Inside Music

[eighthobstruction]

....I think we have areas -spheres even, of equanimity in the broad (yet salient) bumff of neosis which touch like hypae in the mecelium of stuff....

[Quarky]

Did anyone listen to Esfahani presenting today's programme? I thoroughly enjoyed an eclectic mix of music, plus his relaxed and lightly humorous presenting style.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000pw0f

Totally 100% agreed.

iranian born, formative years in California, and resident in London since 2009, apparently . His personality comes through as essentially voluble and highly enthusiastic American :: fine by me.

Inside Music? Inside enough for me; interesting selection - full of insights - "schmaltzy" early Schoenberg, Handel, JC Bach vs. CPE Bach , various musicians........ Somewhat doctored perhaps in favour of mainstream Classical, but that's to be expected for a Saturday lunchtime programme.

[Nick Armstrong]

The programme with Julius Drake was enjoyable and illuminating (3 April https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000tt74 - not a repeat, afaik)

The link between Schumann and Nina Simone, and Tom Lehrer’s song about Alma Mahler, were highlights, for me

[Nick Armstrong]

One of the best ever editions of the programme today, with Helsinki-based pianist Keval Shah bringing enlightening comments to a great selection of recordings.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00138f6

Excellent 2 hours of broadcasting, R3 at its best imho.

By coincidence, including an interesting take on Schumann, as with the edition mentioned in my previous post.

[oddoneout]

I was doing other things today but in any case I'm afraid that this, in the online schedule, didn't appeal

Pianist Keval Shah with music that caresses the heart

Not his fault I know but coupled with the very hit and miss nature of the programmes I've mostly stopped listening to them. Actually, more accurately I've almost entirely stopped listening to R3 on Saturdays.

[Nick Armstrong]

I was doing other things today but in any case I'm afraid that this, in the online schedule, didn't appeal Not his fault I know but coupled with the very hit and miss nature of the programmes I've mostly stopped listening to them. Actually, more accurately I've almost entirely stopped listening to R3 on Saturdays.

I hadn’t seen the idiotic blurb. (The description in Radio Times is a lot more sensible, which is what I’d read).

I’d be surprised if contributors have anything to do with the ways R3 advertise their programmes.

[gurnemanz]

Inside Music is fine by me. That and BaL are the only Saturday programmes I listen to with any regularity. I remember sometimes listening years ago to a similar programme in the same slot as Inside Music, called Man of Action, so not restricted to musicians and presumably only men were considered to be of interest.

[gradus]

I thought it was an interesting edition with excellent choices including the first of the Dichterliebe sung engagingly in Hindi.

[Nick Armstrong]

Inside Music is fine by me. That and BaL are the only Saturday programmes I listen to with any regularity.

Ditto (although Sound of Cinema sometimes accompanies me on cycle rides)

[Nick Armstrong]

Delightful edition last weekend, with Jean-Efflam Bavouzet

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0016jqy

[jonfan]

I enjoy this programme where professional musicians talk quite spontaneously about music which means something to them. Helen Charlston was excellent today with an eclectic choice. My only quibble is the orchestral introduction to The Dream of Gerontius is a Prelude not an Overture. Good to hear someone starting out on their career speaking so engagingly.

[smittims]

Oh, I wouldn't mind that, jonfan. Musical terms are famously transferable. Haydn's symphonies were descibed as 'overtures' when first played in London. I can't think of a generic difference between a 'prelude' and an 'overture'.

In my experience musicians , whatever their value as performers of music, vary widely in their ability to talk effectively about it. I sometimes think Radio 3 assumes that their remarks will always be as valuable as their performances. Some are : Imogen Cooper , for instance, pointing out that the central section of Schubert's F minor Klavierstuck, D946 no.1 is in B major, a simple statement which forrever illuminated the piece for me. But whenever I hear Mahan Esfahani or Christian Ihle Hadland rambling on and on without saying anything useful I wonder why they bother. And does Sir Mark Elder still harangue his audience? 'In this work (rhetorical pause) I believe (rhetorical pause) Elgar (rhetorical pause ) is saying...' . I want to shout out in my best Kenneth Williams voice 'Aw, get on with it!'.

These people spent years learning to be effective communicators in music, but it doesn't seem to have occurred to them that public speaking is also an acquired skill.

[gurnemanz]

I enjoy this programme where professional musicians talk quite spontaneously about music which means something to them. Helen Charlston was excellent today with an eclectic choice.

I agree. Nice consonant enunciation too.

I remember enjoying "Man of Action" in the same slot decades ago. (Not sure how they got away with the title). It was non-professional music enthusiasts choosing music they loved. I suppose Private Passions does that job now. Kenneth Williams was on it and there was a man whom had spent years as a prisoner of war who told us that one of the few records they had there was the Franck Violin Sonata. He said the interplay of the two instruments was the nearest thing the chaps had to eroticism. I still sometimes think of that when I hear the work.

[french frank]

I'm up for having my mind changed on this programme. However, the sales pitch of "Inside Music" suggested knowledgeable musicians would discuss pieces analytically, technically (as in Discovering Music). I don't feel the starting point of 'music that means something to me' or 'music I love' is likely to be the kind of objective discussion I looked for. It has to be filtered through the lens of 'I've selected works I like' (with comments on what I like it, what it means to me?), doesn't it?

So I'm only, extraordinarily subjectively , explaining why I stopped listening after the first two programmes. I would still find a handful of enlightening insights in a 2-hour programme a disappointment. But then I'm not particularly interested in Private Passions either: I'd prefer a straight interview with someone interesting who has some sort of public profile.

[smittims]

I haven't heard 'Inside Music' but the title does imply analysis rather than emotional reactions in the manner of Radio 4's 'Inheritance tracks' . I gave up on 'Private Passions' becasue it fell between two stools , being neither an in-depth interview of the subject nor , really, a programme of music.

I well remember 'Man of Action'. In the 1970s there was no bar to using the word 'man' in such a context, and the title , from Flecker's 'Hassan' I think, was intended to imply that the inhabitant of 'the field of action' was not expected to be knowledgeable about 'the field of art' , so his choice of music might be an entry for other non-specialist listeners: a part, in fact of the long standing Reithian commitment to adult education.

It was renamed 'I know what I like' , the source of which I need not explain, and I remember its being lampooned by Barry Fantoni as the place wher you'd hear 'retired admirals saying they'd always thought classical music was for cissies until they discovered Bach's Brandenburg Concertos were full of jolly good tunes'.

Of course it's easy to sneer when one was introduced to classical music by a parent with a record collection, or when one went to a good University music department, but in thes days of disappearing public libraries I feel for a child growing up in a house where there are no books and where classical music is met with a short dismissive remark. Maybe 'Inside Music' and Jess Gillam , if she's still around, are just the answer.