The Tyranny of Pop Music

[ahinton]

Thank you. That certainly didn't help.

You have also missed out much of the intervening discussion, and now that I've traced it, I can see that I was right to surmise



Here is the first appearance of the model railway:


Note the absence of a comma after railway. It is crucial. If it were present, as in It's like looking at a model railway, where every item on it is at a different scale we would have a defining relative clause - that's what model railways are like. But without it, difference of scale is only a characteristic of this less than adequate example of the genre. See here.

You picked up the reference as though there'd been a comma:



NatBalance realised the mistake, but (crucially!) didn't fully explain what had gone wrong:



The discussion continued:




You say on the same principle but then go on to make clear that you believe there are two different principles at work, in the case of the model and toy railways, at any rate.

Lose.

Will.

Live.

(Not your fault, jean!)...

[jean]

Of course, but (Gabrielli knew this stuff more than me) it's hardly "new" or "unusual".

Where are you quoting from?

Gabrieli did not have to worry about the reproduction of his polychoral effects, since as far as he was concerned nobody outside the church where his works were being performed was ever going to hear them. But modern sound engineers do give somne thought tio the matter...don't they?

If you don't want your music to be heard in that acoustic then don't let it happen.

Don't be obtuse!

What we have here is a hypothetical situation where WA is the only available venue. And you are desperate to secure this performance of your work, so

And ask them to make Westminster Abbey sound like your front room?

Well, like the Wigmore Hall, anyway.

WHY on earth would you want (or think that it is worth doing) to do that?

Because it's the effect you'd hoped for. You said

Even if one was writing a string quartet for the Wigmore Hall I doubt many composers would think about it in that way.

I'm suggesting it's probably a default position.

...and anyway why are we (and my hand is up) indulging Natty in his quest in this discussion anyway?

You're not indulging anyone - you're piling ridicule on ridicule, because it's what you do.

[jean]

(Not your fault, jean!)...

Yes it is

But I like to be fair to everyone, and even in such an unproductive discussion as this, there are crumbs of sense even on the side that eveyone agrees is the losing one.

[MrGongGong]

Where are you quoting from?

Myself (no need for a micro textual analysis?)

Don't be obtuse!

What we have here is a hypothetical situation where WA is the only available venue. And you are desperate to secure this performance of your work, so

I'd write a different piece or make a different version (or even do something else entirely including NOT writing anything)
Not obtuse
Music is intrinsically connected with the context of it's performance and reception

Well, like the Wigmore Hall, anyway.

No, because even if that WAS possible (and I have worked in halls where you can do a transformation from similar acoustics) it would be (IMV) uninteresting and not making the most of the opportunity. I don't think you understand how many (NOT ALL) composers think about what they do. (but i'm sure you will say you do)

Because it's the effect you'd hoped for. You said

Music is intrinsically connected with the context of it's performance and reception

I'm suggesting it's probably a default position.

That's not what Max said when I asked him about writing a piece for a string quartet in the Wigmore.

You can suggest all you like and you will probably find some for whom your suggestion is correct.

You're not indulging anyone - you're piling ridicule on ridicule, because it's what you do.

Thanks, share the love.

[jean]

Music is intrinsically connected with the context of it's performance and reception

The subject of this thread has (for some time now) been the expectations of those who receive it by means of a broadcast or a recording - that is, by some means other than by being present at a live performance.

I realise that there is some music for which this distinction is meaningless, but I don't believe that's always the case.

That's not what Max said when I asked him about writing a piece for a string quartet in the Wigmore.

That's interesting! What did you ask him exactly, and what did he say?

.

[ahinton]

Music is intrinsically connected with the context of it's performance and reception

However much tht might be the case, one can no more be sure of the kind of venue in which what one's written gets performed than one can of the kind of audience one's work might get.

I don't think you understand how many (NOT ALL) composers think about what they do. (but i'm sure you will say you do)

But all the thinking in the world about what one does is not the same thing as the question the kind of venue and acoustic in which it might get performed at any time; for example, an organ piece of mine was written very much with not only the organist who commissioned it but also the venue in which I had heard him play, but if it gets played by someone else in an acoustic and on an instrument far less sympathetic to it than will be found in the Church of St. Mary Redcliffe, Bristol (say, for example, Gloucester Cathedral, with all its side-chapels and stuff), whatever I might have thought about at the time of writing could come across quite differently in practice.

share the love.

Or the Scrutonics.

Oops, sorry; I went back on topic by accident please sir I won't do it again honest sir!...

[jean]

But all the thinking in the world about what one does is not the same thing as the question the kind of venue and acoustic in which it might get performed at any time; for example, an organ piece of mine was written very much with not only the organist who commissioned it but also the venue in which I had heard him play [in mind], but if it gets played by someone else in an acoustic and on an instrument far less sympathetic to it than will be found in the Church of St. Mary Redcliffe, Bristol (say, for example, Gloucester Cathedral, with all its side-chapels and stuff), whatever I might have thought about at the time of writing could come across quite differently in practice.

That's what I might have assumed - though I would never dream of saying that I understood how composers thought about their work.

Your use of the words I highlight seems to indicate that you do have some (default) idea of how your work would sound best. But in the less sympathetic conditions it might even reveal new facets of itself you had never imagined...

But that's another topic - perhaps!

[ahinton]

That's what I might have assumed - though I would never dream of saying that I understood how composers thought about their work.

Your use of the words I highlight seems to indicate that you do have some (default) idea of how your work would sound best. But in the less sympathetic conditions it might even reveal new facets of itself you had never imagined...

But that's another topic - perhaps!

Indeed so - rather as some performers can bring insights into a piece of which one was not previously aware. Another topic, to be sure. You start it if you so wish. In the meantime, back to Scrutyranny, methinks...

[doversoul1]

jean #556

Note the absence of a comma after railway. It is crucial. If it were present, as in It's like looking at a model railway, where every item on it is at a different scale we would have a defining relative clause - that's what model railways are like. But without it, difference of scale is only a characteristic of this less than adequate example of the genre. See here

.

I’d go for the context than grammatical accuracy. A comma or not, scale is NatBalance’s obsession. Besides, what else is he saying if he is not describing the scale of a model railway (don’t bother to answer. I’ve done with this thread)?

As I said in my repost, NatBalance’s model railway analogy is a very good way of describing the music on the radio. Whether he likes it or not, he clearly understands the principle (Incidentally, by principle here, I mean being made to serve the purpose, be it a toy, a model or radio broadcast). But then, he came up with the second quote.

[jean]

His analogy wasn't what you thought it was in the first place, that's why you haven't quite understood what he was saying.

The grammar merely illuminates the context.

[doversoul1]

His analogy wasn't what you thought it was in the first place, that's why you haven't quite understood what he was saying.

The grammar merely illuminates the context.

That's interesting. So what was he saying?

[jean]

See my detailed exegesis above.

[Serial_Apologist]

No, because even if that WAS possible (and I have worked in halls where you can do a transformation from similar acoustics) it would be (IMV) uninteresting and not making the most of the opportunity. I don't think you understand how many (NOT ALL) composers think about what they do. (but i'm sure you will say you do)

It was said that Mahler would do last-minute alterations to his scorings to take account of the acoustics of the hall in which the work was due to be performed. I wonder if he was after a standardised overall sound, the way nat would like it, regardless of venue.

[doversoul1]

See my detailed exegesis above.

Sorry, jean. I can see what you are saying about his posts but not what you think what NatBalance meant to say in his first post about a model railway. It would be good if you could plainly write out.

By the way
Jean #556

I'm assuming that the 'it's like...' in the second quote from Natbalance implies a conditional

I assume this 'like' to be a simile and not conditional.

[jean]

I said it implies a conditional.

It's as if you were to look at a model railway, and see the sorts of distortions of scale you might see if you looked at a toy railway, whose approach to accuracy is a bit more gung-ho because its purposes are different.

The distinction between the two sorts of model wasn't established until later in the discussion.