Sound of Cinema (Matthew Sweet)

[Nick Armstrong]

I can't see that this programme has previously received a thread of its own, oddly enough.

Whatever some think about film music featuring on R3 (I have no problem with it), I find this series regularly enjoyable and instructive. Matthew Sweet's presentation is very good too, I think.

My interest varies with the subject matter, but some of the programmes have been revelatory for me. I loved the ones last year about Film Noir, Music for Studio Ghibli, and the music of William Alwyn. And most recently, the two programmes devoted to Franz Waxman.

The first of the latter is only available for another 3 days http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09k6s24 and was if anything the more interesting. Some terrific music, well capable of standing on its own.... The programme has sent me off to Qobuz and Amazon to acquire some of it (especially for car journeys).

One of the remaining programmes on R3 that I listen to most often.

[eighthobstruction]

Gad sir....don't clutter yer mind with such stuff

[LMcD]

I'm afraid I find this series very irritating because the musical items are so short.

[doversoul1]

I have only listened to the programme a few times and only part of it as to that but when I first heard it, accidentally, I was surprised to find that the programme was well researched and very well presented. Why can’t we have more programmes on classical music of this standard?

[Anastasius]

I've tried listening to this programme but to my ears the music is so clearly written to support the onscreen visual of the moment and so without the latter the former is pointless.Bit like the programme.

[doversoul1]

I've tried listening to this programme but to my ears the music is so clearly written to support the onscreen visual of the moment and so without the latter the former is pointless.Bit like the programme.

In the programme I was rather impressed, the presenter was comparing how music was used differently to support similar scenes and sequences, and how the different approaches created varying effects. This was all very interesting. However, I do agree with you; unless you happen to know the films, the music alone does not make much sense. Still, I very much appreciate the spirit / rationale of the programme.

[gradus]

I can't see that this programme has previously received a thread of its own, oddly enough.

Whatever some think about film music featuring on R3 (I have no problem with it), I find this series regularly enjoyable and instructive. Matthew Sweet's presentation is very good too, I think.

My interest varies with the subject matter, but some of the programmes have been revelatory for me. I loved the ones last year about Film Noir, Music for Studio Ghibli, and the music of William Alwyn. And most recently, the two programmes devoted to Franz Waxman.

The first of the latter is only available for another 3 days http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09k6s24 and was if anything the more interesting. Some terrific music, well capable of standing on its own.... The programme has sent me off to Qobuz and Amazon to acquire some of it (especially for car journeys).

One of the remaining programmes on R3 that I listen to most often.

Only just caught up with this thread but I share your enthusiasm for the programme and the music of Franz Waxman. It was the John Wilson's performance of the suite from A Place in the Sun with it's extraordinary alto sax solo that turned me on to Waxman. Just in case the related Shostakovitch story passed you by I thought this might be of interest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzti-u2yd3o

[french frank]

Is there an underlying thought that if a programme is well researched and enjoyable, it has a place on Radio 3?

I only half accept the premise (I think Radio 3 can do anything it chooses in, for example, a one-off programme, but not necessarily for a regular strand). But the question for the BBC would be: is it only Radio 3 that does well-researched, enjoyable programmes? Does the fact that a programme is highly enjoyable act as a reason for it to be on Radio 3?

[Declaration of interest: I switched on once to 'Feed the Birds' and haven't been the same since, for which I bear a grudge..

I'd want a presenter who was less of a film person and more of a music person]

[Nick Armstrong]

I'm afraid I find this series very irritating because the musical items are so short.

But that's ideal for a programme about film music, which is often repetitive and can very easily outstay its welcome played in isolation. Only very rarely would I want to listen to long stretches of this sort of music. A few of the programmes have dealt with genres etc which have produced downright dull music, and I suspect it may be one of those that Anastasius caught (see comment above) where even short extracts are tedious wrenched from their supportive context.

However, the majority include a lot of enjoyable stuff - e.g. most recently among those I've heard, the show on 'Monsters' - even though Desplats's score for 'Sound of Water' (which was the trigger for the programme) is twee and part of why I didn't 'buy' this much-lauded film entirely.

And the other plus point of short items is of course that the programme can cover quite a range of films, which I find interesting.

[oddoneout]

Is there an underlying thought that if a programme is well researched and enjoyable, it has a place on Radio 3?

I only half accept the premise (I think Radio 3 can do anything it chooses in, for example, a one-off programme, but not necessarily for a regular strand). But the question for the BBC would be: is it only Radio 3 that does well-researched, enjoyable programmes? Does the fact that a programme is highly enjoyable act as a reason for it to be on Radio 3?

[Declaration of interest: I switched on once to 'Feed the Birds' and haven't been the same since, for which I bear a grudge..

I'd want a presenter who was less of a film person and more of a music person]

In an ideal world all R3 programmes would be well researched and presented, and even in the realms of serious music one would hope there might on occasion be a place for 'enjoyable' as well. I'm not of the school of thought which considers that film music has no place on R3,( although it doesn't interest me greatly) not least because it represents a fairly sizeable body of work - some of it even by bona fide R3 type composers..... I don't very often hear the programme but when I do I am struck by the fact that although I know nothing about films, having seen very few, I find myself sufficiently engaged by the presenter to listen for the things that are highlighted. Listening to and thinking about music is a valid part of R3 I reckon.
I can't help feeling that some at least of the dislike voiced now is because as a weekly programme done to a decent standard, it highlights the failings of other offerings? If,for instance, Choir and Organ used the same template(choose, illustrate, and explain a topic in a competent and knowledgeable way) it might be a programme people would not mind listening to, as opposed to the current situation where it is one to avoid.

[Serial_Apologist]

But that's ideal for a programme about film music, which is often repetitive and can very easily outstay its welcome played in isolation. Only very rarely would I want to listen to long stretches of this sort of music. A few of the programmes have dealt with genres etc which have produced downright dull music, and I suspect it may be one of those that Anastasius caught (see comment above) where even short extracts are tedious wrenched from their supportive context.

What you say there is cringeingly true of this week's Composer of the Week, Cali.

[french frank]

If,for instance, Choir and Organ used the same template(choose, illustrate, and explain a topic in a competent and knowledgeable way) it might be a programme people would not mind listening to, as opposed to the current situation where it is one to avoid.

If that is a generally held view (and I don't mean the criticisms of C&O - we've done that) it might be worth putting that to R3 for a response: namely why is a programme about film music done more thoroughly than one on choir and organ music (need to stand outside the issue myself as I'm not interested in film/cinema and not interested in film music; my impression was that MS was talking more about the films rather than the music but I speak from having listened to a small bit of one programmes ).

[Nick Armstrong]

why is a programme about film music done more thoroughly than one on choir and organ music

Coz choir'n'organ stuff 'as to be made accessible, innit

[oddoneout]

Coz choir'n'organ stuff 'as to be made accessible, innit

Well current practice isn't the way to achieve that. Random bits of music with random presenter input - verges on being worse than the much criticised morning offering - and so manages the clever trick of serving neither the core nor I suspect the more...erm...dilettante audience.

[oddoneout]

why is a programme about film music done more thoroughly than one on choir and organ music .

Perhaps because the former hasn't been subjected to 'improvement' like the latter?