Don Satz replied to Iain Simmons:

>I have to make a distinction between "pop" and "rock" music.  Until the
>early to mid-sixties, pop and rock were one and the same.  Then came the
>Beatles, Rolling Stones, Yardbirds, Bob Dylan, Led Zepplin, Jimi Hendrix,
>etc.  These artists created "hard" rock; no longer did the themes revolve
>around love, but sex, drugs, and political and social issues.  Pop music
>did continue to live through folks like Diana Ross, the Carpenters, Tony
>Orlando and Dawn - themes still revolved around love and syrup, etc.

Agreed, and the distinction isn't made as often or as forcefully as I think
it might be.  Don does not underestimate the scale of the difference.

>....  Someone mentioned Nights in White Satin which is a good example.
>Here was a rock song with a mysterious "edge" which was diluted and
>nearly ruined by the use of orchestra.

Right again.

>I think that Iain does not give sufficient credit to heavy-metal fans.
>They are no 'so-called' fans, they are real and want their music without
>the smoother and mainstream sounds of an orchestra.

True, but orchestral sounds do not have to be "smooth" and "mainstream".
We've just emerged from a century where one of the biggest trends in
"classical" music and instrumentation has been to move away from all of
that into very different sound-worlds.  If the composers and arrangers
behind these rock / orchestral experiments have not been able to get beyond
"smooth" and "mainstream", that is a comment on their lack of imagination,
not on the validity of the idea.

>So, I do not believe that heavy-metal and orchestra will expand their
>repertoire at all, just turn them off (appropriately).

Probably true, but not necessarily - see Alexa Butterworth's post.

>You see, those of us who feel that this mix and match business is a good
>thing still think of the rock end as not as good or worthy,

Not me.  I still listen to a lot of rock, and I have no trouble regarding
some of it as both good and worthy.  Not all, of course, but the same
applies to classical, and jazz, and Indian

>...  and when those rock fans hear how good the music sounds with
>orchestra, they will be at least somewhat converted.

It's nothing to do with conversion, if that means leaving A behind in
order to take up with B.  It could be everything to do with ear-opening
- learning to appreciate both A and B for their own qualities, and
understanding that there are some things that each can do better than
the other.

>So, my opinion is that heavy-metal + orchestra = junk music.

On the whole probably true. That's because it aims for a middle ground
rather than a celebration of each part, and therefore tends to miss what
each side does best. I've argued in many previous posts to this list that
"fusion" of different kinds of music usually doesn't work, and this example
is no different. But I will still defend any attempt, because the mere fact
that the attempt is being made shows that somebody is trying not
necessarily to bridge a gap and bring two things together (almost certainly
doomed to failure), but to understand what's on the other side. And if the
result is what Alexa described - rock fans going to classical concerts, and
even maybe classical people sampling the other side, then that's a good
thing. And if it isn't, then very little is lost.

>Riding the coattails of rock music to increase the appeal of classical
>music has no viabilty.

If that is what's happening, I agree.  Classical music can stand on its own
virtues, as can rock.  And some people can be positively, deeply involved
in both.

Ian
[log in to unmask]