- I love music. I love the way that it brings people together; it can bring musicians into a
circle, it can bring a huge group of strangers onto a dance floor and most importantly, it can
bring cultures together in song. Both Classical music and folk / roots music are capable of
this magic so why is it, then, that such an enormous gap exists between the two worlds? If
there is any one goal to which I would gladly devote my art and my time, it is the reconciliation
of these two worlds with one another. If not in the minds of the world, at least in the minds of
my audience and students.
- I have a tremendous affinity for folk and roots music because it is, in my experience, the
voice of the North. I love folk music because it brings musicians together in a casual setting
and allows them to express simple things in a way that makes them seem profound, even
immense. In the same… yet completely different manner, I love classical music because it
brings musicians together in a setting that compels them to challenge themselves and each
other. Together, they endeavour to recreate a composer’s inspiration as accurately as
possible. In this regard, folk music and classical music are two very different means to the
same end.
- Similarly, both genres can impart a tremendous amount of insight into the culture that
manifested whatever music is being heard. Again, the two genres have very different ways of
achieving this: Classical music provides a snapshot of a time and place; the composer’s
thoughts are represented with a high degree of exaction so the music itself can serve as an
accurate reflection of what was going on musically when and where it was written. By contrast,
folk music is more like an archaeological dig; the styles are constantly evolving and thus
giving the listener an idea of what has happened in the past while. It’s confounding examples
such as these that make it so difficult for me to devote myself entirely to one camp or the
other but the opposing strengths of the two have me convinced that they must be united.
- In many ways this is nothing new: In the early 20th century Bela Bartok went on a sort of
ethno-musicological expedition to transcribe folk music and use it in his symphonies. These
experiments of his were considered great innovation on the part of the composer, to me they
are a good indication of the most prominent dividing line between classical and folk music:
transcription. Classical music lovers have a fondness for perfection and the printed score is
the vessel that tells them what perfection should sound like. Folk music lovers, on the other
hand, generally feel that thoroughly composed music leaves no room for self-expression on
the part of the performer. What’s the point of playing something the same way every time,
right? This, I feel, is the largest philosophical divide between the two camps. It is, however,
one that can be reconciled. I have no problem going back and forth between styles, I just
need to work twice as hard.
- The second stage of bridging the folk world with the classical one is, of course, finding
an audience. I find that the major difference between a typical classical audience and a folk
one is that a folk audience’s main interest is in the performer while the classical audience is
far more interested in the composer. Glenn Gould once said that legitimate music suffered a
terrible blow the day performers stopped being composers. Audiences connect much better
with performers who are communicating their own musical ideas. This connection is what I feel
is lost in Classical Music today. To reconcile this loss, I make a habit of talking to my audience
quite a bit about what different songs mean to me and occasionally interspersing classical
music with some of my own. Audiences definitely appreciate it. In fact, I get more positive
feedback about my banter than I do about my playing! (Should I have written that??)
Seriously though, have a look at my testimonials and you’ll see that my combination of playing
and personality have had a positive impact on audiences everywhere.
circle, it can bring a huge group of strangers onto a dance floor and most importantly, it can
bring cultures together in song. Both Classical music and folk / roots music are capable of
this magic so why is it, then, that such an enormous gap exists between the two worlds? If
there is any one goal to which I would gladly devote my art and my time, it is the reconciliation
of these two worlds with one another. If not in the minds of the world, at least in the minds of
my audience and students.
- I have a tremendous affinity for folk and roots music because it is, in my experience, the
voice of the North. I love folk music because it brings musicians together in a casual setting
and allows them to express simple things in a way that makes them seem profound, even
immense. In the same… yet completely different manner, I love classical music because it
brings musicians together in a setting that compels them to challenge themselves and each
other. Together, they endeavour to recreate a composer’s inspiration as accurately as
possible. In this regard, folk music and classical music are two very different means to the
same end.
- Similarly, both genres can impart a tremendous amount of insight into the culture that
manifested whatever music is being heard. Again, the two genres have very different ways of
achieving this: Classical music provides a snapshot of a time and place; the composer’s
thoughts are represented with a high degree of exaction so the music itself can serve as an
accurate reflection of what was going on musically when and where it was written. By contrast,
folk music is more like an archaeological dig; the styles are constantly evolving and thus
giving the listener an idea of what has happened in the past while. It’s confounding examples
such as these that make it so difficult for me to devote myself entirely to one camp or the
other but the opposing strengths of the two have me convinced that they must be united.
- In many ways this is nothing new: In the early 20th century Bela Bartok went on a sort of
ethno-musicological expedition to transcribe folk music and use it in his symphonies. These
experiments of his were considered great innovation on the part of the composer, to me they
are a good indication of the most prominent dividing line between classical and folk music:
transcription. Classical music lovers have a fondness for perfection and the printed score is
the vessel that tells them what perfection should sound like. Folk music lovers, on the other
hand, generally feel that thoroughly composed music leaves no room for self-expression on
the part of the performer. What’s the point of playing something the same way every time,
right? This, I feel, is the largest philosophical divide between the two camps. It is, however,
one that can be reconciled. I have no problem going back and forth between styles, I just
need to work twice as hard.
- The second stage of bridging the folk world with the classical one is, of course, finding
an audience. I find that the major difference between a typical classical audience and a folk
one is that a folk audience’s main interest is in the performer while the classical audience is
far more interested in the composer. Glenn Gould once said that legitimate music suffered a
terrible blow the day performers stopped being composers. Audiences connect much better
with performers who are communicating their own musical ideas. This connection is what I feel
is lost in Classical Music today. To reconcile this loss, I make a habit of talking to my audience
quite a bit about what different songs mean to me and occasionally interspersing classical
music with some of my own. Audiences definitely appreciate it. In fact, I get more positive
feedback about my banter than I do about my playing! (Should I have written that??)
Seriously though, have a look at my testimonials and you’ll see that my combination of playing
and personality have had a positive impact on audiences everywhere.
 |  |  |  |