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

[doversoul1]

I guess you either have no announcements or you have announcements
Those of us who make performances often agonise about whether to say something before the music, after the music, in a programme or say nothing at all.
It seems to me that the essence of this gig was to say nothing in advance. I guess there could be a programme on afterwards consisting of a list of all the names of the pieces.

Firstly, announcing the composer, the work, and in this case, the reason for the choice isn’t quite the same thing as the musicians saying something about their works. I assume your audience (usually) knows what and whom they come to listen to.

Secondly, it is not the question of whether or not the information should be provided. In this case it was made clear that the information was provided to be read. Only, some listeners were deprived of it for reasons that weren’t their choice.

[jean]

I would say (badly summarising the great Trevor Wishart) that the two listening experiences are as different as looking at the cheese picture and devouring the Stinking Bishop

Although even your bad summary recognises that you are comparing a pair of listening experiences with another pair of experiences, one depending on sight, and the other on taste (and smell.)

You do know you're fast becoming a parody of yourself, don't you?

[Anastasius]

I wish they'd put the CD number. I was taken by the Bernstein Mahler 9 on CBS but unable to track it down without a CD number. Too busy populating the web page with that stupid My Playlist nonsense.

[MrGongGong]

Firstly, announcing the composer, the work, and in this case, the reason for the choice isn’t quite the same thing as the musicians saying something about their works. I assume your audience (usually) knows what and whom they come to listen to.

Sometimes but not always

[/QUOTE]
Secondly, it is not the question of whether or not the information should be provided. In this case it was made clear that the information was provided to be read. Only, some listeners were deprived of it for reasons that weren’t their choice.[/QUOTE]

So, tell me, how do you provide the information for a sequence of unannounced pieces without making announcements?
This is quite normal in other musical contexts

Although even your bad summary recognises that you are comparing a pair of listening experiences with another pair of experiences, one depending on sight, and the other on taste (and smell.)

You do know you're fast becoming a parody of yourself, don't you?

And ? (i'm not sure that I give a .... or take this particularly "seriously" anyway)
Just musings on the internet

[oddoneout]

There isn't always a "need" for a list IMV
... 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).

You may not feel there is always a need for a list, but plenty of people think differently, and more to the point in my view is the question of choice. The existence of a list whether before, behind or wherever does not automatically lead to the behaviour in brackets above because no-one is forced to look at the list just because it exists. I consider that it is my choice however, and not one that Auntie should be making for me. As I have said previously I am happy to listen without knowing what I am listening to or what might be coming up(which I now largely do anyway as I've stopped having the RT), but I do want the chance to find out that information should I choose.

[MrGongGong]

You may not feel there is always a need for a list, but plenty of people think differently, and more to the point in my view is the question of choice. The existence of a list whether before, behind or wherever does not automatically lead to the behaviour in brackets above because no-one is forced to look at the list just because it exists. I consider that it is my choice however, and not one that Auntie should be making for me. As I have said previously I am happy to listen without knowing what I am listening to or what might be coming up(which I now largely do anyway as I've stopped having the RT), but I do want the chance to find out that information should I choose.

But there IS a list in this instance ?
I was only musing on having an absence of one as a potentially interesting thing
The whole "my choice" thing is a bit of a red herring to me, you don't HAVE to listen to the radio if you don't want to.


Sometimes it's good IMV to have less choice and for things to simply be "temporal documents"
This reminds me of this http://www.the17.org/about.php. When he did it at HCMF a few years ago some of the folks involved became extremely cross when they found out that the recording would only be played once and then completely deleted.

[oddoneout]

But there IS a list in this instance ?
I was only musing on having an absence of one as a potentially interesting thing
The whole "my choice" thing is a bit of a red herring to me, you don't HAVE to listen to the radio if you don't want to.


Sometimes it's good IMV to have less choice and for things to simply be "temporal documents"
This reminds me of this http://www.the17.org/about.php. When he did it at HCMF a few years ago some of the folks involved became extremely cross when they found out that the recording would only be played once and then completely deleted.

OK OK I get the message. I'll slope off to my totally unsatisfactory way of experiencing the music world and trouble you no further.

[french frank]

Sometimes it's good IMV to have less choice and for things to simply be "temporal documents"
This reminds me of this http://www.the17.org/about.php. When he did it at HCMF a few years ago some of the folks involved became extremely cross when they found out that the recording would only be played once and then completely deleted.

I really get quite embarrassed about pressing this point, but could I suggest that when 'classical' music listeners are listening to 'classical' music there will ALWAYS be more context to the music than when listening to contemporary music where there becomes less comparable 'context' the more contemporary it gets. So that with new music the audience will never have heard it and are less likely to have heard anything else by that composer. What can you say but 'Listen with open ears: you don't need any other information'? And it makes sense in that context.

[MrGongGong]

OK OK I get the message. I'll slope off to my totally unsatisfactory way of experiencing the music world and trouble you no further.

You can listen however you like chum
but you seemed to be complaining about the lack of a playlist that obviously exists

[MrGongGong]

I really get quite embarrassed about pressing this point, but could I suggest that when 'classical' music listeners are listening to 'classical' music there will ALWAYS be more context to the music than when listening to contemporary music where there becomes less comparable 'context' the more contemporary it gets. So that with new music the audience will never have heard it and are less likely to have heard anything else by that composer. What can you say but 'Listen with open ears: you don't need any other information'? And it makes sense in that context.

You could suggest it
But not everyone would necessarily agree with you
But that's fine if you want to think that there is "more context" to "classical" music

[french frank]

But that's fine if you want to think that there is "more context" to "classical" music

Perhaps you'd like to disuss that since you seem to want to disagree?

What I meant by comparable [in bold] context is that listeners will bring their own experience of having heard the work before (or not), having heard some or many works by the same composer, of knowing where the music fits in the the wide chronological spread from medieval to modern times. Things that they already know. And they want to listen to the music through the prism of that experience. Choosing to go to a 'blind tasting' is just another option. There may be - expand on it if you like - a context of a different kind behind a brand new piece of music by an unpublished or unfamiliar composer. I'm assuming you would argue that whatever that context may be, the listeners don't need to have it spelled out before they listen.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I fail to see how people can see any drawback to a playlist to be published in advance. Those who want it can look at it. Those who don't can ignore it.

The issue here is that Rob and Sarah exercise power over us all by keeping it a big secret.

[MrGongGong]

Perhaps you'd like to disuss that since you seem to want to disagree?

What I meant by comparable [in bold] context is that listeners will bring their own experience of having heard the work before (or not), having heard some or many works by the same composer, of knowing where the music fits in the the wide chronological spread from medieval to modern times. Things that they already know. And they want to listen to the music through the prism of that experience. Choosing to go to a 'blind tasting' is just another option. There may be - expand on it if you like - a context of a different kind behind a brand new piece of music by an unpublished or unfamiliar composer. I'm assuming you would argue that whatever that context may be, the listeners don't need to have it spelled out before they listen.

Not really

ALL I would suggest is that SOMETIMES it's interesting to experience different musics from different perspectives
Some folks seem totally outraged that for ONE day R3 presented music without commentary and in a sequence that they found "tricky"
to my mind that's exactly what R3 should be doing
I'm not making any rules or suggesting that things should always be done one way or another
And you don't really want me repeating the same old stuff anyway

The bits of this I stumbled upon I found worthwhile.
I do, however, (again ) wish that more of the "classical music audience" would think a bit about listening strategies in the way that those involved with electroacoustic and acousmatic music have had to.

[Dave2002]

Didn't get this before. There is a playlist now - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b080xq5d and similarly for the other part. The iPlayer Radio thing doesn't appear to mention/link to this- not on my iPad, anyway.

[Padraig]

As it turned out I did not have much chance to give prolonged attention to the radio on Sunday: therefore I couldn't discover more than a) recognising a piece here and there, and b) wondering briefly if there was a subtle connection with the next piece, where I had the time. Overall I heard about a dozen pieces, including in random order a Bach Cantata and Partita for solo violin; Miles and Duke; Schubert D960; The Silver Swan; Kathleen Ferrier and Different Trains. I'm afraid I failed miserably to enter the spirit of adventure and mystery, but not deliberately; I did not look for a playlist until after the programme.
However, now that the music played is available for leisurely listening one can treat the programme like any other, but with not much surprise. Somehow I find that not as exciting, in theory, but possibly less demanding, in reality.
I would vote, if asked, for another go with any amendments learned from feedback.