Baroque Spring

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Very well put, aeolium

I agree.

Except for the statement

excessive repeated listening to those major works actually produces diminishing returns so that their freshness and power of impact is lost

... not in my experience.

[aeolium]

Well, I did say "excessive", ferney

I suppose this is a personal thing. I find there are quite a few works I now deliberately ration to once every 6 months or even once a year to be able to come to them afresh, and it does help for me.

[french frank]

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.

But there is also the "CFM" argument - for some listeners the appeal is that they are familiar, the lack of appeal that they are unfamiliar, so not playing lesser known composers condemns them to being unappreciated by many because they're not heard often.

I don’t think that Radio 3 has neglected the Baroque.

Certainly not JSB who has his "day" coming up on 1 April, but there is possibly a reasonable ratio: e.g. X performances of Beethoven's 7th (or part thereof these days) to 2 x X performances of lesser known composers?

[Flosshilde]

Agreed.

More eloquently argued than I could manage; my initial response to JFLL's statement that "It just so happens that the period from, say, 1770 to 1880 had more than its share of good composers" was that it is pure nonsense.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Well, I did say "excessive", ferney

[JFLL]

my initial response to JFLL's statement that "It just so happens that the period from, say, 1770 to 1880 had more than its share of good composers" was that it is pure nonsense.

I somehow thought you'd say that, as an expert on pure nonsense. (Why do you think I said it? )

It can’t be ‘nonsense’, since it’s a value judgement. What is pure nonsense is to say it’s ‘pure nonsense’. You mean that you disagree with my judgement. Maybe, but there are a lot of people who agree with my rather innocuous statement, and they’re not all fools like me.

But to turn to more articulate disagreements, which it would probably be boring to reply to individually at length. I’m probably in a minority, at least here, in sticking up for the musical nineteenth century, but I do believe that the period from 1770 to 1914 was a golden age of music, rather as the 5th century B.C. was in drama, the Renaissance was in art and the nineteenth century in fiction. (More nonsense, no doubt.) It’s inevitable that the major composers of this period will get more airspace than other periods, and I think it’s right that they should. What’s more, it’s popular, inasmuch as any classical music is. Popularity as among composers coincides with quality in this case, by and large. Airspace is limited. Radio 3 couldn’t operate on the principle of opening Grove at random and picking out the first composer named there, or starting at A and working through to Z. They have to make judgements. And I think most listeners would baulk at having every single composer paraded before them just in case we might like them. They, and we, have to a certain extent to rely on what inherited culture has decided for us. Yes, we and Radio 3 should explore neglected composers and periods, but not treat all composers as of equal worth, and not at the expense of acknowledged masters. It's a matter of balance, but I think Radio 3 has it roughly right.

[EdgeleyRob]

How about a 20th century British music summer on Radio 3 ?

[aeolium]

I think most listeners would baulk at having every single composer paraded before them just in case we might like them. They, and we, have to a certain extent to rely on what inherited culture has decided for us. Yes, we and Radio 3 should explore neglected composers and periods, but not treat all composers as of equal worth, and not at the expense of acknowledged masters. It's a matter of balance, but I think Radio 3 has it roughly right.

I will only respond to this comment, as I think we are both now clear on the areas where we disagree. I don't think we ought to rely on what inherited culture has decided for us. It is precisely because those in previous generations reacted against what their culture determined to be valuable that we have many of the works that we now prize: Mendelssohn reviving Bach after a considerable period of obscurity, the rediscovery of Schubert's piano works in the early part of the last century, the revival in Mahler's reputation in the 1960s after half a century of relative neglect, the many discoveries of the Early Music movement that brought so much of the genius of the baroque age to light for our generation. We ought to react against the prevailing taste of previous generations, to rediscover our own and to re-evaluate works of the past. I regret that R3 too ofen appears to want to merely rely on inherited values (as it used not to do) and as a result does not get the balance right.

[Flosshilde]

It can’t be ‘nonsense’, since it’s a value judgement. What is pure nonsense is to say it’s ‘pure nonsense’. You mean that you disagree with my judgement. Maybe, but there are a lot of people who agree with my rather innocuous statement, and they’re not all fools like me.

I think a 'value judgement' can be nonsense, & a lot, or a few, people agreeing with it doesn't make it less so.

I do believe that the period from 1770 to 1914 was a golden age of music, rather as the 5th century B.C. was in drama, the Renaissance was in art and the nineteenth century in fiction. (More nonsense, no doubt.)

You're right - it is.

It's a matter of balance, but I think Radio 3 has it roughly right.

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you, since that (so-called) balance works in favour of the music you prefer (& that's what your argument boils down to - that you think that the music you prefer is the 'best'; it's a preference, not even a 'value judgement')

[teamsaint]

JFLL suggests that airspace is limited. However, R3 broadcasts Classical music for what, 20 hours a day? ( or 7 if you take out news bulletins).

That is plenty of time to satisfy all kinds of tastes, surely. Yet huge swathes of music are all but ignored. (Check out the American Classics thread).

And it makes for, all too often sadly, boring programming, that does its listeners, (actual and potential) a huge disservice.

[Flosshilde]

How about a 20th century British music summer on Radio 3 ?

Sounds like a good idea.

[JFLL]

I don't think we ought to rely on what inherited culture has decided for us

I think we have no choice but to accept what ‘inherited culture has decided for us’. (Perhaps that’s not a terribly good way of putting it, because it sounds as though some long-dead people are somehow pulling the strings, but I think you know what I mean.) We can’t second guess what posterity will decide. A national broadcaster must reflect the prevailing culture to a large extent – and that does not at all prevent it from broadcasting new works, re-discovered works, composers, periods, etc., while at the same time giving proper due to tried and tested composers of the past. It’s not a case of either/or. William Glock tried to adopt a more avant-garde role, but at the expense of more or less banning British 20th century music of which he did not approve from the airwaves. Many people nowadays think that was a mistake.

We ought to react against the prevailing taste of previous generations, to rediscover our own and to re-evaluate works of the past.

I don’t think Radio 3 does reflect the ‘prevailing taste of previous generations’, it reflects the taste of our own generation, which necessarily overlaps a good deal with that of the past. Beethoven, for example, does not merely reflect the taste of previous generations, he reflects the taste of our generation, too – unless one thinks he’s passé because he’s been appreciated for a long time. There’s a reason for that, after all. By all means discover previously neglected composers and re-evaluate works of the past. If they pass muster they will pass into the mainstream, become part of our inherited culture, and then Radio 3 will give them more prominence. That has indeed happened with respect to many composers of an earlier age. Meanwhile the new discoveries must rub along with, and no doubt (rightly) play second fiddle to, Beethoven.

[JFLL]

I do believe that the period from 1770 to 1914 was a golden age of music, rather as the 5th century B.C. was in drama, the Renaissance was in art and the nineteenth century in fiction. (More nonsense, no doubt.)

You're right - it is.

Can you tell us why you think that, Flosshilde, instead of just tossing out these routine accusations of ‘nonsense’, which no doubt relieve your feelings of irritation but don’t exactly enlighten us? Or is it so obvious to all but fools like me (and a few million other people)?

[Flosshilde]

Can you tell us why you think that, Flosshilde, instead of just tossing out these routine accusations of ‘nonsense’, which no doubt relieve your feelings of irritation but don’t exactly enlighten us? Or is it so obvious to all but fools like me (and a few million other people)?

Perhaps you could explain why you think that 1770 - 1914 represents a 'golden age' for music? Rather than making generalisations? Why wasn't the age of Monteverdi a 'golden age'?

[Roehre]

... I find there are quite a few works I now deliberately ration to once every 6 months or even once a year to be able to come to them afresh, and it does help for me.

There are for me quite a lot of works which I avoid listening to, in order to avoid over-exposure.
And: listening to the so-called lesser composers gives you an idea why some composers are "better" than others.
Standing permanently at the summit of mountains is boring: it causes loss of the perspective you get standing in the valleys.