New releases

[mathias broucek]

"concerned" by Britten, as a white occidental male, presuming to set some Songs from the Chinese)

Will Tippett be the next to be "cancelled" for having the temerity to borrow some spirituals written by African heritage slaves?...

[Keraulophone]

Will Tippett be the next to be "cancelled" for having the temerity to borrow some spirituals written by African heritage slaves?...

'Shush... don't tell 'em, Pike!'
.

[RichardB]

As usual there is little subtlety on either side of the "cancel culture" argument. The way some composers use texts and musical sources might well give rise to a feeling that thoughtless cultural appropriation is going on, while of course nobody could argue convincingly that A Child of Our Time comes into that category. But surely it's healthier for such questions to be asked than not? I don't think there's any difference in silliness between, on the one hand, suggesting that composers shouldn't set texts from cultures other than the one they grew up in, and, on the other, the "where will it all end" kind of response illustrated by extreme examples. We're going through a phase of cultural history where older attitudes brush up against newer and more respectful ("woke") ones and the result is complex and sometimes confusing, but nevertheless it gets reduced to simplistic formulations from both ends, which doesn't help anyone. Each case needs to be examined on its own merits.

(edit: I realise this is offtopic and possibly opening a can of worms - admins may feel free to move it elsewhere!)

[Master Jacques]

As usual there is little subtlety on either side of the "cancel culture" argument. The way some composers use texts and musical sources might well give rise to a feeling that thoughtless cultural appropriation is going on, while of course nobody could argue convincingly that A Child of Our Time comes into that category. But surely it's healthier for such questions to be asked than not? I don't think there's any difference in silliness between, on the one hand, suggesting that composers shouldn't set texts from cultures other than the one they grew up in, and, on the other, the "where will it all end" kind of response illustrated by extreme examples. We're going through a phase of cultural history where older attitudes brush up against newer and more respectful ("woke") ones and the result is complex and sometimes confusing, but nevertheless it gets reduced to simplistic formulations from both ends, which doesn't help anyone. Each case needs to be examined on its own merits.

(edit: I realise this is offtopic and possibly opening a can of worms - admins may feel free to move it elsewhere!)

(Surely your contribution is hardly off topic, stemming as it does from an on-air contribution to the 'New Releases' component of Record Review, which had been - overtly - themed around Identity. But that's for our harassed Administrators to decide!)

For myself, I'm wary of pitching Identity, Cultural Appropriation and Cancel Culture together into the same, 'Woke' boat. They represent different challenges to music, and the arts generally. Examples which might seem ludicrously over the top one moment (such as Tippett's use of Negro spirituals) have a habit of suddenly becoming burning "issues", so it's perhaps not so "unsubtle" after all to bring that up as an example.

Who would have thought, even ten years ago, that Mahler and Britten would be pilloried, for setting culturally doubtful translations of Chinese poetry? And as Allyson Devenish would not (I assume) claim Chinese Identity for herself, it's another question as to what business of hers it might be, to find such alleged "appropriations" "of concern". Despite having been myself recently accused of being "a torchbearer for cancel culture", I must say that I see little that's "newer and more respectful" to art in contemporary attitudes, which centre on censorship of one kind or another, all threatening an artist's right to practice their art freely.

It is indeed a complex matter, as you say. Puritan bigotry has been around as a counterweight to the arts for millennia, and there's nothing either new or respectful about it. No matter how enlightened the arguments it deploys may seem to be, it's still ultimately about brutal repression of one group by another. And today's varied expressions of bigotry need to be held up to ridicule - the best weapon - as fiercely as anything that's gone before.

[ahinton]

Excellent contributions here from RichardB and Master Jacques, for which many thanks to both!

[Ein Heldenleben]

(Surely your contribution is hardly off topic, stemming as it does from an on-air contribution to the 'New Releases' component of Record Review, which had been - overtly - themed around Identity. But that's for our harassed Administrators to decide!)

For myself, I'm wary of pitching Identity, Cultural Appropriation and Cancel Culture together into the same, 'Woke' boat. They represent different challenges to music, and the arts generally. Examples which might seem ludicrously over the top one moment (such as Tippett's use of Negro spirituals) have a habit of suddenly becoming burning "issues", so it's perhaps not so "unsubtle" after all to bring that up as an example.

Who would have thought, even ten years ago, that Mahler and Britten would be pilloried, for setting culturally doubtful translations of Chinese poetry? And as Allyson Devenish would not (I assume) claim Chinese Identity for herself, it's another question as to what business of hers it might be, to find such alleged "appropriations" "of concern". Despite having been myself recently accused of being "a torchbearer for cancel culture", I must say that I see little that's "newer and more respectful" to art in contemporary attitudes, which centre on censorship of one kind or another, all threatening an artist's right to practice their art freely.

It is indeed a complex matter, as you say. Puritan bigotry has been around as a counterweight to the arts for millennia, and there's nothing either new or respectful about it. No matter how enlightened the arguments it deploys may seem to be, it's still ultimately about brutal repression of one group by another. And today's varied expressions of bigotry need to be held up to ridicule - the best weapon - as fiercely as anything that's gone before.

Just about everything interesting that has happened in jazz , popular and rock music has been the product of cultural “ intersection” if not outright copyright infringement . If Charlie Parker can borrow the middle eight of I’ve Got Rhythm from George Gershwin who has been accused of borrowing the main theme of the same song from an African American composer why can’t Britten “borrow “ as much as he likes ( usually from Verdi , Strauss and Puccini)?
Incidentally the papers love woke / cancel culture stories as it gets the comments pages rolling . So much of it all is Fleet Street cynicism.

[mathias broucek]

Artists have often built on the achievements of their predecessors. It's how progress tends to be made in most fields of human endeavour.

Cross-culture is interesting. Did anyone watch the 1920s-set film Passing from a year or two ago? It showed white people visiting Harlem for the music and dancing. On the one hand, it looked uncomfortably like voyeurism. On the other, those white people were actually engaging with the black community - clumsily perhaps but face-to-face nonetheless

[Master Jacques]

I imagine that few of us would disagree that cross-cultural contact (aka. "appropriation") is what makes art possible. One wonders if the troubadours were cheesed off with Josquin for "appropriating" their L'homme armé? Doubtless they'd have understood and welcomed it better than the religious zealots, busily condemning the introduction of secular song into sacred music (thus, various debates at the Councils of Trent!)

To bring it back to Saturday's New Releases, there was an implication in what Allyson Devenish had to say about the performance of Britten's Songs from the Chinese, that the Lebanese tenor and Japanese guitarist were somehow "reclaiming it" from the all-white duos, starting with Pears and Bream, who'd been "appropriating" the cycle up until now. This was the silliest kind of nonsense, and condescending to the non-Chinese performers involved, as if "non-British" and "non-white" somehow made them more suitable performers for the piece. It is of course always valuable to hear non-British takes on British music, even if aesthetically (the pre-eminent matter when it comes to this or any work by Britten) the performance itself sounded rather less than stellar. But such criticism was out of court, on Saturday.

[duncan]

... Japanese guitarist...

Sean Shibe is half-Scottish and Karim Sulayman was born in Chicago. These things are nearly always more nuanced than might initially appear.

[Master Jacques]

Sean Shibe is half-Scottish and Karim Sulayman was born in Chicago. These things are nearly always more nuanced than might initially appear.

Quite so: there isn't one of us who could not select from a smörgåsbord of Identities, if need arose. In this case, suggesting that a Scottish-American duo were involved wouldn't have pinged the "reclaiming" bell quite so soundly!

To be pedantic, Shibe's ancestry is English not Scottish, though he was born and trained in Edinburgh. He is a charismatic musician, if (to my ears) less convincing here in duo, than when playing alone.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I imagine that few of us would disagree that cross-cultural contact (aka. "appropriation") is what makes art possible. One wonders if the troubadours were cheesed off with Josquin for "appropriating" their L'homme armé? Doubtless they'd have understood and welcomed it better than the religious zealots, busily condemning the introduction of secular song into sacred music (thus, various debates at the Councils of Trent!)

To bring it back to Saturday's New Releases, there was an implication in what Allyson Devenish had to say about the performance of Britten's Songs from the Chinese, that the Lebanese tenor and Japanese guitarist were somehow "reclaiming it" from the all-white duos, starting with Pears and Bream, who'd been "appropriating" the cycle up until now. This was the silliest kind of nonsense, and condescending to the non-Chinese performers involved, as if "non-British" and "non-white" somehow made them more suitable performers for the piece. It is of course always valuable to hear non-British takes on British music, even if aesthetically (the pre-eminent matter when it comes to this or any work by Britten) the performance itself sounded rather less than stellar. But such criticism was out of court, on Saturday.

Dunno but I am annoyed (on aesthetic grounds) of its appropriation by Welshman Karl Jenkins. But as it’s (I believe ) the most popular classical piece of the last 100 years I am woefully out of step with public opinion.

[mathias broucek]

Dunno but I am annoyed (on aesthetic grounds) of its appropriation by Welshman Karl Jenkins. But as it’s (I believe ) the most popular classical piece of the last 100 years I am woefully out of step with public opinion.

See also Max Richter....

[mathias broucek]

I imagine that few of us would disagree that cross-cultural contact (aka. "appropriation") is what makes art possible. One wonders if the troubadours were cheesed off with Josquin for "appropriating" their L'homme armé? Doubtless they'd have understood and welcomed it better than the religious zealots, busily condemning the introduction of secular song into sacred music (thus, various debates at the Councils of Trent!)

And what do we say about Pfitzner and his cod-Palestrina (parallel 5ths and all....)?

[ahinton]

See also Max Richter....

I have more than once confused Max Richter with Hans Zimmer; I wonder if either of them has ever done the same...

[Master Jacques]

I have more than once confused Max Richter with Hans Zimmer; I wonder if either of them has ever done the same...

I prefer to think of Richter as the great conductor who made the Hallé a national treasure, and Zimmer as the chap who invented Frames.