If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I am more than happy to be corrected. Spelling is (along with a lot of other) not my strongest point. (Having said that, there are rather a lot… )
Fiona Talkington, Louise Fryer and Susan Sharpe. While I have occasionally been chastised for my insistence on correct spelling and grammar, I think it might be wise to spell peoples' names correctly in this case, as to do otherwise might be construed as a mark of disrespect to those whose praises one wishes to sing.
I've noticed a few comments about Sean Rafferty - I think he is very good at his main job, In Tune. Whenever he's away the programme lacks the lightness (in the best sense) & ease he brings to it. He's also been a more than capable concert presenter when I've heard him.
I agree that SR gets a disproportionate share of disapprobation. I sometimes find In Tune hard to take, when SR takes his strengths to the point where they become weaknesses, and lightness become campy triviality. Nevertheless, the IT format presents some real difficulties, with live interviews and a tight timeframe. At his best, SR prompts performers, whose strength is more likely to be communication in music than in words, to say some interesting things, while being cheerful and kind. While some of his interviewees have probably been well coached in the art of the soundbite, some, it is painfully obvious, are uncomfortable or inexperienced, and it can't be easy getting someone who is young and/or tongue-tied and/or a non-native speaker of English, to say something interesting, fairly quickly. Sometimes it goes badly wrong, but sometimes it's agreeable and mildly informative. Even at its coquettish worst, I prefer that to hearing interviewees harangued (e.g. Lebrecht badgering Hilary Hahn about why she doesn't seem to have a boyfriend) or asked portentously-sympathetic questions (e.g., Suzy Klein asking someone or other about how hard it is to maintain a 'work-life balance').
While some of [SR's] interviewees have probably been well coached in the art of the soundbite, some, it is painfully obvious, are uncomfortable or inexperienced, and it can't be easy getting someone who is young and/or tongue-tied and/or a non-native speaker of English, to say something interesting, fairly quickly. Sometimes it goes badly wrong, but sometimes it's agreeable and mildly informative. Even at its coquettish worst, I prefer that to hearing interviewees harangued (e.g. Lebrecht badgering Hilary Hahn about why she doesn't seem to have a boyfriend) or asked portentously-sympathetic questions (e.g., Suzy Klein asking someone or other about how hard it is to maintain a 'work-life balance').
Mon Dieu! Did those two things really happen? I suppose that they must have done, otherwise you'd not have mentioned them! If I'd been Hilary Hahn, I might have been tempted to respond to that particular part of the egregious NL's interrogation by putting forward the equally silly suggestion that it's because she prefers the Schönberg Concerto to boyfriends (and anyone reading this who's heard her fabulous recording of that seemingly long-intractable work will know what I mean here). As to the SK question, what IS a "work-life balance" other than a notion that has - and indeed can have - little or no possible impact upon or relevance to the careers of most composers and performers? - and the thought that an R3 presenter wouldn't already be well aware of this doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence, does it?
Surely at least some of these presenters are performing as they do against their better judgment -- at the behest of producers who are following orders from higher up the chain of command.
Mon Dieu! Did those two things really happen? I suppose that they must have done, otherwise you'd not have mentioned them! If I'd been Hilary Hahn, I might have been tempted to respond to that particular part of the egregious NL's interrogation by putting forward the equally silly suggestion that it's because she prefers the Schönberg Concerto to boyfriends (and anyone reading this who's heard her fabulous recording of that seemingly long-intractable work will know what I mean here). As to the SK question, what IS a "work-life balance" other than a notion that has - and indeed can have - little or no possible impact upon or relevance to the careers of most composers and performers? - and the thought that an R3 presenter wouldn't already be well aware of this doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence, does it?
I don't know whether Hahn prefers music to boyfriends; her archly chilly response to NL indicated that she just wasn't going to discuss this in public. Good for her. If he really is the incisive cultural critic that he (or his handlers) present him as being, he should have been asking her about Schönberg et al., rather than the sort of questions any dizzy reporter for Mademoiselle or The Tatler could have asked (personally, I'd like to have heard more about the Ives sonatas). As for work-life balance, what annoyed me about this was, first, the notion that this is somehow harder for a musician than for someone who scrubs floors for a living, but second (and even more), that people listening to an interview with a musician want to hear about something other than music.
Perhaps someone should start a thread about what questions listeners would actually like interviewers to ask of various musicians.
I don't know whether Hahn prefers music to boyfriends; her archly chilly response to NL indicated that she just wasn't going to discuss this in public. Good for her. If he really is the incisive cultural critic that he (or his handlers) present him as being, he should have been asking her about Schönberg et al., rather than the sort of questions any dizzy reporter for Mademoiselle or The Tatler could have asked (personally, I'd like to have heard more about the Ives sonatas).
Much as the majority of my responses to NL's outpourings have long been broadly negative, the really sad thing for me is that he does actually seem to have - or at least to have had - some of the prerequisites of the kind of incisive cultural critic as which he seeks to portray himself and as which his handlers seek to portray him as being; every now and then, he writes something that's sharp, snappy, to the point, courageous and really needs to be written, but most of the time he seems to prefer the sound of his own voice and that of his fingertips bashing his computer keyboard.
As for work-life balance, what annoyed me about this was, first, the notion that this is somehow harder for a musician than for someone who scrubs floors for a living, but second (and even more), that people listening to an interview with a musician want to hear about something other than music.
As to the first point, I must take a different viewpoint from yours here; those who scrub floors for a living usually do it within set hours, outside which they can at least try to live some kind of life, whereas the performer and composer have far less opportunities to do so because the hours occupied by their work and their thoughts about that work - not to mention international travel to and from it - are generally far harder to restrict. As to the second, do you mean that you're annoyed by the fact (if indeed it is one) that "people listening to an interview with a musician want to hear about something other than music" or by the perception or supposition on the part of some of those who interview musicians that "people listening to an interview with a musician want to hear about something other than music"? - if the latter, I can empathise...
Indeed - but I take leave to doubt that he'd have been anything like as keen on his very close contemporary Schönberg's Violin Concerto (if ever he'd heard it, that is)...
those who scrub floors for a living usually do it within set hours, outside which they can at least try to live some kind of life, whereas the performer and composer have far less opportunities to do so because the hours occupied by their work and their thoughts about that work - not to mention international travel to and from it - are generally far harder to restrict. As to the second, do you mean that you're annoyed by the fact (if indeed it is one) that "people listening to an interview with a musician want to hear about something other than music" or by the perception or supposition on the part of some of those who interview musicians that "people listening to an interview with a musician want to hear about something other than music"? - if the latter, I can empathise...
Those who scrub floors may do their first job within set hours, but many have to do something else as well to make ends meet. Moreover, when they get home, they most likely have to scrub their own floors (not having cleaners, as the better off may have) or (gasp!) may actually have to wash their own dishes, not having dishwashers. Such tasks mop up time, but can't really be considered 'life'. The fact that people have high-level jobs doesn't mean they necessarily have less time to spend on something other than paid employment or drudgery; those at the lower end of the income spectrum may spend less time on tasks related to their paid work, but more on the home-drudgery they can't pay other people to do. Life is hard all round.
Second, speaking as someone who does the kind of work that could easily expand to fit every waking moment of my time, I've grown suspicious of people who say their career absorbs their life. If high-level professional musicians are spending such vast amounts of time performing and travelling that they don't have time for a personal life, then they are doing that by choice: one can pick and choose assignments. In my own field, those who claim to be the busiest are those who choose never to say no. They are the people for whom it is existentially necessary to be ever on the run and who boast about how full their diaries are: the constant activity becomes an end in itself, proof that one really is important. That's their choice. If it makes them happy, good; but I don't feel sorry for them, given that the lives they lead are precisely the lives they've chosen to lead. Moreover, at least in my field, those who endlessly run around are not those who produce the best work.
Music is for me an avocation; when I listen to people for whom it is a career or vocation, I want to hear what they have to say about music, not about how hard it is to get the dry cleaner's before they close. A musician doesn't know any more about that than I do, and what I know, I wouldn't presume anyone else wants to hear.
Those who scrub floors may do their first job within set hours, but many have to do something else as well to make ends meet. Moreover, when they get home, they most likely have to scrub their own floors (not having cleaners, as the better off may have) or (gasp!) may actually have to wash their own dishes, not having dishwashers. Such tasks mop up time, but can't really be considered 'life'. The fact that people have high-level jobs doesn't mean they necessarily have less time to spend on something other than paid employment or drudgery; those at the lower end of the income spectrum may spend less time on tasks related to their paid work, but more on the home-drudgery they can't pay other people to do. Life is hard all round.
I accept your points here, but I merely responded to your specific reference to floor scrubbing and not to what you now write about what those who do that for what passes for a living do with the rest of their time.
Second, speaking as someone who does the kind of work that could easily expand to fit every waking moment of my time, I've grown suspicious of people who say their career absorbs their life. If high-level professional musicians are spending such vast amounts of time performing and travelling that they don't have time for a personal life, then they are doing that by choice: one can pick and choose assignments. In my own field, those who claim to be the busiest are those who choose never to say no. They are the people for whom it is existentially necessary to be ever on the run and who boast about how full their diaries are: the constant activity becomes an end in itself, proof that one really is important. That's their choice. If it makes them happy, good; but I don't feel sorry for them, given that the lives they lead are precisely the lives they've chosen to lead. Moreover, at least in my field, those who endlessly run around are not those who produce the best work.
But it's not just about "running around" or doing 8 hours practice daily when not running around or actually performing - it's about what goes on in the mind at many other times; try composing as I do and shoehorn all your work and your thoughts about it into neat little packages! Yes, choices of a kind might be involved in some of these cases, but whilst that doesn't of itself mean that this "work/life balance" thing is necessarily so very different to what it might be for those to whom such choices might be less easily available, it's not always so easy to push work-related issues completely to one side whenever one is not actually at one's desk, on the podium or piano stool, in the plane or whatever.
Music is for me an avocation; when I listen to people for whom it is a career or vocation, I want to hear what they have to say about music, not about how hard it is to get the dry cleaner's before they close. A musician doesn't know any more about that than I do, and what I know, I wouldn't presume anyone else wants to hear.
Comment