Inappropriate background music
Hullo everyone, first post for me so please be gentle....
In the past couple of weeks I have watched two documentaries on obscure television channels, co-incidentally both about architects; the first on Charles Barry and the Palace of Westminster, the second a survey of Frank Lloyd Wright's life and work. No quibbles about the visual work or the general narrative, but the background music struck me in each case as the choice of a producer who doesn't know much about music.
The Barry documentary was obviously about an architect working in the 1830s, using the Gothic Revival style that originated in the later 18th century though seems to have been formulated in architecture during the 1810s. So why did the sound track give us a modern instrument transcription of "Jesus bleibet meine Freude" (Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring) written in 1723? I cant see any connection, and aesthetically it jarred.
For the Wright, there was a selection of Beethoven's later works - seemingly based on the fatuous comment by a grandson of Wright, interviewed in the documentary, who compared Wright's late-life creativity to that of Beethoven specifically after the latter became deaf. It's not as if Wright had gone blind, so I cant see how anything had changed for his creative process, whereas for a musician deafness is obviously fundamental. But anyway, why couldn't we have a decent selection of music contemporary to the different period's of Wright's life? For an architect who innovated and experimented, there are many obvious parallels in US classical music during his working life; and again, aesthetically the Beethoven jarred with the images.
So, what do we do? Maybe you have other examples of inappropriate (nay illiterate) background music and wish to share the frustration? Do we just grump about it, as an o tempora o mores thread? Does it really matter? Or do we write to Mr Gove and explain how 'classical' music needs to be given more priority in the curricula?
Pleased to meet you one and all!
In the past couple of weeks I have watched two documentaries on obscure television channels, co-incidentally both about architects; the first on Charles Barry and the Palace of Westminster, the second a survey of Frank Lloyd Wright's life and work. No quibbles about the visual work or the general narrative, but the background music struck me in each case as the choice of a producer who doesn't know much about music.
The Barry documentary was obviously about an architect working in the 1830s, using the Gothic Revival style that originated in the later 18th century though seems to have been formulated in architecture during the 1810s. So why did the sound track give us a modern instrument transcription of "Jesus bleibet meine Freude" (Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring) written in 1723? I cant see any connection, and aesthetically it jarred.
For the Wright, there was a selection of Beethoven's later works - seemingly based on the fatuous comment by a grandson of Wright, interviewed in the documentary, who compared Wright's late-life creativity to that of Beethoven specifically after the latter became deaf. It's not as if Wright had gone blind, so I cant see how anything had changed for his creative process, whereas for a musician deafness is obviously fundamental. But anyway, why couldn't we have a decent selection of music contemporary to the different period's of Wright's life? For an architect who innovated and experimented, there are many obvious parallels in US classical music during his working life; and again, aesthetically the Beethoven jarred with the images.
So, what do we do? Maybe you have other examples of inappropriate (nay illiterate) background music and wish to share the frustration? Do we just grump about it, as an o tempora o mores thread? Does it really matter? Or do we write to Mr Gove and explain how 'classical' music needs to be given more priority in the curricula?
Pleased to meet you one and all!
.
Comment