[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: TheWho Digest Vol 2 Num 23



} Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 12:25:45 -0800 (PST)
} From: yarlas@PSYCH.UCLA.EDU (Aaron Yarlas)
} Subject: Re: TheWho Digest Vol 2 Num 23
} 
} I don't think anyone objects to the Who being covered.  In fact, I would
} encourage Who or PT covers as they spread the music to a wider audience.
} I think the backlash was specific to the Moody Blues, who I doubt are 
} capable of interpreting any of the meaning behind the music.  I mean,
} I don't think Barry Manilow should cover them either, but that doesn't mean
} no one should.  Just someone who can maintain the spirit of the song, and
} who can translate it in a new way while keeping the basic meaning intact.
} I don't think the Moody Blues could pull this off, and I think the LSO have
} no idea what any of these songs meant in the first place, so they should keep
} their mitts of 'em.
} 
} Aaron
} delurking
} 

Now I guess you're forcing me to get more specific, since you have!  :-)

The short answer is, "You're selling the Moody Blues and the LSO way too
short."  [No comment on Mr. Manilow...]

To me, the Moody Blues have always been one of those bands that either
you had all of their records, or you heard enough of them "around" that
you didn't have to buy the records yourself (should you actually like
some of their songs).  I fell/fall into the latter category myself, not
ever wanting to own any one album, but reasonably, distantly appreciative.

I defy anyone to convince me that "The Story In Your Eyes" from "Every
Good Boy Deserves Favour" is NOT a classic rocker.  Only a bit of a
rough edge, certainly, but I think a rock band is allowed to be tight
and still not suck.  This is a song that deserves to be played as loudly
as is convenient.

Now, after listening--really listening--to that, and a couple of other
of their gazillion-selling-always-on-those-rock-retrospective-weekends
classics, tell me that the Moody Blues couldn't do a pretty damn good
version of "I'm Free", or "I Can't Reach You", or even (gasp!) "Behind
Blue Eyes", or "Tommy Can You Hear Me".  :-)   All of these (with the
obvious exception) are favourites of mine--I can't help but sing along
with them--and they're *well* within the Moodies' reach.  And these are
just off of the top of my head.  Hell, they could probably do a good
version of "Is It In My Head?"--with or without the LSO, too!

As for them being incapable of interpreting the meaning behind the music,
well, whether you find them supremely profound or not, the lyrics to the
Moodies' songs at least caused enough philosophical interest to prompt
Justin Hayward to write "I'm Just a Singer in a Rock and Roll Band" to
try to get ease some of the expectations of the public for even more
profundity.  These guys aren't cretins, folks.  (Not like, oh, say, David
Lee Roth? ;;;-)  I don't doubt there are plenty of people who are fans of
both groups.  I would be surprised if some of The 'Oo weren't on good
terms with various Moodies, personally and/or musically.

As far as the LSO not having any idea what the songs meant in the first
place, come ON, let's NOT kid ourselves about symphonic musicians!!
You're *far* more likely to find rock-and-roll fans amongst classical
musicians than you are the reverse, in my estimation.  Snobbery is a
knife which cuts both ways--and RockAndRollers are somewhat notorious
for prejudice against other musical forms.  Hey, there was more than one
"classical" composer into sex and/or drugs, too ...

The most important thing about orchestral interpretations of music is,
quite simply, the quality of the arrangement and orchestration.  With
a good arrangement, "Overture", "Sparks", "Underture", etc., *could*
sound dynamic enough to satisfy any rock hound who isn't turned off
by strings and horns.  (And the percussion section could, with enough
people, sound as impressive as Moonie--just look at all the neat stuff
they get to play with!)  Like it or not, every *one* in the LSO is a
*better* musician (technically) than any member of the Who.  [Though
The Ox might give them a run for their money technically, and I'd give
The 'Oo higher marks for artistic impression whenever they were "on"--
in my hero John Alec's case, that would be just about all of the time!]

With a _dynamite_ arrangement, the more orchestral of Pete's works could
*easily* be interpreted well by the LSO--and it might just blow you away,
too (assuming you can stand the sound of an orchestra)!!

If you don't think that orchestras can produce emotional, powerful,
knock-you-right-onto-your-*ASS* music, well, you just haven't been
listening to the right orchestral music.

And it seems to me that Who-listers have usually enjoyed the non-Who
interpretation of Tommy on Broadway, even if the theatre audience didn't
realize they were supposed to hold up their fists and lighters ...

> Mike <
          "I'm wet and I'm cold, but thank God I ain't ...  Oh, shit!"