River of Music: 12 hrs Non-stop Music: Sunday 30 October

[MrGongGong]

As for the innocent ear aspect, it might have been effective, had I not recognised nearly everything instantly. I missed the surprises, because 12-hour listening is rarely "listening"; it's background music.

Hence the need for a

PLAYLIST

I think that says more about YOU than anyone else
There isn't always a "need" for a list IMV

YOU might treat it as "background" music BUT that also says something about the way you imagine music to be
ask La Monte Young , Pauline Oliveros or many others who are more than happy to really listen (and NOT do the competitive "oooo it's Reggie in 1957, how marvellous", point scoring malarkey).

[MrGongGong]

A "Playlist" is a list of words about some aspects of the music
How about we have
a list of times of day the recordings were made
or
a list of the places the music was recorded in
or
a list of the microphones used
or
a list of the ages of all the instruments

and so on

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes, that . But that would still miss the point - in my opinion - about the idea behind the event. But, as I suggested, each listener was free to savour the moment or switch off with horrible curses, or whatever. To make of it what they would. But the idea behind it, the intended point, would be the same.

The problem for me, (as I think you're implying), is that simply to de-gut any kind of presentation of its underlying idea by presenting that which is presented as merely a series of stand-alone objects divorced from context deprives said objects (bits and pieces of music in this case) of meaning, and thus of reaching any kind of understanding or consensus contributing to a sense of community.

I don't think this is what Berio intended in composing the third movement of his "Sinfonia": I think he was anticipating what we now see. By being presented part of the picture, or several pictures, without comment, absence of comment becomes its own commentary. We're all experiencing this thing, whatever it happens to be, as something different, in the pretense that by changing its shape, context and therefore meaning it re-acquires some original in-itselfness shorn of ideological and other baggage. Isn't this symptomatic of the kind of atomised, individualised reality experience mediated by an idea held by people who go along with a society of disconnected consumer individuals glued to mobiles and like instruments of so-called connectivity for contact of any kind, with celebrities the new purveyors of wisdom and models for emulation, rather than having libraries, pubs and shopping centres as meeting points cluttering the way? Eddie Prevost once wrote a piece titled "No sound is Innocent", and I hold to his view.

[french frank]

The problem for me, (as I think you're implying), is that simply to de-gut any kind of presentation of its underlying idea by presenting that which is presented as merely a series of stand-alone objects divorced from context deprives said objects (bits and pieces of music in this case) of meaning, and thus of reaching any kind of understanding or consensus contributing to a sense of community.

To be clear I was trying to divest my argument of any suggestion of personal preference. Casting that aside, yes, I prefer, perhaps, ooh, 30secs minimum of contexualisation, or People Speaking Words. Failing that, something I can read. I don't trust myself to make all the meaningful connections that may be present - merely a sort of Blue Peter philosophical construction made with odd boxes that I happen to have about the place. I do want something based on fact to work from.

[ahinton]

Cage to the rescue?

Not really, I fear. For example, when Sorabji was in his latter 80s (and still composing), he had a severe and irrevocable falling out with a friend of several decades who had for some time done as much as he could to promote the composer's work insofar as he was able (given both Sorabji's pathological unconcern for its fate and the fact that his friend was not a professional musician); the problem here was that said friend decided to become increasingly proprietorial over what it seems he had rather taken to himself because of that friendship and the fact that Sorabji's work was beginning to be disseminated more widely without his help evidently made his feel uncomfortable). Another even longer-standing friend of the composer told him that, once he'd written each piece, the piece no longer "belonged" to him (copyrighgt law notwithstanding) but was there for anyone who wanted to listen to it, provided that performances would take place; his point was not only to assure the troubled composer but also to seek to distinguish between "ownership" of the creative process during the time when it was in operation and the "ownership" of the work once created.

[jean]

Cage to the rescue?

In that extract, Cage is quoted as saying "We are getting rid of ownership, substituting use".

But Victor Burgin (who is doing the quoting) is primarily a visual artist. He goes on to say 'attitudes towards materials in art are still informed largely by the laws of conspicuous consumption', and there I see an argument I'm very familiar with from discussions with people involved in the visual arts, where an object is created which may indeed be 'possessed' in a way that a piece of music never can be, and may, as a result of the will to 'possess' it, acquire a material value in a way that a piece of music never can.

There is a strong desire to possess and own music, those (myself included) who have multiple versions of the "same" piece are an example of this as is the idea of "building a library" and so on

Don't really get this.

I want to hear music - a relatively blameless aspiration, surely?

If I buy a CD, it's usually of something I'm not going to find it easy to hear a live performance of.

[ahinton]

The problem for me, (as I think you're implying), is that simply to de-gut any kind of presentation of its underlying idea by presenting that which is presented as merely a series of stand-alone objects divorced from context deprives said objects (bits and pieces of music in this case) of meaning, and thus of reaching any kind of understanding or consensus contributing to a sense of community.

I don't think this is what Berio intended in composing the third movement of his "Sinfonia": I think he was anticipating what we now see. By being presented part of the picture, or several pictures, without comment, absence of comment becomes its own commentary. We're all experiencing this thing, whatever it happens to be, as something different, in the pretense that by changing its shape, context and therefore meaning it re-acquires some original in-itselfness shorn of ideological and other baggage. Isn't this symptomatic of the kind of atomised, individualised reality experience mediated by an idea held by people who go along with a society of disconnected consumer individuals glued to mobiles and like instruments of so-called connectivity for contact of any kind, with celebrities the new purveyors of wisdom and models for emulation, rather than having libraries, pubs and shopping centres as meeting points cluttering the way? Eddie Prevost once wrote a piece titled "No sound is Innocent", and I hold to his view.

What a wonderfully pertinent post! Many thanks for this!

[vinteuil]

.

... I am of those who like to know in advance what is on offer. There are some musics which I know will not be enjoyable for me in certain moods. Fr' instance I know in advance that the Dream of Gerontius or the works of Einaudi will disagree with me on any day ending in "y". There are certain works by Bach or Beethoven for which I wish to be in particularly receptive circumstances.

This 'innocent ear' malarkey is all very well, and I have enjoyed being tickled by it sometimes. I can't think it a particularly good idea for a whole day's broadcast.

[ahinton]

.

... I am of those who like to know in advance what is on offer. There are some musics which I know will not be enjoyable for me in certain moods. Fr' instance I know in advance that the Dream of Gerontius or the works of Einaudi will disagree with me on any day ending in "y". There are certain works by Bach or Beethoven for which I wish to be in particularly receptive circumstances.

This 'innocent ear' malarkey is all very well, and I have enjoyed being tickled by it sometimes. I can't think it a particularly good idea for a whole day's broadcast.

Well, to be fair, it was only half a day, not a whole one!

[MrGongGong]

.

... I am of those who like to know in advance what is on offer. There are some musics which I know will not be enjoyable for me in certain moods. Fr' instance I know in advance that the Dream of Gerontius or the works of Einaudi will disagree with me on any day ending in "y". There are certain works by Bach or Beethoven for which I wish to be in particularly receptive circumstances.

This 'innocent ear' malarkey is all very well, and I have enjoyed being tickled by it sometimes. I can't think it a particularly good idea for a whole day's broadcast.

How do you know what you like though if you never listen to things you don't know about in advance?
Maybe if I stumbled on DoG without realising it I would be transported and change my view entirely ?

[MrGongGong]

If I buy a CD, it's usually of something I'm not going to find it easy to hear a live performance of.

I don't think like that
In the same way that I like cheese and I like pictures of cheese but don't think that one is a substitute for the other.

[jean]

The difference is that I can listen to the CD and experience the music in a way which is not utterly dissimilar to the experience I would have in church or concert hall, but if I attempt to eat the picture of the cheese, the best I can hope for is indigestion.

(Shades of a past discussion creeping in)

[teamsaint]

How do you know what you like though if you never listen to things you don't know about in advance?
Maybe if I stumbled on DoG without realising it I would be transported and change my view entirely ?

Yes, surely this is the beauty of radio,the aspect of being confronted with the unexpected , and as much so in these days of targeted Spotify /youtube Playlists and so on?
Things I didn't know existed, things I didn't think I'd like, things finally heard , by chance, at the right moment, or juxtaposed in just the right way?

I just didn't think the bit of Radio I heard yesterday did that terribly well, or, I suppose, in a way that works for me.

[french frank]

I don't think like that
In the same way that I like cheese and I like pictures of cheese but don't think that one is a substitute for the other.

Or, as you usually say, Ceci n'est pas … The cheese analogy isn't really appropriate, though, is it?

The impression you give is of not merely proselytising [sic ), suggesting that yours is somehow a 'superior' musical experience; but also of devaluing the way others choose to experience it, which is an argument I don't see the point of. All your exemplars tend to come from a fairly narrow chronological range. Perhaps you feel they are the ones who provided the authentic key to 'How to Listen':

[MrGongGong]

The impression you give is of not merely proselytising [sic ), suggesting that yours is somehow a 'superior' musical experience;

Nonsense
I'm not suggesting anyone does anything different at all
Or even that the way I SOMETIMES listen is 'superior' or anything like it
those of us who spend lots of time listening intently to stuff are odd

Other people can do what they like
It's just interesting to sometimes base things on listening rather than words

Recordings and performances are like cheese and pictures of cheese
not the same but related