Please, make it stop!

[french frank]

Only for those listening too casually to note the development of the accompaniment.

Though, just because the accompaniment develops that doesn't automatically make it interesting. Oh, look! there is a snail moving almost imperceptibly up a bean stick . I think I will watch it for an hour.

[Flosshilde]

Though, just because the accompaniment develops that doesn't automatically make it interesting. Oh, look! there is a snail moving almost imperceptibly up a bean stick . I think I will watch it for an hour.

[Bryn]

Though, just because the accompaniment develops that doesn't automatically make it interesting. Oh, look! there is a snail moving almost imperceptibly up a bean stick . I think I will watch it for an hour.

Surely you could do better then that, frenchie? Is it that far past your bed-time?

[Panjandrum]

absolutely
and to notice the unevenness in the singer which gets more and more beautiful as it goes on.........
listen with the "wrong ears" and you will be disappointed but thats like complaining that Haydn's string quartets are missing the trumpet solo

Er, have you ever listened to a Haydn quartet? Minimalist it ain't.

[MrGongGong]

Er, have you ever listened to a Haydn quartet? Minimalist it ain't.

and ?
I'm not sure what you mean ?

My point was that people often criticise music for not being like the music that they like , seeing that as somehow a deficiency in the music rather than in the context in which they are listening to it.

[Panjandrum]

and ?
I'm not sure what you mean ?

My point was that people often criticise music for not being like the music that they like , seeing that as somehow a deficiency in the music rather than in the context in which they are listening to it.

I was pointing out that there was a level of complexity in Haydn not dreamed of in Bryars' philosophy, and that your analogy, while superficially striking, was not appropriate.

[Bryn]

... dreamed of in Bryars' philosophy ...

[Flosshilde]

and ?
I'm not sure what you mean ?

My point was that people often criticise music for not being like the music that they like , seeing that as somehow a deficiency in the music rather than in the context in which they are listening to it.

See my post no. 13 in relation to context.

I don't dislike minimalist music, & repetition with subtle changes can be effective in any art form. With this piece the constant repetition of the vocal element, for me, was like fingernails on a blackboard. I might have appreciated the work more if that vocal element had been subject to change as well as the instrumental. But then it would have been a different work, & the foregoing comments could be taken as proof of Mr GongGong's assertion

[Flosshilde]

I was pointing out that there was a level of complexity in Haydn not dreamed of in Bryars' philosophy, and that your analogy, while superficially striking, was not appropriate.

Missing the point somewhat. I understood completely what Mr GongGong was saying.

[Norfolk Born]

Though, just because the accompaniment develops that doesn't automatically make it interesting. Oh, look! there is a snail moving almost imperceptibly up a bean stick . I think I will watch it for an hour.

[Panjandrum]

Missing the point somewhat. I understood completely what Mr GongGong was saying.

I think not. The point GG was making (as I understood it) was that to complain about the development of material in Jesus' Love would be as ridiculous as to say where is the trumpet solo in a Haydn quartet. My point was that any Haydn string qt would have far greater musical depth and complexity than Jesus' Love and, therefore one would not ever be tempted to think that it lacked a solo for another instrument, even were one so cloth eared or musically ignorant as to suppose that such a solecism could or should be perpetrated.

[Flosshilde]

Which demonstrates that you were missing Mr GG's point, which, as he said, wasn't about simplicity or complexity, but about wanting a piece of music to be something it wasn't intended to be. Haydn's quartets weren't intended to have parts for trumpet, so there isn't any ground for complaining when a trumpet doesn't appear.

(which wasn't, however, my grounds for protesting about 'Jesus' blood never failed me yet')

[french frank]

Surely you could do better then that, frenchie? Is it that far past your bed-time?

Well, Bryn, I'm only pointing out that the fact that a piece of music develops almost imperceptibly for an hour - and requires careful listening to detect that - would not in itself (or, as I said, automatically) make it engaging as a piece of music ... notwithstanding your reasonable point that the almost imperceptible development does free the piece in question from the charge of being endlessly repetitive.

I intended my comment as a leading on from, rather than an objection to, your comment; an almost imperceptible development of the argument, perhaps.

[amateur51]

Which demonstrates that you were missing Mr GG's point, which, as he said, wasn't about simplicity or complexity, but about wanting a piece of music to be something it wasn't intended to be. Haydn's quartets weren't intended to have parts for trumpet, so there isn't any ground for complaining when a trumpet doesn't appear.

Hooray, Flossie! - thank you

I have fond memories of the piece in question but then I haven't heard it for, oooh ten years?

[Flay]

All this negative bickering is getting nowhere. Some like it, some hate it. It reminds me or the Curly Wurly bar that came out about the same time. Remember, it "lasted forever"?



Jesus' Blood was a fascinating project at the time. Of course not everybody has heard it before so why shouldn't it have an occasional airing. I don't object to hearing it once in a while. I think the last time we heard it on R3 was in a live performance during Listen Up! ()

I believe a more interesting discussion would be about other ways of arranging the JB riff.
Has any other composer tried it? Perhaps as rap music?

Could YOU do it better? Perhaps there should be a competition.