voice to youthful rebellion when that meant something more than kicking against parental authority by breaking curfew. The anti-war movement and the civil rights movement were serious cultural and political struggles with which that generation had to grapple. It gives an edge to this music which is hard to recreate now when the motivation is merely to entertain. (Although there’s still plenty to be angry about!)
But this may also explain the awkwardness we feel when one genre steals the clothes of another. The guitar is a potent symbol of rebellion; it represents an anti-authoritarian gesture because it is (with a few exceptions) not an instrument of the classical orchestra. It’s identified therefore with loners, outsiders, oppressed groups and indigenous folk culture. The instrument cannot be separated from the music it plays. So if a bunch of musicians in penguin suits and a classically trained violinist play this music, it’s immediately lost something fundamental to its identity. There’s a bit of a “shock” at the stylistic clash that will send elderly ladies muttering, but the more times you do it, the less impact it has. In the end, you sre blunting the original more and more.
(Classical guitar seems to weave in and out of genres which is what makes that repertoire so fascinating.)
Things go in cycles, so today’s rebels become tomorrow’s establishment. The rebellious, anti-classical aspect of rock music defines it, but as the young become middle-aged, they can’t identify with the rebellion, so they water down and sentimentalise the music of their youth. You can borrow rock music’s gestures, its tunes and harnmonies, but you can never completely take over its identity, because that belongs to a moment in history and a moment in the lives of the people who first listened to it.
This may explain the sensitivity about iconic figures like Hendrix and the generally rather bland impact of classical orchestras who have recorded rock music. Rock music loses its raw, rebellious heart thereby – it loses its instinctive spontaneity, its everyman qualities – whch get blunted by being given a silky, respectable and sophistcated surface. Whether you find that distressing is perhaps a matter of personal taste, but my point remains, so long as the audience understands the difference, there’s no crime here.
There’s always that argument that says, hearing NK play this might send a few people back to the source. My problem is the erosion of the differences between what is media-hype, entertainment and great performing, so that we are gradually becoming unable to tell the difference. Sometimes the historical moment helps to focus minds. Which musicians in our own time have articulated our collective anger and disdain at greedy money-men, for example? Turning rebellious feelings and anger into great art is a lesson the current generation could well learn, but escapism seems to prevail. Plug into your I-pod and just wipe reality out of the way. Hendrix or Mahler 6 – giving voice to dark feelings is an essential part of any healthy culture or human being. It is the true genius who can express this so that the result is both meaningful and beautiful coherent. True genius has the courage to look directly into the darkness. We can’t live like that all the time – it would be inhuman, but we have to acknowledge the difference between this and the air-brushed world of mere entertainment or we are in danger of stumbling backwards into the darkness.
A splendidly written essay! A terrific tribute to an artist who deserves more than our respect. You’ve touched on some important points regarding authenticity in music–a thing which has obviously been endlessly debated: what, exactly, constitutes authenticity in musical composition and performance? It seems to me that you’re saying that training or chops alone are not sufficient–the musician has to really “belong” to the music they are doing…they have to live it, breathe it and embody it.
Love this article Ken. So on-point about Hendrix, he’s our Mozart –flawless, and intended. A master. To some degree I realize that those of my ilk are the problem you’re talking about. And strangely, I agree. Basically, what I feel as if I speak about more and more — is the fact that all music is valid, and valuable. We don’t need to love everything we hear, but damnit, Shostakovich’s take on fleeting wonderful life and Elliott Smith’s, couldn’t be more similar. And more, equally valuable. I couldn’t hate the PR machine more — everytime I tweet and blog, I want to hide under the biggest rock I can find. But, for this moment in history it seems like we’re stuck with it. At any rate, thanks for writing this – really enjoy reading your entries. “
“In response: Are you having a go at Darius Campbell? The goatee clad psuedo Scotsman? I remember the days when he had Danesh as a surname. He scored a glorius victory in the UK when he beat off a ‘Nolan Sister’ to claim first prize in a crossover Opera contest. Even Meat Loaf said he ‘rocked’ Seriously….I wonder where the costing for record / download sales is focussed when the majority of teenagers illegally download through peer to peer clients. So does this mean that the older generation are more moral in their purchasing habits? If this is the case perhaps the industry is missing a target market and just soaking up a stretched, traditional market. I despair at the music industry though when sjows like the x-factor are able to tap into the culture of countries and totally dominate the newspaper headlines. Last year’s debarcle, which showed a new costing model with downloads ready to purchase through iTunes reached an all time talent low. All sections of the music market were covered from the powerful solos to the pointless pretty boy bands. Even a joker in the pack…well, look what Jedward could do. Look at me ranting…about music!!!! Who would have thought…My musical abilities stretch to 3 chords on a guitar. Thankfully my wife provides the talent to my girls. Anyway…back to ranting at 1:30am GMT. Paul Potts…yeah…him….who said he could compete on the operatic front? He could bang out a note but he should never have been given the regognition he had. Perhaps the uneducated working massess needed a champion to belittle the musical (perhaps snobbery) of the concert goers. But when I have heard Ken talk about music he is on a different plane of understanding. I am in awe for anybody that can so completely understand a subject after so many years of study and still remain so animated and enthusiastic. My world of computers does nothing more than agrivate my ulcer. Quite how a factory worker can think he can sing opera to anywhere near the classically trained professinals is nothing short of deluded. I have seen television programmes in the past where an imposter was sent in to a conduction competition with only 1 months training with the express purpose of standing the establishment on its head. Rather unkindly I will end by saying…. When a monkey is said to paint a marsterpiece…does he not remain a monkey?
“I smell an E.L.O. tribute band coming on
@Elsie Stockdale
Dear Elise
I want to thank you for your comment and welcome you to Vftp. Thanks for writing.
I suppose my concern is the Nigel Kennedy is someone we all expect great things from. If one of the great living violinists is going to play Jimi Hendrix, then I expect to be as good as his Elgar or his Vivaldi. I’m sure he’s sincere when he talks about his love of Hendrix, but in this case, I thought he came up with a treatment of the original that wasn’t worthy of the composer’s vision. That’s just my 2 cents- Obviously you are convinced, and that’s great.
Keep listening and caring about what you hear!
Ken
@Erik K
Erik!
Great to hear from you- thanks for the wise and funny thoughts.
I basically agree with you on everything, except that I do find something like transcendence…
I find transcendence in the best of Jimi’s music. Peter’s casual comparison of Mahler 6 and Machine Gun isn’t far off in the sense of impact, if not scale. The best modern jazz, 60′s Miles and Trane can be transcendent. Almost any time the John Coltrane Quartet got up to full hurricane force, they could create a transcendent vibe.
All that said, I think that music ran into a dead end- the impact of these huge scale modal improvisations can be huge, but there aren’t that many large or medium scale forms to work with, so it developing the idiom becomes a matter of trying to match the mojo of the greats who did it first. Most of us fail at that.
Ken
Gah! Can’t believe there hasn’t been more response to this fantastic post.
So in your estimation the audience response for this version was BETTER? I guess they were appreciative, but were so embarrassingly square and unhip that I was feeling self conscious just watching them. Heck, that woman was clapping on one and three! Gah! I say! And again, Gah!
But thanks for giving Hendrix (and by proxy the potential for all rock music) proper respect in this context.
Good post Ken!
It’s interesting what you say about some people seeing Brahms and co. as just their day job. All too often, my music student housemates ask me why I always listen to classical music at home, citing their belief that they do enough of it at uni and hence need a break from it from time to time, their idea of a break being to put on floor-vibrating Drum and Bass. Alas, they don’t comprehend my reply that I listen to classical music because I love it and I do a degree in it and play it all the time because I love it. I don’t see it as work or education – just fun and enjoyment of something I’ve loved since a child!
Hi Ben- nice to hear from you here. It’s tricky- we can all need a break, and need balance in our lives, but I think it’s important to remain a fan and remember why you wanted to be a musician in the first place. I think too many of us are embarrassed to admit we still love the music we play, and then we end up not loving it any more because it becomes our day job.
Very interesting post. While I’m not such a worshipper at the shrine of St. Jimi, I agree with just about everything here. Although I find the Kronos version of Purple Haze, if anything, more embarrassing than the version Nige did at, IIRC, the HMV shop in Toronto about 15-20 years ago – it was (partially) broadcast on tv here in Canada.
BTW, wrt Strangers in the Night – Jimi himself quoted this in a solo at Monterey. It may even have been during Purple Haze, but I’m not 100% certain.
Maybe Nige was aware of this?
BTW I think that at least some of the younger generation of “classicians” can play rock music idiomatically, as they have been, if not actually brought up on it, then at least surrounded by it as part of the daily popular culture.
I’ve heard a local string quartet – formed especially for the purpose, not a regular ensemble “slumming it” – play an evening of rock classics (as well as The Eurythmics “Sweat Dreams” in a version I far preferred to the original) in a completely convincing fashion; they even, with the assistance of a female vocalist, did a rather good version of “I am the Walrus”.
And, I’m happy to report, none of these younger musicians have ever referred to their serous music as just their day job. Of course, they’ve not been interviewed on Radio 1 either!
I did once give a talk at my college in London, c1971, about what, if any, convergence their might be between rock and classical. For me, 40 years ago, it was that improvisational nexus where John Coltrane meets the Velvet Underground meets Karlheinz Stockhausen.
Which is probably still how I feel. Classical and rock serve different purpose, with the former, naturally, having a far wider range of emotional content.
Nevertheless, there are still certain things that I feel rock says better. (There’s not much teenage angst, for instance, in classical music.)
Which is why I spend, maybe, 25% of my listening time with rock and the rest with classical.