My OperaClassical music and cover versions
Sunday, August 5, 2007 4:38:59 PM
These musings have been prompted by trying to sort out a belated birthday present for my friend Clive (*wave*). He asked me to track down a particular work by Mozart, which wasn't too difficult in itself. However, having established what it was, I was then faced with about a zillion versions to choose from. In the end I resorted to using Amazon and sorting the results by star ratings, then choosing the first on the list that wasn't part of some enormously expensive boxed set or a second hand rarity (similarly expensive). Call me cheap... 
What worries me about this is that it's really a lottery if you don't know much about classical music, and yet how you hear something inevitably colours your opinion/taste, often for a long time. Frequently budget releases have better performances, so price isn't any kind of guide, and then there's the issue of original instruments. It probably bothers me most because I'm not a huge classical fan (so how it sounds for me isn't somehow intellectually disconnected from the work itself - it's integral to the experience), and I've found that I really prefer stuff done as closely as possible to how the composer would have heard it. I suspect this doesn't bother a lot of classical fans, but for me it makes a huge difference. I used to think Mozart was tinkly, bland chocolate-box music until I heard his stuff played on original instruments. Suddenly it had an edge to it which was absent before. Same goes for Beethoven.
I know lots of classical people place great emphasis on the value of interpretation, but for me playing stuff on the wrong instruments and mucking about with speeds etc often amounts to producing the equivalent of a bad cover version with all the edges taken off - safe music for the fainthearted (James Last plays The Beatles, anyone?).
Now I'm not spouting universal truths here: it's possible to do great cover versions (The Slits' version of Heard it through the grapevine springs to mind), and sometimes they become the definitive version (eg Soft Cell's version of Tainted Love). But I've learned to be sceptical about classical works which aren't played authentically, at least until I've heard them done "properly".
What worries me about this is that it's really a lottery if you don't know much about classical music, and yet how you hear something inevitably colours your opinion/taste, often for a long time. Frequently budget releases have better performances, so price isn't any kind of guide, and then there's the issue of original instruments. It probably bothers me most because I'm not a huge classical fan (so how it sounds for me isn't somehow intellectually disconnected from the work itself - it's integral to the experience), and I've found that I really prefer stuff done as closely as possible to how the composer would have heard it. I suspect this doesn't bother a lot of classical fans, but for me it makes a huge difference. I used to think Mozart was tinkly, bland chocolate-box music until I heard his stuff played on original instruments. Suddenly it had an edge to it which was absent before. Same goes for Beethoven.
I know lots of classical people place great emphasis on the value of interpretation, but for me playing stuff on the wrong instruments and mucking about with speeds etc often amounts to producing the equivalent of a bad cover version with all the edges taken off - safe music for the fainthearted (James Last plays The Beatles, anyone?).
Now I'm not spouting universal truths here: it's possible to do great cover versions (The Slits' version of Heard it through the grapevine springs to mind), and sometimes they become the definitive version (eg Soft Cell's version of Tainted Love). But I've learned to be sceptical about classical works which aren't played authentically, at least until I've heard them done "properly".
