Henry Mancini Genre Question?
JarlSigurd
genre does the music of 20th Century composer Henry Mancini
fall into, Classical or Jazz and WHY?
Jarl Sigurd
to listen to a composer who lists Henry Mancini as a influence,
visit: http://www.ampcast.com/search/band.php?id=9098
Ward Hardman
: Here is a question for classical and jazz experts. Into which
: fall into, Classical or Jazz and WHY?
How about "Filmscores"?
--Ward Hardman
"The older I get, the more I admire and crave competence, just simple
competence, in any field from adultery to zoology."
- H.L. Mencken
Scott Kurtz
classical or jazz exclusively. He straddles both, like Keith Jarrett or
Anthony Davis, or Claus Ogerman, or many, many others.
JarlSigurd <JarlS...@geocities.com> wrote in message
news:3C1805...@geocities.com...
William R. Barner
for the concert hall, though it is performed by orchestras at "pops
concerts". He is not known as a jazz musician/composer, though some of
his tunes are played by jazz musicians--"The days of wine and roses",
for example. So, I'd call him a composer of film scores and popular
songs. If "easy listening" is still a genre that's where I'd put him.
Anyone see the movie "Goodbye, Columbus" lately? Remember the
brother of the girlfriend (Ali MacGraw)? The Ohio State U. basketball
star who listened to his "Goodbye, Columbus" record all the time? He
invites the boyfriend (Richard Benjamin) up to his room to listen to
Mantovani records. Mantovani--that's easy listening. Also, "semi
classical". I'm thinking of a Mike Nichols-Elaine May comedy routine
where Nichols is trying to chat up his secretary, May, in a bar and asks
her up to his apartment to listen to his stereo. "Do you like semi
classical?"
I associate Mancini with this sort of music.
Trivia question. What 1960s pop group is featured on the "Goodbye,
Columbus" soundtrack. Answer: The Association.
JAZZCORNER
In the liner notes of the swinging LP "Uniquely Mancini" on RCA he is in
fact called the "Top Movie-TV Composer" - arranger-conductor.
W.B.
"William R. Barner" <wb...@loc.gov> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3C18C9F7...@loc.gov...
big benz
>
> Neither classical nor jazz in my opinion. His music is not written
> for the concert hall, though it is performed by orchestras at "pops
> concerts". He is not known as a jazz musician/composer, though some of
> his tunes are played by jazz musicians--"The days of wine and roses",
> for example. So, I'd call him a composer of film scores and popular
> songs. If "easy listening" is still a genre that's where I'd put him.
>
i agree with this, i think of mancini as being in the same category as
neil hefti; guys you hear on easy listening stations and on elevators.
Richard Thurston
wrote:
>
>i agree with this, i think of mancini as being in the same category as
>neil hefti; guys you hear on easy listening stations and on elevators.
Although Mancini has written some lovely melodies which in turn have
inspired some interesting interpretations.
The recent Bill Frisell CD contains a terrific version of Moon River
(a staple of Bill's solo performances over the past few years) where
Bill, Dave Holland and Elvin Jones breathe new life into the tune.
Richard Thurston
bkn...@conramp.net
<big...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Maybe Mancini would fit only in this genre, but Hefti? I guess
one man's jazz is another's easy listening, but you might check
out all of the things Neal did with Basie. Lil Darlin, Cute, Kid
From Red Bank, Splanky, etc....
Neal made the transition to TV and film composer very well.
There were some unusual ones, like the theme to the Batman TV
series; we broke up when we saw the charts. On the top it said
"Word and Music by Neal Hefti". He also did the first score for
Streisand's movie, On A Clear Day. For political, certainly not
musical, reasons she dumped the whole score, and we re did it
with Nelson Riddle.
Incidentally, there was an album by Quincy Jones entitled "Quincy
Jones plays Hank Mancini", that was a good jazz album. I don't
know if it ever was re-released on CD though.
bk
Peter T. Daniels
> Anyone see the movie "Goodbye, Columbus" lately? Remember the
> brother of the girlfriend (Ali MacGraw)? The Ohio State U. basketball
> star who listened to his "Goodbye, Columbus" record all the time? He
> invites the boyfriend (Richard Benjamin) up to his room to listen to
> Mantovani records. Mantovani--that's easy listening. Also, "semi
> classical".
Absolutely the only thing I have ever remembered about that movie is
when someone asks that character what music he likes, and he says "I dig
semi-classical." I think he was supposed to represent Philip Roth's
notion of the typical goy.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
big benz
>
> Maybe Mancini would fit only in this genre, but Hefti? I guess
> one man's jazz is another's easy listening, but you might check
> out all of the things Neal did with Basie. Lil Darlin, Cute, Kid
> From Red Bank, Splanky, etc....
>
> Neal made the transition to TV and film composer very well.
>
i suppose it's a matter of timing. my awareness of hefti was of tunes like
'girl talk', the theme from the tv show 'odd couple', &c.
> Incidentally, there was an album by Quincy Jones entitled "Quincy
> Jones plays Hank Mancini", that was a good jazz album. I don't
> know if it ever was re-released on CD though.
>
just because jones did a jazz version of mancini stuff doesn't necessarily
mean that it was jazz when written by mancini; it could just as easily be
considered to be jazz adaptations of mancini's stuff. after all, there was
that disco tune "a fifth of beethoven" but i don't think that many people
would therefore assume that beethoven's fifth symphony was a disco tune...
Bobby Knight
wrote:
>bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
<clip>
>> Incidentally, there was an album by Quincy Jones entitled "Quincy
>> Jones plays Hank Mancini", that was a good jazz album. I don't
>> know if it ever was re-released on CD though.
>>
>
>just because jones did a jazz version of mancini stuff doesn't necessarily
>mean that it was jazz when written by mancini; it could just as easily be
>considered to be jazz adaptations of mancini's stuff. after all, there was
>that disco tune "a fifth of beethoven" but i don't think that many people
>would therefore assume that beethoven's fifth symphony was a disco tune..
Read the statement again. It *was* considered as jazz adaptations.
You assumed otherwise, and stated the obvious.
bk
Paul Penna
<big...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> i agree with this, i think of mancini as being in the same category as
> neil hefti; guys you hear on easy listening stations and on elevators.
Dig up Count Basie and ask him about Hefti's jazz credentials. As for
Mancini, his Peter Gunn albums are cool West Coast jazz, daddy-o.
--
Paul Penna
Skip Elliott Bowman
"Paul Penna" <tter...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:131220011632490163%tter...@sonic.net...
True that. IMHO some of the best Basie charts were penned by Neil Hefti.
He and Mancini were two of the most respected composers in the business.
Musicians who played jazz, not just jazz musicians.
Joshua Bayer
as other composer of that era - Rogers/Hart etc) were written for film
and were often orhestral arrangements/compositions. Now they are
considered jazz after they were played that way by whoever (Getz, Miles
the list goes on). Do these 'jazz' composers fit into the jazz category
or the 'easy listening elevator' category?
Am I supposed to say IMO?
Hal Vickery
Yeah, especially the arrangments he wrote for Woody Herman. Real elevator
music.
nsmf
David Richardson
Classical without doubt, Baby Elephant Walk, Peter Gunn, Pink Panther,
for example as compostions are in the same class, if not better than
many classical works, Ok it swings, but the standard of compostion is
so high. Quincy Jones in another Classical standard composer of today
DJR
keith edgerley
"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
Trivia question (not too hard)
Who said this, in what film:
This is what they call classical music, isn't it?...I can tell because
there's no vocal.
--
Keith
Let us now praise famous men [...]
Such as found out musical tunes
Natalie
You are such a snob! people like Walton had to write for film, to pay
the way and many others before him turned out slush to order, Mozart
for one, further, you can not get much more Easy Listening lift music
than Mozart.
Phil Smith
IMO, you're making a mistake calling Porter or Rogers "jazz" composers.
They wrote show tunes, for Broadway or Off-Broadway. Film adaptations
often followed. But Rogers in particular was a true afficianado of
Broadway and the theater. To call a tune like "My Favorite Things"
"jazz" because Coltrane did it really doesn't address the original
nature of the tune. Nor does playing it in an elevator make it "easy
listening". I prefer to call this genre "American Popular Song".
But, as I say, this is IMHO.
-Phil
Phil Smith
>
> Here is a question for classical and jazz experts. Into which
> genre does the music of 20th Century composer Henry Mancini
> fall into, Classical or Jazz and WHY?
I place Mancini in a category I call "American Popular Song". This
category mainly covers music written for Broadway shows. Music in this
category generally follows a verse/chorus form, although the verse is
optional. Generally speaking, the chorus is in an AABA form, although
other permutations exist. They are, however, always strophic and set up
by the verse.
I categorize compositions based on their structure and thematic
elements, not the way they were played or what they were used for. Most
of what I've heard of Mancini would fit into the genre I call "American
Popular Song".
-Phil
Clay Fink
correct, Tony plays on the Pink Panther theme. This means 1 degree of
separation between Derik Bailey and Henry Mancini. (There is also 1
degree of separation between Eugene Chadbourne and Hank Williams).
Natalie
Many of his works, like Pink Panther and Baby Elephant Walk are far
from just Popular Song. Even more so, than for example, Saint Saens,
these compositions will be popular and with us for all all time.
Natalie
Karen
> Phil Smith <m...@philsmith.com> wrote in message news:<3C1A2D8D...@philsmith.com>...
> > JarlSigurd wrote:
> > >
> > > Here is a question for classical and jazz experts. Into which
> > > genre does the music of 20th Century composer Henry Mancini
> > > fall into, Classical or Jazz and WHY?
> >
> >
> > elements, not the way they were played or what they were used for. Most
> > of what I've heard of Mancini would fit into the genre I call "American
> > Popular Song".
> >
> > -Phil>
> Many of his works, like Pink Panther and Baby Elephant Walk are far
> from just Popular Song. Even more so, than for example, Saint Saens,
> these compositions will be popular and with us for all all time.
> Natalie
Carnival of the Animals by Camille Saint-Seans is wonderful, however,
in the arrangement they lack the more commercial rhythm of today, that
make works like Pink Panther so appealing. Both are great composers
who wrote equally good compositions, fitting the time they lived in.
Joshua Bayer
referred to as 'jazz' composers. Read.
Joshua Bayer
Phil Smith
>
> Is Bob Dylan 'American Popular Song'?
Well, I haven't heard everything he's done, but what I have heard
doesn't qualify. Perhaps "American Popular Song" isn't the best name,
since a lot of other stuff has been popular. But that other stuff wasn't
around back then. Back to Dylan, most of us would agree he's in a
category call "Folk Music" which is characterized by a strophic
verse/refrain form in which the verse is part of the strophe, with
different lyrics each repetition. Also characterized by its simplicity.
-Phil
David Richardson
> Phil states, "Well, I haven't heard everything he's done"
Where have you been Phil? on another planet. Dylan would never claim
himself to be a musician, but clearly he is one of the greatest poets
of the twentieth century. I agree, however, he would more fall into
the category of folk music, but if look in a record shop, just like
Beethoven, you would find him under Dylan. (not Folk) I was looking
foward for more comments and analysis of the works of Mancini, as I
also agree about the example of Pink Panther Theme, the composition
and arrangement is pure musical genius, many of his works will be
found in the Classical Music section of the future DJR
Charles Martin in Seattle
> Back to Dylan, most of us would agree he's in a
>category call "Folk Music" which is characterized by a strophic
>verse/refrain form in which the verse is part of the strophe, with
>different lyrics each repetition. Also characterized by its simplicity.
Some of it would not call it "folk music" because folk music is traditional
music handed down through generations.
The entertainment business calls anything with acoustic guitars "folk
music" but that doesn't make it so. If it's recent, has composer credits
and is subject to royalties, that ain't folk music in my book. Dylan is a
popular entertainer.
o-------= Charles Martin =--o
Rcan
Was Woody Guthrie a 'popular entertainer'?
>
>
>o-------= Charles Martin =--o
Charles Martin in Seattle
>>popular entertainer.
>>
>Was Woody Guthrie a 'popular entertainer'?
Sure. What's wrong with that? He sang mostly his own songs, and
he's usually described as a ballad-singer, or balladeer.
o-------= Charles Martin =--o
Marc Sabatella
[ re: Bob Dylan ]
> Some of it would not call it "folk music" because folk music is
traditional
> music handed down through generations.
>
> The entertainment business calls anything with acoustic guitars "folk
> music" but that doesn't make it so. If it's recent, has composer
credits
> and is subject to royalties, that ain't folk music in my book. Dylan
is a
> popular entertainer.
This is a valid distinction at first glance, but even if the origins of
a song are lost to history, it still must have been written by
*someone*. Sure, some folk songs have collective authorship, but it
seems it probably isn't all that way. So, just because we know the name
of the composer of a song, and it gets played on the radio, does that
necessarily mean it cannot be folk music?
I would define folk music - if I had to - as music that is played by not
just by professional musicians in live performance or one recordings,
but also by amateurs in their own living rooms, for the benefit of
friends and family. In nother words, sing-along songs. By this
measure, I can easily see "Blowing In The Wind" qualifying, or things
like "This Land Is Your Land". Of course, depending on your generation,
I suppose "Stairway To Heaven" might count also. Perhaps another part
of the definition should be, music that continues to be sung in this
manner across generations.
Of course, this is a cultural definition of folk music, not a musical
one, per se. Most other genres I'd be inclined to want to define in
both ways. For instance, a cultural definition of jazz would say
something about blacks in the American South during the late 19th and
early 20th centuries. A musical definition would say something about
swing, syncopation, and improvisation.
If I try to create a musical definition of folk music, I would find it
difficult to do without including (early) Dylan. Of course, this
presupposes we are talking about a specific kind of folk music - the
kind common to American and European cultures. Other cultures would
have their own folk musics, which would almost certainly have their own
distinct musical characteristics.
American folk music - which draws heavily on European folk music -
generally uses a harmonic language that consists of diatonic triads and
limited use of seventh chords - mostly dominant and some minor sevenths.
About the only non-diatonic chord you see is the secondary dominant.
Chords generally change no more than once per measure, with chords often
lasting two or even four measures. Melodies tend to be diatonic as
well, and the songs typically use a form in which there are several
"verses" with different lyrics to the same melody. There may or may not
be a refrain as well. The lyrics often tell a story.
At least, that's how I'd describe it. The characteristics I described
make the music easily amenable to guitar accompaniment by beginning
guitarists, and the melodies are usually well within the vocal abilities
of most people. These help make sure the songs are able to achieve the
cultural aspects of folk music as well - that is, being performed and
sung by ordinary people.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my latest CD, "Falling Grace"
Also "A Jazz Improvisation Primer", Sounds, Scores, & More:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Edward Branham
JarlSigurd wrote:
> Here is a question for classical and jazz experts. Into which
> genre does the music of 20th Century composer Henry Mancini
> fall into, Classical or Jazz and WHY?
>
> Jarl Sigurd
>
> to listen to a composer who lists Henry Mancini as a influence,
> visit: http://www.ampcast.com/search/band.php?id=9098
--
I had the guy who installed my invisible fence
come back and install some invisible barbed wire,
but the neighborhood kids kept getting in my yard.
So now he's put in an invisible moat, but he told
me to be careful to make sure that the invisible
drawbridge is down before I drive into my garage.
big benz
>
> Why do you feel a need to label a musician with a particular genre?
>
have you ever been to a record store? labeling music into categories is the
name of the game in the marketing of music.
jarl sigurd asks some pretty stupid questions (for reasons that i have not
been able to determine), but this is one of the better ones.
i'll have to take note of where mancini is categorized the next time i go to
a record store.
Bobby Knight
Plas Johnson was the tenor player on the Pink Panther theme, as well
as most of Mancini's stuff.
David Richardson
I think you would find it under pure Mancini, however, you raise a
good point, having spent my life in the Music Industry, I know how
essential it is to pigeon hole Music to sell it, for example, often
recordings and compilations are made to fit the labels in the store,
hence, crazy recordings like RPO plays Madonna, this will slot into
the Madonna section and as all shops will have one, meaning a lot of
sales. I do not want to write an essay on marketing, but all people
fit into a snobbish individual bag, music is very much fashion and
helps you make your own statement of where you see yourself in
society. If composers write just good music, they have a big problem,
people do not buy good music, there is no section for it, lots of
Mancini music falls in this grey area, not classical, not jazz and if
you tag it film or MOR, somehow that seems derogatory. Only a very few
top musicians, the golden ears, as we call them, will hear the virtues
of the music, regardless of the style or period, being a very sad fact
indeed. DJR
Michael Fitzgerald
wrote:
>Plas Johnson was the tenor player on the Pink Panther theme, as well
>as most of Mancini's stuff.
Tony Coe was tenor soloist on one of the "son of the return of the
bride of the Pink Panther" movies. Plas was on the original.
Mike
big benz
>
> I think you would find it under pure Mancini, however, you raise a
> good point, having spent my life in the Music Industry, I know how
> essential it is to pigeon hole Music to sell it, for example, often
> recordings and compilations are made to fit the labels in the store,
> hence, crazy recordings like RPO plays Madonna, this will slot into
> the Madonna section and as all shops will have one, meaning a lot of
> sales. I do not want to write an essay on marketing, but all people
> fit into a snobbish individual bag, music is very much fashion and
> helps you make your own statement of where you see yourself in
> society. If composers write just good music, they have a big problem,
> people do not buy good music, there is no section for it, lots of
> Mancini music falls in this grey area, not classical, not jazz and if
> you tag it film or MOR, somehow that seems derogatory. Only a very few
> top musicians, the golden ears, as we call them, will hear the virtues
> of the music, regardless of the style or period, being a very sad fact
> indeed. DJR
>
i can fully believe that there would be a "mancini" index card in the record
racks. the problem is, in which section would that card be? you certainly
would want to put "mancini" in the section which is the genre with which
most people would associate mancini. i'm pretty sure that mancini would be
under the "jazz" category; regardless of what kind of music he might have
written on a specific album. you certainly wouldn't want to split an
artist into two categories unless the artist is very well known and is
supported with a marketing campaign (e.g. billy/william joel).
since you've been in the music biz, i'm sure that you might have noticed
that a lot of music is bought on impulse - you might have gone to buy a
particular record in a particular category, but once you started browsing
other records in the category you might have picked up something that came
to mind. few people are going to go through *all* of the record bins.
so even the person with "golden ears" is not going to find out about the
virtues of "just good music" unless it meets that important 'p' of
marketing: place - it's got to be where it's easy for the person to find.
as you noted, people fall into segments, or as you might say a "snobbish
individual bag".
Phil Smith
The world is full of music, and I haven't had time to listen to it all.
No, I haven't been on another planet, but I've been to Indonesia
studying gamelan and Indian music, and to university to study classical
music. Most of my musical experience has been making it, not listening.
I've played with Bruce Springsteen, but not Bob Dylan. I've heen
concentrating on jazz for the last fifteen years or so, and I just
haven't had time to follow everything. I wish I could. There is so much
wonderful stuff out there. But one has to make choices when there is too
much to choose from.
Analysis and categorizing music should start from the structure. You
wouldn't classify cars based on the type of radio in them, would you?
What's the structure of the Pink Panther theme? Where does the
arrangement go? To contrast, take an acknowleged American classical
piece such as Billy the Kid. What's its form? When you're done studying
the two, it should be apparent that the Pink Panther is formally too
simplistic to ever be considered classical.
I really mean no disrepect here. I love Mancini's work. But if you want
to analyze a composition, start at the beginning: the structure.
-Phil
David Richardson
> > found in the Classical Music section of the future DJR
>
> The world is full of music, and I haven't had time to listen to it all.
> No, I haven't been on another planet, but I've been to Indonesia
> studying gamelan and Indian music, and to university to study classical
> music. Most of my musical experience has been making it, not listening.
> I've played with Bruce Springsteen, but not Bob Dylan. I've heen
> concentrating on jazz for the last fifteen years or so, and I just
> haven't had time to follow everything. I wish I could. There is so much
> wonderful stuff out there. But one has to make choices when there is too
> much to choose from.
>
> Analysis and categorizing music should start from the structure. You
> wouldn't classify cars based on the type of radio in them, would you?
> What's the structure of the Pink Panther theme? Where does the
> arrangement go? To contrast, take an acknowleged American classical
> piece such as Billy the Kid. What's its form? When you're done studying
> the two, it should be apparent that the Pink Panther is formally too
> simplistic to ever be considered classical.
>
> I really mean no disrepect here. I love Mancini's work. But if you want
> to analyze a composition, start at the beginning: the structure.
>
> -Phil
It is always a joy to hear the view from a person with wide taste, however,
with regard to your view, being that the complex nature of composition
qualifies music for the classical shelf, can not be and is not the case.
Composers have written very beautiful and simple music that makes that
grade and they have written much rubbish that qualifies, leaving us with what
is Classical Music? The nearest I can define it, is music that is published in
written form, that musicians reproduce long term, as near the original
arrangements as possible. DJR
Ton Maas
nat4...@aol.com (Natalie) wrote:
>Many of his works, like Pink Panther and Baby Elephant Walk are far
>from just Popular Song. Even more so, than for example, Saint Saens,
>these compositions will be popular and with us for all all time.
I wonder whether Bach, Beethoven or Mozart ever considered themselves
"classical" composers. Categories such as "pop", "jazz" and "classical"
seem derivatives of the music business with its need to label and
distinguish. The mere realisation of how our common denominations came
about, should render the original question hopeless :-)
Ton
Marc Sabatella
> I wonder whether Bach, Beethoven or Mozart ever considered themselves
> "classical" composers. Categories such as "pop", "jazz" and
"classical"
> seem derivatives of the music business with its need to label and
> distinguish. The mere realisation of how our common denominations came
> about, should render the original question hopeless :-)
Well, it seems unliekly they'd have used that term specifically, but I
think it very likely they saw a distinction between what they wrote and
folk music, and also between their music and that of, say, a Hindustani
composition, should they have had the opportunity to have heard one.
Given that all music was live, I'm not sure there would have been an
additional category of "pop" music that was distinct from these others,
but I don't the idea of categorization would have struck people of those
eras as foreign.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> "Ton Maas" <ton...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> > I wonder whether Bach, Beethoven or Mozart ever considered themselves
> > "classical" composers. Categories such as "pop", "jazz" and
> "classical"
> > seem derivatives of the music business with its need to label and
> > distinguish. The mere realisation of how our common denominations came
> > about, should render the original question hopeless :-)
>
> Well, it seems unliekly they'd have used that term specifically, but I
> think it very likely they saw a distinction between what they wrote and
> folk music, and also between their music and that of, say, a Hindustani
> composition, should they have had the opportunity to have heard one.
> Given that all music was live, I'm not sure there would have been an
> additional category of "pop" music that was distinct from these others,
> but I don't the idea of categorization would have struck people of those
> eras as foreign.
The music of other countries was alien enough -- we don't see anything
particularly "English" or "French" about the English or French Suites
(but then JSB didn't call them that, did he); but he eagerly assimilated
Vivaldi's concerto style, so wrote Italian music; and Mozart wrote
"Turkish" music when it was fashionable, or to be "exotic" (in e.g.
"Entführung"); so they both recognized styles other than their own and
incorporated their features into their own work.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
calt...@earthlink.net
Phil Smith
Whenever one paints with a broad brush one is bound to miss some finer
details. It's a bad habit of mine, to go overboard trying to make a
point. You're right, of course, there are many other factors which go
into defining categories. I merely want to emphasize that form should be
given top consideration. I can't deny that simple forms are found in
"Classical" music. There are indeed other factors: harmonic and melodic
style, embellishments, instrumentation, etc. But I would argue that the
transition from baroque to classical was really marked by the change in
structure from suite to sonata allegro. I didn't mean to imply something
like a tone poem wasn't really "Classical". Simplicity alone doesn't
make Pink Panther non-classical, but there is already a form which fits
it, that which I call "American Popular Song". I suppose that's really
an updated version of "Tin Pan Alley".
-Phil
Ton Maas
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>Given that all music was live, I'm not sure there would have been an
>additional category of "pop" music that was distinct from these others,
>but I don't the idea of categorization would have struck people of those
>eras as foreign.
That's true of course, but I was referring to the proliferation of poorly
matched categories the music industry has come up with in recent years.
"World music" seems to be a paradigm case here. It's a catchy phrase and a
commercially succesful, no doubt, but I wonder who can direct me to music
that _isn't_ world music. And even if we opt for a narrower definition,
what would be the difference between "world music", folk and/or ethnic
music?
Ton
David Richardson
> Whenever one paints with a broad brush one is bound to miss some finer
> details. It's a bad habit of mine, to go overboard trying to make a
> point. You're right, of course, there are many other factors which go
> into defining categories. I merely want to emphasize that form should be
> given top consideration. I can't deny that simple forms are found in
> "Classical" music. There are indeed other factors: harmonic and melodic
> style, embellishments, instrumentation, etc. But I would argue that the
> transition from baroque to classical was really marked by the change in
> structure from suite to sonata allegro. I didn't mean to imply something
> like a tone poem wasn't really "Classical". Simplicity alone doesn't
> make Pink Panther non-classical, but there is already a form which fits
> it, that which I call "American Popular Song". I suppose that's really
> an updated version of "Tin Pan Alley".
>
> -Phil
I am glad you note simplicity can qualify for the classical shelf. In
broad terms the classical label is now given to all music that appeals
to a particular demographic. I think the main ingredient is music
which must exist in written form and be played and performed by
musicians, who are not creative and prefer to play music, in the same
way as you paint by numbers. You mention sonata form, was it really
such a big deal to use the harmonic key relationship between the Tonic
4th and 5th? people like Mozart live on, as he turned out some good
tunes and arrangements. They had to be written down for others to
play, as he had no other way of storing the composition for people to
hear. Had he have lived today, he would have used a keyboard and
computer for composition and no doubt would be working on a score for
the latest Hollywood blockbuster, all in 5.1 Dolby Digital. As for
Mancini, he missed the golden age of passing down a score and I guess
is far to old to now create an entire work in his bedroom. However,
many of his works are far greater than pure Tin Pan Alley, he is a
great modern composer of orchestral scores, a major talent of the 20th
century, along with so many others, to include, George Gerswin, Jerone
Kern, Cole Porter and today the mighty Quincey Jones. Always remember
a composer has always to write for the day to earn his living, things
have not changed, to quote Quincy Jones, "all we have is 12 notes to
play with" DJR.
Hal Vickery
mals...@aol.com (David Richardson) wrote:
<snip>
> As for
> Mancini, he missed the golden age of passing down a score and I guess
> is *far to old* to now create an entire work in his bedroom.
<snip>
Actually more like "far too dead."
nsmf
Natalie
Poor Henry is infact dead!!!! however, all the other things you say
are valid. Compositions like Baby Elephant Walk and Pink Panther in
the long term will last like the Nutcracker - Natalie
calt...@earthlink.net
wrote:
>I am glad you note simplicity can qualify for the classical shelf. In
>broad terms the classical label is now given to all music that appeals
>to a particular demographic. I think the main ingredient is music
>which must exist in written form and be played and performed by
>musicians, who are not creative and prefer to play music, in the same
>way as you paint by numbers.
You may wish to learn about things before you write about them. This
is a ridiculous statement. If that were true, all performances of the
same piece would be exactly identical, and lack emotional content,
etc.
Steve Bosarge
David Richardson wrote, in part:
> >...... As for
> >Mancini, he missed the golden age of passing down a score and I guess
> >is far to old to now create an entire work in his bedroom...........
>
Far too dead.
Steve Bosarge
David Richardson
Thanks for reminding me, great men grow in stature from death. DJR
Joe Medjuck
Lp called (I think) "The Mancini Touch". If I remember correctly it was a
mid-size combo recording and in very distant retrospect I think Mancini
was influenced by the Claude Thornhill band: amongst the numbers included
were "Snowfall" and "Robbins Nest" the first time I'd ever heard either
of them.
And speaking of Thornhill: Has anyone out there heard the arrangment Gil
Evans did for the Thrnhill band of a section of Mussorgsky's "Pictures
at an Exhibition"? It would have fit right into Miles Ahead.
Joe Medjuck
David Richardson
> On 10 Jan 2002 17:51:40 -0800, mals...@aol.com (David Richardson)
> wrote:
>
> >I am glad you note simplicity can qualify for the classical shelf. In
> >broad terms the classical label is now given to all music that appeals
> >to a particular demographic. I think the main ingredient is music
> >which must exist in written form and be played and performed by
> >musicians, who are not creative and prefer to play music, in the same
> >way as you paint by numbers.
>
> You may wish to learn about things before you write about them. This
> is a ridiculous statement. If that were true, all performances of the
> same piece would be exactly identical, and lack emotional content,
> etc.
would be identical and I agree you can play from music with emotion,
however, if you are very creative and musical you have not need of the
dots.
Neil R.
> i can fully believe that there would be a "mancini" index card in the record
> racks. the problem is, in which section would that card be? you certainly
> would want to put "mancini" in the section which is the genre with which
> most people would associate mancini.
There usually is a "Mancini" card. If you consider he's recorded more
than 80 albums in a lifetime, and had any number of compilation CDs,
whatever you see on store shelves is just a tiny fraction of what he's
recorded. Unfortunately, the shallow thinkers who like to categorize
music with one single term tend to lump ALL of Mancini's music into
the "Easy Listening" category which, in my opinion, doesn't apply to a
lot of his music. As a movie or television composer, he composed to
whatever style the story required. As a recording artist (non-movie
or television projects), he's made recordings in many different
styles, including jazz (yes, REAL jazz), "pops" recordings (with a
largely classical ensemble), and yes, even a few that could be labeled
"Easy Listening" (like A WARM SHADE OF IVORY and SEVERAL HOURS PAST
SUNSET). Others I'd just categorize as "instrumental" simply for the
fact that there are many different elements on an album that make it
impossible to categorize: MR. LUCKY GOES LATIN has a lot of Latin and
Brazilian elements, but utilizes and orchestra AND has jazz soloists
taking a few bars here and there.
Something else I haven't seen expanded on here: quite a few of his
earliest albums were jazz, not just the one or two mentioned. MUSIC
FROM PETER GUNN, MORE MUSIC FROM PETER GUNN, COMBO!, UNIQUELY MANCINI
(his hardest-swinging big band album), MANCINI '67, THE BIG LATIN BAND
OF HENRY MANCINI, and the Grammy winner in the Jazz category for its
year: THE BLUES AND THE BEAT...all were undeniably jazz. On most of
these, you'd find the cream of the West Coast Jazz crop: the Candoli
brothers, Johnny Williams, Ronny Lang, Ted and Dick Nash, Lawrence
Feldman, Rolly Bundock, Plas Johnson...all well-known jazz musicians.
His MUSIC FROM PETER GUNN album was RCA's first jazz million-selling
album, back in an era when RCA's best-selling jazz artist, Shorty
Rogers, would routinely sell 50,000 copies of his latest album. RCA
had approached Shorty Rogers to do a PETER GUNN album, but he
declined; instead, he convinced Hank to record the music himself, and
it was a runaway success.
> so even the person with "golden ears" is not going to find out about the
> virtues of "just good music" unless it meets that important 'p' of
> marketing: place - it's got to be where it's easy for the person to find.
> as you noted, people fall into segments, or as you might say a "snobbish
> individual bag".
Good way to put it. I listen to a lot of music that doesn't really
fit any one particular category, and yet the marketing types ALWAYS
have to pigeonhole it in order to find a place to stash it in the
bins. (Worst example: whenever I look for Sergio Mendes, I've had to
look in Easy Listening, Jazz, Brazilian, World, or Pop/Rock, as I've
found his music filed in ALL of these, depending on the store!)
That's why I buy almost everything online these days--I can search for
an artist by name in an online store, vs. having to look through a
half-dozen different categories trying to find the artist in the bins
(all the while, the latest pop trash or rap blares over the store
speakers, driving me out the door before I find what I'm looking for).
And more often than not, the stores only stock what SELLS, so what
I'm looking for I usually won't find in a retail brick and mortar shop
anyway. (But get me into a used vinyl shop, and I WILL look through
almost every LP bin. <g> )
-= N =-
Hank's Place: The Henry Mancini Forum
http://www.52ndstreet.com/forums/mancini
Hornet
Artic Hunt" from the movie "White Dawn" (circa 1981).. I consider this
to be probably the best piece of work he ever composed..
Cheers
Peter
Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
On 14 Jan 2002 06:45:00 -0800, hanks...@52ndstreet.com (Neil R.)
wrote:
>big benz <big...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<3C214E26...@mindspring.com>...
Natalie
Nice post some interesting facts - Natalie
Abjorn
> Why do you feel a need to label a musician with a particular genre?
It makes it easier for everybody (?) to know what you are talking about.
Abjorn
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: Edward Branham skrev ...
:> Why do you feel a need to label a musician with a particular genre?
:
: It makes it easier for everybody (?) to know what you are talking about.
Although I'm given to understand that nowadays, genre can generally be
cured by penicillin. . .
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
It's a bird, it's a plane -- no, it's Mozart. . .
Abjorn
<schultz skrev ...
> Abjorn wrote:
> : Edward Branham skrev ...
> :> Why do you feel a need to label a musician with a particular genre?
> :
> : It makes it easier for everybody (?) to know what you are talking about.
>
> Although I'm given to understand that nowadays, genre can generally be
> cured by penicillin. . .
I don't feel the need to be cured. Because this "disease" makes it easier to
discuss without long clarifying statements.
> It's a bird, it's a plane -- no, it's Mozart. . .
If you were speaking Swedish that statement would be even funnier.
Abjorn
David Richardson
> In rec.music.classical.recordings Abjorn <abj...@telia.com> wrote:
> : Edward Branham skrev ...
>
> :> Why do you feel a need to label a musician with a particular genre?
> :
> : It makes it easier for everybody (?) to know what you are talking about.
>
> Although I'm given to understand that nowadays, genre can generally be
> cured by penicillin. . .
Then please issue lot's of it, much is needed in this group! DJR