The Classic FM-isation of R3 is almost complete

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Why do I think you were in a temper? Well, you appeared to be in such a spluttering rage you managed to magic up a Schoenberg film score where none exists (I repeat – Schoenberg wrote no film scores!) and that you felt compelled to quote yourself from a thread from 18 months ago! This does suggest quite a bit of self-defensiveness on your part.

Ah! So you misread my tone as much as you did Babbitt's. Fair enough.

[Beef Oven]

You need snookers now DavidP

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

You need snookers now DavidP

Nah - he's a man ahead of his time: he even managed to respond to one of my posts before I'd posted it. Respect!

[DavidP]

I don't feel inclined to let this rest, given certain lines of 'argument' that are being pursued.

Who appointed you gatekeeper? Oh, I forgot, you have appointed yourself!

Film music as a genre is akin to jazz in one respect: it was born in the 20th c. It is quite unlike ballet music (or 'opera music'): it has not been part of the classical tradition for centuries, developing musically down the ages. Lully's music is baroque, Tchaikovsky's romantic, Ravel's of the early 20th c.

That’s because films were only born in the 20th century! Just as electronic media were. According to your definition R3 shouldn’t be including much Varese or Stockhausen either. (No radios either in the time of Lully – so that’s at least one piece by Cage that has to go!)

Film music is a, broadly speaking 'popular' genre - and, no, that doesn't mean 'pop', it simply means music in a lighter style which has broad appeal.

Film music is no more ‘light’ than the music of many classical composers themselves. (There goes all those ‘lollipops’ Beecham used to play at the end of his concerts!) Maybe you could tell us which of these composers you would also like to see excluded?

It is no more 'classical' than contemporary pop music (broad sense) - also a genre which has grown up over the 20th centuriy in its own myriad styles.

A large part of film music has either been written by ‘classical’ composers themselves or by composers thoroughly trained in the classical music tradition (Well, late and post-romantic actually). The musical language, grammar, whatever you want to call it is the same, the stylistic differences between film and non-film often less than between one ‘school’ or another or one composer and another. This renders all your arguments about R3’s remit irrelevant and totally beside the point. So you can repeat this nonsense as many times as you like - it doesn’t make your argument true or cause the ‘problem’ to go away.

From Schoenberg through to Cage, Babbitt or Eliott Carter (who I regard as the 20th c. 'classical composers') I would find it hard to find a composer writing in a style like John Williams, Danny Elfman or John Barry.

True, most film music hasn’t been written in a bang-up-to-date avant garde style. But classical composers at any period have draw on many different styles making it all but impossible to arbitrate which is "right". But whether music is written in the most up-to-date style or not is irrelevant. A lot of contemporary music (any period's contemporary music) is rubbish and, in every age, there have always been composers who wrote in a more conservative style. Just to pick some names at random from the 20th century, Bernstein, Barber, Menotti, Britten, Walton etc. Yet again perhaps you could enlighten us which of these composers you would also like to exclude from R3?

[Richard Tarleton]

Any thoughts on ordinary listeners, or cliques, David (seeing you used the terms)?

[DavidP]

Any thoughts on ordinary listeners, or cliques, David (seeing you used the terms)?

By their behavior shall ye know them. As I said it depends on how I'm treated here now and in the future. I shall keep an open mind on this. I have hopes. For instance, I'm glad to see that there are one or two fairly decent and open-minded contributors to this thread (I won't mention them to spare their embarrasment!)

[french frank]

Who appointed you gatekeeper? Oh, I forgot, you have appointed yourself!

I just thought I'd repeat that ... :-)

That’s because films were only born in the 20th century! Just as electronic media were. According to your definition R3 shouldn’t be including much Varese or Stockhausen either. (No radios either in the time of Lully – so that’s at least one piece by Cage that has to go!)

The first statement merely restates the point I was making. It was my argument. One isn't talking about the technology itself but the music that was born directly of that technology.

Film music is no more ‘light’ than the music of many classical composers themselves. (There goes all those ‘lollipops’ Beecham used to play at the end of his concerts!) Maybe you could tell us which of these composers you would also like to see excluded?

That was not my argument: it's not 'because it is film music' that it is 'light' (as I said - you can mention many scores, I'm sure, that aren't). It's that the works that one hears most often under the title 'film music' - the themes from the blockbusters - are mainly 'light' and broadly popular. These aren't regular features of the concert hall (as yet).

A large part of film music has either been written by ‘classical’ composers themselves or by composers thoroughly trained in the classical music tradition (Well, late and post-romantic actually). The musical language, grammar, whatever you want to call it is the same, the stylistic differences between film and non-film often less than between one ‘school’ or another or one composer and another. This renders all your arguments about R3’s remit irrelevant and totally beside the point. So you can repeat this nonsense as many times as you like - it doesn’t make your argument true or cause the ‘problem’ to go away.

Gershwin wrote a piano concerto, often played (esp. in part on Radio 3). That doesn't mean that everything he wrote is 'classical'. Nor does it mean that nothing written by a standard classical composer can be described as 'non-classical'. Composers do straddle both traditions.

True, most film music hasn’t been written in a bang-up-to-date avant garde style. But classical composers at any period have draw on many different styles making it all but impossible to arbitrate which is "right". But whether music is written in the most up-to-date style or not is irrelevant. A lot of contemporary music (any period's contemporary music) is rubbish and, in every age, there have always been composers who wrote in a more conservative style. Just to pick some names at random from the 20th century, Bernstein, Barber, Menotti, Britten, Walton etc. Yet again perhaps you could enlighten us which of these composers you would also like to exclude from R3?

I would only 'exclude' one but I would regard my reasons for doing so as unreasonable and illogical, namely my personal taste. Britten a conservative? Perhaps in turn, you'd like to say which contemporary classical works are 'rubbish'?

The water is being muddied by Radio 3's current strategy to make itself more popular with the general public which feels 'daunted' (BBC word) by classical music. The Proms, having the same man in charge, is resolutely following the same course. Post Proms press releases have been reporting how many children attended the Proms, how many attended for the first time. This ticks boxes. The film music Proms will bring in new audiences and at the film Proms they'll enjoy the theme music already familiar to them through having seen the film [e.g. 2011: Star Wars, Schindler's List and Harry Potter; Murder on the Orient Express; Out of Africa (love theme); music from the James Bond films]; or through having heard it on other outlets.

As was said, the coming Film Season on Radio 3 is targeted on new listeners for whom classical music is not at present a reason to listen to Radio 3. 'Reaching a new audience with Radio 3'? What's stopping them listening now? 'Classical music'?

[DavidP]

I just thought I'd repeat that ... :-)

The first statement merely restates the point I was making. It was my argument. One isn't talking about the technology itself but the music that was born directly of that technology.That was not my argument: it's not 'because it is film music' that it is 'light' (as I said - you can mention many scores, I'm sure, that aren't). It's that the works that one hears most often under the title 'film music' - the themes from the blockbusters - are mainly 'light' and broadly popular. These aren't regular features of the concert hall (as yet).Gershwin wrote a piano concerto, often played (esp. in part on Radio 3). That doesn't mean that everything he wrote is 'classical'. Nor does it mean that nothing written by a standard classical composer can be described as 'non-classical'. Composers do straddle both traditions.
I would only 'exclude' one but I would regard my reasons for doing so as unreasonable and illogical, namely my personal taste. Britten a conservative? Perhaps in turn, you'd like to say which contemporary classical works are 'rubbish'?

The water is being muddied by Radio 3's current strategy to make itself more popular with the general public which feels 'daunted' (BBC word) by classical music. The Proms, having the same man in charge, is resolutely following the same course. Post Proms press releases have been reporting how many children attended the Proms, how many attended for the first time. This ticks boxes. The film music Proms will bring in new audiences and at the film Proms they'll enjoy the theme music already familiar to them through having seen the film [e.g. 2011: Star Wars, Schindler's List and Harry Potter; Murder on the Orient Express; Out of Africa (love theme); music from the James Bond films]; or through having heard it on other outlets.

As was said, the coming Film Season on Radio 3 is targeted on new listeners for whom classical music is not at present a reason to listen to Radio 3. 'Reaching a new audience with Radio 3'? What's stopping them listening now? 'Classical music'?

Were you a politician or a spin doctor in a previous life? Because you are doing an excellent job in obfuscation here. You don't really answer the objections put to you. You make what you think is a definitive refutation of the argument. When this is shown to be wrong or ill-informed, you do not seek to defend what you've said. You simply switch to another line of attack and keep moving hoping no one will notice the trail of bogus arguments in your wake.

You can repeat these 'arguments' as many times as you like - it doesn’t make them true or cause the ‘problem’ to go away.

You still seem to be extraordinarily ignorant about film music. You're not even aware that film music doesn't merely consist of that for Hollywood blockbusters but is written all over the world, from the US to Europe to Japan and beyond. I find your lack of knowledge (or, indeed, curiosity) deplorable. And you're a host on this forum??!!

[french frank]

You still seem to be extraordinarily ignorant about film music. You're not even aware that film music doesn't merely consist of that for Hollywood blockbusters but is written all over the world, from the US to Europe to Japan and beyond. I find your lack of knowledge (or, indeed, curiosity) deplorable. And you're a host on this forum??!!

I think you're not reading what I've said. This is not about 'film music' in general but about how Radio 3 and the Proms apparently interpret it: the blockbusters (see the example of what was played at the 2011 Proms (I missed The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - Main Theme from the list). If I am 'ignorant' of what film music includes, it's because Radio 3/the BBC only play the crowd-pleasers. (I have a feeling that Tommy Pearson's programmes, axed long ago, went into the genre more deeply.)

In short: we don't want Proms/Radio 3 playing film music from the blockbusters. I suggest you send in your requests to Making Music (link above) to ensure a different repertoire.

[It has always seemed to me a fair quid pro quo that the House Rule: 'Please treat other members respectfully, even/especially if you disagree with what they are saying' as not applying where people are being rude to me. Part of the reason is that I know I shan't retaliate in like manner.]

[Sir Velo]

By their behavior (sic) shall ye know them. As I said it depends on how I'm treated here now and in the future. I shall keep an open mind on this. I have hopes. For instance, I'm glad to see that there are one or two fairly decent and open-minded contributors to this thread (I won't mention them to spare their embarrasment (sic)!)

I always find it detracts from an argument when a text is riddled with spelling errors.

[DavidP]

I think you're not reading what I've said. This is not about 'film music' in general but about how Radio 3 and the Proms apparently interpret it: the blockbusters (see the example of what was played at the 2011 Proms (I missed The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - Main Theme from the list). If I am 'ignorant' of what film music includes, it's because Radio 3/the BBC only play the crowd-pleasers. (I have a feeling that Tommy Pearson's programmes, axed long ago, went into the genre more deeply.)

In short: we don't want Proms/Radio 3 playing film music from the blockbusters. I suggest you send in your requests to Making Music (link above) to ensure a different repertoire.

[It has always seemed to me a fair quid pro quo that the House Rule: 'Please treat other members respectfully, even/especially if you disagree with what they are saying' as not applying where people are being rude to me. Part of the reason is that I know I shan't retaliate in like manner.]

You do realise there are CDs!

What I find even more deplorable than your ignorance is that you do not act as an objective moderator but seek to steer the discussion in the direction you want it to go. The suspicion among many of us is that you are using this forum as a platform to follow a narrow agenda. That is amply demonstrated here.

I note too your threat to have me excluded.

I'm aware that people at the BBC follow the discussions on this forum and so the only consolation I have is that threads of this kind only serve to further undermine any influence you might have on R3 policy.

[DavidP]

I always find it detracts from an argument when a text is riddled with spelling errors.

And that is the best you can come up with, Sir Velo?

[amateur51]

You do realise there are CDs!

What I find even more deplorable than your ignorance is that you do not act as an objective moderator but seek to steer the discussion in the direction you want it to go. The suspicion among many of us is that you are using this forum as a platform to follow a narrow agenda. That is amply demonstrated here.

I note too your threat to have me excluded.

I'm aware that people at the BBC follow the discussions on this forum and so the only consolation I have is that threads of this kind only serve to further undermine any influence you might have on R3 policy.

Are you naturally this rebarbative or have you undertaken training?

There are plenty of ways to disagree with someone without having to be this personally unpleasant. I hope that you plan to employ some of them soon.

[jean]

The suspicion among many of us...

Many? How many?

[Rolmill]

The suspicion among many of us...

...and who are you referring to as "us" in this context?