Category: Blog Postings

In the original version of David Bowie’s “Sound and Vision,” the major components and different instruments can be easily detected due to its short length and distinct sounds. Beck’s rendition is almost ten minutes and includes 160 musicians; however, it is still easy to follow even though it is grand in size. The composition breaks the instruments into different sections, and the video adds visuals which makes identifying the major components easier than expected. Beck’s version of “Sound and Vision” brings a myriad of music together so that anyone can find a component of it that they like (I thought the yodeling was pretty cool), but I can still picture people preferring the original song due to its simplicity. I enjoyed Beck’s rendition a little more than the original version of the song because I have always been a fan of certain music that packs a punch, and the power behind the orchestra of Beck’s one-off does that for me. I appreciate the original song because it is a classic that can never truly be remade, but the combination of gospel singers, guitars, piano, and a string orchestra in Beck’s makes the experience of the song so much more grand.

As we watched in the jazz performance at Lehman, many different instruments and sounds contribute to creating a jazz piece. Beck’s rendition may not be considered a jazz piece; however, the way it combines elements of music that would not traditionally be put together makes it a melodious tribute to jazz. The performance incorporates electric guitars, gospel singers, yodeling and so much more making it a combination of different cultures working in harmony to produce something magnificent. The improvisational aspect of this piece can be seen as the musicians build off of each other’s emotion in an attempt to make a simple song like “Sound and Vision” sound as grand as it deserves to be.

David Bowie’s “Sound and Visions” and Beck’s reconstruction, both have their own uniqueness. On one hand, the original had simplicity and felt like it was straightforward and easier to follow, while the reconstruction, despite being beautiful, was extremely overwhelming. However, I felt a lot of it was because of the visual recording. In other words, because one knows that there are 160 musicians and one can see them in the video, it becomes overwhelming. If there wasn’t a visual and it was just an audio, then it would have been harder to figure out how many musicians were there. And in that case, I would focus more on the audio alone (Try listening just the audio, might change perspective). When I did so, I found out that the music wasn’t overwhelming anymore. At some points there were multiple instruments being played so I had to backtrack it and listen to it again. I felt like it was very melodious and easier to follow without the visual. At that point since the size of musicians wasn’t available, it felt very soothing. I personally liked the reconstruction better than the original. Nothing to take away from the original, it’s a beauty in itself. But it’s very simple. It’s too easy to follow. It doesn’t force me to think much. Doesn’t push to use my thoughts. However the reconstruction being a complex one, pushes me to challenge myself at every point, because now I am not watching the video, but rather just listening to the music.

From what I recall, Jazz had a lot of improv in it which means that they make things as they keep on going. There is no strict rule. This shows Jazz’s freedom aspect. If we keep this in mind, then we realize that the reconstruction might have not contributed anything to Jazz. The reconstruction having so many instruments and melodies being played simultaneously couldn’t have been done on the spot. It had to be strictly pre-planned. This takes away the freedom aspect from it as now one is strictly following rules. However, on the other hand, when I hear the original piece, I felt like that could have contributed more to Jazz. This is because in the original piece the melodies and components are very easy to follow and most likely, there was only one drum and one guitar and only one of any instrument used. So, at that point you don’t have to worry about 50 drummers having 50 different melodies, on top of all the other instruments having different melodies as well. It become just way too complicated. To pull off something like the reconstruction, one can’t improvise. So, simplicity can be the origin and can create new things, and complexity can take one idea to a whole new different level. Similarly, if one was trying to create new ways of music, then it’s always better to start with just a few instruments like in the original piece. However, if one wants to take that original piece and make it majestic, then complexity is recommended but not required.

When I first listened to David Bowie’s “Sound and Vision,” I’ll be honest in saying that I wasn’t a big fan. I guess I just expected more because David Bowie is so iconic and legendary that I expected something so different, but still something that soothes my ears. I did’t really get either out of this performance. However, I think the larger performance actually added something to the song, yet also took a key component away, arguably one of the most important components of the song.

This larger performance added to the exhilaration of the song, and definitely made it more interesting to see all those instruments blend together, both individually and in larger groups. Honestly, as Ivan said, it would be easier to wonder what instruments and vocals weren’t used than what were. I think this fits with what the world expects out of something new from an original idea. Whenever we get the newest phone, gaming system, or even house, we want something different. We want it to be bigger, better, and just more grand. However, I think we don’t realize that we still, subconsciously, want something from that original element, as if nostalgia still looms large even in the material aspects of life. When we hear a cover of a song, it always gets hell from every single critic out there for “ruining the song.” I always think to myself, “If you want it to sound like the original, here’s an idea: LISTEN TO THE ORIGINAL!” Why must the cover of a song contain the same elements as the original song? Granted, the original may be the perfect way the song could be performed, but we don’t look for perfect in a song. If that were true, we would all be fans of the most meticulous classical music, not the ones where the “musician” simply hits a button on their computer and makes music. We like things to be broken because we are broken ourselves. Therefore, I do like that this cover took a different direction, and I applaud Beck for his courage in covering this song.

However, as mentioned earlier, this cover took away a key component of the song: imagination. I thought the best line, strangely, was the chorus. Bowie states how he wonders about sound and vision. However, in this cover, you can’t wonder about sound nor vision because every sound and vision was presented before us. When we saw the jazz bands perform, it was not meant for our minds to wander. All those instruments were making one big sound to relax us and calm us down so we could just sit there and enjoy the music. Beck was going for the same thing here by trying to just have fun with the piece while unintentionally taking out one of the biggest elements of Bowie’s original songs in imagination.

With all that being said, I am not a big fan of either version of the song, so take my opinion with a grain of salt in the fact that I am not able to fully grasp this song for what it is truly worth.

I found Beck’s reconstruction of David Bowie’s ‘Sound and Vision’ to be quite epic because this is the first time I have ever heard a yodeler, choirs, heavy metal guitarists, xylophones, mandolin, marching band and so many more musicians come together to perform the same song. The first time I saw Beck’s performance in class, I got goosebumps as soon as everyone began playing together because I did not expect such different and unique sounds to harmonize so well. It was also refreshing to see musicians from several different ethnicities unite under one very unique piece.

The original ‘Sound and Vision’ was very catchy and easy to follow because it was the same instruments and beat playing over and over again. Beck’s recreation of ‘Sound and Vision’ had the same lyrics and melody as the original but it was not a piece you can fully enjoy through headphones on a subway cart. Unlike the original which can be just be heard, the recreation needs to be seen as well by the viewer to fully make sense of the music. Considering all the musicians were in a circle, I expected there to be an audio chaos once all the instrument began playing together but it somehow worked out very well. Although the song does become fragmented in some parts, the musicians pull it off.

It was interesting to read all the different interpretations of both pieces from my classmates. Some of them were awestruck by Beck’s recreation like I was, while others just viewed it as a big mess. Similarly, the comments on YouTube under the recreation video were divided into several different opinions. One person stated “CHILLLS! Absolutely brilliant”, whereas the next viewer thought “Beck made this a bit too much for my taste”. Music, just like any work of art changes with each set of eyes and ears.

Beck’s recreation is performed similarly to how jazz is performed. Unfortunately, I did not get to view the Latin Jazz performance last week, however many of the jazz music videos I watched online were very similar to Beck’s recreation because they both consisted of several instruments playing one piece together. In the beginning of the jazz performances and Beck’s recreation, the songs were disjointed because each musician was doing their own thing but in time they all began to harmonize beautifully.

Bow to the past

David Bowie’s own recording of Sound and Vision was slightly entertaining, but left much to be desired, along with an almost cliffhanger ending. I understood that he is waiting for some sound and some vision, perhaps something specific, but is he not creating his own vibratory expression to which vision is needless if someone can hear? Additionally, images can be created by the mind to supplement the sound that is so evident, so what is he really waiting  for? Overall I found his original version to be too evidently repetitive, as most songs must repeat in some aspect or chorus, but most of it was an overtly treble vacuum finally filled by both a searching and disinterested voice. I felt no adequate resolution, and as such the song left me unresolved.

Give way to the future

The beginning of Beck’s recreation seemed to be mostly concerned with showing off the magnitude this large group of musicians consisted of, and swept across all instruments as a welcoming to all into the present reality of the updated layers of music. While it did serve this purpose, the intro was drawn out and redundant, inciting the longing for the overtly reminiscent aspects of song to begin. The melody was present, but the sweep across instruments made it choppy and hard to coherently follow. It was cool, if not practical for a cohesive melody. Once Beck joined in, the song began for me. Finally I could follow the magnification; multiple chorus members to give deeper definition and strength to the background vocals, a myriad of percussionists to keep the rhythm, an orchestra section that accented the acoustic instruments, and a few screaming guitars. All pulled together under Beck’s lead to form an excellent rendition of David Bowie’s Sound and Vision. Now the question of wondering about sound and vision is more directed towards the audience, as there is inherently sound and a dynamic image portrayed on stage, to spur us to find our own unique sound and vision. The lead out feels the most groovy and improvised, perhaps tipping a hat to the genre of jazz while not embracing it fully.

Although Bowie’s original version of “Sound and Vision” and Beck’s interpreted version of “Sound and Vision” had similar elements such as lyrics, melodies, and guitar riffs, it is not hard to perceive these two songs as two completely different songs. Bowie’s original version is extremely simple: Standard rock beat that runs throughout the song, bass line that is easy to follow, and one simple guitar riff to complete it all. On the other hand, Beck’s version was extremely hard to follow and overwhelming.

What Beck did with 160 other musicians was a great performance. But it was not “music” for me. If Beck’s intention was to deliver music, I think he got his priority mixed up. A performance or show-case should be used as a tool to deliver music. But I felt as if Beck used music as a mere tool to produce his grandiose performance. I reached this conclusion because I thought the harmony was missing in his performance. It sounded to me as if each session, or each group of his ensembles was yelling: “Listen to how good I am!”  instead of “This is the music that WE present to you.”

I do not think Beck’s rendition owes much to jazz. I believe that key element in jazz is freedom, a liberation from all constraints and rules through the mediator called improvisation. But Beck’ interpretation sounded too constraint and it is not hard to imagine the reason behind it. It is almost impossible to match the sound of 160 musicians with different background of music without setting up detailed and meticulous guidelines. And with detailed and meticulous guidelines, there are not that much room left for jazz.

The original version of “Sound and Vision” by Bowie appealed to me due to its simplicity and how it delivered the music to the audience. I could easily follow the performance of the individual musicians in this performance which made the me as a spectator very comfortable and have a feeling of control over what I was experiencing. This performance also had a more humane and lively feel to it since the impact of the individual musicians was much more explicit. The emotions of each performer were clearly visible during this performance.

In the case of Beck’s version of the musical piece, the reconstruction involved a massive scale ensemble which included an orchestra, pianos, different percussionists, singers, guitarist, and much more. The performance was spectacular and very overwhelming if I tried to focus on the details of it. This version of “Sounds and Vision” had a less personal feel to it. The impact of individual musicians on the atmosphere created was significantly less than that of Bowie’s version. The ensemble was very mechanized feel to it since it was also dark in the auditorium and the transitioning of the sounds was very smooth.

It is hard to say which version I liked more, both had their own strengths. In terms of the classical jazz experience, I believe that Bowie’s version had the edge here due to its more personal and unique feeling of the moment that both the audience and the artist could experience. However, in terms of sheer magnificence and a powerful delivery of the full musical ensemble experience, Beck’s performance was unmatched.

The two versions varied greatly even though they were both the same songs. The original of David Bowie, was very easy to follow with very distinct sounds and limited vocals. Beck’s rendition however included not only many voices but also many instruments. Beck’s version was also in video format so not only was the music vastly more dramatic so was the images that I saw in my head, in comparison to that of the Bowie which was much more calm and concise. Beck’s was so much more packed than that of the original. It reminded me of the jazz performance a lot,  because of the large number of musicians featured in that one piece, there was a necessity to work together in harmony. That was what I noticed in the Jazz performance as these artist all with different sounds had to work together to create a musical piece. They each had places where they had to wait for others or take a solo, and therefore it was very similar to the second version of Bowie’s song.