Light Music

[Serial_Apologist]

"Light Music" is of course equally fatuous: anyone patronising such a multi-faceted, miniature gem such as Binge's Elizabethan Serenade by trying to argue it is in some way less "serious" art than a Bruckner symphony is missing the point. It is merely shorter.

That's a mighty claim on behalf of "Elizabethan Serenade"! - a piece of twee that takes its start and end-point a phrase nicked from the first movement of Beethoven's "Pastoral" and does not much with it other than alternate with a predictable boringly repeated polyfilla in like manner to Bach's "Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring".

[Master Jacques]

That's a mighty claim on behalf of "Elizabethan Serenade"! - a piece of twee that takes its start and end-point a phrase nicked from the first movement of Beethoven's "Pastoral" and does not much with it other than alternate with a predictable boringly repeated polyfilla in like manner to Bach's "Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring".

I make no apology for the claim. Rather than use subjective adjectives and claims of plagiarism (easy to make about any collection of five notes or so), I'll just note that it interweaves no less than five themes with a contrapuntal brilliance, in a compacted structure which is most satisfying for anyone who cares to look under the bonnet of its masterly orchestration and clarity of line. Polyfilla is in the ear of the beholder!

[Master Jacques]

It’s like comparing Banksy to Michelangelo [...] On your more general point the distinction between both genres is arbitrary l the Blue Danube is both light music and a classical masterpiece.

I would say The Blue Danube is neither of those things: it is romantic tone poem first, dance music second, light music not at all.
You make my point about the fatuity of genre better than I do!

As for the Binge, "complexity", "harmonic adventurousness", "tonal ambition", "exploring the possibilities of contemporary or future music" ... these are random judgements as to what a piece of music might - or might not - require.

The fact remains, that Elizabethan Serenade is a beautifully-shaped gem, of masterly construction and musical artistry which succeeds on its own terms. Its own terms - that is all that matters, not whether it does things like Beethoven or Bruckner did them. Its authenticity accounts for its ubiquitous popularity (I recently heard it being used as the sound track for a PC computer game).

[LMcD]

I think it's because musical categories are imposed on the music afterwards that the boundaries between them are so hard to define. I wonder what category Astor Piazzolla comes in,though. Radio 3 seem very keen on him these days, though it's the most vacuous music I've ever heard. The thought of anyone actually liking it leaves me baffled.

Me too!

[french frank]

None of these taxonomies ('genres') mean anything. .

On your main points, I agree. But disagree your quoted conclusion. Classifications and categories mean something. It's the boundaries, hence the 'definitions', which are imprecise, and to a degree arbitrary since opinions may differ as to where x sits in relation to that boundary.

The question which occurs to me is why one might wish to compare Ronald Binge's Elizabethan Serenade with a Bruckner symphony.

[LMcD]

None of these taxonomies ('genres') mean anything. They cannot be defined, because genres don't exist in a good composer's - or good listener's - mind. They are there, as many people have said on this thread, to help arrange the stuff on the (real or virtual) commercial shelves. And the labels shift over time: Stranger on the Shore is labelled 'classical' for the millennial generation, as it features acoustic instruments like violins backing a solo clarinet. Most people take 'classical' as a description of orchestration, not content.

As for this 'classical' thing ... any alleged 'genre' which is forced to spatchcock everything from a Bach solo cello suite to Götterdämmerung is a non-starter, which tells us nothing about the music while providing lethal misinformation.

"Light Music" is of course equally fatuous: anyone patronising such a multi-faceted, miniature gem such as Binge's Elizabethan Serenade by trying to argue it is in some way less "serious" art than a Bruckner symphony is missing the point. It is merely shorter.

(On Piazzolla, we need to judge him on his tango-opera María de Buenos Aires, a poetically complex - and musically beautiful - piece of Brechtian epic theatre, rather than the two or three standards endlessly recycyled by the lazy and cynical producers of Essential Classics).

Very few composers are as serious as Bruckner.

[Master Jacques]

The question which occurs to me is why one might wish to compare Ronald Binge's Elizabethan Serenade with a Bruckner symphony.

Why compare them? Because we can! Elizabethan Serenade is a piece rich in musical satisfactions, if we listen to it with the attention we lavish on Bruckner.

It is multi-dimensional too, as a significant artefact of a fascinating historical movement on the accession of Queen Elizabeth II. Remember that its original 1951 title was 'Andante Cantabile', and that Binge took the opportunity to rename it, in honour of HMQ's accession in 1952. After which, it rapidly became a sort of new, national song. To a large extent, it reflects the burgeoning hope and fresh optimism for English music, arts and sciences in the neo-Elizabethan age, under its smiling young monarch.

That of course is what the title is about, not Queen Elizabeth I. It looks forward, not backwards.

[smittims]

I've been delighted with this discussion (not least for awakening one advocate of Astor Piazzolla). Where else, I wonder, would it be seen?

I enjoy 'Light Music' but a little of it goes a long way. It's usually superbly composed and orchestrated but it's an idiom where innovation is not welcome, so one tends to hear the same devices and formats. Nothing wrong in that; many traditional musics of the world are best kept 'pure' in that way. And it's pleasanter on my ear, and more inventive than commercial pop.

[Master Jacques]

On your main points, I agree. But disagree your quoted conclusion. Classifications and categories mean something. It's the boundaries, hence the 'definitions', which are imprecise, and to a degree arbitrary since opinions may differ as to where x sits in relation to that boundary.

My reply would be, that all the best works in any alleged 'genre' or 'category' break the rules. Almost by definition, good work is always at the boundaries. I prefer talking about 'patterns' - shapes which are infinitely adaptable, to be cut to the cloth in hand rather than generically contained. We can't judge a solo cello suite by the same criteria we apply to The Ring, yet we're told by Apple and Amazon that they are both 'classical genre'. What patent nonsense that is.

Exchanges of opinion as to where x might (or might not) sit with regard to these arbitrary and subjective 'boundaries' tend to be dry, dull and unilluminating about the works themselves. It is a return to the 'schoolmen' and their pedantry.

[Master Jacques]

I've been delighted with this discussion (not least for awakening one advocate of Astor Piazzolla).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a massive fan, although María de Buenos Aires is a mightily memorable work, like it or loathe it. But I do think that Nadia Boulanger was right to tell Piazzolla to stick to doing what he did well - uniquely so - rather than attempt to become a second-rate Ravel.

[Ein Heldenleben]

My reply would be, that all the best works in any alleged 'genre' or 'category' break the rules. Almost by definition, good work is always at the boundaries. I prefer talking about 'patterns' - shapes which are infinitely adaptable, to be cut to the cloth in hand rather than generically contained. We can't judge a solo cello suite by the same criteria we apply to The Ring, yet we're told by Apple and Amazon that they are both 'classical genre'. What patent nonsense that is.

Exchanges of opinion as to where x might (or might not) sit with regard to these arbitrary and subjective 'boundaries' tend to be dry, dull and unilluminating about the works themselves. It is a return to the 'schoolmen' and their pedantry.

Exactly where does the Elizabethan Serenade break the rules ? What are those rules ? What boundaries does it lie near ? I don’t see that these are any less “random judgements “ than mine.I think if I had the time I could demonstrate that a good deal of “serious music “ like Bruckner meets quite a few of both our “random judgements.” I’m not sure that the Elizabethan serenade meets either set . Even it’s adopted purpose saluting the new “Elizabethan age “ is a bit of a opportunistic arse-kissing isn’t it ?

[oddoneout]

Very few composers are as serious as Bruckner.

Thank heavens.

[french frank]

My reply would be, that all the best works in any alleged 'genre' or 'category' break the rules. Almost by definition, good work is always at the boundaries.

I think such 'rules' are different. I don't see categories as being based, or defined, by rules.

We can't judge a solo cello suite by the same criteria we apply to The Ring, yet we're told by Apple and Amazon that they are both 'classical genre'. What patent nonsense that is.

It's not at all nonsense as long as you understand what Apple/Amazon mean by 'classical'.

Exchanges of opinion as to where x might (or might not) sit with regard to these arbitrary and subjective 'boundaries' tend to be dry, dull and unilluminating about the works themselves. It is a return to the 'schoolmen' and their pedantry.

Yes

[LMcD]

Thank heavens.

[Master Jacques]

Exactly where does the Elizabethan Serenade break the rules ? What are those rules ? What boundaries does it lie near ? I don’t see that these are any less “random judgements “ than mine.I think if I had the time I could demonstrate that a good deal of “serious music “ like Bruckner meets quite a few of both our “random judgements.” I’m not sure that the Elizabethan serenade meets either set . Even it’s adopted purpose saluting the new “Elizabethan age “ is a bit of a opportunistic arse-kissing isn’t it ?

To deal with the last (easier) point first, no - I don't think that was Binge's style, and he didn't need to do any of it. I think he spotted that his Andante Cantabile 'had something' to say to his time and place which the retitling would bring out, and he was proved right in spades.

What's more, this quality was picked up in Germany - where, believe it or not, the piece has been even more popular than it is here - as somehow representing the 'new Germany' after the war too. I've got a lovely recording of the Elisabeth-Serenade (as they call it) sung by Eva Lind, which uses words very different from Christopher Hassall's English singing version ("Where the Gentle Avon Flows").

As for the way the piece stretches (rather than breaks) the rules, its contrapuntal density and highly-developed formal symettries (surprisingly complex - I'll accept one of your criteria! - and compressed) are highly unusual for so-called "light music" of the time. What it does - just as Mozart and Schubert do - is put into perspective our criteria for "seriousness" in art, which is often too close to "solemnity" for comfort.

By the way, I wasn't implying that your set of criteria were without value - just that many of them are irrelevant to an attempted value judgement on Elizabethan Serenade (or indeed, Binge's impressive ouevre generally!)