NOTABLOG MONTHLY ARCHIVES: 2002 - 2020
|DECEMBER 2006||FEBRUARY 2007|
JANUARY 24, 2007
Song of the Day: Limehouse Blues, written by Philip Braham and Douglas Furber, dates to 1924. Some 14 years before that, on this date, the great "gyspy" jazz guitarist Django Reinhardt was born (though some say it was January 23rd). Listen to an audio clip of this song, featuring the hard-driving Django (with violinist Stephane Grappelli and the Quintet of the Hot Club of France). And check out the classic Joe Pass "Django" tribute recording, which is available for download here.
JANUARY 20, 2007
Song of the Day: Nights (Feel Like Getting Down) features the words and music of Nigel Martinez and Billy Ocean, who sings this cool and funky 1981 disco track. Listen to an audio clip here.
JANUARY 15, 2007
As readers of Notablog no doubt know, I'm a big fan of "American Idol," which begins its 2007 season tomorrow, January 16th. (In fact, for me, with the premiere of "24" and "AI" this week, it's like the new TV season has just begun! Virtually all of the new shows I started watching this Fall are now history... but the old ones keep chuggin' along...)
A really nice article on AI appears in today's New York Daily News. Written by David Hinckley, "Why 'Idol' Outshines Its Rivals" brings attention to what I think is the essence of the series: It's a talent show! And it's part of a long tradition that stretches back to the Golden Days of Radio and TV; it may not match the track record of Amateur Night at the Apollo, but it's clearly an aspect of a larger talent show tapestry:
At its core, "American Idol" is really no more than a slick version of the Major Bowes and Ted Mack amateur hours of the 1930s, whose alumni include the likes of Frank Sinatra. Moreover, if "Idol" lasts 100 years, it's unlikely to produce anything close to the roster of winners Apollo Theater amateur nights have been delivering since 1934 - artists like James Brown, Michael Jackson, Gladys Knight and Luther Vandross. However much fun it is to hear Simon Cowell turn snarky, chasing tuneless singers back home was even more entertaining at the Apollo, where Porto Rico ran on stage in funny suits firing a starter's pistol.
No matter. "Idol" has become the most lucrative amateur night of them all, brilliantly promoting and marketing itself into a package far richer than the sum of its components.
So, I'll be watching tomorrow night; first, however, I've got to get back to watching last night's recording of Jack Bauer's explosive new adventures...
Well, well, well, it's ba-a-a-k!
I watched the season premier last night that featured the auditions in Minneapolis last night--and found out that Prince must be an anomoly. An anomoly in that he has genuine musical talent.
Those auditions...17 kids out of 10,000 were judged talented enough to go on to Hollywood, and some of the ones chosen as worthy didn't have as much talent as the average teenager in a public high school choir.
Let's hope the talent shows up soon! :-)
Posted by: Peri | January 17, 2007 09:25 PM
I wonder what you think of some of the criticism that American Idol is receiving...namely, being too harsh on the talentless and cruelly televising the worst of the auditions rather than the best and almost-good-enoughs (a view propounded by Rosie and others on the View, among others). I sympathize with this view a little but can't help thinking that most of the talentless hopefuls are delusional and need to be shocked into reality by the likes of Simon Cowell.
Posted by: Geoffrey Allan Plauche | January 18, 2007 10:42 PM
I think it's wrong of them to make fun of appearance issues over which the candidate has no control, as in the case of the kid Simon described as looking like a forest creature. OTOH, I have no problem when they criticize how they're dressed, e.g., the Apollo Creed guy, the "urban-Amish" guy (wtf?). And of course, Geoffrey's remark above is exactly right: a lot of these people are literally delusional about their signing ability, and this is a good wake-up call.
Posted by: Aeon J. Skoble | January 19, 2007 10:42 AM
I, too, find it wrong and cruel to make fun of a contestant's physical appearance. At least the young man that Simon compared to a monkey met a buddy, and both he and his new friend seemed to have enjoyed their Idol experience.
Posted by: Mick Russell | January 19, 2007 03:44 PM
Chris, I am proud to say I have never watched a whole episod of American Idol. I have to wonder about all these people who think they are talented and are willing to be abused when they are told they're not. In the 1700s the upper classes would go down to Bedlam an insane asyelum to make fun of the crazy. I see watching some of the losers on American Idol to be at the same level.
Posted by: Chris Grieb | January 20, 2007 08:27 AM
I love American Idol, but the "audition" episodes have always left me feeling...uncomfortable, and somewhat unclean.
There are some auditioners that are obviously pulling a prank to have their fleeting moment of fame (like Aeon's aforementioned Apollo Creed guy and the Urban-Amish fellow) and I have no problem laughing with them.
But....then there's the auditioners like that first kid from Minneapolis who had a complete meltdown after her rejection. Yeah, she had no talent and maybe that was her wake-up call, but that kid has to go back to school or a job and face the world after her very public humiliation. Watching that whole little drama unfold left me feeling...well, like a dirty voyeur.
As to the poor, touched kids in Seattle--the kid Simon compared to a monkey and his large friend...well, at least the two oddballs made a new friend out of the deal, but they had to be utterly delusional to think they had a chance in the first place.
I feel ambivelent about whole series of audition episodes. These people chose to audition and must have had an idea of what they were in for, but.... (shrugs).
Posted by: Peri | January 20, 2007 11:17 AM
By the way, I'm blogging again.
Posted by: Geoffrey Allan Plauche | January 21, 2007 10:40 AM
Well, I've been holding off on commenting because I'm way behind in my seasonal TV viewing; I finally saw the first two installments of AI (still have to see last night's), and I can at least speak from more knowledge at this point.
First, I sure do hope, with Peri, that the talent shows up soon. And, like Peri, I too feel a bit "unclean" watching some of the early installments each season.
With Geoffrey (and glad you're blogging again!), I do sympathize with the view that the show televises a bit too much of the "delusional" contestants. And I feel very uncomfortable when the focus moves away from the talent (or lack thereof) of the contestant to the contestant's looks. And, quite frankly, through the years, I've seen a bit of sexism from Simon, for example, when he points to the weight of a female contestant, while never pointing out the weight of a winner, like Ruben Studdard.
I do think Simon is over-the-top with his "bush baby" comments (which Mick alluded to), but these kinds of put-downs have become a part of the entertainment that AI provides, especially in the early installments of each season. And I do agree completely with Aeon, of course, that criticizing people for their dress, etc., is appropriate. AI sells a voice, but it also sells a package. And some people are totally delusional when it comes to how they present themselves.
And Chris G., I think you will find that it's the early installments of the show that are most like the asylum; things do get better as the season progresses. Some of my own siblings and friends, who watch the show, don't even start watching until the final 24 or the final 12 are presented.
But let me put all of this into a bit of perspective.
My sister-in-law is a great jazz singer, and a truly wonderful private voice teacher. She's had a number of her own students audition for AI, when it swings through NYC. And the truth is that these kids get up in successive rows and sing to off-camera judges for a few seconds. The judges are often not interested in booking talent; they are interested in booking people on all ends of the talent spectrum because they know what sells. Part of what sells is the oddball, the over-the-top, the delusional. So a kid with a good voice may be totally passed up for a kid who dresses like Apollo Creed. Some of those outfits are worn by people who may know that they are not really talented (except as practical jokers). They just seem to be seeking their own 15 minutes (well, maybe 3-4 minutes) of fame.
So the early off-camera judges are the people who set up the whole spectrum of auditioners who actually get the chance to see Randy, Paula, and Simon. Those three do not see 10,000 auditions in each city. They see only a select few, and have to wade through quite a bit of sludge before hitting the crystal clear waters of real talent.
I confess, however, that while I do love the later segments of the show (especially those segments that depend upon the voting public), I also like watching the early segments, in the hopes that I might put my finger on the one or two contestants who, I sometimes predict, will make it to the Top 10. It's kinda nice watching some of these contestants enter into the competition, and even nicer to watch them grow over the whole season.
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | January 24, 2007 07:15 AM
Chris, I didn't realize that you were such a fan of American Idol. I've enjoyed it as well but have avoided the early audition shows in previous seasons for many of the reasons mentioned above.
My favorite people are those who overcame some obstacle to get there, like the girl last night who skipped school and her negative father to go to New York and audition, who then sings great. There was the singer who had always been in the background but who had a voice that should have been up front.
In the Seattle auditions there was a guy who had come up from Oregon and slept on the street. He had a beautiful voice.
I agree that wake-up calls for the delusional constructive, but also felt they really descended into something more sadistic with some of the contestants. Given that they tape a backstory first, one that includes all the contestants hopes and dreams, I have to believe they were set up to be made fools of.
I much prefer to watch the talent than the delusional, but do enjoy when obnoxious people go down with a thud.
Thanks for the inside story on how they audition so many people. I knew they were being pre-screened by producers for Simon, Paula and Randy, but wasn't sure exactly how it was done.
You'll have to let us know if one of your sister's students gets on.
I also enjoy when somebody who doesn't win finds great success--like Jennifer Hudson.
Enjoy the rest of the season! Looks like there will be some good people.
Posted by: Chip Gibbons | January 25, 2007 10:12 PM
Chris, thank you for your information on the audition process. I suppose we should always keep in mind that while AI is a talent show, it's also a "reality" show--a "reality/talent" show hybrid, which is part of what makes it so compelling. It's shaped to tell stories as well as to display talent.
What I've noticed this season is that they've shown a lot more of the talentless oddballs rather than the truly talented individuals than in past seasons. When the show finally progresses to the "Hollywood" rounds, most of the contestants will be unknown to us. There's a few we know about: the two BFF Jersey girls, the painfully shy and amazingly talented former backup singer, the skanky-looking young woman with the sultry voice who patterns herself after Rocky, the crazy-looking Fidel/Jesus guy, the roly-poly curly-headed kid with the wry sense of humor (who reminds me of the type of smart, funny, geeky guys I had wild crushes on in Junior High), and the Southern Gothic girl who out-Picklers Kellie Pickler--well, maybe we DO have quite a few stories to follow already, now that I think about it. Still, it seemed to me that we saw a lot more freaks and a lot less talent during the audition rounds this season, compared to seasons past.
Posted by: Peri | February 3, 2007 11:18 AM
Hey, Peri, you are so right... I have had the very same thoughts you've had... though I'm still a bit behind in my Idol shows.
I'll be up to date soon enough!
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | February 3, 2007 11:55 AM
So, Chris, have you caught up with the shows? Do you have any favorites? On the whole, I was less than impressed during the audition round until I heard Tami Gosnell. Not much of a name but what a voice.
Posted by: Mick Russell | February 10, 2007 08:55 AM
Surreal Grammy moment: Ornette Coleman presents Carrie Underwood with a Grammy.
Posted by: Mick Russell | February 12, 2007 01:19 AM
For additional AI discussion, see here.
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | April 11, 2007 07:45 AM
I first heard him when he played with his brother Randy as part of the Brecker Brothers. Whether he was heard on pop tracks, like "Same Old Lang Syne" or playing a haunting saxophone synthesizer on "In a Sentimental Mood," Michael Brecker was a consummate jazz musician.
After a long bout with leukemia, Brecker passed away on Saturday, January 13, 2007. Influenced by John Coltrane (and Coltrane's widow, Alice, passed away this weekend too) and the fusion sounds of the 1970s and 80s, Brecker actually completed his final album two weeks ago.
My condolences to his friends and family.
JANUARY 13, 2007
Song of the Day: Django, an elegy composed by John Lewis, was recorded famously by the Modern Jazz Quartet. But my favorite version remains the one recorded by immortal jazz guitarist Joe Pass, who was born on this date in 1929. That version is the opening track on Pass's tribute album to another immortal jazz guitar great, Django Reinhardt, to whom this piece was dedicated. It remains my favorite Pass album of all time. Listen to audio clips of the Pass recording and the MJQ recording.
JANUARY 11, 2007
Remembered as Moses's wife in the 1956 Cecil B. DeMille classic, "The Ten Commandments," and as Lily Munster on "The Munsters," Yvonne De Carlo passed away earlier this week at the age of 84. Her career spanned both B-movies and Broadway (where she starred in the Stephen Sondheim Tony-winning musical, "Follies"). But it's as the matriarch of 1313 Mockingbird Lane that I will most remember her, fondly.
Condolences to her friends and family.
Sad news. I've always thought Lilly Munster was the sexiest goth chick ever.
Posted by: Mick | January 12, 2007 10:20 PM
Chris; I too was sadden by Yvonne DeCarlo's death but I loved 'I'm Still Here' from Follies. It was a fun trip down memory lane and she was "still here".
Posted by: Chris Grieb | January 13, 2007 05:44 PM
I'm afraid the only works of Ms. De Carlo with which
I am familiar are "The Ten Commandments" and "The Munsters," and I must say my
life would have been much poorer without them.
Rest in peace, Ms De Carlo.
Posted by: Peri Sword | January 14, 2007 11:20 AM
Mick, Chris, and Peri, thanks again for your thoughts. I saw a few very nice mini-tributes to DiCarlo on television over the last couple of weeks, including one on "This Week" on the 14th.
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | January 24, 2007 06:43 AM
JANUARY 10, 2007
This morning, I came across an article entitled "Conversations with John Williams," by author Jack Sullivan, whose book Hitchcock's Music I mentioned in my post on "Hitchcock and the Art of the Score." The article is published in the current Chronicle of Higher Education, which means you'll need a subscription in order to read it. For those who don't have a subscription, here's a little bit about the essay.
Sullivan tells us that John Williams, "Hollywood's premier composer," echoes the arguments of "[h]is predecessors Erich Korngold and [Bernard] Herrmann," who believed "that film music helped keep classical alive..." Williams "is convinced this phenomenon is now truer than ever."
"Purists will not like that," he admits, and he himself is emotionally torn. "As musicians, we don't like to think we need visual aids to project music. It should be able to engage us aurally and intellectually without a visual distraction. I'm painfully aware of that problem, but as you and I have discussed before, we are visual addicts, stimulated by computer or movie screens. People have their eyes glued to something all the time. For that generation, it's hard to listen to Beethoven and be completely engaged in a way that we would prefer them to be. But I think to ignore that fact is to ignore a reality that is with us; the audiovisual coupling as expressed in film music is something that is really with us to stay because of the way we live."
Sullivan reminds us of what I'd call the "snob factor" among some classical music buffs, concerning film score composing:
The classical intelligentsia once openly ridiculed film composing, using it as an instant metaphor for anything shallow or sentimental and scoffing at concert composers who wrote for the movies on the side. Stravinsky panned Rachmaninoff's symphonic works as "grandiose film music." Otto Klemperer, upon hearing that Korngold was writing for Hollywood, sneered that Korngold "had always composed for Warner Brothers, he just didn't realize it." Current critics tend to be more accepting of the field, but they practice a curious doublethink, one that is often unconscious. "Sounds like movie music" is still a common way to dismiss a new concert work, even among reviewers ostensibly friendly to the genre. ...
The stakes are high, for film music is uniquely situated to disseminate symphonic culture at the moment many commentators worry about that culture's impending collapse. In Williams's view, our multinational age presents an opportunity for classical music to reposition itself and for young composers to find an audience. "For better or worse, the audience for film music, even in an unconscious way, is multinational and enormous. If there is such a thing as global music, it's probably coming from film, where it's less attached to one particular vernacular. As a unified art form, a successful film, if it has a score that people will embrace, really can, in the atmosphere we live in today, reach across those boundaries. Film music can therefore be very important even to the history and development of the art form of music itself."
Sullivan makes important points, I think, about the significance of film scores. "Common sense should tell us that the divide between film music and classical is artificial, as silly as the schism between symphony and opera." Williams is among those composers who have kept symphonic music alive, the kind of music that features a "grand, Romantic, sweeping style..." That style was sure on display the first time I saw Williams conduct the New York Philharmonic, back in February 2004, and again in April 2005 (in an appearance at Lincoln Center that featured special guest violinist Itzhak Perlman), and yet again in May 2006.
I like the fact that Sullivan focuses on Williams's vast talent as both a composer and arranger ("he orchestrates his own scores, every note and instrument, down to the last string harmonic or harp glissando, working with pencil and paper"). Williams was deeply influenced by composers as varied as Haydn (his favorite), Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, and Bart�k, as well as Ellington and Billy Strayhorn. The latter influence really shows, I think, in Williams's score for "Catch Me if You Can," pieces of which were performed brilliantly at the May 2006 Avery Fisher Hall concert I attended.
In any event, having argued for the musical integrity of film scores many times in the past (see here, for example), I really enjoyed this Williams interview, and, as I said the other day, I'm looking forward to reading Sullivan's book when I have the time.
"Common sense should tell us that the divide between film music and classical is artificial..."
Some probably do underappreciate film music as an artform. But they ~are~ fundamentally different animals. Of course it depends somewhat on how the creators (composers, directors, etc) conceive of the score's function, but typically a score plays an obviously supporting role. It's there to enhance moods and provide certain cues. And as such, it often needs to be simplified/made quickly recognizable so as to touch off the right feelings in the audience at the right moment while not distracting them with particularly complex melodies or structures. We might say integrating music with visual action is an artform in its own right, but it is different from creating music meant to be appreciated on its own terms.
~My~ favorite film composers, of course, are the ones who strain at the bit and do draw more attention to the music. I love finishing a movie and thinking "God, the music was fantastic." But sometimes a movie isn't best served that way. Sometimes it's best not to be able to remember the music. It depends on the movie.
Posted by: Austen | January 11, 2007 09:27 AM
As always, good and provocative observations, Austen. And oh how I know the feelings you've described!
I do think they are different animals, to some extent, but the lines do fudge. For example, while the cues for various scores serve a definite function, the totality of the best of film scores often provides us with a kind of instrumental "opera" that evokes a whole "story" that can be appreciated on its own terms. (It's no coincidence that one of the most important composers to impact upon the whole genre of film scoring is Wagner.) Listen to the full soundtracks to "Ben-Hur" or "King of Kings" by Miklos Rozsa or "Spartacus" by Alex North or Jarre's "Lawrence of Arabia," or, in a different genre, Johnny Mandel's "The Sandpiper" (which, quite honestly, is actually better than the film for which it was written), etc., and you'll get a totality that can indeed be appreciated as an end-in-itself.
What I wonder, however, is how we deal with the supporting role of music in other integrating genres. It can dramatize a story (in opera) or provide the backdrop for dance (ballet, etc.) Many composers of opera and suites for ballet have worked closely with those who have written the stories or who choreograph the dance, changing things here and there to accentuate this or that syllable, this or that movement. So I wonder how we evaluate the role of music in these art forms.
Your thoughts, as always, are welcome!
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | January 11, 2007 12:56 PM
Well, we don't ~have~ to separate out a category for "unintegrated music," nor, in any case, does snobbery against any musical genre make much sense, as each genre comes with its own unique constraints and challenges. Rozsa's "Ben-Hur" isn't "less" of an achievement than Rozsa's violin concerto. And I'd say anyone who thinks so hasn't thought about it enough.
I find an "unintegrated music" category useful & important, though, however vague its boundaries. There's something special about that creative space where music is intended to be the sole object of attention. That space both liberates the composer and raises the expectations of the music per se. And, which is natural, I think the most "strictly musically interesting" work tends to happen there.
Opera and ballet, and musical theater for that matter, and thickly programmatic concert music for that matter, differ from film in that they're inherently musical, and most or all of whatever language there is is sung. Indeed, in ballet the dance expresses the music as much as the music supports the dance; in opera, a libretto needn't be the organizing principle for the score, the reverse works too. There's greater story-music balance in those genres than in film. Which is why Verdi can basically make an aria as musically compelling as he wants to, and Ravel can write an arrestingly lush ballet like "Daphnis and Chloe" -- and such pieces do almost always hold up on their own, musically.
Since films tend to be more like plays, there's a pressure--not always or necessarily, but often--against music that might distract more than support. Not to mention that a music track on a film invariably gets broken up into short and incidental fragments; not much room for complex development, unless the score is fleshed out, rearranged and repackaged on a CD, but then we're no longer talking about much of an "integrated genre", are we? I think these pressures on film composition are fine & good, but they are limiting factors on the music.
That's my wordy offhand sense of it, anyway...
Posted by: Austen | January 12, 2007 03:45 AM
Personally I'm inclined to agree that any perceived distinction between movie scores and "proper" classical music is wholly artificial.
The British radio station Classic FM (the only station in the country devoted to ~purely~ classical music) openly embraces the work of Williams, Morricone and Rozsa as a vital part of the classic music heritage, and Williams' Star Wars scores (purely for example) sound right at home alongside symphonies and operatic excepts* from the likes of Beethoven, Bach and Puccini.
It's true that there is a distinction between actual symphonies on the one hand and music for opera and movies on the other, in that the latter two forms are written to accompany visual events on stage or screen.
But, symphonies can convey just as much emotion and meaning as operatic music or movie scores. To my mind, Morricone's scoring of the climax of The Good The Bad and The Ugly (listened to as music) is just as stirring and powerful as say Beethoven's Third and Ninth Symphonies.
*Classic FM has not as yet aried any full length opera performances. BBC Radio 3 (otherwise known as Music Snobs 'R Us) on the other hand includes live opera broadcasts as part of its classical output but barely seems to touch film music with a barge pole.
Posted by: Matthew Humphreys | January 14, 2007 08:39 AM
Thanks for the additional thoughts on this topic, gents.
FYI, the list of Academy Award-nominated scores and songs is finally available at Oscar.com. Check it out here.
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | January 24, 2007 06:40 AM
JANUARY 08, 2007
There is a really good article in today's NY Times, a book review by Edward Rothstein entitled "Hitchcock, Thrilling the Ears as Well as the Eyes." In it, Rothstein reviews Jack Sullivan's new book, Hitchcock's Music (Yale University Press). Having chosen quite a few "Song of the Day" tracks from Hitchcock films, written by great composers such as Bernard Herrmann and Miklos Rozsa, I have always celebrated soundtracks not only for the role they play in cinematic integration, but also as works that transcend the medium. (My celebration of film score music resumes in mid-February, with my usual "Ben-Hur" citation, in anticipation of the Academy Awards broadcast on February 25th.) So the new book sounds very intriguing.
Bernard Herrmann, for example, who created the scores for "Psycho," "North by Northwest" and some of Hitchcock's other masterpieces, said there were only "a handful of directors like Hitchcock who really know the score and fully realize the importance of its relationship to a film." But it was more than that. For Hitchcock music was not merely an accompaniment. It was a focus. And it didn't just reveal something about the characters who sang the score's songs or moved under its canopy of sound; music could seem to be a character itself. ... Music has as much a role to play in [Hitchcock's] films as any of the characters. It might charm them or be used by them. But it also can reveal more than they know, offering secrets or promising salvation. Hitchcock's music has such an independent life, it also seeps through film�s strict boundaries: Something that seems to be a score turns out to be a radio playing off screen ("Rear Window"); music that starts as part of a film score is heard again in the humming of a hero (in "Foreign Correspondent"). "I have the feeling I am an orchestra conductor," Hitchcock once told Francois Truffaut. He also compared film to opera.
Hitchcock, without ever drawing a line between the popular and high arts, explored his chosen genre with a firm belief about the powers of music. Music can provide an archetype for Hitchcockian suspense. Music can hint at more than it says; it can unfold with both rigorous logic and heightened drama; and despite all expectations it can shock with its revelations.
Excellent observations; I look forward to picking up Sullivan's new book and reading it.
Also noted at the Rozsa Forum.
What scores did your favorite Miklos Rozsa do for Hitchcock? I didn't know!
Posted by: Elaine | January 8, 2007 09:07 AM
Chris, if you like Hitchcock, then you'll certainly be interested in this.
Posted by: Aeon J. Skoble | January 8, 2007 09:30 AM
Aeon, I think you've given me yet another "must read" on my never ending list...
Posted by: Peri Sword | January 8, 2007 10:57 PM
How can you not mention Hermann's score for Veritago. This is music to go mad with.
Posted by: Chris Grieb | January 9, 2007 10:16 AM
Okay, so let's take this one at a time:
1. Rozsa did the Oscar-winning score for "Spellbound."
2. Aeon, that's a great addition to the series! I will pick it up. (I just received the 007 volume in the series as a gift... so I've got my reading cut out for me---and, so, apparently, does Peri! :) )
3. And Chris, good point! :) While the author of the piece never mentions "Vertigo," rest assured that ~I~ have. In fact, I picked "Scene d'Amour" from the film as my "Song of the Day" during the 2005 installment of my annual film score tribute.
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | January 11, 2007 12:37 PM
JANUARY 06, 2007
Song of the Day: Indigo Eyes features the music and lyrics of Peter Murphy and Paul Statham. My favorite rendition of this song is from Peter Murphy's live set, "aLive Just For Love" (audio clip at that link). This double album features an array of accoustic reconstructions of Peter's diverse body of work (and includes a guest appearance by Bauhaus bassist David J). I have highlighted Peter's "Subway" and "Just for Love" in previous "Song of the Day" entries, and I've enjoyed his artistic evolution from his Bauhaus days to his glorious solo projects. Thanks for introducing me to Peter's eclectic universe, sweetie. Happy birthday, with love.
Real happy you were introduced to Peter Murphy's music... and introduced us too. It has been really good listening to so much of his music. Thanks, Chris!
Posted by: Elaine | January 8, 2007 09:04 AM
Well, you continue to surprise me, Chris. Peter Murphy as an artist featured on "Song of the Day"--who'd'a thunk it?
Thanks for sharing Peter Murphy with us!
Posted by: Peri Sword | January 8, 2007 10:54 PM
Glad I'm keeping you on your toes, Peri! :)
In all honesty, it has been quite a revelation to me to explore Peter's work, especially since he has absorbed so many wonderful influences, and worked with diverse musicians in the jazz and world music genres.
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | January 11, 2007 11:37 AM
JANUARY 01, 2007
Song of the Day: Let's Start the New Year Right is an Irving Berlin chestnut from the 1942 film, "Holiday Inn." Listen to audio clips of renditions by Bing Crosby and Mel Torme. As our annual tribute to the holiday season comes to an end, let me wish all of my readers a Happy, Healthy, and Successful 2007!