Baroque Spring

[doversoul1]

I think, at the end of next week, I’ll say that Baroque Spring has been a success, but not the way Radio 3 may have intended with all those gimmicks. It has been mostly concentrated on the programmes whose audience tends to be more serious listeners: Afternoon on 3, Radio 3 Live in Concert, Composer of the Week, and Through the Night which has been starting the programme with two hours of a Baroque music concert every other day. To those who are interested in Baroque music but not experts, these blocks of Baroque music have been invaluable for becoming more familiar with the repertoire (I speak for myself).

It would have been good if there had been more information about these rarely performed operas and cantatas but on the whole, I think this has been a good thing. Whether this will make any difference to the current state of Radio 3 is (sadly) another matter.

[aeolium]

But those two programmes take up most of the morning, every day, and they've had at most three or four baroque works - which, as I said, seems about right for programmes of that length.

JEG's Saturday Classics was billed as part of the season , and it had two pieces by Bach. CotW helped by choosing baroque composers (the aforementioned Bach, Handel, Vivaldi and Purcell). So that has been the entire morning, all progs billed as being part of the season.

Though you could also make the point that if these programmes were entirely or largely consisting of baroque works, people would be complaining even more about being swamped by baroque music.

I suppose the point I was making was that usually there has been a distinct shortage of such works in those programmes, so even a quite small number allows them to claim that this was something special. Count out TEMS (because baroque is part of its ordinary remit). This was the 'bit of an illusion' that I referred to.

Sorry, I didn't pick up that point from your last message, and I do agree (as many people have been saying for years) that there is insufficient variety of music throughout the schedule and there should be a better representation of baroque music (and C20/C21 music).

If your argument is that it is better to have that wider variety continually, rather than require special seasons to feature music that is not - generally - very strongly represented in the schedules, then I agree. But given that there has been a shortage of baroque music relative to, say, C19 music, for a very long time on R3, to have a season that adjusted that imbalance is quite welcome to some, particularly as there has still been plenty of time for broadcasting of other music (as you suggest). And that season has featured quite a range of infrequently broadcast baroque music as well as more familiar works.

[french frank]

I agree that it's been a bit like most of these 'seasons': you have to say there have been good features to them even if you disagree with the concept of the (somewhat) concentrated focus over a short time. (I would exclude some of the shorter Total Immersion events, particularly of contemporary composers: appropriately scheduled they can be very rewarding).

I suppose there will always be 'complaints' from those who dislike baroque music, at any time that a single piece is played ("I switched on and there was some dreadful umpty-tumpty stuff: I just switched off.") But I can't see that anyone who claims to like 'classical music' - broad sense - should complain because the odd piece comes on which they dislike, be it baroque or contemporary. The whole range should be covered, if only that there are plenty of people for whom baroque/contemporary is their chief interest.

A point that I thought I made was that the whole publicity angle of the Baroque Spring was rather overdone considering much of the schedule contained no more than one might expect all year round - lesser known composers included - even if we don't get it.

[aeolium]

Yes, the marketing and gimmickry was tiresome though I tended to restrict myself to those programmes - mainly those mentioned by doversoul - where it was less intense and not the morning ones. The way I look at it though is that marketing and gimmickry, and a certain amount of infantilism, is simply part of R3's style the whole year round and it is perhaps naive to expect it to tone down during a specially mounted season.

You say that much of the schedule during BS contained "no more than one might expect all year round" but a disappointing aspect of the reaction to me is that there have been comments about the schedule being swamped with baroque, together with predictably dismissive comments about the music - "dittomusic", pleasant, undemanding, etc etc. Yet that there may be people who feel as frustrated about the domination of the R3 schedules pretty well year-round by C19 and early C20 orchestral music (and from a relatively narrow group of major composers) is never entertained.

[JFLL]

You say that much of the schedule during BS contained "no more than one might expect all year round" but a disappointing aspect of the reaction to me is that there have been comments about the schedule being swamped with baroque, together with predictably dismissive comments about the music - "dittomusic", pleasant, undemanding, etc etc. Yet that there may be people who feel as frustrated about the domination of the R3 schedules pretty well year-round by C19 and early C20 orchestral music (and from a relatively narrow group of major composers) is never entertained.

I don’t think there have been many people here complaining that the schedule was being ‘swamped’ with baroque – quite the reverse, in fact, and I’d have thought that opinion was overwhelmingly favourable, apart from complaints about the Red Nose Day treatment and the trails. And if a few people have said that they think some or even much ‘baroque’ music is pleasant but undemanding, why should that be ‘disappointing’, as though they’re lacking in understanding – ‘could do better’? It’s a valid opinion, surely? There’s also the point that the term ‘baroque’ might be misleading when applied to music – it often seems to mean no more than ‘any music written between 1650 and 1750’, taking in undoubted ‘greats’ like Purcell, Bach and no doubt Handel, but also any lesser composer who has been ‘discovered’. Was there, for example, any composer between those dates who wasn’t included because he wasn’t ‘baroque’? Just think if there was some label that could be pinned on all music written between 1800 and 1900, or 1900 and 2000 – would that be given the ‘season’ treatment? (And I wouldn’t count ‘romantic’, which is even more empty than ‘baroque’ when applied to a whole century, imo.)

[french frank]

a disappointing aspect of the reaction to me is that there have been comments about the schedule being swamped with baroque, together with predictably dismissive comments about the music - "dittomusic", pleasant, undemanding, etc etc.

Most people will find something to complain about some of the time, even if based purely on their personal dislikes, rather than some wider principle.

This season seemed to be a great deal about educating those who didn't know what 'baroque' meant, which is presumably why, in those programmes already designed to attract new listeners, the pieces came in small chunks and mainly confined to the 'big names'. I would concede there was a logic to that - even if one to be regretted as far as other listeners were concerned.

The difference between having longer-running series (à la TEMS) and having an occasional high profile Fest is between the possibility of educating an existing audience in some depth and attracting the attention of potential listeners to R3 who it's hoped will become regulars.

[aeolium]

And if a few people have said that they think some or even much ‘baroque’ music is pleasant but undemanding, why should that be ‘disappointing’, as though they’re lacking in understanding – ‘could do better’? It’s a valid opinion, surely?

Yes, I suppose it is. It's also natural to be disappointed when someone expresses an adverse, dismissive reaction to music that means a lot to you (imagine it with music that is particularly important to you). But what mainly disappointed me was the unspoken assumption that it is unreasonable to have such an extended focus - over a few weeks - on baroque music but it is not unreasonable to have such a focus - throughout the year - on Beethoven, Brahms, Dvorak, Mahler, Bruckner, Sibelius symphonies, yet that seems to be the normal state of affairs on R3.

There’s also the point that the term ‘baroque’ might be misleading when applied to music – it often seems to mean no more than ‘any music written between 1650 and 1750’,

Yes, it's a convenient shorthand which encompasses sometimes very different styles of music, but it doesn't seem strange to have a focus on music composed within a certain timespan - for instance, the South Bank Centre has an ongoing year-long festival on C20 music called "The Rest Is Noise". At least the term "baroque" is more readily associated in most people's minds with music composed roughly between 1600 and 1750 - perhaps they could have called it "Early Music Spring".

[JFLL]

... It's also natural to be disappointed when someone expresses an adverse, dismissive reaction to music that means a lot to you (imagine it with music that is particularly important to you). But what mainly disappointed me was the unspoken assumption that it is unreasonable to have such an extended focus - over a few weeks - on baroque music but it is not unreasonable to have such a focus - throughout the year - on Beethoven, Brahms, Dvorak, Mahler, Bruckner, Sibelius symphonies, yet that seems to be the normal state of affairs on R3.

I’d say that the reason why it’s the ‘normal state of affairs’ for Beethoven etc. to be played often is because he and the others you name are still cornerstones of our musical culture (just as Bach, a ‘baroque’ composer is), whereas, say, Jomelli, isn’t. It’s surely right for Radio 3 to ‘focus’ on, i.e. play more frequently, more important (yes, better) composers rather than lesser ones (though I’m not saying that the lesser ones should never be heard)? A university course in English which gave just as much prominence to Richardson, Trollope and Galsworthy as to Shakespeare, Dickens and James Joyce would seem unbalanced, in my view. And there are many nineteenth-century and twentieth-century ‘lesser’ composers who get even less of a look-in on Radio 3 than ‘baroque’ ones.

[aeolium]

I’d say that the reason why it’s the ‘normal state of affairs’ for Beethoven etc. to be played often is because he and the others you name are still cornerstones of our musical culture (just as Bach, a ‘baroque’ composer is), whereas, say, Jomelli, isn’t. It’s surely right for Radio 3 to ‘focus’ on, i.e. play more frequently, more important (yes, better) composers rather than lesser ones (though I’m not saying that the lesser ones should never be heard)? A university course in English which gave just as much prominence to Richardson, Trollope and Galsworthy as to Shakespeare, Dickens and James Joyce would seem unbalanced, in my view. And there are many nineteenth-century and twentieth-century ‘lesser’ composers who get even less of a look-in on Radio 3 than ‘baroque’ ones.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that Jomelli's music should be broadcast as frequently as Beethoven's, but I also don't think the excuse that those major symphonists are "cornerstones of our musical culture" is a justification for the undue prominence they have in the broadcasting schedules. Why should those symphonies be broadcast over and over again to an audience many of whom will have many recordings of them already and have opportunities to hear them at concerthalls where they form the staple repertoire? What purpose does it serve, except to deny or restrict airtime to the music of many composers of every period - hearing which would actually broaden the education of those who mainly know only the music of those major composers?

And there are many nineteenth-century and twentieth-century ‘lesser’ composers who get even less of a look-in on Radio 3 than ‘baroque’ ones.

Only the major baroque composers, which surely supports your earlier argument that major composers should be performed more frequently than minor ones. But personally I would be happy with a reduction in emphasis on all major composers to allow more emphasis on less well-known composers of all periods - not disproportionately, but so as to enable these composers once again to have a voice.

[Roehre]

...... Why should those symphonies be broadcast over and over again to an audience many of whom will have many recordings of them already and have opportunities to hear them at concerthalls where they form the staple repertoire? What purpose does it serve, except to deny or restrict airtime to the music of many composers of every period - hearing which would actually broaden the education of those who mainly know only the music of those major composers?......

Exactly my thoughts

[JFLL]

I don't think anyone was suggesting that Jomelli's music should be broadcast as frequently as Beethoven's

I wasn’t suggesting that you did suggest it – only using Jommelli as an example of a composer who should be played less often than Beethoven.

but I also don't think the excuse that those major symphonists are "cornerstones of our musical culture" is a justification for the undue prominence they have in the broadcasting schedules.

My reply would be that they have more to offer and bear repeated listening, performed by different interpreters, whereas, say, Jommelli doesn’t. As I said, most of us aren’t musicologists or making a study of musical history. People often re-read rewarding novels but are content to read lesser ones only once. I think the question of relative value should be considered here. All composers aren’t equal in that respect, and it’s surely right that programming should reflect that. It just so happens that the period from, say, 1770 to 1880 had more than its share of good composers who still appeal to many listeners. We don't necessarily say 'Oh yes, I've heard all the Beethoven quartets, so I can forget them now and move on to some eighteenth-century composer I've never heard before'.

Why should those symphonies be broadcast over and over again to an audience many of whom will have many recordings of them already and have opportunities to hear them at concerthalls where they form the staple repertoire? What purpose does it serve, except to deny or restrict airtime to the music of many composers of every period - hearing which would actually broaden the education of those who mainly know only the music of those major composers?

It seems a bit tendentious to imply that Beethoven et al. actually crowd out other composers, or deny airspace to them. And as these boards show, people often want to hear new interpretations of great works. It needn’t preclude listening to the occasional Jommelli, and I don’t think that Radio 3 has neglected the Baroque.

But personally I would be happy with a reduction in emphasis on all major composers to allow more emphasis on less well-known composers of all periods - not disproportionately, but so as to enable these composers once again to have a voice.

Well, that might be more educational and democratic, perhaps, but maybe some composers don’t deserve (a value term again) to be heard more often.

[Serial_Apologist]

I think the question of relative value should be considered here. All composers aren’t equal in that respect, and it’s surely right that programming should reflect that. It just so happens that the period from, say, 1770 to 1880 had more than its share of good composers who still appeal to many listeners. We don't necessarily say 'Oh yes, I've heard all the Beethoven quartets, so I can forget them now and move on to some eighteenth-century composer I've never heard before'.


It seems a bit tendentious to imply that Beethoven et al. actually crowd out other composers, or deny airspace to them [...] but maybe some composers don’t deserve (a value term again) to be heard more often.

Phew - massive assumptions there, JFLL. Arguments such as this create the intimidating myths surrounding the holy portals of sheer immortals that scare so many who have not already deemed western concert music either "square" or too good for the likes of us. Perhaps if those whom you describe as "the greats" were allowed to permit more of their lesser-known contemporaries increased broadcast room, listeners, not just newcomers, would have greater chance of judging for themselves.

[jean]

Is it time for Composers Variously Rated again, I wonder?

[aeolium]

My reply would be that they have more to offer and bear repeated listening, performed by different interpreters, whereas, say, Jommelli doesn’t. As I said, most of us aren’t musicologists or making a study of musical history. People often re-read rewarding novels but are content to read lesser ones only once. I think the question of relative value should be considered here. All composers aren’t equal in that respect, and it’s surely right that programming should reflect that. It just so happens that the period from, say, 1770 to 1880 had more than its share of good composers who still appeal to many listeners.

And my reply to that would be a) that excessive repeated listening to those major works actually produces diminishing returns so that their freshness and power of impact is lost and b) it's not a question of relative value so much as greatly disproportionate emphasis, so that those works really do crowd out the music not only of very rarely heard minor composers but also composers who have been highly valued like Rameau or Poulenc, let alone post-war composers.

We don't necessarily say 'Oh yes, I've heard all the Beethoven quartets, so I can forget them now and move on to some eighteenth-century composer I've never heard before'.

Nor do we say, or should we say, "I've heard all the Beethoven quartets so now I'm going to listen to them all over again rather than listen to some obscure composer whose work I have never heard" since that would be to deny the possibility of hearing something new and interesting. The dominance of the 'canon' is surprisingly restrictive and self-reinforcing in that people tend to stick to that small group of composers because that is what is being provided to them by broadcasters and concert halls, and in turn broadcasters and concert halls are fearful of departing from it because they assume that is what people want.

It seems a bit tendentious to imply that Beethoven et al. actually crowd out other composers, or deny airspace to them.

I don't think so. You only have to look at Suffolkcoastal's record of broadcast composers and works through the year to see the extent to which many composers are severely restricted in airtime and then confined to a very small part of their output (often repeated).

maybe some composers don’t deserve (a value term again) to be heard more often.

I disagree - all composers deserve to be heard more often than never, and many composers deserve to be heard more often than they are at present. Otherwise how can listeners properly make up their own minds about their value, rather than relying on your judgement or that of broadcasters and concert promoters?

[Serial_Apologist]

Very well put, aeolium