I don't watch American Idol. I watched the first season (how long ago was that?). Mostly, I don't watch because I can't stand to hear people "wailing". That's what I believe they do so much of the time. They "wail" out and force the runs, the high notes. There is little subtley, little finesse. And when it comes to interpreting many of the "old standards" they comletely lose the essence of the song.
Harry Connick, Jr. seems to agree with me. I'll come back to him in a moment.
Sometimes, storytellers also go "over the top" in their telling. Sometimes, they miss the subtlties in a story. Sometimes they can only find "one note" to play, over and over again.
Let's talk about "re-interpreting" and old tale. This has been a topic of many discussions. Do tellers stick to the traditional interpretation and events of an ancient folktale or fairytale. How can a teller make a take their own? Don't we argue that it is a teller's duty to bring a story to their own personality, to their own style? When we do that, how much of the original story may change or be lost? Sometimes, there is a thin line between making a story your own, and changing it altogether.
So where does this fit with music? Can one change notes in a song to re-interpret it? How many notes can be changed, how many runs or trills can be added before it no longer resembles the original? And when it does change in that way, can you still call it by the same name?
Now, back to Harry Connick. In a post by John Stark, editor for Next Avenue, he talks about Harry Connick's recent guest spot on Idol where he attempted to coach contestants in the subtleties and finer points of singing from the "Great American Songbook."
Read what he has to say about Connick. Learn what Connick told each singer, how they responded, and how the judges felt. I agree with Stark. I agree with Harry Connick. Let me know what you think, and where you think it might connect with storytelling. Leave a comment below.
Link to the article
- National Storytelling Network? You should be.
