Dancing In the Street

Just set the record straight, this song, Dancing in the Street, was sung by Martha Reeves and the Vandellas, and reportedly reached no. 4 on one of the charts in the USA, and rose a little higher, I believe, in the UK.  Then it was covered by all sorts of acts, not least David Bowie and Mick Jagger.  Wikipedia has a full list of the artists who covered the song. 

The song was written by a trio of composers Marvin Gaye, (who incidentally did one of the cover versions), William Stevenson, and Ivy Jo Hunter. 

Ït was a culturally significant song, because it was used as a kind of Civil Rights anthem in the sixties.  (I wasn't around at that time, and can't attest to just how much of an anthem it really was.)

In many ways, it is a joyous song.  The theme of dancing in the streets has connotations of great celebration, in most English-speaking countries, even beyond the simple description of actually Dancing in the streets; the kind of universal rejoicing called for at the end of a war, for instance.  (Incidentally, there is a brilliantly sardonic song composed by Ed McCurdy, called Last night I had the strangest dream in which this phrase—Dancing in the Street—is invoked ɓrilliantly.)

I feel, however, that the song has a sort of static feel, as though it isn't going anywhere.  It doesn't need to; it's a celebration!

Why doesn't it move?  I think it has to do with the so-called flattened leading note.  The flattened Leading- Note makes the tune sound as if it's in a medieval mode.  Tunes in modes typically don't modulate to other keys, but it's the modulation that gives the feeling of motion.  By the simple expedient of putting the tunein a major key, it will immediately sound as though there the potential for movement.  On the downside, there will have to be movement now.

The Beatles

OMFG: What is wrong with this country, that they have to figure out who is the best at something?

I studied mathematics, and we have a subject (within mathematics, of course) where we study the whole concept of 'more than', and generally 'better than'.  (A more fundamental idea is that of 'better than, or just as good as'.)

Well, it was soon pretty clear that many things that are celebrated as 'the best' something-or-other simply did not make sense to receive that title.  It's not that they were not the best.  It just didn't make sense. 

The Beatles were an amazingly talented group.  They were excellent at live shows; in fact, they gave some of the most greatly enjoyed live performances on record.  There's a lot of news reports of the fabulous Beatles performances, though of course they were nowhere as well-attended as, say, Taylor Swift shows today.  But there were at least two problems that I can guess.

Firstly, they were never satisfied with the music quality of their live shows.  The records they made were put together with a lot of effort, often recorded up to twenty times, just for one song!  They listened to tapings of their live shows, and they were horrified at the poor quality.  I'm not saying they should have been satisfied; but John, in particular, hated how they sounded.

Secondly, those live shows took a lot of energy.  There was a lot of clowning around, and their traveling accommodations were primitive at the time, and they had to put a good face on it, for the next audience. 

Musically, they fit very well with each other.  They had been together since they had been around 17, 18; it isn't any surprise at all that they were impatient with each other by the time they were in their thirties.  At that point the only authority they knew was that of George Martin, their producer; when Paul imposed his perfectionism on them, it was all too much. 

Many faithful Beatles fans felt betrayed when the Beatles broke up.  But get serious; you couldn't expect those four men to have stayed together much longer.  I bless them for the magic they did give us. 

Archie

The Greatest Guitarist

Guitarists seem to be judged based on playing electric guitars.  And on playing melodies. 

I prefer to hear the picking sounds of Bob Dylan,  Paul Simon, Peter, Paul and Mary, and James Taylor.  There's no doubt that Jimi Hendrix and company enriched our sound world considerably.  But it seems just a matter of opinion whether it is they, or the guitarists who played principally acoustic instruments, who gave us most enjoyment.

Arch.

Beethoven's Fifth

Most everybody knows about Beethoven's 5th Symphony.  I've heard a dozen recordings of it, including ones by Toscanini, von Karajan, and Furtwangler, Gardiner.  These names might not mean anything to you now, but classical music lovers eventually develop sort of a crush on this symphony, and particular recordings have particular significance to them. 

Admittedly, most of us (yes, obviously I'm one of these people) are a little in awe of this work.  This is not a very good thing, because that makes us not get the piece as music, but rather as a sacred relic.  It is just a fantastic piece of music in its own right; just sit and listen to the thing. 

If this is the first symphony you've listened to, it's rather overpowering, and not in a good way for everyone.  The ending alone goes on for quite a while. 

This next bit is for those who are new to symphonies.  Symphonies are usually in four movements. 

The first movement is in rather special form, which I will detail later. The second movement is usually slower, and mostly quieter. The third movement is in triple time, and often has a sort of 'dancy' swing to it. The fourth and final movement is often a rondo, with a recurring tune.  Well, I'm pooped; I'll fill in the rest soon.

Tchaikovsky

I had always regarded Tchaikovsky as a good composer in his own way, but not to be compared with Mozart, and Schubert, and the composers I considered 'The Greats'.

Now, you all know about the band I play in.  I had to learn an instrument from scratch, and attend rehearsals and all that sort of thing, and presently I was learning all about about music from the inside. 

One piece we're playing is a number from The Nutcracker ballet suite, and I'm learning what an amazing composer Tchaik was.  Now, because ours is a very humble band,  in many ways, the music we play is far removed from the Nutcracker music played by a concert Orchestra.  The arrangement itself is ingenious; it contains all the melodic lines that would catch the ear, and leave out as much as possible, so that we can play it with the few players we have—around 14 of us.  Even with that stripped-down version, the music is brilliant!

It was quite some time until I began to pay attention; I was preoccupied with fingering, and just getting the notes.  But one day,  I noticed: wow,  this is amazing writing!

The man was not universally admired in his lifetime, which was tragic.  I'm not familiar with his life story, but I'm going to read up on it when I can.  If you didn't know, Tchaikovsky wrote several symphonies as well, at least some of which are considered masterpieces. 

Archie

Small Ensembles

Let's start from 19th Century, and work backward. 

The most common sort of small ensemble is probably the string quartet.  It consists of two violins, [lowest note: G below Middle C], a viola,  [lowest note: one octave below Middle C], and a Cello, [lowest note: two octaves below Middle C].

The string quartet has the interesting property that the four instruments sound almost just like each other; in fact, they're essentially four sizes of violins, with the larger ones sounding lower.  We call this character homogeneity; they blend together perfectly. 

Another group for which a lot of music is written is a wind quintet.  Music for a wind quintet sounds beautiful and balanced, but the balance doesn't come from the nature of the instruments.  A wind quintet consists of (typically a flute, an oboe, [lowest note Middle C in both cases], a clarinet, [lowest note B Flat, an octave and one more whole note below Middle C], a bassoon [lowest note: E Flat, a little less than two octaves below M. C.], and a French Horn, [wait, I have to look this up ... Lowest Note: Two octaves below M.C.].

The presence of the horn in the wind quintet is often a surprise for anyone learning about them for the first time.  I don't know the history of the situation, but I imagine that someone must have tried it, and it must have sounded satisfactory. 

Obviously, the Wind Quintet does not sound homogeneous by design, but they do sound wonderful.  There are certainly other combinations, for instance lots of combinations with pianos: the piano quintet, consisting of a piano and a string quartet; the piano trio, consisting of a piano, and violin, and a cello.

There are also many different Quintets, consisting of a String quartet, and one instrument not from the quartet, e.g. a Clarinet Quintet (string quartet + clarinet).

In earlier times—say before the 17th Century—small ensemble were assumed to consist instruments of the same family; for instance a recorder consort: which would consist of several recorders all of the same style.  There are bass recorders, tenor recorders, alto recorders, soprano recorders, and sopranino recorders.  Often they were sold in a matched set, in a special case with a place for each recorder. 

There were also what was known as a school of viols, consisting of viols of grades sizes, from a treble viol, down to a bass viol.

Recorder ensembles and Viol ensembles had extremely homogeneous sounds.  In early music, I suppose pieces written for them were monophonic; that moving from chord to chord, without the complexity of Baroque Music. 

Contorts with different sorts of instruments were called 'broken consorts'.  If a consort consisted all ofthe same type of instrument, they were called 'whole', or 'closed' consorts—at least, according to Wikipedia.

I'm sure that in earlier posts I have linked to examples of many kinds of small ensemble, but I could be wrong.  Someday, I hope to link to pieces for small ensembles on YouTube, and that would complete this post. 

Archie

Nutcracker Suite Item #2: March of the Toy Soldiers

As some of you might recall, I took up the Euphonium (actually just a Baritone, but Euphonium sounds so much more euphonious), and joined a special band for seniors.  It's an organization called New Horizons, which establishes these little bands in many towns, and teach an instrument for anyone who wants to join, and they play at nursing homes, and similar places, as a treat for the residents, and a treat for the players too. 

One of the pieces we're playing this season (Fall/Winter 2024) is the March from Tchaikowsky's Nutcracker.  The Ephonium is a tenor instrument.  Sometimes it plays an inner part—often an interesting one, a so-called counter-melody, which are so common in Souza marches.  Other times, we double the bass line (played by the Tubas).  I love it when we do that, because I love playing bass anyway. 

In the Nutcracker March, there are interesting passages, which you will recognize at once if you hear the March, e.g. via YouTube.  I really ought to insert here the music of a sample passage, but it isn't as easy to do using my phone as it used to be when I posted these things using my computer!

March of the Toy Soldiers [Tchaikowsky]