The "New Look" Gramophone

I have to be honest and admit my knowledge of Frank's orchestral music is only passing. I should give it a listen, but I take all of his music seriously. Hearing Hot Rats for the first time as a 15-year-old is an experience I'll always treasure and never forget. When his guitar playing, and his band's musicianship didn't have me awestruck his lyrics had me rolling around on the floor. Oh Frank, still very sadly missed. Sorry are we allowed to talk about Frank Zappa?  

Likewise - I was reluctant to use the word 'serious' (hence the quotation marks).

Perhaps 'orchestral', as you say, is better, although much of his music has an orchestral quality.  And, conversely some of his orchestral music sounds similar to his band music, except played by an orchestra (and not just the stuff  that was transcribed). That said, some of it decidedly doesn't.

But 'orchestral' wouldn't really cover his 'serious' synclavier compositions, so it's still not ideal.

As an aside, I find terminology/classification a fascinating problem. I baulk at using the term 'classical' for 20th/21st century 'serious music', because when I studied music (too long ago now) 'classical' meant 1750-1820 (and yes, the term 'serious' just then is itself divisive). And I can't bring myself to refer to the 'classical period' of the 'common practice period' of an all-encompassing description of 'classical music'.  'Western/European Art Music' just sounds too pretentious. 'Contemporary music' is either inaccurate (because it's not contemporary any more) or too vague (Lady Ga-Ga is 'contemporary). Similarly 'modern music'. But hey-ho, I digress.

He certainly is missed.  And I hope we are allowed talk about him, at least in the context of his orchestral music.

Oh God nomenclature, it's a problem sure enough, but it's probably a can of worms best left sealed. For better or worse things get given names that stick and with the passage of time it's probably futile to try to change them. History shows that facts are easily forgotten, but myths and mistakes are much less easily dislodged, alla "alas poor Yorick I knew him (well)". To say that one form of music is more serious than any other is outrageously arrogant and insulting, and for my money just wrong. Music can appeal to the hips and the heart just as seriously as it can to the head. Music, of all forms, brings joy and comfort to people, and why anyone would want to undermine this just because it's not to their taste I find pathetic, infantile and very sad. Also by disregarding certain music simply because it comes from one of the record shop categories that doesn't normally interest you, I think some people are missing out on a lot of music that they may find wonderful. I used to love Andy Kershaw's old Radio ! show and more recently Iain Burnside's Sunday Morning on Radio 3, for the same reason that they played something almost every week that I had never heard before which would blow me away. 

The term Modern Music also annoys me for the simple reason that most of the composers it refers to died before I was born. People don't refer to Elvis as Modern Rock, or Monk as Modern Jazz, or maybe they do, as I said probably best left sealed. 

To finish I'll just paraphrase dear old Oscar, there are only two types of music in my book, good and bad, and which is which is completely up the listener.

(Sorry, tagalie, couldn't resist, even though I sort of agree with you. Emerson Lake & Palmer, however, are a different matter!)

Mine was a bit obvious, but Yours Is No Disgrace

(ditto, pursued by a bear)

I hate the game To be Over, but it might be time to manoeuvre this thread back on topic before we drive other contributors through the Gates of Delirium.

Referencing the discussion above re. what's serious/classical and what isn't and how the new Gramophone is meeting our needs, I recall that for a short time the magazine was reviewing pop/rock records. Just a small sub-section, but there was an excellent reviewer. On his Christmas list (one of my favourite old Gramophone features) he identified three albums for his stocking: Talking Heads 'More songs about buildings and food', Dire Straits' first album, and Joni Mitchell's 'Hejira'. Quite remarkable, since all three are now recognized as classics of their type. That would date the review around 1978 and it alerted me, who had lost touch with the rock/pop world, to the fact that there was some interesting music happening over there.

Now I realize this is going to bring the wrath of many Gramophiles down on my head, but I wonder if there is room and justification for something similar in today's mag. Popular, or whatever you want to call it, music is much the same today as it has always been - 95% trash but 5% worth any music lover's attention. The trick is to find the 5% and most classical music aficionados can't be bothered doing the sifting. Right now I rely on my son to bring such music to my attention, but I'd welcome the guidance of a savvy reviewer.

Indeed - I feared for this thread's Survival. If Yes references become a Dominating Factor on this forum, it'll push All The Good People Close To Edge, and then we'll have fewer Wondrous Stories about classical music. But let's hope it'll be A Good Day Today.

Anyway, to turn to tagalie's comment about having a pop/rock review section in Gramophone - I can see the argument, but am not sure it's an entirely good idea - with so much music competing for limited print space it might be a step too far for more 'conservative' readers. But that wouldn't be an issue for an online edition, which could perhaps be a sort of Gramophone 'Plus'. Or it could be something reviewers could address in personal blogs .

But I do think music on the 'fringes' of what might be considered 'classical' should be covered.  It's inevitably hard to define what the fringes are, and even harder to say what's will be of lasting value and what won't - some of what was considered fringe in the past becomes part of the mainstream, or even the so-called 'canon', and it's only time that reveals what gets passed-over and what gets incorporated.

Yes, it's always a risk covering material that doesn't quite 'fit' - but not doing so risks missing out on the stuff that will 'fit' sooner or later.

Or maybe there's a market for a truly eclectic music magazine - one whose criteria is that the music is 'good' or at least 'interesting', rather than that it falls under some category definition (all good subjective stuff, of course, but then so much in life is). But perhaps in marketing terms, something intended to appeal to everyone at least a bit actually doesn't appeal to anyone very much (or enough, anyway).

POST MODERATED – House Rule 4