|
|
Post by roger on Jul 5, 2008 10:54:33 GMT
Not surprisingly, members often question the exact meaning of the word ‘crossover’ and I thought it might be helpful to give the topic its own thread. My starting place is the Concise Oxford Dictionary, Tenth Edition (published in 1999).
Two definitions are given, the second of which is the most appropriate to us but I will quote them both:
Crossover
1. a point or place of crossing from one side to another.
2. the process of producing work or achieving success in a new field or style, especially in popular music.
By “new”, I am assuming it means ‘new to that particular performer’.
My initial perception (several years ago) was that it described a performer whose prime focus had always been - or they were recognised as belonging to - one particular musical genre when they subsequently ventured towards another. This would only apply to Classical performers when the word was used in conjunction with that genre i.e. ‘Classical Crossover’.
I don’t see ‘classical crossover’ as a genre in its own right – yet. Originally, I saw it as a collection of material from different genres performed by the same artist. Inevitably, we began to hear classical works performed in a more poppy style. At that point, as a result of musical evolution (music is evolving all the time), I began to see it as a fusion of two or more genres and I believe it will be recognised as a genre in its own right in time.
By the time Hayley began to record, we had reached the point when the term ‘classical crossover’ was already established (to some degree) and so she was immediately considered as a classical crossover artist by many even though she never focused exclusively on classical. She nevertheless seemed to fit into that musical category better than any other.
These are only my perceptions; others may vary. Please feel free to add your thoughts.
Roger
|
|
Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,700
|
Post by Dave on Jul 7, 2008 22:29:58 GMT
Hi Roger, Interesting subject! Feeling a bit lazy tonight, I will initially just add the description of "Classical Crossover" given by All Music.com - which covers much of what I understand by the term... and it almost covers Hayley (but Hayley is one of a kind!): They also categorize Classical Crossover as a style of Classical music. I too see it as that - or a sub-genre, if you like. However, there is some overlap with another Classical style mentioned by All Music.com - Classical Pop, which they define as: I think Hayley encompasses both of these styles or sub-genres - with a bit of folk thrown in for good measure! Cheers, Dave |
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Jul 8, 2008 5:25:34 GMT
By the time Hayley began to record, we had reached the point when the term ‘classical crossover’ was already established (to some degree) and so she was immediately considered as a classical crossover artist by many even though she never focused exclusively on classical. She nevertheless seemed to fit into that musical category better than any other. Roger Hi Dave and Roger, I am probably the person on the forum most guilty of asking this kind of question - so I guess this is my fault  I was actually fairly clear on the general definitions as offered above, which is not to say I entirely agree with them. The question was in part rhetorical and also in part based on the fact that I know of no definition for crossover I am entirely happy with. Some music which common sense tells me should be included isnt, and other things which shouldnt be sometimes are.... Elvis Presley had a big hit with "It's Now or Never" which of course uses the melody of "O Sole Mio" - does that make it classical crossover? Josh Groban has done virtually no "core classical" material at all, yet he is considered a crossover artist in the US. What triggered the latest round of my angst was a brief discussion I had on You Tube with a person who liked Hayley and Jonathan's performance of "Un Giorno Per Noi" quite a lot, but was quite critical of its inclusion in a "Classical Brits" program. I could see his difficulty. While I dont believe that Roger or Dave or myself would have a problem calling it crossover, it is questionable if the song itself was considered anything but easy listening at the time it was written. It was a movie theme - and in its original incarnation it was done as an pop MOR instrumental (by Henry Mancini) and then with English lyrics in the US as a pop release. It then began to be performed by more classically oriented artists, and came to Hayley and Jonathan by way of Josh Groban, who recorded the song in Italian. It is a ballad, it is a love song, and it is beautiful, but if it is classical crossover, precisely what part of it is classical? It seems to have evolved somehow into that niche - or the definition of classical music has evolved to allow it to fit. ---------- I think Roger came closest to the mark when he mentioned the word "fusion". To me, classical crossover is a genre which contains some elements of classical music and elements of one or more other genres as well - pop more often than not. One problem I have with the definitions offered above is that it isnt always classical music reaching out towards other genres. The reverse can and does often happen. When Hayley did Wuthering Heights she wasnt taking a classical song and mainstreaming it - she was taking a mainstream song and making it more classical. It never occurred to me that it wasnt already a genre in its own right however - probably because the Billboard chart for it has been there since long before I became interested in the issue. This does produce a somewhat different viewpoint on my part I suppose. Because I am in the habit of considering crossover a genre in its own right, I think that Hayley in reality is somewhat closer to being a pop singer than a classical one. She has done some classical work, some crossover, and some pop. Remove the crossover, and you are left with a singer who has done more pop songs than classical ones by quite a wide margin. Count the crossover material as "half and half" and she has still done more pop than classical though the percentages do change a bit. Is Hayley a pop singer whose gift is so extraordinary that she can render an occasional lovely aria, or is she primarily a classical singer with so much flexibility that she can also do wonderful easy listening pop? Is she both of these things? The answer to this lies largely in my opinion on where and how you draw these lines. Jon |
|
|
|
Post by stevemacdonald on Jul 8, 2008 13:16:27 GMT
...What triggered the latest round of my angst was a brief discussion I had on You Tube with a person who liked Hayley and Jonathan's performance of "Un Giorno Per Noi" quite a lot, but was quite critical of its inclusion in a "Classical Brits" program. I could see his difficulty. While I dont believe that Roger or Dave or myself would have a problem calling it crossover, it is questionable if the song itself was considered anything but easy listening at the time it was written. It was a movie theme - and in its original incarnation it was done as an pop MOR instrumental (by Henry Mancini) and then with English lyrics in the US as a pop release. ... Jon, wasn't the melody "Un Giorno Per Noi" based on a madrigal from the movie "Romeo & Juliet" whose title was "What Is a Youth?" The madrigal, in its movie context, had a distinctly classical, if ancient, feel to it before it was given the elevator-music treatment by Mancini who developed it into the sappy "Love Theme" from which subsequent MOR songs were sprung. What Hayley and Jonathan performed was far more inspired than the song probably deserves, given how far it came from its classical roots. |
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Jul 8, 2008 20:36:30 GMT
Hi Steve
Yes it was - and I had forgotten that. It does indeed have a weak claim to some sort of classical cache for that reason.
If I was doing the defining however. I would still describe the song as easy listening, which leads to yet another question of course. Is easy listening really classical crossover? One of the definitions given by Dave above - classical pop - seems to be moving in this direction, but doesnt seem to me to go quite far enough. My understanding of that definition would cover something like River of Dreams certainly, and also Hayley's version of "One Fine Day". But I dont think it had a song like "A Time for Us" in mind.
----------
One point I was trying to make above which may not have come out clearly is that different definitions of classical crossover are in play in the US as opposed to the UK. This has actually produced a detectable difference in the music provided. Classical crossover in the US can be more "poppy" because the classical roots dont have to be nearly as well defined.
Jon
|
|
|
|
Post by graemek on Jul 9, 2008 2:05:11 GMT
Thanks guys.
I find these discussions really very interesting, particularly since my own musical interest was switched on initially by Tchaikovsky when I was in my teens and didn't often include vocal works at all.
My own internal definition of Classical was that it resulted from being regarded by the musically inclined populace as having "class", i.e. being continually regarded as top class for a long period.
Being Hayleywowed has forced me to consider what the music fraternity calls all the other various musical creations around the place.
There's no doubt at all in my mind that Hayley exudes pure class but her own taste includes pretty well "any music".
So anyhow, I'm still learning & have a long long way to go but enjoy hugely trotting along behind Hayley waiting to see what she's going to come up with next.
greetings from the South,
Graeme
|
|
I was actually fairly clear on the general definitions as offered above, which is not to say I entirely agree with them. The question was in part rhetorical and also in part based on the fact that I know of no definition for crossover I am entirely happy with. Some music which common sense tells me should be included isnt, and other things which shouldnt be sometimes are....
