Live Concerts vs. Records vs. Digital vs. The Return of the Son of Monolithic Culture

 

     The other day I read this funny article about the way so-called “hit songs” are created in popular music. Essentially the concept is “if you force it down the public’s throat, they will eventually find reasons to like it so don’t worry if it sucks”. This dovetails nicely to my own theory which goes like this: “the more annoying the song, the better!” Well, it should be noted that even The Beatles were the benefactors of a major publicity campaign on the part of Capitol Records in the US. Advertising works. And I’m sure in the 1960s, plenty of music lovers saw the upswing in the popularity of The Beatles as a bad trend for music. In some ways this argument is an exercise in pointlessness. However, I have to admit I find myself cringing when I read or hear critics saying things like “The Beatles made the music world the way it is today!” As if that’s something to be proud of! Has the quality of popular music diminished over the last 50 years? I tend to think that there’s good and bad music in any era. The good stuff doesn’t always get as much publicity so it usually takes effort to find. This is what motivates music freaks. Again, this is nothing new. In my own small way, this blog is an attempt to pass along some examples of music I’m finding enjoyment from – specifically platters of the classical variety. 

     Yet, I am still new to this genre myself so my critical abilities are pretty limited. I cannot easily tell you why Karajan’s 1962 recording of Beethoven’s 9th Symphony rocks my socks more than Bruno Walter’s 195-something recording. If a real classical enthusiast stumbles onto this place chances are there will be disappointment in the criticism department because……..there isn’t any here. Well, not of the scholarly variety anyway. Once in awhile I can tell what I like versus what I don’t like. For instance, although I enjoy Van Cliburn’s recordings in general (and I have quite a few), I don’t especially enjoy his Debussy or Ravel readings. Or at least some of them. I’d be hard pressed to explain why that is since I’m not exactly literate in musical terminology beyond the basics. I can’t say things like “Van Cliburn fails to attack the accents in the fourth bar in the second coda with the appropriate legato sensibilities as written by the composer in 1735” because I just don’t have that kind of background. What do I do? I slide the record out of the jacket, put it on the turntable and listen. I might read the liner notes or the odd book here and there, but I don’t read scores and I’d be darned if I could ever hold an intelligent conversation about music with any maestro worth their salt.

     Besides, history has shown that music criticism can be problematic - sometimes flowing from rather dubious sources. Even “official” critics have been known to pass judgement for reasons more political than aesthetic. Not to say that criticism is bunk. It’s quite useful and time-saving to follow a little advice from even so-called experts. Yet, the whole point of music is to discover what you enjoy versus what you don’t. I can think of quite a few “critically acclaimed” artists in the popular realm that don’t do a thing for me (at least not yet). I’m just not that savvy in the classical realm at the moment. In other words – I still don’t have much of a clue. There is a silver lining of course – when I do learn something useful about this music I get a real buzz out of that! And I try to pass stuff on here. Plus I like to struggle with my own perceptions once in awhile.

      For instance, let’s take that reviled composer Edward Elgar – you know, the guy responsible for “Pomp and Circumstance” – does anybody think that piece of music makes graduation ceremonies more enjoyable? Tortuous is more like it. So I found this record of Elgar’s 1st Symphony. Hmmm. For a buck, why not? Now, to be fair anybody’s first symphony usually isn’t that great. Even Beethoven didn’t really get going until his 3rd so we can’t be too critical right? Well, Elgar’s 1st starts off with a whopping 22 minute movement #1. On the record sleeve, the tempo is listed as Andante. No offence to conductor Bernard Haitink, but the pace is more like Legato Insomnia. Its about as long of a 22 minutes as I’ve ever spent. I’m desperately clawing towards any recognizable motifs or themes, but my efforts are in vain. Clusters of seemingly random chords rise and fall in volume against an agonizing sea of grey. For the love of God where’s a melody in this molasses nightmare? If this is a reflection of life in England crisis intervention agencies must be awfully busy over there. This makes Bruckner’s 3rd Symphony sound like Abba’s Greatest Hits by comparison. Of course, by the time the first movement is over the enthusiasm to hear the remaining three movements is practically nil. Yet, I flip the record over anyway and have a go. Now, keep in mind I’ve played this record (both sides – all the way through) more than once. And each time I’m left wondering “Am I missing something? EMI spent a whole lot of time and money to have this thing recorded. Is it me? What the hey?” Okay, so finally last night I felt like movements two through four actually kind of redeemed the tortuous first. I’m even planning on taking this out for another spin since I actually hate to go down on record saying I don’t like something without giving it more of a chance. Especially music like this. With a large-scale work like a symphony, a composer will spend a lot of time scribbling those notes onto the paper and preparing the piece. A bit of a shame when all that work can leave listeners unmoved. Surely not everything Elgar composed was a boring monstrosity.

    Sometimes I wonder if I spent more time seeking out live performances I’d be able to expand my knowledge and appreciation further. It’s been too long since I’ve been to a serious music concert. Circumstances keep me from being able to go out as often as I’d like. Here’s a neat article I read recently about the virtues of experiencing live classical music: http://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2014/jun/13/jonny-greenwood-radiohead-classical-music-live-performance?CMP=twt_gu

I like the general idea of getting more people into concert seats, but I’d say the value of listening to the music on a home stereo is downplayed too much.  As the author points out, his own gateway to the classical world was through physical music products. I would argue that today’s listeners would be much less likely to pay money to hear music performed live without at least a passing familiarity with it beforehand. In fact, this is one of the reasons I’ve been soaking up the classical platters over the last few years. I want to be able to attend more live concerts already knowing a fair amount of pieces. So even if the only night I have available to hear a good symphony orchestra do its thing is when they are performing Elgar’s 1st Symphony – I’m going anyway!

     Another reason why I wanted to expand my listening time to this music has to do with a technological fascination – quadraphonic and surround sound. As I detailed on my other music blog, I’ve been buying quadraphonic records since I was a kid and only recently managed to get the right equipment to decode the records as they should be. For those interested in this kind of technology, here is the box you want:

It isn’t cheap, but if you have a lot of quadraphonic vinyl and you want to hear the music as it was designed to be heard this is IT! Most of the classical vinyl that was released in quadraphonic sound was encoded with the SQ matrix format. This encoding format was mainly the domain of Columbia Masterworks, but it was also used frequently by Angel / EMI (not to mention other companies). The problem with this has historically been the fact that the hardware available to decode these records was, for the most part, junk until the late 70s (by which time most quad enthusiasts had thrown in the proverbial towel). The new Surround Master SQ Edition box from Involve Audio decodes both SQ and QS (regular matrix) encoded discs perfectly.

Here's about 26 quadraphonic classical LPs. I'm certain I have more lurking in the stacks too!

     Surround sound discs for classical music made a comeback with the advance of SACD, DVD-A and Blu-Ray discs in the digital age. For quite a while there, SACD in particular became the format saved from extinction by classical music releases. While popular titles dried up in the mid-to-late 2000s, classical titles kept the format chugging along. Having invested in that technology as well, I figured “Better step up the interest in classical if you want to have more surround music to enjoy!” This eventually prompted me into buying most of the RCA Living Stereo sacds (many of which featured a 3-channel mix from the original 3 track analog tapes!). These gems can still be found for cheap on the web if you poke around. Highly exciting stuff!


     Yet, oddly enough, the critics of the old quadraphonic classical discs had been pretty vocal in their day. Maybe it had to do with the limitations of the commercially available consumer hardware. Maybe some of the recordings and performances were substandard. I already have a nice collection of classical quad titles and I’m on the lookout for more. This will be another avenue for me to indulge a little quasi-critical analysis for. So, from 78 rpm to quadraphonic to modern multi-channel formats I am ready to hear this music with OPEN EARS.