If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If someone claims that a certain presenter has "no Musical background"
I don’t think anybody does / has done. The criticism is, as far as I can remember, that some presenters have no (or not enough) classical music related knowledge appropriate for presenting Radio3’s programmes. Being able to play any instrument to any standard is no defense against this criticism.
He was conflating the two arguments. That is the main problem with the talk.
…as if to catch two birds with one stone; anti-pipe music camp and anti-modern music education camp. Unless he was/is just not a very good thinker/talker
Not here: I will spare blushes since I only heard it put forward as a defence on one particular occasion …
All of which is the exact opposite of the concert hall, where we now begin to see the rebellion against quietly concentrating and the move towards 'normalising' behaviour by introducing routine habits - texting, taking photographs, eating and drinking - into the listening experience. The music gradually becomes the background to life.
Sadly true, though not of all concert-goers, of course; I wonder if such conduct takes place to a similar extent in opera houses?...
Indeed - though it occirs to me that frenchie may have in mind those BBC publicity "people" who often seem to be claiming that certain presenters "must" be good because they play the violin/have a doctorate/pretty good at the botafogos? (Equally irrelavent there, too, of course.)
Quite so - but then in so doing it might be argued that those people can be as irritating as some of the presenters can on occasion be!
He was conflating the two arguments. That is the main problem with the talk.
It's certainly a problem with it and I've already indicated as much, though I don't believe that it's as much of one as perhaps you do, probably because those two arguments do at least have some points of confluence, even though they are far from identical in every particular. That said, it is surely clear that the kinds of music whose near-ubiquity in certain public places enables it to be foisted upon those who have not requested its presence is almost always slender in content and not designed to require concentrated listening but, as it "uses the same notes" as music that has much more detailed content and requires listener concentration to get the most out of it, there's a valid argument to be made for its representing a kind of "dumbing-down" not only of music iteslf but of its intended purpose; I got the impression from Roger Scruton's talk that part of its purpose ws to inveigh against that phenomenon and its consequences, on the grounds that, for him (as for many others), the purpose of music is to arrest listener attention and excite intellectual and emotional responses rather than to be mere sonic wallpaper.
I don’t think anybody does / has done. The criticism is, as far as I can remember, that some presenters have no (or not enough) classical music related knowledge appropriate for presenting Radio3’s programmes. Being able to play any instrument to any standard is no defense against this criticism.
It certainly isn't any defence. I would suggest the reverse is true - that a presenter with a good musical education has a responsibility to pass this on, which the one to whom I suspect we are referring, miserably fails to do.
Just heard the three songs, as per Jean's earlier post, by Monsieur Scruton.
So have I. OK, they're no more Rachmaninov, Medtner or Strauss at the peak of their respective songwriting powers than I expected them to be, but my principal problem with what I heard was such that I'm now having to try to heal the aural wounds inflicted by the soprano's woeful intonation; back in a while...
Sorry, you've lost me there; perhaps I'm being a little dense (in which case it would hardly be the first time!) but a little elucidation might not come amiss, if you can be bothered...
Sorry, you've lost me there; perhaps I'm being a little dense (in which case it would hardly be the first time!) but a little elucidation might not come amiss, if you can be bothered...
This
is a Tam Tam
This
Is a Gong
The Gong has a Boss and plays a definite pitch
(Though strictly speaking a Tam Tam IS a type of Gong)
(Though strictly speaking a Tam Tam IS a type of Gong)
Sorry; I'm with you now! That just didn't click at the time. But yes, strictly (and how I've come to loathe that word!) speaking, a Tamtam is a type of Gong, though it does not follow therefrom that Scruton is a type of wine bottle enclosure...
I don’t think anybody does / has done. The criticism is, as far as I can remember, that some presenters have no (or not enough) classical music related knowledge appropriate for presenting Radio3’s programmes. Being able to play any instrument to any standard is no defense against this criticism.
Yes, I will not be drawn on the context
To present classical music on Radio 3 a presenter must be very knowledgeable about the repertoire being presented and/or very acute and diligent. It is preferable if they have some kind of instinct as to what kind of comments are appropriate, though we all make errors of judgement from time to time … (Some people, however, are characterised by their errors of judgement, and that is not so good.)
Not having been able to bring myself to watch(?) the Scruton talk I can't comment on whether the arguments are conflated in some misleading way or combined in a way that has some significance - I had taken it as the latter but will concede the former as I have no intention of spending more time on Mr S.
It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment