WHERE MUSIC LISTENS TO YOU
zarpex
zarpex of The Virgin-Whore Complex

ELO

Posted about 1 year ago
I've been working on a song for a quite appalling length of time now, and its title - "Classic Rock" - is essentially its subject. What I wanted to create was a tribute to the kind of music that, since the punk movement, has far too often been dismissed by critics and self-anointed connoisseurs as "overproduced" (see my post explaining why Queen is the second greatest rock band of all time for further details on the subject). Anyway, the song is meant to be very richly orchestrated, and I spent about six months trying to create arrangements for forty musicians, and, having eventually recognized my limitations, I handed the job to a professional.Said professional has very sound credentials, and I know him personally (although not a full-fledged member, he played bass with my band ten years ago, during our brief and terrifying experiments with live performance), and respect him. He teaches music composition at a very well-known university; his musical knowledge is positively encyclopedic; he's the sort of guy that can tell a trumpet from a cornet with his eyes shut. What he came back with, though (a first draft, to be fair) was a bit disappointing. I heard only a very hastily recorded MIDI version, but I thought there was a prevailing classical feel, rather than rock'n'roll, in his arrangements; they were too busy and challenging for what was really an extremely straightforward chord progression and melody, with nothing trickier than a 7th in the bridge. They sounded like Mozart, when I wanted Paul Buckmaster (who arranged strings for Elton John and The Rolling Stones, for those of you who might not recognize the name).Part of the problem was no doubt the notoriously poor quality of MIDI strings, which can't do legato, and always sound hideous unless they're just doing long sustained notes (which are surprisingly tough for flesh and blood musicians), but it still had a ??difficult?? quality to it that nagged at me. Classical music can be lovely in short bursts, frankly, but after five minutes, I can't recognize what I'm listening to anymore. I guess I'm a bit dim; I need a hook, a riff, something to serve as a reference point for the song to move away from or towards, or to inhabit, but always to exist in relation to. What that is in classical music (with the exception of Beethoven, who, alone among classical composers, understood riffs intuitively), I can never figure out. Or can for only short periods before losing interest.So what's this got to do with ELO? Not as much as it seemed to when I started, but I still say they made traditionally classical instrumentation rock with a force it had never possessed before. The Beatles may have been the first to use orchestral instruments in rock music (then again, they might not have been; I'm not really sure -- they were the first to make it sound good, anyway), but their actual sound was still familiar; only their setting had really changed (not to belittle a real turning point in musical history).You see, orchestrating a rock song is ??really?? difficult; I spent months trying to figure it out and got essentially nowhere. An orchestra resists rock in every way, because rock is basically three or four guys, playing an electric guitar or two, a bass and a drum kit, whereas an orchestra could populate a small village, and needs to work together, with a rigid script, under the leadership of a conductor. Orchestras rarely tour - if a member of an orchestra goes to a new town, it's usually because they got promoted or demoted. Their energy comes from an accumulation of small units playing very precise roles, rather than a few big ones defying every role you try to attach to them. There's a fixed idea of what an orchestra should play and how they should play it, down to metronome settings and detailed instructions on intonation. They're not hailed by critics or called "original" if they violate those instructions - they're fired. From its philosophy to its instruments to its music to its aesthetics, a rock band and an orchestra have nothing in common, except maybe that they both owe a small debt to European folk music. Actually, even that isn't really something they share; orchestras don't write their own music, so they owe nothing at all to European folk music. Rock bands, as a general rule, actually ??do?? write their own music, so what I thought was a point of similarity is, in fact, another example of their utter and complete difference.But Jeff Lynne somehow crossed that barrier, marched into the classical camp, and brought prisoners back to rock'n'roll to do his bidding. He didn't just make classical instrumentation work successfully in the context of a rock song: he made classical instrumentation ??rock?? like it was born to it. That he managed this at all was remarkable; that it resulted in such amazing music is bloody miraculous. Or then again, maybe it couldn't have worked if the songs hadn't been great to begin with. On one track - "Rockaria!" - Lynne even tried to make operatic singing rock, but I don't think it was quite as successful. In any case, my original lyrics to "Classic Rock" mentioned ELO, but I always sensed it would be impossible to create a song with classical orchestration in which I could bring up their name without invoking unfavorable comparisons. Even if they were only my own. I changed it to "UFO." Cowardly, perhaps, but probably the smart move - you don't pitch to Barry Bonds; you don't swim up to pet a shark; you don't bring up Jeff Lynne when you're writing a rock song with classical instrumentation.ELO: the eighth best band of all time, because there's something to be said for achieving the impossible.

Comments (7)

  1. Konkrypton says I quite agree with your feelings about Jeff Lynne. He managed to not only fuse two radically different styles, he added some fun lyrics that were tongue-in-cheek, science fiction stories/lyrics/overtones/album covers, and found time in all of that to take on the Christian right and their ridiculous "backward masking" complaints! WHEW! No wonder both Bob Dylan, Roy Orbison, and the Beatles's surviving members recognized his genius and wanted to work with him. However, I must take exception with your rankings. No doubt that the Beatles remain #1, but Queen, while in the top 10, shouldn't rank that far above ELO - perhaps it's Elvis Costello that needs to move out of the top 10. He's good, but by the time he came on the scene most of the new ground had already been broken. He took us "back to the roots of R 'n R," but without ELO those roots weren't complete yet.
    Permalink posted 12/19/2007
  2. zarpex says Konk (if I may call you Konk), I suspect, from the sound of it, that we probably agree on enough things, musically (to infer more than perhaps I should from your comments - but I reckon anyone who understands the indisputable #1 status of the Beatles and outspokenly recognizes the Christian right for the passel of psychopaths they are probably has a complete set of marbles, in proper working order), to make the points of disagreement rankle more than they would with, say, someone who - for whatever incomprehensible reason - thinks ??Kid A?? is a great album, or suffers from some comparable delusion. I stand firmly by Elvis, though, and wouldn't personally say that he took us back to the roots of rock'n'roll so much as he attempted to write a second draft of them. An impossible quest, of course, but most cool ones are. I might also object that by the time Elvis appeared on the scene, ELO had already released several chart-toppers, and were, in fact, an established part of those roots. But I salute you, and the next thing I do after finishing these comments will be add you to my "trusted" list.
    Permalink posted 12/19/2007
  3. Brettney says Focussing on the track you're working on, I think a lot of your problem probably stems from the orchestration the guy is using. I'm currently putting the finishing touches to something very similar, so I hope to be able to comment from expereience here. Have a look at the ELO "orchestra" and you'll see that it isn't an orchestra at all - it's a string quartet. Arranging for a string quartet is incredibly similar to arranging a band of two guitars and a bass - arranging for an orchestra is totally, mindblowingly different; there are something like 80 to 100 instruments! Maybe your ambition of using an orchestra is beyond the scope of the song you're working with: perhaps pairing it down to a small string section will be much easier for you to handle in many ways, as well as being cheaper to record come the big day! Hope that helps in some way, Bretthausen.
    Permalink posted 12/20/2007
  4. dermahrk says Well, we could argue rankings on the list until we die, but the fact that the Beatles are indisputably number one and ELO is in the top ten makes it valid to my tastes. I bought one ELO vinyl slab in the 1970s, loved it, but did not purchase another until I bought that first box set in the early 90s. That kept me ok for years, but things have snowballed. By now I've bought all of the releases of the band, Jeff's solo material, most of what he's produced (Tom Petty is only palatable to me when Jeff's at the dials) and now am purchasing songs he's written but never performed. I think Jeff, along with the Beatles and Brian Wilson, is one of the geniuses of modern popular music. People can quibble about production, who cares? The man is a FANTASTIC songwriter, singer, guitarist and gets slagged on a regular basis, although I think the anti-ELO sentiment is turning around these days. My only wish is that he was more prolific these days. Zoom was the best ELO record ever, IMHO, and his one solo album was incredible. I hope he is back in the studio soon! Kudos for your inclusion of him - I would rank him higher, but as I said....
    Permalink posted 12/20/2007
  5. zarpex says Thank you, Brettney, for some sound reasoning and wisdom. I was actually aware that ELO wasn't really an "orchestra," but I might have tossed the word out (or "orchestral," or some such thing) a bit too loosely. After using "classical" enough times over and over, I instinctively start hunting for (roughly) synonymous alternatives, just to keep the prose snappy. I will consider your advice carefully. I still think a string quartet and a rock band are wildly different creatures, but a quartet is, if only temperamentally, closer to rock than an orchestra could ever come, and they actually can pull it off under the right circumstances. I remember seeing the Kronos Quartet cover "Purple Haze" in the 80's - which I think was sticking their chin out a little too far - but a cello played the right way, with a little musical elbow room, can substitute surprisingly well for an electric guitar. They even have a distortion-like sound. "The Town Halo" by A.C. Newman demonstrates their capabilities persuasively - and would "Good Vibrations" not have lost a great deal of its magic without that cello at the end? But ever since the idea for the song occurred to me, it cried out for bombast. Church organ, celesta, whatever that instrument was that The Beatles dusted off in "We Can Work It Out," saw, harpsichord, a full brass section... The only instruments I can't imagine with it that I can think of offhand are harmonica, saxophone and acoustic guitar. I'm seriously considering a ukulele part. The harmonica, on a tangential note, must surely be the most wretched instrument ever invented, fit only for prisoners. It ruined Dylan's early years utterly, and was one of the few serious creative blunders The Beatles ever made...
    Permalink posted 12/20/2007
  6. Brettney says Sound, gotcha. I'm sure we understand each other, but for other readers' sakes:- on a purely arrangement level, the string quartet can be very similar to the traditional rock band format, due to the instrumentation. Adding a little bit of gain/overdrive to a 'cello (for example) can give a remarkable rock sound. There is a 'cello duet somewhere here in the UK who do Metallica numbers, and very bloody well too! Back to the track:- If it's loud, brash, grandiose pomposity (with a rock edge) you want, I would personally make sure the brass take the lead, and never underestimate the versatility of the French Horn. Also think about finding examples of something similar in your existing music collection so you can get a feel for the overall timbre of the orchestra itself - you can give these to your composer for inspiration too. In the track I'm scoring for right now, I found it most helpful when the songwriter came in and sat with me for one of the arranging sessions. The material came out with a totally different leaning than it would have if I'd been left completely to my own devices. If your composer friend is not averse to such an idea, it could be beneficial to you both. Best of luck with it, of course, and don't forget to give us a preview when it's completed!
    Permalink posted 12/20/2007
  7. zarpex says dermahrk, it takes the fearlessness of a crocodile bird and the kind of strong convictions that come only with understanding, not mere belief (however firm), to stride into a crowd of ELO devotees and assert - "IMHO," no less - that ??Zoom?? is their masterpiece. A religious fanatic might cheerfully blow himself and a dozen strangers up without a trace of doubt regarding his purpose or its rightness, but he wouldn't have the self-awareness or faith in their discernment to do what you did. Before I read your comments, I knew ??Zoom?? only as the place to find all those weaker songs played between the classics (which of course seemed all the weaker for the juxtaposition) at an ELO concert I was lucky enough to be invited to several years ago (the real weak link of which, to adhere to my tendency to digress, was the audience, who were likely made uncomfortable by such a small venue filled with so many videocameras). Of course, live performances can often distort a song's real merit, and it's usually for the worse, so now I'm going to have to give that album some attentive study. I seldom revise my first impressions, partly because I don't like to admit I'm wrong, and partly because they actually are pretty reliable. It might help me deal with this alarming sense of fallibility if you revealed which ELO album it was you bought in the 70's... Brettney, I should perhaps mention that I used the word "bombast" in a (paradoxically vain) attempt at self-deprecation, acknowledging that I'm proposing a daunting challenge to myself, and that if I fail, it will likely be in the direction of bombast. What I hear in my head (and I really wish someone would come up with a method of recording such things) is something that earns its grand scale with rigorous musical logic, and adheres devotedly to the dictates of good taste and the prosody of the lyrics it accompanies. Well, hopefully. It'll probably just sound like the product of a pretentious twit who bit off about a hundred times more than he could ever hope to chew. The discussion you describe with the songwriter you were arranging for sounds exactly like the one I had with my arranger last Saturday night -- I was surprised at how well I managed to articulate the changes I had in mind, the things I thought he'd done wrong, the precise nature of my objections, my suggestions for alternative directions, etc, and I was afraid he'd be offended when I replayed the conversation in my mind later, but he turned out to be delighted at how well we'd understood one another and the feasibility of the changes I suggested.
    Permalink posted 12/20/2007

Comment on this Post

Login using email and password below.

Forgot Password?

Don't have an account?
Join MOG. It's Free!

© 2006-2009 Mog Inc. All Rights Reserved