Post by blue1 on Jan 16, 2006 16:33:48 GMT
Andew, I'm inclined to agree with you about the rock element needing to be left behind in the latest version of crossover. Apart from anything else, it's alreay been done superlatively well last time round.
But I do think crossover could benefit from the bold experimentation and the delicate sensitivity of bands like Yes and King Crimson during their 1970s incarnations. That'd get crossover out of the rather twee MOR quality that drags so much contemporary crossover down and gives it a negative association in the minds of so many of the record-buying public.
There are other musical areas it could learn from as well, some of which would feed back into contemporary classical music, but if the producers of contemporary crossover can't find the stuff that's right under their noses and well represented by CDs and DVDs, there seems even less chance they'll find the other stuff, unless it goes full circle and the modern classical composers draw attention to their influences.
BTW I remember the Gordon Giltrap abum being released and getting favourable reviews, but I've never heard it.
But I do think crossover could benefit from the bold experimentation and the delicate sensitivity of bands like Yes and King Crimson during their 1970s incarnations. That'd get crossover out of the rather twee MOR quality that drags so much contemporary crossover down and gives it a negative association in the minds of so many of the record-buying public.
There are other musical areas it could learn from as well, some of which would feed back into contemporary classical music, but if the producers of contemporary crossover can't find the stuff that's right under their noses and well represented by CDs and DVDs, there seems even less chance they'll find the other stuff, unless it goes full circle and the modern classical composers draw attention to their influences.
BTW I remember the Gordon Giltrap abum being released and getting favourable reviews, but I've never heard it.