Thread: What do you think of crossover art?

What do you think of crossover art considering classical music? I mean, when they take some classical pieces that are usually very famous, and then combine them with techno, dance, pop etc. elements?

For example, in Croatia we have a pianist, Maksim Mrvica, who apart from performing (which, I have an impression, he does rather seldom) makes crossover music with electronic and dance music. He says he's working on the popularisation of classical music with young people. So in this way he arranged Chopin's Revolutionary Etude, Grieg's Concerto, Rimsky-Korsakov's Flight of the Bumblebee, Liszt's Totentanz etc.
Personally, I don't like this music much. In case of Maksim, most of his fans are 12-15 y.o. girls who mostly like him because he's (by some criteria) good looking and wears weird clothes.

In general, I'm of opinion that a genre of music should remain a genre of music. One listening to crossover classical music certainly cannot say that he's heard a classical masterpiece, because there are very little similarities between that medley and the classical original. Fine, some jazz+Gregorian chant or Beethoven+techno arrangements are nice, but that then is a new type of music. I may be a purist, but that's my opinion. If one wants to hear classical music, than let him buy a real CD, listen to it in pure, authentic form, and if he/she cannot understand or even like it after listening to it for a couple of times, then classical just isn't for him/her.

Lisztfreak, like you, the type of music you describe is not appealing to me either. However, the fact of the matter is we live in a post-modern world, where the old saying that "good artists borrow, great artists steal" no longer applies. Rather, technology now allows practically everyone to beg, borrow, steal, cut, paste, photoshop, mix, edit, loop, sample, record, publish, etc, and thereby create their own personal potpourri of culture. These days, anyone can piece together bits and pieces of formerly disparate and seemingly non-compatable portions of various media and other aspects of culture, both old and new, and create their own representation of "self". The old bulletin board bedroom wall collage of magazine and newspaper clippings that kids hang up to represent their interests and who they are has evolved into a media-wide pool of potential contributions to this collage-like pop-culture doppleganger we can each create. I'm reminded of how I got into early Beatles music through "Stars on 45". Today, things like myspace are only barely starting to scratch the surface of the potential for us each to express ourselves in this manner. Good? Bad? I don't know. But it is here to stay, and I'm not surprised this sort of creativity is finding its way into the popular culture more and more.

I think as a rule they do not mix well, but if a pop type of mix tempts children to explore further, then it does no harm and there are exceptions, such as Jacques Loussier Trio who play Bach as a kind of jazz with a strong beat. I enjoy this although I try to keep my music in separate slots.
I cringe when I hear people such as Dame Kiri try to sing pop etc, a great voice but not for the pop scene.

I honestly like when popular genres bring in classical themes to add depth to the song, as long as the source is given due credit.

The first song I remember hearing with a clear quotation was "Russians" by Sting (1984?), which quotes Prokofiev's Lt. Kije and gives credit in the liner notes.

However, I do not believe that converting Beethoven or Chopin to pop is a good way to promote Classical music.

Originally Posted by Kurkikohtaus

I honestly like when popular genres bring in classical themes to add depth to the song, as long as the source is given due credit.

Yes, I also like that, that's not the problem. What is, though, is when they say they're 'promoting' classical music - they don't, they promote their own music. Just as you say:

Originally Posted by Kurkikothaus

However, I do not believe that converting Beethoven or Chopin to pop is a good way to promote Classical music.

This is an interesting question. I can't help but approach it through relation to my own field of expertise which is the visual arts. Visual artists have continually found sources of inspiration and rejuvenation in what may be termed "low" art whether we are speaking of folk art, art of other cultures, art of children, commercial art, etc... In many ways i would almost imagine that high art would become sterile without a constant infusion of "new blood". Picasso suggested just such a thing when he declared that real art was born in the same manner as which the Renaissance princes produced offspring: through a merger of the aristocratic and the common. Certainly we cannot help but recognize certain "common" influences upon the art of some of the greatest artists of all time: the use of the "vulgar tongue" by Dante, Shakespeare's creation of what may the greatest literary oeuvre of all time within such a "low" form as the theater (rather as if the greatest literature today were to be found in the writings of a TV screen writer). So what do we make of the mergers of jazz and classical found in Shostakovich, Stravinski, Gershwin, etc...? What of composers who blur various musical vocabularies such as Osvaldo Golijov, Tan Dun, etc...?

As for the Jazz influence on the composers you mention...

This is not a judgement, merely an opinion, but when I hear Stravinsky's little Jazz dances in L'Histoire or the Ragtime, I find it cute, clever but overall silly.

I believe, art, audio or visual..over time, dies out, just like anything else. Fades away, and is forgotten. and better stuff comes around. The people who made art the old ways, were expressing themselves. The people of the new ways are expressing themselves. I think there are more artists who have original works than who used bits or wholes of unoriginal work. [someone elses work]. If someone wants to use bits of classical work to influence thier own work, thats fine and good, and wether it sounds good is relative, you can't generalize. And aswell, whos to say artists of the old ways, didn't use works or infulences from artists before them? Chopin and Beethoven, were not the first to play a musical instrument. Nor was Picasso the first to ever paint. In many instance, you don't even know who came before them, and soon they themselves will fade..so i think "crossover art" [if you want to call it that, i don't see how anyone is crossing over anything really] is a good thing, and is one of the ways people will remember old artists.

If you accept that music has taken different paths since the [original idea??] and developed into different genres, then it is natural that the odd rogue will emerge that wants to try something new, it is just a matter of evolution [ as in life] if it succeeds then it will survive and perhaps form another branch, if not music will try something else.
This proves that music is alive and evolving, we may or may not like what we hear but we have to live with it.

I used to think that crossover art (such as Swingle Singer versions of JS Bach or those by the Jacques Loussier Trio) were irreverent and opportunist interpretations. But over the last few years those recordings (many of which I like and respect) have taught me some interesting things about Bach's music - not least that any attempt to impose one's own personality on his music tends to sound forced and ugly. If we listen to, say, the Swingle Singers singing a work by Bach there are times when the individual singer pushes their own individual voice too far. But there are many, many times when I am really thrilled by what they and Jacques Loussier have done for Bach's music. To understate the lines in music by Bach is the most wonderful way (to me) that he can be performed and listened to - so close to absolute perfection was his music.

I always take the view that this age, our age, has a greater responsibility to listen if we would be musical than any other in the entire history of music - so readily available is great music of every kind. I welcome crossover music though, it must said, the real genius was of course its original creation. To love music is to set it free from dogmatism but to keep it natural.

What annoys me in some of these crossover pieces is not the change of performance or mood of the work, but in fact the often simplification of musical content - just like this Maksim usualy does.

I am all for crossover. Granted sometimes the original is the best thing in the world - I don't see harm in recreating a classic - as long as there is some sort of respect to the original. But as an artist - sometimes you are so inspired by another artist or performance that you want to 'give back' so to speak.

I think of it more of a handing of the torch - from great composers of yesteryear to great composers of now.

One of the best things I've learned - the only thing constant in life is change.

I generally dislike the classical/pop crossover that I hear. The rhythms are banal. Fragments cut from carefully-crafted pieces are used without art or wit.
On the other hand, Enigma use samples of classical pieces in a more engaging way.

The band Naked City covered some fantastic classical pieces.