[mb-style] Should we change Classical Rules?

[Christopher Aillon]

Dave Smey wrote:
> Hi Chris,
> 
>> Bach may have written the music, and thus, should be
>> credited for each track, but he didn't put the album together.
> 
> What you don't seem to understand is that, in general, this is the case
> with all classical music.  The person who composed it is (usually) dead,
> and some performer picks it up and records it.


Aha!  I have been trying to figure this out for years as a classical 
pianist and guitarist myself, but had not been able to do so until this 
very moment why my many e-mails to Beethoven have gone seemingly 
unnoticed.  I feel enlightened.


   In any decent record
> store, the music is filed by composer, and that's the way classical fans
> like and expect it.

That's the way people who don't know classical music well like it.  They 
really _don't_ care about who's recording it is.  They were probably 
told to buy an album for music history class, or maybe someone suggested 
they buy something to relax.  Or maybe they are buying it for a friend. 
  Most people listen to popular music.  That's fact, as I stated in my 
original e-mail.

It's the way some people have come to expect it because music stores 
cater for the 99% of people, not the 1% or less of people who do know 
the difference.


>> That
>> credit deserves to go to Hilary Hahn.  The album will then show on both
>> artist pages.  That seems like a very obvious win.
>>
> Yes, but with the performer AR she will still get the credit.
> 
> The way it is not "a win" is that the recording of Bach Violin Concerti
> will no longer be collected together with the other recordings of Bach
> Violin Concerti.

Why won't it?  As I understand it, it will still show up in the exact 
same spot it shows up in Bach's artist page right now.  Or is there 
something blatantly obvious that I'm missing?


>> Also, there is precendence.  See some cover albums by e.g. Sheryl Crow
>> [1], or Cat Power [2].  Those artists didn't compose the work, but they
>> still get credit for it on the album.  Not to mention all the other pop
>> stars that don't even write their own music, but simply sing it.
>>
> 
> But, classical music is different.  Playing somebody else's music is not
> like playing a cover - you are required to play it exactly the way the
> dead guy wrote it.  (If you do a cover, OTOH, you'd better add something
> of your own to it - otherwise you are just ripping the original artist
> off.)

Why is it ripping them off?  There are many covers which are simply 
different singers.  Is that something of their own?  I suppose so.  But 
every classical player adds something of their own; most people just 
don't know the difference if a performer plays at 112bpm instead of 108. 
    Or whether they play a sequence of notes using the damper pedal 
instead of legato.  Or una corda instead of piano.


> 
> Again, this is just not how Classical fans generally think about music -
> typically, they would start with "I'm in the mood for some Bach" and then
> "OK, which Bach?" or "Whose Bach?"  

Clearly you aren't a classical music fan.  Many composers have such a 
wide array of material that "I'm in the mood for some Bach" might as 
well be "I'm in the mood to listen to music."  Which Bach?  C.P.E 
perhaps.  Maybe C.F, or J.C.  Seriously, classical *connoisseurs* (not 
"fans" or those who listen to it in passing like most people) know 
precisely what they want to listen to.  There aren't many of them 
though.  It's a shame that classical music has degraded to such in the 
public's eyes.


> All Bach recordings are considered
> somewhat interchangeable, or belonging to the same class.


I think you have just disqualified yourself as having a real opinion for 
classical music.