BEST STEPHEN FOSTER CD
HIHI
Foster's songs? any suggestions?
beverlie
asked), but she is a wonderful interpreter of his songs.
HIHI wrote in message <36C595EA...@idt.net>...
Jon-Jon
Jon-Jon
BANilsson
little oversung; a plus is the backing group, which features Jay Ungar and
Molly Mason.
For a fine choral rendering, try the Robert Shaw Chorale on an RCA/BMG reissue.
It's from 1958, so the lyrics are intact, if you know what I mean.
The best versions, however, are on two Nonesuch recordings, with mezzo Jan
DeGaetani and baritone Leslie Guinn and an ensemble that recreates a
19th-century sound. I have the two LPs, which I believe were combined, with
omissions, on a single CD.
to e-mail properly, lose "lott"
HIHI
ghost
>Classical baritone Thomas Hampson
>For a fine choral rendering, try the Robert Shaw Chorale
>The best versions, however, are on two Nonesuch recordings, with mezzo Jan
>DeGaetani and baritone Leslie Guinn
Will you please take the revolting classical recommendations to a
revolting classical group?
If you happen in your travels to stumble over any folk renditions
(there are several, but its unlikely *you'll* find any) please let us know.
Al Christians
>
>
> Will you please take the revolting classical recommendations to a
> revolting classical group?
>
> If you happen in your travels to stumble over any folk renditions
> (there are several, but its unlikely *you'll* find any) please let us know.
Back when classical music was contemporary (and vice versa), there
was not much distinction between serious music and folk. Which is
"Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star", "Where, Oh Where, Has My Little Dog
Gone?", or anything by O'Carolan? Which is a Russian bluegrass band
that includes a conductor?
Al
Amy DiNolo
classical music at all, you'd find that many, many classical themes were
borrowed from folk tunes, for example the entire work of "Ma Vlast" by
Smetana, and Grieg's Pier Gynt suite. I don't know of any rule that says
classically trained musicians can't perform and enjoy folk music and
vice-versa.
One of my music profs at McGill defined music as organized sound....that's
as good a definition as any to me. Where do you draw the line between folk
and classical anyhow, or for that matter, between any two genres of music?
Is the Boston Pops chorale singing arrangements of early American folk tunes
"folk" or "classical"? Is Gaelic puirt a beul with drum programming backup
"celtic" or "techno"? The truth is, it doesn't really matter. Some people
will enjoy it and some won't......but music isn't "revolting" simply because
you happen to not like it.
I think that if someone brings up a particular piece of music on this NG,
then it belongs here....it's certainly more welcome than threads about
completely off-topic subjects (vote independent or the turkish khazars,
anyone?).
-Amy
Stewa1
with the inclusion of Jay Unger and Molly Mason. The Robert Shaw one is great,
too...by the way, Robert Shaw passed away a few weeks ago...a great loss.
ghost
>Back when classical music was contemporary (and vice versa), there
>was not much distinction between serious music and folk.
The tunings, vocal styles, timings & attitudes have been different for a very,
very long time. *Way* back before the time of Stephen Foster.
ghost
>I have to second Al's opinion here, ghost. In fact, if you were into
>classical music at all, you'd find that many, many classical themes were
>borrowed from folk tunes, for example the entire work of "Ma Vlast" by
>Smetana, and Grieg's Pier Gynt suite. I don't know of any rule that says
>classically trained musicians can't perform and enjoy folk music and
>vice-versa.
I know full well that lots of classical composers have borrowed tunes.
Some have even acknowledged this. Most just claim credit for tunes
they rearranged but did not compose.
Whether you can enjoy both kinds of music is not the issue;
its people constantly responding to requests on rec.music.folk with
recommendations of their favorite classical recordings, instead of
responding with recommendations to favorite folk recordings that is the
issue. Maybe they do this because they don't *have* any
favorite folk recordings?
BANilsson
>very, very long time. *Way* back before the time of Stephen Foster.
It's clear that you have a big, banjo-sized chip on your shoulder about this
subject, but your above assertion is just plain wrong. While there long have
been distinct currents in the great stream of music, they have fed one another
so thoroughly that what's called "crossover" today long has been unremarkable.
Only since the days of recordings, and the need to categorize for the purpose
of target marketing, have there been such brutal distinctions.
Musicians I know -- and I know plenty, being professionally involved -- don't
sit down and say, "Let's play some classical stuff today," or "It's time for
folk." They play what makes sense to them, in styles according to their
training, drawing from a great variety of sources. Should Pete Seeger give up
playing Beethoven's "Ode to Joy"? Was it wrong for Ben Luxon and Bill Crofut to
join forces?
-- Byron
ghost
>>The tunings, vocal styles, timings & attitudes have been different for a
>>very, very long time. *Way* back before the time of Stephen Foster.
>It's clear that you have a big, banjo-sized chip on your shoulder about this
>subject, but your above assertion is just plain wrong. While there long have
>been distinct currents in the great stream of music, they have fed one another
>so thoroughly that what's called "crossover" today long has been unremarkable.
In Western European music you'd have to go back to the early Middle Ages
to find formal music of the ruling group that resembled that of the
cultures they were lording it over & trying very very hard
not to sound like. You aren't discussing sub-continental-Indian
classical music or Turkish classical music, are you?
You might have a case, *there*.
And as for this gibberish about "currents in the great stream of music
feeding one another", how many symphony orchestras or recorder consorts
have you heard lately playing any attempts at poorly digested trad input
dating later than Stravinsky or Bartok? (Maybe they'll start incorporating
the sound-track of Riverdance as a crowd-getter, but the crowd will leave
when the piper leaves & the usual-fare terminally bombastic
or slow, boring stuff starts.)
>Only since the days of recordings, and the need to categorize for the purpose
>of target marketing, have there been such brutal distinctions.
The brutal distinctions go back into the Middle Ages, with plenty of
instruction given as to how court musicians are to best avoid
sounding like the general populace of wherever the court is placed.
>Musicians I know -- and I know plenty, being professionally involved -- don't
>sit down and say, "Let's play some classical stuff today," or "It's time for
>folk." They play what makes sense to them, in styles according to their
>training, drawing from a great variety of sources.
You seem to know plenty of classical musicians.
"What makes sense to them" depends on how they've been trained. I've
found very few of the 100s of classical musicians I've been unfortunate enough
to meet who draw from any source other than their constricted training.
>Should Pete Seeger give up
>playing Beethoven's "Ode to Joy"?
If he'd ever be so foolish as to play it as Beethovan intended, yes.
>Was it wrong for Ben Luxon and Bill Crofut to
>join forces?
I saw their PBS TV special & I'd say they both stunk; neither one of them
was a traditional or trad-style singer of the music they were covering,
as compared to trad singers of it I *have* heard. They maybe acheived a
Music-Hallish effect from time to time, far on the obnoxious end of that
category. I felt like I was watching a couple of people play Santa Claus;
lots of Ho-ho-ho. Of course, I'm not a big fan of Burl Ives, either.
Amy DiNolo
and the people who happen to enjoy it along with folk music. Correct me if
I'm wrong, but the"music" comes before the "folk" in this NG's name.
Classical music *began* as a means of transcribing what people had already
been doing for quite some time. It evolved over time into the style (or more
correctly, "styles") that it is today. I understand that classical music is
not everyone's cup of tea, but I've always found the folk set more
open-minded than most about accepting musical contributions from all genres.
Must a musician stay strictly "traditional" to be discussed on this
newsgroup? And by whose standards is that quality to be measured?
As for your assertions that classical music is generally bobmastic or slow,
all I can say is try some Britten or Orff sometime. Speaking of which, might
I add that Orff's Carmina Burana came directly from the folk music of
medieval Germany? As far as symphonic renderings of traditional pieces (and
more "contemporary folky pieces"), you need go no further than your own
hometown. Keith Lockhart and the Pops put out a Celtic album last fall.
While it's not my favorite CD, it's not bad either. And your contention that
classically trained musicians can't play or perform music is completely
off-base. I and a number of my friends were classically trained and perform
folk and traditional music on a regular basis.
Besides all that, you seem to enjoy criticizing any and all tastes on this
NG that differ from your own. I recall that you repeatedly posted to a
thread on Susan Werner about how much she stunk. You've got to accept that
folk music is an extremely broad category, encompassing a number of
different sub-genres. There are musicians I would hesitate to call "folk"
that have been discussed here frequently, and others that I would call folk
that have never been brought up (Indigo Girls, Jewel, Great Big Sea, Greg
Trooper). Would it kill you to talk about something that you do like?
-Amy
ghost
>What I'd like to know, ghost, is what your problem is with classical music
>and the people who happen to enjoy it along with folk music.
I don't want to see requests for folk music being answered by
recommendations for classical music. You're free to *enjoy* anything you
darn please, its what you're misleadingly *plugging* that bugs me.
>Correct me if
>I'm wrong, but the"music" comes before the "folk" in this NG's name.
And "folk" comes after the "music" so that you supposedly know what kind
of music is being discussed in the group. Hey, "rec" comes before both
"music" & "folk". Perhaps you'd like to use that as an excuse to plug
your favorite recreational vehicles on here? Sports, anyone? Wanna
discuss tennis?
>Classical music *began* as a means of transcribing what people had already
>been doing for quite some time. It evolved over time into the style (or more
>correctly, "styles") that it is today.
It rapidly mutated into a lot of creepy rules for playing creepy,
rhythmically & lyrically & harmonically stilted, off-pitch music.
>I understand that classical music is
>not everyone's cup of tea, but I've always found the folk set more
>open-minded than most about accepting musical contributions from all genres.
Oh, are you saying I'm not part of "the folk set"?
>Must a musician stay strictly "traditional" to be discussed on this
>newsgroup? And by whose standards is that quality to be measured?
Nope, this is not rec.music.strictly.trad. Make that
rec.music.trad.strictly to get the hierarchy right.
But it ain't rec.music.classical either. I recommend you & your friends
plug your junk over there.
>As far as symphonic renderings of traditional pieces (and
>more "contemporary folky pieces"), you need go no further than your own
>hometown. Keith Lockhart and the Pops put out a Celtic album last fall.
>While it's not my favorite CD, it's not bad either.
Thanks for giving us your recommendation for a "not bad Celtic album".
It should be a good example of what your excuse for standards is.
>And your contention that
>classically trained musicians can't play or perform music is completely
>off-base.
Oh, & you cite Lockhart with the Pops & their "Celtic" album as evidence?
>I and a number of my friends were classically trained and perform
>folk and traditional music on a regular basis.
Yeah, I've heard many performances by the classically trained of
what they call "folk & traditional music".
It makes me nauseous.
>You've got to accept that
>folk music is an extremely broad category, encompassing a number of
>different sub-genres.
Sorry; classical is not a sub-genre of folk.
>Would it kill you to talk about something that you do like?
I do, all the time. You haven't been here very long.
BANilsson
>>been doing for quite some time. It evolved over time into the style (or more
>>correctly, "styles") that it is today.
>
>It rapidly mutated into a lot of creepy rules for playing creepy,
>rhythmically & lyrically & harmonically stilted, off-pitch music.
Oh, =that's= what happened! And here I thought it was just that your mother was
frightened by a Toscanini recording whilst you bubbled in utero.
I can't say that your quote shows you at your scholarly best, and you come off
as sounding far too rude to persuade me to take your opinions seriously. Have
you ever thought of becoming a critic?
JmG
Good. Now, this thread began with a simple question; can someone recommend a
good recording of Stephen Foster songs?
Okay then, can someone recommend a good recording or two of Stephen Foster
songs?
Jeff
--
Is your web site Y2K Free?
Pamela Beasley
>
I don't know of any rule that says
> classically trained musicians can't perform and enjoy folk music and
> vice-versa.
>
The classical violinist I. Perleman performed with John Denver on
several occasions. The last was an uncredited accompaniment on "The
Foxfire Suite" that John wrote. He called it his bluegrass symphony.
This was on John's CD called Different Directions from 1991.
Katherine Kaye
Or perhaps they're too busy being anarchic to have an NG of their own.
Katherine in Oxford
On 16 Feb 1999, ghost wrote:
> In article <19990216100840...@ng-ch1.aol.com> bani...@aol.comlott (BANilsson) writes:
>
> >Classical baritone Thomas Hampson
>
> >For a fine choral rendering, try the Robert Shaw Chorale
>
> >The best versions, however, are on two Nonesuch recordings, with mezzo Jan
> >DeGaetani and baritone Leslie Guinn
>
>