“Jazzin’ up Bach”: is it correct to change classical works?

Some time ago, during a chat with a man from the audience who had approached me to say hello, a topic turned up: is it correct or not to take the “classics” and perform some of their works as jazz tunes (or as any other style, for that matter)?

It sounded as a very interesting and timely matter, specially taking into account the traditional concept that classical works are “sacred” and must not be changed at all, not even one note.

Of course, not one of those who defend that concept seems to realize that the very same creators who had written those works hardly ever played them twice the same, but this is a subject for another article...

Another thing that is not totally clear is the fact that the change of a note here or there or even the style of a work does not ruin its sacredness, since the original work continues to exist (and it always will) exactly as written, independent of other possible reinterpretations or “changes” made by some musicians.

To say it in a few words, the reinterpretation of a work is simply another work. How beautiful, transcendent or sacred that work may be is an entirely different matter.

Brahm’s “Variations On A Theme by Paganini” are not an insult to Paganini (on the contrary!), not even considering that the language and style of that monumental work is Brahm’s, not Paganini’s.

Fortunately for music, that work never fell in the hands of the “commandoes for musical purity”, because if it had, it would have ended up as a bunch of burned sheets in the bottom of a dustbin.

And which one of those “saviors” would have cared about Paganini’s opinion...?

None, because they would have also destroyed Paganini if they had ever had the chance.

Let’s analyse, objectively and for only a minute, how an endless number of those sacred or “untouchable” classical works have been conceived.

In a surprisingly high number of cases (too high to be ignored), great composers found their inspiration in folk songs, traditional and popular themes and dances, simple tunes and many other “sources of inspiration”, among which and very specially were pieces of melodies written by other composers, as in the case of Brahms and Paganini.

If, in accordance with the “law of the purity commando”, we should have to allow only those works not inspired in any external source, how many would pass the test?

Luckily, art works in a different way.

Just as virtually all the great classical composers wrote a lot of works based on some melodic phrase conceived by other composers, normally (but not always!) known as “Variation On A Theme By...”, and then from those few notes they projected a completely different, masterly and independent work, I do not see it as ethically or artistically incorrect that a musician from another style of music may take an idea written by Mozart and turn it into a jazz, folk, rock or hip-hop song.

Where is the incorrect thing?

The original work used by any other musicians to get some few notes still is and will always be the same work as it was conceived and written, and any variation based on it will grow and develop (or not) as an independent creation, with its own life.

As we said before, they are two different works.

A completely different matter is the artistic level any musician can reach by creating an original work inspired in any of the classics.

However, not even the fact that Mr Smith may write a mediocre and forgettable tune “inspired” in one of the great composers, not even that possibility should discourage artists from using any creative means they have the right to plunge into.

And by the way, the same thing happens when an original classical work is played with a different rhythm.

What moves us or touches us to the point of tears when we listen to music is the level of inspiration, depth and beauty of a work, not the original source it was inspired in.