.. in praise of live classical music

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Celebrity culture? It's commissioned because the people are 'more or less famous'. More of a draw than a nobody who knows what they're talking about.

Yes - but Richard's right: it does seem to be Music Journalism that receives most of this sort of treatment. I can't imagine a piece about medicine being written by that bloke who was runner-up on Strictly Come Dancing four years ago.



(This is the point where somebody posts an article from last week's Sunday Times about blood disease written by some bloke who was runner-up Britain's Got Talent a couple of years ago,)

[Serial_Apologist]

The article reminds me somewhat of the Pink Floyd, who were apt to name-drop Stockhausen into their interviews back in the 1960s, but who later said they only did so to appear in the know, whereas they knew absolutely nothing about Stockhausen's music and only used "advanced techniques" out of ignorance, to fill the time at concerts when they were extending song structures but didn't really know what they were doing. Both positions sound disingenuous, to me.

[Blotto]

How did it come into fashion for there to be so many articles in the culture sections of newspapers written by (more or less famous) people who admit (or give away that) they don't have a particularly deep grasp of what they're writing about, as if knowledge needs to be counterbalanced by an equal amount of ignorance? I think this I-don't-know-much-about-it-but-I-know-what-I-bloody-well-like happens in music journalism more than elsewhere.

Celebrity culture? It's commissioned because the people are 'more or less famous'. More of a draw than a nobody who knows what they're talking about.

Celebs have long and often had a presence in the papers, surely? I'd think The Guardian will be grateful to have Greenwood on the books. Radiohead have a large audience and if links to his article are tweeted and blogged, it may bring a national, even an international audience of thoughtful people to the paper of people who'd never otherwise see it. Once you've visited a site and found something of interest to you there, aren't you more likely to go back?

It's not a skilful piece of writing but perhaps a longer piece appeared in the paper itself. Sometimes these online pieces are cut-downs for the web. If not, it's a pity that it wasn't read and sent back with comments by a more experienced writer/journalist because there are the bones of a more interesting piece there. His broad points seem sound to me.
I heard a while ago that The Guardian has been losing money for a long time. Whatever honest support it can get from its online pages - which are the only ones I've seen since the 2005 general election - the better chance it has of surviving.

People have been given real choice in the last 20 years or so in the range of media they view and are permitted to contribute to. The results haven't always been attractive to everyone but many very static and self-absorbed institutions have had to adapt to the new conditions because when people are given a wide choice of what to look at, many of them choose something new.

[Serial_Apologist]

[...] many very static and self-absorbed institutions have had to adapt to the new conditions because when people are given a wide choice of what to look at, many of them choose something new.

Or think they are choosing something new - but which, if they haven't been given sufficient choice by including much of what really is new, may be led to think that it is.

Welcome to the forum, Blotto.

[Sir Velo]

How did it come into fashion for there to be so many articles in the culture sections of newspapers written by (more or less famous) people who admit (or give away that) they don't have a particularly deep grasp of what they're writing about, as if knowledge needs to be counterbalanced by an equal amount of ignorance? I think this I-don't-know-much-about-it-but-I-know-what-I-bloody-well-like happens in music journalism more than elsewhere.

There's a hell of a lot of it about in the comment pages as well. Last year in the Standard one of the columnists launched a diatribe against all cyclists on the basis that her mother, as a motorist, had had a bad experience with one. It later transpired that the mother had opened her car door on a cyclist, without looking, and had surprisingly taken an earful of abuse as the cyclist took evasive action being nearly mown down by a 30 tonne artic in the process. Moreover, it was also an old story from several years back that had been re-hashed presumably out of a lack of sufficient knowledge of other subjects about which to fill her column.

It's the same mindset which has led to practically all TV documentaries being fronted or narrated by a celeb with enthusiasm but no profound knowledge (think Simon Russell Beale et al) of the subject matter in hand. One assumes it's all out of a desperate need not to appear elitist or to alienate the man/woman in the street by making them do some thinking.

[french frank]

many very static and self-absorbed institutions have had to adapt to the new conditions because when people are given a wide choice of what to look at, many of them choose something new.

So everyone must jump on the bandwagon of novelty?

[Zucchini]

#51 Delete novelty. Insert progress. Yes, of course

[french frank]

#51 Delete novelty. Insert progress. Yes, of course

Blotto used the word 'new'. What is new is not necessarily progress. What is novel is new.

[Serial_Apologist]

By "new" I meant novel.

[Sir Velo]

#51 Delete novelty. Insert progress. Yes, of course

What's progressive about having amateur dilettantes write about subjects they know nothing about?

[Bryn]

What's progressive about having amateur dilettantes write about subjects they know nothing about?

Blimey! Might as well shut this forum down at that rate.

[Sir Velo]

Ne'er a true word said....

[Blotto]

So everyone must jump on the bandwagon of novelty?

Do you believe in a command economy where information is concerned?

Surely everyone has an equal right and equal freedom to do whatever harmless thing they choose?

[Blotto]

What's progressive about having amateur dilettantes write about subjects they know nothing about?

He's been a professional musician for almost a quarter of a century and his score for The Master was a fine one from what I recall. Are you an amateur dilettante in his sphere, writing about someone you know nothing about? Hmm? His knowledge may not be the equal of yours but your knowledge seems not to be the equal of his either.

It's not an article of the highest tone or depth but its general spirit seems humble to me.

[Beef Oven!]

He's been a professional musician for almost a quarter of a century and his score for The Master was a fine one from what I recall. Are you an amateur dilettante in his sphere, writing about someone you know nothing about? Hmm? His knowledge may not be the equal of yours but your knowledge seems not to be the equal of his either.

It's not an article of the highest tone or depth but its general spirit seems humble to me.