Radio 3 Schedule changes

[french frank]

I do not feel superior to those who prefer the music of our time which is mainly songs ...

Nor should one be thought to 'feel superior' in preferring classical music which has lasted for hundreds of years. But one can regret the fact that more value is placed on the modern/contemporary which is familiar and ubiquitous but which is destined not to last as long as a single lifetime.

[LMcD]

You amplify my significant point quite beautifully. The fact that Bob Dylan has been thought worthy of a Nobel Prize tells us all we need to know about the change in official taste from complexity and length to simplicity and brevity, preferable as part of "The Great American Songbook". It's such a straightjacket.

You can only do so much in a three-minute song, even if you're Finzi or Britten, whereas the sky's the limit in a half-hour symphony or two-hour opera. But - just as such diverse figures as Warhol and the poet/artist David Jones prophesied - "high art", with its complexities and ambiguities, is dead. Anglo/American society has accepted authoritarianism, while welcoming the equally conformist minstrel-protesters as an opiate to replace Christianity. Thus the slide of Radio 3 towards the "single song" culture, and a world in which anything longer than 3 minutes is thought "pretentious" or "intellectual".

As for insulting the current presenter of Desert Island Discs, I didn't name her; and as "brain-free" is obviously a metaphor, rather than a claim of fact, I'm not sure how to rephrase it without giving her credit for a professionalism which she doesn't possess. She simply reads out the lines her researchers have put together for her, and scarcely engages with the "guests" at all, on any meaningful level, unless she happens to like the ditties they've chosen. That's something of which you could never accuse even the oleaginous Plumley. Or am I being too "personal" again?

Plomley, not Plumley. (At least you named him).
Afterthought - perhaps Plumley is some sort of reference to his manner of speaking.

[Serial_Apologist]

Nor should one be thought to 'feel superior' in preferring classical music which has lasted for hundreds of years. But one can regret the fact that more value is placed on the modern/contemporary which is familiar and ubiquitous but which is destined not to last as long as a single lifetime.

In this it is in line with modern day product as a whole. As compared to in the past when goods were made to last (because there was no reason why they shouldn't be) today's economic and financial imperatives ensure unsustainability in the interests of competitive turnover and manufactured wants. Music is made to fit in with these wider cultural purchasing habits in order to comply with culture as image, read across the piece. It's taken a while for cultural broadcasting to catch up, but as the rate of economic substructural decline increases, the media servants to the establishment crowd in, fearful of losing their place and status in the superstructure, eager to please their masters in helping blunt people's capacity to think critically about our situation along with its underlying causes by vandalising the cultural signifiers representing continuity. Change is never simply for its own sake.

[Master Jacques]

Nor should one be thought to 'feel superior' in preferring classical music which has lasted for hundreds of years. But one can regret the fact that more value is placed on the modern/contemporary which is familiar and ubiquitous but which is destined not to last as long as a single lifetime.

The accusation is made, though.

I remember being asked what I was listening to on my headphones, by a friendly chap at a Sainsbury checkout. His friendly smile turned to baffled discomposure when I told him I was listening to Elgar's 1st Symphony, and what a fantastic piece it was. "Not for the likes of me, sir" came the reply. I tried explaining that this music had been around for over a century and was for EVERYONE, but it's clear he'd been conditioned to think I was being "superior" by listening to such stuff.

It made me very, very angry with the dreadful arbiters of taste who pressurise so many people into believing that art music "is not for them". And now, with Radio 3 failing so dismally in its duty, even fewer people will get the chance to discover that it is for them, and for anyone else with an interest beyond the musical fast food that's pushed at them 24/7.

[Ein Heldenleben]

You amplify my significant point quite beautifully. The fact that Bob Dylan has been thought worthy of a Nobel Prize tells us all we need to know about the change in official taste from complexity and length to simplicity and brevity, preferable as part of "The Great American Songbook". It's such a straightjacket.

You can only do so much in a three-minute song, even if you're Finzi or Britten, whereas the sky's the limit in a half-hour symphony or two-hour opera. But - just as such diverse figures as Warhol and the poet/artist David Jones prophesied - "high art", with its complexities and ambiguities, is dead. Anglo/American society has accepted authoritarianism, while welcoming the equally conformist minstrel-protesters as an opiate to replace Christianity. Thus the slide of Radio 3 towards the "single song" culture, and a world in which anything longer than 3 minutes is thought "pretentious" or "intellectual".

As for insulting the current presenter of Desert Island Discs, I didn't name her; and as "brain-free" is obviously a metaphor, rather than a claim of fact, I'm not sure how to rephrase it without giving her credit for a professionalism which she doesn't possess. She simply reads out the lines her researchers have put together for her, and scarcely engages with the "guests" at all, on any meaningful level, unless she happens to like the ditties they've chosen. That's something of which you could never accuse even the oleaginous Plumley. Or am I being too "personal" again?

Well Prof Christopher Ricks , Eng Lit Prof at Cambridge University thought Dylan was the modern day equivalent of Keats . I always thought that wasn’t comparing like with like as the former are song lyrics rather than standalone poetry.
The BBC was desperate for years to replace Roy Plomley . He really wasn’t a very good interviewer though he did share our taste for opera singers. Very usually he owned the copyright for DID and had a contractual right to the phrase “in a programme devised by him “ being used in the Radio Times and on air. So he couldn’t be replaced Though there are intellectually challenged presenters around I’m not sure the current one falls into that category.

[Ein Heldenleben]

The accusation is made, though.

I remember being asked what I was listening to on my headphones, by a friendly chap at a Sainsbury checkout. His friendly smile turned to baffled discomposure when I told him I was listening to Elgar's 1st Symphony, and what a fantastic piece it was. "Not for the likes of me, sir" came the reply. I tried explaining that this music had been around for over a century and was for EVERYONE, but it's clear he'd been conditioned to think I was being "superior" by listening to such stuff.

It made me very, very angry with the dreadful arbiters of taste who pressurise so many people into believing that art music "is not for them". And now, with Radio 3 failing so dismally in its duty, even fewer people will get the chance to discover that it is for them, and for anyone else with an interest beyond the musical fast food that's pushed at them 24/7.

Interesting how high culture is bound up with class in this country whereas it isn’t in France, Germany, or Italy.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Nor should one be thought to 'feel superior' in preferring classical music which has lasted for hundreds of years. But one can regret the fact that more value is placed on the modern/contemporary which is familiar and ubiquitous but which is destined not to last as long as a single lifetime.

Thing is FF it will , bar a tiny fraction , be forgotten in fifty years or so. How much popular music of the Edwardian era survives ? A few music hall songs remembered by people who dress up in costume and singalong . (Put like that it sounds rather attractive,) The jazz songs of the twenties and thirties have become niche and only really survive through memories of great interpreters. The greatest singing stars of the twenties and thirties like Al Jolson in the States or Al Bowly and Flanagan and Allen here are more or less completely forgotten .The Beatles , The Who , The Stones , Coldplay and Taylor Swift will go the same way whereas in hundred years they’ll still be playing Beethoven.

[Retune]

You amplify my significant point quite beautifully. The fact that Bob Dylan has been thought worthy of a Nobel Prize tells us all we need to know about the change in official taste from complexity and length to simplicity and brevity, preferable as part of "The Great American Songbook".

I'm not sure that tells us anything very much, except that the Nobel Committee sometimes make peculiar choices, awarding prizes to obscure writers, failing to honour others who will be read centuries from now, and sometimes picking a winner for who they are (Dylan, Churchill) rather than what they've done for Literature. That year there were probably several men of a certain age who wanted to honour their teenage hero. Which isn't to say that Dylan is not a figure of significant cultural importance. Some of the albums from his high point in the mid-60s, which should be considered as integral works rather than random collections of songs, stand with the major artistic achievements of the decade. And I'm not convinced that (say) the rather trite libretti and absurdly melodramatic plots of certain operas we might mention would come out terribly well in comparison with the best of Dylan's allusive, sophisticated language. But of course even something as ridiculous as Il Travatore can become an immortal classic when scored by a composer of genius.

[french frank]

Thing is FF it will , bar a tiny fraction , be forgotten in fifty years or so.

Of course it will. But the gone and forgotten will be eternally replaced by more ephemeral products. Not even recording technology will preserve it in the consciousness of the public. But this is what is being broadcast more and more on Radio 3. AURORA (don't forget the upper case), Baby Queen, Laufey (dare one add EA?) all playing the best of the contemporary musical gloop. It's for the generations that are brought up on the attraction of the new, and the old goes for landfill.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I'm not sure that tells us anything very much, except that the Nobel Committee sometimes make peculiar choices, awarding prizes to obscure writers, failing to honour others who will be read centuries from now, and sometimes picking a winner for who they are (Dylan, Churchill) rather than what they've done for Literature. That year there were probably several men of a certain age who wanted to honour their teenage hero. Which isn't to say that Dylan is not a figure of significant cultural importance. Some of the albums from his high point in the mid-60s, which should be considered as integral works rather than random collections of songs, stand with the major artistic achievements of the decade. And I'm not convinced that (say) the rather trite libretti and absurdly melodramatic plots of certain operas we might mention would come out terribly well in comparison with the best of Dylan's allusive, sophisticated language. But of course even something as ridiculous as Il Travatore can become an immortal classic when scored by a composer of genius.

Il TrOvatore is not “ridiculous” . There are implausibilities in the plot and coincidences true but the libretto (as words ) is pretty good - better than some of Britten’s or indeed the libretto for Fidelio. It is , as you imply , a full on masterpiece and will be performed long after Bob Dylan becomes a musical and cultural footnote. How very few of his songs have entered the pop repertory- they are just too much tied up with his unique delivery style. He is , of course , a modern day Troubadour who thankfully hasn’t suffered Manrico’s fate.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Of course it will. But the gone and forgotten will be eternally replaced by more ephemeral products. Not even recording technology will preserve it in the consciousness of the public. But this is what is being broadcast more and more on Radio 3. AURORA (don't forget the upper case), Baby Queen, Laufey (dare one add EA?) all playing the best of the contemporary musical gloop. It's for the generations that are brought up on the attraction of the new, and the old goes for landfill.

It’s always been the case. Classical music has always been a minority if not elite pursuit with the possible exception of 19th century Italian opera .While a select few were lapping up Elgar the overwhelming majority preferred Marie Lloyd …

[Retune]

Thing is FF it will , bar a tiny fraction , be forgotten in fifty years or so. How much popular music of the Edwardian era survives ? A few music hall songs remembered by people who dress up in costume and singalong . (Put like that it sounds rather attractive,) The jazz songs of the twenties and thirties have become niche and only really survive through memories of great interpreters. The greatest singing stars of the twenties and thirties like Al Jolson in the States or Al Bowly and Flanagan and Allen here are more or less completely forgotten .The Beatles , The Who , The Stones , Coldplay and Taylor Swift will go the same way whereas in hundred years they’ll still be playing Beethoven.

Well, most music is forgotten in 50 years, and some a lot sooner than that. But I would say that the best of the jazz from the 20s and 30s is no more niche than a great deal of classical music, and some of it will last indefinitely. The earliest recordings by (say) Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Billie Holiday or Ella Fitzgerald aren't going to be forgotten. More lightweight stuff tends to be less durable, of course. Some artists just don't speak to a later age. But I don't think the Beatles and Stones are going anywhere. I have no opinion about Coldplay or Taylor Swift!

[Ein Heldenleben]

Well, most music is forgotten in 50 years, and some a lot sooner than that. But I would say that the best of the jazz from the 20s and 30s is no more niche than a great deal of classical music, and some of it will last indefinitely. The earliest recordings by (say) Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Billie Holiday or Ella Fitzgerald aren't going to be forgotten. More lightweight stuff tends to be less durable, of course. Some artists just don't speak to a later age. But I don't think the Beatles and Stones are going anywhere. I have no opinion about Coldplay or Taylor Swift!

You’ve very helpfully named four of the great interpreters (two of whom were composers ) I was thinking about. And they are now niche in terms of sales whereas once they were the Taylor Swifts of their day . The Beatles are quite interesting in that some of their songs have acquired an interpretative life beyond the original recordings . Yesterday for example is the most recorded pop song in human history. Whereas the Stones’ music has little life outside the performers. I won’t be alive in 50 years but I’m willing to bet that there will still be young singers performing Wintereise when even Yesterday is an historical curio like the works of Stephen Foster.

[LMcD]

You amplify my significant point quite beautifully. The fact that Bob Dylan has been thought worthy of a Nobel Prize tells us all we need to know about the change in official taste from complexity and length to simplicity and brevity, preferable as part of "The Great American Songbook". It's such a straightjacket.

You can only do so much in a three-minute song, even if you're Finzi or Britten, whereas the sky's the limit in a half-hour symphony or two-hour opera. But - just as such diverse figures as Warhol and the poet/artist David Jones prophesied - "high art", with its complexities and ambiguities, is dead. Anglo/American society has accepted authoritarianism, while welcoming the equally conformist minstrel-protesters as an opiate to replace Christianity. Thus the slide of Radio 3 towards the "single song" culture, and a world in which anything longer than 3 minutes is thought "pretentious" or "intellectual".

As for insulting the current presenter of Desert Island Discs, I didn't name her; and as "brain-free" is obviously a metaphor, rather than a claim of fact, I'm not sure how to rephrase it without giving her credit for a professionalism which she doesn't possess. She simply reads out the lines her researchers have put together for her, and scarcely engages with the "guests" at all, on any meaningful level, unless she happens to like the ditties they've chosen. That's something of which you could never accuse even the oleaginous Plumley. Or am I being too "personal" again?

Unfortunately, Roy Plomley is unable to defend himself, so it's presumably OK to dispense with metaphors and name him.

[Retune]

Il TrOvatore is not “ridiculous” . There are implausibilities in the plot and coincidences true but the libretto (as words ) is pretty good - better than some of Britten’s or indeed the libretto for Fidelio. It is , as you imply , a full on masterpiece and will be performed long after Bob Dylan becomes a musical and cultural footnote. How very few of his songs have entered the pop repertory- they are just too much tied up with his unique delivery style. He is , of course , a modern day Troubadour who thankfully hasn’t suffered Manrico’s fate.

I think there's a reason why the original play is forgotten (at least internationally) and the opera will endure. Verdi's alchemy has turned a rather peculiar piece of base metal into gold. I also don't think that a work can only be considered great if it is performed by others, any more than a painting can only be considered great if it is reproduced by others. Recordings have fundamentally changed and augmented the ways in which we can experience music. Many works are not created with the intention that they will be performed by anyone other than the original artist. The original is the definitive version but, because it can be copied and transmitted flawlessly, it may still be experienced by millions of people, an option that was not available before the gramophone. Is an album conceived as an integral whole necessarily any less significant a work of art than (say) a string quartet released as sheet music? There are of course any number of published minor classical pieces, including string quartets, that have been quietly forgotten and may never be revived. There are also recordings in various genres that are still listened to with pleasure a century after their release, and we now live in a world where they can be preserved indefinitely and continually rediscovered at the touch of a screen. Works (and performances) that might once have become footnotes may now remain vital if future generations see something of value in them.